It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Environmentalists were ecstatic when the House of Representatives passed the carbon cap-and-trade bill, led by Democratic Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, in June. Certainly, the legislation to limit national greenhouse-gas emissions could have been stronger, but the very possibility that the House would pass any such bill would have been unimaginable a year ago. And the timing was perfect. With do-or-die climate negotiations set for the U.N.'s global-warming summit in Copenhagen at the end of the year, the U.S. needed to show the world that it was ready to act on carbon emissions. All that was left was passage by the Senate.
But that's the problem. Despite hopes — and promises by the Democratic leadership — that the Senate would tackle cap-and-trade legislation this fall, it's looking increasingly as if the U.S. will go to Copenhagen with no national carbon caps in place. Senate majority leader Harry Reid told reporters on Sept. 15 that the Senate might have to wait to act on cap and trade until after tackling health care and banking reform. "We still have next year to complete things if we have to," he said.
Reid's spokesperson backed off those comments the next day, indicating that the schedule hadn't yet been set, but with the health-care debate threatening to stretch from now until the end of the world, it's becoming increasingly difficult to see how cap and trade could be finalized before the Copenhagen summit begins in December. And given how controversial cap and trade remains even among many Democrats in the Senate — Republicans remain almost unanimously opposed — action in the election year of 2010 might be even tougher.
Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by tothetenthpower
They'll try to weasel cap and trade through, but FOX has come out with a treasury report stating that it would increase household costs by 1,761.00 dollars a year.
Watch when THAT hits the fan.