Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 221 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Most House Democrats Won’t Support Strong Climate Action

In his State of the Union Address this year, President Barack Obama declared that he’s not going to even try to get any comprehensive legislation to deal with climate change passed. Prominent Democrats have blamed Obama’s climate surrender on Republicans who, controlling the House of Representatives, won’t allow environmental legislation through.

What the Blame-The-Republicans theory overlooks is that Barack Obama abandoned the effort to pass climate legislation just a few months after he got into office, during a time when Democrats had strong majorities in both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate. Obama never applied pressure – to either Republicans or Democrats – to get a climate bill passed.

This earlier failure by Democrats to exert a reasonable effort to advance strong legislation to slow the impact of climate change is being repeated in the current session of Congress. In October, Representative Peter Stark introduced the Save Our Climate Act, H.R. 3242, which would create a carbon tax. Only a handful of Democrats are supporting the legislation.

The truth is that we are all paying a carbon tax already. We’re paying direct costs in dealing with erratic weather events and increased food prices. We’re paying higher taxes in disaster relief, and to fund planning for coastal defenses against rising sea levels. Creating an official carbon tax therefore doesn’t really create a new economic coast. It merely transfers the cost to the big corporations that are creating the expensive climate crisis in the first place.

Sadly, most Democrats in the House of Representatives do not support the Save Our Climate Act. They’re allowing it to languish, while the climate continues to drift further out of its natural range.

Only Congressman Stark and twelve other U.S. Representatives have co-sponsored the Save Our Climnate Act. Their names are:

Earl Blumenauer
Danny Davis
Bob Filner
Raul Grijalva
Alcee Hastings
Rush Holt
Michael Honda
Jesse Jackson
Barbara Lee
James McDermot
James Moran
Lynn Woolsey

3 comments to Most House Democrats Won’t Support Strong Climate Action

  • Mike S

    It’s to the point that I really don’t expect government to do anything about climate anyway. That leaves the rest of us. Leaders of large-scale industry who are not religious zealots need to look long and hard at their own processes and think about whether they really want a future of disaster and ruin for their descendants. I find it hard to believe any human with an intact conscience hasn’t thought this very same thing. Then again I live in a place where many of the people around me so stuck in the torpor of religion, TV and carb addiction they can’t think straight about anything. Maybe all is lost.

  • Tom

    Oh it’s pretty much all over Mike. The lack of leadership on something this critical is absolutely mind-boggling and perfectly illustrates all at once the following:
    the complete ignorance of mankind, the fact that humanity is so weak that we can’t overcome our “basic instincts” of greed, sloth and arrogance (among others) even when our freaking survival depends on it, and our addiction to money, power and status. The fact that we aren’t doing anything to change this (except make it worse each year), and in fact haven’t for decades, is why we’re going to pay dearly and our grandchildren will have no future of which to speak. We’re most definitely on our way out. The delusional will adhere to the “man was created in the image of God” meme – but i think mankind is full of shit and can just go ahead and die off as quickly as possible. We suck.

  • Tom

    Here, read this:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-krauss-cosmology-design-universe-20120401,0,4136597.story

    (from the article)
    “As a cosmologist, a scientist who studies the origin and evolution of the universe, I am painfully aware that our illusions nonetheless reflect a deep human need to assume that the existence of the Earth, of life and of the universe and the laws that govern it require something more profound. For many, to live in a universe that may have no purpose, and no creator, is unthinkable.”
    (and further down)
    “Most surprising of all, combining the ideas of general relativity and quantum mechanics, we can understand how it is possible that the entire universe, matter, radiation and even space itself could arise spontaneously out of nothing, without explicit divine intervention. Quantum mechanics’ Heisenberg uncertainty principle expands what can possibly occur undetected in otherwise empty space. If gravity too is governed by quantum mechanics, then even whole new universes can spontaneously appear and disappear, which means our own universe may not be unique but instead part of a “multiverse.”

    As particle physics revolutionizes the concepts of “something” (elementary particles and the forces that bind them) and “nothing” (the dynamics of empty space or even the absence of space), the famous question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is also revolutionized. Even the very laws of physics we depend on may be a cosmic accident, with different laws in different universes, which further alters how we might connect something with nothing. Asking why we live in a universe of something rather than nothing may be no more meaningful than asking why some flowers are red and others blue.

    Perhaps most remarkable of all, not only is it now plausible, in a scientific sense, that our universe came from nothing, if we ask what properties a universe created from nothing would have, it appears that these properties resemble precisely the universe we live in.

    Does all of this prove that our universe and the laws that govern it arose spontaneously without divine guidance or purpose? No, but it means it is possible.

    And that possibility need not imply that our own lives are devoid of meaning. Instead of divine purpose, the meaning in our lives can arise from what we make of ourselves, from our relationships and our institutions, from the achievements of the human mind.

    Imagining living in a universe without purpose may prepare us to better face reality head on. I cannot see that this is such a bad thing. Living in a strange and remarkable universe that is the way it is, independent of our desires and hopes, is far more satisfying for me than living in a fairy-tale universe invented to justify our existence.”

    Well, then if the meaning of our lives will be determined by the obese, greedy, selfish, addicted, polluting mankind “in all his glory” – i’d say the entire “experiment” was a a giant waste of time, that we failed miserably and that we’re going the way of all the species we caused to go extinct – dying by our own hand.
    Way to go humanity.
    Dipshits.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>