Rehberg wants my grandkids to fry

by Pete Talbot

Following on the heels of a New Yorker article I read on global warming, I saw that Rep. Denny Rehberg joined just about every Republican in the U.S House to vote against the modest cap-and-trade, energy and environment bill.

I’m guessing Denny doesn’t read the New Yorker. He’d rather get his info from the Heritage Foundation … or somewhere. Too bad, because James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and other climate experts, paint a dismal picture.

In a Lee newspaper article, Rehberg called the bill “destructive.” He obviously doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “destructive.”

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has some insights into this congressional malfeasance (via Jay at LiTW).

The Congressional Budget Office says, that over a few years, the bill will likely cost the average American family $175 a year. About what I pay yearly for DVD rentals. So it’s $175 a year for awhile or trillions of dollars much later to mitigate environmental degradation we can’t even imagine.

Isn’t it funny how right-wingers bring up deficit spending as a burden to future generations but they ignore global warming?  Not really.

  1. pj

    “So it’s $175 a year for awhile or trillions of dollars much later to mitigate environmental degradation we can’t even imagine.”

    Trillions no doubt, but by then it will likely be too late for mitigation. May the future forgive us…

  2. Lizard

    so far skepticism has served me well, and i am plain leery about capping and trading carbon credits. after reading matt taibbi’s scathing assessment of GOLDEN SACKS (which i linked to in pbear’s last hoorah thread) i wouldn’t be surprised if those jackals and other crony/thug capitalists continue gaming the system, using global warming to scare people into their next bubble scheme.

    there is something inherently creepy about the commodification of carbon, and if i had the time and inclination, i would pour over the fine print on this one.

  3. goof houlihan

    Longing for the long emergency rapture, aren’t you, Pete?

    And what will your $175 per american buy, Pete, what percentage of change in the climate will it arrest?

    Regardless of your movie rental habits, the cap and trade will take money from americans for food, shelter, medicine, heat, education, etc. And as usual, you think you know better when it comes to other people and how they spend their money.

    What you have been campaigning for is for your grandkids to owe trillions to the chinese, and you’re getting it, with the spending that is going on now. When the bill comes due, it will take exploiting the resources of the nation to pay it.

    In the meantime, federal deficit spending for sustainability is painfully oxymoronic. If you are concerned about world health, taking that $175 and supporting organizations that build safe drinking water solutions, the #1 health problem in the world, would be a good start.

    • JC

      “When the bill comes due…”

      Whatcha going do when the bill comes due for the next impact of global warming? Drought, heat waves, rising sea level, over-topped levies, forest fires…???

      It is easy to be a denier, and pretend to not have to worry about how to cover the expense of mitigating impacts of climate change. If one is not a denier, then one has to accept that their are costs–of doing nothing, of having a minimal and symbolic start, or of truly addressing the issues.

      So which is it Goof? You a denier? Or are you willing to start addressing impacts, solutions and costs?

      Got a plan? Or is it just easier to criticize those that do?

  4. petetalbot

    Goof. What an appropriate name. In some respects you’re right about the cap-and-trade being underwhelming. But it’s a start to tackling this global environmental issue — an issue so much more critical than the deficit spending you’re concerned with that it’s laughable.

    Over time, we can fix our puny economic systems. It’s much harder to repair melted ice caps, inundated coastal cities, fried forests and ag lands …

  5. ladybug


    It’s Heritage, …not somewhere. Check it out. You will see the daily talking points parroted verbatim on right-wing radio and by House Republicans too lame to think and speak using their own tiny brains. A House seat is a terrible thing to waste.

  6. Ayn Rand

    I’ll bring the mustard

  7. Big Swede

    Here’s the logic.

    Global warming is the theory that the current levels of carbon emissions around the world will cause catastrophic global warming that will kill millions.

    And what’s the solution? Taxing emissions? Shouldn’t we just ban them?

    Even the nuts at Greenpeace say this bill will do nothing to stop global warming.

    This bill does nothing to stop emissions, just allows them to continue as long as they pay up.

    • klemz

      Global climate change is the observation that the current levels of carbon emissions around the world will cause catastrophic erratic shifts in global climate if the course goes unaltered. The theory is that this state of affairs will choke world agriculture and kill billions.

      No bill the US could pass will stop global climate change — it’s not a domestic problem.

      I thought you people were extinct at this point.

  8. petetalbot

    Lizard, thanks for the link. Do you think that Rehberg voted against the bill because it didn’t go far enough to mitigate climate changer? I doubt it.

    • Lizard

      no, i certainly don’t think rehberg cares about the impending cataclysm that climate change poses to the human species. and the republican party has proven themselves wholly incapable of acknowledging the reality that we may have already passed the tipping point. the methane bubbling up from the depths of the ocean is beyond alarming.

      but, as i mentioned upthread, i am really concerned that global warming will be used to justify the next financial scam, so i keep my personal default setting on skeptical.

      and when it comes to the movers and shakers in the financial sector, obama’s deference proves there is bipartisan collusion to keep these as assholes from ever feeling the effects of their colossal screw ups, whether it’s securitizing mortgages, or manipulating the price of crude. they do what they want, and we suffer the consequences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,675,945 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,737 other followers

  • June 2009
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: