Senate democrats go on the record
Yesterday Senate leader Mitch McConnell forced democrats to put up or shut up on their "Green New Deal". The monstrous democratic proposal failed to get the 60 votes necessary to begin debate on a non binding resolution. As a matter of fact, it didn't get any "yes" votes, not a single one! Forty two democrats voted "present". Odd isn't it? You might think they would vote their convictions even if their constituents may not like it. Ah, ya, even a radical needs to get re-elected. I guess that was the moral of the story yesterday.
Democratic Sens. Doug Jones of Alabama, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona actually joined 53 Republicans in voting "no."
Joe Manchin explained his vote:
"This climate problem is a massive one and we must act, but aspirational documents will not solve this crisis –real solutions focused on innovation will ... The truth is even if we zero out our country’s use of fossil fuels tomorrow, we must face the facts that other nations have invested in and will continue to use fossil fuels to develop their economies for decades to come. We cannot successfully address our climate challenge by eliminating sources of energy that countries are committed to using."
Sen. Roy Blunt was amazed by it. He said "I've never seen a bill sponsored by a dozen people who don't want to vote on it"
As usual Mitch McConnell had the final word:
"The way to do this, consistent with American values and American capitalism, is through technology and innovation, not to shut down your economy, throw people out of work, make people reconstruct their homes, get out of their cars, you get the whole drift here. This is nonsense, and if you’re going to sign on to nonsense, you ought to have to vote for nonsense."
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
74 visitors
To be filed under "Be careful what you wish for"
Very true.
As usual Mitch McConnell had the final word:
The turtle is nothing more than a political waste of time. I guess republicans can't recognize what a sham is , but McConnell sure as hell knows.
Yeah he better watch it, the botox witch of the west may deploy her flying monkeys on him.
Scary!
Joe Manchin is lashed to fossil fuel use because of his geographical location. To say his view is tainted is putting it mildly.
Is that your way of saying he represents his constituents? What about the sponsors of this atrocity? Why didn't they vote for it?
They were obeying AOC and Schumer.
Can you imagine following the commands of a 29 year old who thinks the world will end in 12 years and a 68 year old politician who wept over the travel ban? How do these sheep get elected?
Both of them are drama queens.
Stupid and uninformed voters.
16 year old's must already be voting.
They had a very good reason for voting present. As Democrats explained, the vote was a sham by which McConnell seeked to promote dissension within the Democrats. Some of them oppose the new green deal at this stage, as we know.
This vote is really not a big deal at all. It is barely news.
But what about the ones who were in favor of it as presented by the little space shot from NY? Why did they do as they were told by a member of the House and vote present???
This vote is really not a big deal at all.
It is if your'e concerned with the hypocrisy & cowardice of elected officials
I thought these were valid questions, but obviously, there is no answer. Was it Jamie Diamond who said "it is times like these when the timid seek cover" ?
Nah, Dems who voted "present" are simply playing politics because they know, if they vote for something like this they would likely be toast come election time. That and they knew it had ZERO chance of getting to 60 votes. Three Dems voted courageously, the rest voted cowardly in SOSDD fashion .....
That said i'm actually surprised some didn't vote yes so they could have their very own, self generated "Spartacus" moment.
Maybe to some, but it seems that it's a big deal to NPR, CNBC, Politico, CBS, NYT, Business Insider, The Hill, USAToday, Fox News, WaPo, NBC, NY Post, AP, and many others.
Oh, dear...
HICKENLOOPER IS FIRST 2020 DEM CANDIDATE TO REJECT GREEN NEW DEAL: Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), a 2020 presidential candidate, came out against the Green New Deal on Tuesday, saying that he supports the "concept," but feels the resolution "sets unachievable goals."
In an op-ed published Tuesday in The Washington Post, Hickenlooper said the scope of the resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) was too wide for the technology currently available to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"The resolution sets unachievable goals. We do not yet have the technology needed to reach 'net-zero greenhouse gas emissions' in 10 years. That's why many wind and solar companies don't support it," Hickenlooper wrote.
"In addition to technological barriers, the Ocasio-Cortez-Markey resolution sets the Green New Deal up for failure by shifting away from private decision-making and toward the public sector -- including multiple provisions with little connection to reducing greenhouse gas emissions," he continued.
Hickenlooper pointed to provisions of the Green New Deal resolution that called for a federal jobs guarantee -- a program that would provide any American with a job -- as unrealistic.
"This provision, along with others, would produce a massive expansion of government that would likely be far too expensive and complex to execute effectively in the urgent time frame we are facing," he wrote.
Solving climate change, Hickenlooper contended, involves engaging with the private sector and the nation's top universities to spur innovation.
With a name like that, this guy has a chance. Think of all the campaign slogan possibilities .....
Close to the name of the law firm Groucho Marx used to refer to......"Hickenlooper Hickenlooper & Hickenlooper" and don't leave out the last Hickenlooper. He was the father..the brains of the firm!
Lol .... no one will ever beat the firm name in the Three Stooges:
Dewey, Cheetum and Howe
That's three of a kind that beats a full house!
The perfect law firm ....
I don't know... do people really like a bumper sticker that covers the ENTIRE bumper?
Could be worse. His last name could be Schicklgruber...
The Senate voted on the Green New Deal today: 0 Yeas, 57 Nays, and 43 Senators voted PRESENT
The new "Green Deal" is great....."Say" the Democrats running for president.
In fact....It's soooo GREAT.....I vote …...uh …… " I'm here sitting in my assigned seat" ?
I'll tell you one thing....If Tony Montana believed in it, he would have stood up and voted for it!
"Say hello to my little friend".....
Lol.....right! Everybody was so good in that movie! I especially liked Miriam Colon as his mother. She was the embodiment of the Cuban refugees who came here. They have been an asset to this country.
I was a Alejandro Sosa fan.
This brings up fond memories of the "South Park" Episode ………. Kentucky Fried Chicken.
The late Paul Shenar was great in the role of Sosa. Did you know that character was based on a real Bolivian (not Columbia) drug lord, named Roberto Suarez Gomez?
The Colonel's Home !
I actually didn't, but he was great in his role !
"Tony, I think you speak from the heart, there is no lying in you...
He had a long career with very small roles before he got to be Sosa..
Tony shouldn't have fucked Sosa !
Tony wasn't going to allow the murder of innocent children. It was just one of those things!
Yep !
Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, speaks during the 2019 CERAWeek by IHS Markit conference in Houston.
"This week, the U.S. Senate took a consequential vote for Texas, and the Houston region in particular — a vote on a resolution calling for America to adopt a “Green New Deal.” Not a single Senator voted in favor of it.
Framed as a way to fight climate change and invigorate the already thriving economy, the Green New Deal mentions things like creating high-wage jobs, investing in infrastructure and industry and promoting justice and equality.
But if you are looking for a roadmap for how to reach these laudable goals, you are likely to be disappointed. Though supporters of the Green New Deal are long on utopian buzzwords, they’re short on details of how to actually achieve these goals. Even more concerning is a lack of ways to pay for them."
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Cornyn-Green-New-Deal-is-bad-for-Texans-Opinion-13718700.php?
Late breakfast for me today. Be back later
The US will become "green" when the fossil fuel owners have finished fracking the US.
In the meantime, China is benefiting from the fracking and also innovating and implementing renewable energy domestically and globally while the US government relies on promoting use of fossil fuels domestically and globally.
When renewable energy technology makes renewable energy costs competitive with fossil fuels then the countries with companies that hold patents for renewable technology will most likely be the richest and most powerful nations. The fossil fuel owners have been allowed to stifle renewable innovation and implementation in the US to the detriment of all of us who do not own stock in fossil fuels.
We should have already developed today's renewable technology decades ago. However, because China will continue to rely on fossil fuels heavily for at least the next decade, I have my doubts that the US government will back "green" projects as long as it is owned, controlled and/or sponsored in any form by the fossil fuel industry.
"As a result of higher energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions rose 1.7 percent last year and hit a new record, according to the report , which was released Monday by the International Energy Agency (IEA).
The report is the latest assessment of global energy consumption and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions for 2018, the IEA said.
Coal remains the planet's top source for electricity. While many countries are slowly phasing out coal in favor of other fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal use rose, thanks to a fleet of relatively new plants in Asia.
"The majority of coal-fired generation capacity today is found in Asia , with 12-year-old plants on average, decades short of average lifetimes of around 50 years," Monday's report said.
The poorest countries rely on the cheapest energy sources. Is this surprising?
China is in a position to transition to somewhat cleaner fossil fuel (propane) due China's economic growth due to US companies investing in China's infrastructure, employing China's work force and the US government's legalizing the exportation of propane.
Some info about the natural gas market. It is interesting that Russia happens to be the major competitor for fossil fuel dominance on a global scale. That could have been a factor on the political wrangling to make Russia the #1 enemy of the US in order to implement sanctions to try to cripple Russia's fossil fuel exports. A few years ago, China was trying to buy partnerships in Russia owned fossil fuel companies. This would have exempted China's Russian from US sanctions. I don't know if China completed the transaction.
That's not the point. The US can cut back it's own use of fossil fuels to the point of zero and it won't do much without the rest of the world getting involved. America is one country, not a planet to itself. That EPA report which was just released Monday demonstrates that China and India are the countries that need convincing!!!