Dennis Kucinich Lays Out Why He Voted Against Clean Energy Act

Cleveland area Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) laid out the reasons he opposed and voted against H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The vast majority of fellow Democrats voted in favor of the measure which passed the House and is on the way to the Senate for a vote. Kucinich stated in a press release:

“I oppose H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The reason is simple. It won’t address the problem. In fact, it might make the problem worse.

“It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term, and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods. It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the problem that should be on its way out– coal – by giving it record subsidies. And it is rounded out with massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense. There is $60 billion for a single technology which may or may not work, but which enables coal power plants to keep warming the planet at least another 20 years.

“Worse, the bill locks us into a framework that will fail. Science tells us that immediately is not soon enough to begin repairing the planet. Waiting another decade or more will virtually guarantee catastrophic levels of warming. But the bill does not require any greenhouse gas reductions beyond current levels until 2030.

“Today’s bill is a fragile compromise, which leads some to claim that we cannot do better. I respectfully submit that not only can we do better; we have no choice but to do better. Indeed, if we pass a bill that only creates the illusion of addressing the problem, we walk away with only an illusion. The price for that illusion is the opportunity to take substantive action.

“There are several aspects of the bill that are problematic.

1. Overall targets are too weak. The bill is predicated on a target atmospheric concentration of 450 parts per million, a target that is arguably justified in the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but which is already out of date. Recent science suggests 350 parts per million is necessary to help us avoid the worst effects of global warming.

2. The offsets undercut the emission reductions. Offsets allow polluters to keep polluting; they are rife with fraudulent claims of emissions reduction; they create environmental, social, and economic unintended adverse consequences; and they codify and endorse the idea that polluters do not have to make sacrifices to solve the problem.

3. It kicks the can down the road. By requiring the bulk of the emissions to be carried out in the long term and requiring few reductions in the short term, we are not only failing to take the action when it is needed to address rapid global warming, but we are assuming the long term targets will remain intact.

4. EPA’s authority to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the short- to medium-term is rescinded. It is our best defense against a new generation of coal power plants. There is no room for coal as a major energy source in a future with a stable climate.

5. Nuclear power is given a lifeline instead of phasing it out. Nuclear power is far more expensive, has major safety issues including a near release in my own home state in 2002, and there is still no resolution to the waste problem. A recent study by Dr. Mark Cooper showed that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than to generate the same amount of electricity from energy efficiency and renewables.

6. Dirty Coal is given a lifeline instead of phasing it out. Coal-based energy destroys entire mountains, kills and injures workers at higher rates than most other occupations, decimates ecologically sensitive wetlands and streams, creates ponds of ash that are so toxic the Department of Homeland Security will not disclose their locations for fear of their potential to become a terrorist weapon, and fouls the air and water with sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and thousands of other toxic compounds that cause asthma, birth defects, learning disabilities, and pulmonary and cardiac problems for starters. In contrast, several times more jobs are yielded by renewable energy investments than comparable coal investments.

7. The $60 billion allocated for Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is triple the amount of money for basic research and development in the bill. We should be pressuring China, India and Russia to slow and stop their power plants now instead of enabling their perpetuation. We cannot create that pressure while spending unprecedented amounts on a single technology that may or may not work. If it does not work on the necessary scale, we have then spent 10-20 years emitting more CO2, which we cannot afford to do. In addition, those who will profit from the technology will not be viable or able to stem any leaks from CCS facilities that may occur 50, 100, or 1000 years from now.

8. Carbon markets can and will be manipulated using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial crisis.

9. It is regressive. Free allocations doled out with the intent of blunting the effects on those of modest means will pale in comparison to the allocations that go to polluters and special interests. The financial benefits of offsets and unlimited banking also tend to accrue to large corporations. And of course, the trillion dollar carbon derivatives market will help Wall Street investors. Much of the benefits designed to assist consumers are passed through coal companies and other large corporations, on whom we will rely to pass on the savings.

10. The Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) is not an improvement. The 15% RES standard would be achieved even if we failed to act.

11. Dirty energy options qualify as “renewable”: The bill allows polluting industries to qualify as “renewable energy.” Trash incinerators not only emit greenhouse gases, but also emit highly toxic substances. These plants disproportionately expose communities of color and low-income to the toxics. Biomass burners that allow the use of trees as a fuel source are also defined as “renewable.” Under the bill, neither source of greenhouse gas emissions is counted as contributing to global warming.

12. It undermines our bargaining position in international negotiations in Copenhagen and beyond. As the biggest per capita polluter, we have a responsibility to take action that is disproportionately stronger than the actions of other countries. It is, in fact, the best way to preserve credibility in the international context.

13. International assistance is much less than demanded by developing countries. Given the level of climate change that is already in the pipeline, we are going to need to devote major resources toward adaptation. Developing countries will need it the most, which is why they are calling for much more resources for adaptation and technology transfer than is allocated in this bill. This will also undercut our position in Copenhagen.

“I offered eight amendments and cosponsored two more that collectively would have turned the bill into an acceptable starting point. All amendments were not allowed to be offered to the full House. Three amendments endeavored to minimize the damage that will be done by offsets, a method of achieving greenhouse gas reductions that has already racked up a history of failure to reduce emissions – increasing emissions in some cases – while displacing people in developing countries who rely on the land for their well being.

“Three other amendments would have made the federal government a force for change by requiring all federal energy to eventually come from renewable resources, by requiring the federal government to transition to electric and plug-in hybrid cars, and by requiring the installation of solar panels on government rooftops and parking lots. These provisions would accelerate the transition to a green economy.

“Another amendment would have moved up the year by which reductions of greenhouse gas emissions were required from 2030 to 2025. It would have encouraged the efficient use of allowances and would have reduced opportunities for speculation by reducing the emission value of an allowance by a third each year.

“The last amendment would have removed trash incineration from the definition of renewable energy. Trash incineration is one of the primary sources of environmental injustice in the country. It a primary source of compounds in the air known to cause cancer, asthma, and other chronic diseases. These facilities are disproportionately sited in communities of color and communities of low income. Furthermore, incinerators emit more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity produced than coal-fired power plants.

“Passing a weak bill today gives us weak environmental policy tomorrow,”


Dennis K is ten times the man of anyone in the Congress or White House today. I hope he runs and wins the US Senate seat from Ohio next year. The US Senate and the US House are nothing but a bunch of blow hard, ass kissing, sycophant, money grubbing whores. Dennis is not one of them. He is a peerless populist of the LaFollette and Earl Warren variety.

He would make a great Chief Justice or Majority Leader in the US Senate. He is too realistic and cares about Americans and not just Ohioans. Voinovich and Brown are two peas in a pod of imbecility and mediocrity as that Republican luminary from Nebraska Senator Roman Hruska once opined: Even the mediocre need their man on the US Supreme Court.

Most of our current administration and Congress have learned their lesson from reading The Peter Principle. They have all reached their level of incompetence with few exceptions, such as Henry Waxman and Russ Feingold. Most of the rest are paid card carrying water boys and girls for the highest bidder. Kick ass Dennis K. Anyone who lived in his car 17 times during high school, and he is a man for all seasons.

Winston Churchill, JFK, Huey P. Long and Earl Warren are all praying for him from heaven to rise and shine every day. Bravo, Dennis K. Every day he lives the song Ramblin' Man by the Allman Brothers.

pat maginnnis
Malibu, California

Thanks to Dennis (and staff) for the well written explanation. Why Dennis is virtually the only congress person standing up like this? Rhetorical question. True patriotism takes courage. Dennis show it time and again. All of my political contributions go to Dennis.

Appreciate voting in opposition to NuBrilliance this bill and never generating our lives much more miserable. No one can find the money for greater energy expenses without reasonable alternatives.

DK is soooo right! He knows the facts, speaks the truth, and doesn't kiss the backsides of the corporate power structure. If change is what America really wanted, he would be in the oval office, not BO. Maui supported DK in the Dem Primary in '08...where were the rest of ya??? If he ever wants to leave Ohio, he's got friends on Maui!

You want can have him. He bankrupted Cleveland he'll do the same to Maui. Jobs are fleeing faster that an ice cream cone on one of your beaches, you can have him. The decline in Northeaster Ohio is steeper than that of the North Shore, you can have him.

He didn't bankrupt Cleveland it was Repbulican Ralph Perk who did that and Dennis did the smart thing and not sell the valuable asset Muni Light to make matters worse. Look it up - find out where would be without the Independent Power system you moron.

If Cleveland voters didn't love Dennis they wouldn't vote him in time and time again. He is a GREAT Congressman who votes with his brains and not because someone is stuffing his pockets with bribe $.

He's in your corner on cap and trade if you are a Republican. I'd pipe up when it benefits me and keep quiet when it benefits me. Now's the time to keep quiet.
Dennis is right on Clean Energy bill.

stay there, you leftist.

This is one thing I know for a fact. If you democrats don't get your act together, you are going to lose in 2012.
It is an absolute SHAME that you did not support this measure, It is not perfect, but it had to be weakened because you and 43 other dems decided to be PRIMA DONAS and pout if you didn't get exactly what you wanted.

Instead you tried to defeat your own party.
Notice this Dennis-
the bill passed by EXACTLY the number of bi-partisan Republicans who supported the bill.

I say SHAME ON YOU- you need to learn to put the nation first- not your little pet pieves.

By opposing this flimsy plan that does nothing at all for the good of the country, he IS putting the nation first. Sounds like someone needs to think a little more clearly about what good legislation is, as opposed to, say, bad legislation that locks us into compromises that do more harm than good, and serve simply to support the go-nowhere status quo.

Just reading the commentary on Kucinich's explanation tells me that you wasted your time commenting here, "J" (if that is your real name). Your disdain for common sense lumps you squarely with the money grubbing members Pat Maginnis mentioned in his post to this article on on June 27, 2009 - 6:14pm.

We need people from both sides of the aisle who have common sense and who can engage in good debate with immutable facts. The Congressman from Ohio did just that, and you're pissed?

I'm a conservative, but I believe that Congressman Kucinich did three things that benefit the American people here: He based his vote on common sense, he represented Americans over his own personal gain, and he presented an explanation to the people who hired him; Ohioans. Ohio, and America, should be proud.

Dude, or dudette....Voting on something is not about staying with the party line, it's about what your constituents want. If he felt negative about the bill he should vote against, no matter how many others are for it. And this is coming from a conservative. Both parties need to stop voting what everyone else does, that is Jr. High. Vote with your heart, know the bill and do whats best for the people you represent. Oh that's right, politicians ARE supposed to vote for bills that benefit us, the taxpayers, not what they want or don't want to do. He stood up for something, I applaud him!!

Dennis - I'm sending your comments on to my friends in the Green Party. I've been so fed up with the Democrats' positions on environment, peace, justice, corporate subsidies at the expense of the rest of us...etc. Your analysis is wonderful. I had been very disappointed with the bill and your discussion has added the information I need to make a strong case against the bill to our state senators. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure they won't help us on this. They'll wrap themselves in the "Green cloak" and then campaign on that. It's sort of like our governor who claims to want to clean up the Sound and then fails to enforce existing legislation to protect the environment.

We'll your comments goes to prove you have not studied congressman Kucinich voteing record or political Hitory or back ground. He certainly is good at getting his face on the National stage when he want to, but doesn't use that ability as a good leader or carrier of good cause's. He doesn't work well with other Demacrates or Republicans. He did have his chance to be heard, and he let it go by. He wasn't forceful in seeking out help to adance his initiatives. That kind of man makes a poor leader. Thats why he isn't a leader of any group in washington. He's a kind man, who tries hard to represent his people and I don't have one thing against him. He is not a visionary, and relize this is the first steps and the door is now open for improvement, arguements, concessions and comprimise in the years to come. No other Prez. ever was able to get this started, and passed--------although it has been talked about for many years in Washington Politics.

Only the reduction of livestock production is the true answer. Short-lived gas such as methane is the culprit. This bill is a joke since green energy takes too long and is not the primary problem of climate change. Be vegetarian everyone!!

what color is the sky in your

Wow!! You think cow's farting is the culprit?? Wow!! You don't desrve a good cut of beef anyways!! Oh Yea and while your eating your veggie salad I darn sure hope you are drinking water with it!!! I don't mind the fact that you don't eat meat! that is not the issue but to say methane gas is the culprit?? Stay away from my BEEF and I hope you choke on the glass of water you better be drinking with your salad!!

He's not talking about 'farting' when he telling people to become a vegetarian. A 2006
United Nations report suggests "livestock are responsible for 18% of
greenhouse gas emissions, far greater than that of transportation." How much energy do you think it takes to raise a cow compared to the equivalent in nutrition by way of plants? That is what this person is trying to point out. Whether the statistics are right, whether you agree or not, please at least try to think about what a person is saying and not assume that everyone on the planet is as dumb as you are.

---does not get 'along' well' with other Democrats or RePugs than that is another of his best virtues.
Wish him luck --if "hope and change" is what the past election was about then D.K. would have made the best choice for the electorate, we had known just what he would mean by 'hope' and what 'change' he would work for.

And they would not be the 'same old, same old' semi-washed bush crap which seems to be the order of the day.

Thanks for voting against this bill
Families and businesses cannot afford to have their utility bills increased.
The bill was to complex, I bet you were the only one who read the whole bill.

to: Phil Vedda, Jr.

Nice post.

Kucinich's press release demonstrates that not only did he read the bill, he understood it. 350 ppm is the number, not 450 ppm. Coal and nuclear have got to go. He makes excellent points - which probably means he's got an excellent staff that actually understands science.

There may be some sort of victory in the passage of this bill though - and we can work on the state level to create better legislation. We can work on factory farming rules - at least get the corn out of the feed so the cows stomachs aren't so upset and bloated that they pass way more gas than grassfed cows. It's true, this alone would help a lot!!!

USE NEPA and CEQA in California to oppose nuclear and coal powered plants. Get Global Warming effects on the list of environmental impacts in NEPA (california already did that). Get informed, Get involved, stay involved, and be loud. That's all I can think of for now....

thank you for voting against this bill and not making our lives more miserable. No one can afford higher energy costs without reasonable alternatives.
Every item we buy will go up in price, everywhere we go and everything we do.
We cannot afford it.
No on will be able to live in a cold or hot climate due to the increased cost of this tax.
a former Ohioan

Finally someone using their head. Thank you for voting against the stupid and useless bil. We need MORE people in goverernment like himAll we really wanted was for SOMEONE to READ the fricken thing before blindly folowing a man who doesn't know what he is doing.

I'm glad he voted against it also, but his rationalization is anything but rational. I'd like to see these knuckleheads spend 1/1000th the time studying the IPCC model as they do studying the polls, It's lack of some extremely significant variables and blatant assumptions make the IPCC a joke...their "model" would receive an F in any competent 8th grade science class... People this is NOT science...make no mistake, this is politics!!!! Follow the money and wake up people!

Go read my pamphlet... I beg you...go read it...if you disagree with me go forward and embrace your new socialist government...but don't do it blindly.

This is the first post that addressed the garbage the IPCC spews. I too am glad he voted against it but it is for all the wrong reasons. Everybody needs to get the facts regarding global warming. The Heartland Institute might be a good place to start. We need to stop buying into this populist junk science that man is causing global warming.

The only reason he voted against it is because it isn't "progressive" (read as Socialist) enough. I almost sent him a thank you email, but after trying to read his explanation, I'm glad I didn't.

He didn't vote against it because the science doesn't support what this bill is trying to fight, or because he didn't agree with the huge tax and cost burdens to the voters of his district.

How the hell this guy wins re-election every time out after running Cleveland into the ground is beyond me. Oh, wait, I know why. Because the people in this area re just plain dumb, and if they see a name they recognize with a 'D' after it they are going to vote for it.

The best posting I read. I was surprised to see Dennis voted against the bill...Pleasantly surprised. But, his reasons are again in his own little world. Does anyone pay attention to the real facts about global warming? Dennis has his own agenda. And you're right about the voters in Northeast Ohio. Unfortunately most of them vote democrat because they don't take the time to LISTEN to anything else. I've lived here most of my life and it's not getting any better. And if Maui wants Dennis, they can have him.

Reading Dennis Kucinich's article and the various postings leaves me with one question - What is the solution? And I mean a solution that does not destroy the US economy or lead to much higher home utilities bills (which most cannot afford).

Excellent Point... what is the solution!... but what exactly is the problem we are trying to solve??? We know that the science behind the global warming "crisis" is flawed... that it no longer debatable. So are we trying to solve why the continued insults to our collective intelligence, or are we trying discover an alternate source of energy which can be "produced" domestically and stop the rapid flow of our hard earned dollars overseas and ending up in the hands of those who wish to do us harm? Or are we trying to rid ourselves the guilt associated with being raised in a country that values and rewards those amongst us who choose to be productive despite the continual theft of wealth perpetrated by those we hire to control our lives? So I agree, what is the solution?

What ever your reasons....Thank you for doing the right thing.

dk glad to see we have at least one dem with some common sense thank you for your no vote for a joke bill.

All you libs that wants us to become vegetarians and lmake decisions for everyone else on how they should live need to wake up. Do not surrender your freedom for a ruse that is "saving the planet". It used to be the Motherland and the Fatherland and now we have Mother Earth. All of these were used so freedoms would be sacrificed for a "greater" cause. It is all bogus. New Zealand revoked their cap and trade after two weeks. If it does nothing, don't do it just to say you did something. This is a bill that will ulitmately hurt the poor and do nothing for the environment. And something else to think about, life florishs more in warmth than cold. More people die every year due to the cold than the heat. If the only way is for us to survive is to become vegetarian just remember a dead vegetarian leaves a smaller carbon foot print than a live one. Save the planet - kill yourself.

Why should we be thanking him? The biggest reason why he shouldn't have voted for this unfortunately he didn't list. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT THIS PASSED! That should have been his first reason why he didn't vote for this. Cmon people.

I appreciate Dennis for voting again the bill. But, the reasons that it does not go far enough and to impose more requirements and costs to us for an unproven stance about global warming are unacceptable.

I will take the vote this time from Dennis but will campaign against him being elected again for any office. I am a member of the Tea Party Groups and Project 9-12 and Meet-Up Groups. Believe me, we are coming to get all the incompetents out of office. I expect some really active demonstrations and angry reactions to all that is happening.

and you don't want to be paying later.
Don't let deniers have their head in the sand moments. The world has procrastinated much to long, we are now saddled with changing climate which will continue to worsen during the next decades. We still have a small window to lessen the damage. Have you not heard of tipping points people? Don't you see that ranting and raving is getting us nowhere? Even on the odd chance that thousands of scientists are wrong, these people that got us to the moon, and have advanced civilization to where we are today, imagine where we could be if common sense prevailed. For starters, just how long do you think we can sustain the balance of payments on the costs of foreign oil? Growth alone requires the generation of much more energy, for without energy to do our work, we will not grow, period. That energy cannot come from coal, for all the reasons outlined above in the newspaper article. It is unhealthy, we deserve clean air and clean water. Renewable energy is a win win. Money stays in the country, less emissions from electric plants, jobs many jobs building, installing and servicing the renewable energy infrastructure. There is no silver bullet, mankind has to learn that in order to solve large scale issues a leap must be made. The ratio of subsidies for the traditional emissive energy section versus the monies set aside for research and development of renewable energy is a travesty. It serves to point out one glaring fact, that our country is not run for the betterment of its citizens, but rather for next quarter's bottom line.

Without immediate improvement in the reduction of green house gases, we will be paying much more for food, water, and energy in the future as well as sending our kids on more and more missions to quell unrest around the globe as millions and billions of people start moving, seeking drier land, potable water, and food.

Don't kid yourself, this is real thing, and time is drawing neigh. Once the tripping points occur there is no going back, no possible mitagation, just misery for all.

Do yourself a favor, research what happens when the glaciers melt out, what happens when the currently trapped methane in the arctic tundra is released, what happens when the ice sheet in Greenland melts. This is big stuff people, really really serious stuff. And not to ruin anyone's day, it is all ongoing at this time.

Time to wake up and smell the roses folks
Good night and good luck

So you must be a creationist by the way you talk. The world was made for humans and only humans... forget the fact other lifeforms have lived and died here on earth -- that's the way the circle of life goes. Sure, we all want to continue to live but there are other forces at play which are greater than us. You know, as much as I'd love to keep living, there's some things I know there's nothing you can do about. If the sun decides to die... sucks for us. Oh well... such is life.

Still not convinced. I'll do my part to take care of the Earth, but will not... I repeat... WILL NOT stand idle so others can make billions off of scaring people. Cap and Trade my bullocks. It's not about fixing a problem, it's about selfish gain. Bet if there was a clause in the bill which said all money made from the selling of carbon credits go straight to the government it wouldn't be so popular.

Can't believe Dennis did the right thing for the first time in Congress. Wrong reasons however since we have been on a cooling trend since 1998. Plain and simply, we can't afford this bill. Prices on everything will go up if this goes through. I thought people who make less than $250,000 would not see taxes raised at all - oh I'm sorry, my taxes aren't, just prices on EVERYTHING as the businesses make up lost revenue spent on increased taxes!

Wow, that means you think that he didn't do the right thing when he voted against NAFTA and the Iraq war. Those WMD's are everywhere and NAFTA sure is creating a lot of jobs.

Just reading the commentary on Kucinich's explanation tells me that people with dissenting comments have wasted their time commenting here. The disdain for common sense lumps the dissenters squarely with the money grubbing members Pat Maginnis mentioned in his post to this article on on June 27, 2009 - 6:14pm.

America and Ohioans needs people from both sides of the aisle who have common sense and who can engage in good debate with immutable facts. The Congressman from Ohio did just that.

I'm a conservative who believes that our public servants must represent the people, not change a dynamic because of a personal belief. Congressman Kucinich did three things that benefit the American people here, and which should impress any person who understands what a well thought-out vote means: He based his vote on common sense, he represented Americans over his own personal gain, and he presented an explanation to the people who hired him; Ohioans. Ohio, and America, should be proud.

When I saw the headline about this man opposing the climate bill, I thought his reason was going to be another pathetic excuse like some of the other reps who denied global warming not being a reality and such, but when I read his whole explanation, I realized this man is wise and completely legit.

We now have to work to improve the climate bill, though, instead of voting against it. This man made me realize how much more work we need to do as a nation than what has already been discussed. I praise you, Mr. Kucinich!!!

One of the things I liked about his explanation is that he thought the federal govt should be the first to change to green. What a concept! When the feds can walk the walk and not just talk the talk (ie. drive green 'smart' cars and use solar/ wind on their buildings) they have crediblity. When they impose standards on us, but don't apply them to themselves - say, like living within your budget- their credibility goes right down the drain. Attitude reflects in leadership and when people tell me 'they know what's best for me' , yet don't follow their own advice. I think back to Soviet Russia how the people vs. the leaders lived. No thanks! Lead by example.

"Nuclear power is far more expensive, has major safety issues ... and there is still no resolution to the waste problem"

The Senator and interested readers should take a look at for a nuclear technology that is not expensive, has no major safety issues and solves the nuclear waste problem. What is more, it cleanly uses coal. ... and yes, this technology is very much for real.

To those who dispute the facts of climate change: you have been brainwashed by the corporate machine. Climate change is a very real phenomenon that needs to be addressed immediately. I doubt if I’d win any arguments debating the science with you so let's look at it from another prospective.

Europe has spent billions of dollars researching climate change for decades. The vast majority of scientists studying this topic agree that the science is now indisputable. Therefore 184 countries throughout the world have listened to this evidence and enacted policies to reduce their CO2 emissions. Now here is a question: when was the last time you heard about some organization making obscene profits…or any profits, from European climate legislation? Can’t remember? Strange, I wonder what possible purpose 184 entire nations would have to implement such drastic policy, if it wasn’t actually…wait for it… TRUE.

How about the other side? What possible motivation would some organization have to kill this controversial climate legislation? Well, first, massive oil (6 of the top 10 largest corporations in the world are oil companies), big coal and big gas have a TON to lose. Second, many other industries such as big Auto and big Agriculture, will be hurt in the short-run by climate legislation. Third, there are *trillions* of dollars of vested interest in the old, dirty way and thus substantial money to lose, but lots to gain as well, as we transition to a green economy.

So let’s stop for a reality check. The science is 100% accurate….and it’s pretty damn obvious. We can’t multiply to almost 7 billion people while polluting our planet at an unbelievable rate and not expect anything to happen. The real question is: which is more important, saving some bucks for the oil companies, or preserving our planet for our children? We need to wake up and get real.

Dennis—I agree with your actions and convictions in principle; your arguments, in fact, are boldly enlightening. However, I have a hard time believing that we could actually pass a stronger bill given current state of congress and the modest support this bill has received. It is important to not underestimate the power of the dark side, as they say.

You’ve read the bill and I have not, so if you really think it is so watered-down to be ineffective, then I agree with you. However, if, given the realities of America, a stronger bill is only a pipe dream then I think we should cut our losses and enact this bill ASAP. As we all know, time IS of the essence.

We are at a unique point in American history; we have a democratically controlled congress and a new forward-thinking, president. Who is to say a new Bush will not be in office in 4 or 8 years? Is this a chance we are really willing to take? Personally, I would rather not gamble with the future of our planet. If we need to strengthen the bill, we should do so NOW in the Senate.

WOW!! Kucinich finally grabbed his crotch and found he had huevos!! I would be sure to put a beefed up security detail on Kucinich before Reed and Pelosi put a hit on him.

If he isn't careful, someone will find him face down in the Patomac.

When I found out Dennis Kucinich voted against the Cap and Trade Bill I sent him a thank you letter. Now I regret it as I see his explanation for the no vote. The 1200 page bill is loaded with pet projects in certain congressional districts in order to get votes. That’s why it passed. It will not only raise your household power bills but it will raise the price of everything you buy that required power to make it. The bill will also send more manufacturing out of the US causing more job losses to an already terrible employment market. Those countries that take our manufacturing jobs have very little pollution control or efficient energy sources. Therefore global pollution will rise.

Just saying that there is a consensus among scientists, which there isn't, or that the "science" behind the theory that man is causing global warming through carbon emissions is indisputable doesn't provide basis for a scientific conclusion. Dennis Kucinich doesn't address the pseudo-science of supposed consensus among scientists but goes to great lengths to explain why the bill will not solve a problem that he, nor anyone else for that matter, can prove to exist through sound scientific methods. Ask yourself why the large body of scientists who disagree with the theory that carbon emissions by man are causing global warming are not being allowed to state their case. This is all about money, taxes, control and a huge transfer of wealth. I for one am not in favor of a bill that will drive our energy costs up, give the government greater control and destroy our economy in the process. We need a comprehensive energy policy that will fuel our economy but this bill isn't it.

Oh Dennis,
Thanks for the rigorous and articulate exercise of reason, and subsequent stand on the issues.
Since such is, however, so rare in politics, I ask: what will happen if this bill fails? Is it worse than nothing?

I am sorry that I may hurt somebody's feelings, but that man is a total jerk!!
miele spares