Requiem for Cap and Trade
David Roberts is first out of the box to note the obvious, after reading this story in today’s Times, which quotes Republican Lindsey Graham:
Ambien Online Fast Deliveryhttps://ottawaphotographer.com/3g1v0s9wvo Realistically, the cap-and-trade bills in the House and the Senate are going nowhere. They’re not business-friendly enough, and they don’t lead to meaningful energy independence.
https://ottawaphotographer.com/4cmuqise
https://www.andrewlhicksjrfoundation.org/uncategorized/q0ewirq Graham then drives the nail in the coffin when he adds:
https://www.infoturismiamoci.com/2025/03/n0qec3m2nn What is dead is some massive cap-and-trade system that regulates carbon in a fashion that drives up energy costs.
https://www.plantillaslago.com/77trx7zt5q0 Roberts, who had previously argued that even a weak cap and trade bill was better than nothing, seems ready to throw in the towel:
Buy Cheapest Ambien Onlinehttps://yourartbeat.net/2025/03/11/7cse8un To me, regardless of what Obama or Reid may want, this signals the death knell for a comprehensive cap-and-trade program, this year and probably for the duration of Obama’s term in office. If Graham won’t go for it, no Republican will, certainly not the 6-8 Republicans needed.
I was going to hold off on posting about this momentous development until Joe Romm weighed in. Nobody’s more wedded to the cap and trade bill than him. He’s put all his chips on it. I’m kinda thinking he’s going to play out that hand, no matter how rotten it gets. (Andrew Light should school him on how to win at poker.) But as of this writing, Romm is silent on Graham’s bombshell. I don’t imagine it’ll stay that way for long.
Buy Brand Name Ambien Online More importantly, I look forward to hearing what Roberts and other cap and trade advocates come up with as alternative policy paths. I’ve argued here that a true reset in climate policy will only come after some of the influentials start singing a new tune. That might happen real soon if Senator Graham is taken at his word.
https://www.scarpellino.com/jumftpj UPDATE (1/27, 12:30 pm): How weird is it that CP’s news round-up mentions this story but not this one? This particular feature at the blog, in the way it studiously avoids any bad news to the party line, rivals Pravda. Still waiting for Romm to issue a judgment on the Graham quotes.
https://www.emilymunday.co.uk/vemz5jgmwb UPDATE 2: (2:40 pm) Romm plays down the signficance of Graham’s statements to the NYT.
Order Clonazepam For Sleephttps://www.salernoformazione.com/d66tjoss Cheapest Price For Zolpidem UPDATE 3: (1/28): David Roberts, after being “scolded by several progressive green friends,” walks back his initial post. Nice backbone Dave, and how lame is it to blame the reporter? If anyone portrayed Graham’s quotes out of context, it would be you (and me), not Broder. And I’m not seeing that, just a lot of walk back from him too.
Affordable Clonazepam Online
https://www.fogliandpartners.com/8www0bvl Yes. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. https://www.wefairplay.org/2025/03/11/w885cpvs https://ottawaphotographer.com/p11eic4 However, the observed global temperature does not show accelerated warming with increase in CO2 emission. Global Mean Temperature (GMT) data => http://bit.ly/pxXK4j https://www.emilymunday.co.uk/161nlhbpb https://www.salernoformazione.com/08988kl6 The most important observation in the above data is that the upper GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT peaks, the lower GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT valleys, and these lines are parallel. Also, the line that bisects the vertical space between the two GMT boundary lines is nearly identical to the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade for the whole data. This result indicates that, for the last 130 years, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position. https://www.fogliandpartners.com/nb0wf8s7 In the above data, the GMT touched its upper boundary line only 3-times, about every 60-years, but has never crossed it for long in the last 130 years. https://yourartbeat.net/2025/03/11/yokc523n https://www.varesewedding.com/a10y2wolsq In the GMT data, a shift in climate to an accelerated global warming would have been indicated if the upper GMT boundary line had been a curve with an increasing positive slope with increasing years, or the upper and lower GMT boundary lines had been diverging with increasing years. https://chemxtree.com/iifnld393ys Fortunately, the upper GMT boundary line is a straight line having, interestingly, the same global warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade as the global warming trend line for the whole data. Also, the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel, showing no change in the magnitude of the GMT swing with increasing years. As a result, the vertical cooling or warming swing of 0.5 deg C between the two GMT boundary lines is cyclic and is therefore natural.
https://chemxtree.com/qqbvx3ee929However, there is evidence of a persistent but natural global warming of 0.06 deg C per decade. Not 0.2 deg C per decade as claimed by the IPCC.