Reader comments
Defeat Waxman-Markey bill

So what's your solution? None. A completely negative editorial whose outcome would be an uninhabitable earth. So much for being stewards of Creation.

Go nuclear, fear-mongers notwithstanding.

While you're at it, run on up to Yellowstone and figure out how to plug up all those mud baths, geysers and yes even the volcano building under the Yellowstone Lake. We'll be so much better off once we've fixed this crisis!

So because a good and necessary thing will be difficult to do, we shouldn't do it?

And as for your photo caption about climate change being "still hotly debated," all I can do is urge you to pay closer attention to the actual science.

I know the message boards here like the think there's some kind of "debate" going on, but a review of the findings published in any number of professional science journals makes it abundantly clear that the question is not if man-made global warming is happening, the question is what are we going to do about the reality of man-made global warming.

This editorial typifies the problem with conservatives. They seem to have lost all sense of personal responsibility. They want to have cheap electricity at the cost of clean air, but they refuse to be accountable for cleaning up the pollution. I thought personal responsibility was supposed to be a hall mark of conservatism?

Think of the innovations that could be made in clean energy if this bill were passed. Anyone who could figure out a way to produce clean energy in a way that was efficient enough to meet out wants (not really needs) would make lots of money. This could spur governments and private businesses to invest in researchers that are trying to find such technology.

...to the point where Americans would have little choice but to use less. That means they would be forced into buying fewer laptop computers, iPods, televisions and other electrical appliances." This isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Why can't we control the greatest GHG, water vapor, oh that's right we couldn't tax the citizens in 80% of the states.
In this bill why does only 20% of the money go to environmental projects? Can you say 'paying for future entitlements'?
In this bill why do non-CO2 emitting entities recieve allownaces? Can you say 'patronage'?
In this bill why does the West Coast and Northeast actually make money? Cay you say 'wealth transfer'?
If this bill was truely for the environment and controlling that giant .03% of the atmosphere then our dear leaders would mimic the Sulfur Dioxide model used, in the past, to control Acid Rain.
Start thinking with you minds and not your hearts.

Until there are viable alternatives ready to pick up the slack, we will be hurting the poorest of Amreicans the most.

Every state should build a brand new nuclear reactor. Look at what they are doing in Japan and France. Comparitively nuclear is much cleaner and more efficient than anything else we have out ther.

This Bill goes too far.

All those that worship at the feet of Obama, and Gore, should lead by example. Remove the power box from your house, return your cars, give up all your money to the government, and when you get ill, just roll over and die!

I completely agree with Robert Jacobson on this. Lots of sniping, but no solutions. Always putting industry ahead of wise stewardship. Something has to be done. The same crowd fought the clean air act and other anti-pollution measures many years ago and, low and behold, we are better off for it. Enough of the nattering nabobs of negativism. Let's move forward with something. Besides, then the GOP was in charge, what got done except the weakening of the law, regulations and enforcement on environmental issues.

People claim nuclear is the answer... and yet, these same people criticize the government and greedy business for all the ills in our society... They don't trust government healthcare! They don't trust government running GM or the banks -- But they trust the federal government to regulate and oversee the safety of nukes and nuke waste? And they trust private industry for protecting society from leaks, radiation, etc.? Please!

We need safe energy where we don't have to rely on incompetent government and greedy "let's cut corners" industry to make decisions about our fate! Invest in wind, solar, and geothermal energy -- no toxic waste and no fears of incompetent government beaucrats!

If the stated goal of this bill is to combat climate change (which it is), and scientific studies show the results of the bill would have negligible impact on climate (which they DO), then the bill is worthless.

The bill isn't about air pollution, it's about carbon dioxide (which isn't part of air pollution). Those are two vastly different problems.

Nuclear power already has a 50 year near-perfect track record of producing safe, clean electricity. That's enough to make it the obvious solution.

The stereotyping above by liberal writers about conservatives and industry is appalling.

The debate on man-made global warming is far from over. You've chosen to read only the liberal environmental rhetoric. You haven't even considered that the theory of man made global warming breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the principles of heat transfer. Please do YOUR homework. Let's have a real scientific debate!

Nuclear is a solution.(But no union nuclear plants)

Greedy industry? Why not greedy government?

This congress and this president are wanting to change the way we live and many of you are buying into it. You want to FIGHT industry that makes the things that you want and need but you ROLL OVER when the government wants to curtail your freedoms or take your money.

The earth has been hotter and colder than it is now.
Humans have concrete weather data for only about 130 years.
Hurricanes and tornados have happened in the past as they do now.
My weatherman was wrong yesterday about the temperature and the rain potential.
We are letting POLITICIANS control our lives.

Think with your minds not your hearts.

Robert Jacobson, anonymous 7:46, you appparently did not read the editorial. they did offer an alternative - build more nukes.

I see, Liberal Larry, are YOU paying the extra $2/kilowatt hour RMP charges for green electricity? How does making electricity more EXPENSIVE make electric cars feasible?

A Utah paper asking for Utah politicians to defeat a bill. Now that is a laugh. The total lack of influence on the national level is the result of a one party system, driven by the compulsion to throw reason out the door in favor of extreme conservatism. Sorry, but if it comes from Utah, it will have zero effect.

They need to ram this bill through, because facts on the ground (the earth) is exposing the lie of global warming. This is purely a huge and vicious tax on the American people. More money to dissapear into the government maw.

TO "liberal larry | 6:21 a.m." it isn't just conservatives that see this bill as bad news.

Martin Feldstein, George F. Baker Professor of Economics at Harvard University, says "In my judgment, the proposed cap-and-trade system would be a costly policy that would penalize Americans with little effect on global warming. The proposal to give away most of the permits only makes a bad idea worse."

In other words, all this is is one big tax being wrapped in global warming. It will have little to no effect on CO2 emissions.

@anon 8:44
A sitting President asking a national tv network to do an all day info-mercial for him and his huge power grab enviro bill? Now that is a laugh that makes me want to cry!!
Comrade - out...