I really do think you and Chris know zip zilch about what you're talking about. And, why would I know anything about China? A guy like you knows far more, it was your specialty, wasn't it? Just dove right in there and studied all that good baihua zhuyi. Just like weather and climate were something Chris studied, that's how he can keep a straight face while proposing that burn pits are the biggest threat to the environment on the planet.

You two didn't want a discussion, you wanted to put me down fast. So there won't be a discussion, and I will interpret your need for instant victory as an indication of the shallowness of your knowledge on any of the subjects you've opined about. Later.

demonstrates the REAL change we can believe in! He voted NO on the war supplemental and the climate bill because they are bad legislation and I can guarantee you he will NEVER be bullied by Obama and his family or Rahmbo the enforcer!

proposing that burn pits are the biggest threat to the environment on the planet.

No, more that they merely highlight the absurdity of the establishment's concern for the environment. Why are you putting words in my mouth, ondelette? I thought you were too smart for that?

I am not even arguing climate change, I am pointing out your hamfisted authoritarian approach to "fixing" it. It is always the same thing with people like you, it comes down to different variations of "We need my New World Order Plan to Save the Planet".

I'd like at least a trillion put aside for real research, and another trillion put aside for civilian foreign aid, education, and global population control. I'm in favor of destroying the economy so we can save it.

A trillion here, a trillion there, fucking absurd. Stick to torture facts, you go off the reservation when it comes to your intervention fantasies. If it were up to you we'd probably be starting the Next World War, standing tall behind our new Iranian Freedom Friends.

I tried to warn folks about what happened on global warming in New Jersey under Democratic Governor Jon Corzine (current EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was NJ DEP Commisisoner and left to become Chief of Staff for Corzine before moving to EPA job). See:

Sunday Oct. 7, 2007 Op-Ed, Newark Star ledger:

No Teeth in ‘tough’ pollution law”

http://www.peer.org/docs/nj/07_7_10_wolfe_op_ed.pdf

Lame global warming bill goes to Governor

Posted by Bill Wolfe January 08, 2008 12:05AM

http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/01/weak_global_warming_bill_goes.html

You haven't got the brain cells to listen to a well reasoned argument, so you just make up your opponent's lines for him, and argue with that. Cocky as hell, with no substance behind it.

Statement From Rep. Dennis Kucinich on H.R. 2454:

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20090627_kucinich_says_climate_bill_might_make_things_worse/

“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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

[edited]