Comments:US Senate Panel approves bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
This is being talked about here at the Conference, and is widely regarded as pretty good news by the enviromental NGOs :). The problem is going to be getting it through the senate itself, which I heard one American saying he reckoned was rather unlikely (as they´d need 60 pro to overcome a filibuster by the republicans. Sean Heron 03:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
More welfare for the rich
editThe bottom line here is that if Joe Schmuck's grandchildren want to be allowed to burn a log in their fireplace, they're going to have to pay the descendants of Rich Powerplant for the privilege.* What everyone has taken for granted - the right to burn fuel - will soon be the valued property of certain industrialists, whom our society sees fit to reward for all the good work they've done in getting us into this mess. After this measure the common person will be born with fewer rights and the wealthy person will be born with one more kind of property. All because "democratic government" may have the power to tax poor people for their beer and cigarettes, but it doesn't have the power to tax the rich for polluting - it can only obsequiously offer to pay them for it. 70.15.116.59 07:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
* An optimistic view; more likely they'll have to sign contracts committing them to special forms of obedience for the privilege; for all I know they'll have to sacrifice extra offspring to help offset overpopulation...