[quote]Democratic leaders are scrambling to prevent the Senate from delivering a stinging slap to President Barack Obama on climate change. They have offered a vote on a bill they dislike in the hopes of avoiding a loss on legislation Obama hates. The president is threatening to veto a resolution from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would ban the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon emissions. But if the president were forced to use his veto to prevent legislation emerging from a Congress in which his own party enjoys substantial majorities, it would be a humiliation for him and for Democrats on Capitol Hill. So Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and other Democratic leaders are doing what they can to stop it. They are floating the possibility of voting on an alternative measure from Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from the coal state of West Virginia, which they previously refused to grant floor time, Senate sources say. A spokeswoman for Reid declined to comment on the offer. But Democrats on Wednesday thought it was good enough to win a crucial vote on the Republican resolution. Murkowski, ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is using the Congressional Review Act, an element of the Contract With America, which allows Congress to overturn executive branch regulations with simple majority votes in both chambers. The Review Act expedites a floor vote. Republicans don’t have the two-thirds majority they would need in both chambers to overturn an Obama veto. But Republicans say passing the resolution through one chamber would be a big win. “Anything close to half the Senate says this is a congressional responsibility and not the administration’s, that’s a strong message from the country to the president,� said Senate GOP conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), referring to the EPA plan to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. Democrats suffered a serious setback Tuesday when Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Commerce panel, announced he would vote for Murkowski’s resolution. He joined Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (La.), who are co-sponsors of the measure. If Republicans keep their conference unified, that would give them 45 votes for Murkowski’s proposal, with a handful Democrats, such as Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Evan Bayh (Ind.) and Jim Webb (Va.), in play as potential allies. Rockefeller said EPA regulation of carbon could have a “devastating� impact on West Virginia. He threw his support to Murkowski after his leaders denied him a vote on his alternative bill resolution, which would prevent the EPA curbing carbon emissions for two years from stationary sources, such as power plants and factories. Murkowski’s resolution is broader, blocking EPA regulation of cars and trucks, not just industrial plants. A Murkowski aide said the senator would prefer to focus on exempting stationary sources but Democratic leaders refused to allow a vote on a narrow plan, such as Rockefeller’s. “The Congressional Review Act is like going nuclear, but you have to go nuclear— otherwise you can’t get around the opposition of the Democratic leadership,� said Robert Dillon, Murkowski’s spokesman. Murkowski initially offered a one-year “time out� on EPA restricting emissions from stationary industrial sources, but Democratic leaders did not give it floor time, Dillon said. Rockefeller now says a vote on his proposal is a distinct possibility, even though it would present a major obstacle to Obama’s plan to restrict emissions via EPA regulation. “There well could be� a vote on his resolution, Rockefeller said. Unlike Murkowski’s measure, Rockefeller’s bill will need 60 votes to overcome procedural obstacles.[/quote] http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/102377-climate-change-showdown

While the economic impacts of switching and investing in cleaner energy sources may be rough in the short run, the Superpower of this century will not be defined by who has the most nuclear weapons, but by the country who controls clean energy resources. If we don't begin enforcing stricter regulations to promote cheap clean energy, I fear the free market will cling to fossil fuels till the very last drop is gone before real investment into the clean energy market begins. If China beats us to green energies, we might lose our footing forever as the most powerful country on Earth, it seems they already have us (metaphorically) by the balls thanks to the free market.

Lol. Incase you hadn't noticed, the nation is bankrupt. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ If we continue on the path we are on and pass stupid legislation like Cap and Trade, the economy will collapse and the world will go into a global depression greater than the Great Depression. Then, when all is chaos, a new world government will step up to take over and restore order.

I don't know enough about Cap and Trade to comment on that aspect, although I must say that while I understand and understand the economic hardships that we will face by going green, failure to gain an edge on renewable energy sources will equally collapse our nation, especially if we wait till there's not a drop of oil left before we fully invest in green energies. If we wait till we have no other choice, I assure you we most certainly WILL face severe economic hardships, greater than what we might face if we change our attitudes now. We cannot merely procrastinate on switching and investing of clean energies on the basis that 'we will go bankrupt if we do.' It will only cost us more, the longer we wait. The problem it seems is motivation, a lack of demand for green energy, as it is still cheaper to utilize fossil fuels. Until all the oil is gone it will always be cheaper, ergo we must make it more expensive not to use renewable energy sources. And I for one would really like to see America become as independent on other economies and resources as soon as possible. Without getting off topic too much, I think we need to look for incentives to focus more on renewable energy sources, as well as finding more incentives to bring jobs and industry back to America. As it is, I wish President Obama would raise import tariffs to much higher levels, while lowering export tariffs as well. Make it more cost beneficial to higher American workers. I am truly sick of all the outsourcing and how easy it is. I know a local business owner whose net earnings for his company are only near a million (before paying some 20 workers, taxes, etc) and he has switched to outsourcing in the last 10 years due to the ease and cost effectiveness. He ended up firing 15 good Americans to hire 20 Chinese workers for much less. I say regulate the hell out of businesses until we can bring work back to America. Free market solutions are a joke, and always will be as long as it is cheaper to higher some dirty little commie in China to do work for less than what it'd cost to pay an American. Free market traitors is more like it. Sorry for the rant. But as I said, we need more pragmatic federal regulations that promote small businesses and encourage them to hire Americans, not so-called free market solutions that are driven by the greed to turn the highest profit at the lowest cost for the company, which often involves cheap outsourcing at the expense of the dollar. From Hell