In a move being hailed as both "defiant" and common sense, Democratic lawmakers in the U.S. House on Thursday introduced the "Keep It in the Ground" Act, which would permanently block all new fossil fuel leases on public lands and waters.
It interesting that while this bill announced other newsstories is that there an absolute glut of oil on the markets.
US reservoirs used to store crude are at record levels and they are running out of room to keep the stuff. Now is the lets keep it in the grounfd a legitimate concern over the environment (seeing the same democratic party supports all manner of plocies destructive to the environmnet such as the TPP) , or is it a means of getting that price of oil back up there again so as to maintain the industries profit margins and help get this glut off the markets?
As long as there is an oil depletion allowance, we can be sure it's for show.
Problem is that Bill Clinton and Obama both followed the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) play book and made sure they rammed through GOP initiated legislation during their first two years in office (NAFTA for Clinton, ACA for Obama) to assure that the Democrats would lose control of Congress, giving Clinton and Obama cover to push more GOP initiated legislation through along with some progressive legislation that they knew would never be considered by a GOP controlled Congress.
The thought that Sanders' success might attract many progressive Democrats to run for Congress terrifies the Democratic Party establishment...they see it reducing their corporate cash flow.
It doesn't make sense to want to keep it in the ground and then say what you say like some troll throwing out disinformation.
What about criticizing your own country and perhaps remind yourself that you are constantly criticizing someone else's?
You're constantly venting about America ... how about talking about your own country's environmental flaws sometime... which at least would be less hypocritical.
It may end up failing but as far as it being for show... it exists and that is at least a major difference. Since when is such a legislation not good news? Congress rarely acts sanely about the environment but it is starting to see the change in the reality we all face. There will be fitful starts but the conversation is beginning and change in attitudes are beginning to happen.
If this doesn't pass this time... it will be proposed again and again until it does. Things are changing and the status quo would love for everybody to give up trying and go back to sleep but it isn't going to happen. This may not win the war but it won at least one battle... it is being proposed as law. That is new.
It sure seems encouraging to me to hear about this proposed legislation. I don't get why people are complaining about it. It gets proposed and then it is reported on in the media and people talk about it and the public learns why it is necessary. All good things and first steps. So what is the problem?
Got theater? Lol.
If nothing else the fossil fuel companies are buzzing like a hornets nest...that's something too!
Riiiiiight. As usual these cretins play the energy card, hell..ANY card that might give enough hope to those democrats who need an excuse to vote for the Witch. Sorry Clinton donks, you'll never get my vote.
"it will be proposed again and again until it does" The GOP proposed repealing ACA again and again and again and again. The Republican controlled congress will never vote against their financial interests. Most of them have not come to grips with evolution let alone climate change,
The status quo is what its name implies. However there are many new cracks in the wall of entrenched interests. Increasingly we see movement where once it was assumed everything was set in concrete. Bernie has been an American hero and he hasn't even won yet. He has shaken things up and that had broken the ice jam.
If Bernie gets in we can expect real change to follow I think. The signs are all there even now. The battle is being waged before the election though people think it will only be fought afterwards.
I think the real battlefront is how oligarchy wants to keep someone like Bernie from uniting people on changing the status quo. Once that change begins, it will carry forwards on its own momentum. It won't be dependent on Bernie. What is dependent on Bernie is his >>> opening the door on change! That is the hard part... the essential first step. If Bernie doesn't win... the sleeping spell returns... the despair and depression returns... the weakness and lack of hope returns...the status quo returns.
Go Bernie... they are running scared because they know that once change gets a foot in the door... it will keep on going all on its own because people want it to happen.
It's ok to take oil out of the ground, but only for the purpose of making plastics and chemicals whose benefit to mankind surpasses the environmental and personal tolls that they impose! We can start by ensuring that, like Japan 90% of all plastic is recycled. Then keep that other 10% out of the sea so we only extract the stored centuries of carbon that is absolutely essential to supporting beneficial growth in its use and applications. A $10 a barrel increase going directly to building and researching renewable technologies is a good start, however in order to create momentum, it needs to raise by $10 per year until the price reaches the $100 a barrel equivalent. This will incentivize recycling, high speed rail, reduction in carbon emissions. Everyone will win, including the rich, it's just that they'll be all scared cause they'll feel like they've lost control.
And they have.
Vote For Bernie!
This is fake change. Let's put a bill up that won't pass but will woo in the Bernie supporters to support Democrats.
I guess it might be nice that a few more people will think about it today.
Sad, how cynical I am nowadays.
Excuse me? Good lords you are the senstive type are you not?
How about you let me comment on whatever I like and not try to censure me just because you do not like what I say. Nothing you stated in your rebuttal has anything to do with a Countries borders.
There is a GLUT of oil on the market. FACT. The GLUT of oil drives down prices FACT. The lower prices mean less profits from the Tarsands industry FACT. In passing laws to "keep oil in the ground" the price of oil will go up FACT.
If the price of oil goes up the tarsands are once again profitable FACT.
The Government of the USA supports the TPP which as a trade agreement will lead to more environemtal destruction FACT.
Now grow up and stop playing the petulant child just because someone details facts that you are not in agreement with and stop hiding behind your flag. These issues are world wide in scale . If saudi Arabia suddenly decided to keep more oil in the ground and run out and claim it "because we care about the Environmnet" I am going to question their motives. I am sorry to say it but it not always about you. added to that, the implication that a citizen of another country just "mind his own business" coming from a guy who lives in a Country who thinks it their right to support coups and commit assassinations and murders in countries the world over because they do not follow US dictates is beyond hypocritical.
Democrats 1, Republicans 0, baby! Booyah! In yo face!
By the way, when's halftime?
This act should be called the "Keep a little bit of it in the ground act" because although it's nice (if it passes) it means nothing unless we keep all the other 99% of the fossil and nuclear fuels in the ground. What are they doing to accomplish that?
No, no... as far as plastics go... only for medical purposes... that's about it... even recycling creates c02... the trucks to pick it up.. and then the burning and melting... and all those chemicals... they'll still need some kind of chemicals to remake it.... no, making plastic kitty and puppy toys is ridiculous... even if it's recycled stuff.... no more cheap plastic junk that serves no purpose... we really do have to get real about reality...
Storm Clouds Over Clinton Camp!
WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 (UPI) -- The Office of the Inspector General for the State Department confirmed Thursday it had subpoenaed The Clinton Foundation for records of certain projects that took place during Hillary Clinton's time at the helm of the department.
Judge orders four more Hillary Clinton email releases
By JOSH GERSTEIN
02/11/16 12:47 PM EST
A federal judge has ordered the State Department to make four additional releases of Hillary Clinton's emails between Saturday and the end of February.
U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras issued an order Thursday requiring State to release batches of the still-undisclosed portion of Clinton's emails on Feb. 13, 19 and 26 with "all remaining documents" released by "the close of business" on Feb. 29.
Justifiably so, in this case. Anytime a minority offers up a bill they know will get crushed during an election cycle you have to question motive. especially with their little darling bloodied a bit.
the perils of an election year...
Not sure how much effect this will actually have, though it's nice to see something getting done at all. Thanks to a handful of faux-scandals, Clinton's groupies will just reject everything as a republican plot. Those of us who hate her already believe the worst, so no movement there.
So short of jail, this probably changes nothing, although it could have some impact on independents in a general.
Or they could just drag this out way past November, too. Especially with Clinton shoving her snout further up Obama's behind with each passing day.