Health care reform should be the line in the sand for our House progressives, especially with a strong public option. They shouldn’t be arm-twisted into accepting the Conrad co-op for the benefit of Blue Dog Democrats, or some other form of watered-down public option that might have a trigger.

They’ll be attacked hard as some of the progressives were attacked in voting against the ACES bill. They’ll be called purity progressives by plenty of Democrats and threatened with no re-election funding by the White House. They need to know that the progressive blogosphere will be behind them, and progressive PACs as well for funding for re-election in case the White House threatens them.

I fully expect the debate to shift to about progressives being purity trolls when it comes to health reform if the Senate Finance Bill makes it out of the conference committee. It’s important for us to write about this right now, so we know what the game will be ahead and how to play by the parameters in order to push for real health reform with a strong public option with no conditions or triggers.

Jane, there will be no meaningful and transformational change in the U.S. until there is campaign finance reform. Any “reform” will be touted as a victory for the American people when in reality it will be another giveaway to corporate interests. The plutocracy takes care of it’s own and they do not reform themselves. They change either by collapsing under the weight of their own corruption and inequity or are overthrown by the people.

Jane,

There is a ton of angry people here in NM-2 over Teague’s vote in favor of ACES. I went to personally whip him today on health care, and couldn’t talk to him because the anti-ACES folks had organized a low-level riot.

The only way we could have had progressives voting their conscience on ACES is if we really, really convince them we have their backs. And I’m not sure that would necessarily be enough. Harry is an oil guy, and they were on him like ugly on a warthog.

I think we have a better chance with health care reform (I hate that name), because we have objective evidence to point to and say we really do have your back.

Yep, the drumbeat about progressive “purity trolls” has already begun — even though 76% of the public supports a public option.

Nobody is calling the senate “insurance industry trolls,” but that’s our elite media in action.

I agree, bc. I had to choose between the two, it was sort of like Sophie’s Choice, and I chose health care.

It’s going to be damn hard, but of the two, an easier lift.

I’d love to hear more about item #3 on your list, Jane.

Jane,

You believe in the system.

I don’t.

Jane, Aravosis says you are both in Stockholm. He even has pictures of the city. Keep us posted on the conference
and have a wonderful time.

With ACES we got a piece of legislation with the word “climate” in the title. Now with that hurdle behind them, maybe the Administration could work for legislation that actually reduces emissions!

The Senate will NOT pass either the House Energy Tax bill (aka Cap and Trade) or Health Care with a public option. The Dems know that the American people instinctively know there is no global climate change and that they don’t want THEIR doctor made to accept a public option which take from Middle Class American the quality of the health care we now enjoy in favor of a Canadian or European still socialist public system where care is rationed and taxes are raised on all…..The Energy Tax was almost killed in the House…the Senate surely will not pass a Carbon Tax in that form…and Health Care is even more close to the American people’s heart….They know the so-called public option is simply a Doctor’s tax designed to take from the Middle Class to give to the poor. They don’t WANT it…..

I thought ACES got compromised-down in order to get Blue Doggie votes. Weren’t enough treats included to bring even the majority of them over to Obama’s side? This forever-compromising with himself isn’t doing Obama any good on his right — he’s getting no votes. And it’s pissing off his natural base, the progressives.

So what are we gonna do about it?

Net impact on households of ACES ranges from a benefit of forty dollar a year to a cost of $340 — less than a dollar a day at the top end.

No…that’s just not true. The price of all commodities including energy will go up far greater than that. Heritage estimates the cost at $3000 per family per year…and they’ve usually been pretty conservative.

Jane,

I know some climate-change scientists who detest what ACES has become. They felt there was no way to stop it.

The only good news is that it will give Obama something to go to Copenhagen (??) with. Inadequate as it is, if it passes it will be the first legislative action the US has taken with respect to climate change. We have to build from here.

If you feel it was Sophie’s choice on these, I think the objective evidence is that you chose correctly. I thought of it as triage, and so we’re saving the thing we can save. Drawing a line on ACES would probably lose both ACES and health finance.

What’s keeping Florida from becoming seabed worth to you?

Not that ACES is anywhere near enough to accomplish that goal.

Global warming could care less who wins and loses these games in Congress. It is a natural process that will continue unless the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are reduced. Our country and the world are well on the way to dithering past a tipping point in the world’s climate which will mean not only that irreversible change has occurred but that it will be much larger, with much larger effects, than it needed to be.

This is another major fail both for us and our political system.

I have a friend who travels the country getting petitions signed. I think you probably know of these people. They DO get paid per signature, irregardless of the issue, and this person doesn’t care WHAT the issue is. She’s making good $, and begged me to get into it with her, knowing what a gypsy soul I am.
I declined as I happen to care A LOT about the issues.
She told me last year when she passed through my town that Sierra Club was funded by major corporations who had little to do with any saving of the environment. I listened carefully to her, took it in, and decided to keep an eye out for any indication of such a sham
Well, here it is. I woulda shoulda coulda put $ on the odds that the first I’d hear of a Sierra Club screwing would come from Hamsher, but I have no one around here with whom to even talk politics, let alone make such a bet.
This is basically confirmation of what she told me.
Incidently, IF IT MATTERS, I did not renew my subscription to Sierra Club. And have been dubious of their claims in all the em I get from them since talking to Tracie.

This is another major fail both for us and our political system.

And for places like Shishmaref.

Bluetoe2, this is at the very heart of the issue! Corporate Personhood as bestowed by Southern Pacific RR V Santa Clara County has made a sham of democracy in this Country. Jill Robinson figured out the 2009 Q1 lobbying budgets of the top 100 spenders, who were of course, only exercising their First Amendment Rights, just as any other Citizen might. Ms. Robinson slaved over a hot computer for an extended period, poring over literally thousands of documents (like someone else we know) to decipher this information and cautions us that it does not include expenditures directed to actual professional Lobbying Interests, such as Patton Boggs, Russell & Barron, Inc., Ogilvy Government Relations, Parven Pomper Strategies, Sidley Austin LLP, etc, etc.

Health Care, Health Insurance, & Pharma
3. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America: $6,910,000
6. Pfizer, Inc: $6,140,000
12. American Medical Association: $4,240,000
13. AARP: $4,090,000
18. American Hospital Association: $3,580,000
19. Eli Lilly and Company: $3,440,000
37. America’s Health Insurance Plans, Inc: $2,030,000
39. CVS Caremark Inc: $2,005,000
44. Bayer Corporation: $1,843,672
47. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association: $1,800,000
49. GlaxoSmithKline: $1,780,000
62. Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc: $1,530,000
63. Merck & Co: $1,500,000
65. United Health Group, Inc: $1,500,000
69. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc: $1,460,000
76. Novartis: $1,347,134
79. Sepracor, Inc: $1,324,157
87. Abbott Laboratories: $1,260,000
89. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP: $1,250,000
92. Medtronic, Inc: $1,238,000
96. Wellpoint, Inc: $1,220,000
98. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: $1,206,427

Oil
2. Exxon Mobil: $9,320,000
4. Chevron U.S.A. Inc: $6,800,000
7. Conoco Phillips: $5,980,935
16. BP America, Inc: $3,610,000
20. Marathon Oil Corporation: $3,380,000
45. American Petroleum Institute: $1,810,000
67. Koch Companies Public Sector LLC: $1,480,000

Defense
5. Lockheed Martin Corporation: $6,380,000
11. General Electric Company: $4,540,000
25. Amgen, Inc: $2,750,000
28. Northrop Grumman Corporation: $2,570,000
30. Boeing Company: $2,410,00
34. Textron, Inc.: $2,140,000
35. General Dynamics Corp: $2,101,945
43. United Technologies Corporation: $1,860,000
51. Honeywell International: $1,760,000
59. L-3 Communications: $1,580,000
73. Raytheon Company: $1,360,000

Telecoms
10. AT&T Services, Inc: $5,134,873
14. Verizon (excluding Verizon Wireless): $3,760,000
21. National Cable and Telecommunications Association: $3,370,000
23. Comcast Corporation: $2,760,000
57. Qualcomm, Incorporated: $1,620,000
68. Motorola, Inc: $1,470,000

Automotive
22. General Motors: $2,800,000
27. United Services Automobile Association: $2,590,244
52. Ford Motor Company: $1,750,000
84. Toyota Motor North America: $1,290,000
86. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers: $1,264,400

Financial
32. Financial Services Roundtable: $2,260,000
33. Prudential Financial, Inc: $2,180,000
41. American Bankers Association: $1,890,000
61. Visa, Inc: $1,540,000
74. Investment Company Institute: $1,359,917
75. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: $1,350,000
82. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.: $1,310,000
90. Citigroup Management Corp: $1,250,000
90. Credit Union National Association: $1,250,000

Biotech
36. Monsanto: $2,094,000
40. Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO): $1,920,000

Railroads
24. Association of American Railroads: $2,759,545
54. Union Pacific Corporation: $1,717,108
71. BNSF Railway: $1,400,000

Life Insurance
42. American Council of Life Insurers: $1,867,075
44. New York Life Insurance Company: $1,840,000
64. State Farm Insurance: $1,500,000
93. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company: $1,237,000

Other
1. Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A.: $9,996,000
8. National Association of Realtors: $5,727,000
9. U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform: $5,480,000
15. Southern Company: $3,650,000
17. Altria Client Services Inc: $3,580,000
26. National Association of Broadcasters: $2,600,000
29. Edison Electric Institute: $2,550,000
31. Fedex Corporation: $2,370,000
38. International Business Machines (IBM): $2,030,000
46. Recording Industry Association of America: $1,810,000
48. CTIA-The Wireless Association: $1,790,000
50. Time Warner Inc. $1,780,000
53. The Dow Chemical Company: $1,735,000
55. American Electric Power Company: $1,716,913
56. Microsoft Corporation: $1,650,000
58. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc: $1,600,000
60. Exelon Business Services, LLC: $1,540,000
66. Norfolk Southern Corporation: $1,485,026
70. American Airlines: $1,450,000
72. Oracle Corporation: $1,390,000
77. Air Transport Association of America, Inc.: $1,340,000
78. Disney Worldwide Services, Inc.: $1,330,000
80. National Association of Home Builders: $1,320,000
81. UPS: $1,316,426
83. Siemens Corporation: $1,300,000
85. Duke Energy Corporation: $1,282,770
94. Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S., Inc: $1,230,000
95. Business Roundtable: $1,220,000
97. American Wind Energy Association: $1,212,504
99. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association: $1,200,000
99. CBS Corporation: $1,200,000

I can add nothing more…

More KEYS!!!!! Sounds good to me.. I want more waterfront property

Actually it is the SUN that’s heating up. Unless you count temperature increases on Mars as human caused Besides…James Hansen was arrested recently and his data has been found flawed. Global temps have been DROPPING since 2000. Unless you blame the Roberts court for that.

CBO estimates, look it up.

And yes, Heritage has always been conservative, because they are funded by the corporate interests that profit from pollution and global warming.

I suspect we are past the tipping point already. Anything done at this point is an attempt to mitigate the damage.

If we get a bad healthcare bill it’ll hurt US just as much as this thing that everybody’s so proud of…maybe more.
This “energy”, complete with “clean coal” crap,could/might be construed as a step forward.
but if we’re handed over lock, stock and barrel to the health insurance corporations, we will never get out of their clutches while they kill off Medicare and Medicaid and maybe Vets health too.

Big argument over on HuffPo this morning about Obama’s signing statement, Obama Issues Signing Statement On War Spending BIll with all parties weighing in; the “Obama trusters, the skeptics and the trolls.
I frankly don’t know what to make of it. My first reaction is that Obama is using his presidential authority to get the IMF and World Bank out of ANY scrutiny by Congress by using Constitutional loopholes…sorta like Yoo did.
But, maybe he’s right, on second thought.
Such a terrible bill, so much money to the IMF and we’re gonna prolly wind up with goose eggs for a healthcare bill.
It seems now that they’re just passing bills to say they did something even if that something is crap.

Sometimes I cannot tell if people are being trollish or snarkish. Usually, their following comments clue me in.

Oh. A climate change denier. Now I understand.

Pretty “conservative” means pretty wrong if you mean the Heritage Foundation. The $3000 number is gibberish. The EPA/CBO numbers show the impact on consumers to be minor, even positive in most cases because:

1. A lot of money is directed at energy efficiency measures that reduce consumption and keep prices lower than they otherwise would be, and the savings greatly exceed the costs of the measures. This has always been true, as California’s success in reducing demand and reducing bills has proven.

2. While the cap in cap and trade will induce a slight increase in the price of carbon based energy, the revenues from the auctions are rebated back to the public, through the allocation of emission allowances. The biggest chunk of allowances goes to distribution utilities who will be required by their utility commissions and boards to figure out the best way to return the value to the consumers, directly or indirectly. Bottom line: consumers may pay slightly higher prices (the caps are modest) but will get much of the money back.

3. There are very large investments in lots of decent technologies (and some that are admittedly a waste like “clean coal”) that have a economic stimulus effect in creating jobs and spending.

But most important, these are direct out-of-pocket cost/benefits, but the calculations do not assign any positive value to reducing GHG, because they don’t usually include them in such studies. So the studies don’t count the benefits of reducing global warming, nor count the costs of letting things get worse without the bill.

Naturally, Heritage does include any of this, but hey, that’s what “pretty conservative” means: ignore the facts.

DL is a troll.

Nancy Pelosi controls the CBO. Heritage has always been conservative in the old sense of understating the number. Government ALWAYS spends more than it estimates because unlike private enterprise it can print money and inflate the currency.

K,

Clean coal means carbon sequestration, which we don’t much know how to do effectively. The Cohen Bros ad was right on the money about Clean Coal under the current state of the art. It doesn’t exist.

That doesn’t mean it can’t exist, it just means it doesn’t exist right now. In some respects, it might be that the best thing we could do is to expose a lot of new rock to weathering, which consumes CO2.

There are lots of things that need to be investigated, but for the forseeable future Clean Coal is an oxymoron.

then i will
s
c
r
o
l
l

This is another fallacy of the global warming crowd; it is exposed by Krugman here:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c…..re-trends/

What I can’t figure is why progressives don’t like clean nuclear energy. Heck, even the FRENCH use it. That would supply the USA with a great deal of energy and if you waived some the of the envrio-rules (Congress can do that) you could get them built quickly and safely. They have NOT had a three mile island and Yucca Points is safer than the likelihood of a comet hitting the planet.

because unlike private enterprise who get more money than God has from the government.

I need to take my own advise.

The only validity of Krugman’s piece is that temperature readings are indeed noisy over periods of hundreds of years. Go back 14,000 years and the world was a good deal colder; we go in much larger cycles than humans can possibly create. The Sahara was a good deal wetter in Roman times. It doesn’t mean humans created the desert.

Tis particularly apt; the force is strong in this one, though

All money is created by the private sector and coerced INTO the government. It’s not like any government has any money at all other than that it coerced from its citizens….

Solve the waste-disposal problem and I’ll consider nuclear. Until you figure out how and where to store high-level wastes, we have no business building more fission plants.

I need to take your advice too.

I did take it at Harry’s meet-the-people thing today. I left before the climate-change deniers and don’t-give-a-f***s could raise my blood pressure.

The French don’t appear to worry about it. The Nevada site can take nuclear bombing. The risks are smaller than than that of a large celestial object hitting the planet in which we would have much greater climate challenges,,,e.g., see dinosaurs….

I suggest de-funding him, leaving the dem party, and looking for a replacement.

Many scientists ( not in this country, Bush ran ‘em off) say the tipping point has already been reached.
When the permafrost began melting that was pretty much the end. Now, the climate is in a self-sustaining cycle with the continued melt creating more greenhouse gases than even we can.
I read an article not too long ago saying that even if we stopped emitting ALL greenhouse gases today, we would have 1000 years of turbulence in climate by the time the Earth reestablished itself.
We’ll all be dead by then or living in caves watching the poison sea rise higher and higher and eating each other.

And all so the fascists can make mo’ $$$ right NOW. Dunno where they think they’ll go? Mars?

Oh what a load of cr*p!
Go read Science News and Scientific American. Both of them are more reliable scienctific sources than you. H*ll, even Discover is more reliable than you for scientific information.

It also means that humans might have had a hand in creating the desert. If the world is getting naturally hotter and will kill us do we do nothing about that because it is natural? And what about all that crap in the air that we put there. Don’t you think it is rather rude of us to muck up the place like we have done? Greed and arrogance have lead many to believe that whatever they want in the moment is just fine and dandy. Childish. This goes for global warming, health care, poisoned food, hungry children, etc.

Fine. You tell the people of Nevada that they have to open Yucca Mountain to high-level waste.

I didn’t say the problems were insoluble, I think that the solutions already exist. The problem now is getting the solutions accepted. In other words, it’s a problem of education and persuasion. For short, it’s a political problem.

Why bother. One of the things I like about this site is most folks unwillingness to even respond to “troll drivel”
Anyone who still denies climate change either has a vested interest, or is willfully ignorant or both.

I’m actually a subscriber to all of them. Their data do not disagree with the Roy Spencer schools, although Scientific American has injected large amounts of inappropriate political activism in the last couple of years…

If the problem is such an emergency, I’d say take the risk now…sometimes you have to ORDER it regardless of the risk. If it’s such a problem, then just DO it and build your ultimate greater strategy as it comes…

I was reading about railroad ties the other day. Concrete ties produce more greenhouse gases during production, but they last a lot longer, and don’t release carbon as they age, unlike the wooden ties. So the short-term view says wood, but long-term is concrete.

As far as nuclear: there are better plant designs out there than the ones we use, which were, I understand, originally intended for submarines and ships. There are some that don’t even require enriched uranium, and they can use depleted uranium as well. (Part of the problem we have is that it takes so long to go through the construction and licensing process that the plant is nearly obsolete before it’s even running.)

You mean statements suggesting that we need to do something about it and point out who may be standing in the way?
That would be like a doctor telling you that you have a terrible bacterial infection but not giving you any meds.

Science is not a political game of consensus, but a continuing quest for truth. The Little Ice Age recently is evidence that humans don’t control climates. In the 1970s Newsweek featured articles warning of global COOLING based on the same self selected scientists. One must always measure and explain the data. Such as that climate stations are largely in cities which are heat sinks.

No, it’s more like a cancer patient…You give him the best cure you have now and lots of pain medicine until you have something better.

It looks to me like you don’t understand them.

Being for or against nukes is not a progressive issue. There is a reason why no new nukes have been built in the US for 30 years and it’s not just TMI. The construction costs for nukes, even with the so-called standard design have skyrocketed, as a recent NYT article on what happened with the effort to build the new French design in Finland showed. It’s now up near $5,000/Kw, which is a staggering increase over what it was back then. The main reason: it’s occurred to both regulators, builders and investors that you have to design the containment building to withstand a direct hit from a commercial airlines and still preserve the integrity of the containment vessel, the viability of the emergency systems for the control rods, and all the external emergency pumping equipment. They don’t know how to do this.

Never mind Yucca mountain. But it means that spent fuel still has to be stored on site, which means it has to be protected, just like the containment vessel. Good luck with that.

Hence, there is no set of private investors anywhere in the US willing to take the financial risks. In other words private enterprise will not support building a nuclear power plant. Period.

The only way a new nuke will be built in the US is under massive federal subsidies and preferential permitting rules — which will require the complete corruption of the NRC (possible), plus federally guaranteed insurance for catastrophic loss. (all existing nukes already have the latter). That is what the nuclear industry is trying to pull off, and if they do, it will make the banksters look like petty thieves.

You might want to ask the always “conservative” Heritage Foundation what they think about an industry that can only exist with massive construction subsidies, and free federally paid insurance against catastrophic losses.

But don’t let that get you down. Even with the massive subsidies, the private contribution to capital costs will have to be rate based –that’s the part you get to pay for, my conservative friend, and the only utilities who are looking into this are demanding CWIP treatment — construction work in progess, which means you get to pay for the construction in advance, while it’s being build — in only takes 8-10 years if you’re lucky — so consumers get stuck with signnificantly higher electricity bills for years before the plant every produces a single kwh.

Don’t you just love free enterprise? But I’m not done.

If the plant every goes on line, like 15 years from now, your rates will go up again, because you’ll get the accelerated depreciation kicking in because the investors are so nervous about getting their money back, they want it back faster. So you get a price spike as each one of these babies comes on line.

But go ahead, frighten everyone about how our electricity prices might go up by less the everyday change of marginal costs betwen the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. and convince them that if we only build 50 nukes in the next 20 years, electricity prices will go down. And if you’ve opposed the energy conservative investments in the W-M bill, because you think public investments are wrong, well, the prices will be even higher because demand will be higher. But I”m sure the conservative Heritage Foundation will find some hack to explain why it’s all Bill Clinton’s fault.

I agree with you…it’s government licensing and regulatory snafus that are stopping energy development. We can do it all…drill in ANWR as a bridge to going nuclear and developing more exotic technology as the market dictates.

The answer is fairly simple. Pass a law insulating the power companies from tort lawyers. If you eliminate legal costs the country could develop both energy and health care. The tort bar has stopped more scientific and technical development in both energy AND health than anything else together. Why is that? Because progressive lawyers have dominated the bar, despite the best efforts of the Federalist society…

Perhaps…but perhaps I understand the data better.

Yup. Subscribing doesn’t mean reading, and reading doesn’t mean comprehending.

At Teague’s meet-the-people chingaso today there was a sign that read, “Cap – Trade = Big Tax Increase.”

The innumeracy of the claimed ‘equation’ was mind-boggling. I thought it nicely summed up the whole anti-ACES crowd.

Are you saying that people who may be hurt by the industry should have no recourse? Isn’t that intense government interference? Wouldn’t that create a corrupt power system due to lack of accountability? Ain’t that what just happened with the financial industry?

(Modo de snarko ON)

Something happened in the financial sector? You’re kidding me! Government regulation is always bad, isn’t it?

(Mode de snarko OFF)

On dismantling corporations:

Arundhati in 2003 (no less!):

“If there is one thing that has come out clearly recently, it is not that the corporate media supports the global corporate project; it IS the global corporate project” – Arundhati Roy

The tort bar has changed since the 60s…”recourse” has become retribution. Statute law was created in England to remedy the common law courts’ problems…now it should do so again so we CAN have some progress. So yes, I would restrict recourse to anyone in the way of progress with the exception of deliberate willful negligence, not just common negligence.

(Modo de snarko ON)

Yes, of course, government regulation is always bad.
Corporations always make the right decisions and, in the long, very long run, help people by providing good paying jobs,
health care and free university educations.

(Modo de snarko OFF)

And just out of curiosity, how common do you think willful negligence is?

What a terrific solution. Take the principle that corporations should be responsible for the damages they cause and repeal it, thus eliminating one of the only accountability links left. That way, corporations can build products that are less safe, more likely to cause personal or property damage, and never have to worry about paying for any of the consequences.

There is no genuinely conservative principle that is premised on the notion that persons or corporations should be exempt from responsibility for their actions. Genuine conservatives would find the idea of repealing such principles appalling.

Your suggestion is not conservative; it’s just irresponsible.

* sigh *

I wish I had said that.

Me too. But I suspect that DL thinks willful negligence is very rare. I don’t think it is. Corporations make decisions that harming people is cheaper than fixing the potential harm all the time.

Remember the Ford Pinto?

The Firestone SUV Tires?

Liebeck v. McDonalds? That one was so flagrant, McD’s even refused to post warnings about its coffee.

Regressives… It’s so fine to live in an ideological world, uncluttered by the messiness of reality! Or conscience, for that matter.

Not very…I don’t think people are generally willfully evil. Unlike progressives.

I only have a .pdf version of this- thus I can’t post the whole thing. But increased levels of CO2 have other effects:
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 90, NO. 12, 25 JUNE 2006
Health effects of increase in concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
(some snippets)

~~Atmospheric toxicity levels
Relationships between detrimental health effects and high
indoor carbon dioxide concentrations have been studied7.
These studies were made in the range 300–700 ppm
above ambient carbon dioxide levels. At a carbon dioxide
concentration of 600 ppm in an indoor atmosphere, the
occupants become aware of deterioration in the atmosphere.
At and above this level, some occupants began to display
one or more of the classic symptoms of carbon dioxide
poisoning, e.g. difficulty in breathing, rapid pulse rate,
headache, hearing loss, hyperventilation, sweating and
fatigue. At 1000 ppm, nearly all the occupants were
affected. These effects were observed in humans with
only a transient exposure to an atmosphere containing increased
levels of carbon dioxide and not a lifetime exposure.
At present, the conditions giving rise to these symptoms
can be readily reversed by moving into the outdoor atmosphere.
In the event that the atmospheric concentration
of carbon dioxide reaches 600 ppm, the planet will have a
permanent outdoor atmosphere exactly like that of a
stuffy room

~~Conclusion
The lowest value at which the atmospheric concentration
of carbon dioxide could be stabilized by reduction of additions
made by human activity (fossil fuel-burning, etc.)
is estimated as 550 ppm. To achieve this, severe limitations
are required on the latter activities. The most often
quoted16 desirable/attainable stable concentration is 750 ppm.
This concentration level is not related in any way to
health considerations and is above the estimated dangerous
level of 426 ppm. The value is also above the 600 ppm
level, which results in the ‘stuffy room’ conditions described
above. At the very least, 600 ppm of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere will be unpleasant and there will be no
readily available means of reversing the changes giving
rise to the above symptoms. Such a situation is unlikely
to be tolerable for a lifetime by humans (and other mammals
with the possible exception of seals) without deterioration
in general health along with serious curtailing of
physical activity presently taken as normal.

~~It is likely that when the concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reaches 426 ppm in less
than two generations from the present date, the health of
at least some sections of the world population will deteriorate,
including those of the developed nations. It is also
obvious that if the extremes of conditions described
above come to pass, then the biosphere and humankind
are seriously threatened.

That’s the point…do you really think McDonalds should be held accountable for some idiot believing the hot coffee isn’t hot? Just because a jury of 12 knuckleheads can be sweet talked into a huge award doesn’t make it so. THAT’s why we can’t get medical OR energy reform.

No, it’s treating the element of risk reasonably. This country was built by risk takers. Only when the Progressives came around in the 1910s-1930s (when the frontier closed) did we start trying to take the risk out of everything and “spread the wealth” as the Marxists believe. When you leave people alone to do their magic, they create great wealth as the American experiment showed. (Edison, Bell, Disney, etc.) That’s what we have to go back to.

It’s obvious your view of the world is from a rear view mirror.

That’s pretty much the way the conservative side seems to work: put up a poster with some equations and some pictures, and tell people watching that the evil liberals are going to raise taxes (or take away guns, or whatever the boogieman of the hour is), and half of them fall into line automatically. Thinking hurts their brains, I guess. (That’s probably why they need everything dumbed down, too.)

You don’t have a clue about what Liebeck v. McDonald’s was about, do you?

McDonald’s lost because the facts were overwhelmingly against them. When you’ve ceased being a tool (whether willful or duped I neither know nor care) for the corporatists, maybe we can talk. Until then, there’s no point.

And just for the record, I believe you were correct when you said that people are not often willfully negligent. Unfortunately, corporations are often willfully negligent, and the only way to punish a corporate entity is monetarily.

For now, I’m going to go fix some supper. Later, ‘pups.

There is no defensible theory of capitalism that endorses the irresponsible notion that if corporations take a risk, they earn the rewards of success but the public bears the costs of failure. To the extent that capitalism works in the public interest, it is only because the risk takers also bear the costs of mistakes and failure.

Moreover, when corporations do not bear the costs of their actions, they hurt other capitalists/businesses and the economy generally. The death the Hudson River is a good example of how corporations were free to reap profits but excused from bearing the costs of their pullution, which then killed the river, but countless businesses downstream out of business, not because their market/business decisions were wrong but because the upstream polluters were not held accountable for the costs they imposed on others. No capitalist theory can survive on such an irresponsible premise. I have not idea where you get your economic theory, but it’s not any form of sustainable capitalism; it’s more like looting, which is why there are criminal statutes and civil penalties to deal with it.

Thank you, again Scarecrow. Well said.

Becasue Nuclear is neither clean nor inexpensive when complete life cycle costs are included.

Just as coal is not cheap if ash disposal is included in the life cycle costs.

DL appears to be getting economic theory from Atlas Shrugged and the rest of the Randian fairy tale.

Liberty Lee, is that you?

:) lol…

I used to teach the McDonalds case to the students in my business law class. The reason the damages were so huge is that they were PUNITIVE damages.

McDonald’s had the gall to argue that is would cost 4X millions to install thermostats in the coffee urns and that it was cheaper to let the occasional customer get burned b/c the damages were not as expensive as the cost of the thermostats and staff training.

The admitted that the lady’s injuries were preventable and that they chose not to prevent it and that her permanent injuries were just a “cost of doing business” for them. Only she never consented to being a cost of business, she innocently bought a cup of coffee.

So the jury awarded an amount of punative damages that would make it cheaper for McDonlads to install the thermostats and train their staff than it would be to burn another customer.