A 10 cent per kwh subsidy will be paid to those who either sell GHG free power to the grid or conserve power.  The money for this subsidy will come out of subsidies for fossil fuel, nuclear, and agribizz energy industry subsidies.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Didn't know you frequented too.

Good luck with your bill- hope it gets passed.

Perhaps states should focus on climate change legislation within their own districts and states?  I mean, everybody seems to agree that pollution is bad, but nobody really seems to come up with a "one-size fits all" solution.  Maybe one isn't viable right now.  You know-- start from the bottom and work your way up through each level government?

Off-Topic: Perhaps the Presidential candidates didn't attend the "debates" because they knew about the filibuster???

yours,
hapa

--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

I would like the US to lead the UNFCCC negotiations towards a successor to the Kyoto Protocol that embraces 350. James Hansen has said that we must start making substantial progress in this arena within ten years.

That is what #3 aims at, though I admit it is not so clear. That's why I'm taking friendly amendments and comments!

All the best,

Colin Beavan aka No Impact Man

"no more than 350 PPM or better" - the "or better" is redundant (and confusing)

"the 350 PPM compass point" - the compass point metaphor might be useful in explaining the idea, but doesn't make much sense in a bill.

What hardly anyone but political insiders realize is that voting with one's pocketbook is far more important than voting at the polls (the latter is less important due to the lack of real choices), and that politicians react to what their constituents DO, not what they say.  So, if you drive much or otherwise consume greenhouse gas-emitting fuels, you're voting against taking any action on global warming.

That all said, I'd love to see this legislation pass.  My point is that without a hell of a lot more, it's totally meaningless.

no one runs on a straightforward pledge of collective suicide, anymore. those were the days, weren't they.

My very humble sense of the draft resolution is that it may present too many targets for opponents in the recitals, but if your representative and staff are supportive, that's obviously key. Recitals or preambles to resolutions are typically agreed statements of fact. Behind even a simple non-binding resolution relating to climate change policy, there are obviously many loaded issues. Even seemingly established scientific facts will be contested or denied. Introducing the Stern Report invites a cost debate. Referencing IPCC reporting invites a debate about ranges of outcome and uncertainties. International cooperation is another loaded topic.

With this in mind and with the intent of focusing on the "350 ball" and the Hansen paper as much as possible, here is a variation on your resolution. Thank you for your leadership by example; it is a very powerful. Also, my representative is Earl Blumenauer, D. Oregon, who should be interested in sponsoring your resolution:

Sense of Congress resolution:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that United States and international climate change policy must protect human civilization and the environment by stabilizing the  atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at levels that will prevent increases in average global temperature that threaten human civilization and the environment.

Whereas;

Common human activities, including certain forestry and agricultural practices and burning fossil fuels to heat buildings, to generate electricity, and to power motor vehicles, ships and aircraft, have caused significant emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere from human activities have caused and will continue to cause the average global temperature to increase.

Environmental policy is generally intended to protect human health and the environment from unacceptable risks associated with human activities that cause pollution.

The best available climate science identifies unacceptable risks to human health and the environment should atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide remain above 350 parts per million (ppm) for an extended period of time (beyond 2100).

The best available climate science identifies unacceptable risks to human health and the environment should atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide continue to increase significantly above current levels in the near term (within the next 10 to 20 years).

Because the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 387 ppm, compared to a pre-industrial level of approximately 280 ppm, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing at a rate of approximately 2 ppm per year, and the necessary actions to reduce and stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to acceptable levels will take decades to implement, establishing a target atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration against which to measure the efficacy of policies, laws and regulations is a useful early action.

Therefore, be it Resolved;

It is the sense of the House of Representatives that:

Until the best available climate science dictates otherwise, United States and international efforts should be coordinated to reduce and stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at no more than 350 ppm. These coordinated efforts should occur within time frames that will reduce  risks to human health and the environment resulting from human-caused carbon dioxide emissions to acceptable levels.

All the best,

Colin aka No Impact Man