Yesterday's climate blog highlights

Grist list five compelling reasons why a comprehensive climate and energy plan is superior to an energy-only bill.

“Anyone contemplating supporting energy-only over a comprehensive bill should bear these facts in mind. And realize that whether your top priority is national security, deficit reduction, job creation, or pollution reduction, a comprehensive bill clean energy and climate bill does a lot more for our country.”

E2 has President Obama’s reactions to the Murkowski resolution. The White House said that the resolution would

"increase the Nation’s dependence on oil and other fossil fuels and block efforts to cut pollution that threatens our health and well-being.”

The statement says that:

“Obama’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the measure.”

Green also has the story of how the White House is less than pleased with the Murkowski resolution.

“[The] White House says that if the resolution, scheduled for debate and a vote on Thursday, reaches President Obama’s desk, his advisers will recommend that he veto it. That’s what is known as a veto threat and in this case it is not a bluff."

This entry was posted in Climate Change Legislation, News, Science. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • About this blog

    Expert to expert commentary on the science, law and economics of climate change.

  • Get blog posts by email

    Subscribe via RSS

  • Meet The Bloggers

    Megan CeronskyMegan Ceronsky
    Attorney

    Nat KeohaneNat Keohane
    Vice President for International Climate

    Ilissa Ocko
    High Meadows Fellow, Office of Chief Scientist

    Peter Zalzal
    Staff Attorney

    Gernot Wagner
    Senior Economist

    Graham McCahan
    Attorney

    Mandy Warner
    Climate & Air Policy Specialist

    Pamela Campos
    Attorney

    Kritee
    High Meadows Scientist

  • Posts by topic

  • Archives