![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Last Friday was the first time in history that either house of the United States Congress passed a bill containing commitments to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Since then, I've received twelve emails from various organizations touting this as a major victory, with only an occasional caveat that the bill "still needs strengthening in the Senate."
Alone in the crowd, MoveOn.org claimed otherwise: "In fact, the bill repeals a key part of the Clean Air Act and doesn't do nearly enough to shift America to renewable energy—so instead of a boom in solar and wind, the bill locks us into dirty coal power for another generation. . . . During the floor debate last week, conservative Democrats openly bragged that the bill would result in 'increased coal use.' They urged others to support it because the Clean Air Act rollbacks in the bill would stop President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency from setting new rules for global warming pollution." Now, it can be argued that with a cap on carbon emissions, regulation by the EPA becomes redundant. But with the likelihood of loopholes in the complex emissions trading scheme, we would do well to maintain a backup option.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is still looking for ways to establish new grounds for indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without trial, in regular American prisons. The claim is that without this option, Congress will never accept transferring many of the Guantanamo detainees onto U.S. soil. Also, the draft of an executive order to this effect apparently stipulates that "U.S. citizens would not be held in the system" and those who were so detained "would also have the right to legal representation during confinement and access to some of the information that is being used to keep them behind bars. Anyone detained under this order would have a right to challenge his detention before a judge." The question, of course, is whether such challenges would simply be met with claims that the remaining classified evidence, which neither the detainee nor the public will ever see, is sufficient to keep said detainee behind bars for life.
But it's all good, because Democrats finally have a 60-vote majority in the Senate. After all, as every progressive knows, Democratic politicians always do the right thing. </sarcasm>
Alone in the crowd, MoveOn.org claimed otherwise: "In fact, the bill repeals a key part of the Clean Air Act and doesn't do nearly enough to shift America to renewable energy—so instead of a boom in solar and wind, the bill locks us into dirty coal power for another generation. . . . During the floor debate last week, conservative Democrats openly bragged that the bill would result in 'increased coal use.' They urged others to support it because the Clean Air Act rollbacks in the bill would stop President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency from setting new rules for global warming pollution." Now, it can be argued that with a cap on carbon emissions, regulation by the EPA becomes redundant. But with the likelihood of loopholes in the complex emissions trading scheme, we would do well to maintain a backup option.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is still looking for ways to establish new grounds for indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without trial, in regular American prisons. The claim is that without this option, Congress will never accept transferring many of the Guantanamo detainees onto U.S. soil. Also, the draft of an executive order to this effect apparently stipulates that "U.S. citizens would not be held in the system" and those who were so detained "would also have the right to legal representation during confinement and access to some of the information that is being used to keep them behind bars. Anyone detained under this order would have a right to challenge his detention before a judge." The question, of course, is whether such challenges would simply be met with claims that the remaining classified evidence, which neither the detainee nor the public will ever see, is sufficient to keep said detainee behind bars for life.
But it's all good, because Democrats finally have a 60-vote majority in the Senate. After all, as every progressive knows, Democratic politicians always do the right thing. </sarcasm>
