Environmental group counters Perriello attack ad

Just one week after the Republican National Committee released a telelvision ad lambasting Congressman Tom Perriello (D-Ivy) for his vote in favor of the so-called "cap and trade" energy bill in the House, a national environmental advocacy group has bought up air time in the Fifth District to praise Perriello. In the new spot, the League of Conservation Voters hails Perriello for "fighting to make America a global leader in clean energy" and denegrates the RNC ad as "not telling the truth." Passing by a final tally of 219-212, Perriello's vote on the bill was one of only three aye votes by a freshman Democrat from a district won by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in the presidential election.


If Americans have to pay more for energy they will find ways to conserve and ultimately that will reduce pollution. If you don't like this idea as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions what would you suggest ?

Cap and trade is a sham... it will make americans pay twice as much for energy while the chinese fire up a new coal plant every week. The power companies that have the money to put in emissions will get richer and the ones that don't will simply jack up the rates to pay for the carbon credits and at the end of the day the EXACT same amount of pollution will have been spilt. With the economy in a shamble the last thnig every family needs is another 300 buck a month bill so wall street can get rich.

As far as the stimulous package bringing jobs.. so far the only jobs they have brought so far is propping up government jobs for another year.. only to force the taxpayers to cough up more money to keep them two years from now... at the exact same time the federal government will be jacking up taxes to pay back the money they borrowed to fund the stimulous package.

TJ your symbolic gesture at foxfield would still yield no net result other than to clear your mind of guilt.

The fact is that it is probably more efficient for people to just throw the trash on the ground, let the workers sweep it all at onec and put it directly into the truck instead of filling 500 plastic bags (that those same workers would then collect and throw into the truck anyway)

As far as evolution goes.. 99% of people accept evolution.. we see it, when you mix a white girl from Kansas and a Black man from kenya you get a president named Obama.. we get it.. our question for all of those who mock us is.. where did the FIRST organsism come from?

So let's start with Foxfield and people not throwing trash--that's just the point if you don't start someone you never will. There is a subset of the population who will never believe in global warming just as there are those who will never believe in evolution. It's a waste of time to try and convince them. We all have to look at the scientists who are supporting global warming and decide if they are credible or are the handful against it to be believed. I have made up my mind to believe that the earth is warming as a result of our energy use and am willing to do something about it. Perriello and Obama have made a start and hopefully this effort will increase and spread around the world with America once again a leader.

That commercial says nothing.
What is the "League of Conservation Voters" and who finances it? There was very little interest in global climate warming change until the British said "No" to additional nuclear plants. Six months later the nuclear energy proponents started throwing grant money about and funding regional conferences and eventually global conventions. Now, there's tons of money in this "crisis." If you want to see this crisis dissapate fast, wait until there's a crisis in the global currency change from the dollar.
Everybody knows between each Ice Age, the last one being about 11,000 years ago, the climate changes.

Another bubble begins. The ones screaming will make billions and the little folk will be left holding the empty green bag. History does repeat itself.

Cville Eye, you obviously are a scientific expect on this, and I'm eagerly awaiting your article on the myth of global warming in the next issue of the journal Nature.

Tortfreezer... They will never lose their competitive edge through taxation.. there are international trade laws and treaties that stop it from happening. The Chinese love wla mart.. they are Chinas biggest aggregate customer... (after loaning the US money of course)

Just look at California... they forced contractors to put catlyitic converters on off road eqipment and now they cannot use the equipment off road because the exhaust is too hot and will start forest fires... but the state still mandates that they clear the fire roads...

The state is paying state contractors with IOU's and mandating that the contractors pay the wotholding tax in real money....

As goes California so goes the rest of the country...

obammysmammy: The only problem with cap and trade is it doesn' t tax the products made in countries not accepting it. And I do not think that people in India actually want to pollute as much as oyu think. Even the Chinese are beginning to revolt. Chinese hate WalMart. Poor societies rely on rich societies to buy their crap. Once the competitive advantage is gone through taxing , they will start to play.

Cap and trade is a sham, but everything else smammy says is defeatist rationalization. as to what we should do: we should add an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing our right to environment. products in this country must be produced without poisoning the citizenry. it is critical that such an amendment specifically allows a "balancing" tax that our nation can levy on all imports that do not meet this standard. you want to make stuff (including energy) while poisoning the planet? well its not going to have a competitive advantage over more expensive and responsible methods of production. will everything cost more? YES! will we all make do with less? YES! is that OK? yes! the fallacies of economies of scale (which only work if we subsidize them with our health and our children's well being) will be exposed. it is not better for our economy that our food industry employs fewer people. it is not in the best interests of our nation that most consumer good are not built to be repaired, etc. small is beautiful. we could be making our decent livings as farmers, tailors, cobblers, repairmen, instead of as peons kept jogging on a treadmill by our own greed and short sightedness. as long as we make our highest priority the support of an unsustainable system of continuous growth (and short term profits concentrated at the very top of the earning pyramid), we undermine true free market capitalism and promote misguided attempts at government regulated socialism. our birthright is striving for a balance between human rights and property rights - we have abandoned this quest and we are killing our grandchildren by Sh**ting where we sleep - all so we can have 20 shirts instead of 5 and time to get fat and watch tv instead of push mowing our lawns or sweeping our houses. yes - it should be prohibitively expensive to get our produce from California and our clothes from slaves in China. Yes, our communities should get more of our paychecks instead of the IRS and multinational corporations - because our food, clothes and appliances are made here and cost more. Greed, laziness (mental and physical) and materialism will take their toll unless we realize that a free market economy can only function sustainably when human rights (including the right to environment) are valued above all else and the economy functions under that umbrella. god gave is dominion over the earth and we are proving that we are not courageous enough (or wise enough)to be worthy of that blessing. We are building a monument to fear and greed and human cleverness instead of courage and brotherhood and wisdom. enjoy the ride...

Goodeville no more --I predict that Perriello will have no trouble winning this district next time around. Just watch the stimulus money pour into Southside: jobs, jobs, jobs

first off... all of the oil coal and natural gas will be consumed.. either in america or in china.. and the rest of the world. The only variable is over what time period.If we conserve and lower demand it will lower the price elsewhere and they will get the benefits of all that energy. The emmision controls we put in place will be spit in a hurricane compared to the rest of the world. The "effects" of global warming are way overblown. If it warms up in Michigan than people will WANT to move there. Increased snow melt ADDS more fresh water for crops and drink. In many parts of the world they throw sand on the snow so that it will melt faster. If the snow melts then the crop line will grow north. Sounds like a plan to me.

There are 100 million cattle in this country that produce 18% of greenhouse gases.

In 1860 there were 600 million buffalo before we decimated them. So how come we didn't have global warming with 6 times as many methane producing animals around?(108% of today?)

Mt st helens did more air pollution in 1980 then all cars combined since their inception.

The first tieng that needs to be done is to truly get a realisic grip on the effects and then decide how to deal with the inevitable.

If you think the BILLIONS of people in the developing world are going to go without elctricity, a/c and cars in their countries in order to save polar bears you are sadly mistaken.(and polar bears are not at risk.. google it)

The US efforts to save the planet is about as effective as a couple of people at foxfield NOT dropping their trash and then saying they are saving the place from litter.

One suggestion to help would be to stop al gore from lying which causes tax money to be wasted on worthless projects.