The Lieberman- McCain Climate Stewardship Act that was drafted by senators Joseph Lieberman and John McCain in 2003 was rejected by the US Senate on October 30th of that year. The Act proposed a greenhouse gas emission limit on any "entity that... annually emitted more than 10,000 metric tons of [greenhouse gases]." There would be, however, some exemptions to these restrictions. The emissions of residential and agricultural areas would not be restricted, therefore making this proposal a very obtainable goal that would not threaten American residential life or agricultural methods. Each entity would report its emission amount to an EPA administrator, who would create a National Greenhouse Gas Database to organize the national level of hazardous emissions. "Any covered entity not meeting its emissions limits would be fined for each ton of GHGs (greenhouse gases) over the limit at the rate of three times the market value of a ton of GHG," <http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/s_139_summary.cfm>.
This act would effectively cut the emission of fossil fuels produced by industries, factories, and other facilities without compromising the comfort of the traditional American home. The act also would ensure the stability of agriculture, so what reasons could senators find that are influential enough to reject the entire proposal? The Washington Post found that the senators who opposed the bill did so "because it would require 'deep and immediate cuts in fossil fuel use' to meet an 'arbitrary' goal and would drive up home utility bills and gasoline prices." Although the argument held firmly enough to oppose the bill, I do not find it stable enough. The goal to which this senator is referring would not be at all "arbitrary" if bills such as these weren't rejected each time they were proposed! if we would actually begin to take action in reducing the amount of national emission, the goal would eventually be obtained as Americans became more used to a less polluting lifestyle. Since the government cannot agree on a single plan, they should revise the plan which they feel carries the least amount of cons, and decide how much sacrifice the nation can afford in order to preserve the earth on which we live. Perhaps, since they are not satisfied with the work of others, they can brainstorm to create an efficient plan to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases this nation emits, before it is too late.