The title of a recently released CBS News article is "Climate Bill: Economy Killer or Job Maker?" The connotation of "economy killer" is VERY negative so we have to assume that the former is true.

The first few sentences are: " Nestled in Ohio's Amish country, Bill Belden's 124-year-old family owned brick company has thrived on the region's rich red clay and shale and cheap energy from abundant coal. Which he's convinced that a climate bill being considered in Congress will end". So Belden is not optimistic.

"A cap-and-trade system, FORCING businesses away from fossil fuels, especially coal, will mean HIGHER ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS COSTS. And LAYOFFS at the Belden Brick Co." The words "forcing", "layoffs" and the phrase "higher electricity and natural gas costs" have negative connotations/implications.

Belden starts off: "We're already under SEVERE economic strain". As if "strain" isn't enough, this "strain" is "severe".

"A life-long Republican, Belden says his criticism of the Democratic-run Congress isn' about politics, but ECONOMICS". Politics is always involved however because this guy is a Republican.

"We've got to compete in the world and to do so, we need low-cost energy". Well, Obama realizes this too and he's doing his best to keep oil and gas prices at reasonable levels. Republicans always seem to have something to complain about these days.

According to Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, "The climate change bill is ALL ABOUT jobs". OK, but this is what all politicians say, BUT how many jobs will this bill ACTUALLY CREATE? Politicians always claim to have the people's best interest at heart and when legislation comes out, they're stuffed with earmarks and pork barrel spending with proposals that have nothing to do with anyone except the politicians who included them.

Brown goes to say: "I see this as an opportunity to make this bill work for manufacturing". Is this yet more rhetoric or is there something concrete/tangible behind these words?

"It's a 30-minute drive up Interstate 77 from Belden's plants to the United Steelworkers' Union office just outside Canton. Former steelworker Joe Holcomb, now a district representative for the union, says that a dozen years ago, the union had 65000 members in the state. Now, it's less than 50000". This is a staggering decrease of more than 23%.

So, what does Holcomb have to say: "If we're going to just put in a bill and say we're going to clean the air, BUT NOT CREATE JOBS, WE'VE ALREADY SEEN THAT HAPPEN" and so it's poinless to do it again. "We've got to do it in a way that's going to bring jobs into this country and not let them get out of here". OK, this sounds obvious, but when we call an American firm, we SHOULD BE talking to someone IN THE UNITED STATES and not some far-flung place like India or CHINA.

According to Tim Timken Jr., chairman of Timken Co., which manufactures bearings for a wide variety of products including cars, locomotives (i.e. steam engines), jetliners and giant wind turbines, "This whole notion that the US is going to lead and set the example BECAUSE IT'S THE MORAL THING TO DO IS FOOLISH". No one "deserves" to lead on their own. Not the US, not India and not CHINA (no matter how much they scream about it).

"These guys have to wake up and realize (that) THEIR JOBS ARE AT STAKE" and we cannot afford to lose jobs at the pace at which we are watching them disappear/get wiped out.

If the bill became law, Timken says "there would some very difficult decisions to be made. QUITE FRANKLY, I HAVE A GLOBAL FOOTPRINT. A quarter of my workforce is in Asia. I've got manufacturing in Europe. SO THESE ARE VERY REAL THREATS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT". This threat is outsourcing (i.e. replacing Americans with cheaper labor from places like Mexico, India and China.

"Donald Opatka, a regional director of the Utility Workers of America, speaks of the need to "transform the energy transmission system" that will produce new jobs and save old ones". "save old ones" should be the priority now because not many jobs will be created in manufacturing nowadays.

"Later, in an interview, Opatka noted the irony of his participation. Many of his members work at coal-burning plants that are the target of this legislation".

Specifically, Opatka said "IT'S A REAL CONFLICT FOR US". BUT IN THE LONG RUN, climate legislation "is going to happen and we can either put our heads in the sand (i.e. run from the truth)...or put our oars in the water (i.e. deal with it)". From this remark, it is clear that Opatka plans to deal with it.

According to Francis German, a grocery worker, "It forces too many things on people" and people don't like being forced.

"Larry Ward Jr., a chef at the Holiday Inn, had no interest in the rally. He says what people in Lima, the town where he grew up, are really talking about is "the same as everywhere - HEALTH CARE". Does anybody else need to be convinced about how critical health care reform is?

"BUT, when asked what he thinks about Congress dealing with climate change, Ward calls it a "crock" and is skeptical about wind and solar energy replacing fossil fuels". So perhaps, this guy is old-fashioned, but here's another negative opinion that President Obama will have to deal with. "skeptical" implies doubt. 

"But Robin Martin, a hotel cashier, SEES CLIMATE CHANGE AS WORRISOME AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AS THE FUTURE". Boy, finally, we have a positive opinion about this proposed legislation and there aren't many of those.

"Mike Knisley, business manager for Local 776 of the United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Service Technicians, describes the area as blue-collar and a mix of industrial plants".

Specifically, Knisley says: "For the most part, people are looking for A COMMON SENSE APPROACH, A BALANCE", as far as climate change is concerned, which is necessary.

Finally, Knisley said: "IF WE WERE IN BETTER ECONOMIC TIMES,   it would be a little bit easier pill to swallow. THE TIMING IS JUST BAD".

So it looks like the opinions on the street are overwhelmingly negative at this point, because people are far more concerned about THE ECONOMY and HEALTH CARE REFORM. So it looks like environmental proposals will have to take a back seat for now. As far as the question is the environmental bill a boom or a bust is concerned, the answer is: for the most part, a BUST.