WASHINGTON – Top Obama administration officials are looking to make their case before the Senate for aggressive action to combat climate change, even as Republicans show no sign of softening their dislike of a Democratic bill that would dramatically cut heat-trapping pollution.
Senate Democrats have all but abandoned the likelihood of getting a climate bill passed this year, although they hoped that they could show some progress at a Senate hearing on the issue — such as clearing a bill out of a key committee — in advance of international climate negotiations in Denmark in December.
Tuesday's hearing is the first of three planned by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on the bill introduced last month and recently revised and updated with additional details.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the leading sponsor of the Democrats' climate bill, said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Monday and said it was urgent for the United States to show "some movement in the Senate" on restricting greenhouse gases ahead of the upcoming talks in Copenhagen on international efforts to combat global warming.
"We're just going to keep pressing on, we're going to keep working. We're going to do as much as we can," Kerry said after meeting with Reid. Kerry acknowledged that the Senate's tight schedule and heavy focus on health care has made action on climate difficult.
The White House has made clear its support for the 900-page Democratic bill that would cut greenhouse gases by 80 percent over the next 40 years. It was sending three Cabinet secretaries and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency to the Senate hearing in hopes of persuading some wavering senators to support the measure.
Similar to a House-passed bill, the legislation would cap greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and large industrial facilities. Polluters would have to obtain emission permits, and the number of permits would be ratcheted down gradually to achieve the reductions. To ease the transition, polluters would be able to buy and sell allowances as necessary to meet the government-imposed caps.
Republicans have denounced the so-called cap-and-trade approach as a massive energy tax.
Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the committee's ranking Republican, said in an interview Monday that he expects Democrats to push the bill through the committee, but that it won't pass the Senate. Still, he said he and the other six GOP committee members are united in wanting to see additional information on the cost of the legislation beyond a cursory analysis provided by the EPA in a report released by Boxer late Friday night.
The EPA said that the Senate bill is so similar to the House-passed bill that the economic impact would likely be the same — between $80 and $100 in additional energy costs a year for an average household. Critics of the bill argue the costs would be much higher.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a member of the committee, told reporters Monday that the cap-and-trade approach "is fundamentally flawed" and would raise energy prices and cost jobs. Instead Alexander called for 100 new nuclear power reactors to be built, incentives to make half the country's cars run on electricity and expanded natural gas development.
Meanwhile on Monday, Boxer turned to the Internet and YouTube to plead for action to combat global warming. The video, nearly a minute-and-half long, features the senator with her 10-month-old grandson, Sawyer, interspersed with images of congested highways, flooding from Hurricane Katrina and ice chunks falling off glaciers.
"A lot of people ask me `Why does this matter?'" she says in the video. "Right here. This is a beautiful grandchild of mine and it is his world that I worry about and we all should worry about."
Officials to testify are Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Maybe this would be better for the climate change thread but I thought the politics of this specific bill might merit its own thread. If people disagree let me know and I'll merge them.
Actually what I really wanted was to post this GoRemy video I found last night ;)
"Cap and trade" should be known as "rape and pillage." I recommend the Capital One marketing team as the official spokespersons for it -- "what's in your wallet?" ("give it over.")
The earth is cooling but we're going to pretend it is warming and use that as an excuse to steal all your money, end manufacturing jobs in this country, and make the carbon traders filthy rich.
I suspect I can't discuss this subject entirely rationally. :lol:
X
10-27-09, 11:24 AM
The earth is cooling but we're going to pretend it is warming and use that as an excuse to steal all your money, end manufacturing jobs in this country, and make the carbon traders filthy rich.That's why we're fighting "climate change" now. Doesn't matter which direction.
for aggressive action to combat climate changeIt only took about 20 years for cooling fears to become warming fears. Wait a decade or so and we'll hear how man is causing the earth to cool and we'll starve to death if we don't stop it.
kvrdave
10-27-09, 12:01 PM
Enron was a major supporter of Cap and Trade type legislation. That should tell everyone something. It will all be about the trading and selling of carbon credits which will raise the price of absolutely everything.
I swear that Climate Change wackos are damn near exactly like Young Earth Creationists in their approach and seal.
classicman2
10-27-09, 12:54 PM
Is zeal the word you're looking for? :)
kvrdave
10-27-09, 01:04 PM
:lol: yes, it was.
arminius
10-27-09, 01:42 PM
Come on, It's the perfect product. No manufacturing costs, hell, no overhead whatsoever. Pure profit and it will probably be a few months before it destroys the real companies making stuff people want.
Oh and it's the perfect "green" product. It does not pollute and it will help start getting rid of those pesky humans.
Dr Mabuse
10-27-09, 01:52 PM
That people are foolish enough to fall for this 'Cap & Trade' nonsense.
This will be more destructive than anyone thinks if it passes.
nemein
10-27-09, 02:14 PM
This will be more destructive than anyone thinks if it passes.
That would be impressive considering how destructive I think it is going to be already ;)
classicman2
10-27-09, 03:30 PM
I've heard estimates of how much it will cost he average American family in utility bills ranging from $14 to $180 per month.
I wonder how much it would actually be?
orangecrush
10-27-09, 03:56 PM
I've heard estimates of how much it will cost he average American family in utility bills ranging from $14 to $180 per month.
I wonder how much it would actually be?Any amount over $0 is too much in my book. It is like saying we are going to bet big that the weather man's prediction of rain next week is correct. Except this weather man has been wrong 100% of the time in his past predictions.
Superboy
10-27-09, 04:15 PM
Enron was a major supporter of Cap and Trade type legislation. That should tell everyone something. It will all be about the trading and selling of carbon credits which will raise the price of absolutely everything.
I swear that Climate Change wackos are damn near exactly like Young Earth Creationists in their approach and seal.
Like you said before... it's only a matter of time before we have another bubble built on the trade of financial instruments.
DeputyDave
10-27-09, 10:58 PM
I would like to see a single Democrat deffend Obama on this. Anyone? Anyone?
Even if I were liberal about everything else (and I am very liberal about many things), this alone would be enough to make me vote against the Dems everytime. It is that important.
JasonF
10-28-09, 01:14 AM
I would like to see a single Democrat deffend Obama on this. Anyone? Anyone?
If you believe in anthrogenic global warming (AGW), and if you believe that AGW has negative effects, then every action that contributes to AGW has a negative externality -- that is, my factory that emits CO2 is causing negative effects on society at large, but I only care to the extent that those negative effects are being felt by me. The way to make me care about the negative effects is to cause me to internalize them -- make me pay something equivalent to the magnitude of the negative effects and I will properly weigh the negative effects against the associated benefits. That's what cap and trade does -- it says that we, as a society, need to cap our CO2 emissions at X, and allows us to trade amongst ourselves in order to allocate those X emissions as efficiently as we allocate any other scarce resource.
It's an inherently conservative solution to the problem of AGW -- you privatize the right to pollute and let the would-be polluters bargain away in a straightforward application of the Coase Theorem.
Of course, all of this is premised on the idea of AGW with deleterious effects. If you don't believe AGW exists, or you believe it does but that it does not have negative consequences, then of course you will be opposed to cap and trade.
DeputyDave
10-28-09, 01:24 AM
Of course, all of this is premised on the idea of AGW with deleterious effects. If you don't believe AGW exists, or you believe it does but that it does not have negative consequences, then of course you will be opposed to cap and trade.
That is exactly the point. If you don't believe Jesus Christ is your savior and that the Bible is his holy word and law then you will not oppose gay marriage or abortion.
To put it a different way: why would you pass a law that will irreparably damage the American economy (even more) when the science behind it is faulty and being disproven daily.
You still never defended it; you only gave me reasons why an idiot would defend it. Do you believe that Cap and Trade will help global warming and if you do not how can you support the man pushing it? Obama is either a drooling idiot, an insane zealot, or self serving liar pushing a hidden agenda. There is not another choice.
kvrdave
10-28-09, 01:33 AM
Here is the problem if AGW exists. We are a global society and if we do things that "save the planet" while others don't, then our economy is severely hurt by imposing additional rules that make it harder for us to produce goods at a competitive price, while driving up our energy costs.
But when you look at Kyoto and all the other big treaties, they don't actually want to take care of the problem, they want the evil US (and a few others) to pay for it all while excusing others. IF they truly wanted to combat a problem, they wouldn't go after countries (and let some off) but would go after industries worldwide. For example, they would say, "all aluminum smelters built in the world from now on must meet these standards." If it is really about polution and saving the planet, that is what you would do. If, OTOH, it is about global redistribution of wealth and punishment of those that have more, you would only tell certain countries that their hands are tied, while excusing others. Additionally, if that were your goal, you would build a model in which everything could be explained and was a result of AGW. If temps go up, it confirms the model, if they go down, it confirms the model, if polar bears are on the rise, it confirms the model, if they aren't, it confirms the model.
Then you have science in your corner, so long as we repeat the mantra, and we only have to screw a few countries, and do absolutely nothing about any AGW that might actually exist, because it is not the true motive behind what is proposed.
And here locally, it is a gold mine if you are the government. They will rake in the bucks, say they are doing it to the evil corporations, all the while we all pay for it.
kvrdave
10-28-09, 01:36 AM
That is exactly the point. If you don't believe Jesus Christ is your savior and that the Bible is his holy word and law then you will not oppose gay marriage or abortion.
Point made, but I know several atheists who are very opposed to gay marriage. Don't know about abortion.
OldDude
10-28-09, 08:29 AM
If you believe in anthrogenic global warming (AGW), and if you believe that AGW has negative effects,
IF I believed pigs could fly, I wouldn't need airplanes, I'd just hop on my pig.
If I believed AGW, I'd have to offer an explanation for why the earth has been cooling for the last few years. This would force me to confront the fact that the models don't work well (actually, don't work for shit) and therefore their predictions can't be trusted. Apparently the temperature can go up or down while the CO2 goes up and up. Given how long the CO2 has been going up, and by how much, there are no temperature trends, sea levels, ice packs, etc that demonstrate good correlation (unless you fake the data, several instances of which movielib has reported here -- think "hockey stick.").
Me, when I am asked to believe the unbelievable, I go atheist. Show me the data. If the data contradicts the theory, the theory is gone.
Very honestly, the global warmists are the Bernie Madoff's of the world of meteorology and the whole purpose is not to save the earth but to set up a Ponzi scheme.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si-htSSHxsE
I saw that a while ago and I think I posted it in the global warming thread. But I can't find it by a search and I'm not going to wade through it all. And I may not have posted it.
Anyway, we also have this "fix" of a British government commercial:
"Cap and trade" should be known as "rape and pillage."
I've been calling it ration'n'tax.
Or, the House bill (Waxman/Markey): Taxman/Malarkey.
Or, the Senate bill (Kerry/Boxer): Scary/Toxic.
movielib
10-28-09, 09:02 AM
If you believe in anthrogenic global warming (AGW), and if you believe that AGW has negative effects, then every action that contributes to AGW has a negative externality -- that is, my factory that emits CO2 is causing negative effects on society at large, but I only care to the extent that those negative effects are being felt by me. The way to make me care about the negative effects is to cause me to internalize them -- make me pay something equivalent to the magnitude of the negative effects and I will properly weigh the negative effects against the associated benefits. That's what cap and trade does -- it says that we, as a society, need to cap our CO2 emissions at X, and allows us to trade amongst ourselves in order to allocate those X emissions as efficiently as we allocate any other scarce resource.
It's an inherently conservative solution to the problem of AGW -- you privatize the right to pollute and let the would-be polluters bargain away in a straightforward application of the Coase Theorem.
Of course, all of this is premised on the idea of AGW with deleterious effects. If you don't believe AGW exists, or you believe it does but that it does not have negative consequences, then of course you will be opposed to cap and trade.
I think it's being established (although the alarmists won't admit it) that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is no more than .5ºC for a doubling of CO2 (including the negative feedbacks). Even starting at the "preindustrial" level of 280ppm, two doublings (to 1120ppm) would result in only a 1.0ºC rise (superimposed on natural variability), of which we've already had about .3ºC leaving .7ºC to go, which even alarmists can't claim is very "dangerous." And we will never get to 1120ppm which would, even if we did, take centuries. There probably isn't enough carbon for us to burn to get there and the idea we won't have something else (we already have nuclear power although the greenies oppose that) before then goes against all previous human experience.
And just think, to get to 1.5ºC increase (still not very scary) we need to get to 2240ppm of CO2.
orangecrush
10-28-09, 11:14 AM
That is exactly the point. If you don't believe Jesus Christ is your savior and that the Bible is his holy word and law then you will not oppose gay marriage or abortion.
To put it a different way: why would you pass a law that will irreparably damage the American economy (even more) when the science behind it is faulty and being disproven daily.
You still never defended it; you only gave me reasons why an idiot would defend it. Do you believe that Cap and Trade will help global warming and if you do not how can you support the man pushing it? Obama is either a drooling idiot, an insane zealot, or self serving liar pushing a hidden agenda. There is not another choice.I thought JasonF did a pretty good job of defending it. The whole thing hinges on CAGW. If you accept that as fact, then we need to do something about it. Cap and trade is by far the best idea for solving the problem of carbon emissions (which I agree, doesn't exist).
JasonF
10-28-09, 01:56 PM
Obama is either a drooling idiot, an insane zealot, or self serving liar pushing a hidden agenda. There is not another choice.
The other choice is that perhaps -- just perhaps, mind you -- he genuinely believes that CAGW is a real threat and believes we should be doing something to combat it? Contrary to your assertions -- as vehement as they are -- one does not need to be a drooling idiot, an insane zealot, or a self-serving liar to believe in the threat of CAGW.
It's also worth noting that the facts are what they are with respect to CAGW.
Either global temperatures are trending upward or they are not.
If so, either human activity is contributing to that or it is not.
If so, either that contribution is significant or it is not.
If global temperatures are trending up, either that may have catastrophic consequences or it will not.
Some things are up for debate. You and I can argue about what constitutes a significant contribution to global temperature changes. You may think that if human activity is responsible for less than 2 degrees of change, it is not significant, wheras I may think that anything more than half a degree is significant. That's subjective, and we can argue about it. Likewise, you may think that the extinction of a single climate-sensitive species is catastrophic, wheras I may think it's not. Again, the definition of catastophic is open to debate.
What is not open to debate is the data. It is a scientifically determinable fact as to what the mean global temperatures are. It is a scientifically determinable fact as to what man's CO2 output is. It is a scientifically determinable fact as to what effects a given level of CO2 will have on global temperatures.
With respect to that last point (and probably the other points), it's important to note that there is disagreement on exactly what effects a given level of CO2 will have on global warming. Different scientists have different theories, and ultimately, some of those theories will be proven right and some will be proven wrong. But the laws of physics do not change based on what is politically or economically feasible.
Which is why I by and large stay out of movielib's thread. It's a lot of political debate about scientific truths, and I don't have the science background to know which assessments of the data are accurate and which are not (nor do most of the other posters around here).
So back to cap and trade: Some scientists believe there is a physical problem which requires a solution; the politicians who have been persuaded by those scientists have proposed a political and economic solution to that physical problem. Other scientists disagree. Calling the people who have been persuaded by the former group of scientists idiots, or zealots, or liars won't change the fact of who is right and who is wrong. And if the former group of scientists are right, then the political and economic solution proposed seems like a good and sensible one.
kvrdave
10-28-09, 02:00 PM
Satan put it here to test us. It's the same logic used by those that believe the universe is 6,000 years old, and the science is just as good.
orangecrush
10-28-09, 02:13 PM
The other choice is that perhaps -- just perhaps, mind you -- he genuinely believes that CAGW is a real threat and believes we should be doing something to combat it? Contrary to your assertions -- as vehement as they are -- one does not need to be a drooling idiot, an insane zealot, or a self-serving liar to believe in the threat of CAGW.
It's also worth noting that the facts are what they are with respect to CAGW.
Either global temperatures are trending upward or they are not.
If so, either human activity is contributing to that or it is not.
If so, either that contribution is significant or it is not.
If global temperatures are trending up, either that may have catastrophic consequences or it will not.
Some things are up for debate. You and I can argue about what constitutes a significant contribution to global temperature changes. You may think that if human activity is responsible for less than 2 degrees of change, it is not significant, wheras I may think that anything more than half a degree is significant. That's subjective, and we can argue about it. Likewise, you may think that the extinction of a single climate-sensitive species is catastrophic, wheras I may think it's not. Again, the definition of catastophic is open to debate.
What is not open to debate is the data. It is a scientifically determinable fact as to what the mean global temperatures are. It is a scientifically determinable fact as to what man's CO2 output is. It is a scientifically determinable fact as to what effects a given level of CO2 will have on global temperatures.
With respect to that last point (and probably the other points), it's important to note that there is disagreement on exactly what effects a given level of CO2 will have on global warming. Different scientists have different theories, and ultimately, some of those theories will be proven right and some will be proven wrong. But the laws of physics do not change based on what is politically or economically feasible.
Which is why I by and large stay out of movielib's thread. It's a lot of political debate about scientific truths, and I don't have the science background to know which assessments of the data are accurate and which are not (nor do most of the other posters around here).
So back to cap and trade: Some scientists believe there is a physical problem which requires a solution; the politicians who have been persuaded by those scientists have proposed a political and economic solution to that physical problem. Other scientists disagree. Calling the people who have been persuaded by the former group of scientists idiots, or zealots, or liars won't change the fact of who is right and who is wrong. And if the former group of scientists are right, then the political and economic solution proposed seems like a good and sensible one.Have you read SuperFreakonomics? They have a chapter on simple and inexpensive solutions to problems w/ a lot of time devoted to global warming. They spoke with a few scientists who think it is a big problem, but feel like there is a lot of wrong information out in the public. (It probably helped that they also point out that car seats are mostly overrated - something my wife and I have argued about a few times). I found it to be over all pretty good and informative. I am no where near as knowledgeable as OldDude and movielib though, so it is possible everything they had to say was crap. :shrug:
wishbone
10-28-09, 02:20 PM
JasonF, the problem is that Waxman-Markey has many provisions and loopholes (http://www.cejournal.net/?p=1901) in it and it will not address the issues mentioned.
JasonF
10-28-09, 02:33 PM
Have you read SuperFreakonomics? They have a chapter on simple and inexpensive solutions to problems w/ a lot of time devoted to global warming. They spoke with a few scientists who think it is a big problem, but feel like there is a lot of wrong information out in the public. (It probably helped that they also point out that car seats are mostly overrated - something my wife and I have argued about a few times). I found it to be over all pretty good and informative. I am no where near as knowledgeable as OldDude and movielib though, so it is possible everything they had to say was crap. :shrug:
I haven't read it, but I have seen some of the controversy over whether the authors misquoted Glen Caldeira, misunderstood solar energy technology, and generally made a hash of things. Here's a good summary of some of the criticism.
They actually come in all sorts of colors, but blue is the most common.
JasonF
10-28-09, 02:35 PM
JasonF, the problem is that Waxman-Markey has many provisions and loopholes (http://www.cejournal.net/?p=1901) in it and it will not address the issues mentioned.
Thanks for the link. I should be clear -- my explanation of why cap-and-trade would be a good idea if you accept the premise of CAGW wasn't in reference to any particular cap-and-trade proposal. I don't know enough about Waxman-Markey to know if it would be a good implementation of the idea or a bad implementation of the idea (your link certainly makes it sounds like it would be a bad implementation of the idea).
movielib
10-28-09, 02:38 PM
Have you read SuperFreakonomics? They have a chapter on simple and inexpensive solutions to problems w/ a lot of time devoted to global warming. They spoke with a few scientists who think it is a big problem, but feel like there is a lot of wrong information out in the public. (It probably helped that they also point out that car seats are mostly overrated - something my wife and I have argued about a few times). I found it to be over all pretty good and informative. I am no where near as knowledgeable as OldDude and movielib though, so it is possible everything they had to say was crap. :shrug:
I read the chapter and commented in the GW thread. I actually don't think too highly of much of what they say.
orangecrush
10-28-09, 02:46 PM
I haven't read it, but I have seen some of the controversy over whether the authors misquoted Glen Caldeira, misunderstood solar energy technology, and generally made a hash of things. Here's a good summary of some of the criticism.
They actually come in all sorts of colors, but blue is the most common.I'll try to remember to check out the blog when I get home. I know there was a lot of controversy with the first book (especially the abortion lead to less crime claim) came out. A lot of that criticism back then was unfounded IMO. They really seem to favor bioengineering as a solution. What I mostly took away from the chapter is that often times large problems which seem nearly impossible to understand, let alone fix, are solved with very simple solutions that come out of left field. It is important to make sure that we focus on solutions that solve the problem while minimizing unintended consequences as much as possible. I only brought the book up because I have been listening to it the last couple of days and really enjoy it. If you liked the first book, you will probably like this one too.
orangecrush
10-28-09, 02:47 PM
I read the chapter and commented in the GW thread. I actually don't think too highly of much of what they say.OK JasonF, you can ignore my comments. ;)
kvrdave
10-28-09, 03:01 PM
Have you read SuperFreakonomics? They have a chapter on simple and inexpensive solutions to problems w/ a lot of time devoted to global warming. They spoke with a few scientists who think it is a big problem, but feel like there is a lot of wrong information out in the public. (It probably helped that they also point out that car seats are mostly overrated - something my wife and I have argued about a few times). I found it to be over all pretty good and informative. I am no where near as knowledgeable as OldDude and movielib though, so it is possible everything they had to say was crap. :shrug:
What would you prefer to sit on in your car?
Red Dog
10-28-09, 03:10 PM
Paul Krugman went apeshit over the global warming chapter in Superfreakonomics so that tells me it should be very good.
dork
10-28-09, 03:43 PM
Cap and trade is by far the best idea for solving the problem of carbon emissions
No, that would be a carbon tax.
orangecrush
10-28-09, 03:44 PM
What would you prefer to sit on in your car?I meant to say toddler car seats. They looked at data that suggested that toddler car seats are no more effective at saving kids lives than seat belts for kids over 2 years of age. They also conducted a crash test which also said as much.
orangecrush
10-28-09, 03:47 PM
No, that would be a carbon tax.If the purpose is to limit carbon emissions to a specific level, I disagree. Though, I favor neither choice as I think that purpose is not worth pursuing.
movielib
10-28-09, 04:16 PM
Paul Krugman went apeshit over the global warming chapter in Superfreakonomics so that tells me it should be very good.
True but as a skeptic, I don't think much of it either. Not completely for the same reasons.
kvrdave
10-28-09, 04:38 PM
I meant to say toddler car seats. They looked at data that suggested that toddler car seats are no more effective at saving kids lives than seat belts for kids over 2 years of age. They also conducted a crash test which also said as much.
;lol: That makes more sense.
Dr Mabuse
10-28-09, 04:40 PM
What would you prefer to sit on in your car?
Stacks of money?
Piles of blow?
The mind boggles at such an open-ended question.
DeputyDave
10-28-09, 06:01 PM
The other choice is that perhaps -- just perhaps, mind you -- he genuinely believes that CAGW is a real threat and believes we should be doing something to combat it? Contrary to your assertions -- as vehement as they are -- one does not need to be a drooling idiot, an insane zealot, or a self-serving liar to believe in the threat of CAGW.
Although I am exaggerating for effect it is my real opinion (and I'm sorry if anyone here is insulted). I truly believe that anyone who now suggests drastic, life altering, economic changes due to AGW is either stupid, crazy (in the "end of the world" Art Bell kind of way), or liar with an agenda (here would be Obama).
You still haven't said whether you believe this will do ANY good. In fact no one here has defended it. You have given plenty of reasons why a believer might defend it. But that would be like me, as an atheist, explaining why a Christian might give all of his money (leaving his family broke and destitute) to an evangelical preacher.
The simple fact is that if you don’t believe in the global warming theory (and that man can reverse it) then there is no way you can support this. I further go on to say that this will have such drastic effects on Americans that there would be no way you can still support this administration for being behind it. Are people so ideologically blinded by Obama that they can’t even be honest? I am not afraid to admit that even though I voted for Bush I grew to loath his policies, and he didn’t damage the economy 1/100th as much as this could.
Blade
10-28-09, 07:40 PM
So back to cap and trade: Some scientists believe there is a physical problem which requires a solution; the politicians who have been persuaded by those scientists ....
I think the concern on this point is that a lot of the politicians who are for this have been convinced by activists, not scientists. I would like to believe politicians are going on more than Al Gore's Earth in the Balance, but I'm doubtful.
dork
10-28-09, 08:17 PM
I think the concern on this point is that a lot of the politicians who are for this have been convinced by activists, not scientists.
Just like a lot of the "skeptics" have been convinced by coal industry press releases. What are you gonna do.
Dr Mabuse
10-28-09, 08:41 PM
Just keep on livin'?
movielib
10-28-09, 09:10 PM
Just like a lot of the "skeptics" have been convinced by coal industry press releases. What are you gonna do.
Yeah, that's it.
DeputyDave
10-28-09, 10:18 PM
Just like a lot of the "skeptics" have been convinced by coal industry press releases. What are you gonna do.
-rolleyes-
orangecrush
10-29-09, 09:56 AM
Just like a lot of the "skeptics" have been convinced by coal industry press releases. What are you gonna do.I'm going to take OldDude and movielib's word for it. They make convincing arguments and seem able to defend their position extreamly well without resorting to ridiculous hyperbole. Also, in the absence of solid observed evidence of CAGW, I will choose to ignore computer models which have just about always failed to make a correct prediction about the past or future climate changes.
OldDude
10-29-09, 10:46 AM
Damn, I thought I had brought quite a bit hyperbole to bear in my attack on cap and trade. :lol:
I do, however, try to be objective on climate change. The science isn't really settled, skeptics can't model climate much better than warmists. The only thing you can say is that most skeptics are willing to consider ALL the data, while warmists have a track record of editing out whatever disagrees with their views.
Birrman54
10-29-09, 11:14 AM
Regardless if CAGW is 'real', drastic CO2 emissions are still an inefficient and expensive way to combat it.
Of course limiting emissions does provide government the most potential power and authority, so it's not surprising why it gets the support.
movielib
10-29-09, 11:30 AM
Regardless if CAGW is 'real', drastic CO2 emissions are still an inefficient and expensive way to combat it.
Of course limiting emissions does provide government the most potential power and authority, so it's not surprising why it gets the support.
But John Kerry, co-author of the Scary/Toxic bill says cap'n'trade isn't a government run program. Being the co-author, he should know.
Kerry Is Very Confused on Cap-and-Trade
by William Yeatman
October 28, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
When Senator John Kerry released a draft of S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, he told reporters, “I don’t know what cap-and-trade means.” That was a pretty strange thing to say, seeing as how he wrote the legislation, and its centerpiece is a cap-and-trade energy rationing scheme.
In the month since, it doesn’t seem as though Kerry bothered to learn anything about the bill he supposedly wrote. Yesterday he told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that a cap-and-trade “is not a government-run program.” Huh?!?
Perhaps the truth is too damaging politically for the Senator to countenance, so I’ll go ahead and define a cap-and-trade for you: It’s an energy rationing scheme designed to raise the price of hydrocarbon fuels that account for 85% of America’s energy. That is, it’s an energy tax.
kvrdave
10-29-09, 11:59 AM
Damn, I thought I had brought quite a bit hyperbole to bear in my attack on cap and trade. :lol:
I brought a million times more.
arminius
10-29-09, 12:42 PM
Just like a lot of the "skeptics" have been convinced by coal industry press releases. What are you gonna do.
Ah yes the coal industry. Wait, I can't remember the last time they had a press release.
Dr Mabuse
10-30-09, 06:39 PM
Ah yes the coal industry. Wait, I can't remember the last time they had a press release.
:lol:
I was flipping channels last night past MSNBC and paused on Maddow for maybe a minute. She and some guest were blaming everything on "coal industry propaganda" as to why people were starting to lose faith in CAGW, be skeptical and the like. So apparently on the liberal left this is the new hot talking point.
I laughed and laughed at dork as I watched.
dork
10-30-09, 09:39 PM
Ah yes the coal industry. Wait, I can't remember the last time they had a press release.
Maybe you're not looking in the right places. Coal being not quite as glamorous as it used to be, the industry has chosen to rebrand itself with more friendly-sounding product lines such as Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, Center for Energy and Economic Development, and Patrick J. Michaels.
DeputyDave
10-30-09, 10:43 PM
Maybe you're not looking in the right places. Coal being not quite as glamorous as it used to be, the industry has chosen to rebrand itself with more friendly-sounding product lines such as Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, Center for Energy and Economic Development, and Patrick J. Michaels.
Who is pumping more money into propaganda and advertising, skeptics or supporters? I'm betting the ratio is like 100 to 1.
movielib
10-30-09, 10:55 PM
:lol:
I was flipping channels last night past MSNBC and paused on Maddow for maybe a minute. She and some guest were blaming everything on "coal industry propaganda" as to why people were starting to lose faith in CAGW, be skeptical and the like. So apparently on the liberal left this is the new hot talking point.
I laughed and laughed at dork as I watched.
Looks like Exxon is now off the hook.
arminius
10-31-09, 10:51 AM
Maybe you're not looking in the right places. Coal being not quite as glamorous as it used to be, the industry has chosen to rebrand itself with more friendly-sounding product lines such as Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, Center for Energy and Economic Development, and Patrick J. Michaels.
Coal is a legitimate energy source. It can be used to make synthetic fuels quite easily. The technology is old and proven. The problem is price. It is far cheaper in every way to drill for oil and gas and to use nuclear power. But what the hell does reason have to do with any of this. The moronisphere adherents that want to doom the majority of the world to live in pre-industrial conditions while they get rich from buy and selling nothing have a reason. And it has nothing to do with the well being of earth or the vast majority of its people.
Jason
10-31-09, 11:37 AM
Maybe you're not looking in the right places. Coal being not quite as glamorous as it used to be, the industry has chosen to rebrand itself with more friendly-sounding product lines such as Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, Center for Energy and Economic Development, and Patrick J. Michaels.
And he obviously doesn't live in one of the major coal producing states, as these issues and groups get lots of play in the media there.
kvrdave
10-31-09, 12:16 PM
Make coal illegal, for all I care. But replace it with nukes, more hydro, etc. If all of this were really the issue people want to say it is, the entire stimulus bill could have built enough nukes to get rid of coal, and provided jobs as well. Likely more than there would be in the coal industry. But that isn't what any of this is about. It's about a new tax that hippies can feel good about.
OldDude
10-31-09, 12:59 PM
Make coal illegal, for all I care. But replace it with nukes, more hydro, etc. If all of this were really the issue people want to say it is, the entire stimulus bill could have built enough nukes to get rid of coal, and provided jobs as well. Likely more than there would be in the coal industry. But that isn't what any of this is about. It's about a new tax that hippies can feel good about.
Hey, there's a deal to offer hippies. For each new nuke, on the day it reaches capacity, they get to shut down a coal-burning power plant of equal or lower capacity. "Buy one, close one."
movielib
10-31-09, 06:13 PM
Hey, there's a deal to offer hippies. For each new nuke, on the day it reaches capacity, they get to shut down a coal-burning power plant of equal or lower capacity. "Buy one, close one."
Such a deal!
Dr Mabuse
10-31-09, 06:29 PM
Man, if only we could get serious about nuclear power.
Then Texas alone wouldn't produce more CO2, and other associated pollution, than all of Europe.
kvrdave
10-31-09, 06:44 PM
Won't happen with Obama, and I think that even if you had a Republican pres, house, and senate, it would be about like the health care issue. Hippies are loud about their ignorance.
Ranger
10-31-09, 08:55 PM
Well, the news last week about the country's biggest solar panel in Southwest FL could be the start of something, but less than 4% of FL's energy is from renewables and this was only to power 3,000 residents.
I think the state plans to add two new nuclear reactors for the south Florida area and upgrade some existing plants. Currently, the nation only has 66 plants online now?
mosquitobite
10-31-09, 08:56 PM
Won't happen with Obama, and I think that even if you had a Republican pres, house, and senate, it would be about like the health care issue. Hippies are loud about their ignorance.
:lol:
I think it's more fear and NIMBY preventing nuclear power. Shame though! That really might BE a stimulus for this country!
Buy: