Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Cap and trade discussion

Old 10-27-09, 10:17 AM
  #1  
Moderator
Thread Starter
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,141
Cap and trade discussion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/...s_climate_bill

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

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Si-htSSHxsE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Si-htSSHxsE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si-htSSHxsE

Last edited by nemein; 10-27-09 at 10:31 AM.
nemein is offline  
Old 10-27-09, 11:12 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,054
Re: Cap and trade discussion

"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.
OldDude is offline  
Old 10-27-09, 11:24 AM
  #3  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,740
Re: Cap and trade discussion

Originally Posted by OldDude View Post
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.

Originally Posted by article
for aggressive action to combat climate change
It 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.
X is offline  
Old 10-27-09, 12:01 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Re: Cap and trade discussion

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.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 10-27-09, 12:54 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Re: Cap and trade discussion

Is zeal the word you're looking for?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 10-27-09, 01:04 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Re: Cap and trade discussion

yes, it was.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 10-27-09, 01:42 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
arminius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Here I Is!
Posts: 6,968
Re: Cap and trade discussion

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.

Last edited by arminius; 10-27-09 at 01:44 PM.
arminius is offline  
Old 10-27-09, 01:52 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,950
Re: Cap and trade discussion

That people are foolish enough to fall for this 'Cap & Trade' nonsense.

This will be more destructive than anyone thinks if it passes.
Dr Mabuse is offline  
Old 10-27-09, 02:14 PM
  #9  
Moderator
Thread Starter
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,141
Re: Cap and trade discussion

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
nemein is offline  
Old 10-27-09, 03:30 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Re: Cap and trade discussion

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?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 10-27-09, 03:56 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,846
Re: Cap and trade discussion

Originally Posted by classicman2 View Post
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.
orangecrush is offline  
Old 10-27-09, 04:15 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: So Cal
Posts: 7,072
Re: Cap and trade discussion

Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
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.
Superboy is offline  
Old 10-27-09, 10:58 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Legend
 
DeputyDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,081
Re: Cap and trade discussion

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.
DeputyDave is offline  
Old 10-28-09, 01:14 AM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,539
Re: Cap and trade discussion

Originally Posted by DeputyDave View Post
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.
JasonF is offline  
Old 10-28-09, 01:24 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
DeputyDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,081
Re: Cap and trade discussion

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
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.
DeputyDave is offline  
Old 10-28-09, 01:33 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Re: Cap and trade discussion

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 is offline  
Old 10-28-09, 01:36 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Re: Cap and trade discussion

Originally Posted by DeputyDave View Post
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.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 10-28-09, 08:29 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,054
Re: Cap and trade discussion

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
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.
OldDude is offline  
Old 10-28-09, 08:46 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,006
Re: Cap and trade discussion

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Si-htSSHxsE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Si-htSSHxsE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

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:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CMp8UiCNYas&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CMp8UiCNYas&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

here:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BptZ7CXHziA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BptZ7CXHziA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
movielib is offline  
Old 10-28-09, 08:51 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,006
Re: Cap and trade discussion

Originally Posted by OldDude View Post
"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 is offline  
Old 10-28-09, 09:02 AM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,006
Re: Cap and trade discussion

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
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 .5șC 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 1.0șC rise (superimposed on natural variability), of which we've already had about .3șC leaving .7șC 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 1.5șC increase (still not very scary) we need to get to 2240ppm of CO2.

Last edited by movielib; 10-28-09 at 09:52 AM.
movielib is offline  
Old 10-28-09, 11:14 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,846
Re: Cap and trade discussion

Originally Posted by DeputyDave View Post
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).
orangecrush is offline  
Old 10-28-09, 01:56 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,539
Re: Cap and trade discussion

Originally Posted by DeputyDave View Post
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.
JasonF is offline  
Old 10-28-09, 02:00 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Re: Cap and trade discussion

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.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 10-28-09, 02:13 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,846
Re: Cap and trade discussion

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
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.
orangecrush is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.