backtop


Print 73 comment(s) - last by KaTaR.. on Jun 24 at 4:11 PM


The new bill is estimated to cut farmers' profits by 57 percent by 2035.  (Source: FreePeople Blog)
Want to stop an unverified theory? Be prepared to pay up...

Proponents of the AGW theory have always viewed the United Nations as a sterling example of action at any cost.  The UN's IPCC, chaired by Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian economist with no formal climatology training, has made extraordinary demands, such as suggesting that the world's citizens give up meat consumption to fight climate change.

Perhaps, those who believe that we must sacrifice the standard of living of our citizens to stop theoretical climate change should now look to the U.S. for guidance.

The Democratic controlled Congress is currently considering the Waxman-Markey bill, a measure praised by President Obama.  Obama states that the bill will "create millions of new jobs all across America."  However, the bill will likely increase yearly power bills of the average U.S. citizen by as much as $1,600, according to the US News & World Report.  Further, it will like have deleterious effects on American agriculture.

The bill seeks to replace carbon taxes with a "free market" where carbon credits are auctioned and traded.  The government says the bill will create a $60B USD artificial "free market" and will cut carbon emissions by 15 percent by 2020.

However, the Congressional Budget Office warns that the cost of this market will be "passed along to consumers of energy and energy-intensive products."  The CBO says that the bill will particularly impact low income households.

Gary Swan, Director of Governmental Affairs and Communications with the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, says the bill will spell disaster for hard-working farmers as well.  States Swan, "On average, 65 percent of farmers' input costs are fuel, electricity, fertilizer and chemicals."

According to the Heritage Foundation, under the bill gasoline and diesel costs would grow 58 percent by 2035.  This, combined with higher prices on farm equipment, would drop farm profits by 28 percent by 2012 and by 57 percent by 2035.

The Heritage Foundation estimates that the bill will leave America $9.4 trillion poorer by 2035.  AGW supporters, though, argue that Americans must endure any amount of pain and economic hardship in years ahead to stop climate change.

Meanwhile, the accuracy of AGW theory continues to be debated.  Several recent studies have suggested that the sun may have a larger role than man in climate change.  Even a 2008 NASA study acknowledged that the solar activity caused past climate change, though it failed to make the easy connection between the sharp increase in solar activity in the 1990s to current climate change.

In other news, alarmists now a new fear to race to prevent -- French astronomers using "arcane math" methods predicted that there's a 1 in 100 chance that the Earth could collide with Mars in the next 5 billion years.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I'm not going to pay for it
By corduroygt on 6/12/2009 5:41:01 PM , Rating: 5
If you're foolish enough to think it's a problem, pay for it yourself, new age commies!




RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By astralsolace on 6/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By someguy123 on 6/13/2009 12:07:33 AM , Rating: 2
except this has nothing to do with developing alternative fuels....this is about reducing emissions to stop "climate change". first off how can people believe in something that the researchers themselves seem to be unsure about (global warming to climate change)? secondly we'll still be using the same sources of fuel, the only difference is that the cost will be higher and will be taken directly from our pockets to line the pockets of the people paid to oversee this bill.


RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By astralsolace on 6/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By someguy123 on 6/13/2009 1:08:41 AM , Rating: 3
if the issue was alternative fuels, why not just have a bill pushing alternative fuels/research in these fields? putting a carbon cap will not necessarily force companies to adopt lower emitting sources of energy since current alternatives are much less efficient and cost much more, with the exception of nuclear.

i am a supporter of nuclear power, but there is absolutely no way the US is getting more nuclear plants thanks to hippie/environmentalist propaganda. everyone assumes a nuclear holocaust whenever someone mentions nuclear power.


RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By General Disturbance on 6/13/2009 12:41:53 PM , Rating: 5
The problem is that carbon output in CO2 is not pollution.

Do you realize that the only channel by which carbon enters the biosphere, allowing the ENTIRE biosphere to exist, is through the CO2 in the atmosphere?

CO2 is actually wonderful stuff. The CO2 that is locked away in fossil fuels through the calamities of geological history used to be available for life (plants) to sustain a much more lush biosphere than we have today.

I am doing MY part to save the planet. This means giving as much CO2 back to the biosphere as possible. We need to do this in a clean way, through clean coal and clean gas etc.


RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By William Gaatjes on 6/15/2009 2:16:53 PM , Rating: 1
You sound just as like a global warning fanatic.
Right winged or left winged. Both lost control and the ability to think.

A very simple statement :
Too much of anything is not good for you.


By therealnickdanger on 6/16/2009 6:31:47 AM , Rating: 2
So you're saying I should apply LESS carbon directly to my skin?


RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By atlmann10 on 6/13/2009 3:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
Power plants emit 40% of total U.S. carbon dioxide pollution, the primary global warming pollutant.36 Although coal-fired power plants account for just over half of the electricity produced in the U.S. each year, they have been responsible for over 83% of the CO2 pollution since 1990.37 Coal-fired power plants have the highest output rate of CO2 per unit of electricity among all fossil fuels.38


RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By amanojaku on 6/13/2009 4:29:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
carbon dioxide pollution, the primary global warming pollutant
WRONG!!! The greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and chlorofluorocarbons. Their immediate contribution to the greenhouse effect is as follows:

1) H2O - 36–72%
2) CO2 - 9–26%
3) CH4 - 4–9%
4) O3 - 3–7%

That means good ol' H2O is the worst offender, both in volume and in part because we can't easily reduce the amount of water in the atmosphere without adverse impact on the environment.

CO2 is a scapegoat because it's the largest MAN-MADE greenhouse gas in terms of the greenhouse effect. However, at 26% that's a pittance. More importantly, studies show that N2O has a longer lasting effect on global warming than CO2 does. Over 20 years N2O has 289 times the global warming potential of CO2; over 100 years N2O has 298 times the global warming potential of CO2!!! That means that all naturally occurring greenhouse gases are worse than the man-made gases.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_C...


RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By Viditor on 6/14/2009 5:39:06 AM , Rating: 2
People, pay attention to the fine print!

They are saying that the cost of gasoline and diesel will increase under this bill by 58% over the next 26 years...

If that is true, I say this would be a HUGE cost savings, not an expense!!!
We've already increased by >150% over the last 16 years ...58% over 26 years would be a massive reduction in that rate!


RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By mdogs444 on 6/14/2009 8:11:07 AM , Rating: 2
58% over and above what the normal cost increases of gasoline would be under supply/demand.

Don't be naive. Electricity and natural gas bills would basically double the first year. What kind of savings is that?


RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By Viditor on 6/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By mdogs444 on 6/15/2009 6:39:54 AM , Rating: 4
Wrong. Do a little research and reading. It was the non partisan CBO that released the figures stating between $700 and $2200 per family, with an average of $1600.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/07/cl...
quote:
The CBO analysis released Thursday updates research of previous cap and trade proposals and estimates that a 15 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses would cost American families between $700 and $2,200 a year in increased energy and consumer goods prices. The average cost to families would be $1,600, according to the analysis.


RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By coolkev99 on 6/24/2009 2:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know how liberals often think increases are decreases, and decreases are increases.

If your increasing the cost X amount under the plan , then the cost would be LESS if the plan were not implemented. Any 1st grader will know this. Quit twisting with your illogic.


RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By Lerianis on 6/14/2009 10:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
Agree totally. The fact is that global warming is the biggest LoC since global cooling in the 1970's. It's time to realize that it is PERFECTLY NATURAL for the world to warm and cool, sometimes drastically as the Sun puts out more or less energy.


RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By mmntech on 6/15/2009 2:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
I third this. It was even proven that NASA was fudging the data to make it fit with the computer models. Remember last year's "hottest October on record" scandal. However, global warming is huge business though and that's why it's not going to go away anytime soon. Why stop when we can tax people to death and force them to buy push mowers for $300 a pop.


RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By Grabo on 6/16/2009 4:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
Why do all these extremist views never ever come with a source? At least masher provides sources, even if he does only show whatever data he agrees with and then blends different points together with the glue called verbal acid, like a badly stitched and very still Frankenstein's monster


RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By mdogs444 on 6/16/2009 5:00:13 PM , Rating: 2
By god man, just do a google search for 4 words "Nasa climate data false"

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027


RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By Grabo on 6/17/2009 3:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
By God man, the relevance!
(from the article you linked: "NASA officials have dismissed the changes as trivial. Even the Canadian who spotted the original flaw says the revisions are "not necessarily material to climate policy."

But the revisions have been seized on by conservative Americans, including firebrand radio host Rush Limbaugh, as evidence that climate change science is unsound. ")

And even if it would be counted (by NASA and others who should know, not Rush or you) as a 'serious error', it still wouldn't kill everything else that NASA has found and continues to find that points to a warming climate.

My point remains: Most of (almost always American) points contradicting NASAs rest on thin ground. America has the brightest people in the world, and the dumbest.


misleading
By Masospaghetti on 6/12/2009 6:36:13 PM , Rating: 1
$9.4 trillion is a lot...but its not like this money is going to evaporate into thin air. SOMEONE is going to get it. This bill may redistribute wealth, but it won't destroy it as the article implies.

I would actually argue the contrary. As energy and fuel becomes more expensive, people get really good at conservation and efficiency and usage drops significantly. Relatively quickly, consumption will drop and the country as a whole will become wealthier, not poorer, because less money is being literally burned paying for fuels and energy.




RE: misleading
By someguy123 on 6/12/2009 6:48:31 PM , Rating: 5
i wouldn't want my money going to people who are essentially terrorists. these are some grade A fear mongers we've got on our hands.


RE: misleading
By Lerianis on 6/14/2009 10:03:48 PM , Rating: 3
DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! I call these people what they REALLY are: eco-terrorists, who are out to terrify the world with their 'THE SKY IS FALLING!' BS into cutting back on their lives and going back to the 'bad old times' of the late 1600's.


RE: misleading
By mdogs444 on 6/12/2009 7:41:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
consumption will drop and the country as a whole will become wealthier, not poorer, because less money is being literally burned paying for fuels and energy.

Evidently you haven't taken any basic economics classes.

The demand for the product is not decreasing due to actual alternatives, but rather because of the increasing price due to regulation, not market conditions. When this happens, it forces people to use less, but the literal demand is still present, thus forcing prices up even higher. Therefore the same amount of wealth (with inflation) if not more will be going out of the country - not staying in it. The only way to gain wealth right now is to invest in our oil shale, OCS, and natural gas to increase the market supply and when the price goes up, so do our profits.


RE: misleading
By Masospaghetti on 6/13/2009 1:49:48 AM , Rating: 1
You really think that people won't become more efficient with their energy resources if the cost of power and fuel triples, regardless of whether the price increase is regulatory or market pressure?

Maybe in the short term there would be backlash from increasing energy prices but in the short-long term the country as a whole would become more efficient. Think about it - if electricity costs 4x what it currently does, a LOT more people are going to buy energy-saving light bulbs and high efficiency air conditioners over the following few years because it makes economic sense, and this reduces total consumption. Since the increase in price is tax, we have a net decrease in consumption (and thus a decrease in money being sent overseas to producers of fossil fuel) while the revenue from these price increases stay within the country, albeit within the government.


RE: misleading
By Keeir on 6/13/2009 2:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
albeit within the government.


Yes, who already have plans about how to waste the money. The underlying problem with this bill is that very little to nothing besides "reduced" consumption is actually gained. It doesn't sound like large portions of the proceeds will go to cleaning pollution or offseting taxes. Rather toward wealth transfer and idiotic projects.

Overall peoples utility will be reduced from previous optimal levels so the government gets to spend more random money.... Overall this is yet another shift blame by the government

The government gets to spend more money
The government gets to say it is doing something about climate change
The people blame the power companies for raising prices

reminds me of the CAFE standard. The government gets to claim it is doing something meaninful, while allowing people to blame the car companies for the actual implementation of the standards.


RE: misleading
By captainpierce on 6/16/2009 7:49:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Think about it - if electricity costs 4x what it currently does, a LOT more people are going to buy energy-saving light bulbs and high efficiency air conditioners over the following few years because it makes economic sense, and this reduces total consumption.


So while people have less money due to sky high energy costs they're simultaneously going to go out and buy energy efficient appliances?


RE: misleading
By Spuke on 6/16/2009 1:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So while people have less money due to sky high energy costs they're simultaneously going to go out and buy energy efficient appliances?
I agree here. When people have less money to spend, they spend less. Look at our current economic environment. Are people spending loads of money right now? NO! This isn't rocket science.


RE: misleading
By Ringold on 6/13/2009 3:08:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
$9.4 trillion is a lot...but its not like this money is going to evaporate into thin air. SOMEONE is going to get it.


The 9.4 trillion poorer part I assume isn't because of higher energy bills; that would still count as GDP. Instead it's probably a function of the regulation and higher costs reducing long term economic growth rates, and thus leaving the economy 9.4 trillion smaller than it otherwise would have become.

In that case, then yes, this is 9.4 trillion that really is going to evaporate in to the air, at least by virtue of it being wealth that wasn't created that otherwise could've been.


RE: misleading
By Suntan on 6/15/2009 1:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This bill may redistribute wealth, but it won't destroy it as the article implies.


Nope. This bill (taken with multiple comments that Obama has made over his ..ahem.. long and distinguished career in national government) show that the intention is to use global warming as an apparatus to redistribute wealth to poor people.

The idea is simple, tax everybody up the wazoo for their “global warming sins” but then give a lot of money back to the poor people because “they can’t help themselves.”

Now that it is framed in the right context, giving money to poor people so they can buy crap and then throw it away after using it for a week *is* the same as just throwing the money away.

-Suntan


RE: misleading
By Spuke on 6/16/2009 3:03:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
redistribute wealth to poor people
But the poor run our economy and provide all of the jobs. /sarcasm


Global warming
By atlmann10 on 6/13/2009 3:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
OK, you may or may not think Global warming or the effect of CO2 emissions effects the world. Yes the sun may have something to do with climate conditions and I am sure it does. However, we cannot control the sun.

Think about this though automobiles as a general usage factor among the population has increased substantially over the last 10 years. The need and usage of electricity has as well.

The amount of CO2 emitted worldwide for the production of electricity is between 3-400 percent higher if not more. This is ridiculous when electricity can be created ( from a big windmill) and in several (water, nuclear, hydrogen, solar)non or less pollution producing ways. So if you could keep gas burning cars. Then the government makes it law that electricity can not be produced with coal (dirty or clean which is a joke).

All the cars in the world; produce about 15 percent of green house gases, at the most if not less. They can be optimized to both operate more efficient with roughly the same performance, and produce less green house gasses.

So lets keep our cars, and get our electricity production cleaner. Also think about this there are more cars in the world in active use than 10 years ago. The need for electricity has increased probably 500% since 10 years ago as well. Therefore more pollutants are produced.

In the last ten years has it gotten hotter?

In the last Ten years has there been less precipitation partially caused by the heat?

So by your general senses, what is causing this, the production of energy one way or another!

What is the highest producer of all these pollutants "COAL" by hundreds of times versus other pollution producing technologies.




RE: Global warming
By someguy123 on 6/13/2009 9:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By amanojaku

WRONG!!! The greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and chlorofluorocarbons. Their immediate contribution to the greenhouse effect is as follows: 1) H2O - 36–72% 2) CO2 - 9–26% 3) CH4 - 4–9% 4) O3 - 3–7% That means good ol' H2O is the worst offender, both in volume and in part because we can't easily reduce the amount of water in the atmosphere without adverse impact on the environment. CO2 is a scapegoat because it's the largest MAN-MADE greenhouse gas in terms of the greenhouse effect. However, at 26% that's a pittance. More importantly, studies show that N2O has a longer lasting effect on global warming than CO2 does. Over 20 years N2O has 289 times the global warming potential of CO2; over 100 years N2O has 298 times the global warming potential of CO2!!! That means that all naturally occurring greenhouse gases are worse than the man-made gases.


quote:
By General Disturbance
The problem is that carbon output in CO2 is not pollution. Do you realize that the only channel by which carbon enters the biosphere, allowing the ENTIRE biosphere to exist, is through the CO2 in the atmosphere? CO2 is actually wonderful stuff. The CO2 that is locked away in fossil fuels through the calamities of geological history used to be available for life (plants) to sustain a much more lush biosphere than we have today. I am doing MY part to save the planet. This means giving as much CO2 back to the biosphere as possible. We need to do this in a clean way, through clean coal and clean gas etc.


RE: Global warming
By TheSpaniard on 6/14/2009 7:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
why does no one consider the ecological damage caused by solar and hydro facilities?

yes flooding a basin or paving over a field is a great way to preserve the animal life in that area!

wind turbines are in their own right dangerous as well!


RE: Global warming
By Lerianis on 6/14/2009 10:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
Uh... you don't have to pave over a field for solar power, and you don't have to flood a basin for water power, at least not tidal power.

Wind turbines? They are only dangerous because birds haven't realized "Hey, I fly though this thing, I am going to lose my head LITERALLY!" yet.


RE: Global warming
By FITCamaro on 6/14/2009 11:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the last ten years has it gotten hotter?


No. It's gotten cooler.


RE: Global warming
By FITCamaro on 6/15/2009 12:00:16 AM , Rating: 2
And one does not study climate change by looking at 10 years. You have to look at 10s of thousands of years. And when you do you see that the climate has been hotter and cooler than it is now. As well as widely varying levels of CO2. Yet life prospered and in the past 5,000 years we've gone from the spear to the tactical nuke.


RE: Global warming
By Spuke on 6/16/2009 3:06:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And one does not study climate change by looking at 10 years.
But FIT, 10,000 years is before I was born and intelligent people could not have possibly existed before I was born. Not to mention, there were no Hummers 10,000 years ago and those vehicles are the cause of global warming.


RE: Global warming
By Grabo on 6/16/2009 4:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As well as widely varying levels of CO2.


Not really, no >
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cf...

quote:
CO2 is a scapegoat because it's the largest MAN-MADE greenhouse gas in terms of the greenhouse effect. However, at 26% that's a pittance. More importantly, studies show that N2O has a longer lasting effect on global warming than CO2 does. Over 20 years N2O has 289 times the global warming potential of CO2; over 100 years N2O has 298 times the global warming potential of CO2!!! That means that all naturally occurring greenhouse gases are worse than the man-made gases.


I am being most sincere now: Is this a joke?

From the (excellent) article you linked to :
"The primary driver for the industrial era increase of N2O was
concluded to be enhanced microbial production in expanding
and fertilized agricultural lands.
Ice core data for N2O have been reported extending back
2,000 years and more before present (MacFarling Meure et
al., 2006; Section 6.6). These data, as for CO2 and CH4, show
relatively little changes in mixing ratios over the fi rst 1,800
years of this record, and then exhibit a relatively rapid rise ("

In other words, every greenhouse gas that's rapidly increasing is doing so thanks to humans.


Its too old to be a joke.
By HostileEffect on 6/12/2009 4:36:17 PM , Rating: 3
Trying to stop climate change may end up causing more damage than climate change itself!

Stuff changes, move along.




RE: Its too old to be a joke.
By astralsolace on 6/12/2009 11:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
ANY effort to do anything may have ironic or negative consequences. You may get rejected when asking out a hot date.

However, neither an excuse to never try, especially with so much at stake.


RE: Its too old to be a joke.
By amanojaku on 6/13/2009 2:18:53 PM , Rating: 2
History has proven time and time again that intervention is not necessary for the Earth to right itself. From trilobites to dinosaurs to humans each period where the dominant life forms changed was marked by a change in the climate. Once the climate stabilized life flourished again. The difference between humans and prior forms of life is that we have the potential to survive climate change.

The biggest benefit to lowering pollution is improving our quality of life. The extent of human impact on climate is debatable, but it is a fact that pollution affects every living creature. Pollution causes birth defects, breathing issues, heart problems, allergies, etc...


RE: Its too old to be a joke.
By Lerianis on 6/14/2009 10:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
What is at stake? The world gets hotter? Big deal: humanity and animals will adjust if they can, if they cannot.... we all die.

And it's time for you to realize that the Army Corp of Engineers during CLINTON'S time in office said that the only thing causing global warming? That big ball of plasma in the sky called the SUN! They were absolutely right on that, the sun is the ONLY thing causing this world to heat up at all.


RE: Its too old to be a joke.
By GlobleWarmingisbunk on 6/16/2009 6:31:03 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Any body with Half a brain cell should be able to understand that the sun is the primary cause of global warming. It is a simple equation. Sun heats the earth the earth warms up. (Duh) How stupid are Americans today?

We Americans believe everything the Media says and discount anything anybody else says. What happened to people doing research and making their own conclusions based on actual scientific data.


RE: Its too old to be a joke.
By Spuke on 6/16/2009 7:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We Americans believe everything the Media says and discount anything anybody else says.
Actually, the average person doesn't pay much attention to these hot topics and only watches the news occasionally. The problem with Americans is not with them being sheep, it's with them being apathetic.


RE: Its too old to be a joke.
By FITCamaro on 6/16/2009 12:03:14 PM , Rating: 2
I broke the dam.


The Heritage Foundation
By blowfish on 6/13/2009 6:17:39 PM , Rating: 1
All you need to know is that the Heritage foundation is an ultra right wing think tank, so their perspective on this is very distorted.

Simple conservation, higher insulation standards, limits on packaging and more recycling would go a long way to help things - but of course established manufacturers of US consumer goods just love their planned obsolescence. The US has the worst insulated ( and shortest lasting) homes, full of the most inefficient appliances - which makes great sense to the likes of the Heritage Foundation of course.




RE: The Heritage Foundation
By adiposity on 6/15/2009 11:51:55 AM , Rating: 2
Could " Michael A ndrews" be related to " Michael A sher"?

Hmm...

-Dan


RE: The Heritage Foundation
By Grabo on 6/16/2009 4:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
You can sort of tell, if not from the onesided slightly damning content & tone, then at least from all the freaks crawling out of the woodwork.


RE: The Heritage Foundation
By Suntan on 6/15/2009 1:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US has the worst insulated ( and shortest lasting) homes, full of the most inefficient appliances


I’ve traveled the globe quite a bit for work and I am friends with many of my co-workers in those regions (such that I have been invited to their homes while traveling.)

Based on my own personal experience, I completely disagree with this. Please stop making silly comments that you just pull out of your arse.

-Suntan


RE: The Heritage Foundation
By TomZ on 6/15/2009 2:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, I agree - the quality of homes and appliances in the US is quite high relatively speaking.


RE: The Heritage Foundation
By Ringold on 6/15/2009 3:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All you need to know is that the Heritage foundation is an ultra right wing think tank, so their perspective on this is very distorted.


Their estimates aren't very different from ones I've seen in academic papers. The Heritage Foundation has some good economists on staff.

If you know much about economics then once you realize this climate change topic requires large government intervention in free market outcomes and higher levels of taxation, the most likely outcome is lower long term growth, wealth destruction in general and wealth redistribution to favored government companies and lobbies. It's just a question of how massive the number will be over any given period of time.


RE: The Heritage Foundation
By Spuke on 6/16/2009 3:10:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US has the worst insulated ( and shortest lasting) homes, full of the most inefficient appliances
Like homes from the Middle Ages (your typical European homes) are soooo much more efficient than any modern home. LOL!


1600.00 a year????
By kickn67 on 6/12/2009 7:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
Let us not forget that does not include the extra electricity that is going to be consumed by charging the batteries in these all electric cars they are wanting to shove down our throats. Honesty I don't believe that there is any way that the common man is ever going to be able to afford any of this.




RE: 1600.00 a year????
By astralsolace on 6/12/2009 11:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
The "geniuses" of DailyTech never cease to amaze me. Technology drops in price, virtually as a rule, as it becomes more common.

If you look at the math, it costs a lot less energy to use, say, nuclear power to generate electricity to charge batteries with (which is a, for all intents and purposes, infinite source) as opposed to continuing to use the very finite supply of crude oil to refine into gasoline.

The initial investment of electric technology is multifaceted--the long term savings enormously outweigh the upfront cost, especially if we do it NOW before oil goes to 300, 400, 500, $1,000 a barrel as it inevitably WILL as demand skyrockets and supply remains basically flat.


RE: 1600.00 a year????
By FITCamaro on 6/16/2009 12:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
Funny how the same people pushing electric cars are those who are helping keep the supply of oil flat.


RE: 1600.00 a year????
By Spuke on 6/16/2009 3:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Technology drops in price, virtually as a rule, as it becomes more common.
The price has to drop far enough so that "common" people can afford to buy one. And even if it's affordable, it STILL has to meet needs. With the average household income of $60k in America, not many people can afford a $57k Tesla Model S (with 130 mile range). Therefore, the price MUST come down AND the car STILL has to fulfill a need in order to be bought. Cars like the Model S are toys. They are no where near a replacement for the Camry.

If YOU want to hurry this up, get your asses out there and buy these cars up!! Quite frankly, none of the people pushing for these cars to be bought intend to buy one. They just want to bully the masses into buying something they don't want or need. So far, I am happy to report that the "common" person isn't fooled as evidenced by car sales.


RE: 1600.00 a year????
By vazili on 6/13/2009 12:30:49 AM , Rating: 2
yea they're gonna want us to use Lithium-ion batteries, but from the reports I've been reading Li-ion is in very short supply.

Nuclear Fusion at all costs for Cities then Compressed Natural Gas for vehicles until we can get Hydrogen under way


$9.4 trillion
By gconor on 6/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: $9.4 trillion
By TomZ on 6/12/2009 5:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
Bush didn't ratify Kyoto. Neither did Clinton. Neither has Obama.

They are right about Kyoto - the science is not clear on CO2, and changes in policy that have such a large economic effect should be deferred until the science becomes clear.

And so far, it looks like the final outcome will be that there is no need to waste money to reduce CO2. I guess Bush may have the last laugh and the expense of fools like you who believe all that "tripping point" crap.


RE: $9.4 trillion
By mdogs444 on 6/12/2009 7:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Neither has Obama.

quote:
he science is not clear on CO2, and changes in policy that have such a large economic effect should be deferred until the science becomes clear.

While technically right regarding Kyoto, and I agree on the second point...the fact is that they don't need Kyoto to implement cap & trade in order to increase our energy prices, decrease our standard of living through economic regulation and policies - which they are trying to do as we speak.


RE: $9.4 trillion
By gconor on 6/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: $9.4 trillion
By someguy123 on 6/13/2009 5:58:41 AM , Rating: 2
the same "scientific societies" that decided to change global warming to "climate change" after the trends started to go towards LOWER temperatures?

yeah, they're definitely trustworthy.


RE: $9.4 trillion
By arazok on 6/13/2009 9:43:20 AM , Rating: 2
Wikipedia is a horrible source of information when it comes to hot button topics like abortion or climate change.

People with agendas monitor the articles and ensure dissenting opinions never make it into the article.

Try for yourself. Edit a climate change article to include a reference to some study that casts doubt on the theory and it will be scrubbed out in minutes.


RE: $9.4 trillion
By JDHack42 on 6/15/2009 4:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
should be deferred until the science becomes clear


Clear or not, how about we wait until we stop blowing all our money on military efforts and propping up failed institutions across the country?


so..
By meepstone on 6/13/2009 2:59:18 PM , Rating: 3
Let me get this straight. They want to avoid a climate change by introducing a bill that will in effect, change the climate. Not only that but can they provide any proof that either way will actually matter, besides the fact that we will spend money with one option? Sounds like normal retarded politics to me.




RE: so..
By Lerianis on 6/14/2009 10:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
That's basically what this is. You have to realize that most of the most vocal 'global warming' proponents are eco-terrorism organizations.

Once you realize that, you start thinking "Wait a minute.... these guys are the same ones who wanted to shut down livestock farms 50 years ago! IGNORED!"


By GlobleWarmingisbunk on 6/13/2009 1:11:48 AM , Rating: 2
For all of you people who believe that becoming vegetarians is the way to go, GO AWAY! As you examine all the research, every single study agrees, livestock is destroying the land. I have your solution, eat the problem. By eliminating the cows and eating more meat, you reduce the amount of land farmers need to dedicate to livestock and you remove a living breathing methane factory. Instead of spending almost $10,000,000,000 to remove taxes and create a "free carbon market" spend it all on creating cleaner cows. Both of them will accomplish the exact same thing.... NOTHING!




By ThePooBurner on 6/15/2009 1:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Democratic controlled Congress is currently considering the Waxman-Markey bill, a measure praised by President Obama . Obama states that the bill will " create millions of new jobs all across America. " However, the bill will likely increase yearly power bills of the average U.S. citizen by as much as $1,600, according to the US News & World Report. Further, it will like have deleterious effects on American agriculture. ... However, the Congressional Budget Office warns that the cost of this market will be " passed along to consumers of energy and energy-intensive products." The CBO says that the bill will particularly impact low income households.

Those who have money are self reliant. They can provide for themselves. Increase taxes and create more of the poor. Increase transportation & energy costs and create more of the poor. Increase food costs and create more of the poor. Simply make it so that everyone is to poor to be able to have the necessities of life (food, heat, power, transportation) and then all are FORCED to rely on the government and their programs. Obama praises it because it helps achieve his goals of a welfare state that will allow him to be the socialist dictator that he wants to be.




By cleanenergyfan on 6/15/2009 3:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
Energy costs are going up as we rely on fossil fuels. We need Congress to get involved so we can transition to clean energy, create jobs in the process, and end pollution that is causing a lot of economic damage. The costs of inaction are far higher than the costs of action. If you have termites, you pay the cost to exterminate them, because the cost of the house collapsing is far higher. Same deal with costs of climate change impacts.




By Darkk on 6/17/2009 2:53:57 AM , Rating: 2
I can't believe they're actually proposing the idea of banning meat to curb global warming?!?!




By callmeroy on 6/17/2009 8:24:01 AM , Rating: 2
Damn that Al Gore......this global warming crap isn't going to end is it? All you hear anymore are various guilt trips laid down upon us for how we live our lives. I'm sick of it. I conserve for the sake of what my parents taught me which was "do not be wasteful"....I pay my taxes, work to keep a clean house, keep a clean and well maintained vehicle and yeah OMG I go out for a steak dinner twice a month (sometimes 3 times....a month) and I'm supposed to constantly feel guilty that I'm ruining the planet....I wish all those globing warming nut jobs would just go away - forever.




By KaTaR on 6/24/2009 4:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
The author of the report is the Heritage Foundation. They always take the republican position (right or wrong). They are especially focused on pre-emptive military strikes and less goverment regulation.

This is the same republican 'brain trust' that advocated the invasion of Iraq (WMD and Terrorists that never materialized) and continues to defend its merits.

Using their numbers as 'fact' is no better than accepting the NRA's statements on gun control as 'fact'. In other words it is completely partisan. You already know what their position and conclusions are even before they decided to look into it.

If Micheal Andrews wants to cast doubts on climate change (which he obviously REALLY wants to do) I suggest he (or anybody for that matter) starts using somewhat IMPARTIAL scientific reports and not this obivioulsy paid for and politically motivated crap.




"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki