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

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.


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

















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