|
|
Oct 25, 2009 2:01 AM GMT
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
2 hrs 28 mins ago
WASHINGTON – A Senate plan to tackle global warming would add about $100 a year to the energy costs for a typical household, according to an analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The analysis released late Friday by the office of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who heads the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, generally mirrors the cost projected by the EPA when it examined similar legislation that the House passed in the summer.
The Democratic bill calls for cutting greenhouse gases from power plants and large industrial facilities by shifting energy use away from fossil fuels, especially coal. It would cap emissions and allow trading of pollution allowances to mitigate the cost.
Boxer, D-Calif., has scheduled hearings this coming week on the bill. The committee will hear from Obama administration officials, including the EPA, on Tuesday.
President Barack Obama, in a speech Friday in Boston, said he believes "a consensus" is emerging in Congress on the climate issue. But he also accused some opponents of making "cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence" that the earth is becoming warmer in an attempt to derail legislation.
"There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy, when it's the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs," Obama told his audience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Boxer said the bill provides "a clean energy future, creating millions of jobs and protecting our children from dangerous pollution."
Critics of the bill have called it a massive energy tax. They also say the EPA uses overly optimistic assumptions disguising the likely increase in energy costs to consumers.
Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the committee's top Republican, said the EPA analysis was "unacceptable" and he wanted a more complete economic assessment of the bill before moving ahead. He said committee Republicans may force a delay; Boxer wants a committee vote in early November.
"One would think that, prior to legislative hearings, the committee would have a thorough, comprehensive economic analysis to understand how an 800-plus page bill, designed to fundamentally reshape the American economy, affects consumers, small businesses, farmers, and American families," Inhofe said in a statement.
The EPA analysis released by Boxer said while there are differences between the Senate and House bills, they are so small that the economic costs "would be similar" in the case of either bill. As a result, the EPA produced in detail the same numbers for household costs it issued earlier this year when examining the House legislation — and no revised numbers specifically for the Senate legislation.
It said the cost would add between $80 to $111 a year to households energy bills as a result of higher prices, although energy consumption was expected to decline slightly as a result of increased efficiency measures.
There have been widely conflicting price tags estimated for the climate bills. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the household cost of the House-passed bill at about $175 a year in 2020. It has not examined the Senate bill. But some industry-cited studies have put the cost much higher, some claiming possible added costs of as much as $3,000.
Boxer also released a summary of changes to the bill that introduced by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., last month.
The revised bill describes how pollution allowances for curbing greenhouse gases would be distributed. It is similar to the distribution in the House bill with 35 percent going to large electricity distribution companies, with an understanding that the benefits would be passed onto consumers to ease the impact of electricity prices.
Free allowances also would go to smaller electricity distribution companies, natural gas distributors, providers of home heating oil and to offset costs for low and moderate-income households. A slightly larger portion of the allowances would be auctioned off by the government than would be under the House bill.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 8:52 AM GMT
So... less than $10 a month to get greener energy hm?
I'm sorry... I'm failing to see any downside to this. Oh no, some people are going to have to give up their Cinabon's and Starbucks, what ever will we do!
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 9:07 AM GMT
And the annual cost per family of the war in Iraq?
And the annual cost of doing nothing about the environment, in terms of quality of life?
$100 per family a year is reasonable.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 11:19 AM GMT
After an internal memo of the Obama administration was released via the Freedom of Information Act (openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/fioa-cap-andtrade-2009-09-11.pdf), CBS News reported on Sept. 16 that the cost of the Cap and Trade bill would cost the American Public $100 and $200 billion anually. Which translates anually to the equivalent of a 15% increase in personal income tax. That's a breakdown of roughly $1,761.00 per year per household. Certainly a different amount than the daily cost of a postage stamp as the President represented it earlier this year and definantly more than $100.00 per year!
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 11:36 AM GMT
And what's the problem with this? What's the downside? A $100.00 to $175.00 per anum is NOTHING! $100-175 per month would certainly be worth it!!! (In my opinion) It absolutely amazes me that repuGlicans complain about this!! Why do we even give them a voice? Seriously, when that theocratic piece of shit was in the White Hoiuse for 8 looong years, and when the repuGlicans were in charge of the houses, they steam rolled everything over everyone. The repuGs are irrelevant!!! Where was their fiscal outrage when they and that piece of shit bush took a surplus and turned it into a HUGE deficit?!? Where were the repuGs when that piece of shit bush started the bush war in Iraq when EVERY credible rescource said there were no WMDs? Where? Right there kissing his arse! That's where These repuGlicans deserve NOTHING! No voice, no audience...NOTHING. And frankly neither do repuGlican citizens. They are the daft fools who put these bloody idiots in office. (They actually had the stupidity to vote for that piece of shit bush twice!!  ) Cheers, Keith  |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 12:30 PM GMT
Musclequest saidAnd what's the problem with this? What's the downside? A $100.00 to $175.00 per anum is NOTHING! $100-175 per month would certainly be worth it!!! (In my opinion)
It absolutely amazes me that repuGlicans complain about this!! Why do we even give them a voice? Seriously, when that theocratic piece of shit was in the White Hoiuse for 8 looong years, and when the repuGlicans were in charge of the houses, they steam rolled everything over everyone. The repuGs are irrelevant!!!
Where was their fiscal outrage when they and that piece of shit bush took a surplus and turned it into a HUGE deficit?!? Where were the repuGs when that piece of shit bush started the bush war in Iraq when EVERY credible rescource said there were no WMDs? Where? Right there kissing his arse! That's where
These repuGlicans deserve NOTHING! No voice, no audience...NOTHING. And frankly neither do repuGlican citizens. They are the daft fools who put these bloody idiots in office. (They actually had the stupidity to vote for that piece of shit bush twice!! )
Cheers,
Keith
You are way off base! To imply that anyone in this country has no right to a voice! Really ! How dare you ! I served my country honorably to protect the right of every citizen to a voice! I earned my voice ! As to the rest of what you said it's tired and just isn't working anymore. Take the time and educate yourself on the issues so you can add something worth hearing. I'm sure you arn't aware of the new Co2 study by Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT. Maybe you should check into it. It's setting the IPCC models on end. But that might be too much to ask as it might inform you and who knows you may find something relevant to say on the subject of this thread! |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 1:08 PM GMT
shybuffguy saidMusclequest saidAnd what's the problem with this? What's the downside? A $100.00 to $175.00 per anum is NOTHING! $100-175 per month would certainly be worth it!!! (In my opinion)
It absolutely amazes me that repuGlicans complain about this!! Why do we even give them a voice? Seriously, when that theocratic piece of shit was in the White Hoiuse for 8 looong years, and when the repuGlicans were in charge of the houses, they steam rolled everything over everyone. The repuGs are irrelevant!!!
Where was their fiscal outrage when they and that piece of shit bush took a surplus and turned it into a HUGE deficit?!? Where were the repuGs when that piece of shit bush started the bush war in Iraq when EVERY credible rescource said there were no WMDs? Where? Right there kissing his arse! That's where
These repuGlicans deserve NOTHING! No voice, no audience...NOTHING. And frankly neither do repuGlican citizens. They are the daft fools who put these bloody idiots in office. (They actually had the stupidity to vote for that piece of shit bush twice!! )
Cheers,
Keith
You are way off base! To imply that anyone in this country has no right to a voice! Really ! How dare you ! I served my country honorably to protect the right of every citizen to a voice! I earned my voice ! As to the rest of what you said it's tired and just isn't working anymore. Take the time and educate yourself on the issues so you can add something worth hearing. I'm sure you arn't aware of the new Co2 study by Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT. Maybe you should check into it. It's setting the IPCC models on end. But that might be too much to ask as it might inform you and who knows you may find something relevant to say on the subject of this thread! "How dare I?" Quite easily. We, Democrats, had no voice for the past 8 years while the repuGlicans were in office. These morons were put in office by the same moronacy that voted for them. So no, they (repuGlicans) deserve no voice. You serving your country, as admirable as that may be, had nothing to do with protecting this country's citizen's right to a voice. I'm not trying to minimze your commitment to your country. But AT NO TIME since WWII was this country in danger of its citizen's losing any of their rights due to foreign invasion or take over. You are way too young to be able to take credit for that statement. So get off that boat. (The only group of veterans that earned the right to say that are the WWII lot.) If you have seen any combat situations in your military career, it was probably due to that piece of shit bush sending you some place that we had no business being. -Keith  |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 1:12 PM GMT
Maybe some don't think $100/year is a lot, but when over 50% of our country is already in debt to the max, I don't know where we expect them to get it. There are no trees around here that grows $100 bills. lol
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 1:21 PM GMT
G_Force saidMaybe some don't think $100/year is a lot, but when over 50% of our country is already in debt to the max, I don't know where we expect them to get it. There are no trees around here that grows $100 bills. lol Well since you at UPS only have to work 20-30hrs to get the full benifits of a whole week due to your wonderful union, this should be a breeze. --Only giving you a hard time from our previous discussion  (And come on. A grown adult not being able to afford $100.00 per year? You should be bloody ashamed. (If that's your true situation, then how are you are on this site? You have a PC obviously. Was that free?)) Give me a break. But here is a perfect example of what I eluded to earlier. Where was this fiscal outrage/voices when the stupid repuGlicans were financially raping this county over the past 8 years?!? But now a poultry 100-175 a year is somehow going to cause them financial ruin? -Keith |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 1:23 PM GMT
shybuffguy saidAfter an internal memo of the Obama administration was released via the Freedom of Information Act (openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/fioa-cap-andtrade-2009-09-11.pdf), CBS News reported on Sept. 16 that the cost of the Cap and Trade bill would cost the American Public $100 and $200 billion anually. Which translates anually to the equivalent of a 15% increase in personal income tax. That's a breakdown of roughly $1,761.00 per year per household. Certainly a different amount than the daily cost of a postage stamp as the President represented it earlier this year and definantly more than $100.00 per year! This claim is just ridiculous. Politifact (a site run by the St. Petersburg Times) wrote that the numbers conservatives are flinging around are "false" ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/18/lamar-alexander/alexander-claims-cap-and-trade-will-cost-consumer-/ "Nowhere does the Treasury Department cite the $1,761 figure," notes the fact-checking website. Instead, the right is relying on a calculation by libertarian blogger Declan McCullagh ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_McCullagh, whose methodology for arriving at the number uses "incorrect assumptions and overly simple math." Further information from Dan Weiss ( http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/18/cbo-debunks-beck/: The CBO released an updated estimate on the House's climate legislation, finding that it would cost "$160 per household." that means "the average household would spend 44 cents per day -- less than a postage stamp." The CBO document can be found here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10573/09-17-Greenhouse-Gas.pdfThe revised analysis also determined that the least well off Americans would receive a greater net benefit than its previous projections. "CBO estimates that households in the lowest income quintile in 2020 would see an average gain... [of] about $125" per household. By 2050, this net gain would increase to "$355 measured at 2010 income levels." A clean energy economy would enjoy massive growth, according the the CBO, "[it] projects that real (inflation-adjusted) GDP [Gross Domestic Product] will be roughly two and a half times as large in 2050 as it is today." Investing in efforts to prevent catastrophic climate change, the CBO concluded, would reduce this GDP by as little as one cent per dollar. CBO concluded that the impact of the ACES Act on the overall economy would be "modest." However, the CBO did not analyze elements of the legislation that would increase our energy independence and household savings further: "The analysis does not include the effects of other aspects of the bill, such as federal efforts to speed the development of new technologies and to increase energy efficiency by specifying standards or subsidizing energy-saving investments." http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/09/waxman-markey-energy-efficiency-savings-jobs/ |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 1:26 PM GMT
In this economic downturn, most do not have an extra $100 because they are in debt to the max, so this will only add to the personal debt of most Americans and when you add interest to this, we are talking a lot more than just a $100 because I know of no financial institution who will loan even $100 without interest. Wake up America! You can not keep going into debt without another collapse like we had last year. I can already see it coming again. We just never learn. History keeps repeating itself over over and over again.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 1:28 PM GMT
Musclequest saidG_Force saidMaybe some don't think $100/year is a lot, but when over 50% of our country is already in debt to the max, I don't know where we expect them to get it. There are no trees around here that grows $100 bills. lol
Well since you at UPS only have to work 20-30hrs to get the full benifits of a whole week due to your wonderful union, this should be a breeze.
--Only giving you a hard time from our previous discussion
(And come on. A grown adult not being able to afford $100.00 per year? You should be bloody ashamed. (If that's your true situation, then how are you are on this site? You have a PC obviously. Was that free?)) Give me a break.
But here is a perfect example of what I eluded to earlier. Where was this fiscal outrage/voices when the stupid repuGlicans were financially raping this county over the past 8 years?!? But now a poultry 100-175 a year is somehow going to cause them financial ruin?
-Keith
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 1:39 PM GMT
Musclequest saidG_Force saidMaybe some don't think $100/year is a lot, but when over 50% of our country is already in debt to the max, I don't know where we expect them to get it. There are no trees around here that grows $100 bills. lol
Well since you at UPS only have to work 20-30hrs to get the full benifits of a whole week due to your wonderful union, this should be a breeze.
--Only giving you a hard time from our previous discussion
(And come on. A grown adult not being able to afford $100.00 per year? You should be bloody ashamed. (If that's your true situation, then how are you are on this site? You have a PC obviously. Was that free?)) Give me a break.
But here is a perfect example of what I eluded to earlier. Where was this fiscal outrage/voices when the stupid repuGlicans were financially raping this county over the past 8 years?!? But now a poultry 100-175 a year is somehow going to cause them financial ruin?
-Keith
A health insurance benefit doesn't pay any rent, food, transportation, insurance, personal care, etc etc. I and most Americans do not make as much money as you think. And I have my pc because it's necessary for my personal home business. If I had to depend on my part time work with UPS for my entire support, I'd be living on the street. Most of America is i ndebt to the max, including our state and federal government. We can NOT keep adding to this debt without another collapse. |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 1:46 PM GMT
This extra $100 is really nothing if the government (federal, state, and local) could manage its resources responsibly. The burden of the tax wouldn't be unbearable if politicians would alleviate us from corruptive and irresponsible distribution of funds. Those abusive practices are the ones we need to stop, not something as this bill which has a true benefit.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 1:55 PM GMT
I have had to personally cut out myself many things like cable tv, newspaper, going out to eat except for special occasions like a birthday. What else do you expect us to cut out? And I'm not as bad off as many Americans who don't even have their own transportation, but depend on public transportation to get to work. At times I even have to borrow money just to pay the rent.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 3:40 PM GMT
Most households could easily save more than $100.00 in energy costs if they would simply tweak their heating and cooling , unplug wall warts and un-needed appliances and lights, and apply a llittle common sense to their energy consumption.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 3:48 PM GMT
G_Force saidI have had to personally cut out myself many things like cable tv, newspaper, going out to eat except for special occasions like a birthday. What else do you expect us to cut out? And I'm not as bad off as many Americans who don't even have their own transportation, but depend on public transportation to get to work. At times I even have to borrow money just to pay the rent. Just a tip... but newspapers are fairly obsolete now. Between the New York Times, CNN, and even Fox "News" you should be covered. Cable TV? You also don't need that anymore. Hulu should have you covered, and if not most TV studios post their shows online within a week of them airing. You learn to make adjustments to your life situation depending on your income. I've been giving up a quarter of my paycheck to pay off medical bills for nearly two years now. For instance, I got rid of my car and took up public transportation and biking. Before I totally killed of my internet I moved down to their cheapest package and cut my subscription to an online game I was paying to play. I agree that the government needs to stop going into debt, but lets be honest about what's needed and what's not. Iraq? Never should have happened. The federal bailouts that President Bush started? Those should have had better oversight and carried a clause requiring all federal dollars to be paid back within a certain time frame. |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 4:02 PM GMT
I probably am a fairly liberal poster, so I have my biases. I don't dismiss the claims of conservatives that the additional costs of addressing climate change will cause some hardship for some (not for most of those in the Republican party--median income of Republicans is $64000 vs $46000 for Democrats). My belief is that the longer we wait, the more difficult the choices will be. Many people do not believe that climate change is very much influenced by human activity. However, if the bulk of the scientific community is right, the costs of doing nothing might be very high. In my mind, the risk of being wrong about human activity influencing climate change is much lower than the risk of doing nothing about climate change with the possibility of severe, ultimately catastrophic consequences. For about 200 years, we've used fossil fuels to power our world with little regard to the impact on others and the environment for doing so. I'm fairly convinced that the bill is coming due. As to the value of voices, I certainly appreciate when speakers make the effort to make reasoned arguments whether or not I agree with their positions. For a number of reasons, I value free speech highly. Restricting the political speech of others is something which can tear a society apart. So let the Republicans speak.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 4:40 PM GMT
Placation saidshybuffguy saidAfter an internal memo of the Obama administration was released via the Freedom of Information Act (openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/fioa-cap-andtrade-2009-09-11.pdf), CBS News reported on Sept. 16 that the cost of the Cap and Trade bill would cost the American Public $100 and $200 billion anually. Which translates anually to the equivalent of a 15% increase in personal income tax. That's a breakdown of roughly $1,761.00 per year per household. Certainly a different amount than the daily cost of a postage stamp as the President represented it earlier this year and definantly more than $100.00 per year!
This claim is just ridiculous.
Politifact (a site run by the St. Petersburg Times) wrote that the numbers conservatives are flinging around are "false" (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/18/lamar-alexander/alexander-claims-cap-and-trade-will-cost-consumer-/ "Nowhere does the Treasury Department cite the $1,761 figure," notes the fact-checking website. Instead, the right is relying on a calculation by libertarian blogger Declan McCullagh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_McCullagh, whose methodology for arriving at the number uses "incorrect assumptions and overly simple math."
Further information from Dan Weiss (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/18/cbo-debunks-beck/:
The CBO released an updated estimate on the House's climate legislation, finding that it would cost "$160 per household." that means "the average household would spend 44 cents per day -- less than a postage stamp." The CBO document can be found here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10573/09-17-Greenhouse-Gas.pdf
The revised analysis also determined that the least well off Americans would receive a greater net benefit than its previous projections. "CBO estimates that households in the lowest income quintile in 2020 would see an average gain... [of] about $125" per household. By 2050, this net gain would increase to "$355 measured at 2010 income levels."
A clean energy economy would enjoy massive growth, according the the CBO, "[it] projects that real (inflation-adjusted) GDP [Gross Domestic Product] will be roughly two and a half times as large in 2050 as it is today."
Investing in efforts to prevent catastrophic climate change, the CBO concluded, would reduce this GDP by as little as one cent per dollar. CBO concluded that the impact of the ACES Act on the overall economy would be "modest." However, the CBO did not analyze elements of the legislation that would increase our energy independence and household savings further:
"The analysis does not include the effects of other aspects of the bill, such as federal efforts to speed the development of new technologies and to increase energy efficiency by specifying standards or subsidizing energy-saving investments." http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/09/waxman-markey-energy-efficiency-savings-jobs/ You didn't check! I went directly from an internal memo to the administration from the Treasury dept! Check the memo , (there are actual copies online) and try and explain the numbers ? And that doesn't even account for the aditional costs of nearly everything produced due to higher energy costs. |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 5:03 PM GMT
So? The economic cost of fixing the problem once it happens is much greater and more devastating. If you bitch and moan every time someone tries to solve a problem, when the actual problem occurs, the steps to remedy it are far worse.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 6:16 PM GMT
Less than $2.00 a week to be a part of the solution. Use your head!
Even if you don't believe in global warming any fool knows that poluting the world will lead to higher food costs and a health care system crippled from the cost of preventable chronic diseases. And that's just scratching the surface.
I promise it will cost you and the rest of us a lot more to do nothing.
Come on, get real.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 6:38 PM GMT
I don't believe that $100 figure for a second. I'm sure it's probably going to be more. But, if it is $100 a year, you're going to complain about it? Seems like a small price to pay to make some much needed regulation of greenhouse emissions. It's a perfectly cheap investment in out future. But we need more change than this. This is a baby step.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 7:43 PM GMT
GwgTrunks saidSo... less than $10 a month to get greener energy hm?
I'm sorry... I'm failing to see any downside to this. Oh no, some people are going to have to give up their Cinabon's and Starbucks, what ever will we do! You have got to be one of the biggest idiots.. No downside to this? Did I read that right? Global wamring is pretty widely acknowledged as being a scam, and you think more money and more taxes will make a greener planet???? You seriously are a politicians wet dream... Pay higher taxres to a belief that the world is gonna explode into a fireball due to eveil humanity. Dude I just wanna punch you in the dick |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 7:51 PM GMT
filmhottie saidGwgTrunks saidSo... less than $10 a month to get greener energy hm?
I'm sorry... I'm failing to see any downside to this. Oh no, some people are going to have to give up their Cinabon's and Starbucks, what ever will we do!
You have got to be one of the biggest idiots.. No downside to this? Did I read that right?
Global wamring is pretty widely acknowledged as being a scam, and you think more money and more taxes will make a greener planet????
You seriously are a politicians wet dream... Pay higher taxres to a belief that the world is gonna explode into a fireball due to eveil humanity.
Dude I just wanna punch you in the dick I stopped reading after you wrote "Global warming is pretty widely acknowledged as being a scam," since you're clearly off your rocker..... any legit scientific source understands global warming is a PROVEN FACT. Get your brainwashed head out of your @ss and face reality -- and then comment when you actually have something to say that's not utterly ridiculous. $100, $200, or even $300 per year is well worth saving this planet from the catastrophic effects of unmitigated global warming. Only the most simple-minded idiot, blinded by short-term greed and selfishness, could fail to see that. |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 8:03 PM GMT
t0theheights saidfilmhottie saidGwgTrunks saidSo... less than $10 a month to get greener energy hm?
I'm sorry... I'm failing to see any downside to this. Oh no, some people are going to have to give up their Cinabon's and Starbucks, what ever will we do!
You have got to be one of the biggest idiots.. No downside to this? Did I read that right?
Global wamring is pretty widely acknowledged as being a scam, and you think more money and more taxes will make a greener planet????
You seriously are a politicians wet dream... Pay higher taxres to a belief that the world is gonna explode into a fireball due to eveil humanity.
Dude I just wanna punch you in the dick
I stopped reading after you wrote "Global warming is pretty widely acknowledged as being a scam," since you're clearly off your rocker..... any legit scientific source understands global warming is a PROVEN FACT. Get your brainwashed head out of your @ss and face reality -- and then comment when you actually have something to say that's not utterly ridiculous.
$100, $200, or even $300 per year is well worth saving this planet from the catastrophic effects of unmitigated global warming. Only the most simple-minded idiot, blinded by short-term greed and selfishness, could fail to see that. I think your post in response to mine has GOT to be one of the most outlandish, ridiculous responses I have ever read. You obviously are a media drone obama humping idiot who watches rachel maddow and believes every blithering lie that comes out of that dykes mouth. It is sad that sooo many gays are utterly clueless when it comes to politics and how much they are being taken advatnage of by those politicians those so much admire and love... who do nothing to advance gay progress. Global warming is refuted OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, but liberal media ignores every scientist who claims otherwise. The Earth is cooling every year, Winters are longer and much colder. This has been a trend that has been increasing yearly for at least 10 years. The ice caps are increasing in size, causeing the polar bear population to explode. If you dont believe this, LOOK IT UP!! There is NOTHING that leads a normal, sane person with a brain in their skull to believe that global warming is real. It is MEDIAscience, or pseudoscience that is almost like a cult. Its a movement that leads to more taxes, more poverty, more debt for the average person. ......and for what??? You think even if man had a role in global climate.... a tax on carbon would do ANYTHING??? What proof do you have it can be reversed if lessoned if at all???? Why are you soo ignorant of anything but a tax increasing liberal wacko agenda?? Cant you think for yourself instead of stupid Katie Couric doing it for you???? |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 8:07 PM GMT
Global warming is a scam?
FilmHottie, I suggest you do some reading. There is an actual Greenhouse effect. Without the human factor, the Greenhouse that has enveloped earth is good because it traps some heat, otherwise earth would be a very cold place. Some greenhouse gases include Water vapor (water vapor makes up the majority), carbon dioxide, and some others.
Human activity has increased carbon dioxide emissions, and therefore has accelerated the concentration of greenhouse gases, by adding more to what was already naturally occurring.
With an increase in the heat, this causes ice in the arctic to melt. As I mentioned previously, water vapor makes up most of the greenhouse gases, so with water evaporation in the arctic increasing, humans have intensified the problem by adding more water vapor.
And the hotter earth becomes, the less water there will be for the trees, and as you know, trees are vital to our supply of oxygen.
So tell me, what is the scam?
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 8:10 PM GMT
creature saidGlobal warming is a scam?
FilmHottie, I suggest you do some reading. There is an actual Greenhouse effect. Without the human factor, the Greenhouse that has enveloped earth is good because it traps some heat, otherwise earth would be a very cold place. Some greenhouse gases include Water vapor (water vapor makes up the majority), carbon dioxide, and some others.
Human activity has increased carbon dioxide emissions, and therefore has accelerated the concentration of greenhouse gases, by adding more to what was already naturally occurring.
With an increase in the heat, this causes ice in the arctic to melt. As I mentioned previously, water vapor makes up most of the greenhouse gases, so with water evaporation in the arctic increasing, humans have intensified the problem by adding more water vapor.
And the hotter earth becomes, the less water there will be for the trees, and as you know, trees are vital to our supply of oxygen.
So tell me, what is the scam? Well said, but unfortunately it likely will not convert Filmhottie and those like him who choose to ignore scientific facts because they inconveniently conflict with their irrational personal beliefs. Just sad. Willful ignorance is always the most dangerous. |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 8:13 PM GMT
creature saidGlobal warming is a scam?
FilmHottie, I suggest you do some reading. There is an actual Greenhouse effect. Without the human factor, the Greenhouse that has enveloped earth is good because it traps some heat, otherwise earth would be a very cold place. Some greenhouse gases include Water vapor (water vapor makes up the majority), carbon dioxide, and some others.
Human activity has increased carbon dioxide emissions, and therefore has accelerated the concentration of greenhouse gases, by adding more to what was already naturally occurring.
With an increase in the heat, this causes ice in the arctic to melt. As I mentioned previously, water vapor makes up most of the greenhouse gases, so with water evaporation in the arctic increasing, humans have intensified the problem by adding more water vapor.
And the hotter earth becomes, the less water there will be for the trees, and as you know, trees are vital to our supply of oxygen.
So tell me, what is the scam? YOU ARE WRONG ON SEVERAL ACCOUNTS. The earth itself produces many, MANY times more c02 than humans could ever.... via volvanoes, exhaling, cows etc. The earth is NOT heating up which seems to be your mantra, and is ridiculous. Do you read? OR DO YOU ONLY READ WHAT AL GORE Vomits for you? "Global warming" is being less and less excepted by the population every year. You need to wake up and read for yourself. I am SICK of people just spitting out al gore responses, that hold NO WATER, |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 8:16 PM GMT
t0theheights saidcreature saidGlobal warming is a scam?
FilmHottie, I suggest you do some reading. There is an actual Greenhouse effect. Without the human factor, the Greenhouse that has enveloped earth is good because it traps some heat, otherwise earth would be a very cold place. Some greenhouse gases include Water vapor (water vapor makes up the majority), carbon dioxide, and some others.
Human activity has increased carbon dioxide emissions, and therefore has accelerated the concentration of greenhouse gases, by adding more to what was already naturally occurring.
With an increase in the heat, this causes ice in the arctic to melt. As I mentioned previously, water vapor makes up most of the greenhouse gases, so with water evaporation in the arctic increasing, humans have intensified the problem by adding more water vapor.
And the hotter earth becomes, the less water there will be for the trees, and as you know, trees are vital to our supply of oxygen.
So tell me, what is the scam?
Well said, but unfortunately it likely will not convert Filmhottie and those like him who choose to ignore scientific facts because they inconveniently conflict with their irrational personal beliefs. Just sad. Willful ignorance is always the most dangerous. I think you are the danger to society. Your type of thinking (letting media and phony science decide for you), only leads to a weaker world, with more corruption and politicians taking advantage of people. You buy up all the kool-aid that is puked up and state it as fact, which is way more dangerous. You ignore scientific facts statisitics that completely dump your global warming garbage. YOU ARE A DANGER TO US |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 8:16 PM GMT
And I called it.... you can't argue with those who refuse to see facts. They live in a fantasy world that conveniently suits their own preconceived and utterly false reality. It's tragic that these dolts continue to hold the U.S. and the world back by ignoring solid scientific evidence.
Thank God most of us on this board are more in touch with reality. Hopefully Congress will stay on board as well and not be derailed by the loonies and greedy energy companies.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 8:18 PM GMT
t0theheights saidAnd I called it.... you can't argue with those who refuse to see facts. They live in a fantasy world that conveniently suits their own preconceived and utterly false reality. It's tragic that these dolts continue to hold the U.S. and the world back by ignoring solid scientific evidence. SOLID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE???? WHERE... SHOW US... AND NOT A PARTISAN WEBSITE. DON'T JUST STATE YOUR REDUNDANT LINES |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 8:20 PM GMT
t0theheights saidAnd I called it.... you can't argue with those who refuse to see facts. They live in a fantasy world that conveniently suits their own preconceived and utterly false reality. It's tragic that these dolts continue to hold the U.S. and the world back by ignoring solid scientific evidence.
Thank God most of us on this board are more in touch with reality. Hopefully Congress will stay on board as well and not be derailed by the loonies and greedy energy companies. "most of us"... u mean most people on this website or the population in general. Because if you are referring to the general population, then AGAIN you are ignoring facts. Check out the trend in polls, and tell me again a MAJORITY agree with you |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 8:20 PM GMT
filmhottie saidt0theheights saidAnd I called it.... you can't argue with those who refuse to see facts. They live in a fantasy world that conveniently suits their own preconceived and utterly false reality. It's tragic that these dolts continue to hold the U.S. and the world back by ignoring solid scientific evidence.
SOLID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE???? WHERE... SHOW US... AND NOT A PARTISAN WEBSITE. DON'T JUST STATE YOUR REDUNDANT LINES I said "most of us ON THIS BOARD" know better, not most of the general population. Unfortunately, much of the general population is ignorant and brainwashed by republican lies via moronic reps and Fox "News." And I hope you don't honestly think that polls have any bearing on what's true or not.....scientific fact is fact. The opinion of the brainwashed, ignorant individual is irrelevant. I'm sure this is a waste of time, but: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html It takes all of 10 seconds on google to see that global warming is accepted by the scientific community as FACT, not probable--definite. Now find some excuse to ignore facts that don't suit your made-up reality.... ugh. I'm done. Stop wasting our time on this board until you open your eyes and get in touch with reality. [Waits for you to prove me right yet again....... your brainwashed, willfully ignorant type is so predictable. As one senator put it, one might just as soon argue with a bathtub.] |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 8:26 PM GMT
I do read, and I was well aware of the carbon dioxide emissions that are naturally produced, which is why I said human activity adds "more to what was already naturally occurring."
And all sources I have read come to same conclusion. I have never heard of the Polar Bear population exploding, as you have said. In fact, I have heard quite the opposite. I know wikipedia is not a scholarly source, but it can point you to the right direction. I suggest you read about what is happening to the subpopulation of polar bears in the Western Hudson Bay and in Alaska. See what is happening to the polar bears in those regions.
I don't know how many more times the earth naturally produces carbon dioxide compared to the result of human activity. Nevertheless, our contribution is not helping matters. It is because of what the earth does by itself that we have to be careful, monitor ourselves, and reduce our contributions where possible so we don't escalate a naturally occurring process, especially with a detrimental result.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 8:34 PM GMT
creature saidI do read, and I was well aware of the carbon dioxide emissions that are naturally produced, which is why I said human activity adds "more to what was already naturally occurring."
And all sources I have read come to same conclusion. I have never heard of the Polar Bear population exploding, as you have said. In fact, I have heard quite the opposite. I know wikipedia is not a scholarly source, but it can point you to the right direction. I suggest you read about what is happening to the subpopulation of polar bears in the Western Hudson Bay and in Alaska. See what is happening to the polar bears in those regions.
I don't know how many more times the earth naturally produces carbon dioxide compared to the result of human activity. Nevertheless, our contribution is not helping matters. It is because of what the earth does by itself that we have to be careful, monitor ourselves, and reduce our contributions where possible so we don't escalate a naturally occurring process, especially with a detrimental result. I completely disagree but respect your right to your opinion. Facts are facts and I cannot make anyone believe fact from fiction. In all the 6 billion years and all the earth has been thru, I HIGHLY HIGHLY DOUBT that its own co2 emiisions would would cause it to make any major changes that humans could ever control or lesson. Its a comedy in here sometimes. |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 8:36 PM GMT
filmhottie saidcreature saidI do read, and I was well aware of the carbon dioxide emissions that are naturally produced, which is why I said human activity adds "more to what was already naturally occurring."
And all sources I have read come to same conclusion. I have never heard of the Polar Bear population exploding, as you have said. In fact, I have heard quite the opposite. I know wikipedia is not a scholarly source, but it can point you to the right direction. I suggest you read about what is happening to the subpopulation of polar bears in the Western Hudson Bay and in Alaska. See what is happening to the polar bears in those regions.
I don't know how many more times the earth naturally produces carbon dioxide compared to the result of human activity. Nevertheless, our contribution is not helping matters. It is because of what the earth does by itself that we have to be careful, monitor ourselves, and reduce our contributions where possible so we don't escalate a naturally occurring process, especially with a detrimental result.
I completely disagree but respect your right to your opinion. Facts are facts and I cannot make anyone believe fact from fiction. In all the 6 billion years and all the earth has been thru, I HIGHLY HIGHLY DOUBT that its own co2 emiisions would would cause it to make any major changes that humans could ever control or lesson. Its a comedy in here sometimes. Unfortunately your uninformed disagreement has no bearing on what's actually true. |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 8:40 PM GMT
t0theheights saidfilmhottie saidcreature saidI do read, and I was well aware of the carbon dioxide emissions that are naturally produced, which is why I said human activity adds "more to what was already naturally occurring."
And all sources I have read come to same conclusion. I have never heard of the Polar Bear population exploding, as you have said. In fact, I have heard quite the opposite. I know wikipedia is not a scholarly source, but it can point you to the right direction. I suggest you read about what is happening to the subpopulation of polar bears in the Western Hudson Bay and in Alaska. See what is happening to the polar bears in those regions.
I don't know how many more times the earth naturally produces carbon dioxide compared to the result of human activity. Nevertheless, our contribution is not helping matters. It is because of what the earth does by itself that we have to be careful, monitor ourselves, and reduce our contributions where possible so we don't escalate a naturally occurring process, especially with a detrimental result.
I completely disagree but respect your right to your opinion. Facts are facts and I cannot make anyone believe fact from fiction. In all the 6 billion years and all the earth has been thru, I HIGHLY HIGHLY DOUBT that its own co2 emiisions would would cause it to make any major changes that humans could ever control or lesson. Its a comedy in here sometimes.
Unfortunately your uninformed disagreement has no bearing on what's actually true. Obviously my truth is not your truth, and no matter happens in this forum, the truth remains. You can scream yours in the truth and I am a casualty of fox news or whatever bullshit you stated, but this arguring is going nowhere. Claim all you want that Im wrong your right ... that is fine. But it wont matter. Good luck in your agenda |
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 9:04 PM GMT
Sounds like a good deal to me. We broke it so we bought it. Time to pay for it.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2009 9:05 PM GMT
Thanks for respecting my right to an opinion.
But I want to make it clear it is not about controlling or lessening earth's natural process of greenhouse gas emissions. The point of the Energy Bill is to lessen human contribution. And even if the earth contributes more of those gases than humans do, it would not be wise for us to add more fuel to the flame, not matter how small in comparison.
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 1:08 AM GMT
Sparkycat saidSounds like a good deal to me. We broke it so we bought it. Time to pay for it. And by "we", I am assuming you mean the human race. And what exactly did we brake? And how did you come to the conclusion that the human race broke it? |
|
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 2:04 AM GMT
Wow this got heated fast. As far as I have seen/understood, the scientific consensus is still by far on the side that human activity is damaging to the planet. Somewhere around 2% or so is the figure I have heard as being the amount of CO2 produced by humans. Which doesn't sound like a lot but if anybody knows anything about compounding interest they know that 2% can make a huge difference in short order, especially considering the time scale our whole planet is working on.
As a Canadian I haven't not heard anything about the previously cited polar bear population explosion, but have heard many things to the opposite effect. $100 a year can be a lot of money for some people, but that is really only a lot of money for the people that (as far as I understand) will see a tax reduction under Obama's income tax rates, so I think the net effect of these 2 policies should still be positive on the people where $100 could be significant.
As an economist one of the things the outside world thinks that we do that could actually be of use is cost benefit analysis. Depending on how highly you discount future generations (ie. assuming we do still care about people in the future), then even if we are unsure about "global warming", if there is a risk of it (which there certainly is as there are definitely many scientists that seem to think this is true), and we put the chance of global warming having cataclysmic effects at around 10% (c.f. Weitzman) this policy would certainly be worth it.
I recognize that there is no 100% consensus on global warming and many very intelligent and respected scientists don't believe it to be true, and some people are citing the current "cooler" decade we have had as proof. Personally, I think that human activity is having long term impacts but that could be due to the communist liberal socialist media we get up here in Canada. In respect to this policy, aside from climate change perspectives, to stay on our current consumption paths would be very myopic, as the only real sustainable form of energy is renewable energy, oil will eventually run out or just become prohibitively expensive, and oil spills and the decimation to local populations from oil extraction are good enough reasons for me to try and make an investment now.
Global warming aside, humans are definitely having an impact on the environment. The rapid extinction of species on this planet, and the levels of deforestation in the Amazons and in Africa where desertification is a real problem. Many fisheries have collapsed (ie. here in Canada with the Atlantic coast fisheries), coral is expected to be extinct in my lifetime, and for these things it is pretty clear human activity has created this habitat loss and unsustainable state of consumption.
Maybe everything is fine and these are all temporary problems just happen to be occurring at the very same time as human consumption is rapidly increasing, but that is very unlikely (in my unprofessional opinion). Of course we would all prefer to not be the cause of any of this and go on living as normal, but that does not seem to be very likely. Changing our consumption paths to a more sustainable level now (at least what can scientifically be agreed upon as sustainable), may affect GDP by 1, 2, or 3% now, while as someone studying economics I understand to be very significant, is worth much more more in risk avoidance. As it stands now, if I were an insurance company, I would not accept our planet as a client unless there were significant changes made.
|
