[ECM]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kiwichick', 'f')inally some leadership from the US

its not enough and its too slow , its not perfect but it is a start

hopefully results will start to come though quickly

the right here in OZ has been using the same arguments here

in fact watching the flatearth republicans would be hilarious if they
weren't so dangerous

congrats to those who realize this is a global problem and that we all
face major change as we go over the peak

[odegaard]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dohboi', 'U')mm, no, rationing happened in the UK and the US and many other non-dictatorships during WWII...

[deMolay]

Looks like another 1500 page bill was forced through Congress without anyone reading what they were voting on. Obama Victory. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... le1199364/

[deMolay]

From Comments attached to the article.............."Bold"; "Promising"; "historic"; "necessary"! With such lofty terms of praise for President Obama from the so-called free press, I doubt that he would need a campaign manager or for that matter the Democratic Party to back him up during the next election! I suppose any positive move no matter how slow and how impotent it may be is of some value. At least it is keeping those Congress people off the streets and gives them something to do over the summer! The fact is that this Climate Bill is TOO LATE!! US production over the past year has already plummetted about 16% over the last 6 months or so (in some sectors, it has gone down by as much as 24% or more). And guess what? Those industries that have suffered the most over this recession are those that pollute our environment the most.

As for the US government issuing a declining number of pollution permits which can in turn, be sold by the companies to each other...well, guess what? This is also in line with the rate at which some of these companies are also merging with each other!

So all in all, it's a "dud" bill that basically mirrors the flaws in the economic system. There is nothing new that it can hope to achieve. I suppose it does highlight one possible positive aspect of this economic downturn and that is...cleaner environment!

So, what can we expect a year down the road? A smiling, "fireside" talk by the President about how this Climate Bill has helped to cut down on pollution when in reality, this "dud" bill had nothing to do with it other than padding his portfolio. As for those Democrats in the House...all I can say is that, you have taken your name in vain.

[dohboi]

So no one has found any established scientific bodies that deny AGW, and no one was able to question any of the basic components of AGW.

So I guess everybody on this thread is conceding that AGW is real and dangerous.

Thanks for that.

And in response I will concede that this is a deeply flawed bill that will mostly benefit Goldman Sucks and similar banksters who specialize in manipulating these kinds of shady trading deals.

[deMolay]

Actually I think the general concenus is that you are deluded, that you have drank the Kool-Aid and are beyond anyones help. Most have learned to not bother debating Manmade Global Warming Zombies like yourself, because even when presented with facts you just continue foaming at the mouth. No one wants to inflame your condition. Besides that I think we all agree that this bill is seriously flawed.

[odegaard]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dohboi', 'A')gain, for lurkers: AGW is based on very basic, incontrovertable facts--
* insert blather *

[highlander]

From the latest hubris from congress

Technlogy and ethanol save us on the transportation side.(just like refrigeration saved us from salt wars) see below

Clean coal and nuclear for generating electricity to power all the replacement vehicles.

Lots of government expansion to make sure we are all following the rules.


SEC. 127. OPEN FUEL STANDARD.

(a) Findings- The Congress finds that--

(1) the status of oil as a strategic commodity, which derives from its domination of the transportation sector, presents a clear and present danger to the United States;

(2) in a prior era, when salt was a strategic commodity, salt mines conferred national power and wars were fought over the control of such mines;

(3) technology, in the form of electricity and refrigeration, decisively ended salt's monopoly of meat preservation and greatly reduced its strategic importance;

(4) fuel competition and consumer choice would similarly serve to end oil's monopoly in the transportation sector and strip oil of its strategic status;

(5) the current closed fuel market has allowed a cartel of petroleum exporting countries to inflate fuel prices, effectively imposing a harmful tax on the economy of the United States;

(6) much of the inflated petroleum revenues the oil cartel earns at the expense of the people of the United States are used for purposes antithetical to the interests of the United States and its allies;

(7) alcohol fuels, including ethanol and methanol, could potentially provide significant supplies of additional fuels that could be produced in the United States and in many other countries in the Western Hemisphere that are friendly to the United States;

(8) alcohol fuels can only play a major role in securing the energy independence of the United States if a substantial portion of vehicles in the United States are capable of operating on such fuels;

(9) it is not in the best interest of United States consumers or the United States Government to be constrained to depend solely upon petroleum resources for vehicle fuels if alcohol fuels are potentially available;

(10) existing technology, in the form of flexible fuel vehicles, allows internal combustion engine cars and trucks to be produced at little or no additional cost, which are capable of operating on conventional gasoline, alcohol fuels, or any combination of such fuels, as availability or cost advantage dictates, providing a platform on which fuels can compete;

(11) the necessary distribution system for such alcohol fuels will not be developed in the United States until a substantial fraction of the vehicles in the United States are capable of operating on such fuels;

(12) the establishment of such a vehicle fleet and distribution system would provide a large market that would mobilize private resources to substantially advance the technology and expand the production of alcohol fuels in the United States and abroad;

(13) the United States has an urgent national security interest to develop alcohol fuels technology, production, and distribution systems as rapidly as possible;

(14) new cars sold in the United States that are equipped with an internal combustion engine should allow for fuel competition by being flexible fuel vehicles, and new diesel cars should be capable of operating on biodiesel; and

(15) such an open fuel standard would help to protect the United States economy from high and volatile oil prices and from the threats caused by global instability, terrorism, and natural disaster.

[shortonoil]

highlander said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')rom the latest hubris from congress

[dohboi]

"Ladies and Gentleman watch as dohboi tap dances"

I'd love to show you my moves, but there is no reason to address the plant man on this one. His points are completely irrelevant to mine. I was talking about physical and chemical facts, he about politics and economics.

This is one of the usual tactics, of course. If you have no argument left, you try to change the subject. I'm not falling for it. Sorry guys.

[dohboi]

By the way, short. They were recently discussing a concept near and dear to your heart over at TOD: Net energy: http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/5500#more

[Tanada]

What I would like to see is a hard fossil carbon tax and no trading of credits allowed. But that's apparently a very small minority of opinion on the topic of what CO2 is and what we are doing about it. A hard cap with no trading done properly would get us off fossil carbon sources faster than anything else short of ending modern civilization.

[Arthur75]

I don't follow the thing very closely but is the law more a cap and trade thing or a tax ?


How about the proposal by James Hansen :


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')ising price on carbon emissions via a "carbon tax and 100% dividend".
A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction and operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency.

A rising carbon price is essential to "decarbonize" the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public's near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.

The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.

The tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products. The dividend puts money in the pockets of consumers, stimulating the economy, and providing the public a means to purchase the products.

A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from half way around the world.

[Tanada]

The worst thing about this new Cap bill is the overwhelming level of Federal control it will impose, right down to local building codes for villages in Alaska, towns in Hawaii, Cities in Florida and Farms in Maine. Clearly the building needs for someone in Southern California are going to be vastly different than those in North Dakota, but bureaucracies tend to enforce a one size fits all solution to every problem they encounter.

Locally me electric supplier just spent hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading the coal power plant to vastly reduce sulfur and nitrous emissions, now they will be capped on their CO2 emissions which I would normally support. I believe that they have acted in good faith and as good corporate citizens, now they are about to be hit with a new expense that is only poorly defined. Undoubtedly either my electric rates will go up or my taxes will go up so that government can subsidize the utility.

[deMolay]

I would just like to throw this into the discussion. Over 31,000 American scientists disagree with the Kool-Aid Drinkers. http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

[Arthur75]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('deMolay', 'I') would just like to throw this into the discussion. Over 31,000 American scientists disagree with the Kool-Aid Drinkers. http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

[deMolay]

Good Points Arthur.

[Arthur75]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('deMolay', 'G')ood Points Arthur.

[pablonite]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')he worst thing about this new Cap bill is the overwhelming level of Federal control it will impose...

[pablonite]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Arthur75', 'T')hanks, to me it's really strange that nearly 100% of the communication done on this thing is around AGW and not managing fossile fuel depletion.