Can we afford the cost of green energy in hidden taxes and job loss? Now is the time to act!
Like an old joke turned ironically true, it seems that the government is now preparing to actually tax us for breathing. This comes in the form of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 sponsored by Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) which is likely to come to the floor of the Congress as early as this Friday. It is the legislative culmination of the ongoing eco-madness based on the idea that carbon dioxide is a form of toxic pollution, despite the fact that it is produced in nature, is part of the atmospheric cycle on which all life is based, and is shown to stimulate plant growth and the replenishment of the atmosphere.…
Article comments
26 - roger nowosielski
"When cap and trade makes energy so expensive that the average citizen can no longer afford it, then the government will come to us with energy subsidies and pretty soon our electric bill will be added to our list of entitlements, rationed and metered and underwritten by tax dollars taken from the "fortunate" (hard working) and given to the growing body of dolists who are more and more dependent on the state. THIS is what the ultimate objective here is."
If that were really the case, Dave, then what you're describing here is a most sinister kind of plan. Now, you yourself are not a believer in conspiracy theories. Do you really think that the behind-the-scenes movers and shakers and proponents of the "Green Revolution" have that kind of foresight and vision and are moved therefore by their secret designs on the society at large?
27 - ocha
Very well stated. It's ironic as you say that "they" want to tax the air we breath which was designed by God Himself. I agree we need to curb the more toxic gasses and if we can recycle there will be less in the land fills. Will we ever know all the answers? No.
28 - Annie
Just another Democrat tax. Note the near-absence of discussion and debate about this massive, far-reaching bill in the mass media. Note the fact that almost no one in the mass media points out that the planet has not gotten any warmer over the last decade. These political elites are depending upon the people to remain sleeping, and most of the people are happy to oblige - instead, they focus on the death of a deranged pedophile. We are fucked.
29 - Clavos
Here's a Wall Street Journal article outlining the growing skepticism worldwide about manmade GW. An excerpt:
As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
***
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers.
30 - Arch Conservative
I couldn't agree with you more Annie. In fact since the moonbats were prone to crazy paranoid fantsies during the Bush years let me now offer one. Perhaps King barry had someone give Jacko a hot shot so no one would be paying attention when they rammed this econut tax right up the pooper of the American public.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
So true. But when's it coming round again? The sooner the better.
Michael Jackson and King Barry will be sharing a room in hell soon.
31 - Dave Nalle
Yet every moonbat and his mother finds it perfectly acceptable to label any scientist with respectable credentials that dares question global warming as "bought by the oil companies."
Not just that, but they call them "global warming DENIERS" equating their belief with those of racists and neonazis who deny the holocaust, all part of the agenda to smear anyone who tries to apply rational empirical principles to a belief which is more like a religion than anything scientific.
When the scientists start taking things as dogma and stop engaging in rational inquiry and at least a minimal amount of skepticism and when they let political considerations override scientific objectivity, as has happened with this issue, we're truly screwed.
Dave
32 - zingzing
clavos: "No wonder he didn't get elected."
except he did.
dave: "when they let political considerations override scientific objectivity, as has happened with this issue, we're truly screwed."
no, then we're just in status quo. if people who, like you, doubt for purely political reasons win out and then are proven wrong, then we're truly screwed.
there's nothing wrong with trying to improve our climate and our environment. that we have an impact on our environment is beyond question. why not try to lessen that impact?
bah, we've all had this argument before. if you really don't think there's any scientific or empirical proof for global warming, go stand on a glacier. better be praying.
33 - zingzing
archie: "Michael Jackson and King Barry will be sharing a room in hell soon."
you have no respect for anything or anyone, do you? karma might yet have its way with you.
34 - Silas Kain
Take comfort, zing. He who condemns a soul to Hell becomes the greeter at the Hades' WalMart.
35 - roger nowosielski
I think some of us are already in hell, Silas and zing. To live your life with hatred in your heart?
It is just me or the site, but it's slow as shit today. Takes almost a minute for a page to load up.
36 - roger nowosielski
Archie,
You forgot the refrain from the sixties. Repeat after me now, and in cadence"
"All you need is love!"
Come on. Say it again.
I can't hear you.
37 - Clavos
if you really don't think there's any scientific or empirical proof for global warming, go stand on a glacier. better be praying.
But if you stand on one of the glaciers that's growing, you'd better be praying the ice doesn't build up around you and entomb you.
38 - pablo
Well it is a global warming day in hell when I agree with either Clavos or Nalle about a political issue, this is one of those times.
From the book by the Club of Rome published in 1972 "The First Global Revolution"
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill"
"It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one imagined for this
purpose".
For those of you politically naive folks out there who do not know who the Club or Rome is try googling it and get educated.
When you have such evil men such as Lord Rothschild, Maurice Strong, and Al Gore pushing this globalist crap it should raise alarm bells, however since most politicos out there are so dumbed down as to be brain dead it is no surprise that so many (particularly those of the naive liberal class) buy into this bullshit.
An excellent film on this subject can be seen on video google and is hyperlinked here for those that might have an open (fat chance) mind.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
The great Al Gore former tobaccy farmer and owner of Occidental Petroleum is out to save us from the bogeyman, how utterly charming, given the fact that last year he consumed over $30,000 in electricity at his home last year. He is also a personal friend of Maurice (yes I know you so called politcos don't know who he is) Strong, a henchman for the Rosthchild dynasty and one of the most powerful men in the world today.
Just a modern day $100,000,000 Chicken Little for all the guilt ridden bleeding hearts out there that think that a natural gas that plants need to breathe is going to destroy us all.
I challenge (I know you won't) all you global warming freaks out there to watch the film linked above. As you claim that global warming is a "fact" you already show your sublime ignorance as it is indeed a scientific "theory", I suggest you followers of global warming theory come up to speed in your ignorant vocabulary.
There are indeed thousands of scientists that do not agree with the Club of Rome/United Nations/Rothschilds/Globalists who are telling us that the sky is falling. I NEVER cease to be amazed at how utterly naive and gullible as are those on the left side of the political spectrum. One case in point to all you Amy Goodman fans out there. She is almost completely funded by the Rockefellers, a real source of liberalism (cough). Just as the new liberals Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and the ED show are owned by General Electric another great bastion of liberalism. (cough)
39 - zingzing
clavos, read the article... this, too, is a symptom of global warming. from the article: "the winds appear to be carrying more moisture from the warming Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea eastward. "As temperatures continue increasing, they will overtake additional mass provided by snow," Fountain said. "The freezing level will keep rising, and glaciers will melt.""
besides all that, why do you take a tiny example that bucks a trend as proof that the entire trend is bogus? it's like saying "global warming? pffft. it's cold in minneapolis..." (not that it is or anything).
i agree that not ALL of the warming we are seeing is because of mankind. this might mostly (or at least partially) be a product of natural cycles. still, we should, to whatever degree we can, do our part to lessen our own impact on something that could mean a dramatic reduction in food production and the square milage of coastal regions, etc.
legislation is a dubious method for such change, but if you can think of something more effective, i'm all ears. a sense of personal responsibility only goes so far in individuals, but if you take an inhuman corporation's sense of responsibility and put it up against its desire for profit, responsibility loses out 99.99% of the time.
40 - Dave Nalle
Zing, I'm all for improving the environment. I just think it should be done on an individual and voluntary basis as much as possible and not through massive government programs and huge increases in taxes, especially when the economy is already shaky.
I recycle and have done various things to reduce energy consumption in our house, all at my own expense (we have to drive our recycling into town because we have no pickup service), and I'd really like to install more solar and even wind power if I could afford it.
But what I don't want is to be forced to pay for these measures when they are not yet cost effective and clearly non-essential. They're a luxury right now, and should be treated that way.
Dave
41 - zingzing
i agree, dave, that in a perfect world, we could achieve a better environment without the need for legislation. that would be great. unfortunately, i don't think that corporations (who are disproportionately responsible for more than their share of pollution) feel this sense of personal responsibility, and do need this kind of a kick in the ass. i think that's where the taxes should be aimed (although we all know how corporations pay for their taxes).
no idea is perfect, of course, and neither is this one. i also don't like the idea of corporations being able to pay their way out of their responsibility to the environment. alas, the idea of making certain methods of production unprofitable to a company as a way of punishing their environment irresponsibility also sucks. god knows we don't need more companies being pushed under.
you do say that "these measures[...] are not yet cost effective" which is true ("clearly non-essential" is... less true...). The only problem I have with that first statement is that unless we make these companies FIND ways for the measures to be cost effective, i.e. research and development, then we'll never get out of antiquated methods of production that produce so much pollution. by forcing companies to find new, better, more cost effective, less polluting methods, we better those companies, improve the environment, create new jobs, new technologies, new ideas... the list goes on.
maybe these measures could be considered "non-essential" right now, but if one decides to look towards the future, not only are these kinds of measures necessary, they're also inevitable. one would hope that we could arrive their on our own, but it's clearly not happening fast enough. maybe because it's not "cost effective" right now, but it certainly will be. get there first, make a shit-ton of cash.
42 - zingzing
jeez. several clavos moments in that one. i've been sick. some kind of swine flu. damn you, ruvy.
43 - roger nowosielski
It's the "blame Ruvy whenever in doubt" policy.
44 - zingzing
nah, roger, ruvy, at various points, hoped that i would die from swine flu. actually he said, ahem, that "no one will mourn your death when you die from swine flu" or something like that. it's close to that anyway. all because i doubted that swine flu is anything more than a media concoction, no worse than regular old flu. seriously, in the wake of iran and michael jackson, swine flu ain't shit according to the media.
45 - roger nowosielski
Sure, they just follow the money.
46 - Clavos
besides all that, why do you take a tiny example that bucks a trend as proof that the entire trend is bogus? it's like saying "global warming? pffft. it's cold in minneapolis..." (not that it is or anything).
Jeez, zing you've proven beyond all doubt that you are totally without humor. Are you German? I posted that article as a joke -- of course i read it; the article and my comment were...fuck it.
47 - Arch Conservative
It is beyond stupid to think that even if CO2 is a pollutant the USA alone can make some kind of meaningful difference when China and India aren't going to be following suit on cap and trade. The only thing this bill will do is further handicap the American economy.
The American public strongly opposes this bill yet the Dems are determined to force it upon us any way. they have their agenda, they have their messiah and they'll be damned if they'll let something as trivial as the will of the American people get in their way.
If it passes they will reap what they've sown in 2010 when the GOP regains control and their messiah is relegated to nothing more than Benson the Butler in the White House......keeping the seat warm in the oval office until Mitt Romney shows up.
48 - zingzing
"of course i read it; the article and my comment were...fuck it."
sure, clavos. i'd believe that, except you've posted similar things on this subject so many, many times before
"zing you've proven beyond all doubt that you are totally without humor."
a floor tom and a hi-hat fall off a cliff. bu-dum, tif.
a man walks into a bar and sits down next to a cow. he turns to the cow and says, "well, it's not every day you sit down in bar next to a cow." you know what the cow says?
"moo."
you know i have a sense of humor. i'm the silliest commenter on these boards. excepting jom, of course.
but, let's say you were making a joke. if so, then you do believe that the glaciers are melting and that there are things we can and should do that will, possibly, help to slow such catastrophic environmental change? well, then, that's good. or are you still sticking with your 700 (!!wow!!whoopeee!!!! out of how many?) "scientists" that back your side of things?
49 - zingzing
archie: "It is beyond stupid to think that even if CO2 is a pollutant the USA alone can make some kind of meaningful difference when China and India aren't going to be following suit on cap and trade. The only thing this bill will do is further handicap the American economy."
that's the most damning argument i've heard yet against your argument. it's like a parent saying, "my kid won't stop shitting his pants... oh well, i'll just shit my too." if others are too irresponsible to not do what's right, it doesn't mean that the responsibility is negated. sure, there will be economic negatives for a while, but once the technology catches up, then we'll be ahead again, while they are still stuck in the middle ages. this environmental shit is just the thing america needs to open up new technological and economic boundaries. it's just the kick in the ass we need. our economy and environment will benefit from this, but you're too short-sighted to even think of the possibilities.
50 - roger nowosielski
Well, there's another argument, zing, for "going green," and you just alluded to it. Many have argued that to get us out of the present economic crisis, it may take nothing less than a tremendous technological breakthrough - something akin to the steam engine invention and the computer revolution in the early sixties.
Well, this is one area which is ripe for technological innovation on a scale we can't even imagine. And it could re-establish our leadership for another hundred years or so (if only to slow down the People's Republic).
51 - Bliffle
Carbon dioxide is not a poison, as so many pollutants are, but a suffocant. It displaces normal air and subsequently animal life forms die.
Many volcanos, such as Kilimanjaro, have alpine valleys on their slopes where fumaroles displace air with CO2. Animals (including humans) are attracted to those valleys by their verdant flora, but the animals soon die.
Sulphur is another pollutant released by burning fossil fuels, and, in fact we would all soon succumb to sulphur poisoning except that most of it is sequestered by lichens such as ramalina and returned to the earth by droppings.
Woodman! Spare that tree!
52 - Dave Nalle
Bliffle, we've actually done quite a good job over the last few decades in reducing sulphur emissions of all sorts, to the point where it's well under control. When was the last time you heard about acid rain?
As for CO2, the real point here is that even the worst-case scenarios for CO2 increase put the level ridiculously far inside the tolerances for human and animal life which we can determine based on history.
What we're looking at here is a plan to kill a gnat with a sledgehammer and the bad news is that the sledgehammer is going to cost every family in the US $75K. That just seems ridiculous.
Dave
53 - Bliffle
We don't hear about acid rain very much anymore, so out of curiosity I looked up SO4 for Sonora TX, which looks like it's about the same, varying in a +- range of 35% for the last 25 years.
Sonora TX SO4
"Lab pH" seems to be even more steady steady:
Sonora TX lab pH
I'm not sure what to conclude about these trends other than they seem to be about the same.
54 - Dave Nalle
Not sure why you'd pick Sonora where it rains about once a decade as your test case for acid rain. That said, I'm surprised that with its proximity to Mexico and the maquiladoras that it isn't experiencing an increase.
But the traditional area for acid rain issues is the great lakes area. If we want to look at serious figures on improvement that would be the place to look.
Dave
55 - Joanne Huspek
Excuse me, but don't those green trees and other flora NEED carbon dioxide to make oxygen? It's why I have houseplants. Since my CO2 is killing them, perhaps I should get rid of them before I kill them with my breath.
And yeah, they promised energy jobs to Michigan. I'll believe it when I see it.
56 - Bliffle
Yes, all plants need CO2. In fact, plants are made up of carbon compounds based on carbon, which they cleverly form into various vital materials. In return, they emit oxygen into the air.
It's an amazing a wonderful symbiosis between plants and animals.
We should have regard for it.
57 - handyguy
This article, which accuses environmentalists of alarmism, is of course itself a large, odoriferous and ridiculous piece of fearmongering: "Write your Congressman! Economic devastation is nigh!"
It is utter propaganda, based not on facts, but, as is Dave's wont, on libertarian ideology.
As I've said before, this debate divides so neatly along ideological lines that it can't really be entirely about science. Clavos and Al Gore both claim to be 100% right on the science, and that the other side is 100% fucked. This makes both arguments suspect.
58 - Bliffle
Neither Clavos nor Al Gore has any claim on scientific competency, as near as I can tell.