lol

oh look, attacking a source (again). Wow you AGW guys really know how to win an argument.

6/25/2009 4:12:40 PM

the heritage foundation is a mouthpiece for the right.

how am i supposed to argue in good faith who takes speculation as fact?

Quote :

"why don't you address the fact that this bill will have no effect on the global climate?"

6/25/2009 4:17:45 PM

^ How about Obama supporter and multibillionaire Warren Buffett describing cap and trade as "regressive"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoCsFsU_irY

And do you do anything other than attack sources? Are all sources posted by conservatives flawed? Would you mind just dealing with the content?

6/25/2009 4:18:05 PM

i have great information from World Net Daily DO NOT ATTACK THE SOURCE

6/25/2009 4:19:31 PM

no way man, Obama's a pawn of the far right!

This bill will do nothing for global warming, i consider 0.2 degrees F over 91 years nothing. Maybe you don't?

6/25/2009 4:19:54 PM

^^^and you argue both sides of the point just to try to prove me wrong somehow.

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 4:21 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2009 4:20:19 PM

i'm not saying attacking the source of the recent arguments is illegitimate, but it's hilarious coming from you two, who seemingly won't listen to anything from the NYT, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, News and Observer, ABC, or a dozen other MSM outlets

6/25/2009 4:28:06 PM

^^ WTF are you even babbling about? I'm saying cap and trade is not a good idea--and so is Obama supporter Warren Buffett. Which part don't you get?

BTW, you seem really agitated and off lately--what's up? Have all those Obama flip-flops got you listening to Morrissey and skipping your SSRIs?

^ WTF are you even babbling about? I watch ABC News every day--including Sundays. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is check how many times I post topics from This Week. And I read The New York Times every day, too--I have been a subscriber to their various e-mail services for years, among many other sources that are not conservative (including NPR).

The difference between us is that I turn my liberal bullshit filter on when reading, listening, and viewing--and many of you simply don't.

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 4:48 PM. Reason : PS: I frequently read The Washington Post, too. But stereotypes can be fun, huh? ]

6/25/2009 4:40:20 PM

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 4:40 PM. Reason : DBL POST!]

6/25/2009 4:40:20 PM

^^you're quoting people who are saying that the bill is bad for basically opposite reasons.

and forgive me for not talking about my personal life on the wolfweb. especially to someone i have no intention of ever knowing.

6/25/2009 4:45:34 PM

^ Ah, must've touched a nerve.

Quote :

"I'm saying cap and trade is not a good idea--and so is Obama supporter Warren Buffett."

Point still stands.

6/25/2009 4:49:45 PM

you didn't touch anything.

believe it or not, i like to argue the point at hand. but i know you like to make all these discussions personal.


ok. let me spell this out for you. let's say a judge says "i award damages for this case to be $5000."

this might be a perfectly reasonable judgment. but i'm sure you could find people on both sides of this argument saying that it was a bad judgment. eg "it is too low" "it is too high". would it make sense to quote both of these sources as part of an argument?

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2009 4:50:45 PM

not the same, there you are argueing on a single scale, combine the 2 and you are where you start.

With this you have side A saying that its bad because of the negative economic impact, meanwhile side B is saying its not going to do enough to help the environment.

Combine the 2 sides and you get an excessively expensive, economy damaging peice of legislation that doesnt actually do anything

6/25/2009 4:59:43 PM

wow


if a bill's bad, its B-A-D. Doesn't matter if someone thinks its for one reason and someone another reason. The end result is the same, i.e. don't vote for it.

Since you support the bill, either reason we throw at you is valid.

6/25/2009 5:01:42 PM

so one person saying that the bill wealth redistribution and another saying it's regressive are equally valid points?

6/25/2009 5:02:46 PM

^^ Well, sarijoul is a youngling. He probably hasn't heard of the saying that politics makes strange bedfellows.

6/25/2009 5:08:05 PM

and here goes hooksaw not arguing a point and trying to make a cheap personal shot.

6/25/2009 5:09:17 PM

Quote :

"good."

-sarijoul


i agree with you. maybe you didn't read the rest of my post.

all i'm saying is that doing something about this in the US, UK, etc ain't gonna do any good unless they do something to countries like china that don't seem to give a shit

6/25/2009 5:11:09 PM

actually china is starting to turn on at least coal power a bit. more because of the terrible pollution that they're seeing. also i think we'd be in a far better position to pressure them if we have taken some action ourselves.

but i agree it's not easy when it puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

i think china and india will get there though. it may take some time. but rich countries don't typically like to live in filth forever.

and i just don't like the argument of "well our little bit of positive change won't change everything. so we might as well not change."

6/25/2009 5:13:47 PM

^^^

Quote :

"BTW, you seem really agitated and off lately--what's up?"

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 5:14 PM. Reason : ^]

6/25/2009 5:14:07 PM

Quote :

""well our little bit of positive change won't change everything. so we might as well not change.""

but it won't. other countries will just burn the coal that we aren't burning. it doesn't matter where it's burned.

i work in the shit (coal). i want it gone. i don't like staying covered in dust and flyash. i can get a job in combustion turbines or nuke just fine.

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 5:17 PM. Reason : i don't think you understand my point of view]

6/25/2009 5:16:23 PM

Quote :

""well our little bit of positive change won't change everything. so we might as well not change.""

i dont like the idea of "WE MUST CHANGE WE MUST CHANGE so what if its such a tiny ammount of change its irrelevent and costs us a shitload more than if we did it right"

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 5:18 PM. Reason : aka our current congress]

6/25/2009 5:17:39 PM

ok. this is a tangent that i guess i'd prefer since it seems we're not getting much of anywhere otherwise.

what is "doing it right" to everyone here?

6/25/2009 5:18:45 PM

the bottom line of this waxman-markey stuff is a bunch of politicians from california and up north got tired of their constituencies paying more for their energy. instead of lowering theirs, they wanna raise the price for the rest of us.



[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 5:22 PM. Reason : ,]

6/25/2009 5:19:50 PM

^ Cool graph. Farm costs will be significantly higher, too.

6/25/2009 5:24:15 PM

do people in missouri get paid for their energy usage?

anyway. i'm curious to see what people think would be a positive step forward in the ways of climate change legislation in this country. i understand that a few of you think nothing is necessary.

6/25/2009 5:25:26 PM

Build wind, solar, and geothermal where viable. Provide worthwhile tax deductions (like 100%) to business and individuals who install wind/solar/geothermal in their homes/businesses. In places where those 3 aren't viable, build new, modern nuclear power plants.

Decreasing dependance on foreign oil is way more important to me than climate change, but these things would help both.

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 5:28 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2009 5:27:43 PM

how do we pay for that?

6/25/2009 5:28:47 PM

We're ok wasting tons of money on pointless bailouts and non-stimulating stimulus packages.

The costs would be from the loss of revenue if people actually take advantage of the deductions. But if everyone does that then they'd be elmininating their "carbon footprints" entirely so your problem is solved.

Take it out of the money obama was planning on wasting on his healthcare program.

This is all new infrastructure which means new jobs (and increased tax revenue there).

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 5:38 PM. Reason : a]

6/25/2009 5:36:50 PM

tl;dr i consider money spent on improving the power grid and power generation to be infrastructure improvements. As such they're worth more than some dumb ass cap and trade system that may or may not result in improvments and sure as hell will result in higher taxes and higher energy costs.

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 5:42 PM. Reason : p]

6/25/2009 5:42:01 PM

I don't have a problem with anything that emits CO2. Real pollutants, however I do. So I'd hope that we could make our coal plants as clean as possible. The destructive nature of coal removal is troubling as well, not sure how we can get around that though.

We need to ramp up nuclear power plant contruction big time.

Expanding the national railway would also be good, so that more goods are transported that way (trucking is way inefficient).

6/25/2009 6:22:46 PM

what we do w/ all the ash is probably the biggest issue w/ coal

6/25/2009 6:24:58 PM

I mean think about the tax deductions part alone. Heres how you'd do it.

Businesses and individuals would be able to claim a 100% deduction for any costs invovled in the setup and installation of wind/solar/geothermal power generation in their offices/factories/homes. You would limit the tax deduction to only cover capacity up to say 125% of max consumption. That 125% could go as low as 100% or as high as 150% or more based on generation technology. Solar, for example, only generates during the day and when the sun's out. So you want to allow them to produce enough so that they can produce everything they use, but not so much that it becomes a tax shelter for putting power onto the grid. You would eventually lower that percentage to encourage competition so prices dont stay artificially high. The initial boom would create a flurry of investment in research so that when the tax deduction goes below 100% you end up with better technology at lower prices.

It would be so hugely popular that it would pretty much erradicate the need for fossil fuels in power generation. Anything thats left would be handled by large scale wind/solar/geothermal plus hydro and nuclear.

6/25/2009 6:26:02 PM

But oh no!!!! Tax deductions mean smaller federal government!!!!!!!!!!!!

6/25/2009 6:26:51 PM

Quote :

"you're quoting people who are saying that the bill is bad for basically opposite reasons. "

When the people who you expect to dislike a bill don't support it, and the people you would expect to like the bill don't support it, and the only people who really support it are the people who stand to benefit financially from the bill, it's a good bet that it's a bad bill.

Quote :

"so one person saying that the bill wealth redistribution and another saying it's regressive are equally valid points? "

Why couldn't they be? Just because the bill fails at wealth distribution doesn't mean that isn't what they were trying to do.

6/25/2009 7:01:09 PM

well its certainly regressive. They're going to increase the price of a service everyone uses. The only people who are immediately able to lower their dependance on power from fossil fules are the wealthy.

6/25/2009 7:14:31 PM

Quote :

"pretty sure no one's forcing anybody to buy emissions allowances"

really? Try emitting CO2 without one.

Quote :

"the heritage foundation is a mouthpiece for the right. how am i supposed to argue in good faith who takes speculation as fact?"

Oh, I suppose we should take fraudulent studies by James Hansen and Michael Mann as fact, then?

Quote :

"anyway. i'm curious to see what people think would be a positive step forward in the ways of climate change legislation in this country."

It's pretty simple, actually. First, let's get some valid evidence that it is happening.

Quote :

"This is all new infrastructure which means new jobs"

Ask Spain about that...

Quote :

"It would be so hugely popular that it would pretty much erradicate the need for fossil fuels in power generation."

Really? What happens when it's cloudy? or the wind stops? Guess what happens... They fire up diesel generators... And burn far more fossil fuel generating the base load than a comparable coal station. DOH!

6/25/2009 7:59:50 PM

So...I guess that means there aren't any free allowances that will be allocated, right?

Right?

6/25/2009 8:09:25 PM

again... try emitting CO2 without one. let us know how it works...

by the way, how do you bet those "free" allowances will be handed out? You don't suppose it'll go to the biggest campaign contributors, do you? naaaaaaah....

6/25/2009 8:10:54 PM

I am pretty sure you're full of it.

6/25/2009 8:12:30 PM

Quote :

"again... try emitting CO2 without one. "

This is going to be soooooo sweet. The poor won't be able to exhale.

6/25/2009 8:13:28 PM

^ if only that were a possible result. at least it might make it so that decent people get elected in the future

6/25/2009 8:16:09 PM

Quote :

"the people you would expect to like the bill don't support it, and the only people who really support it are the people who stand to benefit financially from the bill, it's a good bet that it's a bad bill."

I think what the supporters of this bill within the thread do not realize is that many who disapprove of the bills may agree with some of the amendments that it contains. The issue is the bill is so full of garbage, special interests, and straight up ignorance that even the "good" parts are greatly out shadowed by stuff like "Cash for Clunkers"

6/25/2009 8:20:25 PM

Quote :

"HOUSE CLIMATE BILL CALLED "IMMORAL" BY MAJOR CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER Washington, D.C. (June 25, 2009) -- The Waxman-Markey climate bill is "an immoral assault on poor Americans" because it is designed to purposely raise the cost of energy in order to force the working poor to reduce their standard of living, according to one of the nation's leading civil rights champions. Roy Innis, Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality -- one of America's oldest civil rights organizations -- made the allegation in a letter to all members of Congress on Wednesday. CORE has been heavily engaged in the national energy policy debate since the publication of Innis' 2007 book, "Energy Keepers, Energy Killers." The book was a Washington Post non-fiction best seller. "In my 40-plus years as the Chairman of CORE, I have seen few federal bills that would do more harm to America’s working class and low-income citizens and families than the Waxman-Markey climate tax bill," Innis wrote to Members of Congress...."

http://enews.core-online.us/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100041936.15518.285&gen=1

6/25/2009 10:27:46 PM

You know, we could just build... (gasp) nuclear plants, you know. Last I checked, as far as electricity costs go, they don't seem to be "horrendously expensive." The main impediments are high capital cost and regulatory interference.

And yes, I'm looking square at you, dirty hippies. Talking about wanting to save the earth when all you do is smoke pot and smell bad. And railing against every nuclear project proposed in the last decade in spite of the fact that it's about as low-carbon as energy gets.

6/25/2009 10:45:45 PM

yeah, but if we built nuclear, then we'd have to have somewhere to put all that waste. And that just wouldn't fly, now would it?

6/25/2009 11:06:14 PM

i'm actually strongly in favor of nuclear. this whole NIMBY shit is fucking obnoxious though and is usually what kills any attempt to move forward with any nuclear plans.

6/26/2009 12:17:39 AM

^^Yeah, too bad there's not a tunnel in a mountain somewhere that we've been building for years, all to protect society from a superstition-based catastrophe that borders on the physically impossible...

[Edited on June 26, 2009 at 12:20 AM. Reason : ^]

6/26/2009 12:20:14 AM

well if such a tunnel existed, I would hope that we would have at least done 15-20 years' worth of scientific studies to ensure it was a suitable place to store such waste

6/26/2009 12:41:23 AM

Quote :

"I don't have a problem with anything that emits CO2. "

You've made this point several times in this thread. Is it because you don't believe in the greenhouse effect? Or do you not believe that that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Or do you not believe that CO2 have risen enough over the last 150 years to have an effect?

6/26/2009 5:28:16 AM