The house has a floor vote on this bill Friday. Contact your representative and tell him/her to vote against it!!! Regardless of whether you believe in AGW or not, this bill does nothing useful and the only difference you will see is in your income.

Tell them to vote NO! Call 866-928-3035 or 866-928-0525 and tell your representative how you feel!

If you don't know your Rep, you can look it up here: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

6/24/2009 6:25:50 PM

i disagree with you and thanks for reminding me to email my rep to tell them to vote yes.

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 6:47 PM. Reason : done!]

6/24/2009 6:44:07 PM

I told him while i believe in the validity of human created CO2 caused climate change; he need to vote no to this complicated, hidden interest laced, "feel-gooder" bill that will ultimately hurt the consumer while not really solving the issue at hand.

The cash for clunkers has to be the stupidest things i have ever heard come out of the global warming debate even over hooksaw's illiterate rants from heartland.com.
Also, the Renewable Energy Standard unfairly punishes energy suppliers in certain regions of our country with surcharges that will ultimately be spread to the consumer. How the fuck is a energy company in some region like upstate NY supposed to supply 20% of its grid by solar, wind, and geothermal at a economically viable cost? Meanwhile SoCal meets its quota thus avoiding the surcharge but can pump all the nasty coal it wants.

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 9:27 PM. Reason : ,]

6/24/2009 9:18:35 PM

^^HAHA, clearly you haven't read anything regarding the bill. It'll reduce the global temp by 0.9°F 0.2°F over 100 years and mainly just feeds into special interests. Oh, and on average it will cost a US citizen $1600/year. This bill's so fucked that even Obama's being careful not to be closely associated with this.

Even James Hansen's the US's (maybe the world's) AGW head cheerleader is against the bill and calls it pure stupidity.

Hmm, okay why don't you enlighten us sarijoul about what's beneficial about this bill.

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 11:06 PM. Reason : please explain it, this should be good for an hour's worth of entertainment at least.]

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 11:16 PM. Reason : k]

6/24/2009 11:02:38 PM

Quote :

"Oh, and on average it will cost a US citizen $1600/year."

these numbers have been debunked so many times.
Even Waxman admits it will raise bills, but it will be in the low hundreds/year, not thousands.

6/24/2009 11:27:41 PM

yeahhhhhh, I doubt that playboy.

6/24/2009 11:30:22 PM

Quote :

"Even Waxman admits it will raise bills, but it will be in the low hundreds/year, not thousands."

Shit, man, thats a lot of money.

I am not in favor or this cap & trade bullshit. Just tax the source of pollution directly and cut the bullshit.

6/24/2009 11:37:41 PM

Hell, why don't they start by proving that, ya know, CO2 causes global warming (that hasn't even existed for the last 8 years).

6/24/2009 11:39:35 PM

Quote :

"Oh, and on average it will cost a US citizen $1600/year"

I do not quite buy that statistic but i suppose this is possible as a mean value but with high standard deviation.

Quote :

"This bill's so fucked that even Obama's being careful not to be closely associated with thi"

yeah i noticed in the wording of the billing that it made Obama's goals look "conservative"



One more dumb aspect of this bill is what the money generated by auctioning carbon credits be used for....

- To further research into Artificial Global Warming..... No

- To create investment in more environmental friendly technologies....... Nope

- To propragate or subsidize solar panels or wind turbines.......... Not at all

- How about to improve our national parks..... Nope

- To just plant some fucking trees to soak up some CO2.... No way Jose

What than????

Quote :

" the revenue from which shall be redistributed to low-income households"

Help poor people duh!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waxman-Markey

6/24/2009 11:43:41 PM

The final form of the bill is 1200 pages or so, and the House Reps have less than 24 hours to read it.

There's more of the transparency we heard so much about during the elections

And I honestly believe the cost per person will be more than $1600. Not to mention the cost will increase every year.

And I love how you try to discredit the $1600 figure. I mean it was only put together by the CBO.

And who cares how much it costs people!? It'll do NOTHING to prevent "global warming". So please tell me why anyone would support a bill that does nothing but takes money and redistributes it to poor.

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 11:54 PM. Reason : 0.2 over 100 years is close enough to nothing IMO.]

6/24/2009 11:52:17 PM

I've never been a fan of the democratic congress since the 2006 election espicially being led by the far left uber liberal Pelosi

Quote :

"There's more of the transparency we heard so much about during the elections "

To be fair Pat you can not clump the agenda of the ongoing democratic majority house with the campaign promises of Obama. I still do not agree with his global warming policy but not even this is as extreme as the shit coming out of the energy commission.

Quote :

"So please tell me why anyone would support a bill that does nothing but takes money and redistributes it to poor."

Thats my point; i'm AGREEING WITH YOU PAT! and i even believe in the possibility/validity of AGW

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 11:56 PM. Reason : l]

6/24/2009 11:55:45 PM

^I agree with you on the transparency thing.

And I wasn't attacking you. I was using "you" in general, referring to others in the thread. my apologies for the confusion.

6/25/2009 12:02:10 AM

fair enough. how was justin's wedding?

6/25/2009 12:07:03 AM

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 12:11 AM. Reason : .]

6/25/2009 12:10:29 AM

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

6/25/2009 7:18:52 AM

I think I'm going to ask him to vote against this just because this is a blatant wealth redistribution scheme disguised under the "green is good" banner.

Fuck that bullshit. This isn't going to fix the problem if they don't use some of that money for research and grant money (i.e. grant money for efficiency projects and carbon sequestering projects and the like).

This makes about as much sense as taxing inefficient cars then sending the money to be used in diabetes research. It's just the goddamn wrong-headed way to go about things.

6/25/2009 7:48:42 AM

Here's another part of the bill that sarijoul is in favor of:

Quote :

"Bill gives billions to save trees in other nations If a tree falls in Brazil, it will, in fact, be heard in the U.S. - at least if a little-noticed provision in the pending climate-change bill in Congress becomes law. As part of the far-reaching climate bill, the House is set to vote Friday on a plan to pay companies billions of dollars not to chop down trees around the world, as a way to reduce global warming. The provision, called "offsets," has been attacked by both environmentalists and business groups as ineffective and poorly designed. Critics contend it would send scarce federal dollars overseas to plant trees when subsidies are needed at home, while the purported ecological benefits would be difficult to quantify. The offsets "would be a transfer of wealth overseas," said William Kovacs, vice president for environmental affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the official fiscal scorekeeper on Capitol Hill, has not offered an estimate on how much the offset plan would cost, but the liberal Center for American Progress says it will be pricey. "The international offsets market is not a huge or cheap market," said Joseph Romm, a climate expert at the center. "By 2020, the U.S. could be spending $4 billion on international offsets." "

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/25/climate-bill-gives-billions-to-foreign-foliage/

I have faith this won't even clear the House though, they're about 30 votes short at the moment.


[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 10:12 AM. Reason : wrong number]

6/25/2009 10:10:33 AM

please. put more words in my mouth using the washington times. it's bound to convince people.

6/25/2009 10:45:14 AM

When they're listing quotes and facts, it could come from the cartoon section of the News and Observer and still mean the same thing.

Here's a gem from the WSJ though:

Quote :

"The Cap and Tax Fiction ...To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers. The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap." The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result. When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035 Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them. The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years. Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 10:51 AM. Reason : oh nos, the Heritage Foundation!]

6/25/2009 10:47:39 AM

I smell me a power grab!

6/25/2009 10:52:47 AM

^^and now the wall street journal editorial page? do you reference any papers that aren't owned by people trying to push the conservative agenda?

6/25/2009 12:06:05 PM

Goldman Sachs has its hands all over this, that should tell you that its a bad idea.

6/25/2009 12:10:09 PM

^^ Does CBS News please your delicate sensibilities?

Quote :

"While some Democrats are still on the fence, so are some environmental groups, as a result of all the compromises. Greenpeace and other groups have already withdrawn their support for the bill."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/23/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5106372.shtml

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 12:15 PM. Reason : ^]

6/25/2009 12:15:10 PM

this is a terrible idea. However, it wouldnt surprise me if enough people get paid to make this pass.

6/25/2009 12:15:13 PM

^^that quote is making the exact opposite argument. basically that the bill has been weakened.

6/25/2009 12:26:03 PM

^ My point was that it's bad all the way around. Try to keep up.

6/25/2009 12:30:34 PM

^I love how he just attacks sources. That alone should tell you something.

6/25/2009 12:44:26 PM

I honestly can not believe how shitty this bill is.

6/25/2009 12:47:57 PM

^^ Yeah, he didn't dispute anything you posted!

Quote :

"and now the wall street journal editorial page? do you reference any papers that aren't owned by people trying to push the conservative agenda?"

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 12:48 PM. Reason : ^]

6/25/2009 12:48:21 PM

Cap and trade is a good system, a free market system. As long as people can dispose of their waste for free, they will continue to pollute. Cap and trade will provide an impetus to find new technology to minimize the effects of production. Regardless of what you feel about global warming, it has a substantial potential to decrease air and water pollution and save billions in healthcare related costs per year.

6/25/2009 12:59:01 PM

hey y'all

let's quit burning coal

so china can burn it instead

it's global warming, not U.S. warming

my dad works in a coal-fired plant that will probably get decommissioned and have those megawatts converted to natural gas combustion turbines. i'm on my second internship w/ the fossil (specifically coal) division of the same company. with that said, i still think we should move away from coal.

however, it's not gonna do global warming a bit of good if we move to alternatives because pretty much all of china's new megawatts are coming from coal.

can't believe i'm gonna get dragged into some soapbox shit

6/25/2009 1:01:13 PM

Quote :

" Cap and trade is a good system, a free market system. As long as people can dispose of their waste for free, they will continue to pollute. Cap and trade will provide an impetus to find new technology to minimize the effects of production. Regardless of what you feel about global warming, it has a substantial potential to decrease air and water pollution and save billions in healthcare related costs per year."

No one picked up on my Goldman comment from before, but this makes a good entry for it. The fact that it is a free market system for TAX is particularly scary when you look at what Goldman did last summer with oil prices. What will happen is another fleecing of capital from corporations, and ultimately the end user (as the corps raise prices to compensate) and a tax that goes not to the government, but directly into their coffers. This is a TERRIBLE idea.

6/25/2009 1:09:38 PM

Quote :

"Cap and trade is a good system, a free market system. As long as people can dispose of their waste for free, they will continue to pollute. Cap and trade will provide an impetus to find new technology to minimize the effects of production. Regardless of what you feel about global warming, it has a substantial potential to decrease air and water pollution and save billions in healthcare related costs per year."

Two things: CO2 is not pollution And GOOD LUCK proving we'll save anything in healthcare cost.

Congratulations, you made a statement that is impossible to verify. I bet you agreed with the head of the UN, who said that over 300,000 people have died thanks to global warming. lol.

And I already told you, if everything in this bill is executed properly the optimistic prediction for the global temperature is a reduction of 0.2°F by the year 2100.

It's too bad the gov't didn't push this insane legislation through in the 90s. Can you imagine all the back slapping and celebrations when the temperature decreased noticeably over the next decade?

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM. Reason : k]

6/25/2009 1:16:01 PM

Quote :

"Cap and trade is a good system, a free market system."

Even if you believe in global warming (i do to a point)

and think the Cap and trade system is a good idea ( I do Not)

then you should still be against this bill due to all the absolute GARBAGE amended to it.

Not sure how much it would help in this case but I really think the president should have the power to line item veto.

6/25/2009 1:16:44 PM

cap and trade is a free market system? wha? let's see, we have an imaginary product that we are forced to buy from the government. We can't vouch for the effectiveness of the product, but we must buy it. Yeah, that's free market, alright

6/25/2009 3:38:54 PM

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

6/25/2009 3:40:31 PM

Quote :

"my dad works in a coal-fired plant that will probably get decommissioned and have those megawatts converted to natural gas combustion turbines"

good.

6/25/2009 3:42:54 PM

Quote :

"cap and trade is a free market system? wha? let's see, we have an imaginary product that we are forced to buy from the government. We can't vouch for the effectiveness of the product, but we must buy it. Yeah, that's free market, alright "

I agree. Creating a commodity, out of thin air, and of NO value other than to generate tax revenue and call it a free market is beyond ridiculous.

6/25/2009 3:43:23 PM

in other news

did you guys know that you have to pay the state in order to get a stupid license just to DRIVE?!/1??!?!!?!

or HUNT????????????!!!!!!!

or FISH?!?!/11/1/

6/25/2009 3:44:45 PM

Yes, but at least we get those monies back even if it goes to projects we don't necessarily like or won't. Under the proposed cap and trade system, those who are more able to game the market (Goldman Sachs) will get rich by taxing us directly. This...is very scary.

6/25/2009 3:48:12 PM

Quote :

"300,000 people have died thanks to global warming. lol."

lol.

6/25/2009 3:48:43 PM

I ain't sayin' I like it or support it, just highlighting the basic stupidity of the argument that it's "creating a commodity" that's "of NO value," particularly as if that's something new.

6/25/2009 3:49:28 PM

You seem like you're trolling.

6/25/2009 3:57:41 PM

6/25/2009 3:57:45 PM

Question: Let's say you pay a company to plant trees to offset your carbon emissions. Well what happens if those trees burn down?

Do I get a refund b/c my trees are gone, or do I have to pay more money b/c my trees gave off CO2 in the fire

6/25/2009 4:03:11 PM

I'm always trolling. The Soap Box is pretty much the fucking worst. You think it's a coincidence that it falls so far down the message board list? Shit rolls downhill. And I apparently love trolling for shit, if you follow the mixed metaphor. I'm a shit fisherman, I guess.

Anyway, the point is that there are stupid arguments against cap and trade: that emissions allowances are bad because they are "made up," that emissions allowances have no value, and that polluters will be forced to buy emissions allowances.

6/25/2009 4:03:14 PM

How about wealth destruction?

6/25/2009 4:06:26 PM

^^why should i be forced to pay for something that i exhale, and something that plants need to live.

6/25/2009 4:09:04 PM

remember the part where i said one of the stupid arguments was anyone being FORCED TO PAY

6/25/2009 4:09:47 PM

shorter hooksaw:

HAY GUYZ I GOT THIS GRAPH FROM THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION! IT'S SURPRISING THAT THEY WOULD TRY THEIR HARDEST TO MAKE THIS LEGISLATION LOOK BAD.

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 4:13 PM. Reason : also i think it's funny that they haven't listed the cost of the iraq war on that graph]

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 4:15 PM. Reason : for reference, the long-term cost of the iraq war by the cbo is between 1.9 trillion 2.4 trillion]

6/25/2009 4:09:48 PM