The environment thread

[Y2HH]

That's what it will cost the government. What does it cost private industry?

 

I bet the hidden fees on that will be quite high.

 

But of course, let's not talk numbers -- let's just say it costs nothing and sleep better. Nothing we do costs anything, which is why we're 10+Trillion in debt, with a deficit upwards of 2.5+Trillion more in the year to come.

 

I guess it is free when it's somebody elses money.

 

The US government reminds me (and it's not just this administration, for the record), of the mafia in Goodfellas. Run up the stores credit, move a case a booze in the front, and sell it out the back at a discount...I mean, why not, right? It's all free. Nobody's gonna pay for it anyway! And then...when ya can't borrow another buck from the bank...you bust the joint out. You light a match.

[Balta1701]

That's what it will cost the government. What does it cost private industry?

Significantly less than that unless you're a coal company, because the CBO can't take in to account how private businesses and individuals react to the new market. Give you a great example...a cap and trade system was established in the 90's for mercury pollution, the CBO score estimated the cost would be something like 7 times what it actually turned out to be 5 years in to the plan, because the businesses adapted to the new market and cleaned up rapidly.

[Balta1701]

The US government reminds me (and it's not just this administration, for the record), of the mafia in Goodfellas. Run up the stores credit, move a case a booze in the front, and sell it out the back at a discount...I mean, why not, right? It's all free. Nobody's gonna pay for it anyway! And then...when ya can't borrow another buck from the bank...you bust the joint out. You light a match.

And it's someone else's climate that gets screwed up too right? Lighting a match = a pretty good metaphor there.

[Y2HH]

And it's someone else's climate that gets screwed up too right? Lighting a match = a pretty good metaphor there.

 

Yes, because it'll all be fixed now! This isn't a US problem, it's a worldwide problem, and not many developing nations give us s*** about our environment, or their own. For all the US and other countries are doing/have done by going green, it's meaningless unless China and India change the way they do things, and they have no intention on doing so anytime soon. As emerging countries, they have no intention of doing this anytime soon. As it stands, for all the pollution we cut, China adds that much more, it's like a balance, and nothings changing.

 

If this is going to work we absolutely MUST get everyone on board, sooner rather than later, too.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Yes, because it'll all be fixed now! This isn't a US problem, it's a worldwide problem, and not many developing nations give us s*** about our environment, or their own. For all the US and other countries are doing/have done by going green, it's meaningless unless China and India change the way they do things, and they have no intention on doing so anytime soon. As emerging countries, they have no intention of doing this anytime soon. As it stands, for all the pollution we cut, China adds that much more, it's like a balance, and nothings changing.

 

If this is going to work we absolutely MUST get everyone on board, sooner rather than later, too.

Actually, if you've paid attention at all, the fact that the U.S. is no longer giving excuses has spurred China to rapidly get focused on clean energy. They're spending more money cleaning up their energy sources than anyone else in the world except Germany. Hell, they already have a full plug in hybrid vehicle on the market in China - beat the U.S. automakers by 2 years.

[Y2HH]

Actually, if you've paid attention at all, the fact that the U.S. is no longer giving excuses has spurred China to rapidly get focused on clean energy. They're spending more money cleaning up their energy sources than anyone else in the world except Germany. Hell, they already have a full plug in hybrid vehicle on the market in China - beat the U.S. automakers by 2 years.

 

They still have the highest pollution, regardless. And while some of China is in on this -- other parts are not. I'm sure North Korea has a great method of disposing of nuclear waste from all the bomb building they're doing. My guess is they're just dumping spent rods into the ocean, because they really care about environmental issues, or what anyone says.

 

http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-0...ent_7508856.htm

 

Their own environmentalists say so.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

They still have the highest pollution, regardless. And while some of China is in on this -- other parts are not. I'm sure North Korea has a great method of disposing of nuclear waste from all the bomb building they're doing. My guess is they're just dumping spent rods into the ocean, because they really care about environmental issues, or what anyone says.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

 

The spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors are actually what they use to extract the material that they build the bombs from.

 

Anyway...if you want to go in to nuclear waste storage issues, you're in the wrong country. The U.S. government decades ago told nuclear power plants that it would take care of the waste from operating them. The government still has not done so, and so the government pays something on the order of $1 billion a year in subsidies to the nuclear industry so that they can rent storage space at reactor sites. Without that giant subsidy practically every nuclear plant in the country would have been shuttered long ago.

 

On top of that, there are huge swaths of this country that are contaminated from decades of weapons tests and work.

[Y2HH]

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

 

The spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors are actually what they use to extract the material that they build the bombs from.

 

Anyway...if you want to go in to nuclear waste storage issues, you're in the wrong country. The U.S. government decades ago told nuclear power plants that it would take care of the waste from operating them. The government still has not done so, and so the government pays something on the order of $1 billion a year in subsidies to the nuclear industry so that they can rent storage space at reactor sites. Without that giant subsidy practically every nuclear plant in the country would have been shuttered long ago.

 

On top of that, there are huge swaths of this country that are contaminated from decades of weapons tests and work.

 

I'm not saying we're the best, either, but we're more aware as citizens than ever before.

 

I'm simply saying, and I'll say it again -- the environment is a world problem -- not a US problem. I think we need to do something, but we need to be smart while doing it. If all of our measures make energy unaffordable for some, then it isn't the best way of going about it. We're making strides, and there is a long way to go, but the entire world has to get on board for it to mean anything. Call me a cynic, I just don't see it happening. This world will never be a utopia in our lifetimes.

 

I'll concede I was wrong in thinking this way in 10 years if they show the pollution levels have dropped worldwide -- across the board. I'm just not holding my breath that will happen.

 

Oh, and I never claimed to be a nuclear engineer, either. But I do know much more goes into building nukes than using spent rods, and there is waste created from that waste that still has to be disposed of. But you apparently think North Korea is following all the rules on disposing of it, so there is nothing to see here.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

I'm not saying we're the best, either, but we're more aware as citizens than ever before.

 

I'm simply saying, and I'll say it again -- the environment is a world problem -- not a US problem. I think we need to do something, but we need to be smart while doing it. If all of our measures make energy unaffordable for some, then it isn't the best way of going about it. We're making strides, and there is a long way to go, but the entire world has to get on board for it to mean anything. Call me a cynic, I just don't see it happening. This world will never be a utopia in our lifetimes.

So you're saying the environment is a world problem, the world clearly is already following U.S. leadership now that it's showing some, and therefore it logically follows that the U.S. should stop showing any leadership and drop this climate bill?

[Y2HH]

So you're saying the environment is a world problem, the world clearly is already following U.S. leadership now that it's showing some, and therefore it logically follows that the U.S. should stop showing any leadership and drop this climate bill?

 

I think you just said that, because I never did. What I did say, however, is that everyone has to get on board and we have to be smart about how we go about doing it. Nothing more. I think the US has become a society of over-reactors which leads to making knee-jerk decisions that later have to be scaled back rather than calmly thinking things through and doing it right the first time.

 

I think it's become pretty clear on these types of topics that you and I will agree on very little.

[Balta1701]

I think you just said that, because I never did. What I did say, however, is that everyone has to get on board and we have to be smart about how we go about doing it. Nothing more. I think the US has become a society of over-reactors which leads to making knee-jerk decisions that later have to be scaled back rather than calmly thinking things through and doing it right the first time.

And this bill isn't structured to be smart?

 

It is limited in how much of the carbon credits are auctioned off, most of them are given out at first to industries that aren't hurt.

 

It's cost is very limited.

 

The money coming in is rebated out and the people in this country least able to afford it actually will get money back from it.

 

It's not a hard cap.

 

It's been negoiated downwards heavily, especially to wind up helping farmers.

 

I'd say that a smart bill would be one even stronger than this one, but I'm willing to take this one because of what we've seen in Europe; simply setting up a flawed system and letting it run for 5 years produced results that were vastly stronger than what was hoped by the designers of the bill in spurring energy efficiency and renewable energy development.

 

Basically, if you're opposing this bill because "We need to be smart about how we go about doing it", then there is no environmental bill you will support.

 

I think it's become pretty clear on these types of topics that you and I will agree on very little.

That doesn't mean the discussion can't be edifying.

[Y2HH]

And this bill isn't structured to be smart?

 

It is limited in how much of the carbon credits are auctioned off, most of them are given out at first to industries that aren't hurt.

 

It's cost is very limited.

 

The money coming in is rebated out and the people in this country least able to afford it actually will get money back from it.

 

It's not a hard cap.

 

It's been negoiated downwards heavily, especially to wind up helping farmers.

 

I'd say that a smart bill would be one even stronger than this one, but I'm willing to take this one because of what we've seen in Europe; simply setting up a flawed system and letting it run for 5 years produced results that were vastly stronger than what was hoped by the designers of the bill in spurring energy efficiency and renewable energy development.

 

Basically, if you're opposing this bill because "We need to be smart about how we go about doing it", then there is no environmental bill you will support.

 

That doesn't mean the discussion can't be edifying.

 

If we aren't going to be smart about it then no, there is no bill I will support, regardless of the type of bill it is. I think we can be better, smarter and more efficient, and I don't think everything we do needs to cost MORE. I see no way this doesn't end up costing more, no matter what weird math they attempt to use to make it sound cheaper. If we were in a position for things to become more expensive, whether that be by a little or a lot, I probably wouldn't care, but we aren't...as a nation, we are in massive debt, and it's getting worse. If we can't get our finances righted none of these initiatives and bills will matter in the future, as it will bankrupt this country, and it's citizens.

 

I keep hearing things about "limited cost", well...what limit are we talking about here, the same limit the country applies to everything?! That means there is no true limit, because we'll just whip out the credit card again!

 

I find our governments fiscal irresponsibility to be careless, again, not just this administrations, and I see it getting worse. This country is worse than the average American with it's debt. Debt is modern slavery. Although not very PC to call it that, that is exactly what it is.

[BearSox]

And this bill isn't structured to be smart?

 

It is limited in how much of the carbon credits are auctioned off, most of them are given out at first to industries that aren't hurt.

 

It's cost is very limited.

 

The money coming in is rebated out and the people in this country least able to afford it actually will get money back from it.

 

It's not a hard cap.

 

It's been negoiated downwards heavily, especially to wind up helping farmers.

 

I'd say that a smart bill would be one even stronger than this one, but I'm willing to take this one because of what we've seen in Europe; simply setting up a flawed system and letting it run for 5 years produced results that were vastly stronger than what was hoped by the designers of the bill in spurring energy efficiency and renewable energy development.

 

Basically, if you're opposing this bill because "We need to be smart about how we go about doing it", then there is no environmental bill you will support.

 

That doesn't mean the discussion can't be edifying.

Question, how much will this bill help the environment. From what I've read, the most difference it will make is a 2/10's of a degree, and that's being very generous, drop in temperature in 100 years.

[Y2HH]

Question, how much will this bill help the environment. From what I've read, the most difference it will make is a 2/10's of a degree, and that's being very generous, drop in temperature in 100 years.

 

That's the problem, it's all theory and they don't actually know what different it will make. That said, less pollution is good for us, even if it doesn't change global warming/climate change in the least.

 

I'm also in the camp that says Global Warming is a bunch of s***, as the worlds been warming and cooling for billions of years...but humans love to take credit for things they have no control over, even if they don't really understand it. This is especially true if money is involved...and there is more money flowing into this than almost anything in the history of mankind.

 

I also don't know for sure one way or the other, so I won't claim I do.

 

In the 60's/70's the money was in global cooling. Today, it's in global warming/climate change (they changed it to climate change after the past few winters have shown a cooling effect), but that's where the money is...

 

I just wish people would shut the f*** up and admit they don't have all the answers, one one side or the other.

[NorthSideSox72]

Lost in the extremities of this fight is that there is enormous opportunity here for win-win. Getting quickly into alternative energy sources that are renewable means becoming a technological leader, world-wide, in those areas.

 

Not sure if people have missed this, but, for the past few decades, America's world strength has NOT been manufacturing. Its being the leaders in something, anything, cutting edge. Get there first, produce it, sell it round the world. Then when it matures a bit, other countries start building their own and ripping off the designs, that's fine. We can't compete price-wise in those secondary stages of manufacturing, so we should accept that reality and push to the front of the line again. Get there first.

 

This has the side effect of the US actually leading. Someone has to go first, so, let's do that and make money in the meantime.

 

Out of this, we get a better economy, cleaner air, the ability to wipe our hands of many things in many bad foreign regions, a better natural environment, and jobs. So, there can be plenty of debate on HOW to do this, but whether or not to do it is no debate at all, IMO. Do it, do it right (the most worrisome part), and DO IT BIG.

 

[BearSox]

I have no problem with spending money in research for alternative energy sources. I have a problem with a bogus cap and trade tax that is pretty much gonna raise energy taxes on everyone, by a large amount. Not only will we paying more for gas, heat, etc, but the prices of all products will go up because business' will have to raise their prices to compensate for the ridiculous increase in energy prices.

 

This is completely the wrong way to go about finding new energy sources.

[Y2HH]

Lost in the extremities of this fight is that there is enormous opportunity here for win-win. Getting quickly into alternative energy sources that are renewable means becoming a technological leader, world-wide, in those areas.

 

Not sure if people have missed this, but, for the past few decades, America's world strength has NOT been manufacturing. Its being the leaders in something, anything, cutting edge. Get there first, produce it, sell it round the world. Then when it matures a bit, other countries start building their own and ripping off the designs, that's fine. We can't compete price-wise in those secondary stages of manufacturing, so we should accept that reality and push to the front of the line again. Get there first.

 

This has the side effect of the US actually leading. Someone has to go first, so, let's do that and make money in the meantime.

 

Out of this, we get a better economy, cleaner air, the ability to wipe our hands of many things in many bad foreign regions, a better natural environment, and jobs. So, there can be plenty of debate on HOW to do this, but whether or not to do it is no debate at all, IMO. Do it, do it right (the most worrisome part), and DO IT BIG.

 

This is something I thought of and agree with -- but it still has to be done right. We seriously need to get our budgets fixed (across the board) and start paying down the debt we carry. I would put money on us being the world leader in this technology in the future, but if all of these crazy things we're doing bankrupt the nation, none of it matters.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Ok, I need some quick education. this cap and trade bill being voted on today has raised some eyebrows. As many of you know, I work in an environment where all democrat ideas are the work of satan and republican ideas are the gift of god, ok, over exaggerated, but you get the idea... democrat ideas are bad. So, here is the most recent thing sent to me:

According to Beisner. It could cost $9.4 trillion in gross domestic product and the loss of about 1.1 million jobs per year.

 

"Ultimately, this can even affect, for example, churches," he said. "They can come under the government's mandates about how much CO2 emission they can be accounted for."

 

How is this?

[Y2HH]

Ok, I need some quick education. this cap and trade bill being voted on today has raised some eyebrows. As many of you know, I work in an environment where all democrat ideas are the work of satan and republican ideas are the gift of god, ok, over exaggerated, but you get the idea... democrat ideas are bad. So, here is the most recent thing sent to me:

 

 

How is this?

 

Heating, cooling and lighting a church, or any building that size, probably produces a lot of by product? Not sure, other than that. My guess is they don't have to pay a lot of those bills and may in the future? Who knows, really.

[StrangeSox]

The current article making the blog/ forums rounds:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

 

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

 

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. 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.

[POTOMAC WATCH] Associated Press

 

Steve Fielding

 

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

 

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

 

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. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

 

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

 

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

 

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

 

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

 

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

 

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.

 

 

 

It's funny how much this mirrors pro-ID/ creation articles.

Edited June 26, 2009 by StrangeSox

[HuskyCaucasian]

Heating, cooling and lighting a church, or any building that size, probably produces a lot of by product? Not sure, other than that. My guess is they don't have to pay a lot of those bills and may in the future? Who knows, really.

My understanding is that the electric companies are responsible for the carbon out-put. So, at worst, churches would pay higher bills. They wouldnt be held responsible for energy usage. And if your bills are too high, invest in solar panels like I have been pushing for where I work.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

I'm digging the Republican rebuttal to the cap and trade bill on C-SPAN.

 

Basically: "China and India are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, so why should we stop? It wont help."

 

*throws pop can out my car window* Other people do it, so it's ok if I do it.

[Balta1701]

I will add that I don't like how the Democrats are ramming this bill through the house, is that acceptable?

[Balta1701]

My understanding is that the electric companies are responsible for the carbon out-put. So, at worst, churches would pay higher bills. They wouldnt be held responsible for energy usage. And if your bills are too high, invest in solar panels like I have been pushing for where I work.

What will actually happen though is 2 things...either the church will also suddenly find additional motivation to conserve electricity (like everyone in the country should - conservation efforts could cut 25% of our current electric demand, give or take), install CFL's, and shut off the heat and computers when people go home for the night, thus saving the church money, and the power company will realize it can make more money off of low-carbon electricity and will begin moving its investments from coal to renewables, and the end result will be that you'll wind up with the church saving money on its energy bills overall and putting out less carbon to boot.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I'm digging the Republican rebuttal to the cap and trade bill on C-SPAN.

 

Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nevada): Every time you grill, this bill taxes you.