Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This was the first implementation of cap and trade in the United States. It was put into law in 1990, now wait for it, who was the President in 1990?
It was a Republican President, supported by Democrats and Republicans in congress.
It worked, it drastically lowered the SO2 emissions, and dramatically lowered the risk of acid rain.
Cap and trade works, it lets the free market solve a problem by passing one law, and not multiple laws to regulate every industry.
Spot On. Cap & Trade was clamored for by Republican to replace the old EPA "Command and Control" regulation with regulation that allowed innovation and markets to work. It's been EPA's most cost effective program and produced dramatic reduction in NOx and SOx. And guess what? Noticed that your electricity prices haven't skyrocketed. It's easy to see in the attached graphic what the EPA has been able to achieve in pollution reduction. The same thing will happen with CO2 reduction. IMO Cap & Trade is going to pass this year, so in some sense what the deniers are screaming about doesn't matter. President Obama was elected on a platform to address this issue and the top people in his Administration are committed to making it happen.
The nay sayers on climate change are just the same loonies as in the "birthers" and "truther" community.
Goldman Sachs needs the commissions plus the opportunity to speculate in the market.
Gotta generate those multi-million dollar bonuses somehow.
LOL the EPA's existing Cap & Trade program has been virtually scandal free. But hey, if you have no basis for your argument, just make stuff up and lie -- it's the Republican Way.
And guess what? Noticed that your electricity prices haven't skyrocketed.
You're the only person saying this won't cause bills to rise, even the Democrats proposing this legislation have acquiesced to that. Simple economics, if you incur a cost that gets passed onto the consumer. FYI Waxeman's and Markey's constituents already enjoy some of the highest electric rates in the country. Coincidence?
You're comparing apples and oranges, firstly the quantities associated with CO2 are enormous. The only method so far I'm aware of that has potential is sequestration and many parts of the country aren't even suitable for it because of the geology. The solution for many of these place may be to simply drop fossil as source for generation. We also have the mandated increase in the use of expensive renewables which as another additional cost...and please don't try and suggest it can be cheap. As I already pointed out in another thread a program in Austin Texas is stuck with 99% of green energy because no one wants it. I guess the 3X price tag doesn't sit to well...
Quote:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/07/12/0712greenchoice.html (broken link)
For the past decade, Austin's ambition to become the world's clean-energy capital has been best exemplified by one effort: GreenChoice, a program that sells electricity generated entirely from renewable sources such as wind.
Now the nationally renowned program is struggling to find buyers — the latest allotment is 99 percent unsold after seven months on the market — and Austin Energy is looking for ways to bring down the rising costs.
But those are short-term talks.
Austin Energy officials say that times have changed and that the nation's most successful (by volume of sales) green-energy program, which offers the renewable energy only to those who select it, might no longer be the best way to carry out the city's goals. It now costs almost three times more than the standard electricity rate.
Last edited by thecoalman; 08-16-2009 at 12:16 PM..
If someone doesn't want to believe in Gravity, its hard to tell them that the tree didn't throw the apple at them.
Now there's a convincing argument if I've ever heard one.
Look, this debate has been raging for many, many years. More than enough years to have destroyed the earth if there were an ounce of validity to the position you espouse. A position that cannot begin to weather even the most basic test of common sense. The idea that we have brought the earth to the brink of environmental catastrophe with our use of fossil fuels, but everything will be fine if we very slowly begin to moderate CO2 emissions is utterly laughable. The idea that it will have any effect is utterly laughable. If we have the crisis that extremists contend, how could they ever settle for such moderate measures? Simple - it isn't about "climate change" at all. It is about political ideology, it is about "behavior modification", it is about wealth redistribution. Global warming caused by man is a scam.
There is abundant scientific opinion out there that challenges the point of view held by environmental extremists. Must I go gather it all up again? I think not. We both know it is there and that this question is far from settled.
The most convincing factor driving my continued skepticism toward arguments put forth by global warming chicken littles is the political ideology of the loudest alarmist voices. That speaks louder than anything else about what is really going on here.
Liberal big green energy farce or real issue? Go. I believe global warming is afarce because the climate has gottent cooler in the last 10 years. We have had a summer here in toronto for the first time since 1974 where we have no days above 30 degrees celsius or about 86 degrees farenheit. GE owns NBC and promotes green week, as it bought billions of dollars in worthless carbon credits. Imagine if exxon mobile owned a tv station like cnn and promoted dirty oil week. Global warming is propoganda used to control people and keep them in fear. Its like 9/11-war on terror except that there really are terrorist and there is no global warming.
Call all your friends in Washington and Oregon and ask how their summer has been this year.
You're the only person saying this won't cause bills to rise, even the Democrats proposing this legislation have acquiesced to that. Simple economics, if you incur a cost that gets passed onto the consumer. FYI Waxeman's and Markey's constituents already enjoy some of the highest electric rates in the country. Coincidence?
You're comparing apples and oranges, firstly the quantities associated with CO2 are enormous. The only method so far I'm aware of that has potential is sequestration and many parts of the country aren't even suitable for it because of the geology. The solution for many of these place may be to simply drop fossil as source for generation. We also have the mandated increase in the use of expensive renewables which as another additional cost...and please don't try and suggest it can be cheap. As I already pointed out in another thread a program in Austin Texas is stuck with 99% of green energy because no one wants it. I guess the 3X price tag doesn't sit to well...
The low cost alternative is not sequestration, it's renewable energy.
Now there's a convincing argument if I've ever heard one.
Look, this debate has been raging for many, many years. More than enough years to have destroyed the earth if there were an ounce of validity to the position you espouse. A position that cannot begin to weather even the most basic test of common sense. The idea that we have brought the earth to the brink of environmental catastrophe with our use of fossil fuels, but everything will be fine if we very slowly begin to moderate CO2 emissions is utterly laughable. The idea that it will have any effect is utterly laughable. If we have the crisis that extremists contend, how could they ever settle for such moderate measures? Simple - it isn't about "climate change" at all. It is about political ideology, it is about "behavior modification", it is about wealth redistribution. Global warming caused by man is a scam.
There is abundant scientific opinion out there that challenges the point of view held by environmental extremists. Must I go gather it all up again? I think not. We both know it is there and that this question is far from settled.
The highlighted portion is totally false. There is no scientific evidence that refutes the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
Now there's a convincing argument if I've ever heard one.
Look, this debate has been raging for many, many years. More than enough years to have destroyed the earth if there were an ounce of validity to the position you espouse. A position that cannot begin to weather even the most basic test of common sense. The idea that we have brought the earth to the brink of environmental catastrophe with our use of fossil fuels, but everything will be fine if we very slowly begin to moderate CO2 emissions is utterly laughable. The idea that it will have any effect is utterly laughable. If we have the crisis that extremists contend, how could they ever settle for such moderate measures? Simple - it isn't about "climate change" at all. It is about political ideology, it is about "behavior modification", it is about wealth redistribution. Global warming caused by man is a scam.
There is abundant scientific opinion out there that challenges the point of view held by environmental extremists. Must I go gather it all up again? I think not. We both know it is there and that this question is far from settled.
The most convincing factor driving my continued skepticism toward arguments put forth by global warming chicken littles is the political ideology of the loudest alarmist voices. That speaks louder than anything else about what is really going on here.
It wasn't a argument, it was a simple analogy.
I understand the physics behind the Global Warming theory, it makes sense,
A NORTHWEST PASSAGE HAS OPENED UP FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY, Ice shelves are shrinking well beyond any memory, We are having weather thats just down right weird, and plant and animal populations seem to be migrating to northern latitudes that they were rarely if ever seen in before. Hell, even the buckeye trees are moving towards Michigan, and leaving Ohio.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
