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.
I've been trying to find the epa's 133 page document on the net. Do you know where it is? I'd like to read it cuz from what I have been reading about the writing of the report, it says that .....
The Environmental Protection Agency has formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare. Therefore, they will be regulating them.
Example:
Please, tell me the report does not actually declare that CO2 gas is a pollutant.
Least one forget, we exhale CO2 everytime we breathe. Plants use CO2 to live and grow. Remember that whole cycle from elementary science class?
Is our government going insane???????????????
If I put you in a room where the CO2 concentration is 10%, you will die.
Sorry but I am not buying it - I think the Feds are going over the top declaring CO2 as a pollutant.
Doing it for the good of citizens - I really don't think so.
Not at this time when our economy is in the tank, over 2 million lost jobs in the last 3 months, etc.
Is this really a good time to increase the cost of energy?
The Obama admin is anxious to get Cap and Trade pushed through so they can start raking in all the dollars it will generate. With all the spending the admin is doing - they really need the $$.
It's actually pretty clever because people will blame the electric companies for increased energy bills - they won't blame the govt. So the govt can say - see, no new taxes on the average man.
Figure the fact that there is more and more info coming out against the IPCC model and report on GW is also another reason they want to quickly push through Cap and Trade.
Just think if they did nothing and the IPCC report was proven wrong - the US Feds would look like fools. If they quickly put Cap and Trade in place then they can claim they saved the world.
I'm all for more efficient and new forms of energy - I just don't buy into the Cap and Trade as the solution - not at this time at least.
Quote:
Jackson said while the [epa] agency is prepared to move forward with regulations under the Clean Air Act, the Obama administration would prefer that Congress addressed the climate issue through "cap-and-trade" legislation limiting pollution that can contribute to global warming.
John Coleman ...... create the Weather Channel.... global warming, calling it "the greatest scam in history.''.......
Coleman says the global warming movement was sparked by scientist Roger Revelle, who was seeking increased funding for the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.
Ex-WLS weatherman calls warming 'greatest scam in history' :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Nation (http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1533001,CST-NWS-swarming19.article - broken link)
Since the recession began in December 2007, 5.1 million jobs have been lost, with almost[/LEFT]
two-thirds (3.3 million) of the decrease occurring in the last 5 months http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
[LEFT]
Perhaps you missed the second post with the study from the Spanish University? The conclusion was for every job created by renewable energy in Spain 2.2 jobs were lost. More industry shills?
Perhaps you missed the second post with the study from the Spanish University? The conclusion was for every job created by renewable energy in Spain 2.2 jobs were lost. More industry shills?
Yeah I've also seen studies in the United States that say the opposite.
Yeah I've also seen studies in the United States that say the opposite.
What's the purpose of green? To get more with less, save energy, time, money... etc. Where do you see increases in employment coming in at? Do you not see the contradiction? It's like the mfg process "we're refining our capacities and increasing production to lower cost", you know what that means right?
What's the purpose of green? To get more with less, save energy, time, money... etc. Where do you see increases in employment coming in at? Do you not see the contradiction? It's like the mfg process "we're refining our capacities and increasing production to lower cost", you know what that means right?
Not at all. 1000 MW of wind turbines employ more people in operations and maintenance than 1000 MW of coal-fired capacity.
The purpose of green is to reduce the impact on the environment.
Yeah I've also seen studies in the United States that say the opposite.
Interesting as they mention a few U.S. Studies in the Spanish study, page 12:
Quote:
Of course other studies including by U.S. academics have also noted several related impacts, for example:
· Raising energy costs kills. According to a Johns Hopkins study, replacing three fourths of U.S. coal-based energy with higher priced energy would lead to 150,000 extra premature deaths annually in the U.S. alone (Harvey Brenner , “Health Benefits of Low Cost Energy: An Econometric Case Study,” Environmental Manager, November 2005).
· Reducing emissions, a major rationale for “green jobs” or renewables regimes, hits the poorest hardest. According to the recent report by the Congressional Budget Office, a cap-and-trade system aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by just 15% will cost the poorest quintile 3% of their annual household income, while benefiting the richest quintile (“Trade-Offs in Allocating Allowances for CO2 Emissions”, U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Economic and Budget Issue Brief, April 25, 2007).
· Raising energy costs loses jobs. According to a Penn State University study, replacing two-thirds of U.S. coal-based energy with higher-priced energy such as renewables, if possible, would cost almost 3 million jobs, and perhaps more than 4 million (Rose, A.Z., and Wei, D., “The Economic Impact of Coal Utilization and Displacement in the Continental United States, 2015,” Pennsylvania State University, July 2006)
Underline is mine, off to find the John Hopkins study. Should be an interesting read.
Interesting as they mention a few U.S. Studies in the Spanish study, page 12:
Underline is mine, off to find the John Hopkins study. Should be an interesting read.
I'll look at the study. From what you've quoted, they clearly are misinformed about how the cap and trade funds will be administered. It's nice to see a RWer so concerned about the country's poor.
Not at all. 1000 MW of wind turbines employ more people in operations and maintenance than 1000 MW of coal-fired capacity.
Sure they do. But that just adds cost to the energy.
Plus, 1000MW of wind turbines takes a lot of acreage...yet another cost.
Additionally, it won't generate 1000MW at peak times, have to have additionall generates for that. ooops! more cost!
Wind has its niche, but generally wind is a very good solution only for people who are very bad at math.
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.
