Obama’s budget expects to raise $650 billion by auctioning off all the allowances to companies that release heat-trapping gases, with the bulk of the money going back to families to help with higher energy prices

All democrats should vote for it – as soon as possible!

You could get a few movies from holywood, lib actors, and actresses to do spot commercials endorsing it.

You are missing a hel l of an opportunity here.

Well played ole boy, well played!

LMFAO!

I pray to god you GO FOR IT!!!!!

Oh please, please do. Democrats all vote yes, and republicans all voting no.

Please let it be so…..

And suffer the consequences…..

Just like George Jetson! I’ll bet I can get hired by Cogswell Cogs. They aren’t very GW minded..

An official of one environmental group said the Republican ideas “look an awful lot like business as usual.”

Representative Fred Upton of Michigan, a senior Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told reporters: “The Democrats know that we have a pretty solid line in the sand” against cap and trade, which he called “a dagger to the Midwest.”

Midwestern states rely heavily on coal, a major emitter of carbon dioxide, to power electric utilities.

Upton said Republicans, as well as some Democrats, have so many amendments to the bill, including measures to kill cap and trade, that it could take up to two weeks for the committee to wade through them.

CRUCIAL TO INTERNATIONAL TALKS

Representatives Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania and Gene Green of Texas — two Democrats who worried that the steel and oil refinery industries could suffer — told reporters that their concerns were being addressed.

Democrats said Obama’s firm support for the bill would help because wavering lawmakers would have the popular president “selling the legislation” to the public.

The legislation, which would require U.S. industry to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, is crucial to the U.S. position in international talks on global warming due to take place in December

4.5-4.9 Billion years by recent reckonings, and depending at what point it’s considered to have become Earth.
And by the way, I’m not a denier of AGW, I’ve been a welcomer of it all winter. I may change that view temporarily for summer wear.

Now that Parkinson has sold out to Sunflower, I want to see what Sunflower presents as a “clean” coal power plant.
===========================

The old plant is one of the cleanest in the nation.

I think you people are fighting in the wrong area.
—————————————

No, you people are denying reality, and climate science.

Okay. . . I guess they wont care when it’s cheaper to run nat-gas plants at maximum capacity
_____________________________

Sure, when we are all getting around in our flying cars.
————————-

Coal emits more CO2 than nat-gas. The “switch-over” point is relatively low, and could happen during the early stages of carbon taxes, as the rates are gradually increased.

Sure, when we are all getting around in our flying cars.

The old plant is one of the cleanest in the nation.

I think you people are fighting in the wrong area.

Yep, sure did.
——————

Okay. . . I guess they wont care when it’s cheaper to run nat-gas plants at maximum capacity instead of buying coal-fired power, which will reduce the demand at the coal plants.

Ask “HLP” or “Nathaniel” how old the universe is.
========================

Are they what you classify as ‘many’?

Ask “HLP” or “Nathaniel” how old the universe is.

Many?

I don’t think so.

Yeah, well.

But I am not a scientist.

Just seems to me a hundred years of spewing smokestack and exhaust pipe gasses in the air while deforesting thousands of square miles of Brazilian jungles might catch up with us.

In the mean time, fossil fuels are a finite resource. And God screws up and put non-Christians on top of all our oil.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of alternative sources of energy which don’t sap the planet’s carbon-based resources and polar bears and penguins might be able to have a habitat.

While I respect your efforts against the climate change deniers on WE Blog, I sometimes wonder why you bother. Many of them think the Universe is 8,000 years old; how can you even enter into a scientific discussion with such types?

It’s as if I decided to enter into a discussion of race relations in America… only limited the discussion to the beginning of Michael Jordan’s NBA career. No slavery. No Jim Crow laws. No Martin Luther King, Jr. No, the fact Michael Jordan was the most popular athlete in America PROVES all African-Americans are highly paid media stars.

Now that Parkinson has sold out to Sunflower, I want to see what Sunflower presents as a “clean” coal power plant.

Meanwhile, CONs whose only dog in this fight is their visceral hatred for Al Gore, taunt you with minutia.

It’s odd to watch.

They also voted to spend money to generate electricity to sell to other people, even HORROR! to out-of-staters.

You see they are all farmers. They are used to producing things they sell to other people in other states and even other countries. And many of them figured electricity (and eventually algae for biodiesel and ethanol) would be a more profitable crop than irrigated corn, especially corn grown in the sandhills of Kansas.

They also knew that developing wind would take transmission lines and they voted to let Colorado pay for that infrastructure.

Its ratepayers got to vote on this project. And they voted to take the risk.
——————–

They voted to risk paying higher utility rates in the future, due to future carbon taxes?

What’s funny, is their all-important number is meaningless without including the other factors.

* CO2 has a long lifetime in Earth’s atmosphere. If it had a shorter lifetime, not as much would’ve accumulated.

* Nature has been able to absorb some, but not all of the human-caused CO2.
If nature had been able to sink all of the human-caused CO2, levels would’ve stayed flat, instead of climbing so high/fast.
And vice-versa — if nature had sank less, levels would’ve climbed even higher/faster.

* The amount nature sinks/sources has been changed by humans, and will change in the future (positive feedback).

Bottom line –nature had an approximate balance between carbon sources and sinks before humans starting burning fossil fuels, and caused land changes. Humans have caused CO2 to increase from about 280 ppm to 380+ ppm, which causes about an extra 1.5 watts/meter-squared of radiative forcing.