“Scientists agree that CO2 emissions around the world could lead to rising temperatures with serious long-term environmental consequences. But that is not a reason to enact a U.S. cap-and-trade system until there is a global agreement on CO2 reduction,” wrote Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein. “The proposed legislation would have a trivially small effect on global warming while imposing substantial costs on all American households.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
66 Comments
Eggzactly!
It does however, provide the democrats with another source of income. This time under the social cross of saving the world’s atmosphere.
…would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year.
Typical household – that’s akin to an average face slap.
Remember, these are the types of people we are dealing with:
Did global warming help bring down Air France flight 447?
June, 2009, 21:35
As the investigation continues as to what brought down the French airliner over the Atlantic Ocean with 228 people on board, a Russian climatologist believes global warming played a significant part.
#
SolDevVB
Posted June 5, 2009 at 12:49 pm | Permalink
Remember, these are the types of people we are dealing with:
Did global warming help bring down Air France flight 447?
June, 2009, 21:35
As the investigation continues as to what brought down the French airliner over the Atlantic Ocean with 228 people on board, a Russian climatologist believes global warming played a significant part.
=====================
GTFO…
This thread devolves into a copy/pasta war in 3, 2, 1…
Remember – it’s not about “solving” global warming. It’s about generating revenue. Once you understand that, the rest makes sense.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
AlGore, “C.R.E.A.M.”.
Help! cosmo, help!
There is another denier! Denier!!
Obviously he doesn’t understand.
Liar! Denier!
fleettwood,
Whatever. . .
“The proposed legislation would have a trivially small effect on global warming while imposing substantial costs on all American households.”
1. There is no proof it will lower GW one iota.
(if someone has a link/reference let me know)
2. This will hurt the “poor” people, and the rest of us.
Come on people…the chosen one told us he wouldn’t raise taxes, “not a single dime” on the middle class or lower…so this doesn’t count, tobacco taxes, soda taxes and inflation don’t count either!
Dagnabit!!! How could I have missed it…he said “not one single dime”…he didn’t say anything about thousands of dollars….whoo, that was close, thought he was going to break a campaign promise for a second there…
SUPER AL, TO SAVE THE DAYYYYYYY!!!!!!!
(Al saves the world in many ways)
Former Vice President Al Gore may be sent to North Korea to negotiate the release of two American journalists on trial, the AFP reported.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525175,00.html
I bet that Elmer Fudd voice of Al’s will scare the carp outta the North Koreans.
http://channels.isp.netscape.com/whatsnew/gallery.jsp?floc=g-wnew_wilkins_ice_shelf1&gname=wnew_wilkins_ice_shelf&pi=2&grurl=http%3A%2F%2Fchannels.isp.netscape.com%2Fwhatsnew%2Fdefault.jsp%3Fstory%3D20090605-0800&photo=1&xad=true
See the Wilksons Ice Shelf collapse before your eyes.
Good thing we’re not responsible for global warming or anything . . . otherwise, we’d see things like . . . uh . . . Arctic ice shelves collapsing.
Al Gore, hahahaha.
If only we’d send somebody who’s really skilled at making friends around the world: George W. Bush.
“America is where wings take dreams,” where “people have a hard time putting food on their families,” where the important educational question we should all ask is, “Is our children learning?”
JimJohnson
Posted June 5, 2009 at 3:12 pm | Permalink
SUPER AL, TO SAVE THE DAYYYYYYY!!!!!!!
(Al saves the world in many ways)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-==-=-=-=-=
Looks like Al is try to give that guy from the Dos Equis commercials a run for his money.
MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It’s a world of madmen and uncertainty
And potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet
Become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being
And the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher!
Make the pie higher!
Cqp and monkey a valiant effort to change the substance of what was written. algore has made 98 million dollars since leaving office. What a racket!?
You guy look pretty dumb trying to turn this back on Bush when the big O is stumbling so badly.
Monkey I know you are sad that Bush went back to Texas and you are stuck with Barry. Try to hold on. It won’t last forever. We have elections every four years for prez.
“The proposed legislation would have a trivially small effect on global warming while imposing substantial costs on all American households.”
And of course that is EXACTLY what I and other reasonable folks have been saying ALL ALONG!!!
No one, at least not me, is against alternate energy sources, conservation and efficiency, but the hysterics like comatose want to harm us economically to satisfy their liberal agenda.
This has been the biggest pied piper hoax ever perpetuated on the world.
Well, I never did, and am not now buying into it now.
Box – agree 100%, that NOBODY’S against alt energy, just asking that before we jump off the cliff to replenish the wardrobe with parachute pants, you know, because they’re cool now….that alt energy do it the old fashioned H&R Block way…”they earn it”. Pretty simple concept. The global energy market is a multi-trillion dollar pie out there for the taking, so instead of trying to legislate/mandate a solution…make it better and that pie’s all yours. Creative destruction’s a principle Al’s not real fond of, because it takes actual creativity/intellect.
boxlock20 posted June 5, 2009 at 5:43 pm
This has been the biggest pied piper hoax ever perpetuated on the world.
Well, I never did, and am not now buying into it now.
———————
boxlock20 knows much more about Earth’s climate science than all of the world’s top climate scientists. We should rely only on boxlock20 for information about humans impact on Earth’s climate. /sarcasm OFF
#
CapnAmerica
Posted June 5, 2009 at 3:45 pm | Permalink
http://channels.isp.netscape.com/whatsnew/gallery.jsp?floc=g-wnew_wilkins_ice_shelf1&gname=wnew_wilkins_ice_shelf&pi=2&grurl=http%3A%2F%2Fchannels.isp.netscape.com%2Fwhatsnew%2Fdefault.jsp%3Fstory%3D20090605-0800&photo=1&xad=true
See the Wilksons Ice Shelf collapse before your eyes.
Good thing we’re not responsible for global warming or anything . . . otherwise, we’d see things like . . . uh . . . Arctic ice shelves collapsing.
—————-
1) So, how much ice coverage has the Antarctic lost Capn? 2) Have the temperature increased or decreased there in the last 10 years?
One simple, undeniable fact.
Petroleum is running out.
SOME nation is eventually going to make the commitment to address that reality courageously. It can be the United States, and we can once again be an innovation nation that leads the world…
…or, we could listen to the foot draggers and watch our country become less and less relevant on the world stage.
It is ALSO fair to further define some of those foot draggers.
Just to see if they are folks that we really think we want to listen to.
I want to hear from people who care about THIS world and its future.
outlander,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif
BJ – In case you didn’t notice, I for one, didn’t say a word about oil. There’s one proven electricity “alt” that is, call me crazy, actually proven, and it’s taken off the table by those “SOME” who seem to have a problem with “reality”, whether “courageously” or not, to admit that nuclear energy is simple, proven and just comes with a different set of baggage than wind/solar. Weird trivia too, because it’s cheaper and can be built where the demand is, instead of a thousand miles from the demand and without the need for redundant fossil fuel backup.
“….that alt energy do it the old fashioned H&R Block way…”they earn it”. Pretty simple concept. ”
Actually, it’s rather simple minded.
It’s EASY and comparatively cheap to keep doing the same old things over and over. The companies making money off of that defend their interest and squash competition and everything goes along working real well….
Until it doesn’t.
So, what you have to ask yourself is, do we start helping out the alternatives to a way of doing things on the borrowed time it has left or do we wait until that way of doing things doesn’t work anymore?
Would you rather drive an alternative fuel vehicle or not drive at all. THAT is the reality we face.
Oh, and one last thing, do you honestly believe that unilaterally crippling our economy will somehow make us a player on the “global stage”, when China, Russia & India sure as heck aren’t going to fall on the same sword? I’m assuming those are the “foot draggers” you refer to, because I know you love this country so much you wouldn’t be attacking fellow Americans like that…
Petroleum is running out.
SOME nation is eventually going to make the commitment to address that reality courageously. It can be the United States, and we can once again be an innovation nation that leads the world…
I agree wiht BJ.
Nukes. Start building them now!
Er… I also agree with DFB
I don’t agree that it would “unilaterally cripple” our economy if we started thinking in terms of future less dependent on oil and other fossil fuels.
Thank you Cosmos, for the link that answers neither of the questions I asked the Capn.
Nuclear plants have two very serious problems that have to be addressed before pursuing further.
They produce waste that is deadly and remains so on geologic time scales.
They are built and maintained by profit driven companies who are FOREVER less interested in safety and the future than they are their own bottom line.
Proponents of nuclear energy often like to mention that one movie “The China Syndrome”, destroyed the future of nuclear power in this country. And to an extent, they are correct.
But watch the movie again. It’s heroic character, Jack Gedel? is not against nuclear power. He WORKS in a nuclear plant. He is concerned about greedy company procedures that ignore safety in favor of the bottom line.
Now you look around at other examples of American business recently. Who is prepared to trust some company with nuclear power right now?
Thank you outlander, for ignoring the significance of the temperature anomalies.
Actually, the high cost of nuclear energy is what killed it.
BJ you really should talk to some geologists about the disappearing oil supplies. Some major geologists say that the earth is like an incubator rebuilding the oil as it is used up. New fields are always being discovered.
—————
Oil reserves not running out anytime soon
Josh Brownlow
Oil is a nonrenewable resource. Whatever we burn today for use as energy will be unavailable for future generations.
Though this is a fact, it has the tendency to spawn catastrophic predictions based on fear rather than factual evidence. For more than 150 years there has been a steady stream of scientists claiming our oil supply is running out, and we have only a few years left. The world will in actuality never run completely out of oil; the problem is people believe it will.
http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2007/09/12/Opinions/Oil-Reserves.Not.Running.Out.Anytime.Soon-2962238.shtml
The same sources — fossil-energy, Republican, and free-marketers — are spreading the two falsehoods, re there is no AGW, and cap-and-trade would “unilaterally cripple” our economy.
LOL! Great source there, okobserver. . .
. . . media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2007/09/12/Opinions/Oil-Reserves.Not.Running.Out.Anytime.Soon. . .
Okie, I don’t have to look very far and I could find some “expert” prepared to claim that black is white or up is down.
You don’t have to be a scientist (or even a bought off one) to understand it. We have reached the peak of world oil production even as demand continues to increase. That oil took hundreds of millions of years of untouched accumulation. It can’t last.
“For more than 150 years there has been a steady stream of scientists claiming our oil supply is running out, ”
Take a drive along I 70 west out of Salina and see the hundreds of idle, rusting stripper wells.
Those scientists were right.
BlueJay
Posted June 5, 2009 at 7:15 pm | Permalink
Nuclear plants have two very serious problems that have to be addressed before pursuing further.
They produce waste that is deadly and remains so on geologic time scales.
They are built and maintained by profit driven companies who are FOREVER less interested in safety and the future than they are their own bottom line.
———————
The expert who can’t even take care of his own…
And it’s always about those evil selfish corporations.
But did you happen to see XXX dress down BJ for BJ’s selfish posts yesterday?
BJ cries about those evil corporations all in business to serve their own self interest – yet BJ doesn’t recognize how All BJ Ever Does, is to serve HIS OWN SELF INTEREST.
“They got more then I do. I want it!”
Don’t disagree that oil is more scarce now..but there aren’t any countries on the globe, besides us, ignoring available reserves either. Europe wants us to go “green” because it would mean the price of oil globally would drop immensely (Middle Eastern costs of production are less than $10/bbl) and they don’t have any more reserves to exploit.
Now, as for nuclear energy being so unsafe…are you serious…referencing a movie?? There were exactly ZERO casualties related to 3 Mile Island, our worst accident ever. And what do ya know, technology’s improved since then, so they’re safer than ever now. The TVA’s a govt run nuke plant and Tennessee residents LOVE their cheap energy from it. Profit motives are exactly the thing that will KEEP them safe. Damn sure wouldn’t be govt employees, with literally no incentives whatsoever, worrying about safety.
As for disposal of nuke waste, that was the baggage I was talking about. No less an issue than the fact it takes thousands of acres dedicated to windmills to get part-time energy, oh and lest we forget the poor migratory birds and exploding bat lungs (not my theories, those come from your folks).
Nuke energy’s the only logical choice to supplement the motor fuel pool realistically for the same reason fossil fuel generation plants make sense now…because they’re on all the time. If you want to make wind/solar logical at any point in time, the only answer is to figure out how to store electricity. Just that little gem would make 30% or more of the coal plants obsolete. But it’s a pipe dream right now, so when you’re broke and going all in..you don’t bet on running cards to draw 4 of a kind..you go with what’s proven. And the only energy proven to work all day, every day, is nuke. If wind/solar want to play along, they should be regional solutions and not national.
Oil isn’t scare now. The oil holes are dry and many in western kansas were capped because they weren’t profitable. We have new fields we haven’t touched where oil is plentiful.
BJ I know it is easier to let someone tell you what to think but the evidence is there. Oil is a replenishable product. The earth is constantly making more. Geologists will tell you this. The rate at which it is replenished I’m not sure.
Cosmos don’t tell me – this man didn’t make your list of approved peer reviewed scientists. Doesn’t surprise me. But it does raise their opinion a notch in my view.
Bluejay you are correct in that they produce waste that is deadly and remains so on geologic time scales. BUT: That is United States Policy!
Please look at France. They recycle ALL their biproducts – including nuclear waste.
Guess what? I mean recycle. They separate out the uranium from the plutonium. They safely recycle BOTH!!! They are saving costs/environment in that they don’t have to mine more uranium.
The US Government and AEC knows this. France brags about it! But the USA is afraid they would not have control of the recycled bi-products.
Stupid or what?
Google this Bluejay: france recycle nuclear waste
Here’s a hint: You are voicing what you have been taught. And WHOM taught you to believe this?
I think your research will alleviate this particular concern you have with nuclear. Remember France gets 70% of ALL their power from nuclear. They have been for decades. And they have new safer technology – they learned by use. They are doing some exciting new research for even safer more efficient nuclear reactors.
One thing they DID do to save costs greatly and ensure safety: They standardized all the plants. One design saves money in construction, inspection, training, and standardizing work – which means people working there know their jobs and can go from plant 1 to plant 2.
One bad thing they did, was to deliberately place their plants IN metro areas. This was to make a point that nuclear energy is safe. It was overkill. The smoke and emissions are right on city streets. Not unsafe, but unsightly. And if something DID happen, well maybe Russian proves it doesn’t matter if the plant is in town or not…
But astitics.
DFB posted June 5, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Profit motives are exactly the thing that will KEEP them safe. Damn sure wouldn’t be govt employees, with literally no incentives whatsoever, worrying about safety.
——————–
Yeah. . . that wonderful “profit motive”, plus the NRC, that didn’t notice a cavity in a reactor vessel head until it had grown to the size of a football.
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/davis-besse-retrospective.html
cosmos_originally
Posted June 5, 2009 at 9:40 pm | Permalink
Yeah. . . that wonderful “profit motive”, plus the NRC, that didn’t notice a cavity in a reactor vessel head until it had grown to the size of a football.
================
What, the Government NRC was incompetent?
A perilous trend in Government incompetence is becoming apparent!
Jimmy Carter was da Prez during 3-Mile Islands lil failure.
Dang Government was way too small then to do it’s job!
Make it bigger! The bigger it is the less incompetent it will be!
Big Ships never sink.
JimJohnson,
DFB says that it only takes “profit motives”, not the NRC.
DFB posted June 5, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Profit motives are exactly the thing that will KEEP them safe. Damn sure wouldn’t be govt employees, with literally no incentives whatsoever, worrying about safety.
Well Cosmos, wouldn’t be govt employees, with literally no incentives whatsoever indicates to me, that you are opposed to Obama hiring 300,000 more government employees.
I mean, if you can’t trust them to run nuclear power plants – how can you trust them to perform even less demanding tasks?
Sounds like you support privatizing!!!!
“boxlock20 knows much more about Earth’s climate science than all of the world’s top climate scientists. We should rely only on boxlock20 for information about humans impact on Earth’s climate.”—the normally comatose, comatose
Damn comatose, now you are finally getting somewhat more perceptive, though I doubt it will last.
At least I’m not a hysterical lemming, following a pied piper (Algore) and worshiping a few, mostly unnamed by you, peer reviewed ’scientists’.
Grow up will ya?
/SARCASM ON boxlock20 knows much more about Earth’s climate science than all of the world’s top climate scientists. We should rely only on boxlock20 for information about humans impact on Earth’s climate. /SARCASM OFF
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Annexes: (1)Glossary, (2)Authors, (3)Reviewers, (4)Acronyms
comatose,
You’re screaming comatose, you’re screaming again.
That’s not becoming of someone confident in their position.
Or, aren’t you?????
boxlock20,
I added emphasis, because you dropped the obvious sarcasm , “/sarcasm OFF”, in my 6:25 pm post.
If you’re “confident” about your “position” boxlock20, why did you quote-mine my 6:25 pm post? And why do you lie about the worldwide scientific AGW consensus?
And boxlock20. . . note the opening statement of this thread:
“Scientists agree that CO2 emissions around the world could lead to rising temperatures with serious long-term environmental consequences.”
“High cost, small benefits from cap-and-trade”
Duh.
As strongly as the editorial board fought for higher costs for citizens to aggressively switch to alternative energy during the Holcomb debate, I am surprised they are not also supportive of cap and trade. We are getting the higher electric bills now that the board wanted for us.
“The earth is constantly making more. Geologists will tell you this. The rate at which it is replenished I’m not sure.”
Do you mean to even TRY to suggest that the Earth is replenishing petroleum at even the tiniest fraction of the rate we are consuming it?
Nature has an eyedropper and we have a fire hose.
Consider also the value of petro products such as plastic.
What are we going to do without plastic?
Yet we continue to use this valuable, steadily rarer raw material as fuel.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted June 5, 2009 at 10:50 pm | Permalink
/SARCASM ON boxlock20 knows much more about Earth’s climate science than all of the world’s top climate scientists. We should rely only on boxlock20 for information about humans impact on Earth’s climate. /SARCASM OFF
_____________________
Who are the “world’s top climate scientists”? Are they only those who worship at the IPCC church?
The AGW alarmists could care less about the environment. They only care about control.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Annexes: (1)Glossary, (2)Authors, (3)Reviewers, (4)Acronyms
The IPCC is not and never has been an organisation that examines all aspects of climate change in a neutral and impartial manner. Its internal procedures reinforce that bias; it makes no attempts to clarify its misleading and ambiguous statements. It is very selective about the material included in its reports; its fundamental claims lack evidence. And most importantly, its actions have skewed the entire field of climate science.
Over the last 20 years and despite its dominance and manipulation of climate science, the IPCC has failed to provide concrete evidence of a significant human influence on climate.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/whytheipccshouldbedisbanded.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html