MplsBison Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Plant growth, foreign oil and driving industry to China and India are red herrings. Not sure why you keep trying to resort to distraction methods when talking about this topic? The topic at hand is that US companies are emitting too much carbon into the atmosphere. This legislation will curb that by taxing those who emit too much. If the prices of their goods and services increase, then their customers will leave for companies whose prices do not increase since they are compliant. Good. Let those who won't adapt to greener processes and methods wither and die.
star2city Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 The topic at hand is that US companies are emitting too much carbon into the atmosphere. This legislation will curb that by taxing those who emit too much. If the prices of their goods and services increase, then their customers will leave for companies whose prices do not increase since they are compliant. Baring some cataclysmic event, it's physically impossible to emit too much carbon into the atmosphere. Over the earth's history, there's been much more CO2 than there is now and earth has continued to prosper. Ever heard of the Gaia Hypothesis from 40 years ago, which states that earth is a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred stable and constant state. This hypothesis is now a theory, as key elements of it have been proven. Since China and India have no plans to ever be "compliant", their prices will be cheaper, consumers will flock to their goods, and US and Europe industrial base will erode further, and the US will be even more a debtor nation. If people want another Great Depression, this is the bill that will do it.
octupus25 Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 The left likes to say that the children will all die if we don't stop global warming. If that is the case and I can assume that Gore loves his children and grandchildren, then why doesn't he throw his massive fortune at it. If I only had 100 dollars in my bank account and I would have to starve in order to save any child, not just mine, I would give it freely. Gore used to want to destroy heavy metal but now he does benefit concerts with these bands to save the planet. Hypocrite big time. Global warming is false. 100% false. If we want to give away our money, let's do it to find a cure for cancer or aids. Not this crap so Mr. Gore can sit back in Nashville and profit.
MplsBison Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Baring some cataclysmic event, it's physically impossible to emit too much carbon into the atmosphere. Over the earth's history, there's been much more CO2 than there is now and earth has continued to prosper. Ever heard of the Gaia Hypothesis from 40 years ago, which states that earth is a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred stable and constant state. This hypothesis is now a theory, as key elements of it have been proven. Since China and India have no plans to ever be "compliant", their prices will be cheaper, consumers will flock to their goods, and US and Europe industrial base will erode further, and the US will be even more a debtor nation. If people want another Great Depression, this is the bill that will do it. It is obviously possible to emit too much, we've set the limit and companies that go above that will pay dearly. Asian goods have to be shipped here which adds costs. Plus those products are often the lowest quality product. If you want something nicer it will be American or European, which will be compliant or they will be increased in price. The bill will stimulate the green economy even more. It will do no such thing as the great depression and any claim that it will is nothing more than a scare tactic.
MplsBison Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 The left likes to say that the children will all die if we don't stop global warming. If that is the case and I can assume that Gore loves his children and grandchildren, then why doesn't he throw his massive fortune at it. If I only had 100 dollars in my bank account and I would have to starve in order to save any child, not just mine, I would give it freely. Gore used to want to destroy heavy metal but now he does benefit concerts with these bands to save the planet. Hypocrite big time. Global warming is false. 100% false. If we want to give away our money, let's do it to find a cure for cancer or aids. Not this crap so Mr. Gore can sit back in Nashville and profit. Global warming is a red herring on this thread. The thread is about carbon emissions, please stay on topic.
dead_rabbit Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Global warming is a red herring on this thread. The thread is about carbon emissions, please stay on topic. Isn't the ultimate goal of curbing carbon emissions to stop "global warming." If so, speaking of "global warming" is in fact then staying on this thread. If cap and trade is passed, this will have a CATASTROPHIC effect on our economy (corporations, and the jobs that they provide will be packing up and leaving this once fine great nation). If you think things are bad now... If Minnesota doesn't want our ND coal, fine by me. But I don't think Minnesotan's will enjoy reading by candle light, or heating their houses with fairy dust (obviously they won't be able to use wood, or other materials that are too dirty to burn, and I'm assuming fairy dust, although to be clean burning, it's also quite expensive). Wind energy isn't at a point to be able to supply that much power to the state, and obviously nuclear power, even though okay for Iran (Obama's words), won't generate any more power than it already does. So where do you get your power from?
MplsBison Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 The thread is about carbon emissions, not global warming. The two are not related on this thread. I don't care about practicalities. The legislation is about where we want to be in the future with emissions. You can't get there thinking about what's practical for today. Coal is practical for today. It's not where we want to be. Transitions are hard, but they need to be done...painfully if required. Pulling off a bandaid hurts too.
redwing77 Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Relax people! Breathe deeply adopt a yoga pose and then go hug a tree. Global warming, truth or fiction, has only done one thing: Contributed to extremism in America. That is what's wrong with us. We don't fight for the middle ground. We fight for polar positions. It's not good right now to be a conservative republican. It's not good to be pro-choice. It's not good to insist on non-governmental interference in personal lives. It's not good to be overtly capitalistic. It's not good to disagree with others, especially vocal minorities. Debate is now verbal combat that leads to accusations of verbal attacks and negative campaigning. Bah. We get what we vote for.
Goon Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 The thread is about carbon emissions, not global warming. The two are not related on this thread. I don't care about practicalities. The legislation is about where we want to be in the future with emissions. You can't get there thinking about what's practical for today. Coal is practical for today. It's not where we want to be. Transitions are hard, but they need to be done...painfully if required. Pulling off a bandaid hurts too. What part of we are in a recession and this will cost familys even more money and this bill will kill jobs. Al Gore is set to make millions with his false science.
GeauxSioux Posted June 29, 2009 Author Posted June 29, 2009 The thread is about carbon emissions, not global warming. The two are not related on this thread. I don't care about practicalities. The legislation is about where we want to be in the future with emissions. You can't get there thinking about what's practical for today. Coal is practical for today. It's not where we want to be. Transitions are hard, but they need to be done...painfully if required. Pulling off a bandaid hurts too. From the article that I referenced to start this thread....Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.Climate change (aka global warming) is where this whole carbon footprint crap started. I don't want the federal government involved in every aspect of my life. They are already embedded too deeply. They dictate how much water my toilet can use and soon will be dictating which light bulb I can use (coming in 2012). The government works incrementally over years and years. If you give them a foothold on issue such as this, you are inviting them that much deeper in your lives. If the founding fathers saw what was going on, they would ask "what happened to the constitution that we gave you?" The federal government should not have the power that they have been grabbing for years. See Amendment 10.
Bison Dan Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 CO2 only makes up 3% of all greenhouse gases of which "man" only contributes 4% (96% naturally occuring) why is it only man made CO2 being targeted? As a total amount of greenhouse gas man made CO2 is insignificant. Another question why are lib's so willing to believe that man is destroying the earth?
Siouxfan_inDenver Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 CO2 only makes up 3% of all greenhouse gases of which "man" only contributes 4% (96% naturally occuring) why is it only man made CO2 being targeted? As a total amount of greenhouse gas man made CO2 is insignificant. Another question why are lib's so willing to believe that man is destroying the earth? I like this Bison Fan. Mlpsbison eh not so much.
Siouxfan_inDenver Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Plant growth, foreign oil and driving industry to China and India are red herrings. Not sure why you keep trying to resort to distraction methods when talking about this topic? The topic at hand is that US companies are emitting too much carbon into the atmosphere. This legislation will curb that by taxing those who emit too much. If the prices of their goods and services increase, then their customers will leave for companies whose prices do not increase since they are compliant. Good. Let those who won't adapt to greener processes and methods wither and die. What about areas that only have one electric provider? It takes millions and millions of dollars to equip power plants with the emission controls to control CO2. Not to mention they have to get rid of SOX and NOX. SO they spend 100 million dollars of there own to get the control system up to par, where do you think they make that money up?? Either by raising there rates or laying people off.
sioux7>5 Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 The thread is about carbon emissions, not global warming. The two are not related on this thread. I don't care about practicalities. The legislation is about where we want to be in the future with emissions. You can't get there thinking about what's practical for today. Coal is practical for today. It's not where we want to be. Transitions are hard, but they need to be done...painfully if required. Pulling off a bandaid hurts too. Are you totally "green"(I hate that term)? Do you drive a prius and snub your nose at anyone that would dare drive an SUV, do you have a wind turbine in your backyard and a tree that you hug every morning with your coffee. The green movement is a fraud to funnel money to select corporations that GOre and his pals have invested in to make more money. Because if Al Gore really cared about the environment he would have his secret service detail in little electric cars and not SUVs. So I guess the green movement is only for us little people and not for the Al Gore's of the world. Gore and Obama(along with the First Ho) want more power and this is a Huge power grab! End of rant!
Goon Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 If the founding fathers saw what was going on, they would ask "what happened to the constitution that we gave you?" The federal government should not have the power that they have been grabbing for years. See Amendment 10. I still want to know where in the constitution it says that the federal government can take private sector business/companies away from citizen and run them ala, GMC and Chrysler? Also, I want to know where in the constitution it says that everyone is entitled to free healthcare. This is Tax and Cap bill is a joke and Al
Goon Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 What about areas that only have one electric provider? It takes millions and millions of dollars to equip power plants with the emission controls to control CO2. Not to mention they have to get rid of SOX and NOX. SO they spend 100 million dollars of there own to get the control system up to par, where do you think they make that money up?? Either by raising there rates or laying people off. They will do both, this is about killing jobs and will wreck the economy more.
jimdahl Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 I still want to know where in the constitution it says that the federal government can take private sector business/companies away from citizen and run them ala, GMC and Chrysler? Also, I want to know where in the constitution it says that everyone is entitled to free healthcare. This is Tax and Cap bill is a joke and Al "goron" Gore stands to make millions off it. This is a travesty. To the Democratic senators from conservative districts you will be on notice to if you vote in this Marxist crap. ND residents call Senator Bryon "comb over" Dorgan and Kent "Country Wide" Konrad. Right now the federal government is trampling on the constitution and we are losing more and more individual freedoms and people sit there and let it happen. I guess as long as they can drink their Starbucks and listen to their ipods, watch American Idol everything they will be fine eh? This might be getting a wee bit away from economic / environmental discussion of cap & trade and into politics
Goon Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 This might be getting a wee bit away from economic / environmental discussion of cap & trade and into politics Sorry I couldn't resist.
sioux7>5 Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Sorry I couldn't resist. I just heard on the news that Al Gore has made over $100 Million dollars fromthe green movement. That is insane! I need to find a cause and shove down people's throat. I need money too!
Goon Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 I just heard on the news that Al Gore has made over $100 Million dollars fromthe green movement. That is insane! I need to find a cause and shove down people's throat. I need money too! He will stand to make a lot of money, that is why he is cheeing this on. I think it is funny he preaches this green crap and carbon foot prints then flys around the world in his private jet. His house is so big that the carbon foot print is probably as big a small ND town. So I think Gore is a hypcrite.
The Sicatoka Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 I'm assuming folks concerned with carbon going into the atmosphere are pedaling a stationary bike to power their PC. If not, they should shut off the PC to do their part to limit carbon (and other noxious) emissions. No, wait, their pedaling would cause additional human-based CO2 emissions. Now how could they stop those emissions ... breathe less?
GeauxSioux Posted June 29, 2009 Author Posted June 29, 2009 An analysts perspecitve...Since farming is energy intensive, that sector will be particularly hard-hit. Higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs, higher electricity costs, and higher natural gas-derived fertilizer costs all erode farm profits, which are expected to drop by 28 percent in 2012 and average 57 percent lower through 2035. As with American manufacturers, Waxman-Markey also puts American farmers at a global disadvantage, as other food-exporting nations would have no comparable energy-price raising measures in place. In addition, because the bill raises energy costs, it hurts rural America much more than urban America. Rural Americans, farmers and non-farmers, spend an average of 58 percent more on energy as a percentage of income than their urban counterparts, and those costs would go up.
MplsBison Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 The heritage foundation...now there is a site that is just dripping with credibility! I'm sure they have no agenda in this! LOL! Here's a decent article on some of the compromise going on as the bill passes its way through the congress and senate: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aWrfyhptR.RM
Goon Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Oil refiners would receive just 2.25 percent of the allowances for free, while having to acquire nearly 40 percent of the available permits each year to cover the emissions at refineries and the carbon dioxide produced when fuels like gasoline are burned by cars and trucks, according to data from the Environmental Protection Agency. All this does is translate to higher fuel prices that will in turn hurt people that need bigger vehicles like Farmers and truckers. Also, get ready to freeze because your heating bill is going up. This is a bunch of crap if you ask me.
Goon Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 The heritage foundation...now there is a site that is just dripping with credibility! I'm sure they have no agenda in this! LOL! Hey Hippie the Heritage Foundation is a respected organization, but this statement is very true. You're going to punish working people with this socialist crap. You're taking money out of consumers pockets, which means they aren't going to buy things they would have normally bought and that will put more people out of business further killing the economy. What are those costs? According to the analysis we conducted at The Heritage Foundation, which is attached to my written statement, the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill's provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.
Recommended Posts