Congress and Global Warming

[imported_Shivetya]

Global Warming and the Big Energy Guys, I mean Congressmen...


Doesn't matter which side of the fence your on, these guys are going to regulate your lives while continuing to live as they do. Don't think so? A Zebra cannot change its stripes and a politician cannot get over the power trip of telling others to do something and then coming up with excuses for themselves (or Carbon Indulgences)

One skeptic, select committee member Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), pays an average of $310 a month to power his Phoenix home, according to the utility company Arizona Public Service.

Well at least he's a skeptic... but

One of his Democratic counterparts on the committee, Rep. Hilda Solis of California, pays an average of $50 to $80 a month for electricity, according to Southern California Edison. In 2000, Solis became the first woman to receive the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award for her work on environmental issues.

at least she lives by her own words. The trouble is most of them don't and they still will tell us how WE, not THEM, must act to save the environment. Basically lining the pockets of lobbyist groups representing the people selling us the tech needed to comply with the regulations.

I wonder how much $400 haircuts contribute to Global Warming? , okay, I kid... but I had to toss that out, Mr 2-Americas, his and ours. Politician's America and our America. Make no mistake, there are two levels of entitlement here and we, the average American's are on the bottom

 

[sandorski]

:roll:

This whole line of argument is ridiculous.

 

[Double Trouble]

Ok, so what you're saying is that because the policians are a bunch of blow hard hypocrites nothing should be done about the problem?

I agree that they're a bunch of hypocrites, but that does not change the fundamental issue/debate does it?

 

[DealMonkey]

Of course it doesn't, and if Congress addresses the C02 emissions problem, they will do so by crafting legislation to target the worst offenders, you know big industry, major transportation (ocean vessels, airliners, etc.).

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Of course it doesn't, and if Congress addresses the C02 emissions problem, they will do so by crafting legislation to target the worst offenders, you know big industry, major transportation (ocean vessels, airliners, etc.).

And who feels the brunt of this legislation? The fat cat executives or the grunts who lose their job and pay higher prices for the product?

I dont have a problem with conservation or laws cleaing up the world to an extent. But lets not act like the rich are going to be hit by these laws and make it look like a win win for everybody.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Of course it doesn't, and if Congress addresses the C02 emissions problem, they will do so by crafting legislation to target the worst offenders, you know big industry, major transportation (ocean vessels, airliners, etc.).

And who feels the brunt of this legislation? The fat cat executives or the grunts who lose their job and pay higher prices for the product?

I dont have a problem with conservation or laws cleaing up the world to an extent. But lets not act like the rich are going to be hit by these laws and make it look like a win win for everybody.

Very true. Passing tough environmental laws is actually counterproductive on a global scale if we dont pace the rest of the world with us. If we continue to make them tougher, and more costly to deal with, they'll just move their plants to China and Mexico, where they can pollute 10x as much, all the while leaving hundreds if not thousands of Americans jobless. CEO's and executives will still be sitting at the top, probably raking in even more $$ from the reduced costs.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sandorski
:roll:

This whole line of argument is ridiculous.

I wonder if the Republicans will still be this desperate come next October.

 

[ebaycj]

Dude, that is not outrageous at all. I pay ~200 a month for gas/electricity for a 3 bedroom townhouse.

EDIT: and I don't extravagantly use energy.

 

[piasabird]

Doing something about a perceived problem which will not solve the problem is not worth trying. First lets see the study that shows what effect what you want to do will have on the current situation.

 

[jman19]

More "do as I say, not as I do" crap from the people we (supposedly) put in power and pay with our hard earned money :roll:

While not practicing what you preach doesn't necessarily make what you're saying invalid, it is definitely hypocricy to the highest degree. If you don't believe in something you say enough to follow it yourself, do you think you're setting a good example for others? Long gone are the days when our leaders are people we would aspire to be.

 

[1EZduzit]

It's a simple problem if you think about it.

The more power you use to drive your car, heat/AC your home, the more it should cost you and that cost should rise exponetially. We'd all be better off on the long run.

 

[fskimospy]

IF YOU COMMIT A CRIME EVER YOU SHOULD NOT PASS LAWS DESIGNED TO STOP CRIME.

IF YOU SPEND TOO MUCH ON ELECTRICITY YOU SHOULD IGNORE THE GLOBAL CLIMATE APOCALYPSE.

POLITICIANS SHOULD ONLY PASS LAWS ON SUBJECTS IN WHICH THEY HOLD ABSOLUTE MORAL PURITY.

THIS WILL WORK EXTREMELY WELL.