Remember the cap and trade bill that passed the hosue without even being finished...

[rudder]

Obama adminsitration admits it will cost families around $1761 each

Hopefully this will never get out of the Senate. The senate would not want to make barack "we will not raise taxes" obama a liar now would they?

The scary part is the increased burden families will have to pay for energy which goes up every year. Maybe the increases will be offset by the reduction in my health expenses.

 

[ElFenix]

i have no problem making people pay for the externalities of their consumption. not sure if the bill accomplishes that, but i have no issue with the goal.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i have no problem making people pay for the externalities of their consumption. not sure if the bill accomplishes that, but i have no issue with the goal.

You have no problem with paying $1700 more a year when families are struggling just to get by in the "Worst Economy Since the Depression" just to combat the myth of man-made global warming (when the earth has been cooling the last decade)?

You have no problem with the economic destruction such a plan would wreak on the United States economy, when other countries such as China and India flat-out reject such onerous cap-and-tax plans?

Okay...

Australia recently voted against a cap-and-trade program because they realized the amount of harm it would do to their country, with little-to-no benefit or reason for such a program.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i have no problem making people pay for the externalities of their consumption. not sure if the bill accomplishes that, but i have no issue with the goal.

You have no problem with paying $1700 more a year when families are struggling just to get by in the "Worst Economy Since the Depression" just to combat the myth of man-made global warming (when the earth has been cooling the last decade)?

You have no problem with the economic destruction such a plan would wreak on the United States economy, when other countries such as China and India flat-out reject such onerous cap-and-tax plans?

Okay...

Australia recently voted against a cap-and-trade program because they realized the amount of harm it would do to their country, with little-to-no benefit or reason for such a program.

Ridiculously False.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i have no problem making people pay for the externalities of their consumption. not sure if the bill accomplishes that, but i have no issue with the goal.

You have no problem with paying $1700 more a year when families are struggling just to get by in the "Worst Economy Since the Depression" just to combat the myth of man-made global warming (when the earth has been cooling the last decade)?

You have no problem with the economic destruction such a plan would wreak on the United States economy, when other countries such as China and India flat-out reject such onerous cap-and-tax plans?

Okay...

Australia recently voted against a cap-and-trade program because they realized the amount of harm it would do to their country, with little-to-no benefit or reason for such a program.

Ridiculously False.

Gee, thanks for your insightful and well-thought-out response.

:roll:

Point 1: Read the news today? Even Obama admitted it would cost a family $1700 a year.

Point 2: I linked an article backing up my stance.

Got anything to back up your amazing rebuke? No? Okie Dokie.

 

[ElFenix]

and shoving the cost onto someone else is okay?

people need to pay for their externalities. if you can't afford paying for them directly then you couldn't afford to pay for them indirectly either, you just didn't know it because they were off balance sheet, as it were.

china is moving forward on green energy asap. the commie party committee members couldn't go outside in beijing without choking and their eyes watering and have figured out they can't continue building coal plants.

 

[ayabe]

Obama hasn't admitted anything, some anonymous source did.

That article is pretty weak, and is further weakened by the edit at the bottom:

"Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it's not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers. It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.

The bill passed by the House sends the value of pollution permits to consumers, and it contains robust cost-containment provisions. Every credible and independent economic analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (such as those done by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency) says the costs will be small and affordable -- and that the U.S. economy will grow with a cap on carbon."

So anyways...

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i have no problem making people pay for the externalities of their consumption. not sure if the bill accomplishes that, but i have no issue with the goal.

You have no problem with paying $1700 more a year when families are struggling just to get by in the "Worst Economy Since the Depression" just to combat the myth of man-made global warming (when the earth has been cooling the last decade)?

You have no problem with the economic destruction such a plan would wreak on the United States economy, when other countries such as China and India flat-out reject such onerous cap-and-tax plans?

Okay...

Australia recently voted against a cap-and-trade program because they realized the amount of harm it would do to their country, with little-to-no benefit or reason for such a program.

Ridiculously False.

Gee, thanks for your insightful and well-thought-out response.

:roll:

Point 1: Read the news today? Even Obama admitted it would cost a family $1700 a year.

Point 2: I linked an article backing up my stance.

Got anything to back up your amazing rebuke? No? Okie Dokie.

If they simply keep spouting lies everyone will believe them (the libs). Don't have to provide proof.

 

[Schmide]

Read a real article

Take half the equation, ignore everything else, spread that out among all tax payers, create FUD.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

china is moving forward on green energy asap. the commie party committee members couldn't go outside in beijing without choking and their eyes watering and have figured out they can't continue building coal plants.

You really believe that China is going "green" lol! The Chinese have quite the record of "Do as I say, and not as I Do" for awhile. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i have no problem making people pay for the externalities of their consumption. not sure if the bill accomplishes that, but i have no issue with the goal.

You have no problem with paying $1700 more a year when families are struggling just to get by in the "Worst Economy Since the Depression" just to combat the myth of man-made global warming (when the earth has been cooling the last decade)?

You have no problem with the economic destruction such a plan would wreak on the United States economy, when other countries such as China and India flat-out reject such onerous cap-and-tax plans?

Okay...

Australia recently voted against a cap-and-trade program because they realized the amount of harm it would do to their country, with little-to-no benefit or reason for such a program.

Ridiculously False.

Gee, thanks for your insightful and well-thought-out response.

:roll:

Point 1: Read the news today? Even Obama admitted it would cost a family $1700 a year.

Point 2: I linked an article backing up my stance.

Got anything to back up your amazing rebuke? No? Okie Dokie.

Sorry, I bolded the part I was responding too.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
and shoving the cost onto someone else is okay?

people need to pay for their externalities. if you can't afford paying for them directly then you couldn't afford to pay for them indirectly either, you just didn't know it because they were off balance sheet, as it were.

china is moving forward on green energy asap. the commie party committee members couldn't go outside in beijing without choking and their eyes watering and have figured out they can't continue building coal plants.

China and the US failed to achieve a breakthrough at their latest round of climate talks

"Chinese officials maintained that the two countries should have a ?common but differentiated approach? ? code for Beijing?s reluctance to adopt a formal domestic mandate to reduce its carbon emissions. The US Congress is considering a bill that would reduce US emissions to 83 per cent of 2005 levels by 2020. China wants the US to cut its emissions to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 ? a different order of magnitude. It also wants the US to pledge up to 1 per cent of its gross domestic product to pay for clean technology in China and elsewhere."

So, not only do they see the goals currently in our cap and trade legislation as unattainable (83% in ours VS 40% in what they want), they want US to pay for THEM to go green!

Boy, what a deal! Where do I sign up?! :roll:

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

You really believe that China is going "green" lol! The Chinese have quite the record of "Do as I say, and not as I Do" for awhile. I'll believe it when I see it.

apparently they're building solar plants and manufacturing capability at double time right now. target is 15% of their energy consumption by 2020 from 'clean' sources

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...a-invests-solar-energy

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

"Chinese officials maintained that the two countries should have a ?common but differentiated approach? ? code for Beijing?s reluctance to adopt a formal domestic mandate to reduce its carbon emissions. The US Congress is considering a bill that would reduce US emissions to 83 per cent of 2005 levels by 2020. China wants the US to cut its emissions to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 ? a different order of magnitude. It also wants the US to pledge up to 1 per cent of its gross domestic product to pay for clean technology in China and elsewhere."

So, not only do they see the goals currently in our cap and trade legislation as unattainable (83% in ours VS 40% in what they want), they want US to pay for THEM to go green!

Boy, what a deal! Where do I sign up?! :roll:

did i say anywhere that we should kowtow to china? anywhere at all? bueller? don't put words in my mouth that weren't there. i said the chinese are moving forward on green energy. and you have yet to dispute that by going off on tangents and strawmen.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

"Chinese officials maintained that the two countries should have a ?common but differentiated approach? ? code for Beijing?s reluctance to adopt a formal domestic mandate to reduce its carbon emissions. The US Congress is considering a bill that would reduce US emissions to 83 per cent of 2005 levels by 2020. China wants the US to cut its emissions to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 ? a different order of magnitude. It also wants the US to pledge up to 1 per cent of its gross domestic product to pay for clean technology in China and elsewhere."

So, not only do they see the goals currently in our cap and trade legislation as unattainable (83% in ours VS 40% in what they want), they want US to pay for THEM to go green!

Boy, what a deal! Where do I sign up?! :roll:

did i say anywhere that we should kowtow to china? anywhere at all? bueller? don't put words in my mouth that weren't there. i said the chinese are moving forward on green energy. and you have yet to dispute that by going off on tangents and strawmen.

When rebuked, distract and dance.

 

[Patranus]

Do we have to rewind back to the 70s?
http://www.time.com/time/magaz.../0,9171,944914,00.html

I guess liberals can't get their stories straight.

All of this is fear mongering.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Do we have to rewind back to the 70s?
http://www.time.com/time/magaz.../0,9171,944914,00.html

I guess liberals can't get their stories straight.

All of this is fear mongering.

Yes we had great climate models back in the 70s? Powered by bell bottoms and cocaine.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

You have no problem with paying $1700 more a year when families are struggling just to get by in the "Worst Economy Since the Depression" just to combat the myth of man-made global warming (when the earth has been cooling the last decade)?

I suppose it makes sense just to look at the last decade...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...27/temperature-trends/

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

You have no problem with paying $1700 more a year when families are struggling just to get by in the "Worst Economy Since the Depression" just to combat the myth of man-made global warming (when the earth has been cooling the last decade)?

I suppose it makes sense just to look at the last decade...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...27/temperature-trends/

LMAO
http://www.oism.org/pproject/S...resentation/Slide1.png

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

I suppose it makes sense just to look at the last decade...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...27/temperature-trends/

meh, i don't really buy into goddard either because apparently they don't disclose their methodology for adjusting weather station temperatures (which need adjusting to account for encroaching cities, bad siting, etc.). so raw data goes into a black box and something comes out the other end. that's not science.

Originally posted by: Patranus
Do we have to rewind back to the 70s?
http://www.time.com/time/magaz.../0,9171,944914,00.html

I guess liberals can't get their stories straight.

All of this is fear mongering.

sulfur pumped into the atmosphere reflects sunlight back into space. but it causes acid rain. so we stopped pumping sulfur into the atmosphere. i wonder how much the global cooling scare in the 70s was due to sulfur in the atmosphere?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

You have no problem with paying $1700 more a year when families are struggling just to get by in the "Worst Economy Since the Depression" just to combat the myth of man-made global warming (when the earth has been cooling the last decade)?

I suppose it makes sense just to look at the last decade...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...27/temperature-trends/

LMAO
http://www.oism.org/pproject/S...resentation/Slide1.png

Oops. Except the medieval warming period was confined to the North Atlantic. Australia, Africa, and so forth were likely cooler during that time bringing down the average global temperature

LMAO indeed

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

You have no problem with paying $1700 more a year when families are struggling just to get by in the "Worst Economy Since the Depression" just to combat the myth of man-made global warming (when the earth has been cooling the last decade)?

I suppose it makes sense just to look at the last decade...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...27/temperature-trends/

LMAO
http://www.oism.org/pproject/S...resentation/Slide1.png

Oops. Except the medieval warming period was confined to the North Atlantic. Australia, Africa, and so forth were likely cooler during that time bringing down the average global temperature

LMAO indeed

*likely* LOL

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Oops. Except the medieval warming period was confined to the North Atlantic. Australia, Africa, and so forth were likely cooler during that time bringing down the average global temperature

LMAO indeed

seems there is evidence of the medieval warm period in japan and new zealand as well.

Originally posted by: Patranus

*likely* LOL

OMGLMAOWTFMELONCOPTER

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: ElFenix


4 Bay USB PATA drive enclosure!

*
bad How can you trust a rule breaker?

What about my sig file?

You may post a simple link to your own business in your sig file. Please do not include specific offers for products, promotions or deals. Please do not include any links not permitted in your posts (pay-to-surf, auction sites, etc.).

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Schmide

*
bad How can you trust a rule breaker?

you can link to your own FS/FT post :roll: