One of the best ways to reduce pollution is to tax it. Reducing pollution costs money. The purpose of a corporation is to generate profit for shareholders. Given the choice, no corporation would reduce pollution instead of returning a higher dividend. So, for pollution to be reduced, government has to be involved somehow. There are two possible ways:
The flaw in your argument is that you are not considering the fact that similar enterprises have similar costs and when imposing a tax across the board on these costs, to protect profit, they can easily just pass the costs to the consumer. It's not like they have to compete with some company not paying the tax because the tax is supposed to bring the change around by punishing companies who have done nothing wrong.
In other words, there is no incentive or effect of the tax because no competition causes them to adsorb the costs of the tax.
Isn't this exactly what we all want? A market based solution to the problem, rather than overbearing government regulation?
But that isn't what's happening with a cap and trade law. We are getting both, overbearing government regulation which is forcing a market based system. It would be easier and less complex with proven results to just mandate switch overs to carbon neutral energy for future and eventually existing power generation.
In 1999 and 2000 were the only two years the budget wasn't seeing a deficit. You can add off budget surpluses to the mix to take 1998 and 2001 into the mix for the total surplus. But that fact is that we were budgeting deficits into 1998 and 2001
Now, Iraq didn't happen until 2003- two years after we started deficit spending with the budget and one year after everything in total.
You are incorrectly operating under the assumption that Co2 is pollution no matter what the specifics if. The only reason crack cocaine would be dangerous outside of skin cancer is because we know it to be a danger in other ways. This isn't the case with Co2. Take acetaminophen for instance, it can kill you, but it's perfectly safe for the majority of people if taken within certain limits. So when we rule out overdoses, we are left with allergies, when we rule that out, it ceases to be a danger.
So you need to qualify your assumption that Co2 is pollution and that it is still harmful when excluded by the only claims being made about it (agw) at the concentration levels we are talking about(parts per million).
So what is your point? Is it that there are special kinds of science revolving around or rule unique to Anthropogenic Global Warming?
If it isn't, then any scientist trained in at least part of the field should be able to comment on the science principles in use in which there is some qualification. I mean 2+2 equals 4 no matter if you are a climate scientist, meteorologist, news anchor, school child or not. So what makes the difference when someone looks at a claim of it equaling 10 or something and says, this isn't right or isn't conclusive or is flawed which would also present the problem of everything built from that being flawed too.
This deliberate attempt to disqualify anyone who has connections to a political party, an oil or energy company, or who simply doesn't buy the lines being feed to them based on that and not on their claims is getting ridiculous. Sometimes things are just fucking obvious, I'm not a contractor or a carpenter but I can tell that a deck is unsafe when one of it's supports are missing and it sways 5 foot with the wind. Sometimes, being in a field make things more obvious even if you aren't in the exact field making the claims, either address their claims or don't bring it up.
These are democrats in power, they don't believe in tax credits or reductions unless they are feeling guilty of screwing someone. They don't look at companies as people so it wouldn't matter.
The biggest flaw in a cap and trade system is that it effects everyone/everything at once. With this happening, there is no punitive damage to enterprise as they just pass the costs on to the consumer.
In order to effect a change using a cap and trade system, you need to only impact portions of an industry at one time. This will cause the costs to come from profits instead of being passed directly to the consumers. This is because the costs to similar industries competing in the same or similar markets are are generally similar. In order to compete or remain competitive, they would have to absorb the costs instead of just passing it to the consumer which is much more likely to happen if everything is subject to the increases at once. Ways to absorb the costs is to ride yourself of the tax itself or by reducing costs elsewhere (labor costs). Getting out from under the tax is the most likely candidate but there is no guarantee.
Also, the amendments are using the rate of 2009 as the base line so in order to go over and be suspended, you would see an effective increase of 18% from 2008 plus however much the increase is from the end of 2008 to the end of 2009 in two to three years. It isn't the 2% you are thinking of.
It's pretty simple, just mandate a theoretic carbon neutral requirement on all new energy production capabilities after a certain amount of years, and then asses a useful life to existing generating pants and mandate their replacement with carbon neutral technology within so many years past that. On top of that, set up a panel to evaluate and expand on efficiencies in the market with compulsory licensing of tech that would increase efficiencies or create a carbon neutral. It can also do research on tech and improvements to existing tech and offer these improvements to any US citizen while licensing them at a reasonable cost to foreign nations.
As the economy gets better, the problem solves itself but do so over a long enough time to not introduce a paralyzing blow to the poor or drive jobs out of the country. Also, as other pointed out, when energy demands increase from the economy getting stronger, prices go up and cause alternative energy sources to be competitive with traditional sources.
I firmly believe that the entire goal of this cap and trade can be accomplished without the massive power grabs, expansion of government, and taxing on the American people into poverty. The added benefit of phased in mandates also means that a lot of the costs will be absorbed from profits because of competition with traditional sources of energy instead of hitting everything at once and just being passed along to the consumer when everyone else will be subject to the tax/costs. You also have the added benefit of companies actively looking for improvements in order to increase profits as well as building new facilities with new and more efficient tech as the old gets replaced.
The article said the cost of the credits in Europe was too little. The article is confused, the problem is that it effected everything at once which meant there was no competitive advantage to absorbing the costs instead of passing them off to the consumer which doesn't work unless the idea of taxing energy to curb usage is to make products to expensive to have a high demand for them.
Whether a Cap & Trade scheme is progressive depends entirely on how you give out the emissions permits. Auction them off and rebate the proceeds to the taxpayer (even if it's a flat check to every American), you have an enormously progressive plan.** Give them away and you have a regressive plan.
I don't follow your reasoning here. All costs are past on to the consumer so any costs assessed to businesses will most likely be passed onto the consumer. The only way it would be more likely to come from profit instead of being past on to the consumer is if only part of the industry is obligated to the tax, otherwise there is no competition requiring the costs to be absorbed.
There would be no progressiveness there. And if everyone got a rebate, then costs getting passed on to the consumer would just negate any potential influences the tax would have because the consumer is compensated for the increased costs.
Now if you want a progressive version, contact your member of Congress and tell them to support that. Unfortunately, the regressive version seems to be what the most conservative members of Congress want, and since the Republicans are opposing anything, then that's probably what we'll get. It's still better than nothing, and if you want better, then stop concern trolling about it and start voting for more progressive Congresspeople.
You probably should pay attention to the things you are attempting to speak about. The republicans have offered their own solutions and they are not apposed to "anything".
I think his point was that there is no real way to quantify the amount of rebate to be accurate enough for a net zero impact.
You can be living in a house inherited from your parents with older outdated HVAC systems, low insulation and so on and be within or under the poverty level and you rebate would have to reflect that. Also, increasing the tax burden on businesses only means increased costs to the consumer. It isn't like this will be something that competition will require the larger business to byte the bullet on, it is something that will effect every business at once so passing the costs directly to the consumer makes sense and is a much more probably way it will work. So how do you quantify the increased costs of living to the consumer indirectly related to this tax through goods purchased?
There is another problem with a rebate scheme, it's the same one that makes getting off welfare so damn difficult. Once you create a support system with a cut off, you also create a hill that needs to be passed before any gains in income are actually seen. Suppose the prebate only covers people living in poverty, then in order to get out of poverty, you not only need to raise your income to above poverty levels, but you also have to raise it above any benefits that will be lost.
This can easily be seen by imagining a hypothetical income scenario. Suppose the minimum wage is $5.00 per hour and that would put you in a poverty income bracket. Now suppose the article is somewhat accurate and the costs would be $1800 a year. $6.55 times 40 hours a week times 48 weeks a year is $12,576. An $1800 credit means that you would need a raise of about 95 cents per hour in income to just meet the tax portion. That's about a 15% raise, then you need to get out from under the poverty limit itself. And that's only if the amount of costs passed back to the consumer is $1800 which isn't likely given someone of the assumption made. It's more likely to raise the poverty level by about 30% or more making it very unrealistic for someone to effectivly get ahead.
No, the fact is that the link between CO2 and global temp is a theory.
so is relativity, gravitational theory, evolutionary theory etc. A theory in science does not constitute a wild guess.
however well reasoned, it is still a guess. Not being a wild guess does not make it more then a guess.
indeed, there's more to the theory of AGW than these facts, that's why people spend years of work doing research on the matter. National policy should be done in such a way as to both limit government involvement and follow the science; not one or the other. Unfortunately, the two sides have become so polarized and fervently supportive of an either or approach that it's unlikely to end well and both ends are outside the realm of sane policy.
The polarization is something coming from the deep politicization of the idea. Global warming was hijacked early on by political positions attempting to use the "fear mongering" aspect of it to advance various political ideals. It's still being done today and will probably be a major point of tomorrow.
Citing WorldNetDaily is a crime against discourse. Citing Jerome Corsi (a 9/11 truther, Obama birth certificate conspiracist who also claims that oil is a self-replenishing resource that doesn't originate from fossilized organic matter) is doubly so. Not surprisingly, he's presenting yet another conspiracy theory, this one about the inflation rate.
Not that he doesn't raise some interesting points, but given the source, I can't accept those points until I see them seconded by someone who actually knows things about stuff.
Corsi was just the first page I cam across discussing it. Here is another from a more liberal and grounded site. BTW, the byproduct hypothesis of oil seems to be able to explain geological formations in some modern modern fields without destroying the geological dating in use. Also, I don't think it precludes the tradition dead dinosaur oil theory, it just explains more. Young earth scientists were using it to find oil years before Corsi picked it up.
1) I don't see why it isn't a viable solution.
First of all, it has the potential of never reducing anything. That's why, if all the companies cut labor costs or deal with the costs some other way, then it could be no different then today. Something with a hard limit like all new supplemental power generation must be carbon neutral after 5 years of some arbitrary date, then allowing end of life on existing equipment will produce guaranteed results with a guaranteed effort on improving efficiencies. You will end up with new power competing with cheaper power which while having less of an impact on the consumer, will cause new power to become more cheap because the inevitable is coming around.
2) If the tax rebate were given in the form of reduced withholdings, the money would be available sooner.
The people who would be hit the hardest don't pay taxes in the first place. Many of them wouldn't have enough paid into the system in order to cover the costs. I know a family that I help with food from my garden and and I give them some meat when I butcher something, they have roughly $5000 a year in income on top of SSI because of an drinking and driving accident left one paralyzed from the waste down and in bad health and the other completely stupid. Well, not stupid exactly, but the concentrating processing power of her brain is severely degraded and she can only hold remedial jobs designed to give people like her something to do (*she can do normal things around the house that she has done forever but rearrange the furniture and she can't find a path through the room). If their utilities triple, the costs of gas for going to the doctors, cloths, and so on, they are screwed. And they aren't the only people like that, there is another family I know, low education, both lost their jobs when the factory moved to "another state" about a year and a half ago. Now one works in a fast food restaurant while the other is attempting to get a BS at a community college on a grant from some charity trust fund.
I mean seriously, not everyone is well off or capable of handling this like you or me. Those are just two people I know of in my little world. There are a lot of people who won't be having a good time with this. There is absolutely no reason for it either. It's ill conceived and lacks a proper discussion that would have thrown better ideas on the table.
Not a fool. Just a cynical observer of what actually happened over the last decade. You're still pushing the idea that, hey, the Democrats had eighteen whole months to undo the litany of damage of the previous six years of Republican misrule, so the economic collapse is their fault. But now you're simultaneously arguing that nobody really has any power in Congress, cuz "power" is just an artificial construct.
The article is wrong. Your supposed to scan them and report it before they leave your property. Under the law, if you sell a few head to your neighbor, you are required to scan and report it. If you take a bull to the neighbors for a little work, you have to report it.
If the animal goes anywhere other then where the government thinks it is, you have to report it.
Now you may think this is for tacking diseases, truth be told, the reason animals sit at feed lots is because they have to have a FDA regulated period of healthy time and if the farm isn't already FDA regulated, then the trip to the feed lots allow the monitoring required. This plan is more about the entire barter system and taxation in which small farmers trade stud services for fence mending on shared properties and so on. That is unless you take the animals to a non-FDA inspected processing facility. They want all of that recorded as income now do you can be taxed on it. The entire process does pose some serious technical issues too, My neighbor doesn't even know how to use a computer and has over 1000 head, I have roughly 35- soon to be 40. Swine is tracked also, for much of the same reasons.
Here is the funny part, there are already numbered tags on the animals which can be used to track them. There is no need for this program. The monitoring in the healthy period regulation can show when sick animals arrive. If that isn't working, then a RFID tag isn't going to fix it. This is nothing more then wanting to know exactly where the animals go so they can tax potential revenue sources even when the revenue is a bale of hay.
he/she is the church- the traditions and values that you will be expected to demonstrate to any other jew. You can't just say "I'm a jew" unless you are one and you aren't going to be a jew unless you were born into it or took a lengthy process to convert.
So, Jews have the equivalent of a Pope, and he turns up to everybody's wedding? I've never heard of that. Who is this guy?
Lol.. I can tell that you have absolutely no concept. No, I didn't say anything about a pope or pope like person. I'll tell you what, walk into an actual temple and ask what you need to do to convert and then come back. Practicing jews generally marry inside the religion and they know when someone is faking it. They take the traditions of the religion very seriously.
The very idea of a religion having "requirements" is absurd, as they are all simply fictions. Jews may believe very strongly in their nonsense, but that doesn't make it true.
The only thing that is absurd is your complete and total lack of understanding of what a religion is or how they operate. You also have no proof that any religion of any kind is fiction, the best you can come up with is innuendo and insinuation with probabilities. That doesn't make what you think to be true.
It would seem to me that if you were going to talk about a religion, you would at minimum be educated about it enough to have a valid opinion or point. You have no idea about which you are talking about and you are just making an ass of yourself. Good job there Skippy.
The frequent Zionist claim that the Arab inhabitants of Israel are invaders that took over the land after the Jews left, on the other hand, is almost certainly bullshit.
I didn't realize this was the case or claim being made by the Zionist. The biggest problem with the jews leaving and spreading out was the Romans insistence on worshiping their leaders as a god in addition to/above any gods of your religion around the same time that Christianity was outlawed by them too. Many jews were imprisoned or enslaved and pushed to the edges of the roman empire.
You can also claim your king of the US or Europe, who is to stop you. However, with the Jewish religion, there are records kept and you need to do certain things in order to remain within the system. And yes, there is an authority on jewishness. This authority comes when people get married and so on where they recite their blood line.
The religion works a little different then Christianity, and Islam with islam having a little closer requirements.
What equipment is that? We have had no illegal warrantless wiretaps in the US. We have had warrantless wiretaps but the legality has never been tried for fact. It won't be either because no one in the know believed it was actually used illegally. They just used it to rail for election and then shut the fuck up and supported the laws.
FYI, the Ottoman empire had been selling land and promoting the "holly land" ordeal to the European jews since the 1300's.
Also, the Jewish religion is not something anyone can just join like Christianity. There is a complicated process and for the most part, most jews don't convert out. I even know atheist jews. What this boils back down to is that there is only a very small percent of people that call themselves Jewish who do no have any middle east heritage.
In Waxman-Markey, most of the money collected from the auctions does go back to households in one way or another. When you say that the money is going into "government coffers", you're showing a lack of familiarity with the bill. The bill is chock full of things like energy tax rebates, assistance to businesses that would be hit hard by energy cost increases, R&D assistance, job retraining and unemployment benefits for people who lose their jobs in emissions-cutting moves, etc
Lol.. And you think that getting the money you spent 12 months ago back a year after is a deal? The assistance don't go far enough, they all require out of pocket expenses first, and then you have to qualify for the program/rebates.
As I said, it can be done much simpler without as much control, complexity, and hardship on the poor. Hell, you can avoid all the side stepping and promises of tax refunds that most likely will never pan out (like the no tax raises for anyone making under $250,000 but we are going to end the Bush tax cuts so everyone effectivly got a tax raise).
It seems you're not totally understanding the trade idea either. If a company moves its manufacturing offshore, why would we continue to give them permits? Plus, not everything is easy to outsource. You can't generate power in Jakarta and ship it to Duluth.
Lol.. your partially right, you can generate power in Jakerta and ship it to Duluth, we have had undersea high voltage transmissions lines for a while now. Hell, a pressuized pipeline pumping hydrogen peroxide to a power station in Iowa to be used to create carbon free energy through a steam turbine can be used with massive coal and petroleum powered power plants outside the country creating the H2O2. But what probably more likely to happen is that all of the industry in Duluth will go to Jakarta and the final products will be ship back home.
Again you're pushing your specific plan as somehow superior to whatever an economy equipped with carbonvision would come up with, without explaining why. The only evidence you seem to offer is that it would phase in gradually, which the cap and trade plan does, in a variety of ways. Your plan also insists on treating CO2 solely as a power generation problem.
I'm not pushing a plan that is any different then the intents and goals of the Waxman-Markey. The only difference is that there are solid mandates on the use of carbon neutral/free energy over a period of time that wouldn't require placing artificial hardships on poor families. The time frame would allow existing tech to reach the end of a useful life while advancing carbon neutral expansions and replacements. The added benefit of this is that as the tech improves and gets more efficient and cheaper to implement, the lastest and best tech will end up being designed in the newer facilities.
The problem I have with the cap and trade is that it is necessarily harsh and indifferent on the people least likely to pay their existing bills. And no, getting a refund a year out is not a viable solution.
Waxman-Markey is proposing a hard cap with great flexibility in how industry meets the cap. Arguably, there is no cap in your plan at all, but you're specifying how emissions will be reduced in great detail. I like Waxman-Markey better, because if your plan is the cheapest path to carbon reduction, under Waxman-Markey, industry will take essentially that path.
And there is no need to place a tax that will be pushed onto the people. Even if the government does refund everyone's increase utility costs for the poorer people, they still aren't addressing the costs added to the products and food they purchase. You can close your eyes to how businesses operate and believe that they will pay the tax from their profits, but that's not how business works. They pass all costs on to the consumer or got out of busin
So... you blast him for not pointing out where the errors are. But you yourself don't point out where he fails to point out where the errors are, or where he allegedly takes things out of context. The irony is delicious.
You should look up the definition of irony. Anyways, all I was pointing out is that it didn't do what you think it did and it attempted to do it in the same way as the report. Pointing out anything else was beyond my involvement.
And yes, he did take things out of context, he conflated the meaning of the lack of solar data with the conceptual implications of the solar forcings. Two entirely unrelated contexts.
I'm not practising science right now, buddy. Never said I did. But neither are you. I don't know what you think you are doing, but I'm practising how to cut my time-wastage losses. Good night.
I can tell your not practicing it, your not following it either. That was the point, science is science and you can't claim the science says something when it ignores factors that have effects on it. You can call that a good night buy I have to question the practice of it.
Astroturfers aren't worth the time even answering, because they don't argue in good faith. They want to spread FUD. It's what they're paid to. As soon as they manage to grab hold of someone to "debate", they score a point with their funders, because by then lots of the audience will just zone out and just assume "well, both sides probably have some merit".
And by not challenging their statements directly, you are allowing it to stand as true. Just ignoring them does nothing to what they have to say. In fact, it often will lead to you having the wrong conclusions because you ignored facts relevant. And yes, the IPCC and several other groups have had to come back and adjust their claims long after the dissenters pointed it out. This presents the very real impression of saying "ignore them, this is real, umm wait no now this is real, ignore that other person we don't like, wait not this is the real one, ignore everyone else.
But here is the point, you are, or people taking the same stand as you, are attempting to use your beliefs in order to influence and effect our lives. You are wanting to control certain aspects of our freedoms and you are expecting us to believe you when instead of answering criticisms, you just ignore them hoping it will go away and no one would notice it. That's just wrong.
Hah, the old politician's trick of making lots of noise, and then using that noise to say "listen to the noise! this is way too controversial!".
Actually, it's been the other way around. They have been using the global warming as noise to advance their own agendas.
Get this: It's all about good faith. If I think you don't have it, I'm not going to bother much. As it is, I think you are merely a bit brainwashed. Some people are willing to waste more time on it (or maybe just a bit more willing to give the benefit of doubt when it comes to whether arguments are made in good faith or not).
Actually, it isn't about good faith, James Hansen of NASA publicly admitted that he exaggerated evidence and claims because he though the ends justified the means. Many of the older reports and graphs have been revised and are barely the same beast if not completely different. Hansen has added the wrong months up in order to get a higher averages, had problems in their algorithms for figuring the average temperatures in which one of the dissenters actually pointed out that also prompted the US government to demand all sources be open for this is they fund anything.
If that doesn't make you wonder, especially when the entire claimed problem is less then.00015 of the atmosphere then it is you who is slightly brainwashed.
Gavin A. Schmidt at realclimate.org has in fact had slightly more patience with Carlin's report. If you're so interested in the science as you claim, you might want to read it?
Lol.. I have already read it. That article is in the same style as I'm complaining about. It lists how the guy is a shill, how he isn't qualified and says we need to ignore him, then lists not more then 2 places with errors but they don't actually point the errors out and even take something out of context to do it. This piece is nothing more then a we don't like you or who you hang out with so we won't listen to what you have to say even if it's more correct then our claims.
In short, ignoring things because you don't like it, or the people associated with it, or even because it disputes your long help beliefs and faiths is not practicing science. dismissing it out of hand for those reason is borderline protecting the faith. And I have yet to see a detailed rebuttal to the report that doesn't dismiss things because he isn't qualified, or because of connections to someone else, or because someone else did that and they happening to like that person or what ever. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut. associations mean nothing to whether the information is right or wrong.
Except for the bit where we democratically elect the people who tell us how much we pay to offset excessive emissions or can choose a more energy-efficient computer that doesn't pollute, yeah, that's how it works.
except the US federal government has absolutely no constitutional authority to do so which makes it no different then some random ass imposing whatever fees they want.
Actually, I have to abide by the law also. We left-wingers don't get a little pass in the mail that entitles us to free carbon-dioxide emissions for being Right Thinking or any bullshit like that.
That's not what I was implying and you know it. You left wingers can just go and buy the stuff yourself for a carbon-dioxide free life. Instead, you want to change the rules that society has came along with in order to satisfy your own little needs and wants. But again, as I said before, there are other ways to achieve the same damn goals without creating the fucking mess or putting so many people in catastrophic hardship. I'm actually suspecting it being done this way because it will create a need that the left wingers claim to be filling when they advance the rest of the agenda.
And "innocent" people? This is a political, economic, and technological one. It isn't an issue of sin or ritual purity..
This is an attack on the poor and middle class. It is nothing more then a grab for power, control, a redistribution of wealth and a recipe for disaster. You can't claim otherwise, especially when there are other ways with less of an impact on the poor and working poor to achieve the same goals. This is why it was rushed through the house without any real comment in 1/20th the time a normal bill has to comment and study, this is why there was a 30 page amendment added on at the last minute with no opportunity for comment or to even read that god damn thing.
You know, it's crap like this that sparked the tarp legislation in which the democrats specifically placed rules allowing huge bonuses to be paid with TARP money and then acted like they had no clue was was going on until it was pointed out specifically to them.
We're still Americans, not Fremen. Get your head out of the fantasy world where a radical Communist government has tried to limit everyone's standard of living by rationing energy.
What the hell are you calling? Get your head out of the sand and quit pretending it isn't happening. The entire idea behind this bill is to increase the costs of energy in order to force people to use less and look for alternatives. If that doesn't hurt the poor, take things away from people, and place an unprecedented level of control onto people, then you tell me exactly what it does do and how it does it.
The right-wing demanded a free market approach to limiting emissions, and your request was answered.
You do realize that the US GHG emissions increase between 1998 and 2006 was less then Europe's and that even though most of Europe has been involved with Kyoto and purposely attempting to lower it's emissions, it hasn't done any better then the US. Inn fact, from the same time span 1998-2006, the US actually did better.
Deal with it, delay the problem until energy rationing becomes the only workable solution, just don't keep trying to ignore the problem.
Who the fuck said anything about ignoring the problem? Just because we don't jump in head first on the words of some shaky claims does not mean the problem is being ignored. I just showed a link where the US actually did better then Europe countries in using less Co2 and we didn't get baptized into the new religion. Of course actually
Slashdot Mirror
The flaw in your argument is that you are not considering the fact that similar enterprises have similar costs and when imposing a tax across the board on these costs, to protect profit, they can easily just pass the costs to the consumer. It's not like they have to compete with some company not paying the tax because the tax is supposed to bring the change around by punishing companies who have done nothing wrong.
In other words, there is no incentive or effect of the tax because no competition causes them to adsorb the costs of the tax.
But that isn't what's happening with a cap and trade law. We are getting both, overbearing government regulation which is forcing a market based system. It would be easier and less complex with proven results to just mandate switch overs to carbon neutral energy for future and eventually existing power generation.
Umm... No we weren't maintaining a surplus.
In 1999 and 2000 were the only two years the budget wasn't seeing a deficit. You can add off budget surpluses to the mix to take 1998 and 2001 into the mix for the total surplus. But that fact is that we were budgeting deficits into 1998 and 2001
Now, Iraq didn't happen until 2003- two years after we started deficit spending with the budget and one year after everything in total.
You are incorrectly operating under the assumption that Co2 is pollution no matter what the specifics if. The only reason crack cocaine would be dangerous outside of skin cancer is because we know it to be a danger in other ways. This isn't the case with Co2. Take acetaminophen for instance, it can kill you, but it's perfectly safe for the majority of people if taken within certain limits. So when we rule out overdoses, we are left with allergies, when we rule that out, it ceases to be a danger.
So you need to qualify your assumption that Co2 is pollution and that it is still harmful when excluded by the only claims being made about it (agw) at the concentration levels we are talking about(parts per million).
So what is your point? Is it that there are special kinds of science revolving around or rule unique to Anthropogenic Global Warming?
If it isn't, then any scientist trained in at least part of the field should be able to comment on the science principles in use in which there is some qualification. I mean 2+2 equals 4 no matter if you are a climate scientist, meteorologist, news anchor, school child or not. So what makes the difference when someone looks at a claim of it equaling 10 or something and says, this isn't right or isn't conclusive or is flawed which would also present the problem of everything built from that being flawed too.
This deliberate attempt to disqualify anyone who has connections to a political party, an oil or energy company, or who simply doesn't buy the lines being feed to them based on that and not on their claims is getting ridiculous. Sometimes things are just fucking obvious, I'm not a contractor or a carpenter but I can tell that a deck is unsafe when one of it's supports are missing and it sways 5 foot with the wind. Sometimes, being in a field make things more obvious even if you aren't in the exact field making the claims, either address their claims or don't bring it up.
Why would they be stupid? All they are saying is look at the evidence closely.
These are democrats in power, they don't believe in tax credits or reductions unless they are feeling guilty of screwing someone. They don't look at companies as people so it wouldn't matter.
The biggest flaw in a cap and trade system is that it effects everyone/everything at once. With this happening, there is no punitive damage to enterprise as they just pass the costs on to the consumer.
In order to effect a change using a cap and trade system, you need to only impact portions of an industry at one time. This will cause the costs to come from profits instead of being passed directly to the consumers. This is because the costs to similar industries competing in the same or similar markets are are generally similar. In order to compete or remain competitive, they would have to absorb the costs instead of just passing it to the consumer which is much more likely to happen if everything is subject to the increases at once. Ways to absorb the costs is to ride yourself of the tax itself or by reducing costs elsewhere (labor costs). Getting out from under the tax is the most likely candidate but there is no guarantee.
Inflation doesn't take energy or food prices into account.
Also, the amendments are using the rate of 2009 as the base line so in order to go over and be suspended, you would see an effective increase of 18% from 2008 plus however much the increase is from the end of 2008 to the end of 2009 in two to three years. It isn't the 2% you are thinking of.
It's pretty simple, just mandate a theoretic carbon neutral requirement on all new energy production capabilities after a certain amount of years, and then asses a useful life to existing generating pants and mandate their replacement with carbon neutral technology within so many years past that. On top of that, set up a panel to evaluate and expand on efficiencies in the market with compulsory licensing of tech that would increase efficiencies or create a carbon neutral. It can also do research on tech and improvements to existing tech and offer these improvements to any US citizen while licensing them at a reasonable cost to foreign nations.
As the economy gets better, the problem solves itself but do so over a long enough time to not introduce a paralyzing blow to the poor or drive jobs out of the country. Also, as other pointed out, when energy demands increase from the economy getting stronger, prices go up and cause alternative energy sources to be competitive with traditional sources.
I firmly believe that the entire goal of this cap and trade can be accomplished without the massive power grabs, expansion of government, and taxing on the American people into poverty. The added benefit of phased in mandates also means that a lot of the costs will be absorbed from profits because of competition with traditional sources of energy instead of hitting everything at once and just being passed along to the consumer when everyone else will be subject to the tax/costs. You also have the added benefit of companies actively looking for improvements in order to increase profits as well as building new facilities with new and more efficient tech as the old gets replaced.
The article said the cost of the credits in Europe was too little. The article is confused, the problem is that it effected everything at once which meant there was no competitive advantage to absorbing the costs instead of passing them off to the consumer which doesn't work unless the idea of taxing energy to curb usage is to make products to expensive to have a high demand for them.
I don't follow your reasoning here. All costs are past on to the consumer so any costs assessed to businesses will most likely be passed onto the consumer. The only way it would be more likely to come from profit instead of being past on to the consumer is if only part of the industry is obligated to the tax, otherwise there is no competition requiring the costs to be absorbed.
There would be no progressiveness there. And if everyone got a rebate, then costs getting passed on to the consumer would just negate any potential influences the tax would have because the consumer is compensated for the increased costs.
You probably should pay attention to the things you are attempting to speak about. The republicans have offered their own solutions and they are not apposed to "anything".
I think his point was that there is no real way to quantify the amount of rebate to be accurate enough for a net zero impact.
You can be living in a house inherited from your parents with older outdated HVAC systems, low insulation and so on and be within or under the poverty level and you rebate would have to reflect that. Also, increasing the tax burden on businesses only means increased costs to the consumer. It isn't like this will be something that competition will require the larger business to byte the bullet on, it is something that will effect every business at once so passing the costs directly to the consumer makes sense and is a much more probably way it will work. So how do you quantify the increased costs of living to the consumer indirectly related to this tax through goods purchased?
There is another problem with a rebate scheme, it's the same one that makes getting off welfare so damn difficult. Once you create a support system with a cut off, you also create a hill that needs to be passed before any gains in income are actually seen. Suppose the prebate only covers people living in poverty, then in order to get out of poverty, you not only need to raise your income to above poverty levels, but you also have to raise it above any benefits that will be lost.
This can easily be seen by imagining a hypothetical income scenario. Suppose the minimum wage is $5.00 per hour and that would put you in a poverty income bracket. Now suppose the article is somewhat accurate and the costs would be $1800 a year. $6.55 times 40 hours a week times 48 weeks a year is $12,576. An $1800 credit means that you would need a raise of about 95 cents per hour in income to just meet the tax portion. That's about a 15% raise, then you need to get out from under the poverty limit itself. And that's only if the amount of costs passed back to the consumer is $1800 which isn't likely given someone of the assumption made. It's more likely to raise the poverty level by about 30% or more making it very unrealistic for someone to effectivly get ahead.
however well reasoned, it is still a guess. Not being a wild guess does not make it more then a guess.
The polarization is something coming from the deep politicization of the idea. Global warming was hijacked early on by political positions attempting to use the "fear mongering" aspect of it to advance various political ideals. It's still being done today and will probably be a major point of tomorrow.
Corsi was just the first page I cam across discussing it. Here is another from a more liberal and grounded site. BTW, the byproduct hypothesis of oil seems to be able to explain geological formations in some modern modern fields without destroying the geological dating in use. Also, I don't think it precludes the tradition dead dinosaur oil theory, it just explains more. Young earth scientists were using it to find oil years before Corsi picked it up.
First of all, it has the potential of never reducing anything. That's why, if all the companies cut labor costs or deal with the costs some other way, then it could be no different then today. Something with a hard limit like all new supplemental power generation must be carbon neutral after 5 years of some arbitrary date, then allowing end of life on existing equipment will produce guaranteed results with a guaranteed effort on improving efficiencies. You will end up with new power competing with cheaper power which while having less of an impact on the consumer, will cause new power to become more cheap because the inevitable is coming around.
The people who would be hit the hardest don't pay taxes in the first place. Many of them wouldn't have enough paid into the system in order to cover the costs. I know a family that I help with food from my garden and and I give them some meat when I butcher something, they have roughly $5000 a year in income on top of SSI because of an drinking and driving accident left one paralyzed from the waste down and in bad health and the other completely stupid. Well, not stupid exactly, but the concentrating processing power of her brain is severely degraded and she can only hold remedial jobs designed to give people like her something to do (*she can do normal things around the house that she has done forever but rearrange the furniture and she can't find a path through the room). If their utilities triple, the costs of gas for going to the doctors, cloths, and so on, they are screwed. And they aren't the only people like that, there is another family I know, low education, both lost their jobs when the factory moved to "another state" about a year and a half ago. Now one works in a fast food restaurant while the other is attempting to get a BS at a community college on a grant from some charity trust fund.
I mean seriously, not everyone is well off or capable of handling this like you or me. Those are just two people I know of in my little world. There are a lot of people who won't be having a good time with this. There is absolutely no reason for it either. It's ill conceived and lacks a proper discussion that would have thrown better ideas on the table.
The article is wrong. Your supposed to scan them and report it before they leave your property. Under the law, if you sell a few head to your neighbor, you are required to scan and report it. If you take a bull to the neighbors for a little work, you have to report it.
If the animal goes anywhere other then where the government thinks it is, you have to report it.
Now you may think this is for tacking diseases, truth be told, the reason animals sit at feed lots is because they have to have a FDA regulated period of healthy time and if the farm isn't already FDA regulated, then the trip to the feed lots allow the monitoring required. This plan is more about the entire barter system and taxation in which small farmers trade stud services for fence mending on shared properties and so on. That is unless you take the animals to a non-FDA inspected processing facility. They want all of that recorded as income now do you can be taxed on it. The entire process does pose some serious technical issues too, My neighbor doesn't even know how to use a computer and has over 1000 head, I have roughly 35- soon to be 40. Swine is tracked also, for much of the same reasons.
Here is the funny part, there are already numbered tags on the animals which can be used to track them. There is no need for this program. The monitoring in the healthy period regulation can show when sick animals arrive. If that isn't working, then a RFID tag isn't going to fix it. This is nothing more then wanting to know exactly where the animals go so they can tax potential revenue sources even when the revenue is a bale of hay.
he/she is the church- the traditions and values that you will be expected to demonstrate to any other jew. You can't just say "I'm a jew" unless you are one and you aren't going to be a jew unless you were born into it or took a lengthy process to convert.
Lol.. I can tell that you have absolutely no concept. No, I didn't say anything about a pope or pope like person. I'll tell you what, walk into an actual temple and ask what you need to do to convert and then come back. Practicing jews generally marry inside the religion and they know when someone is faking it. They take the traditions of the religion very seriously.
The only thing that is absurd is your complete and total lack of understanding of what a religion is or how they operate. You also have no proof that any religion of any kind is fiction, the best you can come up with is innuendo and insinuation with probabilities. That doesn't make what you think to be true.
It would seem to me that if you were going to talk about a religion, you would at minimum be educated about it enough to have a valid opinion or point. You have no idea about which you are talking about and you are just making an ass of yourself. Good job there Skippy.
I didn't realize this was the case or claim being made by the Zionist. The biggest problem with the jews leaving and spreading out was the Romans insistence on worshiping their leaders as a god in addition to/above any gods of your religion around the same time that Christianity was outlawed by them too. Many jews were imprisoned or enslaved and pushed to the edges of the roman empire.
You can also claim your king of the US or Europe, who is to stop you. However, with the Jewish religion, there are records kept and you need to do certain things in order to remain within the system. And yes, there is an authority on jewishness. This authority comes when people get married and so on where they recite their blood line.
The religion works a little different then Christianity, and Islam with islam having a little closer requirements.
What equipment is that? We have had no illegal warrantless wiretaps in the US. We have had warrantless wiretaps but the legality has never been tried for fact. It won't be either because no one in the know believed it was actually used illegally. They just used it to rail for election and then shut the fuck up and supported the laws.
FYI, the Ottoman empire had been selling land and promoting the "holly land" ordeal to the European jews since the 1300's.
Also, the Jewish religion is not something anyone can just join like Christianity. There is a complicated process and for the most part, most jews don't convert out. I even know atheist jews. What this boils back down to is that there is only a very small percent of people that call themselves Jewish who do no have any middle east heritage.
You don't need to get pissy with me just because things don't work out your way.
The channels without adds usually cost $10 to $20 a month. Your monthly fee for 46 or more channels of nothing worth watching isn't near that high.
think about that. 40 channels at $10 per month, $400 for nothing you haven't seen already or that doesn't make you tired and want to puke.
Lol.. And you think that getting the money you spent 12 months ago back a year after is a deal? The assistance don't go far enough, they all require out of pocket expenses first, and then you have to qualify for the program/rebates.
As I said, it can be done much simpler without as much control, complexity, and hardship on the poor. Hell, you can avoid all the side stepping and promises of tax refunds that most likely will never pan out (like the no tax raises for anyone making under $250,000 but we are going to end the Bush tax cuts so everyone effectivly got a tax raise).
Lol.. your partially right, you can generate power in Jakerta and ship it to Duluth, we have had undersea high voltage transmissions lines for a while now. Hell, a pressuized pipeline pumping hydrogen peroxide to a power station in Iowa to be used to create carbon free energy through a steam turbine can be used with massive coal and petroleum powered power plants outside the country creating the H2O2. But what probably more likely to happen is that all of the industry in Duluth will go to Jakarta and the final products will be ship back home.
I'm not pushing a plan that is any different then the intents and goals of the Waxman-Markey. The only difference is that there are solid mandates on the use of carbon neutral/free energy over a period of time that wouldn't require placing artificial hardships on poor families. The time frame would allow existing tech to reach the end of a useful life while advancing carbon neutral expansions and replacements. The added benefit of this is that as the tech improves and gets more efficient and cheaper to implement, the lastest and best tech will end up being designed in the newer facilities.
The problem I have with the cap and trade is that it is necessarily harsh and indifferent on the people least likely to pay their existing bills. And no, getting a refund a year out is not a viable solution.
And there is no need to place a tax that will be pushed onto the people. Even if the government does refund everyone's increase utility costs for the poorer people, they still aren't addressing the costs added to the products and food they purchase. You can close your eyes to how businesses operate and believe that they will pay the tax from their profits, but that's not how business works. They pass all costs on to the consumer or got out of busin
You should look up the definition of irony. Anyways, all I was pointing out is that it didn't do what you think it did and it attempted to do it in the same way as the report. Pointing out anything else was beyond my involvement.
And yes, he did take things out of context, he conflated the meaning of the lack of solar data with the conceptual implications of the solar forcings. Two entirely unrelated contexts.
I can tell your not practicing it, your not following it either. That was the point, science is science and you can't claim the science says something when it ignores factors that have effects on it. You can call that a good night buy I have to question the practice of it.
And by not challenging their statements directly, you are allowing it to stand as true. Just ignoring them does nothing to what they have to say. In fact, it often will lead to you having the wrong conclusions because you ignored facts relevant. And yes, the IPCC and several other groups have had to come back and adjust their claims long after the dissenters pointed it out. This presents the very real impression of saying "ignore them, this is real, umm wait no now this is real, ignore that other person we don't like, wait not this is the real one, ignore everyone else.
But here is the point, you are, or people taking the same stand as you, are attempting to use your beliefs in order to influence and effect our lives. You are wanting to control certain aspects of our freedoms and you are expecting us to believe you when instead of answering criticisms, you just ignore them hoping it will go away and no one would notice it. That's just wrong.
Actually, it's been the other way around. They have been using the global warming as noise to advance their own agendas.
Actually, it isn't about good faith, James Hansen of NASA publicly admitted that he exaggerated evidence and claims because he though the ends justified the means. Many of the older reports and graphs have been revised and are barely the same beast if not completely different. Hansen has added the wrong months up in order to get a higher averages, had problems in their algorithms for figuring the average temperatures in which one of the dissenters actually pointed out that also prompted the US government to demand all sources be open for this is they fund anything.
If that doesn't make you wonder, especially when the entire claimed problem is less then .00015 of the atmosphere then it is you who is slightly brainwashed.
Lol.. I have already read it. That article is in the same style as I'm complaining about. It lists how the guy is a shill, how he isn't qualified and says we need to ignore him, then lists not more then 2 places with errors but they don't actually point the errors out and even take something out of context to do it. This piece is nothing more then a we don't like you or who you hang out with so we won't listen to what you have to say even if it's more correct then our claims.
In short, ignoring things because you don't like it, or the people associated with it, or even because it disputes your long help beliefs and faiths is not practicing science. dismissing it out of hand for those reason is borderline protecting the faith. And I have yet to see a detailed rebuttal to the report that doesn't dismiss things because he isn't qualified, or because of connections to someone else, or because someone else did that and they happening to like that person or what ever. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut. associations mean nothing to whether the information is right or wrong.
except the US federal government has absolutely no constitutional authority to do so which makes it no different then some random ass imposing whatever fees they want.
That's not what I was implying and you know it. You left wingers can just go and buy the stuff yourself for a carbon-dioxide free life. Instead, you want to change the rules that society has came along with in order to satisfy your own little needs and wants. But again, as I said before, there are other ways to achieve the same damn goals without creating the fucking mess or putting so many people in catastrophic hardship. I'm actually suspecting it being done this way because it will create a need that the left wingers claim to be filling when they advance the rest of the agenda.
This is an attack on the poor and middle class. It is nothing more then a grab for power, control, a redistribution of wealth and a recipe for disaster. You can't claim otherwise, especially when there are other ways with less of an impact on the poor and working poor to achieve the same goals. This is why it was rushed through the house without any real comment in 1/20th the time a normal bill has to comment and study, this is why there was a 30 page amendment added on at the last minute with no opportunity for comment or to even read that god damn thing.
You know, it's crap like this that sparked the tarp legislation in which the democrats specifically placed rules allowing huge bonuses to be paid with TARP money and then acted like they had no clue was was going on until it was pointed out specifically to them.
What the hell are you calling? Get your head out of the sand and quit pretending it isn't happening. The entire idea behind this bill is to increase the costs of energy in order to force people to use less and look for alternatives. If that doesn't hurt the poor, take things away from people, and place an unprecedented level of control onto people, then you tell me exactly what it does do and how it does it.
You do realize that the US GHG emissions increase between 1998 and 2006 was less then Europe's and that even though most of Europe has been involved with Kyoto and purposely attempting to lower it's emissions, it hasn't done any better then the US. Inn fact, from the same time span 1998-2006, the US actually did better.
Who the fuck said anything about ignoring the problem? Just because we don't jump in head first on the words of some shaky claims does not mean the problem is being ignored. I just showed a link where the US actually did better then Europe countries in using less Co2 and we didn't get baptized into the new religion. Of course actually