APP - Climate bill to cost families over $1700 a year
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
uscitizen
Villified User
So texas shuld be able to but polloution credits from Alaska so they can keep on polluting?
Climate models are not evidence
Try looking up the sunspot correlation, you moron
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Only if Alaska invests in producing fewer greenhouse gasses.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Politifact says this isn't correct.
The Obama administration's cap-and-trade plan would create "a $1,761 yearly energy tax."
Lamar Alexander on Wednesday, September 16th, 2009 in a press release
"But back to Alexander's original claim. His statement that households will pay $1,761 in new taxes every year is based on a blogger's incorrect assumptions and overly simple math. The estimate does not account for revenue that will be returned to consumers in the form of rebates and other efficiency measures. Furthermore, the number is based on old numbers; the Treasury estimate was written on the premise that all permits would be sold, which, ultimately, is not the form that the Waxman-Markey legislation has taken. Finally, both Alexander and McCullagh portray money raised by selling these permits as a tax. We rate Alexander's claim False."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...der-claims-cap-and-trade-will-cost-consumer-/
The Obama administration's cap-and-trade plan would create "a $1,761 yearly energy tax."
Lamar Alexander on Wednesday, September 16th, 2009 in a press release
"But back to Alexander's original claim. His statement that households will pay $1,761 in new taxes every year is based on a blogger's incorrect assumptions and overly simple math. The estimate does not account for revenue that will be returned to consumers in the form of rebates and other efficiency measures. Furthermore, the number is based on old numbers; the Treasury estimate was written on the premise that all permits would be sold, which, ultimately, is not the form that the Waxman-Markey legislation has taken. Finally, both Alexander and McCullagh portray money raised by selling these permits as a tax. We rate Alexander's claim False."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...der-claims-cap-and-trade-will-cost-consumer-/
Lowaicue
英語在香港
I suggest you start looking at that as a possibility. Oil prices are set to go through the roof in the next five years and they are likely to stay there.
Of course you do not need to believe me.
uscitizen
Villified User
We are in a solar output dip according to something you posted a while back.
Perhaps that is offsetting man cause global warming?
Agreed models are not absolute by any means. I just tend to err in the side of caution where the continued existance of mankind is concerned.
And more specifically future quality of life for my grandchildren.
We have to change our energy sources and modify our useage habits/efficiency.
Who is going to pay for that if not taxes? Industry? That is pretty funny.
how much does not doing this cost in infant, child and adult lungs, asthma and other illnesses
uscitizen
Villified User
I will have to see if I can find that article I posted about children growing up in high traffic urban areas have underdeveloped / deformed lungs. It was linked to proximity to auto traffic in the neighborhood.
Correct. Solar minimum at near historic length right now. Cycle 24 is late.
longer cycle periods are correlated with decreased global temps according several reliable proxies: Tree rings, mud cores, etc...
Fighting increases in CO2 concentration is pointless
uscitizen
Villified User
We do not know that fighting golbal co2 levels is pointless.
Unless you want to use some unproven computer models to show that?
Lowaicue
英語在香港
This whole subject is one giant red herring ... er if i may be permitted to hyperbolise my metaphors.
People are screaming 'waste' and pointing inanely at governments of any hue. Yet at the same time they are driving/owning several ridiculously expensive and wasteful motor cars, they are turning up their central heating to a stifling degree, they are over heating water, over freezing offices with their destructive air cons.
Lets start, not by arguing about global warming, but by being a little more sensible in our own lives. Lets take the burden off local authorities by recycling as much waste as we can, lets cut down on power demand by simply switching off a few unused lights. Let's get rid of excess cars, offer lifts, trade in for more economical vehicles.
Lets encourage the use of guns so that those who think that responsible living an intrusion into their liberty, eventually shoot themselves and each other and within a generation die out.
(Final para t.i.c.)
uscitizen
Villified User
Yep imho the first thing we should do if offer tax breaks and other incentives to improve energy efficiency in our homes. Insulation, more efficient heating systems, etc.
I expect that with a concerted effort we could reduce our electric consumption by 30% within a few years.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Yes, we do know it's pointless. But some peop;le with a lot of money and good PR behind them have used the media to convice everyone it's going to make a difference when the math itself tells a different story. You obviously do not understand the logorithmic relationship. the first 10 PPM is responsible for 90% of the greenhouse effect.
That means 10 parts per million is enough CO2 molecules to reflect infared radiation back that has been reflected off the surface.
We are at 380 parts per million. Do the math. We could increase to 1500 PPM and make almost no difference. You can't make any extra infared radiation reflect back after it's ALREADY being reflected back ANYWAY.
uscitizen
Villified User
Umm I think that is based on another computer model
As I said there is no way to prove it, but for my grandchildrens future I like the conservative approach. as in conserve our earth is the only place we have.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
Think about it.
What rights do you have?
The pursuit of happiness? Controlled by profit.
Enough to eat? Controlled by profit.
Shelter from the elements? Controlled by profit.
Rights enshrined in your constitution? Do I have to go on?
Rights is a massive con.
You don't even have the 'right' to eat natural food or drink natural water.
You don't have the right to the government of your choice only the right to choose between what big business allows.
You dont even have the right to a fair trial should you need it.
The rights of ordinary people are whatever profit says they are and that is no rights!
Umm I think that is based on another computer model
As I said there is no way to prove it, but for my grandchildrens future I like the conservative approach. as in conserve our earth is the only place we have.
Dude, you're sealing their fate. Just like the people who watched as they created a fedreal reserve and created income taxes way back the good old days. Your offspring will live no better by paying extra taxes to gain the minscule reduced forcing of the CO2 concentration. Big business will continue to pollute, as you call it, by emitting CO2, the will simply pay for it and pass the cost onto CONSUMERS who will also get it the ass via TAXES that will subsidise many of the same companies that pollute.
LOL you guys just can't see a system for what it is.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
But plenty hanging in the trees of your Democrat KKK neighbors.