Climate Bill Whimpers, Collapses

7 Comments

564 Days Ago
07/23/2010

Thank goodness

This bill would have been a disaster with the economy in its current form. I am very grateful that it no longer contains carbon restrictions or anything of that nature. The last thing the U.S. wants to do is further hamper its ability to be an export producing powerhouse.

Yes there is a warming trend and even if climate change is due to human activity, I'm not convinced that scientists, let alone power-hungry politicians, are able to reverse such a trend. I believe it's crazy talk to think that we can engineer the Earth's climate in a way that is predictable and without any adverse side effects.

meistro

3 Comments

561 Days Ago
07/26/2010

Climate change is inevitable so we should just give up? We are Americans, we don't give up, we lead the world. World War II temporarily "hurt our export capability" and threw us into massive debt, but we knew it was the right thing to do.

7 Comments

561 Days Ago
07/26/2010

Bah, that's very black and white. Read my comments below for my opinions on why being so black and white when it involves laws is so dangerous and foolish.

cdlewis

7 Comments

560 Days Ago
07/27/2010

In a worse case senario, we would probably burn wood, why are we so reluctant to accept the fact that this is a natural process?? I'm glad I don't live in a condensed metropolis!!

Vailhem

8 Comments

550 Days Ago
08/06/2010

w/out adverse side effects is a different story but, look into HAARP... we are very capable of engineering the planets climate.
I'm not necessarily sure if I agree with your path of getting there, but I agree on your conclusion of it being a good thing that this didn't go through.
Climate change may very well be happening due to human 'intervention'.. and even if its not, its sure start soon enough. I do go with the relative aspect of us living in a bubble and what we do with one part of it is inevitably going to effect another part.. I think the system is capable of adapting, we just might not like the 'how' it chooses to.
I don't think its going to hurt us removing some of the carbon from the atmosphere... 110pm increase over the past 150 years, with no record of such a drastic change within the past 150million years.
Regulate and innovate. Set regulations on what can be emitted from smoke stacks... as has been done in the past (and worked) and, shift subsidies from smokestack spewing fuels to non-carbon based fuels. Simple enough. The fines imposed and money collected can help pay for the adjustment in subsidies.
Not sure anything else is needed. From my understanding, at this point, the subsidies are the only thing making fossil fuels a more economic choice vs. the more efficient renewables available.

Shootist

39 Comments

563 Days Ago
07/24/2010

Huzzah!

'nuff said.

ccb_8

1 Comment

563 Days Ago
07/24/2010

Really Now!

Americans are so stupid. The biggest polluters and still can't seem to curb their greed. This is the same excuse used for not signing the Kyoto protocol. And back then there was no economic crisis. When will the USA stop destroying stuff for every other countries. I mean even China who has almost 1 billion more persons than the USA have been taking steps to curb their emissions, and even India also. Not to mention all of us here in the EU who are committed to continual reduction and greater renewable energy with 20% RE, 20% better efficiency by 2020. All during a US perpetuated financial crisis. So why can other countries who are not as rich or resource filled as the USA have binding laws to reduce their carbon impact and the USA can't!? Get a grip and pull up your socks and play your part!

7 Comments

561 Days Ago
07/26/2010

The reason why is because we don't believe in politicians taking responsibility for what individuals, communities and other non-political organizations can do on their own. Politicians have no special knowledge about climate science and it's very naive of the left (in the U.S.) to place such blind faith in politicians in this area. You obviously don't believe that humans really care about this issue if you believe that your government must compel them to reduce carbon emissions.

Secondly, since cap-n-trade is phony economics and another form of fake currency, we would have a huge corruption problem thanks to lobbying and the majority of politicians pandering to special interests. That is the great reason why this bill is dangerous.

Lastly, we are playing our part. I do my personal part and I know countless other people who are voluntarily doing their parts. And if that's not good enough for you right now, well then it's good that you live in a nation that follows what you think, since you seem to think there's no room for debate in climate science.

bradseymour1

2 Comments

561 Days Ago
07/26/2010

I agree that individuals should take responsibility for their actions, but some of your statements don't make sense to me.
Since politicians have no specialized knowledge in any area, to follow your logic to it's conclusion, they should make no laws. They always need to look to experts for recommendations on what laws to pass. Since a vast majority of climate scientists believe CO2 emissions are going to create climate change, that is the information upon which politicians should base policy.
You also state that cap and trade is phony economics. What do you mean by that? The only use of cap and trade that I know of was for NOx, which worked quite well. Is there an example where it didn't work?
Finally, if we always wait for people to do their part and do the right thing, why do we have any laws?

7 Comments

561 Days Ago
07/26/2010

You read my statements correctly. I don't believe politicians should make many laws. They make far too many and meddle far too much. Secondly, your faith that politicians are implementing the correct policies from the correct set of scientists is immense, I have no such faith. In a perfect world this process would work, but scientists have huge biases and can be bought off as easily as anyone else. We need to be very slow to implement law based on any science.

The vast majority of scientists might believe that emissions might change the climate, but how many of them are economists that are able to properly advise on the costs versus benefits of doing one thing or another. Plus, what plan do we implement? Some climate scientists want to put materials into the upper atmosphere to block out the sun. Others want cap and trade, others want more local environmental restrictions. Which one do we take? What do we do if these scientists end up being way off the mark and they've launched one or more countries into serious decline or poverty?

Cap and trade is phony economics because it's a currency set up by the government and they are able to arbitrarily change the value of such currency. This is open to so much abuse by greedy politicians. It might start out as capping CO2, but wait until it starts being another excuse to tax the average citizen. I have the entire U.S. history to back me up about small, limited taxes turning into massive, oppressive taxes on the entire population.

I think we should wait for people to do the right thing. That's the moral thing to do because laws, almost universally, become more oppressive and abused than not having a law. Of course I'm no anarchist, but the laws of a land should be few and far between. "Lord of the Rings" is something I will cite for how power corrupts all.

bradseymour1

2 Comments

561 Days Ago
07/26/2010

If we did not use public funds for the common good, we would not have our electrical grid, the interstate highway system, airports, railroads or the internet. All of these were developed wholly or in part with public money from the federal government based on the advice of scientists. It would be difficult to use these services in good conscience while not supporting the laws that created them.
I still don't understand the phony economics angle. The dollar is also a currency made up by the government whose value can be arbitrarily changed. Is it also phony economics?
I agree with you that the Senate climate bill was too complicated. But should we not fight against a bill once it starts being another excuse to tax the average citizen rather than fighting against bills because they might become something different in the future? Laws will only become more oppressive if the citizenry lets them. When they start to become too oppressive we should make sure that doesn't happen.

7 Comments

560 Days Ago
07/27/2010

I believe that all of the things that you list would still have been developed without government help. Take cable TV/modem infrastructure, fiber, etc as examples. The only thing a private company needs is the public right-of-way, and that's it. The railroad was not public, it was very much financed by rich, private citizens. This is why George Vanderbilt was so rich and why the Biltmore estate is so large. He did not get rich from government money. Only very small parts of the Internet were publicly developed, most of it was private and/or universities. Your point is not a good one, almost everything can and should be developed privately as to avoid public corruption, bribes, political warfare, polarizing the citizenry, etc.

I also believe the U.S. government produced currency is a farce and very much so skews and taints private transactions and prices worldwide every single day. If you study some of the details of the side effects from this, you'd be disgusted by what the Federal Reserve does.

Take a look at this summary of what Elinor Ostrom has been studying and producing journals about. She's an economist that is an expert in studying how private provision of public goods is a good and preferable thing. http://cafehayek.com/2010/05/on-the-private-provision-of-public-goods-2.html

As to your last paragraph, I prefer to keep things out of politics as much as possible because only in politics are there winners and losers. In the world of voluntary and private economic and social exchanges, both people are better off, both people win. If you disagree, then you don't understand economics and I suggest you take an introductory econ class at your local university.

Vailhem

8 Comments

550 Days Ago
08/06/2010

hear hear

KGC

9 Comments

561 Days Ago
07/26/2010

Are you saying that because the U.S. did not pass cap and trade we are not doing our part? What do you know about what we have done? Our government has already subsidized ethanol (bio-fuels in general) wind, solar, and batteries. Spent countless amounts on funding of any and all research that claims to help climate change. Created incentives for power companies, businesses, and private citizens to use renewables. What else can the government of free people do? It is an individuals responsibility to do their own part, and as a collective we can make a difference. Anyone who has followed this green movement knows that the technology available for clean energy is just not ready for prime time and is very expensive. I ,as an American who loves nature, will not be bullied by those using fear tactics of doomsday scenarios, but will instead do my part with what resources are available to me. That is all I could ask of anyone else.

7 Comments

561 Days Ago
07/26/2010

A brilliant comment. Thank you for posting that!

tanstaafl1776

2 Comments

561 Days Ago
07/26/2010

We can't help you because we aren't suckers. If we come across some deranged idiots scourging themselves on a street corner to expiate their sins it will hardly move us to do likewise if we are chastised for not joining in and doing our part. We are simply not of the same religion. We are more rational that that.

The history of Europe is one of being played for suckers by one grifter after another. Hitler, Marx, Stalin, whoever created the EU, all convinced one flavor of European or another that everything would be so very much better if they just let someone else make all of their decisions for them --- that some great threat will be averted if they only cede their personal liberties to a central authority. It doesn't matter that the threat is made out of whole cloth. Jews will do as well as the environment, which will do as well as the capitalists. The solution is always the same because the question is just a ruse.

So in short, we won't "help" you because we aren't as scientifically and economically illiterate on this issue as you are and we value our freedom more than you do. That isn't the most diplomatic way to put it but it is the truth.

BTW, India and China haven't done squat on carbon emissions and aren't going to do any more than the EU has which is pay lip service to the issue. Everyone will continue to develop alternative forms of energy but until there is one that makes sense in the market place they will always be niche applications or vanity projects.

At any rate, right now we have bigger problems than the weather and our resources are growing more limited by the day.

mattgroom

286 Comments

563 Days Ago
07/24/2010

polution

China is the largest polluter, however America is the largest polluter per person.

Chinese low income earners have little use for power. Whereas (we are led to believe) every American has 2 cars and every labour saving device know to mankind.

Devere

32 Comments

562 Days Ago
07/25/2010

Win-Win Situation

Perhaps there is still a chance to look for win-win situations. Right now, the cap&trade bill is seen as a lose-lose because of the money we have to pay and the potential for job loss as jobs move oversea to places like China.
There are ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions that don't involve a cap&trade. While cap&trade may be the most economically efficient way to reduce GHG emissions, it doesn't seem to be politically wise.
The following are some of my thoughts for win-win strategies that may be able to get through the House&Senate.
1) Loan guarantees for nuclear power plants
2) Loan guarantees/matching funds for projects that capture CO2 from coal powers and use the CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery.
3) Loan guarantees/matching funds for utility-scale batteries.
4) Federal research into the environmental impact of gas shale development (and federal funding to increase the amount of communication between natural gas companies and people living in regions of shale gas development.)
5) Increasing the scope of the plug-in tax credit for all-electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles.

I didn't see any of these ideas in Harry Reid's scaled down bill and I'm trying to figure out what's keeping these ideas from getting passed through Washington, DC.

ssamd

18 Comments

561 Days Ago
07/26/2010

Re: Win-Win Situation

If nuclear power is such a good idea why is it that it needs loan guaranties and why can't they get accident insurance?
sam