By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
By ANDREW TAYLOR - Associated Press Writer
The eight Democrats disapprove of using the annual budget debate to pass Obama's "cap and trade" bill to fight greenhouse gas emissions, a measure that divides lawmakers, environmentalists and businesses. The lawmakers' opposition makes it more difficult for Democratic leaders to move the bill without a threat of a Republican filibuster.
"Enactment of a cap-and-trade regime is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy," wrote the Democratic senators, mostly moderates. They were joined by 25 Republicans. "Legislation so far-reaching should be fully vetted and given appropriate time for debate."
It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate, but Democrats and allied independents currently control 58 seats.
Under a cap and trade system, the government would auction off permits to emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The auctions would raise almost $650 billion over the next decade, with the cost passed on to consumers as higher energy prices.
The cap and trade proposal is highly controversial, especially in heavily industrialized states and regions where people get their electricity from coal-fired power plants. Obama's promise to use most of the revenue to award $400 tax credits to most workers hasn't quelled the controversy since the increases in utility bills could easily exceed the amount of the tax cut.
It is good to see mainstream media telling the truth about some of these tax scams.
GW cultists think folks that do not agree with them are against the issues you mentioned.
Just to show you how disengenuous it really is, the (GW cists) liberals are loathed to bring back the 60,000,000 bison herds that roamed the Great Plains that were summarily slaughtered off, some years ago as part of the multi goaled policy/s.
Another example that shows up just about every month on some slow news day (around the "Urban Boundary/s) is how all these cultist are ALL for wild life habitat, but when they chow down on Muffy the Lap Dog, or Felix the CAT, they send out hunters with high powered rifles in urban areas to kill em (THE BEASTS) . Of course these very same folks really hate those " back water" farmers for opposing the reintroduction of wolves who love livestock. Maybe they ought to sponsor prey selection classes......
Don't forget the Grizzly Bear that adorns our flag. A couple hundred turned loose in Los Angeles would do wonders for the PETA Pukes.
He's in Milwaukee, not Mad-Town. :shades:
I was only in Milwaulkie once to pick up a truck load of triple glazed windows for some houses we were building in Minnesota. I took my kids to the Dells once on vacation.
How could Bush do that when he was busy blowing up the levees? Chaney couldn't have done it either as he was too involved with his personal hit squad bumping off people.
I thought the haters went off the rails with Clinton but I never saw major media promote the hate until Bush.
I hope they lay off Obama long enough for him to prove himself for good or bad.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
"To come to Washington in these days is to really experience climate change," Carlgren said. "There is a completely different mental climate here today."
Europe, US to work together on global warming (AP)
At the polls, Global warming: Do Americans care? (LA Times).
"Sixty percent of all those queried — down from 66% last year — say global warming is a problem they personally worried about either “a great deal” or “a fair amount.”
And a record high, 41% of those interviewed, believed the media “generally exaggerates” the seriousness of global warming. That was up from 35% last year, and only 30% in 2006."
I miss my Bucky Badger sticker Gary - it was fun living in Madison for a few months although I missed the mountains.
"....leave climate science to the climatologists."
Things are a bit more complicated than Jim DiPeso indicates. The science is not limited to climatologists. The issue requires many scientists from all the disciplines. Policymakers are also going to be needed. Once the science and outcomes are better understood policymakers will need to determine what steps can be taken.
Speaking at the opening session of the Second International Conference on Climate Change last week in New York, Klaus — who is also President pro-tem of the European Union — warned that politicians have “succeeded in creating incentives which led to the rise of a very powerful [profit]-seeking group.
“These people are interested neither in temperature, CO2, competing scientific hypotheses and their testing, nor in freedom or markets. They are interested in their businesses and their profits — made with the help of politicians.”
They will profit, he said, from trading the licenses to emit carbon dioxide, and from constructing unproductive wind, solar and similar equipment able to generate electricity only with high levels of subsidies.
They will also make money from doing research, writing and speaking about global warming.
At the New York conference, sponsored by the Heartland Institute and attended by more than 700 scientists, Klaus declared that “there is no fixed and stable relationship between measured temperature and CO2 emissions.
“The believers in this hypothesis are not able to explain why the global temperature increased from 1918 to 1940, decreased from 1940 to 1976, increased from 1976 to 1998 and decreased from 1998 to the present, irrespective of the fact that people have been adding increasing amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.”
He said global warming alarmists “want to change us and our behavior. Their ambition is to control and manipulate us.”
The global warming debate “has not made any detectable progress and the much needed, long overdue exchange of views has not yet started. All we see and hear are uninspiring monologues.
“It reminds me of the frustration people like me felt in the Communist era. Whatever you said, any convincing and well prepared arguments you used, any relevant data you assembled — no reaction. It all fell into emptiness. Nobody listened.
“They didn't even try to argue back. They considered you a naive, uninformed and confused person, an eccentric, a complainer, someone not able to accept their only truth. It is very similar now.”
Recalling his experience at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he said he spent three hours at a closed session with about 60 people - heads of state and “experts” like Al Gore, Tony Blair and Kofi Annan.
“It was a discouraging experience. You looked around in vain to find at least one person who would share your views. There was no one.
“All the participants of the meeting took man-made global warming for granted, were convinced of its dangerous consequences, and more or less competed in one special discipline — whether to suggest a 20, 30, 50 or 80 percent CO2 emissions cut as an agreed-upon, world-wide project. It was difficult to say anything meaningful and constructive.”
Newsmax reported earlier that during the Davos conference in January, Klaus said: "I'm very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories. I do listen to them.
"Environmentalism and the global warming alarmism is challenging our freedom. Al Gore is an important person in this movement."
Klaus concluded in New York: “The environmentalists speak about ‘saving the planet.’ From what? And from whom? One thing I know for sure: We have to save it - and us — from them.”
The science is either good or it isn't. It might have very well served commerce to spread rumors of sea monsters in the 16th century but fact is, there were none.
Like evolution, which has withstood all scrutiny for 150 years and stands tall, there has been no, zero, zilch credible refutation of man-made global warming.
This man can lament that "no one will listen to him" but in fact, he has little to say other than to say "well we could be wrong....right?"
Well that's a real conversation buster.
All there has been (which is good) is evidence of how complex the earth's sytems are, which if anything, should not allay our fears but rather motivate us to even more intense study.
if a natural phenomenon is holding back man-made global warming for a short segment of time, rather than jumping up and down about it, we should be wondering what level of acceleration we might get when that natural phenomenon releases its grip.
The Milwaukee report, if anything, paints a darker picture than ever before because it shows that the systems at work are not predictable.
Talk is just talk.
These "refutations" of Global Warming remind me of the 1970s when GM was telling us how bad japanese cars were.
Near as I can tell, the current refutation of MMGW is "AL GORE! AL GORE!
That's really impressive research. :P
Blindness to reality does not make man made Global Warming a fact. That is what we have with the handful of scientists that believe their theories on MM GW are conclusive evidence.
The only consensus is in the minds of the cult lead by the very unscientific Al Gore. Freedom of religion is what makes this a great country. I can start a church and call it the "Church of what's happenin' Today" and get tax free status and people will donate money and I can become filthy rich beyond my wildest dreams. There you have Al Gore and his church.
A rebuttal, in science at least, is a highly credible amount of evidence that is peer-reviewed for data errors, replicated by others and then published openly in the top scientific journals.
I just haven't seen any. I'd LIKE to, but really all I've seen is reasonable, cautious, logical OPINIONS on why the "case is not proven".
To which I can agree...the case in not proven.
That NEVER happens in science all at once. It's more like adding stone upon stone.
Right now the MMGW people have a much larger pile of rocks.
Who wins in the end?
Hell I don't know.
My point of view at this point is that:
1. the 'feedback' being read isn't all the feedback that must be out there.
2. Natural inhibitors can regulate natural climate change and unnatural climate change.
3. Money influences research but nobody has been caught falsifying any data so far. AT least nobody who matters.
4. The Big Question BQ has not been answered: "What is the risk to us, and are we going to pay too much or too little in proportion to that risk?"
Science isn't run by a vote. Either it's going to stand tall (like evolution has for 150 years) or it's going to start to crumble under the weight of incoming data.
It's not like ONE DAY people will either "believe" or not believe in MMGW. If the data is strong to support it, it will remains high in the global consciousness. If the data gets weak, or inconclusive, or makes little sense, then MMGW will recede somewhat into the background---but I don't believe it's going away as an issue.
To me the most damning current scientific evidence is the global cooling. If CO2 is the culprit and it has continued to increase how can the global temperature decrease?
I am also not afraid to admit that about 90% of the scientific evidence is beyond my comprehension. Just like many here do not believe in science paid for by industry. I do not believe in most science paid for by government.
I do know a charlatan when I see one and Al Gore fits that title like a glove.
"Corporate lobbying has undermined democratic attempts to curb carbon pollution."
James Hansen (The Guardian)
Who has the votes? (who's got the money?).
As opposed to what, a paid liar for the oil or coal industry? Oh yeah, we call those folks lobbyists. Another feature of a democratic society. :shades:
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
GM was right. Those Japanese cars certainly were bad...for the U.S. car industry.
You keep asking us to disprove a theory that is yet to be proven. How about if you disprove the theory that man made GW is a hoax? Waiting, waiting....
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
That NEVER happens in science all at once. It's more like adding stone upon stone.
Yes and like an experimental drug, it should not be brought out the general public until it is shown with a high degree of probability to be ready. Man-made GW is far from proven, as the basic understanding of the climate, due to nature (solar activity, currents, methane releases - a very potent GHG, vulcanism, ocean currents and chemistry) are known.
Since it is known that the Earth has changed greatly over the years, and that the Earth's climate would be changing right now without mankind, but that man is emitting GHG, does not necessarily tie together that man is a significant cause of altering the ever-changing climate. Mankind may be like an ant pushing on a banana - yes there's an effect, but really not much.
I'm not a denier saying mankind has 0% effect, I just don't see it being much. I still see the ocean levels right where they have ben 40 years ago, and the Northeast still gets 5 months winter.
There is minimal climate change, and of that there is no substantial evidence that mankind has caused even 5% of the insignificant change I've seen. This does not add up to any sense of urgency on my part, or interest in changing my lifestyle. As this topic asks - is it "a Major Cause"? No.
Climate change is not major. The man-made portion of any climate change is not "major", and the portion of man-made GHG is about 15%, which is fairly low. So we can answer definitively that, the automobile is not a major factor in the climate
As mentioned by many of the very articulate very bright members of this forum, many scientists believe that man made global warming does not exist.
In my opinion, MMGW is the most creative way to control peoples property and liberty that I have seen it my lifetime.
What a audacious scam this is.
This political agenda will seriously lower our living standards for many years to come and abrogate many of our liberties and property rights.
And many believe it DOES. Thus the unending debate.
bpraxis says, "creative way to control peoples property and liberty"
That seems kinda extreme. Telling people it's a good idea to use common sense and to conserve and to burn less fossil fuel is not really "controlling their liberty" now is it?
Are we really born with the right to pollute as much as we want, or does the greater good come into play somewhere there?
The Cap and Trade is Extreme. Educating people to use less and waste less of all our resources is a good thing. Charging them extra for something they have NO control over such as energy from coal is an extremely bad thing. Only designed to extort more money from the masses. Obama was clear that he would like to pay for his tax cuts to 95% with his lame Cap n Trade plan. Well as close as I can tell it will be a loser for the consumer. It will take as much or more in higher utility bills as they get from the tax credit.
Telling - yes. Taxing and otherwise legislating against fuel use - no.
Are we really born with the right to pollute as much as we want, or does the greater good come into play somewhere there?
Well if you were born into $$ - yes. Because people with $$ typically pollute more than those who don't have $$. Our economic system allows people like Al Gore to have a huge pollution and carbon-footprint. Large houses and boats, and frequent plane trips use a lot of resources.
Why would "burn less fossil fuel" be any different?
Why would "burn less fossil fuel" be any different?
You would be burning less fossil fuel if you turned your AC off this summer. Would the government telling you to turn it off be any different?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Yes, as we are consumers of entitlements, including the right to drive as fast as we want, park where we want, all while powering our individual superiority over others.
Sad, but true.
Guvmint mandates to make people use as little as I use would bring riots in the streets.
Aim for a more reasonable target than minimalist me.
You keep missing the point. If the government is allowed total control over your life for ANY purpose you WILL be affected sooner or later. You say you prefer to avoid heatstroke but what if the CC big brothers require you to have a control placed on you AC that allows them to turn it off "for the common good"? If they turn it off for an hour you might be willing to suck it up but what if they turn it off for a WEEK?
Just because you are a good party member doesn't mean the global warming politbureau won't sacrifice you "for the common good".
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
That's just silly lumping murder, wearing seatbelts and burning fossil fuels together in any sort of comparison of affects.
Murder is a crime everyone, not wearing a seatbelt is a civil penalty in some repressed areas, and burning fossil fuels is neither.
You are as free to burn as much fossil fuel as you wish, eat as much as you wish, and watch TV for 24hr/day if you wish. It's what this country is built on.
Fossil Fuels have dramatically improved the quality of our lives in many areas.
The average life span in 1900 was about 43 years of age and we have almost doubled that today.
Fossil Fuels have produced thousands of innovations that we use in many areas of our lives. Think of plastic medical devices. Many of the products in our homes are made from Fossil Fuels.
If you have a heart attack or medical emergency the medical team gets to you via fossil fuel.
The use of Fossil Fuel represents a giant leap for human kind.
We individuals love the freedom to get in our car and travel where we desire. The collectivist control freaks want us all in public transportation. Washington loves the useful idiots adopting their sky is falling opportunity to levy a new immense tax.
Those who promote the idea of the "Noble Savage" are now devolving our civilization and we all will be much poorer for it.
The collectivist "Borg" are attacking many forms of technology and I suspect in their obsessive compulsive compassionate envious irrational heart want us back in the cave as quickly as possible. Remember the "Dark Ages" which represents the same philosophy?
In the end my obervation is that many people really do not want anyone to have more than they do and would rather burn down the system and have equal misery. It is about envy made real through politics.
It is a form of post modern nihlism. The dark side of human nature.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I think you have hit on the root of the problem.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
If I am not mistaken Phoenix gets electricity from a grid that includes a very large coal plant. Suppose they pull their cap n Trade scam off. They raise the fines on all coal plants in the USA. Your electric bill doubles or triples and you suck it and pay for the common good. Then when everyone is still paying and the coal plant is still putting out large amounts of CO2, the Feds decide that no more coal, let them find another source and shut down the plants. Or say the utility commission won't allow the coal generator company to pass on the cost of the CnT? So the operator says we cannot make money and pulls the plug. Where will that leave Phoenix in the middle of July at midnight when it is 100 degrees outside? I know you think this won't happen. It did in CA and we had rolling black outs. Until Gray Davis gave Enron and the other power operators all our cash. $39 Billion down the drain and he was recalled.
Nineteen companies have submitted applications to build solar or wind facilities on a parcel of 500,000 desert acres, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Friday such development would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public.
Feinstein said Friday she intends to push legislation that would turn the land into a national monument, which would allow for existing uses to continue while preventing future development.
The Wildlands Conservancy orchestrated the government's purchase of the land between 1999-2004. It negotiated a discount sale from the real estate arm of the former Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroad and then contributed $40 million to help pay for the purchase. David Myers, the conservancy's executive director, said the solar projects would do great harm to the region's desert tortoise population.
"It would destroy the entire Mojave Desert ecosystem," said David Myers, executive director of The Wildlands Conservancy.
Feinstein said the lands in question were donated or purchased with the intent that they would be protected forever. But the Bureau of Land Management considers the land now open to all types of development, except mining. That policy led the state to consider large swaths of the land for future renewable energy production.
"This is unacceptable," Feinstein said in a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. "I urge you to direct the BLM to suspend any further consideration of leases to develop former railroad lands for renewable energy or for any other purpose."
In a speech last year, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger complained about environmental concerns slowing down the approval of solar plants in California.
"If we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it," Schwarzenegger said at Yale University.
So there you have it. NO SOLAR for CA deserts. So says the eco terrorists running this country. Will CA drop their mandate for alternative energy? Or will they fine the consumers for using what is available. If Ahnold has any cojones he will authorize the largest Coal producing plant on the planet to be built in Feinsteins neighborhood. Without scrubbers. It is time to revolt against crazy environmentalism. That includes the MM GW cult.
You should put the panels or the wind generators on the building that's consuming the power. It doesn't make a lot of sense to industrialize a huge swath of land for wind or solar just to run the power down high tension power lines to LA or Vegas.
That's a nice idea (in fact, I think Larsb proposed it initially) but for many buildings it just wouldn't be feasible. Take the Transamerica tower in SF for example, where would you put your collector or windmills?
Now the roof of the local Wal-Mart might be better but you would still have to fight the petty dictators of the local building department for permission.
Zoning is another problem. In my town you can't build anything taller than 40 feet high. Puts the ki-bash on windmills ANYWHERE.
And then there are the eco-terrorists who will oppose any solution that doesn't involve wearing hemp underpants.
The point is, you take a simple solution and find how difficult it is to implement unless all the parties are in agreement. That's why the power producers want to locate where there are the fewest buzy bodies trying to exercise their power.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
And the building departments just enforce the code that's passed by the pols - and often the pols overturn staff recommendations or give variances (local planning & zoning boards being the worst offenders and the usual appointees on P&Z boards are realtors and bankers appointed by the pols).
That's happening in Taos County NM where a wind farm application got a variance but the county zoning was set up to protect the scenic beauty of the area since it's such a big artist community and tourist destination. The height limit there is 27'. So you have a bunch of off-grid people fighting the old money folks there to try to stop the towers, which will be over 400' tall. link.
I don't think there are any simple solutions, but panelizing a Wal-Mart should be a lot less alienating than blanketing the desert with wind or solar farms.
General Motors has been a leader here. Or at least they've let the solar contractor panelize some of their big flat buildings.
Add to that many live Oak trees are protected in CA. You cannot cut a limb off of certain species without a permit. We have two Englemann oaks on our property. Totally protected trees. I have no desire to cut them for any reason.
I don't mind giving up small "inconvenience-type" liberties.
For example:
I don't mind obeying speed limits.
I don't mind not being able to throw my trash on the street.
I don't mind wearing my seatbelt to be safe.
I don't mind keeping my young kids in car seats and booster seats.
I don't mind stopping when the light shows RED.
I don't mind paying for groceries instead of just doing the EASY thing and stealing them.
I don't mind the inconvenience of using a designated driver.
I don't mind having to get a prescription for potentially dangerous drugs.
And I would not mind the guvmint telling me "don't use your A/C between 5 and 6 PM" - I would just pre-cool the house before that.
I'm all about making sacrifices for my fellow man. That's just me.
Our two major electric companies in AZ, SRP and APS, are well-run companies with foresight. We are not likely to have any blackout/brownout issues.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2009-03-22-energysavings_N.htm?l- oc=interstitialskip
Don't count on it. They are an eyesore. I expect any day to see someone in our neighborhood sued for those ugly monstrocities in their yards and on their roofs. There is one system that covers about a quarter of an acre. It is all falling apart. The house is up for sale. Owned by the bank. Of course when Obama adds Cap n Trade on the manufacturers of Solar panels that will double the price also. They are going to get you one way or the other.
Face it that is bound to happen.
All I can say is keep those coal trains moving !
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
That's what homeowner's insurance is for !!!