Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 07 May '09 05:42 / 2 edits
    I think it high time this energy policy is talked about. After all, it seems a forgone conclusion it will soon be rammed down our throats. In fact, I think McCain even supported it so it mattered little who won the election in that respect. Therefore, it appears that "the powers that be" seem to want this piece of legislation passed and soon.

    I have heard a few things about this policy. One is that by the year 2015 our energy costs will go up 30-50%. If it passes it will be the single highest tax increase in US history. So you remember that promise by Obama not to increase our taxes? Well he can smile and say he kept his word because it will not be a direct tax, rather, it will be a tax passed down to the consumer by the enregy companies that provide us service that are being taxed by the government on their carbon expenditure.

    Also, I heard they are talking about monitoring our personal energy usage at home by either limiting that usage or charging outrageous sums of money for usage deemed excessive. To do so, government must be expanded even further to be watch dogs of your every move. I have even heard suggestions that GPS devices be fitted to our cars so that the average Joe can be taxed per mile usage. Truly, this is the age of Big Brother.
  2. Standard member forkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    07 May '09 05:50
    Do you have references for any of this, or are you just babbling?
  3. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    07 May '09 05:52 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    I think it high time this energy policy is talked about. After all, it seems a forgone conclusion it will soon be rammed down our throats. In fact, I think McCain even supported it so it mattered little who won the election in that respect. Therefore, it appears that "the powers that be" seem to want this piece of legislation passed and soon.

    I have hea ...[text shortened]... s so that the average Joe can be taxed per mile usage. Truly, this is the age of Big Brother.
    Unless you have facts, you shouldn't post opinions.


    None of what you said is what is actually being proposed.


    Are you even aware that most parts of the US are ALREADY engaged in Cap and Trade systems? Check out the Acid Rain program for S02.

    Jebus...the hysteria of the uninformed knows no bounds.
  4. 08 May '09 02:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by forkedknight
    Do you have references for any of this, or are you just babbling?
    Yes!!

    Yahoo news gave an article on May 7th about the matter which said, "The cap-and-trade system in which industries would buy rights to emit the gases from industries that use less energy has been championed by President Barak Obama, is contained in a bill now before Congress. The Democratic led bill aims to cut US carbon emissions by 20% from their 2006 levels by 2020, and dramatically boost relience on renewable energy.....His administration wants the bill approved by the end of the year, ahead of the presidents planned trip to Copenhagen for the UN climate change conference in December." "Under the new cap and trade program cosumers would utlimately bear most of the cost of emissions reductions", said Douglas Eimendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, in testimony to the Senate Finance Committee. The non-partisan CBO, which provides federal economic and budgetary analysis to Congress, estimated that a 15% reduction in carbon emissions would cost the average US household roughly $1600. LOL.

    For all you who voted for Obama, welcome to liberal hell!!
  5. 08 May '09 02:48
    Originally posted by uzless
    Unless you have facts, you shouldn't post opinions.


    None of what you said is what is actually being proposed.


    Are you even aware that most parts of the US are ALREADY engaged in Cap and Trade systems? Check out the Acid Rain program for S02.

    Jebus...the hysteria of the uninformed knows no bounds.
    Forgive me, I just assumed this was common knowledge. My bad.
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    08 May '09 04:39
    Originally posted by whodey
    by the year 2015 our energy costs will go up 30-50%. If it passes it will be the single highest tax increase in US history.
    What if it is necessary for energy costs to go up 30-50%? Will you still oppose it because the costs are going up?

    Do you have a counterproposal in which energy costs remain the same?
  7. 08 May '09 10:10 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    What if it is necessary for energy costs to go up 30-50%? Will you still oppose it because the costs are going up?

    Do you have a counterproposal in which energy costs remain the same?
    Well McCain had a proposal to invest in nuclear power plants that would have helped reduce our future energy costs, but of course Obama and company think its beneath their environmentalist wacko standards. No FMF, what we need is a new source of energy that has no environmental down side whatsoever. Too bad none exist or ever will exist. No, instead what we need to do is simply tax people into oblivion and do so indefinately so that they will use less energy. Heck I would even be comfortable for paying for all governmental building being mandated to use solar energy. At least there would be some light at the end of the damn tunnel in regards to future energy costs instead of creating a tax utopia. Doesn't this clown Obama know that the US is reeling from an economic crisis? Assuming his plan is the right plan, which of course I disagree with, perhaps we can at least agree this is the single worst time in history ot begin such a proposal? Then again, perhsps what Obama is trying to do is to do away with the middle class. I know in his ivory tower world a couple of thousand more in taxes a year is no big problem, but for the average Joe there are a lot who are barely making it, if at all.. No, perhaps what they are really after is a two class system which is the ruling class and the servant class.

    I guess what irritates me the most about Obama is his push to pass every major peice of destructive legislation through in his first year. Heck, law makers were not even givien enough time to carefully read the stimulus package he ran through Congress. First came the bail outs and stimulus plans that will cost the tax payers an insurmountable amount of interest to pay yearly, and now this. Then when it all gets cast into stone via legislation it will matter little who comes after him to try and set things straight again.

    On the bright side, however, no doubt the Obama groupies in Congress will carefully study the matter and do whats right for the nation. LOL
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    08 May '09 10:25
    Originally posted by whodey
    No FMF, what we need is a new source of energy that has no environmental down side whatsoever. Too bad none exist or ever will exist. No, instead what we need to do is simply tax people into oblivion and do so indefinately so that they will use less energy.
    Oh. You seem to be proposing to power the USA by tapping into the energy created by your own clumsy irony and self-renewing partsian negativity. I don't buy into it. Although it's true it's apparently an inexhaustible source of burnable rubbish.
  9. 08 May '09 10:36 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    Well McCain had a proposal to invest in nuclear power plants that would have helped reduce our future energy costs, but of course Obama and company think its beneath their environmentalist wacko standards. No FMF, what we need is a new source of energy that has no environmental down side whatsoever. Too bad none exist or ever will exist. No, instead what w ma groupies in Congress will carefully study the matter and do whats right for the nation. LOL

    what we need is a new source of energy that has NO environmental down side whatsoever. Too bad none exist or EVER will exist.
    ..…
    (my emphasis)

    None will EVER exist? How on earth would you know this?
    Science is constantly finding new answers and will inevitably came up with a way of generating electricity with no environmental cost worthy of mention because there is nothing in the laws of physics that would prevent this from being done. It is just a matter of when which is largely dependent on the amount of funding research it is given.

    For example, it is just a matter of time before a solar cell is invented with a way of manufacturing it using low energy costs (and with all that energy potentially coming from solar power!) and with no environmental down side worthy of mention.
    This would probably be a solar cell made out of organic molecules (e.g. plastic -except the monomer mustn’t come from fossil fuels) that can be synthesised at room temperature and pressure and without any silicon as silicon, unlike molecules with a carbon-backbone, is virtually impossible to chemically manipulate with good energy efficiency at room temperature and pressure.
    For this reason, I think all research into silicon-based solar cells should cease so that all the funding can be redirected and concentrated on research into organic-based solar cells as only this type has a long-term future.
  10. 08 May '09 11:32
    I don't really like this emission rights system, it's rather inefficient. It's much easier to simply tax energy usage at a higher rate. Also, investments in nuclear power would bring down costs.
  11. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    08 May '09 12:40 / 1 edit
    Some background:

    House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Energy and Commerce Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have been working with Democrats on their committees to hammer out a compromise on a proposal establishing a cap on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions.

    Democrats from southern and Rust Belt states want to ensure that native industries are protected from any cost increase.

    Democrats on the committee have suggested a long list of changes to the bill, both in private meetings and through negotiator Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.). The former energy and air quality subcommittee chairman represents Virginia coal country and sponsored his own climate legislation in the last Congress.

    Obama has said that passing climate change legislation is one of his administration’s top priorities, along with financial regulation and health care reform. But the bill faces a tough fight in Congress, where it’s opposed by Republicans and some moderate and conservative Democrats.

    Rust Belt Democrats want protections for energy-intensive industries such as steel and concrete producers. Coal state Democrats want Waxman to reduce the emissions targets companies must meet by 2020 to allow time to develop clean-coal technology. Oil patch Democrats want money set aside for oil refineries dealing with new regulations. And Southern Democrats, who argue that their part of the country is “solar and wind-poor,” want to minimize the requirements for renewable energy production and give credits for a wider range of fuels, including nuclear and hydropower.

    The administration supports efforts by Waxman and Markey to form a cap-and-trade system. The Waxman-Markey proposal takes a slightly more aggressive stance than the Obama administration, recommending a 20 percent cut from 2005 carbon emission levels by 2020. The Obama budget targets a 14 percent cut over the same period.
  12. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    08 May '09 12:47
    Poltico reported this week:

    quote

    President Barack Obama’s ambitious first-year agenda has some House Democrats fearing a repeat of 1994, when the priorities of a new president collided headfirst with the prerogatives of senior leaders on Capitol Hill and the party lost control of both the House and the Senate.

    While few leaders would predict a similar collapse at this early stage in his presidency, those fears provided the backdrop for a leadership meeting Thursday in the speaker's Capitol conference room, people present said.

    In the run-up to the meeting, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) argued in several newspaper interviews that the House should move cautiously on a cap-and-trade bill if it doesn’t look like the Senate will approve it. Van Hollen doesn’t want vulnerable House Democrats — especially the freshmen under his care — to be forced to take difficult votes on the measure if it’s not going to pass anyway.

    But Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a 34-year veteran of the House who knocked off his longtime predecessor last fall to push an ambitious climate change bill, took umbrage with Van Hollen’s public stance during Thursday’s leadership meeting, people present said.

    Brandishing an issue of that day’s CQ in which Van Hollen laid out the merits of holding off, an agitated Waxman reminded his junior colleague that raising procedural concerns in public didn’t make it any easier for the Energy and Commerce Committee chairman to broker a compromise with the members of his committee — or help him pass an ambitious bill in the House.

    Van Hollen, who has offered his own bill to limit carbon emissions, argued that articles in CQ and elsewhere overstated his opposition to the cap-and-trade measure, people present said. But otherwise, he stuck to his guns.

    Obama has outlined a hefty first-year agenda that includes health care reform, an upgrade of public education and an energy overhaul that would include a cap-and-trade measure — all on top of the president’s response to the global financial collapse and a potential Supreme Court fight. The question facing congressional Democrats is whether they can tackle all three at once or whether they should focus on one — most likely health care — to prevent legislative overload.

    At Thursday’s meeting, Van Hollen argued that health care should be “first among equals.”

    Responding to Waxman’s complaints, Van Hollen said he had a duty — as the head of the DCCC and as an assistant to Speaker Nancy Pelosi charged with coaching first-term Democrats — to advocate for the members who will be asked to cast the toughest votes on a potential climate change bill.

    Still not swayed, Waxman said, “It’s not helpful.”

    The other members present stayed silent during the exchange, and none of the bill’s potential critics, including Connecticut Rep. John Larson and California Rep. Dennis Cardoza, echoed Van Hollen’s concerns; instead, Cardoza, speaking on behalf of fellow moderates in the Blue Dog Coalition, told Waxman his colleagues were still open to supporting the bill, provided Waxman continues to listen to their concerns.

    But most present saw the flare-up between Waxman and Van Hollen as the inevitable result of tension that had been building around the bill for months.
    unquote

    Van Hollen is my congressman. One of my wife's organizations was the first to endorse his candidacy for his first term. So, we're aquainted.
  13. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    08 May '09 12:49
    The big fight last week centered on new requirements for utilities to produce a greater percentage of their power from renewable sources of energy like wind and solar power. Southerners want to ensure that hydroelectric power and nuclear energy count under the new standard because the dearth of other renewables in the region would require local utilities to buy power from other parts of the country.

    Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina reminded Waxman and the speaker that he wouldn’t support a bill that doesn’t recognize nuclear power as a renewable.

    Democratic leaders in the Senate acknowledged earlier this year that they don’t have the votes to move a so-called cap-and-trade measure, but the White House still seems committed to moving something — if only as a negotiating tool for the next round of negotiations over a global treaty.
  14. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    08 May '09 13:06
    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is taking heat from Johnson & Johnson, Nike and other corporate members over its opposition to global warming legislation pending in the House.

    In a letter to the Chamber, Johnson & Johnson has asked the Chamber to refrain from making comments on climate change unless they “reflect the full range of views, especially those of Chamber members advocating for congressional action.”

    Nike spokeswoman Anne Meyers said her company has also been “vocal” with the Chamber’s leaders “about wanting them to take a more progressive stance on the issue of climate change.”

    While the Chamber’s opposition to cap-and-trade legislation introduced by House Democrats mirrors the views of some in industry, particularly energy producers, Meyer said Nike “didn’t feel that consumer companies had a particularly strong or vocal voice around the issue of climate change.”

    Lobbyists at business coalitions that support federal climate change legislation say other companies are discussing the possibility of sending their own letters to the Chamber — or of threatening to withhold dues from the Chamber in protest.
  15. 08 May '09 15:41 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    )

    None will EVER exist? How on earth would you know this?
    Science is constantly finding new answers and will inevitably came up with a way of generating electricity with no environmental cost worthy of mention
    No cost worthy of mention? How about birds being killed off because of wind power? Is that of consequence? How about marine life being altered because of hydroelectric power? Is that of consequence? Heck, even the production of solar panels produce environmental harm. So I guess we will just have to consult Obama and the environmental police as to what is or is not acceptable.

    Of course, I assume most buy into the hypothosis that the sky is falling because of fossil fuels. As for myself, however, I question this accepted idea as do a great many others. I only pray they actually believe what they preach rather than it being a hoax in order to achieve political objectives of some kind. Regardless of whether the sky is falling or not, I believe it worthwhile to get off fossil fuels for no other reesons than because all fossil fuel producing countries for the most part seem to hate the US. Having said that, what is Chicken Little doing to get us off fossil fuels other than to tax them to the point we can no longer afford them.