2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSimply put, either scheme is designed to raise energy prices, and for what? Is it for some pie in the sky technology that will save us all?
The EPA proposals have nothing to do with "cap and trade", you dolt.
Apparently you have no problem redistributing wealth to owners of nuclear power plants.
Honestly, all the average Joe cares about is money flying out of his pocket and into corporate America and the government. How this is accomplished is secondary. Never mind that no one has any jobs. Oh that's right, the government will just subsidize all those without jobs and those who have jobs but can't afford their insane higher energy prices.
My bad.
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyIt's designed to reduce pollution, simpleton. Similar measures did lead to "pie in the sky technology" like catalytic converters which reduced smog and other pollution. Of course, right wingers at the time screamed that the Clean Air Act would lead to economic ruin. They were proven wrong. They'll be proven wrong AGAIN.
Simply put, either scheme is designed to raise energy prices, and for what? Is it for some pie in the sky technology that will save us all?
When you ask the "Average Joe" he tells you he wants the EPA to take measures that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd what has cap and trade led to in Europe?
It's designed to reduce pollution, simpleton. Similar measures did lead to "pie in the sky technology" like catalytic converters which reduced smog and other pollution. Of course, right wingers at the time screamed that the Clean Air Act would lead to economic ruin. They were proven wrong. They'll be proven wrong AGAIN.
Your wrong, all they want is our money and those who think otherwise is the simpleton.
Like I said, the same can be accomplished, only, use that money for viable alternatives instead of empty promises. If the money does not go 100% towards investment, I am not interested whatsoever. That means solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas. Take your pick!!
Originally posted by no1marauderArn't your tired of shell games with large pots of money? We are talking about $14 trillion dollars or so if cap and trade is implemnted. That will be the shell game to end all shell games.
It's designed to reduce pollution, simpleton. Similar measures did lead to "pie in the sky technology" like catalytic converters which reduced smog and other pollution. Of course, right wingers at the time screamed that the Clean Air Act would lead to economic ruin. They were proven wrong. They'll be proven wrong AGAIN.
When you ask the " ...[text shortened]... tells you he wants the EPA to take measures that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
Come to thing of it, where did all the TARP money go? Where did all the stimulus money go? It seems they have been practicing for this for some time.
Originally posted by whodeyNo1, thinks the earth is burning like a house on fire, he see's himself as the world fireman, he's going to hose you whether you like it or not. He does this not for thanks or any personal return but because he loves us all equally, that's you and me whodey, he loves the carbon sinners too, as he loves unto himself. This loving everyone thing is a natural attribute but if you don't naturally have it he's going to turn his fireman hose on you until you do, this is his tough love. later if he puts the world fire out he's going to wait for 51% of the sheep to go maaaaa, maaaa, this means the maaaas will be right and all the sheep going baaa baaaa will be wrong, hoorah for D.
Arn't your tired of shell games with large pots of money? We are talking about $14 trillion dollars or so if cap and trade is implemnted. That will be the shell game to end all shell games.
Come to thing of it, where did all the TARP money go? Where did all the stimulus money go? It seems they have been practicing for this for some time.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaJust like those who have sold their soul to a particular faith, marauder will continue to preach the progressive gospel of higher taxation. I say if your going to do it, invest in the country and not the elite in corporate America and Al Gore and company. This means investing in alternative energy sources by building nuclear power plants and wind mills and solar panels and converting government owned vehicles to natty gas. Otherwise, in another 20 year or so the US will be in the same predicterment, only, their economy will be worse as will their quality of life be.
No1, thinks the earth is burning like a house on fire, he see's himself as the world fireman, he's going to hose you whether you like it or not. He does this not for thanks or any personal return but because he loves us all equally, that's you and me whodey, he loves the carbon sinners too, as he loves unto himself. This loving everyone thing is a natural a s the maaaas will be right and all the sheep going baaa baaaa will be wrong, hoorah for D.
I suppose if the progressives really want to do something about the economy and the US dependence on foriegn oil, they would do something to fix their state run educations system. I read that it is estimated that increasing the quality of the education system could boost the GDP by about 5-10%. In addition, I would think that not being ranked 48th in the world in science and math in the world would help give rise to future scientists to help address the problem. But alas, Obama and company would rather focus on what the children are eating than they would what they are learning. So long as his constituents are happy with the teachers unions and the education establishment, all is well with the world.
Although the progressives have been an abject failure in dealing with a failing public education system, as they have been with the US dependence on foriegn oil, you will never hear one word of remorse or guilt. After all, the last thing they want in Washington is accountability.....unless its "W"'s fault. 😛
Originally posted by whodeyDo you have some kind of random Republican talking point generator you use to construct your posts?
Just like those who have sold their soul to a particular faith, marauder will continue to preach the progressive gospel of higher taxation. I say if your going to do it, invest in the country and not the elite in corporate America and Al Gore and company. This means investing in alternative energy sources by building nuclear power plants and wind mills and ...[text shortened]... all, the last thing they want in Washington is accountability.....unless its "W"'s fault. 😛
Originally posted by KazetNagorraActually, the only thing I hear from the Repuklincans is how they either support cap and tax or oppose it. Those that oppose it are either demagogues or those who are outsiders and have no chance at nixing the legislation. After all, with the EPA ruling it is a done deal in all intensive purposes.
Do you have some kind of random Republican talking point generator you use to construct your posts?
As for myself, I am more interested in energy independence than I am concerned about global warming. Other than McCain's proposal to build a large number of nuclear power plants across the US, I know of no one who has a similar vision in the Republican party. However, you do hear rumblings about drilling for oil in the US and natty gas, for which I concur. Either that or the US can just keep the "W"/Obama wars abroad to secure foreign oil.
Originally posted by whodeyLet's pretend for a second you're not a partisan shill of strikingly low intelligence:
And what has cap and trade led to in Europe?
Your wrong, all they want is our money and those who think otherwise is the simpleton.
Like I said, the same can be accomplished, only, use that money for viable alternatives instead of empty promises. If the money does not go 100% towards investment, I am not interested whatsoever. That means solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas. Take your pick!!
What is the sense of investing in lower emission technology IF the present emissions are not reduced? Why would present industries change to lower emission technology if they are allowed to continue to make excess profits by sloughing the costs of their emissions off to society as a whole?
Absent governmental regulation of some sort, the negative externality will persist. The only argument should be what type of regulation will do the best job of reducing emissions i.e. limits on industry emissions (as the EPA has proposed), some type of cap and trade system, a carbon tax or something else. Moves to other types of renewable energy are laudable, but they don't address the present problem.
Originally posted by whodeywhodey: After all, with the EPA ruling it [cap and trade] is a done deal in all intensive purposes.
Actually, the only thing I hear from the Repuklincans is how they either support cap and tax or oppose it. Those that oppose it are either demagogues or those who are outsiders and have no chance at nixing the legislation. After all, with the EPA ruling it is a done deal in all intensive purposes.
As for myself, I am more interested in energy independenc ...[text shortened]... concur. Either that or the US can just keep the "W"/Obama wars abroad to secure foreign oil.
The EPA ruling doesn't establish a cap and trade system, you idiot. Please actually read your own cut and paste and also look up what "cap and trade" means.
Originally posted by no1marauderLike I said, if the energy prices go up either way, what is the difference in regards to the average Joe?
whodey: After all, with the EPA ruling it [cap and trade] is a done deal in all intensive purposes.
The EPA ruling doesn't establish a cap and trade system, you idiot. Please actually read your own cut and paste and also look up what "cap and trade" means.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIF nuclear power plants, for example, were made available via government creation, then it would be a source of energy that WOULD make obsolete many carbon emitters that are used today. Looking at my electric bill, I notice that the majority of my energy is produced by coal burning facilities. If there were a nuclear facility availabe instead, that would all change. Although the creation of nuclear plants would be costly, once it was up and running it could provide a cheap and carbon free alternative for future generations.
Let's pretend for a second you're not a partisan shill of strikingly low intelligence:
What is the sense of investing in lower emission technology IF the present emissions are not reduced? Why would present industries change to lower emission technology if they are allowed to continue to make excess profits by sloughing the costs of thei ...[text shortened]... to other types of renewable energy are laudable, but they don't address the present problem.
Additionally, if the government were to begin the push towards natural gas burning cars, although the cars on the road currently would not see a drastic decline in emissions, over time you would have increasing nunmbers of vehicles on the road procuding less carbon. Eventually, all cars could potentially be converted to a cleaner burning energy in natural gas thus reducing current emissions.
The same could be said for solar and wind. The government must first be the example setter and begin to convert government buidlings to wind/solar. Although expensive at first, once up and running should provide cheap energy for future generations and help reduce emissions for the future.
The goal here should be independence instead of dependence. Of course, this would probably require a cranial transplant on your part because the natural tendency for progressives is dependence, not self sufficiency. I say once the nation is energy self sufficient, bring the troops home and use that money that is being paid for them to police the world to be used for research if you like.
Originally posted by no1marauderI think simply raising taxes on energy use combined with subsidies for low-carbon energy sources would be the most effective. Even though this does not address carbon emissions directly, it's conceptually a lot simpler than cap and trade and much easier to regulate.
Let's pretend for a second you're not a partisan shill of strikingly low intelligence:
What is the sense of investing in lower emission technology IF the present emissions are not reduced? Why would present industries change to lower emission technology if they are allowed to continue to make excess profits by sloughing the costs of thei ...[text shortened]... to other types of renewable energy are laudable, but they don't address the present problem.
Originally posted by KazetNagorrabut then the power industry for example, does not have to do anything about the way it produces energy, the consumer foots the bill....where's the upside to that? Cap and trade at least gives industry a monetary incentive to become more efficient and emit a smaller footprint. Each year the EPA can revise the cap set for each industry ie make it smaller if efficiencies are shown to be implementable that can lower emission rates. There's a win win because it means any credits left over from the cap become more valuable to trade. Controlled market forces then spring into action and hey presto its in everyone's interest to emit less.
I think simply raising taxes on energy use combined with subsidies for low-carbon energy sources would be the most effective. Even though this does not address carbon emissions directly, it's conceptually a lot simpler than cap and trade and much easier to regulate.