Education level of Celebs who believe in man made Global Warming

[fossten]

Basically, I agree.

Except, I dont care as much about testing as I do about changing. My thinking is that it cant hurt for us to be more enviromentally responsible. Lowering the usage of things like Oil and Coal and replacing that with things such as nuclear, wind and solar power can only help us. It will reduce our dependance on foreign oil, the profits of which are used to fund terror against us and our allies. It will also help clean the air up a bit, which certainly cant hurt us.

Ultimately, we'll save money in the long run.

The politics is just that, politics.

I disagree. We already are the most environmentally responsible country in the world. We make messes occasionally, yes, but we do clean them up. And then we spend years flagellating ourselves in guilt over it. I'm sick of our economy being damaged by environmentalist do-gooders who have ulterior motives. Lowering the usage of oil and coal WILL HURT US. It's a FACT.

Nuclear power is opposed by Democrats and environmentalist fearmongers who scream "Chernobyl" every time it's mentioned. Yet Europe uses nuclear power with no issues.

Wind power is also opposed by Democrats such as Ted Kennedy who doesn't want them installed in his rich greedy family's sailing lanes.

Solar power is simply too expensive. To build a house on solar to be completely independent of the grid would cost, for a 2,000 square foot house, over $200 grand JUST FOR THE SYSTEM. There are issues with disposal of solar batteries as well.

Oil is cheaper, more efficient, plentiful, and ORGANIC, and so is coal.

Stop buying into the envirowackos' fearmongering talking points. George W. Bush, whom you HATE, tried to improve our energy policy but the Dems prevented it.

But hey, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and trade in that Mark VIII for a Prius, eh, Joey? Stop preaching to everybody else and actually prove that you mean what you say for a change. I will await an announcement and pics of your new "hot rod." Until then you are a first class hypocrite for advocating less gas usage while profiting off a website that promotes more gas usage.

 

[Marcus]

You call 1.34 Trillion Dollars "a little money?"

Lay off the toke, dude. I've got news for you: The left doesn't want to "study" the problem. They want money DUMPED on it as though it's already a fait accompli.

People like you should not be allowed to decide that people like me should have to pay for such nonsense. That's exactly what you're advocating.

Good God man, do some research before spouting off your mouth.

I don't know where they came up with the $1.34 trillion figure, but regardless, it doesn't go towards research. The money they're talking about is an allowance to ease carbon emitters' expenses as the program is phased in. The article you linked to deceivingly (as usual) uses the words "special interests" to describe who the allowances go to. But who are the special interests and who receives the bulk of the allowances? From the FAQ (PDF) for the bill at the senate web site:

10. How are emission allowances distributed under the Act?

• Allocation to Private Sector Entities: For the first five years of the program, 53% of the total quantity of allowances available under the emissions target would be allocated at no cost to private sector entities. This amount is gradually phased out over time. The industry sectors receiving free allocations under this proposed approach are:
  coal mines
  petroleum refineries
  natural gas processing plants
  non-CO2 regulated entities
  coal, oil and natural gas electric generators
  carbon-intensive industrial sectors

• Auction: For the first five years of the program, 24% of the total quantity of allowances available under the emissions target would be auctioned. The share of allowances auctioned would gradually increase over time as free allocation to industry is phased out. Proceeds from the auction would go towards low- and no-carbon technology deployment, climate change adaptation in vulnerable regions, and programs to reduce the impact of higher energy costs on low-income families.
• Agricultural Sequestration: 5% of the total quantity of allowances allocated under the emissions target annually would be set aside for agricultural sequestration activities.
• Early Reduction Credits: 1% of the total quantity of allowances allocated under the emissions target for each of the first 9 years of the program would be reserved for entities that had undertaken projects resulting in early reductions in greenhouse gases.
• Distribution by States: States would receive 9% of the total quantity of allowances allocated under the emissions target for certain defined purposes, such as addressing economic impacts, promoting no- and low-carbon technologies or energy efficiency, and enhancing energy security.
• Bonus Allowances for Carbon Capture and Sequestration: The Act reserves 8% of total allowances to create incentives for projects that capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

I have no particular opinion on the bill itself, but I will debunk the distortions written about it.

 

[fossten]

Good God man, do some research before spouting off your mouth.

I don't know where they came up with the $1.34 trillion figure, but regardless, it doesn't go towards research. The money they're talking about is an allowance to ease carbon emitters' expenses as the program is phased in.

And your point is...?

It's tax dollars being SPENT. Period. These dollars will be ripped from you and me and given to these corporations.

My point stands.

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension/understanding the English language skills before you comment.

 

[Marcus]

And your point is...?

It's tax dollars being SPENT. Period. These dollars will be ripped from you and me and given to these corporations.

My point stands.

No it doesn't. I shouldn't have used the phrase "the money they're talking about" because there's no real money changing hands, let alone tax dollars. The allowances represent the money the company would have had to spend on emissions taxes if the act went into full force right off the bat. The 1.34 trillion figure represents (assuming it's correct) the value of those allowances.

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/trading/basics.html

 

[fossten]

No it doesn't. I shouldn't have used the phrase "the money they're talking about" because there's no real money changing hands, let alone tax dollars. The allowances represent the money the company would have had to spend on emissions taxes if the act went into full force right off the bat. The 1.34 trillion figure represents (assuming it's correct) the value of those allowances.

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/trading/basics.html

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand you're wrong again.

Read this section CAREFULLY, noting the last paragraph:

Further, the federal government would issue rights or "allowances" to emit the GHGs, says Milloy:

The bulk of these allowances -- 76 percent for the first five years -- will be given away at no charge to special interests, including private industry, farmers and states.

This giveaway works out to a total of $1.34 trillion -- not adjusted for inflation -- that would be handed out to global warming special interests from 2012-2030.

Additionally, companies that must purchase allowances will most likely pass along the higher costs to consumers in the form of higher prices for all goods and services that involve the energy use.

That's a tax increase, however you want to spin it.

Haven't you ever heard Benjamin Franklin's famous quote: A penny saved is a penny earned?

 

[Marcus]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand you're wrong again.

Read this section CAREFULLY, noting the last paragraph:

Further, the federal government would issue rights or "allowances" to emit the GHGs, says Milloy:

The bulk of these allowances -- 76 percent for the first five years -- will be given away at no charge to special interests, including private industry, farmers and states.

This giveaway works out to a total of $1.34 trillion -- not adjusted for inflation -- that would be handed out to global warming special interests from 2012-2030.

Additionally, companies that must purchase allowances will most likely pass along the higher costs to consumers in the form of higher prices for all goods and services that involve the energy use.

That's a tax increase, however you want to spin it.

Haven't you ever heard Benjamin Franklin's famous quote: A penny saved is a penny earned?

(Sigh)
Dude, the author of this piece is full of it, using misleading phrasing to make it appear that money is actually changing hands. It is NOT. Read the damned link I provided on what a cap and trade "allowances" actually is. The $1.34 trillion is what the author calculates the credits to be worth IF the companies had to pay the emissions taxes, IT IS NOT ACTUAL MONEY THAT ANYONE PAYS OR RECEIVES. If anything, it's a tax BREAK.

It gives the companies five years to whatever they want to do to prepare, and then the allowances gradually taper off. If they decide to do nothing, then they have to buy allowances from companies who did do something (at which point money DOES change hands). If they reduce their emissions, then they can sell their allowances to someone else and make some of their investment back. This is a hell of a lot more business-friendly than imposing straight emission caps.

 

[Joeychgo]

Nuclear power is opposed by Democrats and environmentalist fearmongers who scream "Chernobyl" every time it's mentioned. Yet Europe uses nuclear power with no issues..

So? Republicans had control for 6 years. The Dems didnt matter.

Wind power is also opposed by Democrats such as Ted Kennedy who doesn't want them installed in his rich greedy family's sailing lanes.

So? Republicans had control for 6 years. The Dems didnt matter.

Solar power is simply too expensive. To build a house on solar to be completely independent of the grid would cost, for a 2,000 square foot house, over $200 grand JUST FOR THE SYSTEM. There are issues with disposal of solar batteries as well.

Oil is cheaper, more efficient, plentiful, and ORGANIC, and so is coal.

Cheaper how?
Come on - do you REALLY believe that? Your smarter then that. We spend TREMENDOUS amounts of money to protect the oil. Do you really think we would give a rats ass about the middle east if they had no oil? Do you think we would have been rushing to save Saudia Arabia and Kuwait in 1991 or gone back in 2003? Please. The military cost of playing in the oil rich sandbox is tremendous.

Stop buying into the envirowackos' fearmongering talking points. George W. Bush, whom you HATE, tried to improve our energy policy but the Dems prevented it.

Yeah, I notice that when I pay $3.50 a gallon for Gas. Some job GW has done there. And before you say it, ill say this once again. So? Republicans had control for 6 years. The Dems didnt matter.

And forget it, im not buying a prius.

 

[fossten]

Cheaper how?
Come on - do you REALLY believe that? Your smarter then that. We spend TREMENDOUS amounts of money to protect the oil. Do you really think we would give a rats ass about the middle east if they had no oil? Do you think we would have been rushing to save Saudia Arabia and Kuwait in 1991 or gone back in 2003? Please. The military cost of playing in the oil rich sandbox is tremendous.

Oil is cheaper than solar, wind, AND ethanol, which itself costs more to make than it generates. That's how.

Yeah, I notice that when I pay $3.50 a gallon for Gas. Some job GW has done there. And before you say it, ill say this once again. So? Republicans had control for 6 years. The Dems didnt matter.

Sort of shoots your "Bush lied to get us into a war for oil" theory in the foot, doesn't it?

And forget it, im not buying a prius.

Then quit telling us how we have to start changing our lives, hypocrite.

 

[fossten]

(Sigh)
Dude, the author of this piece is full of it, using misleading phrasing to make it appear that money is actually changing hands. It is NOT. Read the damned link I provided on what a cap and trade "allowances" actually is. The $1.34 trillion is what the author calculates the credits to be worth IF the companies had to pay the emissions taxes, IT IS NOT ACTUAL MONEY THAT ANYONE PAYS OR RECEIVES. If anything, it's a tax BREAK.

It gives the companies five years to whatever they want to do to prepare, and then the allowances gradually taper off. If they decide to do nothing, then they have to buy allowances from companies who did do something (at which point money DOES change hands). If they reduce their emissions, then they can sell their allowances to someone else and make some of their investment back. This is a hell of a lot more business-friendly than imposing straight emission caps.

Go back and read the story. The Democrats (and RINO liberals) in Congress want to raise energy prices and levy more taxes. Get that through your thick skull. If you think otherwise, you're totally naive.

Furthermore, it's common knowledge that the Kyoto protocol will cost the world tens of trillions of dollars to implement. Don't sit there in your stinking ignorance and try to tell me that it will actually SAVE me money - that's an insult to my intelligence and a broad display of your own lack thereof.

 

[Marcus]

Go back and read the story. The Democrats (and RINO liberals) in Congress want to raise energy prices and levy more taxes. Get that through your thick skull. If you think otherwise, you're totally naive.

That's not the argument. You said that this phantom 1.34 trillion dollars was going to be "DUMPED on" global warming. The only issue I have with that statement is that it's...well... utterly false. You can argue all you want about how much cutting emissions will cost, but you can't use this example because it doesn't represent a cost TO ANYBODY (ZIP, ZERO, NADA), it represents the amount companies will be will be EXEMPT from having to pay under the plan. Do you understand that yet? I'm running out of ways to say it.

Furthermore, it's common knowledge that the Kyoto protocol will cost the world tens of trillions of dollars to implement. Don't sit there in your stinking ignorance and try to tell me that it will actually SAVE me money - that's an insult to my intelligence and a broad display of your own lack thereof.

You keep changing the subject. The LCEA Act is the SOLE subject of the article YOU posted, not Kyoto. You chose a bad article to represent the costs, that's all.

And while I'm talking to a brick wall, I might as well point out that the cost estimates for reducing emissions never take into account the very real probability of new, cleaner, and eventually cheaper technologies being developed down the road. They all assume that we'll still be burning fossil fuels in 50 years as our primary source of energy, which is highly unlikely.

 

[Joeychgo]

Oil is cheaper than solar, wind, AND ethanol, which itself costs more to make than it generates. That's how..

Oil is not cheaper then solar or wind. (i never mentioned ethanol, which is a BS program I think)

Sort of shoots your "Bush lied to get us into a war for oil" theory in the foot, doesn't it?

Not at all, his buddies are all making a killing on the price of oil. Besides, when did I make THAT claim?

Then quit telling us how we have to start changing our lives, hypocrite.

Everyone driving a Prius is not the answer. Im also not telling people they have to change their lives. I never said you have to build a solar farm in your back yard or a nuclear reactor.

Quit with the personal Debate the issue or shut up.

 

[Marcus]

Yeah yeah, you weren't talking to me, but I'm going to reply anyway...

Oil is cheaper than solar, wind, AND ethanol, which itself costs more to make than it generates. That's how.

It's cheaper because we've been using it for 150+ years and we have a huge infrastructure in place. Unfortunately there isn't an endless supply of it (and don't give me any of that "biogenic theory" nonsense - talk about junk science).

Guess what? Radios were hugely expensive at one time too. All new technology is at first. Alternative forms of energy production will only become cheaper when demand for them rises. With the system we have in place (including political), there is little chance of anything new taking off until it becomes a crisis.

Sort of shoots your "Bush lied to get us into a war for oil" theory in the foot, doesn't it?

Not really. Bush, or rather Cheney, said it would be a "cakewalk" going in there and "liberating" the Iraqis. But he hadn't counted on the insurgents throwing a monkey wrench into our plans to privatize the oil industry and bring in Shell and Exxon.

Question: What is the ONLY legislation that Bush keeps harping on the Iraqis to get worked out?
Hint: O*L.

 

[daves2000ls]

Basically, I agree.

Except, I dont care as much about testing as I do about changing. My thinking is that it cant hurt for us to be more enviromentally responsible. Lowering the usage of things like Oil and Coal and replacing that with things such as nuclear, wind and solar power can only help us. It will reduce our dependance on foreign oil, the profits of which are used to fund terror against us and our allies. It will also help clean the air up a bit, which certainly cant hurt us.

Ultimately, we'll save money in the long run.

The politics is just that, politics.

That's a good way to look at. We do need to be more responsible in regards to our impact on the environment.

 

[daves2000ls]

fossten and MONSTERMARK - I didn't think people like you should be allowed to decide that people like should have had to pay to free a country, to tell you the truth about, I couldn't give two shi'ites about.

 

[fossten]

Yeah yeah, you weren't talking to me, but I'm going to reply anyway...

It's cheaper because we've been using it for 150+ years and we have a huge infrastructure in place.

Ah, so you admit I'm right. Thank you. I'll bet that hurt to say. And look how well things have been going for this country the last 150 years. Yeah, we can't keep up this kind of prosperity, right? Gotta go feel guilty about it and start harming ourselves, right? Sheesh what a braindead point of view.

Unfortunately there isn't an endless supply of it (and don't give me any of that "biogenic theory" nonsense - talk about junk science).

So what? Why should we save it? What for? Why shouldn't we use it while it's there? And your point is worthless, anyway, since the oil reserves around the world are currently good for at least another 100 years.

Guess what? Radios were hugely expensive at one time too. All new technology is at first. Alternative forms of energy production will only become cheaper when demand for them rises. With the system we have in place (including political), there is little chance of anything new taking off until it becomes a crisis.

Okay, and why should the government try to force people to demand a new technology before we can afford it? This alternative fuels bullsh!t is nothing but pure propaganda, and you just admitted it.

Not really. Bush, or rather Cheney, said it would be a "cakewalk" going in there and "liberating" the Iraqis. But he hadn't counted on the insurgents throwing a monkey wrench into our plans to privatize the oil industry and bring in Shell and Exxon.

Incorrect. Try again. It was not Cheney who used the word "cakewalk." Want to go for triple Jeopardy where the scores can really change? Try getting YOUR facts straight and stop getting your information from bushhatingpussy.org.

Question: What is the ONLY legislation that Bush keeps harping on the Iraqis to get worked out?
Hint: O*L.

Link please!

 

[fossten]

fossten and MONSTERMARK - I didn't think people like you should be allowed to decide that people like should have had to pay to free a country, to tell you the truth about, I couldn't give two shi'ites about.

OFF TOPIC.