Obama's nightmare "Green Agenda" officially unvieled, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times
Topic started on 24-1-2009 @ 04:15 PM by SlyFox_79

Obama's nightmare "Green Agenda" officially unvieled


www.prisonplanet.com
President Barack Obama’s plan to implement a cap-and-trade program that would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent and also sink an already battered U.S. economy into a new great depression has officially been announced on the White House.gov website.
However, the secondary phase of the agenda that would counter-balance such a move, the creation of millions of “green” stasi government jobs, has also been announced.
According to the outline for the Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 04:21 PM by MemoryShock
White House Link, though the spin that prisonplanet has placed on the story is invalid, in my opinion.


reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 04:27 PM by infolurker
Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I don't trust www.prisonplanet.com as a valid source.

Also, since when did trying to get us off fossil fuels, and creating green jobs, make our economy worse? Where does Alex Jones get these numbers?


Here's the problem.... Cap & Trade / Carbon Credits Scam will do NOTHING to reduce CO2 levels... it is a paper trading scam to make speculators and companies (which our politicians are heavily invested in) Rich at our expense.

Power company needs to spend billions on credits... well, paper traders make a fortune and we pay the power company higher energy costs to compensate. Plus it give organizations and governments unbridled power to dictate every aspect of our lives in the name of "saving the environment".

Carbon credits are a scam.... Even some of the "greenest" people know this. I am all for reducing the use of fossil fuels as it causes not only CO2 but a crap-ton of pollution and poison run-off into our rivers, lakes, and streams. I get worked up when I see the "carbon credit / cap & trade BS" being promoted as a solution. As you can tell, I want everyone to know about this scam as it does nothing to reduce CO2 and will cause the ultimate "stealth" tax on the people in order to make a few paper traders and politicians rich... while doing absolutely nothing for CO2 levels and worse yet poisonous pollution.

Great article this week from newscientist.com with James Lovelock the man whos work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer depletion. He is an ultimate greenie and knows this is a scam and will do nothing... He has a solution that doesn't require subsidies, scams, etc but he doesn't expect it to happen because the money for the corrupt can't be made with his solution.

www.newscientist.com...

2009 promises to be an exciting time for James Lovelock. But the originator of the Gaia theory, which describes Earth as a self-regulating planet, has a stark view of the future of humanity. He tells Gaia Vince we have one last chance to save ourselves - and it has nothing to do with nuclear power

Your work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer depletion. Do we have time to do a similar thing with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change?

Not a hope in hell. Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning. I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It's absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2500 square kilometres to produce a gigawatt - that's an awful lot of countryside.
What about work to sequester carbon dioxide?

That is a waste of time. It's a crazy idea - and dangerous. It would take so long and use so much energy that it will not be done.

So are we doomed?

There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.

Would it make enough of a difference?

Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it.



reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 04:34 PM by infolurker
And Here are real solutions:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

My idea: 2 above ground pipelines from the ocean to the New Mexico desert. Set up shallow concrete trenches covered with glass (that you make out of the sand on site) to limit evaporation. Any extra seawater is put through solar distillation and piped to cities as clean fresh water.

100% domestic production / sale only... once domestic supply is met, any extra can be sold on the open market... since taxpayer money would be used to create this algae farm, we would pay cost + x% only. Generally non-profit until domestic production goals are exceeded then any extra is exported for sale, otherwise we run into the "paper trading speculation game" as we have seen recently with our $4 a gallon gas.

So, this resource payed for by the taxpayer will be returned to the taxpayer at cost + operating expenses only. Of course this would be hard to do as corporations and politicians would want to make as much profit for themselves as possible with total disregard for the American citizen as usual so the rules would have to be on the books before even starting construction.

And it is Carbon Neutral, what is spent burning is re-absorbed by the next cycle.... Net Zero carbon from this source.

Secondly - Garbage Plasma For Electrical Generation (Co2 and about 99% less pollution than coal.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 06:47 PM by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by SlyFox_79

After reading the White House link provided by MemoryShock, the problem I see is that this "program" is little more than a general wish list, with many nebulous promises.
Increase Fuel Economy Standards.


OK, by how much? What standard measurement will you use?
Any worthwhile proposal must have strict standards and MEASURABLE goals.
For those who run a business or started one(as I did), you'll know what I mean when I say that a business plan can't have nebulous statements like "We want to make more money" or "We want to cut costs".

Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.



Fine. What will those 1 million cars do for us? Will they be affordable? Will they have a net savings in energy? Again, MEASURABLE GOALS!

Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.


What is the definition of an "Advanced Vehicle"?
Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.


Do you have any idea of what you mean by a "low carbon fuel standard"?

Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.


What do you mean by responsible? Is it the same definition that was used in the language of the "Bailout Bill" that was such a big FLOP? After all, these are the same people that helped craft and pass the Bailout Bill. Did it do any good? Did anyone get anything out of that $350 billion, other than the bankers who took the money and ran, not lending any of it to taxpayers who needed loans?

Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency.


Be VERY WARY when politicians start using superlatives. Someone can always build a better mousetrap.

Look, I'm not trying to be flippant, but anyone who ever prepared a business plan, a financial report, or even a resume knows that the wording in this "plan" is pure hyperbole. This "plan" looks like it was put together one evening at a bar, with the spirits flowing, and not much meat at the bar.
In fact, anyone that believes in this bill, probably already gave their money to Bernie Madoff.


reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 07:41 PM by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Animal




Does everything Obama plans on trying to accomplish make sense? Probably not, he is after all NOT the messiah. However, we will learn as we go, sitting on the side of the road bitching and bickering does nothing for us or the planet.


I agree that we should do things for our environment. I don't think that is the issue. My concern is that doing the WRONG thing may be worse than doing nothing, until we figure out how to do it correctly. I submit the Bailout bill as an example of how "doing something and learning from it" WAS worse than doing nothing.
Congress and Bush authorized $350 billion dollars (1st half of the bill) so that credit would loosen up, and people could get loans. Well, NONE of it went to that. The bill was rushed through, without any REAL consideration as to the bill, even though many of us, having read the 400+ pages, tried to point out the flaws to our representatitves. They ignored us, shoved the bill through, and now we are almost $! TRILLION dollars MORE in debt, the value of our dollar has shrunk because of it, and NO ONE got any loans, as a result of it. It WOULD have been BETTER to wait, write the bill with care, consideration, and input from taxpayers and other independent experts.
The same was done with the Auto Bailout. Nothing has changed.


It seems no one ever learns from their mistakes. I see the plan in discussion as one HUGE side of pork, where much money will be allocated, but without MEASURABLE GOALS, it is doomed to failure. Mark my words.


reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 08:31 PM by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Animal




Care to elaborate? What issues do you specifically see with Obama's 'green plan'? Is there nothing in it that you see as beneficial to the USA at all? Thanks for sharing your point of view mate.


I spelled them out, in my post 4 posts above your current post. The problem is that the plan has no real specifics, and here in the US, we have been throwing trillions of dollars around, with no plan at all. I think if you read my first post, you'll see my objections. It's not that the concept is wrong, it isn't, but there is no concrete plans in place. I don't know about you, but if I had billions of dollars, and someone came to me with a nebulous plan like that, I CERTAINLY wouldn't give them a PENNY until they had SPECIFICS, and could PROVE to me, with no doubt, that those plans would work. Our government has to stop throwing money at problems, with no specifics in mind. THAT is EXACTLY what happened with the bailout bill, and it has been a total failure.


reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 08:41 PM by Animal
reply to post by ProfEmeritus


The reason I ask you to el borate is because you seem to me to be grasping at straws in your criticism.

You act like the two or three sentences on the White House web site is the entirely of the Obama plan for 'Energy and the Economy'. Your biggest grip is that there is no clear goals or measures for the desired outcomes.

Do you seriously believe this to be the case?

It is my opinion that you are simply opposed to Obama and a Democratically defined and run government, which is absolutely your prerogative. However, I do not see much of this plan as poorly defined or short sighted in its scope.

There is plenty of evidence and research to back up his ideas as very strong goals that will have positive impacts on the economy and the environment.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^