The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds that 57% think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71% said there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures.
Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.
First Doug Elmendorf undercut the Obama administration on health care. Now his Congressional Budget Office is going off message on cap and trade:
The CBO director added that although the risks of climate-related impacts on the economy were very difficult to quantify, "many economists believe that the right response to that kind of uncertainty is to take out some insurance, if you will, against some of the worst outcomes."
The CBO estimates that the House-passed climate legislation, a template for the Senate version, would reduce gross domestic product by up to 0.75% by 2020 and 3.5% by 2050.
"The net effect of that we think would likely be some decline in employment during the transition because labor markets don't move that fluidly," Mr. Elmendorf said, testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee...
The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.
A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.
Your thread is BS FUD, and you know it. Even the title is false.
Only in England would someone try to pass off a Pew Trust poll of 3 states and 5 congressional districts as "Majority US Voters." Pure misrepresentation, typical of AGW fanatics.
The Pew Trust funds many different branches with differing agendas. The sponsors of your survey are AGW advocates. See p. 13 of their prospectus.
www.pewtrust.org...
The Pew Environment Group commissioned surveys by The Mellman Group, a leading Democratic firm, and Public Opinion Strategies, a leading Republican firm. Both have worked extensively throughout the United States for a range of corporations, nonprofit organizations and elected officials. The three surveys were conducted in August through October with 600 likely 2010 general election voters each. The margin of error was +/- 4.0% overall, higher for subgroups.
Oh, and the CBO sees an inevitable loss of jobs!
CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf warned a Senate energy panel that there would be "significant shifts" from emissions-intense sectors such as oil and refining firms to low-carbon businesses such as wind and solar power.
"The net effect of that we think would likely be some decline in employment during the transition because labor markets don't move that fluidly," Mr. Elmendorf said, testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Understanding the specific features of ARRA and ACESA and how they will work in combination allows us to estimate the level of public and private-sector investments in clean energy. As we will demonstrate, the two programs together could create $150 billion a year in new investment and 1.7 million net new jobs a year—that is, 1.7 million more jobs each year than would be the case without a $150 billion shift in spending from conventional fossil fuels to clean energy investments.
How about a Pew Trust poll from last month?
Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds that 57% think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71% said there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures.
Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.
Well, you'll do fairly well out of the Energy Bill. Those in the lowest levels of income will actually save money.
If you actually go beyond the deceptions being spread by certain quarters the bill won't have a massive effect on people's incomes. The average will be about $160 per year, and if you have a low income you'll save $100 or so.
These fellows were not stupid. You have to give them credit. They didn't get to be where they were by being country bumpkins. They understood politics, they understood mass psychology and they played their cards exceedingly well. ... And then at the insistence of Paul Warburg who was forever the master strategist, they added several very sound provisions to the Federal Reserve Bill. By that I mean they added some provisions which seriously restricted the ability of the Federal Reserve to create money out of nothing. Warburg's associates said, "Paul, what are you doing? We don't want those in there this is our bill." And his response was this, he said, "Relax fellas, don't you get it? Our object is to get the bill passed. We can fix it up later." Those were his exact words. "We can fix it up later." He was so right. It was because of those provisions that they won over the support of William Jennings Bryan the head of the Populist Movement, the last hold-out against the bill. Bryan was concerned that this would be an instrument for ruining the nation's money supply but when he saw those provisions he said, "Oh well, those are good provisions, I guess I can support the bill now" never dreaming that this was temporary. Everything is temporary in politics. When people go to sleep things can get changed.
Warburg was right and they fixed it up later. The Federal Reserve Act since it was passed has been amended over 100 times.
www.bigeye.com...
"It looks like I might have to open my new factory in Asia or Mexico.
The workers are cheaper, the taxes are less, start-up costs are considerably less than opening a factory here and thanks to all that free trade stuff, it just makes sense to keep production out of country. "
*Some entrepreneur is probably thinking thoughts like these. It just makes good business sense.
As for the $1761 rubbish, already covered it.
[the $1,761] assessment takes no account of the real nature of the key features of the Waxman-Markey bill.
Both the CBO and the EIA show actual costs of around $100 per year once the full features of the bill are included.
Have fun.
What does this bill actually do? - Makes money for Al Gore, Maurice Strong and other elite.
you might've added another line:
What will this bill NOT do? Reduce CO2.
(Just look at the UK and EU, where thev've traded carbon for years now - energy costs are up, per capita CO2 emissions are up, CO2 credit traders are richer)
It is instructive to read Strong's 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe.
www.mail-archive.com...@listserv.aol.com/msg106963.html
Maurice Strong and Radio for Peace International
The university's administrator, Canadian Maurice Strong, came in on a wave of influence based on the promise of Ted Turner's foundation to give a billion dollars to the UN. His connections to the Turner foundation, the World Bank, and to those environmental groups you hear criticized for allowing domination by big business, are just the tip of the iceberg.
Anyone searching "Maurice Strong" on the web encounters a very interesting array of entries. (To quote Lewis Carroll, the story becomes "Curious and curiouser") If we can believe even 10% of the story of his ascent to power and influence, an astonishing tale of subterfuge emerges, consistent with his attack on RFPI. Beyond the fig leaf of NGO's that he uses for cover, Strong's real alliances are with the enemies of the UN, which they are busily "reforming".
...Ontario Hydro, an industrial concern, headed by Earth Summit secretary general Maurice Strong, which is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in Canada. This corporation is currently selling nuclear reactors to Argentina and Chile.... www.hartford-hwp.com...
Strong has always courted power - but not through any shabby election campaign.... Journalist Elaine Dewar, who interviewed Strong, described why he loved the UN. 'He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda,' wrote Dewar. 'He told me he had more unfettered power than a cabinet minister in Ottawa. He was right: He didn't have to run for re-election, yet he could profoundly affect lives.' Strong prefers power extracted from democracies, and kept from unenlightened voters." (www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Maurice-Strong/article1.html#top)
It is therefore not surprising that another hat that Maurice Strong has worn is that of Treasurer, now Fellow, of Lindesfarne, New York, whose founder, William Thompson, conceived it as a medieval village into which the remnants of humanity might be herded as a feudalist "concentration camp," once genocidal eco-facist policies of the sort advocated by Maurice Strong had taken hold. And, for good measure, Strong is the president of the World Economic Forum, the Davos, Switzerland annual summit of the world's private bankers', which will be keynoted this year by Vice President Al Gore.
This article appears in the January 29, 1999 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Maurice Strong Discusses His Pal
Al Gore's Dark Age `Cloak of Green'
by Scott Thompson
You've "covered" nothing but your ability to dismiss fact with snide name-calling.
The costs from which the $1,761 is derived come the Energy Department themselves, as confirmed by CBO estimates of costs of $100billion to $500billion per year to consumers. An admitted loss of 1 to 4% of GDP by the Obama administration is "malarkey" only in the minds of those committed to hiding the truth without resort to substantive evaluation.
The overall impact on the average household, including the benefit of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would be 23 cents per day ($83 per year). This is consistent with analyses by the Congressional Budget Office which projects a cost of 48 cents per day ($175 per year) and the Environmental Protection Agency which projects a cost of 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year). Even under “High Cost” assumptions for new power plants, EIA only projects a household cost of 34 cents per day ($124 per year). None of these analyses take into account the benefits of reducing global warming
