It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Majority US voters accept the need for climate action

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Okay so I have established Maurice Strong is not a simple lover of Mother Earth but a smart Wheeler dealer.

Lets look at 1972 the time of Maurice Strong,s Stockholm speech, when he first spoke of "Global Warming.

In the early seventies “the climate debate” was not over. There were two opposing models. One is CO2 forced warming orginating with Fourier in 1824, & Svente Arrhenius in 1896 and later in 1968 Mikhail Budyko . The other is the solar cycles & earth orbital changes leading to ice ages. Milankovitch 1930 & 1941 detailed the earth orbital cycles related to the major Ice Ages and Herschel 1801, Jevons, 1878, (Link ) & Gleissberg 1939 & 1971 (link ) described the solar cycles and linked them to the mini-ice Ages.

The in 1970, Broecker using new radioactive decay dating methods identified and dated five full ice age cycles and stated his work was in agreement with Milankovitch.



“..When Fourier analysis was applied to deep-sea records in 1975, it emerged that the oxygen-isotope series contained strong cycles with periods near 100,000 years, 41,000 years, and 23,000 years. These are precisely the periods expected if Earth's orbital elements (eccentricity, obliquity, and precession) govern ice-age climates, as proposed by Milankovitch Theory. Thus, there could be no more doubt that orbital elements had to be considered as important drivers of climate on long time scales....” earthguide.ucsd.edu...


From 1972 through 1974 Journalists were writing about coming Ice Ages. But by 1977 opinion converged on “warming” not cooling

Remember even by 1978 there was no warming trend visible in the global temperature data. Link But Gleissberg had plotted the historic temperature cycles. One Gleissberg cycle consisting of seven consecutive sunspot cycles, has an average length of 77.5 years, max length 83.0 years and min length 72.0 years. The Dalton Minimum was from 1795 to 1825. From the turn of the century to 1950 we had warming and from 1950 to 1972 we had cooling. It did not take much more than a read through Gleissberg work to figure out we were due for a warming cycle.

With Mikhail Budyko paper predicting an increase in temp due to the Greenhouse effect and Gleissberg work peodicting a warming trend, Strong had the weapons he needed to cripple western industry. Make no mistake although Canadian by birth Strong's ideology is squarely centered in the USSR and red China where he visited frequently. His goal has been the assent of China to the next world power. Remember the crippling of the USA nuclear power industry can also be laid at Mr OILMAN Strong's door.

Does Strong Actually believe what he is peddling? I do not know but it is interesting that at the time (the 70's) Milankovitch Theory had been verified by Broecker in 1970, and Fourier's analysis in 1975. Mikhail Budyko in 1968, came up with two mathmatical climate models one predicted an increase in temp due to the Greenhouse effect the other predicted a return to an ice age.

I think the clincher is his purchase in the seventies, of the ranch Bacca in southern Colorado. It sits on three major aquifers as well as oil. The San Luis Valley is described as the most productive agricultural areas in the west.

What would the area look like if there is an ice Age?



“At the most extreme stage of the last glaciation, most of Canada and much of the northern USA were covered by an ice sheet thousands of metres in thickness. Colder and often drier than present conditions predominated across most of the USA. The eastern deciduous and conifer forests were replaced by more open conifer woodlands with cooler-climate species of pines and a large component of spruce. The open spruce woodland and parkland extended somewhat further west than present, into what is now the prairie zone. As a result of aridity and lowering of sea level (which lowered inland water tables), much of Florida was covered by drifting sand dunes. Notably moister than present conditions occurred across much of the south-west, with open conifer woodlands and scrub common in areas that are now semi-desert. Reconstruction of North America during last Ice Age


SO what is Mr Strong doing now? He is a partner with Gore in the privately held Chicago Climate Exchange, living in Beijing as Advisor the the Chinese Government and working for CH2M Hill.



CH2M Hill, is "an employee-owned, multinational firm providing engineering, construction, operations and related services to public and private clients in numerous industries on six continents. CH2M HILL offers integrated services that help ...
clients take any infrastructure project from concept to reality. newsgroups.derkeiler.com...




I think I know where our "carbon credit" dollars are going - CH2M Hill perhaps??











posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
lol

I guess you're not a fan of C&T, then.

I'm not sure Fourier had an analysis in 1974, we tend not to promote zombie science. Perhaps you meant 'a fourier analysis' or 'the fourier analysis'. It's a method.

You did miss out decades of research to shoehorn some dude called Strong into a conspiracy-laden history of climate science. I'm sure Callender and Keeling will be turning in their graves.

But that's an aside, I'll focus on the seemingly topic-related. You don't like Maurice Strong, cool. He's some sort of global vampire who wants to take your stars and stripes-laden dummy and the clincher being he wants to ensure the well-being of a ranch he bought in the 70s (lol), he's also a fan of China. You propose that 'global warming' & C&T is sourced from a conspiracy, a conspiracy that requires the dishonesty of thousands of scientists across the world and all the major scientific organisations. And one of the reasons is so Mr Strong can keep his ranch from being covered in ice or something.

Thanks for you input.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
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.

Hey Mel, since you're the resident ATS cap and trade promoter, could you clarify that last sentence for me?

Are you saying that under a cap and trade system, people earning a low income will save money compared to what they pay now? If that's the case, I'd love to know how that happens, and where the money comes from.

Or is it that low income earners will still pay, just less than others?

Cheers



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
Hey Mel, since you're the resident ATS cap and trade promoter, could you clarify that last sentence for me?


Not really intrinsically wedded to any option, tbh. I just think some sort of action would be the best option. If we all got together and decided to accept the science but take the risk and just adapt, I'll go with that as well. I'm weakly conflicted between the awe of the biggest human experiment ever and the obvious consequences.

Carbon tax works by just making certain behaviours and resources more expensive. For my own experience as a smoker, I've found myself prepared to overcome my supposed Homo Economicus nature to carry on regardless.

Cap and trade actually works to reduce max emissions. Suppose it's like saying, 'yeah, today you can smoke 10 ciggies; but in four months we'll cap you to 8, and four months after that we reduce you to 6' and all the time I'm having my nicotine addiction replaced by crappy chewing gum, lol.

On the surface, appears the better approach cf. straight tax, as the tax does nothing to force reductions in total emissions. There will be costs, but eventually we will be in a much more sustainable and ideal position as an advanced industrial society. Trust me, I'm no luddite. But if we can soak up 300% increases in oil cost with minimal whining, I'm sure we can handle a few hundred dollars a year.

Others disagree. Hansen prefers a straight tax.


Are you saying that under a cap and trade system, people earning a low income will save money compared to what they pay now? If that's the case, I'd love to know how that happens, and where the money comes from.

Or is it that low income earners will still pay, just less than others?

Cheers


Selling permits brings in cash, this cash is used to offset increases in energy costs. Those at the lowest levels of income (lowest quartile, IIRC) will be offset to the point that their net outlay due to C&T will be negative (cf. baseline).

They still have energy bills, no freebies. It's just an assessment of how after compares to before. Eventually energy companies will be pushed to, firstly, be more efficient and, secondly, to move to better cleaner sources of energy. Same for us as consumers, if those in the quartiles that attract an increase in outlay per year don't appreciate the outcome, being more efficient and reducing energy would be the rational response.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 



reply to post by melatonin
 


Selling permits brings in cash, this cash is used to offset increases in energy costs.


But that's not what WaxmanMalarkey proposes. The bill proposes to GIVE AWAY up to 80% of the permits to "favored" industries.

(Obama proposed 100% sales, and admitted costs would be steeply higher. You acknowledged this yourself, but misrepresented what he said as limited to coal-fired power generation. Completely false.)

The EU and UK tried this and the traders manipulated the prices in the first 2 phases of the program anywhere from 32.00 euros, all the way down to 0.03 euros, and up to 40.00. They currently trade at 14.11 euros.

Meanwhile energy costs for consumers have gone up as production/expansion is abandoned or put off in favor of trading. This led to the recent blackouts in the UK.


Those at the lowest levels of income (lowest quartile, IIRC) will be offset to the point that their net outlay due to C&T will be negative (cf. baseline).


There will be no offset or rebates if 100% of credits are not sold.

NONE of the "projected" savings has occurred ANYWHERE this has been tried.



They still have energy bills, no freebies. It's just an assessment of how after compares to before.


That's just wishful thinking, since Obama, the House and Senate disagree on how to apportion/sell/distribute the credits in the first place.

"After" compares so poorly to "before" everywhere else that the programs in action today have to be re-worked; and, even then, they still don't work and are subject to market vagaries.

There's been NO per capita CO2 reduction anywhere due to C&T.

The only recent reductions in CO2 output have been the direct result of the global recession: reduced consumption, increased costs, and lowered production.

Between 1997 and 2008, CO2 emissions were UP for the Kyoto signatories, especially in the EU.

Deny ignorance.

jw



[edit on 11-11-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

But that's not what WaxmanMalarkey proposes. The bill proposes to GIVE AWAY up to 80% of the permits to "favored" industries.


A large proportion will be given away for 'free'. But they have expectations attached. They will still have a determined value and the industries obtaining these permits will be compelled to pass the value on to consumers. Essentially, same difference, just the benefits are passed directly onto consumers. Or would you prefer more government interference?

The end point is that consumers costs are offset by both sales of permits and the value of those provided at no upfront cost.


(Obama proposed 100% sales, and admitted costs would be steeply higher. You acknowledged this yourself, but misrepresented what he said as limited to coal-fired power generation. Completely false.)


I acknowledged what? That treasury document was based purely on Obama's plan, it also didn't fully examine that policy. In Obama's plan the cash was released as tax cuts. The $1,761 number is from some random blogger who poorly represented Obama's plan, and is attempting to apply numbers from a document which doesn't even apply.

That isn't the plan that Waxman-Markey are proposing. You have basically just admitted it.


The Treasury said the furor was much ado about little. The March memo was not based on any independent Treasury analysis and summarized other studies. The transition team memo said that the government could use the revenue to "offset distortionary taxes on labor or capital."

"The reporting on the Treasury analysis is flat out wrong," said Alan B. Krueger, Treasury assistant secretary for economic policy. "Treasury's analysis is consistent with public analyses . . . and the reporting and blogging on this issue ignores the fact that the revenue raised from emission permits would be returned to consumers under both administration and legislative proposals."

WaPo linky

I didn't say it was limited to coal-fired plants, lol. I said he was talking about them, and he was:


You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know -- Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it -- whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.


Throughout that 2008 interview he was very focused on coal-fired plants. He even outlined how new coal plants would likely be bankrupted. Or is that also completely false?

But, again, the plan that is on the table is not his plan of cap and trade. So that interview is totally irrelevant, and so is the $1,761 number that you keep spewing over the board.

You're trying to ram a square peg into an ass-shaped hole.

The plan is Waxman-Markey, and the costs will be around $80-160 per year on average.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Originally posted by melatonin

The plan is Waxman-Markey, and the costs will be around $80-160 per year on average.


That assumes allowance values of $11 (EIA) to $25 (CBO) for the first decade.

Sadly, everyone agrees that the economy will not support such values, and that the oversupply will result in no net reduction of CO2 or in any "revenues" to pass on.

(In the real world, the EU estimated EUAs to be trading at and above 40 euros, but they never quite got there, fell to as low as 0.03 euros, and currently trade at 14.00. Oops.)

Even if there were revenues, the bill only requires industry to use "all practical efforts" to distribute proceeds to ratepayers.

Sure they will. Some "mandate."

Of course, this also ignores the CBO director's own testimony that the COSTS ( as opposed to revenues) will be $100 billion to $500 billion.


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.

www.spectator.org...

As for jobs, even the EPA and EIA agree that there would be no more than a 10% increase in green energy construction, and that the amount would be the same EVEN WITHOUT THE BILL.

CBO's Elmendorf is pretty clear on this:


"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...

www.spectator.org...

You make it seem so easy to act as if the crap you post is legitimate. It is nothing but parroted propaganda that defies the semi-credible admissions (against interest) of the players themselves.

(Just like Obama claiming 1 million stimulus jobs, getting called on triple-counting and outright fabrication, then saying, "Those aren't OUR estimates, we're just relying on what "they" told us.)

At least you can say that you were only relying on what "they" said when the square peg of truth hits the round hole.

jw



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Well, I sensed a small shift of acceptance that the Waxman-Markey is different from what the echo-chamber has been harping on about for months. It was sort of a decent read for a while...


You make it seem so easy to act as if the crap you post is legitimate. It is nothing but parroted propaganda that defies the semi-credible admissions (against interest) of the players themselves.

(Just like Obama claiming 1 million stimulus jobs, getting called on triple-counting and outright fabrication, then saying, "Those aren't OUR estimates, we're just relying on what "they" told us.)

At least you can say that you were only relying on what "they" said when the square peg of truth hits the round hole.


Never said it was 'easy'. I know it will have costs, I said as much just a few posts ago. If I was in the US it would cost me, and action here in europe will cost me. TBH, so what? Carrying on regardless will also have real costs.

Anyway, at least semi-credible is an advance on lacking any credibility which the 1,761 BS FUD certainly is.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Anyway, at least semi-credible is an advance on lacking any credibility which the 1,761 BS FUD certainly is.


Except, the semi-credible admissions are a "best-case" scenario of lost GDP, lost jobs, and increased energy costs.

And they support the $1,761 estimates based on the added costs. Up to $2,500 if you take the un-redacted version of the DoE and Treasury estimates.
And those are "best-case," too!

Face it, C&T has wholly failed as a CO2 "remedy in the EU. Or anywhere else.

(The best you can offer is the SO2 reduction, which is nearly 100% the result of a switch to scrubbing, low-sulphur anthracite and coked bituminous, and less of the cruddy lignite. And it still increased costs and enriches traders instead of consumers)

And your OP title is still false.

jw



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


It is known as FOLLOW the MONEY. Strong is just a tool. You can bet your A$$ someone is going to rake in money and power from all this. Heck the UN Secratary General was putting pressure on the Senate to sign a treaty that gives HIM and the UN more power. Do you want it spelled out in blood before you can see the power politics??

Your so called "unbiased Scientists" are bought and PAID FOR I have seen scientists bought with my own eyes and several occasions, so I am not about to believe those funded by people with an agenda. That is especially true when those scientists who have retired suddenly switch their tune.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by melatonin
 


It is known as FOLLOW the MONEY. Strong is just a tool. You can bet your A$$ someone is going to rake in money and power from all this.


So in the space of a few posts, criticism has focused on the majority of US C&T permits being given away for free, and now it's about a someone raking in cash, lol.


Your so called "unbiased Scientists" are bought and PAID FOR I have seen scientists bought with my own eyes and several occasions, so I am not about to believe those funded by people with an agenda. That is especially true when those scientists who have retired suddenly switch their tune.


I'm sure you have, lol.

So you point to a website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, the baby of Robert Ferguson. The same Robert Ferguson whose last think-tank baby was the Centre for Science and Public Policy, which was funded by the likes of Exxon. The scientists associated with the SPPI are part of the same old deniers associated with a number of industry-funded right-wing/free market denialist think-tanks.


SPEAKERS ANNOUNCED FOR EASTERN COAL STATES MEETING
Saturday, 10/27/2007
Lord Monckton , retired international business consultant and former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, will join with Robert Ferguson, President of the Science and Public Policy Institute, to address the Eastern Coal States Coalition on November 14 at the Marriott Griffin Gate Conference Center in Lexington Ky. Please plan to attend.


Age of scientists provides no insight into the veracity of the science. In fact, from a Kuhnian perspective we'd expect many old fools to be clinging to previous surpassed scientific paradigms - those pesky kids with their newfangled ideas.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Gee, Mel, you are certainly making a lot of friends on this thread.


I read over your poll results. Impressive! Even more so when you consider that comedians have been making miles of humorous video tape each year since my memory, based on how dumb the average person is.

Congratulations, you have managed to state that a random poll of people who don;t know who the VP is agree on the science of Global Warming and the need for a Cap & Trade system to thwart the effects of an invisible gas.


As to the costs involved, I am sure there is wording in the C&T bills now being considered that makes sure no one will have to pay more than that $160 per year.

As to the redistribution of wealth, you appear to be arguing both sides of the issue... can I get a clarification based on this quote from you?

Selling permits brings in cash, this cash is used to offset increases in energy costs. Those at the lowest levels of income (lowest quartile, IIRC) will be offset to the point that their net outlay due to C&T will be negative (cf. baseline).

So you are saying that selling permits brings in cash, but does it not bring in cash to those who originally own the permits? Does this mean that CO2 permits will be issued to the poor? I understood C&T to be focused on providing CO2 permits to industry. Or are you saying that the permitted industries are the very poor?

Exactly how are the poor going to get an offset from the rise in their energy bill, when they will not be issued CO2 permits and therefore will not receive that offset capital?

You confuse me sometimes Mel...

TheRedneck

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Gee, Mel, you are certainly making a lot of friends on this thread.


As always. If you need advice on how to make friends and influence people, you know where to come, lol.


Congratulations, you have managed to state that a random poll of people who don;t know who the VP is agree on the science of Global Warming and the need for a Cap & Trade system to thwart the effects of an invisible gas.


Yeah, Madame Curie also had fun with those silly invisible gases.

Quite an achievement. I'm pretty impressed that 30%, or whatever, of those who fail to see 'solid' evidence of AGW still see the sense in reducing risk and also reliance on dirty-fuels.

Also, polls, m'dear.


As to the redistribution of wealth, you appear to be arguing both sides of the issue... can I get a clarification based on this quote from you?

Selling permits brings in cash, this cash is used to offset increases in energy costs. Those at the lowest levels of income (lowest quartile, IIRC) will be offset to the point that their net outlay due to C&T will be negative (cf. baseline).

So you are saying that selling permits brings in cash, but does it not bring in cash to those who originally own the permits? Does this mean that CO2 permits will be issued to the poor? I understood C&T to be focused on providing CO2 permits to industry. Or are you saying that the permitted industries are the very poor?


The permits have value that is passed onto consumers. A proportion are straight flogged to industry and the cash passed onto householders, and the rest are given away with provisos that their value is passed onto consumers. Obama's plan was straight sale of 100% and offsets to consumer price increases provided via tax cuts.



You confuse me sometimes Mel...

TheRedneck


I thought it was clear enough, hey-ho.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin

The permits have value that is passed onto consumers.

I am assuming that the bills include some sort of mandate for this? You are aware that businesses have a horrible record of voluntarily sending aid to the needy, correct?


A proportion are straight flogged to industry and the cash passed onto householders, and the rest are given away with provisos that their value is passed onto consumers.

So this is some sort of a government rebate, then? Very well, but who monitors those provisos?


Obama's plan was straight sale of 100% and offsets to consumer price increases provided via tax cuts.

So Obama wasn't going to funnel the cash from the sales of CC's on to poor individuals? Instead he wanted to give them a tax cut?

I don't think that plan will work. I distinctly remember a promise made during the last campaign that people in my income bracket would see a tax decrease. My taxes went up. I really don't care to get another 'tax break' from Obama; I can't afford the last one.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I am assuming that the bills include some sort of mandate for this? You are aware that businesses have a horrible record of voluntarily sending aid to the needy, correct?


The Waxman-Markey Bill compels them to pass the value on.


So this is some sort of a government rebate, then? Very well, but who monitors those provisos?


That would be something for you to look into. A bit beyond my knowledge of the US system.


So Obama wasn't going to funnel the cash from the sales of CC's on to poor individuals? Instead he wanted to give them a tax cut?


Well, I think a tax cut leads to a similar effect (more cash in pocket). But that was apparently his original proposal.


I don't think that plan will work. I distinctly remember a promise made during the last campaign that people in my income bracket would see a tax decrease. My taxes went up. I really don't care to get another 'tax break' from Obama; I can't afford the last one.


Here's one that has been implemented...


The Making Work Pay Tax Credit

Information for Individuals

Check Your Withholding

How will the Making Work Pay tax credit affect you?

Most wage earners will benefit immediately — or already have — with a larger paycheck as a result of the changes made to the federal income tax withholding tables to implement the Making Work Pay tax credit. Some people may find that the changes built into the withholding tables result in less tax being withheld than they prefer.
www.irs.gov...=204447,00.html

You'd have to look yourself for more. Again, my knowledge of all things stars and stripes is limited.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


There are thousands of other scientists, including those who participated on the IPCC reports who disagree with the claims laid out by the "policymakers."

BTW, are you going to deny that now-a-days scientific institutions get grants, and funds from certain groups, and elites who only want one side of the issue of Climate Change to be heard?....


Are you going to deny the fact that several scientists have had to resign, or were fired because of their own opinions regarding Climate Change, which go against the so called "scientific concensus"?....


Obviously you like to ignore facts, and evidence, not only regarding the evidence surrounding Climate Change, but the facts surrounding Climate Change/Global Wamring having been turned into a political, and economical tool by the AGWers in general....


But you keep trying to dismiss the evidence and facts, and you keep believing in the "fairy tales" being pushed by those with a political/economic agenda, which you keep trying to support despite the dozens, upon dozens of research papers which clearly show Climate Change is, and has been NATURAL...

Meanwhile you keep pushing for the same agendas the "policymakers, and the politicians are pushing, the rest of us will listen to the facts, and even to nature itself which has been showing the ongoing Climate Change has been, and is NATURAL..

[edit on 13-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 
Great observation about polls and this survey in particular.

I think Mel is saying, if you read carefully:


Selling permits brings in cash, this cash is used to offset increases in energy costs. Those at the lowest levels of income (lowest quartile, IIRC) will be offset to the point that their net outlay due to C&T will be negative (cf. baseline).


that the power companies will be giving power to the poor for free.

That is: "net outlay" ('cost' to normal folks) will be "negative" (less than zero) compared to "baseline" (market price). If "baseline" is market price, then negative baseline is "below market." That is, the power company will use the "credits" or "allowances" to pay some of the bills for the poor.

Yeah. Right.

Just like it works in the UK today.

(Have you ever seen a thread where so many replies have more stars than the OP?)

jw



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297



I have a small confession to make: I knew what he was trying to say; I just wanted to see him type out the words. To date, this has to be the most laughable aspect of Global Warming propaganda I have heard.

Utility companies will give away power.


I am afraid my dear old friend melatonin has worn out his arguments...

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck


I have a small confession to make...


Sure.

Take care.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Here here. This time I wont argue against AGW at all, I promise. For this one and only thread I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that Ala Gore is right. While I dont concur, I've been dying to hear what exactly you propose be done about the carbon boogie man? Although I do love how you're appealing to public consensus, you might want to chime in on the deconstructed consensus thread.

What to do about this?

Global government? End all nations, in practice, not rhetoric?

Global tax? How much?

Neighborhood snitch progams, and cameras everywhere like in London, to ensure people don't enviro-sin? Should we be able to ever NOT be on camera or in the scope of other surveillance technologies? Should government agents be allowed to 'sneak & peak' into our homes to make sure we're all enviro-tidy? Should energy be rationed, and if you hit too many KW's the meter cuts you off?

How much human life is it worth to curb CO2? The developing world NEEDS cheap energy to industrialize and climb out of mosquito mud hut obscurity. How many millions need to die every year via energy scarcity?

How much do we need to tax beef? In every day terms, say how much should an everyday 'burger' cost? $15? $25? $100? Beef rib-eye, boneless, steak, 12ounce, for $1200 ($100 per ounce)? Should we even have the right to raise our own cow and then steakify it? The right to eat meat period? Or should the government choose and ration us all our meals like they used to in the Soviet Union? Since the cows fart so much, shouldnt they be exterminated immediately?

Should the industrialized world deindustrialize, like Detroit? Shouldn't you stop using your computer?

Should we have brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins? (i.e. one child policy)

Since humans are the earths greatest threat, how many people should be exterminated right away?

There's no time to not act.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join