In Slap At Obama, GOP-Led House Moves To Block Steep Cuts To Greenhouse Gas Emissions

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: peter_kandra

How much will costs rise to the consumer?

Consumers will pay an additional $214 billion by 2030;
45 states will see double digit increases in wholesale electricity costs; and
16 states will see a 25 percent or higher increase in wholesale electricity costs.
instituteforenergyresearch.org...

You can find more by searching on term "How Much will Obama's Emissions Plan Cost".

And that's the reason I'm opposed to these schemes. I'm not unsympathetic to the desire to combat climate and environmental damage, but we have plenty of people in this country that can't afford a spike in their cost of living. Living in one of the poorest regions of the country, I see it every day. Unfortunately, I don't think Obama or the Democrat party understand this, or worse, as with many of their proposals that would adversely affect rural Americans, they simply don't give a damn.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Well not you if you think being ignorant of science is something to defend by being overly sarcastic and derisive of the science itself.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

More GOP obstruction. This is why our system of government is dysfunctional. It's so politically corrupt. Instead of voting on issues that would directly help the world and their constituents, the majority vote strictly along party lines. They don't have a mind of their own, follow in step with party leaders and cater to corporate influence. The GOP are so consumed with hating Obama it's affecting legislation that is beneficial to humanity. What a disgrace!

It makes me laugh,

Some people think the Republicans are opposed to this in the interest of poor people not the Koch brothers.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not if you're retired and living on a fixed income.
Not if you're the typical single mom working at a minimum wage job.

I mean really........you double the cost of electricity in the US and you don't think there's not going to be orders of magnitude of pain? Not to mention economic dislocation. So people can now get gasoline for $1.80 a gallon (and that won't last) but they have to pay twice as much for electricity? That will heavily impact discretionary spending and we all know the consumer drives this economy. This would be an economic Armageddon at a time when the real economy isn't doing all that well to begin with!

originally posted by: vor78
And that's the reason I'm opposed to these schemes. I'm not unsympathetic to the desire to combat climate and environmental damage, but we have plenty of people in this country that can't afford a spike in their cost of living. Living in one of the poorest regions of the country, I see it every day. Unfortunately, I don't think Obama or the Democrat party understand this, or worse, as with many of their proposals that would adversely affect rural Americans, they simply don't give a damn.

You know that is a reasonable concern to have, but no one mentions this. If you agree with the science but think the solution sucks then say something and we can try to work out a more agreeable solution, but MOSTLY these conversations never get to the solutions discussion phase and we spend all day discussing if it is real or not. So how can you blame the Democrats for not listening to your grievances? The opposite side of the debate has to actually JOIN the debate first.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Bullcrap! Climate change is poised to cause WAY more considerable threat to the entire world's stability than ISIS could ever hope to achieve. What do you think is going to happen when sea levels continue to rise and force millions of people further inland? What do you think will happen when shifting climate patterns create new deserts forcing the people there to either consume more resources or move elsewhere? What do you think will happen when nastier and nastier hurricanes rip through more and more coastal cities?

How will a new tax do anything to prevent sea levels from rising or stop the climate from changing like it has been since this planet was formed. People are for improving energy efficiency of appliances and vehicles. The more energy efficiency a product is, the less it costs us to use it.

What has the history of this planet shown us. It shows us if you build on coast lines, sooner or later that land will be underwater. We can see that by the stone structures under water.

Oh by the way, China and India have joined the bandwagon. I know many deniers like to talk about why we should do anything about climate change if those two countries aren't. Well there you go. They are.

China and India have the biggest population, they still don't have the environment protections we do in the West. We don't pollute the land or water ways like we see in China and India. Last i checked we don't dump dead bodies in a river like they do in India. If any agreements ends up hurting China or India economy, they will ignore the agreements.

a reply to: TonyS

Well do you have a better idea to help curb CO2 emissions and prevent further damaging of our planet due to man made Climate Change or are you just feigning concern for people's paychecks so you don't have to acknowledge the science?

originally posted by: Echo007
How will a new tax do anything to prevent sea levels from rising or stop the climate from changing like it has been since this planet was formed. People are for improving energy efficiency of appliances and vehicles. The more energy efficiency a product is, the less it costs us to use it.

What has the history of this planet shown us. It shows us if you build on coast lines, sooner or later that land will be underwater. We can see that by the stone structures under water.

WE are causing the change in coast lines through our own actions. Therefore it reasons if we want to slow this down, we stop the things we are going that contribute to these changes. Obviously.

China and India have the biggest population, they still don't have the environment protections we do in the West. We don't pollute the land or water ways like we see in China and India. Last i checked we don't dump dead bodies in a river like they do in India. If any agreements ends up hurting China or India economy, they will ignore the agreements.

That remains to be seen, but they at least acknowledge the science.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Well not you if you think being ignorant of science is something to defend by being overly sarcastic and derisive of the science itself.

"The science itself"

Yeah, that thing. Back to square one I guess huh? And in the meantime, ignore SALAFIST TERRORISTS, and tax the U.S. people MORE to answer the definitive question of the ages.... 'climate change'


I gotta go to work but this has been silly. I was being sarcastic to show the SILLINESS of what is proposed by some in your camp.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You have not done your research on the profiteers behind global warming, and the trillions invested on it, guess what, number one are actually the energy companies like the oil barons, see, it have to be wealthy investors able to put out the capital investments in order to generate the profits.

Research my friend, you will learn why I am here screaming the most about why clima change is bad science and horrible policies to benefit only those with the most money to invest on it.

I posted the link a while back, I guess you miss it.

America is owned by only a few after all, they manage to created crisis in order to push policies and laws that only benefit them, you are very smart in politics you should know this by now.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: peter_kandra
I didn't see anything in the article about the costs associated with the plan. How much is his plan expected to increase the average electric/gas bill? I'd be fine with 5%, maybe 10%. If it's more than that then I'm sorry because my health insurance premium increases have been ridiculous over the past 2 years.

Are there other hidden costs also not factored in, like businesses and industries passing on their utility cost increases to consumers?

It's interesting you mention insurance, because they appear to be on board with Climate Change.

Big Insurance Companies Are Warning The U.S. To Prepare For Climate Change

How the insurance industry sees climate change

My reply was geared towards health insurance. I would imagine that property insurance companies would be in favor since it reduces their potential claims liability for coastal property owners. I've always lived inland...20 miles to the shore at the closest, and never in a rated flood zone, so my premiums have always been reasonable for property insurance.

Ironically, my wife and I are arguing about a future retirement home. I'd love the mountains of Georgia or North Carolina, while she would prefer coastal South Carolina, but that would probably come with hefty property insurance costs.

I'm not denying man's contribution to climate change, but certain outside factors just can't be mitigated, no matter how much we reduce our carbon and other emissions.

Thousands of deaths from gang related shootings in major urban cities....nothing

Tens of THOUSANDS of teens killed by texting while driving....NOTHING

Poverty, lack of insurance, diabetes, drug use, obesity, heart disease killing millions...NOTHING

A CALIPHATE attempting to spread through the Levant, Mid East, and then the world...using terror tactics to scare, sway, influence, kill almost EVERY foreign government and people ...NOTHING

But Climate Change!!....ALL IN BABY!! Push all the chips in...FULL HOUSE to YOUR Jack/2 Off-Suit...YEEHAWW

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Well not you if you think being ignorant of science is something to defend by being overly sarcastic and derisive of the science itself.

"The science itself"

Yes the science, which you steadfastly refuse to address or acknowledge.

Yeah, that thing. Back to square one I guess huh? And in the meantime, ignore SALAFIST TERRORISTS, and tax the U.S. people MORE to answer the definitive question of the ages.... 'climate change'

Where did this conversation about ignoring terrorists come from? Last I checked we just put more boots on the ground in Iraq, that's clearly NOT ignoring terrorists. The only thing wrong here is the idea that terrorists pose a bigger threat to the world than climate change. Terrorists only pose a threat to the region they live in (and to anyone who lets themselves fear them like you obviously do).

I gotta go to work but this has been silly. I was being sarcastic to show the SILLINESS of what is proposed by some in your camp.

No #. I know what you were doing, but it was just making YOU look silly, not me.

a reply to: buster2010

We do have the tech to get us to a 70% reduction of carbon emissions now.
How Can the U.S. Substantially Reduce Carbon Emissions?
Through the use of solar, wind and nuclear we can reduce it by quite a lot.

but at what cost?

Also, since the data varies by study it would be difficult to produce an accurate cost-benefit analysis. I would be more likely to support adjusting to the changing climate than to trying to prevent the climate from changing. At least then it would actually make sense to me as opposed to 'pissing against the wind' and trying to prevent the climate from changing (which it will always do regardless of people).

One other thought...I have a hard time justifying nuclear energy as the waste product is potentially as damaging to the environment as the emissions its use prevents. Also, the potential for disaster (see Chernobyl / Japan) is simply too great and not necessarily avoidable.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Well not you if you think being ignorant of science is something to defend by being overly sarcastic and derisive of the science itself.

"The science itself"

Yes the science, which you steadfastly refuse to address or acknowledge.

Yeah, that thing. Back to square one I guess huh? And in the meantime, ignore SALAFIST TERRORISTS, and tax the U.S. people MORE to answer the definitive question of the ages.... 'climate change'

Where did this conversation about ignoring terrorists come from? Last I checked we just put more boots on the ground in Iraq, that's clearly NOT ignoring terrorists. The only thing wrong here is the idea that terrorists pose a bigger threat to the world than climate change. Terrorists only pose a threat to the region they live in (and to anyone who lets themselves fear them like you obviously do).

I gotta go to work but this has been silly. I was being sarcastic to show the SILLINESS of what is proposed by some in your camp.

No #. I know what you were doing, but it was just making YOU look silly, not me.

Literally dude, by the time it took for you to type that, about 5 American teenagers died while texting..

Literally...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No #. I know what you were doing, but it was just making YOU look silly, not me.

I disagree.

You definitely look silly to me.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why do you have to adopt the EXACT opposite position of everything the Democrats, no... Obama has?

Why do you applaud everything the Democrats and Obama do? I have never, ever seen you support any idea from Republicans and you always back Democrats, no matter how the idea will effect the middle or lower class. The LAST thing we need is energy costs going up and putting more restrictions on energy producers will do just that. And as usual, the "It's for the children" excuse is trotted out.

In effect, the trans Pacific partnership pushed through has enabled government's to sue if corporate profits are in danger.

The reigns have been passed over to trans national corporations. If you think for one second they will give up profits...ie polluting, I have some beach front property in Arizona for sale.


Source

ronically, the Obama administration has been one of the most active ever in combatting climate change. The proposed Clean Power Plan, for example, would limit emissions from power plants and is considered a key component of Obama’s final years in office.

“[The TPP] just contradicts the president’s climate policy,” Bill Waren, a trade analyst with Friends of the Earth, told ThinkProgress. “One hand takes away from the other.”

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You have not done your research on the profiteers behind global warming, and the trillions invested on it, guess what, number one are actually the energy companies like the oil barons, see, it have to be wealthy investors able to put out the capital investments in order to generate the profits.

I'm not sure that you've done your research either since you haven't posted any evidence. Just more and more words and a liberal use of the bold feature.

Research my friend, you will learn why I am here screaming the most about why clima change is bad science and horrible policies to benefit only those with the most money to invest on it.

You are making the claims. Produce the evidence.

I posted the link a while back, I guess you miss it.

I just rechecked all of your posts, you haven't posted a single link backing up anything you've said in any of your posts in this thread. So I didn't miss anything. I just ignored it because it was the ramblings of an unsourced opinion on the internet.

America is owned by only a few after all, they manage to created crisis in order to push policies and laws that only benefit them, you are very smart in politics you should know this by now.

This sentence doesn't prove anything.