Global Warming Bill passes House

The Destroy America's Competitiveness Act narrowly passes House, with 42 Democrats voting against the bill.... The act actually dovetails with the Forced Collectivization of Health Care that the White House is engaging in (taxing employer issued healt care benefits)... elderly cost the most to keep alive in a Health care system, and this bill will freeze elderly to death across northern states.

Unbelievable. Despite the fact that America already struggles to meet its energy needs, the Obama White House, in an obvious pandering to Chinese and Indian Lobbyists, "rahm-rodded" the so-called climate change bill through the house, its future in the senate remains murky.

Despite the fact that China & India will be free to continue to burn oil & coal till the skies are blacked out across the globe, Obama, on the orders of his "Chief of Handlers", Rahm Emmanuel, has decided to unilaterally tax energy produced by oil, coal, natural gas and .... wait for it... nuclear energy, even though nuclear energy produces little to no CO2 emissions, and greenie-weenie France gets close to 85% of their power from nuclear energy. Japan llikewise gets a large portion of their energy from nuclear energy.

But not us... nope. From now own, burning wood to heat your home will bankrupt you. God forbid you try to get heating oil or natural gas to heat your home. Emmanuel's answer to freezing families in Norhtern States? Maybe a windwill or a solar panel will heat your house. Doesn't matter, he doesn't care. Just shut up and turn off your heaters.

There... the old Don Corleone back for one quick Sunday morning grenade lobbed. I'm actually on a vacation weekend, so any responses aren't me shying away... I'll respond when I get home this evening.

We in the rest of the world thank you.

Oh ffs

idiots

If the word "energy efficiency" was not viewed as some sort of Lefty-Euro-Pinko nonsense you'd have easily enough energy.

The USA remains a world leader in waste in pretty much every aspect of people's lives, whether it is calories per head or litres of water used per head or energy per head.

Stop throwing the toys out of the pram, find some big boy pants and act like the world leader than you seem to like being viewed as when you feel it makes you look good.

In scandanavia they seem to manage to live through the winter OK. Insulation? Big work I know but it helps conserve energy

Wow! That's what, 3 new concepts for a Sunday? Best have a lie down and polish your firearm :clown:

~:smoking:

I smell a rat.

Big Hummers = energy inefficiency = high oil prices = lots of money for Iranian despots = dead Neda.


So there. :smug:

Sorry, you're getting no sympathy here, it's about time America had a civilised healthcare system and a responsible energy policy. I expect Obama has not gone far enough.

Hehe, it's exactly what the screaming heads on talk radio say: "He's gonna turn us into England (sic) or worse yet... FRANCE!!!". :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Hehe, it's exactly what the screaming heads on talk radio say: "He's gonna turn us into England (sic) or worse yet... FRANCE!!!". :laugh4:

---

I thought we liked France now. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Sorry, you're getting no sympathy here, it's about time America had a civilised healthcare system and a responsible energy policy.

---

Indeed. 'Me, me, me and after me the deluge' capitalism is dead.

Healthcare, energy, acceptance of governance in the financial sector, immigration - all these issues are being tackled as we speak. No more sweeping problems under the rug in a bid to placate the (short-term) interests of minority pressure groups.

Pretty much the same energy bill was proposed waayyy back in 1993. It didn't make it. The result: thousands of Americans dead protecting America's energy supply. A truly staggering transfer of wealth to Chavez, Iran, Saudis, Russia. Climate and environmental problems. A bankrupt Detroit, oblivious to the sign of the times.

The days are over of bumper stickers on SUV's saying 'I support the troops' (dying in a godforsaken desert for my gasguzzling ways)

Hummer is bankrupt. It was sold off for a pittance to the Chinese. To then add insult to America's injury, the Chinese government blocked the bid - they wouldn't even have that rubbish for free.


Get with the times. America is showing its divine capability to always reinvent itself faster than anybody can say 'America is history'. The kool kids know this bill is where its at. Rearguard skirmishes are a waste of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Hehe, it's exactly what the screaming heads on talk radio say: "He's gonna turn us into England (sic) or worse yet... FRANCE!!!". :laugh4:

---

You should be so lucky.:beam:

Kicking and screaming, me and my countrymen will hurtle ourselves over the cliff of change into the abyss of the unknown...

only to find new valleys and forests of opportunity spread before us.

I'm actually proud that this Bill saw an extremely tight vote in the House. Why? Because people picked up the phone, or got on the 'net, and told their Rep's what they think. We keep thinking D.C. is a closed community that we cannot effect. That idea is fostered by the pundits on TV and Radio. But it isn't true. What we, the people, say DOES matter - every bit as much as the kids in Tehran.

Empowerment. It's not just for breakfast anymore. Peaceful empowerment = even better.

Whats wrong with acting a little eurocentric? And it may not kill our competitiveness; after all we are China's largest exporter, and if we buy less, they make less.

If the tax was proportional to the amount of carbon then it would be fair to level it at Nuclear. If it is on joule produced then it is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

We in the rest of the world thank you.

---

You say that, but when we finally go broke and take the rest of you :daisy: with us... :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

You say that, but when we finally go broke and take the rest of you :daisy: with us... :2thumbsup:

---

Australia relies on China anyway :laugh4:

And whom does China rely on, sir?

a side question: i dont get why all the environmentalists are so against nuclear power plants.
is it the 3-mile island or Chernobyl incidents that get them scared? i think that building more plants will help in the short term, while we work for a better solution in the long term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

We in the rest of the world thank you.

---

Don't get too excited, it'll probably die in the Senate.

This bill is a jaw-droppingly stupid idea on pretty much every level. Proposing what amounts to one of the highest tax increases ever in the midst of a recession is just dumb. You can expect the Republicans to use this vote as hammer to pound Democrat reps from moderate districts- and they deserve any flack they get from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

And whom does China rely on, sir?

---

They can call in the US debt before the US goes down. Not that I think it will.

What would we pay them with?

a side question: i dont get why all the environmentalists are so against nuclear power plants.
is it the 3-mile island or Chernobyl incidents that get them scared? i think that building more plants will help in the short term, while we work for a better solution in the long term.

I agree completely, France has the right idea (as per usual ~;)).

I think for the viro's its a mix of the disasters we've had and what to to with the radioactive waste. If global warmings as serious as the experts make it out to be then surely storing a little nuclear waste and paying a bit extra to ensure its safe is a wrothy price to pay...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

What would we pay them with?

---

Higher taxes, I presume.

You don't really appreciate how deep in a whole we are. :D

I'm having a hearty laugh at all the non-Americans acting self-righteous.

Now tell me - how many other countries signed the Kyoto agreement? And more importantly, how many are actually keeping to the agreement? IIRC, not many at all.

Quote:

---

We in the rest of the world thank you.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Australia just pushed back any possible implementation of their global warming bill, didn't they?

As for this - it's complete bull****.

It will raise energy costs, which will hurt the poor. It will benefit certain industries favored by powerful congressmen over others, in an economically inefficient way (wind and solar are called renewable, water power isn't. Nuke power isn't).

Everything, and I mean everything, because everything requires energy, will increase in cost. So more people will have their purchasing power reduced as they find themselves paying a larger percentage of their income for what they regard as essentials.

That means, simply, less money spent on other things. And so all those industries will suffer, and workers will be fired.

Obama's claimed that a "million" :rolleyes: new jobs will be created. I'll admit I haven't read the bill - one reason being the democrats unveiling 300 new pages on Friday morning (That's another thing - no one has read the whole thing - they are blindly making laws). So maybe the bill includes a bunch of subsidies for inefficient job creation. But that money isn't free - it will come from taxes. And those taxes mean people purchase less of the things they really want. And those industries suffer and lose jobs.

It will take some time, of course. Time before the energy caps become really onerous, before the taxes to pay for all of Obama's policies are really jacked up. But it will come if this bill becomes law.

Quote:

---

Get with the times. America is showing its divine capability to always reinvent itself faster than anybody can say 'America is history'. The kool kids know this bill is where its at. Rearguard skirmishes are a waste of time.

---

One thing France has going for it is a sensible view on Nuke plants. But knee-capping one's economy is not reinvention.

And, of course, there's the fact that this hysteria about "global warming" is overblown. Man doesn't have a significant effect on the climate. So this bill will only hurt us. Why has the temp not increased for around a decade as CO2 increase?

Though if you are a devout follower of High Priest Gore, than you still have to acknowledge that even the UN report that came out recently said that even a massive, world wide fight against "climate change" would only affect the world temperature by a degree or two.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Australia just pushed back any possible implementation of their global warming bill, didn't they?

---

You clearly don't understand the reasons why. Our Senate is multi-party. Only the party currently in government supported the implementation of their climate change package. The (even more) Conservative opposition decided to sit on their hands because they:
1) Wanted to delay implementation of the bill.
2) Are a party where climate change denialists make up a large proportion
3) They are utterly irrelevant in our political landscape at the moment and as such take every opportunity to be obstructionist.
Further, one other conservative Independent Senator has recently come out and stated he is a sceptic. Together the opposition conservatives plus him make up a majority in the Senate.

The left-wing party and Independent in the Senate did not want to support the bill because it was absolute :daisy: . The targets were weak, the cap-and-trade system used was appauling, there was too much corporate welfare, etc, etc. It is likely the government will change their proposed bill to make it more in line with what these Senators want and will try to woo over one of the Conservatives. If this fails they are allowed to call an election for the Senate which is likely to see a Labor-Greens coalition that can pass the bill.

The bill did not pass because it is unpopular, far from it. The bill did not pass because it was a bad bill from whichever angle you looked at it. We are likely to see a new bill passed some time early next year, if not late this year and it is likely to be more left-wing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I'm having a hearty laugh at all the non-Americans acting self-righteous.

Now tell me - how many other countries signed the Kyoto agreement? And more importantly, how many are actually keeping to the agreement? IIRC, not many at all.

CR

---

in full agreement there, must be a legacy of roman-law that countries can spend so much energy pontificating on the need for new legislation, and so much energy enacting it into law, and then so much energy not implementing it.*

No-one doubts that climate changes, and I know that it can be catastrophic, but if this bout ain’t anthopogenic, or; is anthopogenic but not catastrophic, or; is catastrophic but not CO2 induced, then our current direction in spending trillions in future wealth growth may be as futile and pointless as Canute with his tides.

In ten years time 2008/09 may well be remembered as the year when the tide turned against catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 induced climate change.
How much longer might it take to come to realise that the best way to let the most vulnerable escape the effects of climate change is to allow them free-trade so that they can become wealthy enough to mitigate the effects of extreme weather, just like the developed world has been doing for centuries.



* However Common Law loses some of its lustre here as the UK has been quite enthusiastic about ever greater measures to 'save' the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

If the tax was proportional to the amount of carbon then it would be fair to level it at Nuclear. If it is on joule produced then it is not.

---

If it was based upon the whole life of the plans and procurement of fuel I'd agree. Nuclear then gets a penalty for building, refining the ore and decomissioning - although the newer plants are easier to build, safer, can recycle other plant's waste and produce less of their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

a side question: i dont get why all the environmentalists are so against nuclear power plants.
is it the 3-mile island or Chernobyl incidents that get them scared? i think that building more plants will help in the short term, while we work for a better solution in the long term.

---

Enviromentalists as a group complain about everything:

1. Overproduction of crops
2. Failing to feed the population
3. Culling of some species
4. Failure to cull other species
5. Gas power
6. Nuclear Power
7. Coal Power
8. Tidal power (flood plains and loss of habitat)
9. Wind power (hurts birds, the landscape and bats)
10. [Probably] solar power
11. Loss of diversity of species
12. Movement of species
13. Technology
14. Enterprise
15. Baically developments in the last 1,000 years

It's easy to complain, but far more difficult to have a problem and counter with a coherant solution.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Australia just pushed back any possible implementation of their global warming bill, didn't they?

---

Fair cop, but our energy usage, while still rather high, is less than you lot.

I don't think that our CO2 emissions are making a significant impact on global warming. Then again there's no way to know. Regardless, I think it's a good idea to start building up renewable energy sources because fossil fuels will run out eventually. It won't be for a good long while, and chances are I'll be dead before then, but they will run out one day. On that day, wouldn't it be better to have 90% of usage coming from renewable, rather than 90% coming from fossil fuels? This should be a gradual process though, bankrupting people over this is foolish. USA still needs to use less energy though. :grin:

A bit off topic, but what I find more shocking than energy squandering is your water squandering. Australia's litre/capita/day(l/c/d) was 282l/c/d in 2004-5. A value that I consider altogether far too excessive, we can't afford such a high water usage, people need to get it into their thick heads that we are living on the driest continent. In comparison to the USA however we're hardly using any water. The number in the USA was 608l/c/d in 1996-1998. If anyone can find more recent figures I'd be much obliged. For comparison, numbers in Australia back then were a little over 300l/c/d.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

[Probably] solar power

---

I realise you stuck a probably there, but what bad effects can solar possibly have? In Australia, home energy use could be easily covered, with plenty to spare, by sticking a solar panel on every roof.