Global Warming Bill passes House

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

What would we pay them with?

[LittleGrizzly]

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...

[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.

We in the rest of the world thank you.

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" 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.

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

[CountArach]

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 . 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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

climate change denialists

Are you suggesting Americans are climate septics?


* Hah! I've out-ozzied the Aussi!! *

Moi Aussi, Aussi, Aussi! Oui! Oui! Oui!

Never mind. One for the franco and ozzophones. Carry on. Call me the monster of Francozstein.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

I never gave reasons for it not passing - I simply wanted to show that the 'rest of the world', smugly thanking us, isn't doing anything themselves.

Also, as a green party member- are you a supporter of water (ie dams on rivers) and nuclear power, or just the environmental ones that are unproven for supplying any significant fraction of a nation's energy?

Build a few miles of cable to connect the solar plants to America's power grid?

I'm assuming from that statement you're not an engineering type.

As a general remark, environmental concerns are not leftist.

Well the greens and the socialists always seem to be cozying up with one another.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm assuming from that statement you're not an engineering type.

I am too!!

For example, I once managed to correctly connect all the cables on my new computer!

[CountArach]

Also, as a green party member- are you a supporter of water (ie dams on rivers) and nuclear power, or just the environmental ones that are unproven for supplying any significant fraction of a nation's energy?

No problem with dams, because I think that there are no other practical ways to collect the water Australia needs, but I would prefer that local environmental concerns are kept in mind at the same time. As for Nuclear, if someone can come up with a cost-effective and environmentally sound way to dispose of the excess then I have no problem with it. I just don't believe that those exist yet.

Also I would take Nuclear over fossil fuels any day, it's just that I think we have far safer technology at our hands now. Geothermal and tidal, for instance, could power a lot of Australia.

[Devastatin Dave]

The only thing about this that I'm going to enjoy is watching the great wailing and gnashing of teeth of all the parasites that feed off the government teet having to fork out their less than hard earned money for higher gas prices, utlities, and other affected items that they thought their messiah was going to give them, or shall i say, take from someone else and give them. They get to feel the pain of Obamanation like the other people living in reality an not in the world of Hope and Change.
Just wait till he breaks his promis about not raising taxes on the folks making less that 250,000. I'm going to sit back and drink a bud.

BTW, Green is the new Red. Most of the greenies' leaders are nothing more closet marxist trying to "spread the wealth" as the Kenyan/American President would say. If your part of the movement, your just a useful, well, individual.

[Beskar]

Everyone always misses ITER out when talking about energy solutions.

[Furunculus]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

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.

[miotas]

[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.

[rory_20_uk]

The thing is I can't see a problem with wave, wind or tidal - but Enviromentalists can.

Guesses would be:

Destruction of habitat (those deserts are precious you know, and almost everything does...)
Wasteful manufacturing process


There's probably some bug or whatever who'se numbers will be threatened if you try to build one.

Solar sounds for both micro and macro uses to be fantastic, making electricity and also reducing the amount that is required in many cases (solar cells prevent IR and UV rays getting through special glass, so less air con to cool the office down).

I think that a mixed approach is best; one thing I thought would be a dead cert would be building masses of geothermal plants on Iceland. But no, tehy're an eyesore... The whole country is a desolate rock. Who the hell cares?

[KukriKhan]

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).

This is my primary objection to the proposed law. Fortunately, as Xiahou points out, it needs a nod from the Senate too, where it faces another stiff battle over provisions. Maybe they'll find time to read it. :)

This program is heralded as "ground-breaking", and it is for us. But "ground-breaking" = experimental, in my opinion. Predictions (both dire and glorious) have been made about the likely consequences of the program - the fact is: no body knows for certain. Therefore, in its final form it desperately needs a sunset-provision, an automatic cutoff that'll take effect in say 2012, when it can either be ignored and binned as bad law, or renewed as something workable that we like and support.

[Papewaio]

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.

Yes, just like comparing the cost of creating polystyrene cups vs clay and then repeated hot water and detergent (with phosphates or other chemicals) makes some interesting analysis. True total cost should be compared. Much like the not so well thought out first phase of CFC replacements had some worse chemicals substituted as replacements.

One thing that should be looked at is not just carbon released but all the greenhouse gases. And yes from go to woe including transportation costs of the coal to the stations would be useful.

=][=

Mind you do we want a cooler or hotter planet? Surely hotter means the ability to feed more people.

[Papewaio]

If you are green and believe that mother nature knows best then the number one energy source would have to be Fusion. But since we can't make our own suns, the next best natural made thing would be Fission. As I haven't seen a nature made coal plant, or windfarm, or solar farm (mind you an organic solar panel that uses plant properties would be cool)... but nature does make its own nuclear reactors.

So for the natural energy source, made by mother nature and found here on earth. GO NUKE!

[miotas]

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.

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.

[CountArach]

What would we pay them with?

Higher taxes, I presume.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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