The Conundrum Of Progressive Politics

[FaninAma]

I read this on the internet so I can't or don't want to take credit for it. Still....a good read.


Conundrum
The definition of the word Conundrum is: something that is puzzling or confusing.
Here are six Conundrums of socialism in the United States of America:
1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.
2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.
3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.
4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.
5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
Think about it! And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in the 21st Century. Makes you wonder who is doing the math.
The following three, short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our current government and cultural environment:
1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.
2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money? What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't. Think about it.....
3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens.
Am I the only one missing something?

[Curly Bill]

Progressivism/liberalism, whatever one may call it is symptomatic of non-thinking, non-rational people. Nothing anyone might say to them will shake them from their wrongheaded thinking. They are what they are, and as long as there are people on this planet there will be some for whom common sense makes no sense at all.

[Turd_Ferguson]

8th prolly read this and his head esploded off his shoulders...

[Curly Bill]

8th prolly read this and his head esploded off his shoulders...

We can only hope! One less POS liberal around to pollute the earth.

[Soonerjeepman]

just posted it on FB...what a great saying...TRUTH

[yermom]

Christianity/conservatism, whatever one may call it is symptomatic of non-thinking, non-rational people. Nothing anyone might say to them will shake them from their wrongheaded thinking. They are what they are, and as long as there are people on this planet there will be some for whom common sense makes no sense at all.

you may be on to something here

[Sooner8th]

We can only hope! One less POS liberal around to pollute the earth.

You people live in an alternate universe. You have a conversation about "Conundrums of socialism in the United States of America", but it does not mention the most socialist piece of America - FARMING. They have a guaranteed price for what is produced. They don't have to pay taxes on gasoline. They have GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED INSURANCE -maybe if we called it obamacrop they wouldn't take it. When there is a any kind of a natural disaster, if you can categorize too much rain or too little rain as a natural disaster - guess what? YEP - first in line to the government with their hand out. Paying people not to grow. Paying people who don't live on nor work on a farm - MICHELE BACHMANN. In the spending cutting frenzy by the republicans guess who's spending got increased? The farm portion of the farm bill. Who do farmers and the rural people this socialist system supports vote for REPUBLICANS! Funny how that works.

[olevetonahill]

Moran alert, Who rang his bell?

[TAFBSooner]

Half of the population is subsidized - . . . - yet their representatives run the government.


(Ignoring the bad accounting which includes Social Security beneficiaries and government/military retirees among the "subsidized" . . .)

How in the world can you believe that representatives of welfare recipients run the government? Those who run the government represent the 1%, especially Wall Street.

[TAFBSooner]

Moran alert, Who rang his bell?

You like farm subsidies? You gettin government checks for that bottomland east of yer hill?

[olevetonahill]

You like farm subsidies? You gettin government checks for that bottomland east of yer hill?

Yer almost as bad as he is. Spin and deflect and try to put words in some elses mouth.

[OU68]

(Ignoring the bad accounting which includes Social Security beneficiaries and government/military retirees among the "subsidized" . . .)

How in the world can you believe that representatives of welfare recipients run the government? Those who run the government represent the 1%, especially Wall Street.

Oh yeah! It was all those 1%ers that lined up to vote Obammy into office twice. :highly_amused:

[TAFBSooner]

Oh yeah! It was all those 1%ers that lined up to vote Obammy into office twice. :highly_amused:

It was all those 1%ers that gave more money to his campaign than to the senator from cR-AZy. Not to mention that George Washington couldn't have been elected as a Republican in 2008.

Also, "running the government" includes the Democratic Senate and the Republican House, in addition to POTUS.

[OU68]

It was all those 1%ers that gave more money to his campaign than to the senator from cR-AZy. Not to mention that George Washington couldn't have been elected as a Republican in 2008.

Also, "running the government" includes the Democratic Senate and the Republican House, in addition to POTUS.

Can't argue with that, and that scares the sh*t out of me concerning 2016. Unless the Pubs find a black, native-american woman - I fear we don't have a chance.

[TAFBSooner]

Can't argue with that, and that scares the sh*t out of me concerning 2016. Unless the Pubs find a black, native-american woman - I fear we don't have a chance.

Cheer up. The Dems have just as little chance of taking the House. And being able to block is a good place for conservatives.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Moran alert, Who rang his bell?

Did you happen to notice that the libtards that came a running didn't dispute ONE thing in the OP?

HAHAHA...deflect and make counter accusations!!

[olevetonahill]

Did you happen to notice that the libtards that came a running didn't dispute ONE thing in the OP?

HAHAHA...deflect and make counter accusations!!

They Spin and deflect bro.

[Sooner8th]

Did you happen to notice that the libtards that came a running didn't dispute ONE thing in the OP?

HAHAHA...deflect and make counter accusations!!

You guys are too funny. Did you happen to notice that the conservitrons didn't dispute ONE thing I said? Just accuse of deflect and making counter accusations!!

It is meaningless to answer the post, you have your alternate universe view of the world, one in which one can show you proof your view is faults, but you will continue to argue your unarguable point.

[olevetonahill]

You guys are too funny. Did you happen to notice that the conservitrons didn't dispute ONE thing I said? Just accuse of deflect and making counter accusations!!

It is meaningless to answer the post, you have your alternate universe view of the world, one in which one can show you proof your view is faults, but you will continue to argue your unarguable point.

Why should anyone dispute anything you say? You dint address the OP just started with yer Spin crap. **** off dip ****

[okie52]

You people live in an alternate universe. You have a conversation about "Conundrums of socialism in the United States of America", but it does not mention the most socialist piece of America - FARMING. They have a guaranteed price for what is produced. They don't have to pay taxes on gasoline. They have GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED INSURANCE -maybe if we called it obamacrop they wouldn't take it. When there is a any kind of a natural disaster, if you can categorize too much rain or too little rain as a natural disaster - guess what? YEP - first in line to the government with their hand out. Paying people not to grow. Paying people who don't live on nor work on a farm - MICHELE BACHMANN. In the spending cutting frenzy by the republicans guess who's spending got increased? The farm portion of the farm bill. Who do farmers and the rural people this socialist system supports vote for REPUBLICANS! Funny how that works.

You're absolutely right...the pubs should have been cutting farm subsidies and they didn't. Really inexcusable on their part. Most rural areas do go pub but certainly not all of them.

But the dems certainly don't get completely off the hook as they have been one of the biggest proponents of ethanol and ethanol subsidies. The ethanol subsidies expired but the mandatory inclusion as an energy source didn't so the country is still having to use ethanol. You do remember Obama championing ethanol and ethanol subsidies in 2008 in Iowa don't you? It got him his initial boost over Hillary in the Iowa caucus.

[Sooner8th]

You're absolutely right...the pubs should have been cutting farm subsidies and they didn't. Really inexcusable on their part. Most rural areas do go pub but certainly not all of them.

But the dems certainly don't get completely off the hook as they have been one of the biggest proponents of ethanol and ethanol subsidies. The ethanol subsidies expired but the mandatory inclusion as an energy source didn't so the country is still having to use ethanol. You do remember Obama championing ethanol and ethanol subsidies in 2008 in Iowa don't you? It got him his initial boost over Hillary in the Iowa caucus.

First off - rural is HEAVILY REPUBLICAN. Second - republican loved it too, because it raised farm income.

[Sooner8th]

Why should anyone dispute anything you say? You dint address the OP just started with yer Spin crap. **** off dip ****

Unbelievable - conservatives mindlessly regurgitate a rightwing talking point and take it as gospel. Don't even bother to check it out and see where it came or from if it is accurate.

[okie52]

First off - rural is HEAVILY REPUBLICAN. Second - republican loved it too, because it raised farm income.

Didn't I say that? But the top four corn producing states are Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and Illinois....How many of those states went republican? What was Obama's home state again?

And it was the pubs that sought to end the ethanol subsidies..and they did as they expired a couple of years ago. The only problem is that it was a meaningless end of subsidies since it is mandated that ethanol be included as an energy source....something that virtually every dem supports (see cap and trade).

[Sooner8th]

Didn't I say that? But the top four corn producing states are Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and Illinois....How many of those states went republican? What was Obama's home state again?

And it was the pubs that sought to end the ethanol subsidies..and they did as they expired a couple of years ago. The only problem is that it was a meaningless end of subsidies since it is mandated that ethanol be included as an energy source....something that virtually every dem supports (see cap and trade).

You are counting mandated ethanol as an energy source to be a subsidy? and CAP AND TRADE IS A REPUBLICAN IDEA!

[SoonerorLater]

You people live in an alternate universe. You have a conversation about "Conundrums of socialism in the United States of America", but it does not mention the most socialist piece of America - FARMING. They have a guaranteed price for what is produced. They don't have to pay taxes on gasoline. They have GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED INSURANCE -maybe if we called it obamacrop they wouldn't take it. When there is a any kind of a natural disaster, if you can categorize too much rain or too little rain as a natural disaster - guess what? YEP - first in line to the government with their hand out. Paying people not to grow. Paying people who don't live on nor work on a farm - MICHELE BACHMANN. In the spending cutting frenzy by the republicans guess who's spending got increased? The farm portion of the farm bill. Who do farmers and the rural people this socialist system supports vote for REPUBLICANS! Funny how that works.

Actually a great many don't support Republicans. Some farming states consistently fall into Democratic camp. ie. Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin (heavily subsidized dairy industry). However I certainly agree that this kind of government largess needs to come to an end.

[okie52]

You are counting mandated ethanol as an energy source to be a subsidy? and CAP AND TRADE IS A REPUBLICAN IDEA!

If you mandate the inclusion of a product regardless of the price or value of the product it is more powerful than a subsidy...its a virtual guarantee that the product will be purchased regardless of cost. 27% of corn production goes into ethanol.

Republican idea still all you got? The "idea" doesn't equate to the monstrous legislation that the dems voted for in 2009. Ethanol was a "favored" fuel in cap and trade and Obama wanted to increase its consumption. Nuclear energy wasn't even mentioned in the bill even though it emits no CO2. Take off the blinders and try, try, try to think for yourself instead of regurgitating lefty talking points.

[Sooner8th]

If you mandate the inclusion of a product regardless of the price or value of the product it is more powerful than a subsidy...its a virtual guarantee that the product will be purchased regardless of cost. 27% of corn production goes into ethanol.

Republican idea still all you got? The "idea" doesn't equate to the monstrous legislation that the dems voted for in 2009. Ethanol was a "favored" fuel in cap and trade and Obama wanted to increase its consumption. Nuclear energy wasn't even mentioned in the bill even though it emits no CO2. Take off the blinders and try, try, try to think for yourself instead of regurgitating lefty talking points.

More than just an idea - so let's put that to bed.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/air/the-political-history-of-cap-and-trade-34711212/?no-ist

The Political History of Cap and Trade

How an unlikely mix of environmentalists and free-market conservatives hammered out the strategy known as cap-and-trade

John B. Henry was hiking in Maine's Acadia National Park one August in the 1980s when he first heard his friend C. Boyden Gray talk about cleaning up the environment by letting people buy and sell the right to pollute. Gray, a tall, lanky heir to a tobacco fortune, was then working as a lawyer in the Reagan White House, where environmental ideas were only slightly more popular than godless Communism. "I thought he was smoking dope," recalls Henry, a Washington, D.C. entrepreneur. But if the system Gray had in mind now looks like a politically acceptable way to slow climate change—an approach being hotly debated in Congress—you could say that it got its start on the global stage on that hike up Acadia's Cadillac Mountain.

People now call that system "cap-and-trade." But back then the term of art was "emissions trading," though some people called it "morally bankrupt" or even "a license to kill." For a strange alliance of free-market Republicans and renegade environmentalists, it represented a novel approach to cleaning up the world—by working with human nature instead of against it.

Despite powerful resistance, these allies got the system adopted as national law in 1990, to control the power-plant pollutants that cause acid rain. With the help of federal bureaucrats willing to violate the cardinal rule of bureaucracy—by surrendering regulatory power to the marketplace—emissions trading would become one of the most spectacular success stories in the history of the green movement. Congress is now considering whether to expand the system to cover the carbon dioxide emissions implicated in climate change—a move that would touch the lives of almost every American. So it's worth looking back at how such a radical idea first got translated into action, and what made it work.

The problem in the 1980s was that American power plants were sending up vast clouds of sulfur dioxide, which was falling back to earth in the form of acid rain, damaging lakes, forests and buildings across eastern Canada and the United States. The squabble about how to fix this problem had dragged on for years. Most environmentalists were pushing a "command-and-control" approach, with federal officials requiring utilities to install scrubbers capable of removing the sulfur dioxide from power-plant exhausts. The utility companies countered that the cost of such an approach would send them back to the Dark Ages. By the end of the Reagan administration, Congress had put forward and slapped down 70 different acid rain bills, and frustration ran so deep that Canada's prime minister bleakly joked about declaring war on the United States.

[Sooner8th]

If you mandate the inclusion of a product regardless of the price or value of the product it is more powerful than a subsidy...its a virtual guarantee that the product will be purchased regardless of cost. 27% of corn production goes into ethanol.

Republican idea still all you got? The "idea" doesn't equate to the monstrous legislation that the dems voted for in 2009. Ethanol was a "favored" fuel in cap and trade and Obama wanted to increase its consumption. Nuclear energy wasn't even mentioned in the bill even though it emits no CO2. Take off the blinders and try, try, try to think for yourself instead of regurgitating lefty talking points.

REPUBLICAN IDEA PROPOSED BY A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT VOTED YES ON BY A MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS. FLESHED OUT BY AND VOTED INTO LAW BY REPUBLICANS.

http://epa.gov/oar/caa/caaa_overview.html

In June 1989 President Bush proposed sweeping revisions to the Clean Air Act. Building on Congressional proposals advanced during the 1980s, the President proposed legislation designed to curb three major threats to the nation's environment and to the health of millions of Americans: acid rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions. The proposal also called for establishing a national permits program to make the law more workable, and an improved enforcement program to help ensure better compliance with the Act.

By large votes, both the House of Representatives (401-21) and the Senate (89-11) passed Clean Air bills that contained the major components of the President's proposals. Both bills also added provisions requiring the phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals, roughly according to the schedule outlined in international negotiations (Revised Montreal Protocol). The Senate and House bills also added specific research and development provisions, as well as detailed programs to address accidental releases of toxic air pollutants.

A joint conference committee met from July to October 1990 to iron out differences in the bills and both Houses overwhelmingly voted out the package recommended by the Conferees. The President received the Bill from Congress on November 14, 1990 and signed it on November 15,1990.

Several progressive and creative new themes are embodied in the Amendments; themes necessary for effectively achieving the air quality goals and regulatory reform expected from these far-reaching amendments. Specifically the new law:

encourages the use of market-based principles and other innovative approaches, like performance-based standards and emission banking and trading;
provides a framework from which alternative clean fuels will be used by setting standards in the fleet and California pilot program that can be met by the most cost-effective combination of fuels and technology;
promotes the use of clean low sulfur coal and natural gas, as well as innovative technologies to clean high sulfur coal through the acid rain program;
reduces enough energy waste and creates enough of a market for clean fuels derived from grain and natural gas to cut dependency on oil imports by one million barrels/day;
promotes energy conservation through an acid rain program that gives utilities flexibility to obtain needed emission reductions through programs that encourage customers to conserve energy.
With these themes providing the framework for the Clean Air Act amendments and with our commitment to implement the new law quickly, fairly and efficiently, Americans will get what they asked for: a healthy, productive environment, linked to sustainable economic growth and sound energy policy.

[okie52]

More than just an idea - so let's put that to bed.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/air/the-political-history-of-cap-and-trade-34711212/?no-ist

The Political History of Cap and Trade

How an unlikely mix of environmentalists and free-market conservatives hammered out the strategy known as cap-and-trade

John B. Henry was hiking in Maine's Acadia National Park one August in the 1980s when he first heard his friend C. Boyden Gray talk about cleaning up the environment by letting people buy and sell the right to pollute. Gray, a tall, lanky heir to a tobacco fortune, was then working as a lawyer in the Reagan White House, where environmental ideas were only slightly more popular than godless Communism. "I thought he was smoking dope," recalls Henry, a Washington, D.C. entrepreneur. But if the system Gray had in mind now looks like a politically acceptable way to slow climate change—an approach being hotly debated in Congress—you could say that it got its start on the global stage on that hike up Acadia's Cadillac Mountain.

People now call that system "cap-and-trade." But back then the term of art was "emissions trading," though some people called it "morally bankrupt" or even "a license to kill." For a strange alliance of free-market Republicans and renegade environmentalists, it represented a novel approach to cleaning up the world—by working with human nature instead of against it.

Despite powerful resistance, these allies got the system adopted as national law in 1990, to control the power-plant pollutants that cause acid rain. With the help of federal bureaucrats willing to violate the cardinal rule of bureaucracy—by surrendering regulatory power to the marketplace—emissions trading would become one of the most spectacular success stories in the history of the green movement. Congress is now considering whether to expand the system to cover the carbon dioxide emissions implicated in climate change—a move that would touch the lives of almost every American. So it's worth looking back at how such a radical idea first got translated into action, and what made it work.

The problem in the 1980s was that American power plants were sending up vast clouds of sulfur dioxide, which was falling back to earth in the form of acid rain, damaging lakes, forests and buildings across eastern Canada and the United States. The squabble about how to fix this problem had dragged on for years. Most environmentalists were pushing a "command-and-control" approach, with federal officials requiring utilities to install scrubbers capable of removing the sulfur dioxide from power-plant exhausts. The utility companies countered that the cost of such an approach would send them back to the Dark Ages. By the end of the Reagan administration, Congress had put forward and slapped down 70 different acid rain bills, and frustration ran so deep that Canada's prime minister bleakly joked about declaring war on the United States.

Very good...that was on Sulphur dioxide and Daddy Bush signed it into law in 1990. But that isn't what Obama proposed nor are the conditions the same. Sulphur dioxide was causing Acid Rain and that is usually a regionalized phenomenon. You do understand the difference don't you?

China and India were nowhere in the picture as they are now. Anthropogenic Global Warming requires global adherence rather than a go it alone approach as Obama sought. It does little good for the US to reduce its emissions if China and India are building a new coal plant every week. And the exorbitant tax rates that would be applied to ONLY US CONSUMERS AND INDUSTRIES at the height of the recession was economic suicide. I'll repeat it again for you...22% tax on natural gas (only US natural gas), 33% tax on oil (only US oil) and 44% tax on coal (only US coal) is pure idiocy. That was the democratic "idea". Not only that but it did not mention nuclear energy that emits 0 CO2 but it did give ethanol a favored fuel status.

And, ironically, the CO2 emissions dropped by 20% in the US by 2012 without cap and trade...which is more than what Obama wanted to achieve through cap and trade and we didn't have to damage our economy to do it.

FORTUNATELY...the dem senate turned down Obama's cap and trade plan and it has never seen the light of day again. Why would the dem senate to that?

Now you can stick to your talking points but it doesn't matter to me where good or bad policy comes from...only that it is recognized for what it is. You seem to have a very hard time ever admitting the dems screw up just like the pubs. Take off the blinders.

[okie52]

REPUBLICAN IDEA PROPOSED BY A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT VOTED YES ON BY A MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS. FLESHED OUT BY AND VOTED INTO LAW BY REPUBLICANS.

http://epa.gov/oar/caa/caaa_overview.html

In June 1989 President Bush proposed sweeping revisions to the Clean Air Act. Building on Congressional proposals advanced during the 1980s, the President proposed legislation designed to curb three major threats to the nation's environment and to the health of millions of Americans: acid rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions. The proposal also called for establishing a national permits program to make the law more workable, and an improved enforcement program to help ensure better compliance with the Act.

By large votes, both the House of Representatives (401-21) and the Senate (89-11) passed Clean Air bills that contained the major components of the President's proposals. Both bills also added provisions requiring the phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals, roughly according to the schedule outlined in international negotiations (Revised Montreal Protocol). The Senate and House bills also added specific research and development provisions, as well as detailed programs to address accidental releases of toxic air pollutants.

A joint conference committee met from July to October 1990 to iron out differences in the bills and both Houses overwhelmingly voted out the package recommended by the Conferees. The President received the Bill from Congress on November 14, 1990 and signed it on November 15,1990.

Several progressive and creative new themes are embodied in the Amendments; themes necessary for effectively achieving the air quality goals and regulatory reform expected from these far-reaching amendments. Specifically the new law:

encourages the use of market-based principles and other innovative approaches, like performance-based standards and emission banking and trading;
provides a framework from which alternative clean fuels will be used by setting standards in the fleet and California pilot program that can be met by the most cost-effective combination of fuels and technology;
promotes the use of clean low sulfur coal and natural gas, as well as innovative technologies to clean high sulfur coal through the acid rain program;
reduces enough energy waste and creates enough of a market for clean fuels derived from grain and natural gas to cut dependency on oil imports by one million barrels/day;
promotes energy conservation through an acid rain program that gives utilities flexibility to obtain needed emission reductions through programs that encourage customers to conserve energy.
With these themes providing the framework for the Clean Air Act amendments and with our commitment to implement the new law quickly, fairly and efficiently, Americans will get what they asked for: a healthy, productive environment, linked to sustainable economic growth and sound energy policy.

Hah hah...see above.

[REDREX]

I am glad you think that Ethanol is good for the country----The Koch brothers are buying many of the Ethanol plants as they come on the market----

[Sooner8th]

Hah hah...see above.


There is just no getting through to you is there? I don't know how many more times I can make this point. REPUBLICAN IDEA AND LEGISLATION

http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2004409844_mccain13m.html

In Oregon, McCain touts his cap-and-trade system to fight global warming

PORTLAND — In a major environmental speech, Sen. John McCain on Monday said he would combat global warming with a cap-and-trade system to cut carbon emissions and increase use of nuclear power and alternative energy.

"We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great," said McCain, the Arizona senator and presumptive Republican presidential nominee. "The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge."

He cited long-term declines in the Northwest snowpack, a drought in the Southwest and melting glaciers in Alaska and Norway as evidence the planet is warming.

McCain made his remarks at the U.S. headquarters for Vestas, a Danish company that is a global leader in wind power. He is scheduled to follow up today with an appearance at an environmental round-table at North Bend.

[Sooner8th]

I am glad you think that Ethanol is good for the country----The Koch brothers are buying many of the Ethanol plants as they come on the market----

Rut Roh - yet ANOTHER REPUBLICAN IDEA AND LEGISLATION you now are against. When will it end? Trying to blame all this on Obammy.

http://townhall.com/columnists/christopherprandoni/2013/10/11/its-time-to-repeal-the-ethanol-mandate-n1720979/page/full


Even with an energy revolution underway in the United States, the government still makes us pour money into expensive, inefficient, and subsidized energy like ethanol. Due to a law called the Renewable Fuel Standard, consumers are required to fill up their gas tanks with increased amounts of ethanol. This is problematic since forced ethanol consumption means that cars get fewer miles per gallon, gasoline and food prices will increase, and your car’s engine could be in danger as long the Renewable Fuel Standard remains on the books.

Passed as part of the American Energy Act of 2005 and increased in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandates that Americans must consume billions of gallons of corn-based ethanol. Today, when Americans fill up their car or motorcycle they are doing so with 10 percent of ethanol.

[REDREX]

Ethanol is a stupid idea and is an example of the entire failed US energy policy-----And what is the date on the McCain speech----not in the last five years---How many times has Barack changed his positions?

[okie52]

There is just no getting through to you is there? I don't know how many more times I can make this point. REPUBLICAN IDEA AND LEGISLATION

http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2004409844_mccain13m.html

In Oregon, McCain touts his cap-and-trade system to fight global warming

PORTLAND — In a major environmental speech, Sen. John McCain on Monday said he would combat global warming with a cap-and-trade system to cut carbon emissions and increase use of nuclear power and alternative energy.

"We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great," said McCain, the Arizona senator and presumptive Republican presidential nominee. "The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge."

He cited long-term declines in the Northwest snowpack, a drought in the Southwest and melting glaciers in Alaska and Norway as evidence the planet is warming.

McCain made his remarks at the U.S. headquarters for Vestas, a Danish company that is a global leader in wind power. He is scheduled to follow up today with an appearance at an environmental round-table at North Bend.

You're really pushing the idiot barrier. The legislation in 2009 was not republican. Try to understand the difference. I'll try to simplify it for you even more:


The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) was an energy bill in the 111th United States Congress (H.R. 2454) that would have established a variant of an emissions trading plan similar to the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009 by a vote of 219-212, but was defeated in the Senate.[1]

This vote was the "first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change."[2]

The bill was also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill, after its authors, Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats. Waxman was at the time the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Markey was the chairman of that committee's Energy and Power Subcommittee.


The bill was approved by the House by a vote of 219-212, with 8 Republicans supporting, and 44 Democrats voting against, and 3 members not voting.[64] All Representatives present at the time of the vote had cast votes. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), and John Sullivan (R-OK) missed the vote due to 'a family conflict,' travel abroad in Albania, and 'alcohol addiction treatment,' respectively.[65]

Now I realize you are having a really hard time digesting that different bills contain different legislation. The sponsors of the bill in 2009 were both democrats, Waxman and Markey. The vote went down party lines with virtually all dems voting for the bill and almost all pubs opposing it. Its really not that hard if you can take off the blinders.

And God forbid I would ever have to defend McCain, but you'll notice that he was even proposing nuclear energy in his statement...something that was omitted from the Waxman/Markey bill.

From your source:


Role for nuclear energy

In his speech, McCain called nuclear energy a "powerful ally" in combating global warming, and said his cap-and-trade system would provide major incentives to build more nuclear plants.

Environmentalists, citing still unresolved efforts to find a safe, long-term storage of nuclear waste, want to see the focus kept on renewable energy such as wind and solar power. "It is ironic that McCain speaks at Vestas, a leading wind-power company, and ends up talking about nuclear power, which is far more risky," Davies said.

Obama, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, makes no mention of increased use of nuclear power in his climate-change plan.

And you still don't get it. I am not against a "Global cap and trade" bill that would make all countries live by the same rules. That wasn't what Obama and the dems proposed. They wanted to go it alone and punish only US companies in the process.

Why didn't the dem senate pass "cap and trade"? It was an overwhelming dem senate in 2009...what held them back?

[REDREX]

Cap and Trade---- Is a really stupid idea

[Sooner8th]

Cap and Trade---- Is a really stupid idea

Cap and Trade---- Is a really stupid REPUBLICAN idea

[okie52]

Cap and Trade---- Is a really stupid REPUBLICAN idea

Really stupid dem legislation...but you can't admit that, can you?

In fact, what have the dems done since Obama has been in office that you don't agree with? How about Obamacare? How about Syria or Libya? How about closing Yucca or banning offshore drilling on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans? How about Obama's proposed windfall profits tax? Immigration reform? Anything you disagree with that has a D beside it?

Come 8th, show us that your not a recorded message for the DNC...come on...you can do it.

[REDREX]

Cap and Trade---- Is a really stupid REPUBLICAN idea------- Just give up---I don't know of many reps that support it------But it is a way to raise taxes so the Libs love it

[rock on sooner]

We can only hope! One less POS liberal around to pollute the earth.

Hell, CB, ifn they aint no more libs, who ya gonna have ta keep
yer blood pressure up?:glee:

[Sooner8th]

Really stupid dem legislation...but you can't admit that, can you?

In fact, what have the dems done since Obama has been in office that you don't agree with? How about Obamacare? How about Syria or Libya? How about closing Yucca or banning offshore drilling on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans? How about Obama's proposed windfall profits tax? Immigration reform? Anything you disagree with that has a D beside it?

Come 8th, show us that your not a recorded message for the DNC...come on...you can do it.

Has this passed? YES - but only by REPUBLICANS! Just admit it's a REPUBLICAN IDEA! Just like OBAMACARE! Go back to rewriting history with rush.

[okie52]

Has this passed? YES - but only by REPUBLICANS! Just admit it's a REPUBLICAN IDEA! Just like OBAMACARE! Go back to rewriting history with rush.

ha ha...you're really desparate now. The one passed by the pubs WORKED, of course, it was an entirely different bill. The dems bill was so bad they couldn't even pass it themselves (thank goodness for the country's sake).

But you're dodging the big question 8th...can you actually disagree with anything the dems have done since Obama has been in office? Come on 8th...edge on out there...I know its scary for you to commit such heresy but an independent thinker like yourself can do it....be brave!!!!

[REDREX]

Give it up Okie its not worth your time

[okie52]

Give it up Okie its not worth your time

Heh heh...I realize that it's like talking to a brick wall but I keep hoping that a light will go on for this unfortunate droid of the DNC. I was at least hoping he might get to the point where he realized that the dems actually do make mistakes.

BTW Red-How's business and Ttown?

[REDREX]

Some of the business is good some not so good----Don't ever get in the oil field water hauling business-----Tulsa is fine----------How is your business ?

[okie52]

I've been busy in the oil business but the insurance agency has really taken off in the last year so I may eventually get back to that full time. I still mean to get to Ttown so we can have lunch.

[REDREX]

Look forward to it---Let me know

[Sooner8th]

ha ha...you're really desparate now. The one passed by the pubs WORKED, of course, it was an entirely different bill. The dems bill was so bad they couldn't even pass it themselves (thank goodness for the country's sake).

But you're dodging the big question 8th...can you actually disagree with anything the dems have done since Obama has been in office? Come on 8th...edge on out there...I know its scary for you to commit such heresy but an independent thinker like yourself can do it....be brave!!!!

OK -now you are talking different bills. The idea - the concept of the bill is cap and trade. Even you call it cap and trade. Tell me exactly how obama cap and trade differs republican cap and trade.

And BTW - you are going to LOVE this! From politico a rightwing rag -

Like key parts of Obamacare, the cap-and-trade concept originated with Republicans seeking a business-friendly way to control pollution. And EPA regulators have actually used the marked-based system with success for almost two decades to deal with acid rain and smog.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/obamacares-unlikely-casualty-cap-and-trade-101566.html#ixzz34HG7IOmD




http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/obamacares-unlikely-casualty-cap-and-trade-101566.html

[Curly Bill]

Hell, CB, ifn they aint no more libs, who ya gonna have ta keep
yer blood pressure up?:glee:

I still have to drive, so that does it for me.

There might be as many losers on the road, as there are in democratic politics.

[okie52]

[QUOTE=Sooner8th;4619129]OK -now you are talking different bills. The idea - the concept of the bill is cap and trade. Even you call it cap and trade. Tell me exactly how obama cap and trade differs republican cap and trade.

And BTW - you are going to LOVE this! From politico a rightwing rag -

Like key parts of Obamacare, the cap-and-trade concept originated with Republicans seeking a business-friendly way to control pollution. And EPA regulators have actually used the marked-based system with success for almost two decades to deal with acid rain and smog.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/obamacares-unlikely-casualty-cap-and-trade-101566.html#ixzz34HG7IOmD

It wasn't even called cap and trade originally...it was emissions control.

I've always said it was two different bills or two different types of legislation for two different types of emission controls. The pubs in 90 was to reduce acid rain (sulphur dioxide) and the dems in 2009 was for CO2. The pubs weren't putting a tax on all of our fuel sources nor embracing poor energy sources like ethanol....they certainly weren't putting a 22% tax on natural gas which was one of the cleanest burning fuel sources we had besides nukes. 3 years after markey sought to tax ng at 22% he tried to ban (and still is) ng exports because he declared it gave US businesses a competitive advantage over foreign industry....this is the same guy that tried to destroy the competitive advantage with a 22% tax at the height of the recession....make sense to you?

As I said, put any form of carbon reduction on a global basis and I could possibly support it if everyone was living by the same rules..going it alone is just stupid.

But, as in the past, you're still dodging a lot of questions. What issues do you disagree with Obama and the dems on? I gave you plenty of issues before but you seem to have Been unable to answer the question. Come on 8th...show your independence...put something out there.

[Sooner8th]

[QUOTE=Sooner8th;4619129]OK -now you are talking different bills. The idea - the concept of the bill is cap and trade. Even you call it cap and trade. Tell me exactly how obama cap and trade differs republican cap and trade.

And BTW - you are going to LOVE this! From politico a rightwing rag -

Like key parts of Obamacare, the cap-and-trade concept originated with Republicans seeking a business-friendly way to control pollution. And EPA regulators have actually used the marked-based system with success for almost two decades to deal with acid rain and smog.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/obamacares-unlikely-casualty-cap-and-trade-101566.html#ixzz34HG7IOmD

It wasn't even called cap and trade originally...it was emissions control.

I've always said it was two different bills or two different types of legislation for two different types of emission controls. The pubs in 90 was to reduce acid rain (sulphur dioxide) and the dems in 2009 was for CO2. The pubs weren't putting a tax on all of our fuel sources nor embracing poor energy sources like ethanol....they certainly weren't putting a 22% tax on natural gas which was one of the cleanest burning fuel sources we had besides nukes. 3 years after markey sought to tax ng at 22% he tried to ban (and still is) ng exports because he declared it gave US businesses a competitive advantage over foreign industry....this is the same guy that tried to destroy the competitive advantage with a 22% tax at the height of the recession....make sense to you?

As I said, put any form of carbon reduction on a global basis and I could possibly support it if everyone was living by the same rules..going it alone is just stupid.

But, as in the past, you're still dodging a lot of questions. What issues do you disagree with Obama and the dems on? I gave you plenty of issues before but you seem to have Been unable to answer the question. Come on 8th...show your independence...put something out there.

Why should i answer your question when you won't admit what EVERYONE else knows - cap and trade is a republican idea that you now hate. You first-------

[okie52]

[QUOTE=okie52;4619223]

Why should i answer your question when you won't admit what EVERYONE else knows - cap and trade is a republican idea that you now hate. You first-------


I've answered your question time and time again but it evidently beyond your limited capacity to grasp it.


You can't put anything out there because you are incapable of original thought. Henceforth just post the DNC link and save everyone the trouble of listening to your regurgitation Anyone that has read your posts is now dumber for that experience.

[Sooner8th]

[QUOTE=Sooner8th;4619236]


I've answered your question time and time again but it evidently beyond your limited capacity to grasp it.


You can't put anything out there because you are incapable of original thought. Henceforth just post the DNC link and save everyone the trouble of listening to your regurgitation Anyone that has read your posts is now dumber for that experience.

No you have not, you still say it is a dem idea. Do i have to repost it?

[okie52]

[QUOTE=okie52;4619238]

No you have not, you still say it is a dem idea. Do i have to repost it?

How many times were you held back in school? Cap and trade was a pub idea in 1990. the legislation in 2009 was virtually all dem dealing with CO2. The taxes involved were all dem. the omission of nuclear energy were all dem. The vote for it was virtually all dem. Punishing only US companies for what would require global mandates was virtually all dems. its really not hard to understand...

[rock on sooner]

I still have to drive, so that does it for me.

There might be as many losers on the road, as there are in democratic politics.

Welp, let me know what yer drivin, just so's I ken stay far right!

Im an ol fart sos yew guys on the right, well, I aint sure cause
I spend some time thinkin...doncha know?

[Sooner8th]

[QUOTE=Sooner8th;4619269]

How many times were you held back in school? Cap and trade was a pub idea in 1990. the legislation in 2009 was virtually all dem dealing with CO2. The taxes involved were all dem. the omission of nuclear energy were all dem. The vote for it was virtually all dem. Punishing only US companies for what would require global mandates was virtually all dems. its really not hard to understand...


In 1968 Emory Bellard an assistant at texass invented the wishbone offense. In 1971, Barry Switzer adopted the wishbone at Oklahoma.

Now - tell me who invented the wishbone offense? Who's IDEA was it? Hint - it wasn't barry switzer.


The idea and concept of cap and trade is from REPUBLICANS. The concept hasn't changed, it's the same.

American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES)

The bill proposes a cap and trade system, under which the government sets a limit (cap) on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted nationally. Companies then buy or sell permits to emit these gases, primarily carbon dioxide CO2. The cap is reduced over time to reduce total carbon emissions. The legislation would set a cap on total emissions over the 2012–2050 period and would require regulated entities to hold rights, or allowances, to emit greenhouse gases. After allowances were initially distributed, entities would be free to buy and sell them (the trade part of the program). Those entities that emit more gases face a higher cost, which provides an economic incentive to reduce emissions. Key elements of the bill include:[4]

Rightwingers are now calling the trade part of it a carbon tax.

Tell me how it's different than the one h w bush proposed and signed into law.

[okie52]

[QUOTE=okie52;4619331]


In 1968 Emory Bellard an assistant at texass invented the wishbone offense. In 1971, Barry Switzer adopted the wishbone at Oklahoma.

Now - tell me who invented the wishbone offense? Who's IDEA was it? Hint - it wasn't barry switzer.


The idea and concept of cap and trade is from REPUBLICANS. The concept hasn't changed, it's the same.

American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES)

The bill proposes a cap and trade system, under which the government sets a limit (cap) on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted nationally. Companies then buy or sell permits to emit these gases, primarily carbon dioxide CO2. The cap is reduced over time to reduce total carbon emissions. The legislation would set a cap on total emissions over the 2012–2050 period and would require regulated entities to hold rights, or allowances, to emit greenhouse gases. After allowances were initially distributed, entities would be free to buy and sell them (the trade part of the program). Those entities that emit more gases face a higher cost, which provides an economic incentive to reduce emissions. Key elements of the bill include:[4]

Rightwingers are now calling the trade part of it a carbon tax.

Tell me how it's different than the one h w bush proposed and signed into law.

Controlling sulphur dioxide emissions vs Co2 emissions are different. The 1990 bill was primarily directed at coal emissions of sulphur dioxide not CO2 and not the entire US energy sector...you do grasp that difference dont you? The taxes are certainly different and affect not only electric generation but direct ng consumers and businesses. You were also dealing with a regional issue vs a global issue....you do understand the difference don't you? there is no point to cap and trade if it does not significantly reduce CO2 globally as in global warming....going it alone is just stupid. Do you understand the difference?

Your Switzer analogy makes no sense. No one is saying Switzer invented the wishbone but he did change the complexion of the wishbone by adding speed. Neither bellard nor Switzer invented football...but they both coached in it (just another irrelevant disconnected tidbit to throw into the discussion).

You seem to hinge your whole justification for the dem 2009 bill on that it was a pub idea...well a form of cap and trade was a pub idea and was put into law in 1990. The 2009 bill was virtually all dem dealing with different emissions on a much larger energy sector with different taxes while declaring favored fuel sources on an issue that requires global participation to be effective and not punitive on its participants.

Beyond that, I really don't know how to explain it to you in a way that you can comprehend. But the dem senate didn't pass the bill....why?

[Sooner8th]

[QUOTE=Sooner8th;4619346]

Controlling sulphur dioxide emissions vs Co2 emissions are different. The 1990 bill was primarily directed at coal emissions of sulphur dioxide not CO2 and not the entire US energy sector...you do grasp that difference dont you? The taxes are certainly different and affect not only electric generation but direct ng consumers and businesses. You were also dealing with a regional issue vs a global issue....you do understand the difference don't you? there is no point to cap and trade if it does not significantly reduce CO2 globally as in global warming....going it alone is just stupid. Do you understand the difference?

Your Switzer analogy makes no sense. No one is saying Switzer invented the wishbone but he did change the complexion of the wishbone by adding speed. Neither bellard nor Switzer invented football...but they both coached in it (just another irrelevant disconnected tidbit to throw into the discussion).

You seem to hinge your whole justification for the dem 2009 bill on that it was a pub idea...well a form of cap and trade was a pub idea and was put into law in 1990. The 2009 bill was virtually all dem dealing with different emissions on a much larger energy sector with different taxes while declaring favored fuel sources on an issue that requires global participation to be effective and not punitive on its participants.

Beyond that, I really don't know how to explain it to you in a way that you can comprehend. But the dem senate didn't pass the bill....why?


Are you too stupid to understand the analogy?

Controlling sulfur dioxide emissions vs Co2 emissions are different. No one is arguing that. The mechanism is the same, why can't you understand that?

[okie52]

[QUOTE=okie52;4619429]


Are you too stupid to understand the analogy?

Controlling sulfur dioxide emissions vs Co2 emissions are different. No one is arguing that. The mechanism is the same, why can't you understand that?

The mechanism wasn't the same nor was the field the game was being played the on the same.

Do you realize how absolutely stupid it looks for Markey, the bills sponsor, to install a 22% tax on Only US natural gas and then declare 3years later it shouldn't be allowed to be exported
because US industry and consumers would lose their competitive advantage? No, you probably wouldn't.

And, again, why didn't the dem senate pass the bill?

[Sooner8th]

[QUOTE=Sooner8th;4619490]

The mechanism wasn't the same nor was the field the game was being played the on the same.

Do you realize how absolutely stupid it looks for Markey, the bills sponsor, to install a 22% tax on Only US natural gas and then declare 3years later it shouldn't be allowed to be exported
because US industry and consumers would lose their competitive advantage? No, you probably wouldn't.

And, again, why didn't the dem senate pass the bill?

mechanism might have been the wrong word, but the concept is the same - read again about the 2009 bill.

Summary of provisions[edit]
The bill proposes a cap and trade system, under which the government sets a limit (cap) on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted nationally. Companies then buy or sell permits to emit these gases, primarily carbon dioxide CO
2. The cap is reduced over time to reduce total carbon emissions. The legislation would set a cap on total emissions over the 2012–2050 period and would require regulated entities to hold rights, or allowances, to emit greenhouse gases. After allowances were initially distributed, entities would be free to buy and sell them (the trade part of the program). Those entities that emit more gases face a higher cost, which provides an economic incentive to reduce emissions. Key elements of the bill include:[4]

[REDREX]

Give it up Okie---like I said its not worth your time

[FaninAma]

TAFB you are right. Nobody benefits from a bloated deficit machine
that us our federal government more than the 0.1%. But they need
the feckless handout dependent population to keep voting for the
big government politicians of both parties. 65% of those who receive
entitlements vote for Democrats and that is very telling.

[Sooner in Tampa]

TAFB you are right. Nobody benefits from a bloated deficit machine
that us our federal government more than the 0.1%. But they need
the feckless handout dependent population to keep voting for the
big government politicians of both parties. 65% of those who receive
entitlements vote for Democrats and that is very telling.

This thread was full of fail from the leading libtard

That stat is very telling indeed...we are headed down a ****ty road...

[TAFBSooner]

I think it's unpatriotic to say that the US shouldn't lead the world on fighting climate change.

There are also practical reasons:
- We're losing an economic opportunity, as we won't be first to market with solutions.
- As long as we wait on the sidelines, the BRICs and the third world have an excuse (our bad example) to do nothing either.
- We're a big enough emitter that acting alone will have some effect on how fast climate change happens.




Re cap and trade, IDGAS where workable ideas come from. If they will improve the situation, use them.

[TAFBSooner]

TAFB you are right. Nobody benefits from a bloated deficit machine
that us our federal government more than the 0.1%. But they need
the feckless handout dependent population to keep voting for the
big government politicians of both parties. 65% of those who receive
entitlements vote for Democrats and that is very telling.

It doesn't matter to the 0.1% who gets elected if they own both candidates. After last night's news, I wonder if they don't own a higher percentage of Democrats than they do of Tea Party Republicans.

[okie52]

I think it's unpatriotic to say that the US shouldn't lead the world on fighting climate change.

There are also practical reasons:
- We're losing an economic opportunity, as we won't be first to market with solutions.
- As long as we wait on the sidelines, the BRICs and the third world have an excuse (our bad example) to do nothing either.
- We're a big enough emitter that acting alone will have some effect on how fast climate change happens.




Re cap and trade, IDGAS where workable ideas come from. If they will improve the situation, use them.

I think its unpatriotic to demand the US economy to take it up the azz while the rest of the world plays by different rules.

Where is our economic opportunity on green energy being restrained? We already subsidize the crap out of green energy. We aren't "waiting on the sidelines" unless you want to "mandate" using uneconomic technologies and putting the US economy at a severe disadvantage.

Obama's CO2 goals in 2009 were:


Required annual reductions in GHG emissions[edit]
The table below summarizes the required GHG emission reductions (benchmark is 2005 emission levels):[69]

Year Required Annual Percentage
2012 3.0
2020 17.0
2030 42.0
2050 83.0

But the following occurred without cap and trade.


CO2 emissions in U.S. drop to 20-year low

While conservation efforts, the lagging economy and greater use of renewable energy are factors in the CO2 decline, the drop-off is due mainly to low-priced natural gas, the agency said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79802.html#ixzz34M3xxDiz


But, beyond this well-trodden battlefield, something amazing has happened: Carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States have dropped to their lowest level in 20 years. Estimating on the basis of data from the US Energy Information Agency from the first five months of 2012, this year’s expected CO2 emissions have declined by more than 800 million tons, or 14 percent from their peak in 2007.


A Fracking Good Story

Carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. are at their lowest level in 20 years. It’s not because of wind or solar power.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2012/09/thanks_to_fracking_u_s_carbon_emissions_are_at_the _lowest_levels_in_20_years_.html

These reductions occurred without any harmful cap and trade policies and were much greater reductions than what was scheduled under cap and trade.

I have no problems with following a carbon reduction/CO2 emission policy that is applied on a global basis so that every nation must play by the same rules. US reductions will be rather insignificant if China and India aren't on board representing 1/3 of the world's population. Of course, that's another matter for discussion is overpopulation and what bearing it should have on reducing CO2 emissions.

[TAFBSooner]

I think its unpatriotic to demand the US economy to take it up the azz while the rest of the world plays by different rules.

Where is our economic opportunity on green energy being restrained? We already subsidize the crap out of green energy. We aren't "waiting on the sidelines" unless you want to "mandate" using uneconomic technologies and putting the US economy at a severe disadvantage.

Obama's CO2 goals in 2009 were:



But the following occurred without cap and trade.







These reductions occurred without any harmful cap and trade policies and were much greater reductions than what was scheduled under cap and trade.

I have no problems with following a carbon reduction/CO2 emission policy that is applied on a global basis so that every nation must play by the same rules. US reductions will be rather insignificant if China and India aren't on board representing 1/3 of the world's population. Of course, that's another matter for discussion is overpopulation and what bearing it should have on reducing CO2 emissions.

"You go first! No, you go first!" is a good*, no, effective meme perpetrated by the fossil fuel industry to insure that nobody goes first.

The US economy wouldn't take it up the azz. There's plenty of economic opportunity in green energy, transit, and retrofitting of inefficient buildings. The fossil fuel industry would have trouble, but not the economy as a whole.

Also you can't measure emissions by population. China and India, as of 2008, combined emitted a little more CO2 than the US. I realize the curves have been up for them and down for us since then; would be happy to see later data.

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/largest-country-co2-emitters/

BTW, why in the world can't we keep our own @#$ coal in the ground, instead of emitting carbon to transport it to China, where they will burn it with lower-tech plants than we would, if we were burning it? (That goes back to Congress being in the pockets of the 0.1%.)

* Give us the strikethrough format!!

[okie52]

"You go first! No, you go first!" is a good*, no, effective meme perpetrated by the fossil fuel industry to insure that nobody goes first.

The US economy wouldn't take it up the azz. There's plenty of economic opportunity in green energy, transit, and retrofitting of inefficient buildings. The fossil fuel industry would have trouble, but not the economy as a whole.

Also you can't measure emissions by population. China and India, as of 2008, combined emitted a little more CO2 than the US. I realize the curves have been up for them and down for us since then; would be happy to see later data.

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/largest-country-co2-emitters/

BTW, why in the world can't we keep our own @#$ coal in the ground, instead of emitting carbon to transport it to China, where they will burn it with lower-tech plants than we would, if we were burning it? (That goes back to Congress being in the pockets of the 0.1%.)

* Give us the strikethrough format!!

The meme...haha...yeah, those dam oilies are forcing the world to buy their products and poor green energy is just being thrown under the bus. So what's holding green energy back? Some international conspiracy? Business will use the cheapest and most efficient fuel sources available...green energy isn't there yet and nobody is holding it back except that it is not a competitive energy source at this time. And if the goal is reducing CO2 then why hasn't the left jumped on a 0 CO2 producing technology like nukes?

Your emissions chart was very out of date:


Country Annual CO2 emissions
(in thousands of tonnes) % of world
emissions
World 31,350,455 100%
China (ex.Macau, Hong Kong) 8,286,892 26.43%
United States 4,433,057 17.33%
European Union (27) 3,688,880 13.33%
India 2,008,823 6.41%
Russia 1,740,776 5.55%
Japan 1,170,715 3.73%
Germany 745,384 2.38%
Iran 571,612 1.82%
South Korea 567,567 1.81%
Canada 499,137 1.59%
United Kingdom 493,505 1.57%
Saudi Arabia 464,481 1.48%
South Africa 460,124 1.47%
Mexico 443,674 1.42%

http://sagacommodities.com/?cid=7&NewsId=314&lng=en Here's a better chart.


And exporting coal is another irony. We ship tons of it around the world yet we have lefties trying to block exporting NG which is much cleaner...go figure.

[TAFBSooner]

The meme...haha...yeah, those dam oilies are forcing the world to buy their products and poor green energy is just being thrown under the bus. So what's holding green energy back? Some international conspiracy? Business will use the cheapest and most efficient fuel sources available...green energy isn't there yet and nobody is holding it back except that it is not a competitive energy source at this time. And if the goal is reducing CO2 then why hasn't the left jumped on a 0 CO2 producing technology like nukes?

Your emissions chart was very out of date:


Country Annual CO2 emissions
(in thousands of tonnes) % of world
emissions
World 31,350,455 100%
China (ex.Macau, Hong Kong) 8,286,892 26.43%
United States 4,433,057 17.33%
European Union (27) 3,688,880 13.33%
India 2,008,823 6.41%
Russia 1,740,776 5.55%
Japan 1,170,715 3.73%
Germany 745,384 2.38%
Iran 571,612 1.82%
South Korea 567,567 1.81%
Canada 499,137 1.59%
United Kingdom 493,505 1.57%
Saudi Arabia 464,481 1.48%
South Africa 460,124 1.47%
Mexico 443,674 1.42%

http://sagacommodities.com/?cid=7&NewsId=314&lng=en Here's a better chart.


And exporting coal is another irony. We ship tons of it around the world yet we have lefties trying to block exporting NG which is much cleaner...go figure.

Thanks for the link. I didn't realize China was that far ahead of us already. 17% is still a big chunk of world emissions.

I agree with you on nuke plants. Yes it's a Faustian bargain, because we still don't know how to store the waste long-term, but when faced with rising ocean levels I say build more nuke plants.

Block the coal exports first. Leave it under the mountains, and leave the mountain tops alone in the bargain.

Green energy isn't competitive because business doesn't have to factor in Galveston, Corpus Christi, Miami, and Bangladesh.

[okie52]

Thanks for the link. I didn't realize China was that far ahead of us already. 17% is still a big chunk of world emissions.

I agree with you on nuke plants. Yes it's a Faustian bargain, because we still don't know how to store the waste long-term, but when faced with rising ocean levels I say build more nuke plants.

Block the coal exports first. Leave it under the mountains, and leave the mountain tops alone in the bargain.

Green energy isn't competitive because business doesn't have to factor in Galveston, Corpus Christi, Miami, and Bangladesh.

China is well ahead of us on emissions and the gap between will continue to widen as they continue to rise and we continue to fall. India will eventually pass us too in the not too distant future.

We do know how to store nuclear waste long term. It was called Yucca Mountain and the National Academy of Science had stated that Yucca was safe for 10,000 years as a storage facility. Not only that but Obama's own energy secretary, Steven Chu, had joined 9 other US Science Labs in support of nuclear energy and Yucca Mountain just months before taking office under Obama only to close it down under Obama's orders a few months later in an obvious political payoff to Harry Reid. Yucca had been approved by 4 presidents and 11 congresses only to be defunded by Obama. So we still have waste sitting at over 100 nuke sites around the country rather than being stored in a facility that was designed for that containment. A waste of time and billions of dollars that was totally political on Obama's part.

You'll notice that France wasn't on the list of top emitters I posted above. That is largely because France uses nukes for over 75% of its energy needs.

Another thing about nuclear waste is that we could reduce our nuke waste by 80-90% by reprocessing the waste, something that France, Japan, and other countries have been doing for decades using our technology. Obama has been against reprocessing our waste due to his fear that the further refined waste would be easier for terrorists to use should it fall into the wrong hands. Really poor thinking unless he thinks the US can't protect its nuclear waste as well as France, Japan, et al.

We could block coal exports but I'm not sure that it would stop countries from using coal that they would buy from other exporters.

Businesses may not know how to put a price on Galveston, corpus Christi, Miami, or Bangladesh IF they suffer damage due to CO2 somewhere in the distant future. Nobody knows if and/or when that may happen, if in fact AGW does create those problems in the future. We do know how to put a price on trade deficits, cheap energy, energy independence, costs of defending oil supply lines from the ME and having our foreign policy and wars dictated by the need for foreign oil.

[sappstuf]

Okie, something tells me that 8th would have trouble telling the difference between a beetle and a Beetle...

You could try to explain that one is an insect and one is a car, but it wouldn't work..

They have the same name after all, so they must be exactly the same in every way.

[okie52]

Okie, something tells me that 8th would have trouble telling the difference between a beetle and a Beetle...

You could try to explain that one is an insect and one is a car, but it wouldn't work..

They have the same name after all, so they must be exactly the same in every way.


Heh... The beetle was Hitler's "idea"...

[champions77]

China is well ahead of us on emissions and the gap between will continue to widen as they continue to rise and we continue to fall. India will eventually pass us too in the not too distant future.

We do know how to store nuclear waste long term. It was called Yucca Mountain and the National Academy of Science had stated that Yucca was safe for 10,000 years as a storage facility. Not only that but Obama's own energy secretary, Steven Chu, had joined 9 other US Science Labs in support of nuclear energy and Yucca Mountain just months before taking office under Obama only to close it down under Obama's orders a few months later in an obvious political payoff to Harry Reid. Yucca had been approved by 4 presidents and 11 congresses only to be defunded by Obama. So we still have waste sitting at over 100 nuke sites around the country rather than being stored in a facility that was designed for that containment. A waste of time and billions of dollars that was totally political on Obama's part.

You'll notice that France wasn't on the list of top emitters I posted above. That is largely because France uses nukes for over 75% of its energy needs.

Another thing about nuclear waste is that we could reduce our nuke waste by 80-90% by reprocessing the waste, something that France, Japan, and other countries have been doing for decades using our technology. Obama has been against reprocessing our waste due to his fear that the further refined waste would be easier for terrorists to use should it fall into the wrong hands. Really poor thinking unless he thinks the US can't protect its nuclear waste as well as France, Japan, et al.

We could block coal exports but I'm not sure that it would stop countries from using coal that they would buy from other exporters.

Businesses may not know how to put a price on Galveston, corpus Christi, Miami, or Bangladesh IF they suffer damage due to CO2 somewhere in the distant future. Nobody knows if and/or when that may happen, if in fact AGW does create those problems in the future. We do know how to put a price on trade deficits, cheap energy, energy independence, costs of defending oil supply lines from the ME and having our foreign policy and wars dictated by the need for foreign oil.


You would think that before the internal combustion engine was invented, or before the Industrial Revolution, that the weather stayed about the same...for millions of years. Only started changing in the last 100 years or so, at least that's what the Climate change loons would tell you. The same folks were shouting out about the coming Ice Age in 1970.

The lefties see it as an opportunity for more control, plain and simple. Control of the masses. Now that's when socialism really works well when a central government controls it all, everything. Can't have these individuals out there mucking things up.