Thread: energy tax bill passed in the house

Good move - as long as it actually has substance and not loaded with deviate crap/elements from lobbysts - tho at least a decade or so behind the times.

The next stage will probably be - even before any "climate change" elements are in place, - they will want to tax it It has been the same pattern with other nations - all politicians generally care about is what may happen during their tenure in office. As a group, they have no clue of environmental issues - it's like speaking to a brick wall.

But... it's a start and a move in the right direction

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

I just hope that they have a bill to study what is causing the global warming on Mars. I assure you, it's not man-made carbon emissions causing Mars' global warming Only after they figure that one out, then totally rule out the possibility that what is causing global warming on Mars is also causing global warming on Earth - if it is even occurring at all, another point of controversy - should they even begin having any discussions about this topic.

Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming.

Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting

RealClimate

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

but one article claims that Jupiter and Pluto are also experiencing warming trends.

No, they are just quoting the BS from the Fred Thompson Report. Check the comments over at real climate, they hash out Jupiter and Pluto.

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

I just hope that they have a bill to study what is causing the global warming on Mars. I assure you, it's not man-made carbon emissions causing Mars' global warming Only after they figure that one out, then totally rule out the possibility that what is causing global warming on Mars is also causing global warming on Earth - if it is even occurring at all, another point of controversy - should they even begin having any discussions about this topic.

Hell knows why anyone even bothers to refer to this as "climate change". It's common sense on environmental issues alone that there is a need to clean up the back yard. On economic grounds, it is also sensible to engage in the possibilities of eg sustainable energy sources.

Over the last three decades the Mississippi has become a toxic swamp and the crap flowing into the Gulf has killed off the possibility of sea life for miles around. Analysis of water samples have established any fish are high on a combo of trace elements from Viagra, birth control pills, pesticides et al. Florida has deteriorated dramatically in eco and environmental terms during the last three decades - it used to be very rich from an eco angle. Valleys in Texas which used to have green forests, no longer have. All that remains is dead wood - the trees have been clouded in acid from industrial plants for years. I don't know the full extent of the problem, but if the above is a indicator, it's not a pretty picture.

When you consider the US only has around 5% of world population but manages to consume (to no great benefit of the US itself or anyone else), around 25% of world resources, there is definitely a need for.. excuse that Obama word - change. The consumption level - or the waste from it, has caused serious damage. At almost all levels, this is a totally unstainable model on both an economic and environmental basis for any nation and a matter of time before the bubble bursts. (Tho that may already have started - who knows?)

The political chat over whether there is "global warming" or not, matters little. The nearer problem than Mars is more local and obvious in that it is overdue time to start a cleanup and address more sustainable methods of preserving the environment and not screwing the country up. This also goes hand in hand with establishing economic sustainability and it's a long, long way from that.

This is a massive challenge and the monetary cost will make any "bail out" money look like loose change and it will have to be paid for. If it is not addressed till a future time, the cost will increase substantially. Other countries have already started making some measure of progress, tho the developing industrial nations are the next on the hit list to have that challenge and associated problems.

There's an easy way and a hard way .. sometimes it's really hard for the human species to get a clue from history/past track record and would bet new industrial nations will follow the hard way cos, they too, will find a great need for "higher lifestyles" regardless of cost



PS Excuse the intrusion into the discussion of Jupiter and Mars, interesting tho it is

Originally Posted by GForce

This is all feel good crap. If China and India do not start doing something about the pollution they are generating it won't matter what the rest of the world does. I am sure that the cloud from all of their coal burning electrical plants is already traveling in our direction.

The West have been polluting the planet for generations and that is really the current problem. Sure, China has just (in 2008) managed to supercede the previous biggest polluter, the US. Maybe China should have been complaining for decades about us cleaning up our backyard? It's a bit late now

Can't remember exactly, but the current largest polluters are probably now China, the US and India. Sounds like it is now time to have an agreement between the top polluting nations to get their act together.

Many other nations already have pollution reduction targets and slowly making progress in varying degrees, but the top polluting countries have generally done nothing other than talk, tho the proposals from the current US administration may be a start.



PS Not that a grain of sand means much on the beach, but China has blocked the sale of Hummer vehicles to a Chinese company on the basis that China does not want environmentally unfriendly sets of wheels. Also know from some people who were involved with the Chinese govt that they are well-aware of the pollution problem and trying to address this. It's a long story and big ass challenge, but it may be that they are willing to throw billions into cutting down pollution problems - they sure need to.

Originally Posted by GForce

This is all feel good crap. If China and India do not start doing something about the pollution they are generating it won't matter what the rest of the world does. I am sure that the cloud from all of their coal burning electrical plants is already traveling in our direction.

The US is the most powerful and influential country in the world. We have to lead and set an example. Later we can join with the global community and use a carrot and big stick to bring other countries into line.

You guys that are for this, how can you be? Did you read it? I'm sure the guys that 'voted' for it sure didn't, so how can you really be for, or even against it?(Even though the burden placed on consumers is going to be huge, by Obama's own admission) Even Warren Buffet calls it BS.
I find it hard to understand how anyone could be happy about hidden legislation/taxes being forced through government without being properly discussed.

Originally Posted by NobleSavage

The US is the most powerful and influential country in the world. We have to lead and set an example. Later we can join with the global community and use a carrot and big stick to bring other countries into line.

We certainly won't be the first to use this kind of cap and trade, so much for leading and setting an example

"Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years."
If(when?) the system they passed yesterday hits harder than that, our example will only show how you can starve the poor/elderly and make crime rates rise.


Webby, you are using the Mississippi River pollution to back this bill? The Mississippi is/has been polluted mainly by agriculture runoff(luv those chemicals) and sewage treatment facilities.

Originally Posted by Spence

Webby, you are using the Mississippi River pollution to back this bill? The Mississippi is/has been polluted mainly by agriculture runoff(luv those chemicals) and sewage treatment facilities.

Nope .. I don't know anything about the Climate Change Bill currently before the US legislature - I've never read it and everything is in the detail

The core principle being that emissions are reduced by 17%(?) by 2020? This is basically the setting of targets which already exist in many countries which were relevant polluters. It is important that "something" is done to curtail pollution and avoid a continuation of damage, otherwise the real cost in both economic and environmental terms will be considerably higher in the future.

For the US in particular, it also gives an opportunity to catch up with other nations and can set an important example internationally, by leading by example. NobleSavage is correct in his comments re leading by example and then using influence to persuade other high-offending nations to comply and clean their act up.

For some nations, depending, this may not an easy task since there can be many factors involved. It also won't happen overnight and will cost money, tho generally, if correctly handled, the benefits are positive, not only for environmental reasons, but economically. In effect we are paying to clean up our own mess - we had the benefits, now it's time to pay the bill.

Na.. not using the Mississippi to back this particular bill. The Mississippi is far more important than any bill humans dream up anyways - hopefully the Mississippi will still be flowing long after legislators are six feet under. The river is relevant, not just because it is a big ass river, but is part of the one of the largest river systems in the world with many communities along it's banks and many tributaries. If pollution were allowed to continue in a river system of this magnitude, it would cause substantial damage to future generations, most probably involve lifestyle changes and extend into the Gulf and affect others.



PS Just as a general rule, in "standard" sustainability planning/projects it is normal to look five generations ahead. With an overall plan to reduce pollution for a whole nation, this is one big task and hopefully has been thought out on a much longer timescale. But.. initiating a start is the first step, then one step at a time!

If you haven't read it in detail, and know all the caveats, I still don't understand how you can be FOR it. Whatever your points about the Mississippi, they really have no relevance here that I can see. I'm all for non-pollution, but when something of this magnitude is forced down the throats of the people, 300 page amendments introduced hours before it is passed.... I would just think the response would be red flags vs. the 'good for them they passed more laws that they know nothing about'.

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

It is always the case that in any group, the wealthier will consume more than the median. I'm not supporting excessive waste, merely pointing out that when billions of people have nothing more than sticks to rub together and live in a house made of dried mud, some folks with a better lifestyle are by definition going to consume many more resources.

Sure.. Tho the problem is not with folks who have nothing more than sticks to rub together and live in dried mud homes. They are actually far more "sustainable" than us, often more fit, don't need "lines of credit", 30 credit cards or mortgages

Over time I've met a few of these people - actually got to know them. Some lived, as you said, in very modest homes - farmhouses with earth floors etc. For example, families had never seen a doctor ever - other than for accident reasons. They knew how to take care of their health by using resources around them and were far healthier/fitter than I will ever be! At the same time, invite them to an event and they will appear immaculately dressed along with the obligatory Rolex watch etc. At one such meeting there were also people with more money than God, but hard to tell the difference when "people watching" and listening to them talk. They still have annual vacations to other countries - year before last was Italy, last year it was California etc. Many of us with higher lifestyles can't afford to have vacations in other countries - odd eh? *s* So, with the exception of folks living in total poverty (that's another subject and related to sustainability - and understand what you are generally saying), there are many people living relatively modest lifestyles and where some would not elect to change that for what we perceive to be "higher lifestyles".

Another factor AmFlix is when eg other countries have our perceived higher lifestyle, but do manage to reduce their pollution levels. Bottom line, this is in their interests more than anyone else - they are living in that environment. Denmark, Switzerland and Norway etc are classic examples.

It's only my AmFlix, but doubt consumption relates particularly to higher lifestyle - lifestyle is more a quality of life, not necessarily how many Hummers are in the back yard or how big your home is etc. I know a particular guy who owns most of a well-known international corp, a cruise line, around 700ish stores and around 400 international hotels plus other stuff - he is a very modest person and does not give a damn what car he drives as long as it works, tho he's a very hard worker and suspect does not have much time to waste thinking of his "lifestyle". The problem may be more related to over-consumption of resources where there can be a hidden penalty in cost to a nation in both environmental/health and at economic levels.

Originally Posted by Spence

If you haven't read it in detail, and know all the caveats, I still don't understand how you can be FOR it. Whatever your points about the Mississippi, they really have no relevance here that I can see. I'm all for non-pollution, but when something of this magnitude is forced down the throats of the people, 300 page amendments introduced hours before it is passed.... I would just think the response would be red flags vs. the 'good for them they passed more laws that they know nothing about'.

I never said I support this particular bill Spence - only the principle which relates to reductions in pollution. Up until recently the US was the main polluter of the planet and it is important and in the interests of the US that action be taken to reduce this. The benefits, assuming the bill is reasonable, encompassing and forward-thinking, are considerable in both economic and environmental terms.

Whether this particular bill is flawed is another matter. Governments generally have a tendency to screw up on large proposals of this kind - especially if they are rushing to pass legislation - and it may still need further refining. I'd hope that the basic elements are included and it has been thought out.