Never said a word pro or con about science...and faith is really not the issue either.Quote:
So forget the scientific arguments pro and con. Climate change is the result of a lack of faith. :rolleyes:
The situation being discussed is not the result of cow farts, human exhalation, CO2 gases resulting in greenhouse effects, etc. All those things are what they are. They perhaps contribute to an upset in things climatic but the very possibility that those things are able to contribute to any disorder is that God removed His hand of protection from the Earth and judged the Earth as the direct result of sin.
Therefore, the problem with the world is the problem of sin. Sin separates us from the protection and fellowship of God. The chaotic world we see now is 100% the result of sin. Everything else falls in line under that.
The bible declares that one day there will be a restoration of things as they were prior to the disorder. It is called the New Heaven and New Earth. For now, things will only grow worse and worse...because of sin!
That the labor community would support the bill was not entirely expected, though it's not entirely surprising either. The AFL-CIO's argument is that Waxman-Markey is a jobs bill, likely to put tens of thousands of people to work in green industries. The union even notes, in its letter to lawmakers, that it is hoping to improve the legislation by strengthening "its international competitiveness provisions."
Okay, for argument's sake, let us presume that it is desirable to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel. It does make sense to me that fossil fuel would be in finite supply. As our society has become more technologically advanced and populations have grown, we have found ways to deplete these fuels at a faster rate.
I believe that the finite supply of fossil fuels is the more immediate problem. While new discoveries indicate there are more fossil fuels available than we realized 30 years ago, we still lack the technology to extract them cost-effectively. This is a practical reason for us to seek alternatives to fossil fuels.
The question becomes whether "cap & tax" is the best solution to the problem for the U.S. or the rest of the world.
While the U.S. may use more fossil fuels than any other country, that does not necessarily mean that the U.S. consumption is creating the most damaging effect on the environment overall. There is no question that countries in the former Eastern Bloc, and China, and even poor Third World countries are using more of these fuels now than they did 30 years ago. A lot more. It would be foolish to argue that all those Chinese imports are being manufactured using candlelight and animal dung :-)
It would also seem foolish to imagine that such countries are more concerned with pollution than they are with basic survival. Using global warming (IF it is even a factor) as the basis for seeking alternative fuels really takes a backseat, IMHO. If we solve the problem of finding alternative fuels, the secondary issue (IF it is a factor) will also get solved.
IF (notice the word "if"), this increased use of fossil fuels (NOT just in the U.S.) has some effect on climate change, are countries like Russia, China, etc. also putting in place, or will put in place, regulations to constrict their industrial capacity for the purpose of protecting the world environment? Somehow, I don't think so. Every day we are reminded that those countries are more concerned with protecting their own "turf" than they are with the welfare of the larger human situation.
Jeff mentions the damage to oceans and inland waters due to garbage. To our credit we acknowledged these problems & have sought ways to improve upon them. What happens with garbage in N Korea, Russia, etc? If they've come up with better ideas, we ought to look at them.
Nuclear power seems to hold the most immediate solution to replacing fossil fuels in large-scale industrial/commercial use. However, we should be well aware that other countries (like Russia) are far more lax in their protections for preventing nuclear "accidents". Do we remember Chernoble, and the far-reaching atmospheric effects of that disaster? Do we expect that if N Korea were to put nuclear energy into commercial uses it would be more responsible than Russia was?
The question becomes, is cap & trade (tax?) the best way to solve the problem for the U.S.? First, I don't see any way that it will have any bearing at all on what other countries will do about the problem.
Cap & trade will be a unilateral action, that will simply make energy more expensive for the U.S. businesses and individuals. Doing so puts U.S. products at a greater disadvantage in the world market. The increased cost of energy to individuals means that the economic condition of the whole population (except maybe for some connected well politically) even more precarious than it is already. When consumers must spend more of their paycheck for heating and cooking fuel, there is less left for disposable consumer spending.
As Pennsylvania braces itself for a 30% increase in electrical costs, I can only imagine what that will do to the local economies. Even though our local electric company (PP&L) made more profit last year (at its present rates) than any time in history, their price increase (we are told) is because they are preparing to pay more for fuels in the coming years. Needless to say, Pennsylvania power companies have always depended pretty heavily on coal as a fuel. Coal will be fuel-non-grata with regard to carbon emissions. Other states are in a similar position.
Interestingly, as PA faces increased costs for heating and electricity, people are turning to "alternatives" that may not help the pollution. People are talking more about pellet stoves, wood stoves, coal stoves, etc. than they are about windmills and solar panels.
The Fed is offering tax credits equal to 30% of the cost of installing solar and/or geothermal home systems. Of course, if the system costs $25,000, that means you're getting $7500 back. Coming up with the other $17,500 could be a problem if you just lost your job. That money that the banks are giving back to the government, maybe it should pay for installing more residential solar panels at the grassroots level?
Let's try this one: In places like AZ with lots of sun available, solar panels can be cost-effective. Government grant installs solar panels on residential homes. Solar panels then provide electricity needed for the residence. Resident pays reasonable amount for the electric it uses from those panels to repay the government grant for the installation (plus interest until the grant & interest are paid in full). Excess electricity is then sold at a reasonable rate to the local electric company (by the resident). The electric company then sells that electricity to other consumers (business or residential) Very important to keep the bureaucracy to barest minimums.
Eventually, the resident will have paid off the "loan" & get their electricity free. The amount NOT paid for electricity can be used to maintain the solar panel equipment. The resident can continue to sell its excess to the electric company for the use of other customers. (Perhaps the sale of the excess electricity to the power company can be worked into the maintenance of the solar panel system, just as the power company maintains its other electrical capacity.)
Seems to me that such a program could be "tested" in one community, on small scale, to see if it works. Worst case scenario is that you end up with several homes with solar panels, no longer dependent on fossil fuel for electricity.
If this works, then it seems reasonable to me that a private enterprise could develop around installing solar panels for residential consumers that are paid for via "installments" and excess sold to local power companies. This example only works well for places like AZ.
There are lots smarter people than me out there. There have got to be better solutions to our energy problem than cap & trade.
Coal, within the limits of our present technology, is high in pollution. OTOH, one nuclear accident could trump all that pollution big-time.
Without a world-wide effort to replace finite fossil fuels, anything we do that further depresses the U.S. economy at a time when it is already struggling just doesn't compute for me. We have also seen that when the U.S. economy goes down, the ripple effect throughout the rest of the world is undeniable.
Makes me think of Milton Friedman, in that the capitalist system has fueled the economy of the world; even for those countries who decry it so loudly.
Our focus should be how to not further depress the U.S. economy as we search for the viable alternatives to fossil fuels. If cap & trade does not accomplish both objectives, it will be bad for the U.S. and for the world.
Sorry this is so long.
You know, I don't buy the whole "global warming" thing.
How do we know that this is NOT a normal occurance?
You know, the earth used to be covered by a lot more water and glaciers and snow. It was called the ice age.
What happened to all of the "frozen water"????
I would bet it either melted or evaporated. I don;t recall in any discussions of the ice age how carbon emissions melted the ice. It seems to me that "man" at that time was lucky to be able to cook food let alone drive a car.
Just watched a show on TLC the other day. Very very interesting.....do you know they have SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the magnetic poles change every so often? While this happens, there are "catastrophic" changes that occur. Some species survive and some do not. However, it does tell about how the water and ice amounts change and "relocate".
So are the poles reversing due to some Republican conspiracy to promote fossil fuel use??
I think not.
I would love to hear the explaination from these spudo scientists explaining the swing in temperatures from up to down and back again over the eons of time .
lets face it,,,its just normal changes that has gone on since the beggining of time. Its really a no brainer. if it never happened before then yes We might be the culprits ,,,,but this is normal,,,,,I promise the sky will not collapse.:D But if we can convince enough people,,,and the scientists can still keep going to work in the morning to justify their waste of time and money for the taxpayers. After this is debunked and billions of money are wasted ,,we will now try to convince the world of global cooling being mans fault.
The planet may be warming but so what its nothing man can do about it.
Like we say in idaho ,,,if you don't like the weather just wait a minute
Wouldn't implementing the Picken's Plan be much cheaper than all of this Cap and Trade while creating jobs that actually produce and stay in the US? I am not confident Cap and Trade will produce anything but massive taxes that will hinder innovation and new technologies.
There will always be oil
There will still be oil in the ground 10 years from now, and 50 years from now and 500 years from now. This will hold true no matter if you take a pessimistic or optimistic view about the amount of oil still available to be extracted. Let's suppose that the supply really is quite limited. What will happen as the supply starts to diminish? First we would expect to see some wells run dry and either be replaced with new wells that have higher associated costs or not be replaced at all. Either of these would cause the price at the pump to rise. When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, or cars that run on alternative fuels. Each consumer will react to the price change differently, so we would expect to see everything from more people bicycling to work to used car lots full of Lincoln Navigators.
If we go back to Economics 101, this effect is clearly visible. The continual reduction of the supply of oil is represented by a series of small shifts of the supply curve to the left and an associated move along the demand curve. Since gasoline is a normal good, Economics 101 tells us that we will have a series of price increases and a series of reductions in the total amount of gasoline consumed. Eventually the price will reach a point where gasoline will become a niche good purchased by very few consumers, while other consumers will have found alternatives to gas. When this happens there will still be plenty of oil in the ground, but consumers will have found alternatives that make more economic sense to them, so there will be little, if any, demand for gasoline.
The democrats would rather attempt to accelerate that process by artificially inflating the cost with taxes and onerous regulation regardless of the economic outcomes. They don’t appear to care if alternative technologies are ready for prime time, efficient, cost effective or for that matter work or make any sense at all.
As it relates to this issue, democrats are silly.
Good posts Gerry, Terry, & Jeff.
I'm not smart enough to know who is right, but I'd be more inclined to believe the Democrat leaders on the Global Warming issue, IF I SAW THEM PUT IN PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH.
I see Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore and the other Democratic leaders consume more fossil fuel EACH, then everybody put together in the small city I live in.
Buying Carbon Credits makes as much sense as a fat guy buying extra Weight Watcher points.