Obama administration breaks with the years of 'climate change denial'

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>the yet to been seen costs caused by such taxes would make the costs
>of the topics you raise look minimal by comparison IMO

How much did the Manhattan Project cost us in the long run? The Apollo Program? Both were tremendously expensive; the most expensive programs of their kind ever. Did the technology we received, and the science we learned, justify their cost?

Any significant effort to reduce the rate of increase of our CO2 emissions will involve the development of new technology, technology that will allow the US to take the lead in emerging energy technologies. Like the Manhattan Project, it will give us a strategic advantage over countries that don't have such technology.

Is that worth it? Perhaps. We are already seeing benefits from such efforts in the past.

The destruction of the energy sector we currently have will have ramifications beyond belief. Cost as in loss of jobs ect will be hard to measure.

Of course, this whole debate goes on because I gave you some of the premises concerning the man made causes of climate change, which are not a given to start with.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Do you have any idea of what cap n trade and other taxes will cost in the long run and short run? An excelerted push toward and mandates of renewables will only add to the pain.

IMO the taxes proposed dwarf any costs the "may" be incured by doing nothing. It would not ever be close.

Would you kindly link to the actuarial analysis upon which you base your assertions?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,434]

>The destruction of the energy sector we currently have will
>have ramifications beyond belief.

?? The coal delivery sector (for home heating) has been 'destroyed' by new technology. Did it destroy us?

The entire horse-as-transportation industry employed millions in the 19th century. At one point fully 20% of the jobs in New York City were dedicated to the horse transportation industry - stables, food, cleanup, carriage repair etc. They cleaned up the six million pounds of manure a day that horses generated, hauled out the 200 horses a day that died, sold saddles and tack, stabled the horses when they weren't needed, cared for them when they were sick, fed them when they were hungry and bred new horses to replace the dying ones.

Cars replaced 99.99% of those industries. Did it destroy us? Should we have held on to equine transportation because we didn't want to risk "ramifications beyond belief" by putting all those people out of work? If we had stuck to horses instead of trains, trucks and eventually cars, would we be better off as a country today?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>The destruction of the energy sector we currently have will
>have ramifications beyond belief.

?? The coal delivery sector (for home heating) has been 'destroyed' by new technology. Did it destroy us?

The entire horse-as-transportation industry employed millions in the 19th century. At one point fully 20% of the jobs in New York City were dedicated to the horse transportation industry - stables, food, cleanup, carriage repair etc. They cleaned up the six million pounds of manure a day that horses generated, hauled out the 200 horses a day that died, sold saddles and tack, stabled the horses when they weren't needed, cared for them when they were sick, fed them when they were hungry and bred new horses to replace the dying ones.

Cars replaced 99.99% of those industries. Did it destroy us? Should we have held on to equine transportation because we didn't want to risk "ramifications beyond belief" by putting all those people out of work? If we had stuck to horses instead of trains, trucks and eventually cars, would we be better off as a country today?

Bill, I am not against change. I am not against renewable energy. The government proposals have nothing to do with that however. I would think you, if anybody, could see that.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

You could start here.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst050709b.cfm

Although not an analysis, notjust a blog either.

From the end of the piece

Quote

Conclusion

The Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation analyzed a proposal to cut CO2 emissions by 70 percent. Such a cut would have little impact on global temperatures. At best, the trade-off is trillions of dollars in lost income and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs versus a fraction of a degree change in average world temperature 85 years from now

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,434]

>Bill, I am not against change. I am not against renewable energy.
>The government proposals have nothing to do with that however.

Some government proposals do indeed have a LOT to do with that.

One excellent one was the net metering law, which requires utilities to accept power generated by small producers (i.e. people with solar on their roofs.) Without that law, utilities were taking the "easy way out" and saying "sorry, no solar, too hard to bill, too hard to deal with." Without that law (or a similar government intervention) there would now be no way to do solar without fairly large batteries - which would make solar at least twice as hard to install, 50% more costly and would add to our heavy metal waste problems. (And would not help nearly as much with peak demand problems.)

So good job on that.

Another good angle are the CAFE requirements, which effectively require better gas mileage than a car company would otherwise choose (and indeed than consumers would otherwise choose during a time of historically average gas prices.) Since it was first implemented in 1975 it's saved us tens of billions of barrels of oil. It's definitely not perfect. But given how popular SUV's have become, and given how manufacturers don't have much trouble meeting the CAFE standards now that the technology exists, it's done far more good than harm to the US as a country.

That's not to say that all government proposals are going to be good for renewable energy or good for the US. Many are just plain dumb. But some do a pretty good job overall.

[jerryzflies 0]

The Heritage Foundation

Isn't that Newsmax's think tank.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The Heritage Foundation

Isn't that Newsmax's think tank.

When you can't refute the data, attack the source?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Bill, I am not against change. I am not against renewable energy.
>The government proposals have nothing to do with that however.

Some government proposals do indeed have a LOT to do with that.

One excellent one was the net metering law, which requires utilities to accept power generated by small producers (i.e. people with solar on their roofs.) Without that law, utilities were taking the "easy way out" and saying "sorry, no solar, too hard to bill, too hard to deal with." Without that law (or a similar government intervention) there would now be no way to do solar without fairly large batteries - which would make solar at least twice as hard to install, 50% more costly and would add to our heavy metal waste problems. (And would not help nearly as much with peak demand problems.)

So good job on that./from that perspective you are correct but there is more you fail to post. This law also forces the utlities to buy the energy at a price higher than they can produce it or buy it from the grid. So, is is a back door tax on utilites and give people like you free acess to multi million dollon infrustructer investments. No wonder you like it

Another good angle are the CAFE requirements, which effectively require better gas mileage than a car company would otherwise choose (and indeed than consumers would otherwise choose during a time of historically average gas prices.) Since it was first implemented in 1975 it's saved us tens of billions of barrels of oil. It's definitely not perfect. But given how popular SUV's have become, and given how manufacturers don't have much trouble meeting the CAFE standards now that the technology exists, it's done far more good than harm to the US as a country.again only half the story but I dont have the time to respond the way it needs to be responded to

That's not to say that all government proposals are going to be good for renewable energy or good for the US. Many are just plain dumb. But some do a pretty good job overall.

I dont mind "help". But they force it down our throats like the net metering crap.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

The Heritage Foundation

Isn't that Newsmax's think tank.

When you can't refute the data, attack the source?

Normal MO when the content can not be refuted.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Although not an analysis, not just a blog either.

As an analysis (which I recognize you explicitly said it wasn't) it seems to be lacking in terms of rigor. I'd recommend taking its conclusions with a grain of salt.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Heritage Foundation

Isn't that Newsmax's think tank.

When you can't refute the data, attack the source?

Normal MO when the content can not be refuted.

Science does not progress based on clearly biased sources. It's much the same reason that we don't give credence to tobacco companies' research showing that smoking is not linked to cancer.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

The Heritage Foundation

Isn't that Newsmax's think tank.

When you can't refute the data, attack the source?

What DATA are they. The Heritage Foundation is not a scientific research institute, laboratory or university - it produces no data, just prejudiced opinions.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Heritage Foundation

Isn't that Newsmax's think tank.

When you can't refute the data, attack the source?

Normal MO when the content can not be refuted.

Science does not progress based on clearly biased sources. It's much the same reason that we don't give credence to tobacco companies' research showing that smoking is not linked to cancer.

I know I know, only the sides you believe are pure as the wind driven snow.

you guys are funny.

It is exactly your type of attitude that makes this topic so dangerous

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Heritage Foundation

Isn't that Newsmax's think tank.

When you can't refute the data, attack the source?

What DATA are they. The Heritage Foundation is not a scientific research institute, laboratory or university - it produces no data, just prejudiced opinions.

So he to whom I posted asked for an actuarial analysis. I suppose you have one to back his side?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Royd 0]

Quote

The RISK of doing too little was greater than the RISK of doing too much, where risk is proportional to both the expected losses which may be caused by an event and to the probability of this event. Greater loss and greater event likelihood result in a greater overall risk. In this case the expected losses in a killer pandemic are extremely high so the risk is high even if the probability is low..

There seems to be a bit of a dichotomy, here... The evil human is the cause of global warming... errr.... climate change.... It's so hard to keep up, these days.. We must, therefore, tax the hell out of the human being, or at least those with money in their pockets, to maintain a perfect temperature.
Now, we have a second crisis...Yes, they seem to be the fad of the time....The Swine Flu... It could kill millions of those evil humans beings... What are we going to do????... Let's reach into the pockets of those who have money, once again, so that we can solve this crisis.
Are we starting to see a pattern here?.... If we simply let the Swine Flu, or the Bird Flu, or the People Flu, or the Swirple Flu, run it's course, it would eliminate millions of those evil humans, and thus, we would no longer have to reach into the pockets of those people with money, to solve the problem of the sun deciding to take a break, or be pissed off, for a few years.

[Royd 0]

>Can you prove that global warming will harm you if it exists?

Quote

?? No. Other than paying more for water and food, it will likely not harm me directly.

How could having an orange orchard in Ontario be a bad thing? After all, the latest housing boom has destroyed thousands of acres of Florida citrus land.

[Royd 0]

Quote

The easiest way is to help build public hatred of the competition. Gore is a genius.

If he'd get a bright, plaid jacket, a 10carat pinky ring and a $10 cigar, I'd probaby be drawn onboard.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

The easiest way is to help build public hatred of the competition. Gore is a genius.

If he'd get a bright, plaid jacket, a 10carat pinky ring and a $10 cigar, I'd probaby be drawn onboard.

Oh stop it!!





Now I got that in my head! I will pay you back!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Ion01 1]

Quote

>Do you have any idea of what cap n trade and other taxes will cost in
>the long run and short run?

Quite a lot in both the short term and the long term. The reason to consider such measures would be to avoid even higher costs in the long term.

For example, let's say that one of the results of warming is reduced rainfall in the Sierra Nevadas (which is happening already) and in the West in general. What would it cost to lose 1/3 the water that is supplying LA? Trillions would be a low estimate.

What about the increased rainfall in the mid-west which is causing flooding in areas that don't flood the water is falling so fast and so much?
Once again climate changes. We can't stop it or control it. There are places that are deserts that used to be lush and visa versa. Thats how the climate works.

[billvon 2,434]

>Normal MO when the content can not be refuted.

You mean like your ignoring anything that NASA GISS publishes because you don't like the guy who runs it, eh? Pot, meet kettle.

[billvon 2,434]

>How could having an orange orchard in Ontario be a bad thing?

It's not! Now, as long as you cough up the money to ship them to Florida, we're good. (I assume you're willing to put your money where your mouth is.)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Normal MO when the content can not be refuted.

You mean like your ignoring anything that NASA GISS publishes because you don't like the guy who runs it, eh? Pot, meet kettle.

Isn't that the data that got revised due to work by 'deniers' like M&M and Watt?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,434]

>Isn't that the data that got revised due to work by 'deniers' like M&M and
>Watt?

Nope.