Obama clearly does care.

Coal is the cheapest energy source for electrical power generation only if its environmental costs are ignored. Cap and trade is a way to include the environmental costs of energy into the costs the electrical consumer pays. This was done very effectively for sulfur emissions on a small scale. It can be done for carbon emissions on a much larger scale.

Should consumers pay for the costs of the pollution they are directly responsible for?

Obama and these Democrats will ruin this country beyond repair. Their lies to the American people and their policies to destroy the free market system makes me sick. In the end, it's up to us to vote these goons out of office. I feel like America is losing it's true purpose of protecting our way of life and our liberty under this full Democrat Congress and White House.

Note that this video from Obama is from January 2008. His statement of "skyrocketing" electric rates lacked a through economic analysis.

The latest estimate from the Congressional Budget Office places the annual osts of the Waxman Markey bill at $175 per household in 2020. Hardly a "skyrocketing" increase.

Oregon Perspective:

Question: Has cap and trade worked in Europe?

Oregon Perspective Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> joblo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > oregon perspective, you are a moron.
>
> A free-market, cap and trade approach to reducing
> harmful emissions can work.
>
> Sulfur emissions from US coal-fired power plants
> were lowered by 50% over 15 years at 1/4 of the
> initial costs with the cap and trade program
> introduced in the 1993 Clean Air Act. Problems of
> acid rain and lake acidification in the NE US were
> reversed by that program.
>
> Admittedly carbon emissions is a much bigger
> challenge. Do you think there is another approach
> that would work better?

joblo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> oregon perspective, you are a moron.

I second that.

Real Clear Politics isn't being very clear.

Obama was talking about his cap-and-trade plan which would auction off 100% of the permits, but the Waxman-Markey Plan that passed the House on Friday gives away 85% of the permits for free.

Obama's plan would have raised about $600 Billion over 10 years, which he proposed as a way to pay for a middle-class tax cut. So any increase in your energy would be offset by the tax cut.

Waxman-Markey, which is kinder to energy companies, would be defecit neutral.

Capitalism Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oregon Perspective:
>
> Question: Has cap and trade worked in Europe?


The EU nations approved the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for CO2 emissions, and so began their regional cap and trade system in 2005, 7 years ahead of the US. Their goal is a 21% reduction in CO2 by 2020, compared to a goal of 17% reduction for the US under Waxman-Markey.

In Europe, Phase 1 of their EMS, with a 2-year goal of 1-2 % reduction in CO2 emissions, achieved a 3-4 % reduction, while getting up and runnign an allocation and trading systems for over 10,000 emitters.

An unprecedented achievement. Couldn'nt the US do better?

Oregon Perspective Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> joblo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > oregon perspective, you are a moron.
>
> A free-market, cap and trade approach to reducing
> harmful emissions can work.
>
> Sulfur emissions from US coal-fired power plants
> were lowered by 50% over 15 years at 1/4 of the
> initial costs with the cap and trade program
> introduced in the 1993 Clean Air Act. Problems of
> acid rain and lake acidification in the NE US were
> reversed by that program.
>
> Admittedly carbon emissions is a much bigger
> challenge. Do you think there is another approach
> that would work better?

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that CO2 is as harmful at its present level in the atmosphere as SOx were in 1993, and the assumption that a zero-cost solution for excess SOx did not already exist in 1993 and for decades before 1993. That solution is nuclear power. In fact, our refusal to use nuclear power and take full advantage of the full fuel cycle (reprocessing, breeding), is the only reason that an air pollution problem ever existed in the first place! Because it is human nature to make scientific and technological breakthroughs, and as the population grows (creating potential pollution and resource problems), the rate of scientific progress accelerates, unless an evil imperial conspiracy succeeds in making the population stupid!

Nuclear power is also a zero-cost solution for excess CO2, but the present levels are far from excessive, even considering its impact on the climate (which is tiny, and easily dwarfed by other factors). We would be wise, therefore, not to impose any punitive tax or quota on carbon combustion, but take full advantage of the cheapness of carbon fuels to enable us to meet the short-term needs of the people while we go full throttle on nuclear power plant construction, Franklin D. Roosevelt's TVA-style. Nuclear power is a zero-cost solution because, unlike solar, wind, etc., it is a tremendous upgrade in energy flux density from any form of combustion. Actually, it is so much better than combustion, we are flagellating ourselves by not using it! Even our cars should be replaced with electric or hydrogen (or other synthetic fuel)-powered vehicles, with nuclear power as the source of electricity or hydrogen because, relative to nuclear power, combustion is a colossal waste of human labor!

Here, here! Anybody ever notice how many times Obama says "I"? He thinks America's his to rule. That's called "Fascism"! He spoke more truth during the campaign than he's done since hetook office!

Global warming is really starting to lose its credibility and it grassroots appeal. To save face, politicians should really shift the debate back toward more local concerns like air, water and soil quality. And policy stemming from scientific findings should be handled at the state level by state agencies. There has to be a balance between what is good for the environment and the economy. Fossil fuels are extremely cheap. Everything else has to be propped up by subsidies, whether it is wind, solar, or wood chips. We should definitely look into recapturing combusted energy in order to reduce emissions and reduce our reliance on foreign oil. However, reducing global warming is like saying we should shift the Earth's axis. The Earth is going to warm and cool on its own.

Some companies are already taking steps toward reducing wasteful energy loss at refineries, such as Valero in San Antonio. They have found that recapturing energy from combustion is cheaper than burning new oil to run the refinery. There are economic incentives in place to recapture that combusted energy due to supply and demand of fossil fuels. No mandates necessary.

Landfills are also working toward combusting methane to produce electricity and cleanly evaporate leachate. Tax credits have worked to reduce methane emissions in this instance.

I am not saying that climate change doesn't affect people at the ground level. Ice caps that provide drinking water and irrigation concern people who rely on that resource. If a scientist holds up a crab, and says, "Look, this crab can not form its exoskeloton at this ph level" and I am a crab fisherman, then global emissions concern me.

I don't think we really know how many ppm of CO2 is really appropriate vs code red terror alert. What I do know is that the war on global warming is going to look like the war on drugs, the red scare, war on terror etc- expensive and probably counterproductive. Aritificial price floors on fossil fuels and emissions will only hurt the economy. And doomsday predictions and fearmongering insult my intelligence.

Just to play devil's advocate- if man made climate change is as dangerous as some say, it will take people combusting or melting in the streets for most of us to care. It took a giant dust cloud approaching Washington for politicians to care about the way we ran agriculture in this country in order to reverse the effects of the dust bowl.



Oregon Perspective Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harvey, I agree with you that nuclear power is an
> important part of the energy puzzle. The Obama
> administration agrees as well.
>
> Obama's DOE announced this month that "four power
> companies are expected to split $18.5 billion in
> federal financing to build the next generation of
> nuclear reactors -- the biggest step in three
> decades to revive the U.S. nuclear industry (WSJ,
> 6/17).
>
> As for CO2, the world economy has put 900 gigatons
> of CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 40 years,
> 500 gigatons are still there, increasing
> atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 390 ppm, the
> highest concentration in the last 1 million years;
> most of the remaining 400 gigatons of CO2 is in
> the oceans, lowering ocean pH. Both effects are
> much greater than sulfur's.
>
> How much increased CO2 is too much for you? Is
> nuclear the only solution you're offering?
>
> Harvey Birch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Oregon Perspective Wrote:
>
> > > A free-market, cap and trade approach to
> reducing
> > > harmful emissions can work.
> > >
> > > Sulfur emissions from US coal-fired power
> plants
> > > were lowered by 50% over 15 years at 1/4 of
> the
> > > initial costs with the cap and trade program
> > > introduced in the 1993 Clean Air Act.
> Problems of
> > > acid rain and lake acidification in the NE US
> were
> > > reversed by that program.
> > >
> > > Admittedly carbon emissions is a much bigger
> > > challenge. Do you think there is another
> approach
> > > that would work better?
> >
>
>
> > The flaw in your argument is the assumption
> that
> > CO2 is as harmful at its present level in the
> > atmosphere as SOx were in 1993, and the
> assumption
> > that a zero-cost solution for excess SOx did
> not
> > already exist in 1993 and for decades before
> 1993.
> > That solution is nuclear power.
>
> Nuclear power
> > is a zero-cost solution because, unlike solar,
> > wind, etc., it is a tremendous upgrade in
> energy
> > flux density from any form of combustion.
> > Actually, it is so much better than combustion,
> we
> > are flagellating ourselves by not using it!
> Even
> > our cars should be replaced with electric or
> > hydrogen (or other synthetic fuel)-powered
> > vehicles, with nuclear power as the source of
> > electricity or hydrogen because, relative to
> > nuclear power, combustion is a colossal waste
> of
> > human labor!