Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Global Warming Legis. Will Ruin The EconomyFollow

#1 Jan 22 2007 at 1:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If there's one thing I've learned on these forums, it's that legislation to curb global warming will be a misguided attempt to fight something that has no evidence behind it and that we will quite possibly ruin our economy in the process. Sure, there's some research-grant minded scientists who'll lie and say that mankind is warming the planet but, those who care about the business end, would say otherwise.
CNN/Money wrote:
Chief executives from such major corporations as General Electric and DuPont teamed up with environmental organizations Monday, urging U.S. lawmakers Monday to pass sweeping legislation that would ultimately cut greenhouse gas emissions.

"The time has come for constructive action that draws strength equally from business, government, and non-governmental stakeholders," said Jeff Immelt, Chairman and CEO of General Electric, who participated in the program

The United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), which includes 10 various corporations including diversified conglomerate GE, aluminum producer Alcoa, oil giant BP and investment bank Lehman Brothers, said it ultimately hopes to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 percent from its current levels by 2050.
[...]
USCAP's proposal, entitled "A Call For Action", asks Congress to take a mandatory, "market-driven approach" to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
[...]
USCAP members said that using this market-based approach would not only drive new, greener technology, but it could also be a significant source of growth of economic and job growth for the U.S.
Huh. Well, that's not really important. Because, unlike those money-grubbing quack climatologists who work for the EPA, The American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, we've had independantly minded scientists telling us that everything is a-okay.
ABC News wrote:
Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations, a move experts said could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on greenhouse emissions.

Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Washington, D.C. nonprofit Resources for the Future. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.
[...]
To spur open industry discussion, RFF said the talks, which began in December, exclude nongovernmental organizations. Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions. Last year, CEI ran advertisements, featuring a little girl playing with a dandelion, that downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide emissions.
Bah, those scientists arguing against anthropogenic climate change never needed Big Oil & Engery money anyway. I'm sure they'll do just fine without it and continue to prove me right when I tell you all that anthropogenic climate change is a joke and any attempts to pass legislation regarding it will only cripple the American dream. You can bank on it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Jan 22 2007 at 2:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
You beat me to it!

Of course my inner cynic is saying, "Sure, Big Bidness wants these rules in place to drive up the cost of doing business in order to kill off the small/midsize firms."

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#3 Jan 22 2007 at 2:11 PM Rating: Decent
Soon those big corporations will be in our hands! Muhahahahaha!

"Our hands" being the socialist government of Europe, who is of course organising all this in order to, erm, take control of companies, I think. Not that Europe has a government as such, and if it did it would most likely not have any influence on, say, California's energy policy, or most of the scientists around the world, or on those big corporations.

Hmm.

I guess you'll have to ask gbaji for the precise details of this conspiracy.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#4 Jan 22 2007 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Dude, the article states that the USCAP is recommending a European style "Cap & Trade" program. It's painfully obvious that British Petroleum is trying to force the United States into a thousand dark years of socialism.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Jan 22 2007 at 2:18 PM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
Dude, the article states that the USCAP is recommending a European style "Cap & Trade" program. It's painfully obvious that British Petroleum is trying to force the United States into a thousand dark years of socialism.


It's always the ones you least suspect...

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#6 Jan 22 2007 at 2:22 PM Rating: Decent
Samira wrote:
Of course my inner cynic is saying, "Sure, Big Bidness wants these rules in place to drive up the cost of doing business in order to kill off the small/midsize firms."


I must admit I'm quite sceptical about their intentions too.

But I guess they've realised that in the medium-term, it's in their interest to be leaders in the field of renewable/alternative energy. Those "Cap & Trade" schemes were always going to happen one day, and they might as well be ready for it.

So they're just preparing themselves for the inevitable. And it'll be much cheaper to do so under a federal scheme, than without one.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#7 Jan 22 2007 at 2:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
But I guess they've realised that in the medium-term, it's in their interest to be leaders in the field of renewable/alternative energy.
Oh, no doubt.

I've said many times that the companies with the most interest in developing renewable energy sources are Big Oil/Energy. ExxonMobil would much rather be the company that patents and licenses the engine that runs on smiles and sunshine than to be left trying to peddle fossil fuels when we're all zipping around in zero pollution hover-cars.

The point still being: There's money to be made in being "Green".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Jan 22 2007 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
AHA! I've got it. They've realized the time is ripe to produce those 100% efficient cars that run on air, the patents for which have been in their vaults for 50 years.

"They" are so very clever, damn "them".
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#9 Jan 22 2007 at 3:27 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,328 posts
http://video.google.com/url?vidurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-4480559399263937213%26q%3Dpenn%2B%2526%2Bteller&docid=-4480559399263937213&ev=v&esrc=sr2&usg=AL29H23X_sLMYVVA-K8L2xUwQwoLIgllfg
#10 Jan 22 2007 at 4:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Darkuwa wrote:
http://video.google.com/url?vidurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-4480559399263937213%26q%3Dpenn%2B%2526%2Bteller&docid=-4480559399263937213&ev=v&esrc=sr2&usg=AL29H23X_sLMYVVA-K8L2xUwQwoLIgllfg

Cute, but I'm missing your point.

Penn & Teller's points seem to be:
(1) There's a lot of college students who aren't very smart
(2) A lot of people will use environmentalism to combat capitalism
(3) Some Bjorn guy says that the data is wrong, but no conflicting data was suggested in the episode
(4) A CATO Institute guy pointed out that there was concern about cooling in the 1970's
(5) Penn says that there is debate on global warming
(6) Some environmental guy complained about (2)
(7) The old guy pulls out the "As much forest as 100 years ago" canard
(8) A bunch of stuff about species extinction

(1), (2), (6), (7) & (8) are irrelevent to global climate change
(3) is hard to comment on without any data point from him
(4) is a common retort but it ignores the current data and advances in climate science. You can take anything and say "But we were once unsure about it" but that doesn't actually refute what's being discussed today
(5) isn't really accurate in the scientific community. Go back and read the way-too-long thread we had previously about it.

Not that (7) was important but, just because it always makes me roll my eyes, the statement that "we have as much forest now as 100 years ago" doesn't address the root complaint which is that environmentally sensitive forests which took hundreds, if not thousands, of years to develop are declining. If you clear cut an old growth hardwood forest and replace it with quick growing pine for lumber farming, you don't have the same thing. That would be like me levelling a town, erecting a bunch of tents and shanties on the vacant lots and saying "There is exactly as much housing here as there was a month ago so there's no problem".

And that's what it is being replaced with. Because the money in paper, construction lumber, furniture, etc comes from quick growth confiers, birch, cedar and other fast growing species. There's a reason why you can't buy solid maple, cherry or oak furniture these days and, instead, it's all veneer over pine. Those trees are being depleted and they don't grow back quickly.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Jan 22 2007 at 4:41 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Mehh.

3 issues as I see 'em

1. Global Warming is a natural cyclic phenomenon (=1 to Dubya's Buddies), BUT it's being accelerated to a terrifying degree by CO2 emissions and fossil fuel consumption (-1 the good ol' boys)

2. Supply Vs Demand. When they're out of kilter, you up supply or reduce demand.

This is where the USA of Americaland is in trouble. US consumption levels are out of all proportion (per capita) with the rest of the world. In all the places I've been, I've never seen such appalling waste of energy as I have in the States.

Cars with engines 5 times bigger than needed.
Air conditioning and refrigeration chilling the air to ludicrous levels.
People driving half a mile 'cause it's nigh-on impossible to walk anwhere.

Bloody ridiculous!

3. Fossil fuels have a limted shelf life. The Oil Barons don't know how long their Black Gold (Texas Tea) will last, but they now seem to want to line up their next shot. If the next big thing ain't gonna be oil, they want to own the next big thing.

____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#12 Jan 22 2007 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
3. Fossil fuels have a limted shelf life. The Oil Barons don't know how long their Black Gold (Texas Tea) will last, but they now seem to want to line up their next shot. If the next big thing ain't gonna be oil, they want to own the next big thing.


'Swhat I said!
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#13 Jan 22 2007 at 5:37 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Dude, the article states that the USCAP is recommending a European style "Cap & Trade" program. It's painfully obvious that British Petroleum is trying to force the United States into a thousand dark years of socialism.


pssst!. The US invented the cap and trade system. Europe adopted it when they realized that it did work at reducing costs to achieve environmental goals. I know. The conspiracy theory was so much more amusing then the truth...


While different skeptics of global warming will take different positions, when we talk about global warming legistlation "ruining the economy", we're talking about the knee-jerk "Kyoto Now!" stuff many hard line eco-nuts are trying to foist on us.

I can't speak for every global warming skeptic, but I have *never* stated that we shouldn't try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in fact any form of pollution. I have simply stated that the specific methods we use to do this should take into account both the economic cost and the potential environmental benefit.

If Exxon and the others in this group think they can reduce greenhouse emissions in the US by 60% without "breaking" the economy, that's great. I have no problem with it. But that has little to do with whether or not I believe that a global catastrophe is looming on the horizon that requires ruinous action to prevent. I'd also hold off to see what they propose before cheering (or for some odd reason jeering in this case). In all likelyhood this is just their way of jumping the issue so that they have traction *first* before the Dems can push for a truely ruinous solution on them wholescale.


I for one have *never* said that reducting greenhouse emissions isn't a good idea. Just that we shouldn't kill ourselves in the process...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Jan 22 2007 at 6:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The conspiracy theory was so much more amusing then the truth..
Well, yeah. That's why I told it as a joke. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Jan 23 2007 at 2:16 AM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The conspiracy theory was so much more amusing then the truth..
Well, yeah. That's why I told it as a joke. Smiley: rolleyes


Unlike some other people Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#16 Jan 23 2007 at 2:46 AM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
I for one have *never* said that reducting greenhouse emissions isn't a good idea. Just that we shouldn't kill ourselves in the process...


So you debated with Joph for 7 pages in order to argue that we shouldn't kill ourselves while fighting global warming? And Joph was arguing that, erm, we should? Hmm Smiley: dubious

Cos I got the impression you were saying that global warming was not man-made, thereby implying it would be pointless to alter our course of action.

Let's see:

gbaji wrote:
Most of the arguments about global warming and the things we should be doing to fight it bear no more then semantic connection to the original science. Just enough to fool most people who don't pay much attention...


gbaji wrote:
But the politics essentially moves forward as though that *is* a proven fact. It isn't. It never has been. But it's "convenient" to assume it is in order to pursue specific political agendas, so it's accepted as fact.


gbaji wrote:
If we can't actually measure the effect that human activity is having on the earth as a whole, how on earth can we decide what levels of activity are "ok"?

The answer is that we can't


gbaji wrote:
What we absolutely cannot show is to what degree the CO2 emissions (and other effects as well) have actually *caused* that warming trend. We can't show that this warming trend is not natural all by itself. Our understanding of the entire climatological picuture is so limited that proposing specific political action on the basis of what we know is akin to a doctor ordering an expensive surgical proceedure on a patient when all he knows is that the patient might be sick.


gbaji wrote:
The UN is essentially pursuing an agenda that is not supported by the science. There is ample data showing that temperature fluxuations far larger and faster then what we've seen in the last century have occured in the past. Thus, there's no reason at all to assume that this most recent warming trend is anything at all to be alarmed about.



And of course, purely for kicks:

gbaji wrote:
It's not a "conspiracy" so much as a massive movement that has absolutely *huge* amounts of the worlds power behind it. Socialism is pretty much the controlling factor in Europe. Of *course* they're going to fund science that shows that only with industry under the control of government can we stave off disaster...


I tell you what though, at least you've now joined the good side of the force, if only on one topic.

Well done, young Jedi.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#17 Jan 23 2007 at 6:47 AM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
I for one have *never* said that reducting greenhouse emissions isn't a good idea. Just that we shouldn't kill ourselves in the process...


As opposed to killing ourselves not reducing greenhouse emissions?

Glad we got that straightened out.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2007 8:47am by Kaelesh
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 317 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (317)