• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House narrowly passes major energy-climate bill

why ted kennedy doesn't want windmills near him:
Size

Pictures from the energy companies show slim towers rising cleanly from the landscape or hovering faintly in the distant haze, their presence modulated by soft clouds behind them. But a 200- to 300-foot tower supporting a turbine housing the size of a bus and three 100- to 150-foot rotor blades sweeping over an acre of air at more than 100 mph requires, for a start, a large and solid foundation. On a GE 1.5-MW tower, the turbine housing, or nacelle, weighs over 56 tons, the blade assembly weighs over 36 tons, and the whole tower assembly totals over 163 tons. [Click here for a perspective on their size. Click here for the specs of popular models.]

As FPL (Florida Power & Light) Energy says, "a typical turbine site takes about a 42×42-foot-square graveled area." Each tower (and a site needs at least 15-20 towers to make investment worthwhile) requires a huge hole filled with steel rebar–reinforced concrete (e.g., 1,250 tons in each foundation at the facility in Lamar, Colo.). According to Country Guardian, the hole is large enough to fit three double-decker buses. At the 89-turbine Top of Iowa facility, the foundation of each 323-foot assembly is a 7-feet-deep 42-feet-diameter octagon filled with 25,713 pounds of reinforced steel and 181 cubic yards of concrete. The foundations at the Wild Horse project in Washington are 30 feet deep. At Buffalo Mountain in Tennessee, too, each foundation is at least 30 feet deep and may contain more than 3,500 cubic yards of concrete (production of which is a major source of CO2). On Cefn Croes in Wales the developer built a complete concrete factory on the site, which is not unusual, as well as opened quarries to provide rock for new roads -- neither of which activities were part of the original planning application [click here for photos of the abhorrent destruction on Cefn Croes].

On many such mountain ridges as well as other locations, it would be necessary to blast into the bedrock, as Enxco's New England representative, John Zimmerman, has confirmed, possibly disrupting the water sources for wells downhill. At the Waymart plant in Pennsylvania, the foundations extend 30-40 feet into the bedrock. At Romney Marsh in southern England, foundation pillars will be sunk 110 feet. For each 6-feet-deep foundation at the Crescent Ridge facility in Illinois, another 24 feet was dug out and filled with sand. Construction at a site on the Slieve Aughty range in Ireland in October 2003 caused a 2.5-mile-long bog slide.

(Building on peat bogs is recognized as a serious disruption of an important carbon sink; the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds opposes wind development on the Scottish island of Lewis because the turbines would take 25 years to theoretically save the amount of carbon that their construction will release from the peat (not to mention the threat to birds -- see below).
 
From what I understand, this bill will do little to achieve any promising environmental impact, as it pertains to the emissions of CO2. One of the provisions was going to be that the government would "sell" credits to companies that over went their alotted CO2 output, and was supposed to generate an extra $600 Billion for the government, but I believe that had to be axed in order to get a few more republican votes, as well as some exceptions for the agricultural industry. So now the government will simply be handing out these credits.

Environmental groups are saying its a stupid bill, and conversly people who care about our economy are saying its a stupid bill. The only people who like this bill, are people who know nothing about either issue. I oppose it, based upon its likely economic impact, FWIW.
 
WI Crippler said:
From what I understand, this bill will do little to achieve any promising environmental impact, as it pertains to the emissions of CO2. One of the provisions was going to be that the government would "sell" credits to companies that over went their alotted CO2 output, and was supposed to generate an extra $600 Billion for the government, but I believe that had to be axed in order to get a few more republican votes, as well as some exceptions for the agricultural industry. So now the government will simply be handing out these credits.

Environmental groups are saying its a stupid bill, and conversly people who care about our economy are saying its a stupid bill. The only people who like this bill, are people who know nothing about either issue. I oppose it, based upon its likely economic impact, FWIW.
Click to expand...

As I oppose it, based on problems with the cap-and-trade system and the sheer speed with which it was passed. The costs for this stuff should be just straight-up investments into nuclear, solar and especially wind power. Geoengineering will be enough to stop global warming when it gets worse (not if, but when; I don't deny it).
 
Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:
As I oppose it, based on problems with the cap-and-trade system and the sheer speed with which it was passed. The costs for this stuff should be just straight-up investments into nuclear, solar and especially wind power. Geoengineering will be enough to stop global warming when it gets worse (not if, but when; I don't deny it).
Click to expand...

You can't stop global warming, particularly when we didn't start it and evidence is already showing that the warming cycle has peaked.
 
PeteEU said:
Yes there are. The local power companies in Europe are not exactly "poor" and are the ones that are pushing tons of money into alternative energy projects along with national governments.
Click to expand...


With government subsidies, I'm sure.
 
The Bill should have just banned drive up windows except for handicapped. If people would get off their butts and walk into McD to get their big mac instead of idling around the building energy and pollution problems are solved.
 
underdog334 said:
The Bill should have just banned drive up windows except for handicapped. If people would get off their butts and walk into McD to get their big mac instead of idling around the building energy and pollution problems are solved.
Click to expand...

Off topic I know, so sorry ahead of time, but yesterday I decided to go try the Burger King Angry Whopper. I got there and there were 9 cars in the drive through, so I'm thinking "Damn this is going to be packed inside".

I walked in and there was noone in the lobby. I walked out with my meal, and the guy I would have been behind in drive through was still 5 cars from getting his order.

Talk about lazy people.
 
underdog334 said:
The Bill should have just banned drive up windows except for handicapped. If people would get off their butts and walk into McD to get their big mac instead of idling around the building energy and pollution problems are solved.
Click to expand...

This doesn't even affect pollution. Local ozone is more of a problem than CO2. The data show falling global temperatures. This is just hindering future production and prosperity (during a recession no less!) just for environmental hysteria. Global warming is bupkis.

And hey, if people want to spend the money to do that, more power to them.
 
disneydude said:
In a huge victory for the Obama Administration:
Click to expand...

What, that a Congress with a large majority Democrat infestation can barely pass a bill that's destined to wreak the most incredible havoc on the American economy under the express purpose of curtailing the condition of global warming that nature herself curtailed without any Democrat input a decade ago?

angrycarpenter said:
Americans have a clear picture of which party they should vote for in the next election depending upon how they feel about the environment.
Click to expand...

That's right. They'll have enough time to watch their energy costs soar and vote against Democrats, and hopefully they'll vow to never again be so ****ing stupid.
 
apdst said:
Can't pay for all that garbage is no one is working. The Libbos are all about raising taxes to pay for the deadbeats in the country, but don't understand that if you put the working class out of work, then there won't be any income to tax. Ya just can't tax health bennies on a person that doesn't have a job.
Click to expand...

They understand it perfectly.

Their goal is getting elected and consolidating and holding power. They've decided their best path to achieving that goal is an American bankruptcy via socialism, and now they have a Messiah who's going to bankrupt us faster than anyone.

You hear anything about the dreaded DEFICIT since The Messiah came to town?

No, of course not, the dominant Left Wing media is part of the charade.
 
apdst said:
The Dems will ahve to run someone in PBO's place, just to get someone, anyone, elected. All the damage he's doing to the country and no one is going to vote for his silly ass.
Click to expand...

Don't count on that.

The media is doing everything they can to carry the Messiah's urine, including the gift of free informercial time, just this week, and a free ride on every issue that's come up.
 
Midwest Lib said:
So, tell me, have you read this bill? You seem to be quite the expert, so clearly you must have read this in it's entirety as well as every other piece of legislature that passes through congress that you seem to have such expert opinions about. If you have read this and every other bill that you've argued adamantly for or against, I withdraw my statement, but if you have only read political cliff notes then the hypocrisy of this statement is absolutely absurd. Granted, it is equally ridiculous when bills are passed through congress with much less than a glance at said legislature, but unless you have done it yourself, you have no leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

A citizen isn't required to read a door-stop of a bill to know that it's bad.

In fact, if it can't be read in a reasonable period of time, it's poorly written, overly broad, and too encompassing to be anything resembling a good bill and should be nixed on those concerns alone.

Also, the intent of this bill is to force businesses to pay more money for energy, and thus force the people to pay more, for no other reason than the advancement of religious issues of concern only to the left.
 
Laila said:
CYes well if climate change only affected US and only US then i'd be happy to allow you lot to screw your living space but unfortunately it affects the world.
Click to expand...

Well, GLOBAL WARMING is potentially affected by CO2 concentrations.

Since the earth is in a cooling trend, there's no point in passing new legislation condeming the US economy to control CO2 emissions.

Also, "climate change" is a perpetual process, not subject to demonstrable human influence, and, also, no one's defined what the optimal climate is, the United States has absolutely no responsiblity for altering it's behavior to make the climate of Britain and Europe more optimal (unless you pay us plenty), and other such similar concerns.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
One thing to remember is that C02 pollution mainly comes from coal and oil. Two resources their the supply will continue to decrease and their the demand will increase if somethings isn't done. A large part of the worlds oil is also in unstable countries and/or countries hostile to the USA. That for long term economy benefits it can be really be good to decrease the dependence of oil and coal.
Click to expand...

A VERY important thing to remember is that CO2 is not a pollutant.
 
formerroadie said:
This is basically all I am hearing out of these right wing posters. Amazing.
Click to expand...

What you are hearing is:

The bill is unnecessary. (Undisputable fact).

The bill intrudes on areas not subject to federal authority (per the Constitution).

The bill will raise energy costs to everyone. (You refuse to address this)

The bill will not halt the release of one single carbon dioxide molecule.

The bill will create more government bureaucracy, which is always inefficient.

The bill transfers power from the people to the politicians.

Which of the above, all undisputable, do you support?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom