• 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

Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants and issue allowances for polluters
Click to expand...

Laila said:
Doesn't sound too bad especially considering ...
Click to expand...

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are rising at about 1 percent a year and are predicted to continue increasing without mandatory limits.
Click to expand...

We don't actually know if there's an anthropogenic component to "climate change" (or whatever the environmentalists call it now), so what sense does it make to limit CO2 emissions?
 
PeteEU said:
Of course, and nothing wrong in that.
Click to expand...

I agree that there's nothing wrong with it, but please, don't pass it off as some entreprenurial genius that motivated these folks to build green energy projects. The only reason it's being done is because of government subsidies. The market would bare the construction of such projects, because either it isn't feasable, or nobody wants it.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree that the politicians know exactly what they're doing. Their strategy is pure genius. I'm referring to the folks out here on the street that keep voting for those clowns.
 
Instead of all of those campaigns that try to get everyone to vote, I'd rather see a campaign with this slogan: "Don't know? Don't vote."
 
phattonez said:
Instead of all of those campaigns that try to get everyone to vote, I'd rather see a campaign with this slogan: "Don't know? Don't vote."
Click to expand...


I would like to see voters be required to pass a basic knowledge test before they're allowed to vote. Anyone who lives off government assistance shouldn't be allowed to vote.
 
Can we all say, "redistribute the wealth"?
 
Oftencold said:
It's supposed to be about 1300 pages long, and 300 of those pages were supposedly added at 4:00 a.m. on the day of the vote, and copies were not provided for Republicans.
Click to expand...

No, no, I meant I didn't see any such thing in the article which was linked.

It's entirely possible it's jammed somewhere in 1300 pages.

Is anyone actually going to read the whole thing?

I doubt it.
 
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...

So it seems like that the bill is being critisized for doing too much to reduce CO2 emmisions because it will harm the economy too much, or it is being critisized by groups because it doesn't do enough to reduce CO2 emmisions.

I more or less support the bill because a weak start to reducing CO2 emmisions needs to be started as soon as possible.


If anyone has information to say that it is inneficent in reducing CO2 emmisions for the damamge it will do to the economy, then I would be interested in that.

But a weak effort is a smart step now, after the economy recovers the real work will need to be done. Hopefully after a more concrete proof of human created global warming.
 
Don't Tase Me Bro said:
Historical economic models are able to predict such figures fairly accurately. Whether the job is lost or a potential job is never created, the outcome is still the same, in this case, excessive unemployment.
Click to expand...

Can you actually prove this? And an actual job loss and a potential job not created are not the same thing. There are millions of potential jobs not created at any point in him. Does that equate to excessive unemployment? No. That notion requires that all workers are of the same level, that people aren't moving up, moving down or changing industries entirely. The report is faulty as it requires the belief that the job would have been created in the first place. That is suspect. Rather than address actual real job losses, it just assumes they would have been created in the first place. Anyone who understand the modern economy knows better than that.
 
apdst said:
With government subsidies, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. And we'll have to do the same thing. Anyone who calls for more nuclear power is calling for more taxpayer loans. But remember, it is the job of the government to provide infrastructure. I'd rather have the government do that in a joint agreement with private industry who runs it rather than the government alone running it.
 
obvious Child said:
Pretty much. And we'll have to do the same thing. Anyone who calls for more nuclear power is calling for more taxpayer loans. But remember, it is the job of the government to provide infrastructure. I'd rather have the government do that in a joint agreement with private industry who runs it rather than the government alone running it.
Click to expand...

If green energy were practical, private industry would already be buying into it. The fact tha they're not is a very telling commentary.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bankrupt the country and turn them into socialist??? This sounds like a plot for a Political thriller or maybe a Tom Clancy/John Grisham novel.

Since you figured out the hidden agenda, Scarecrow, you're the hero of the story. They'll be after you like Will Smith in Enemy of the State. But who's going to be you're love interest? Sarah Palin? Does she have the microfilm with the details of the Dem's plan on it? You've got to get her to safely to Fox News HQ before the rouge FBI agents find you.

Intriguing but why don't you just wait them out until mid-terms. Introduce new candidates, true fiscal conservatives with a better plan and start taking back power. Wouldn't that be easier? Let the power swing back, if and when the Dem policies fail.

Of course, in that scenario, you don't get to bed Sarah Palin, but it is more realistic. Right Agent Akhbar?
 
hazlnut said:
Bankrupt the country and turn them into socialist??? This sounds like a plot for a Political thriller or maybe a Tom Clancy/John Grisham novel.

Since you figured out the hidden agenda, Scarecrow, you're the hero of the story. They'll be after you like Will Smith in Enemy of the State. But who's going to be you're love interest? Sarah Palin? Does she have the microfilm with the details of the Dem's plan on it? You've got to get her to safely to Fox News HQ before the rouge FBI agents find you.

Intriguing but why don't you just wait them out until mid-terms. Introduce new candidates, true fiscal conservatives with a better plan and start taking back power. Wouldn't that be easier? Let the power swing back, if and when the Dem policies fail.

Of course, in that scenario, you don't get to bed Sarah Palin, but it is more realistic. Right Agent Akhbar?
Click to expand...

Why chase him if very few people believe him, and he doesn't have enough proof to make others believe him? Not that any amount of proof will convince some people.
 
apdst said:
If green energy were practical, private industry would already be buying into it. The fact tha they're not is a very telling commentary.
Click to expand...

In this regard obvious Child is right mainly because the design of our power grid.

Power generation from massive plants requires government intervention.
If we switched to DC from AC it wouldn't have to be that way but making such a switch would be a mind boggling over haul.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Power generation from massive plants requires government intervention.
If we switched to DC from AC it wouldn't have to be that way but making such a switch would be a mind boggling over haul.
Click to expand...

Of course we can't make it DC, but what exactly is the hindrance in our power grid due to the fact that we use AC? I took an into physics course on E&M so I don't understand all that much about it.
 
phattonez said:
Of course we can't make it DC, but what exactly is the hindrance in our power grid due to the fact that we use AC? I took an into physics course on E&M so I don't understand all that much about it.
Click to expand...

We could make it DC but we would have to retrofit every single house with a inverters so that electronics can run off of our new grid. Then we would have to slowly introduce DC powered products and phase out AC items.

DC power is better over short distances so it would serve a local competitive market better.
AC power is better for long distances and can serve a regional area in many instances.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
We could make it DC but we would have to retrofit every single house with a inverters so that electronics can run off of our new grid. Then we would have to slowly introduce DC powered products and phase out AC items.

DC power is better over short distances so it would serve a local competitive market better.
AC power is better for long distances and can serve a regional area in many instances.
Click to expand...

But what about AC forces power plants to be government controlled?
 
phattonez said:
But what about AC forces power plants to be government controlled?
Click to expand...

They aren't government controlled per se, but it takes a huge amount of money to erect them. The government helps pay for a lot of it.
I would prefer localized power generation, however, its near impossible to get anyone to support it.

Localized power generation would be more adaptable to market conditions and can come from varying sources (solar, micro-nuclear, coal, etc.).
Hell, even Edison agreed that we should be using DC instead of AC.
 
Don't Tase Me Bro said:
Correct. The Republicans, as well as 44 Democrats, showed they do not vote for 1200 page job killing bills they haven't read.
Click to expand...

They should really put word limits on these things. Seriously. If you can't fit it into 2,000 words it's worthless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom