• 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!

Obama administration to announce controversial emissions cap on power plants

Verax said:
Scientists recommend this. It's a step in the right direction. We need to do everything we can to curb Co2 emissions.
Click to expand...

Everything? How about going back to a pre-industrial society?
 
vesper said:
Yes scientists funded by governments whose vision is to desire a mechanism that will bring about world redistribution of wealth.
Click to expand...

Oh please :roll:, go to the conspiracy forum.
 
Gaius46 said:
Everything? How about going back to a pre-industrial society?
Click to expand...

Hysterical tantrum. Why don't we just take some measured steps to fix the problems with minimal cost and intrusiveness? Because the end game is to transition away from fossil fuels and that industry is the most profitable in history.
 
Verax said:
Hysterical tantrum. Why don't we just take some measured steps to fix the problems with minimal cost and intrusiveness? Because the end game is to transition away from fossil fuels and that industry is the most profitable in history.
Click to expand...


Hysterical? Really? I was curious as to whether you really meant what you said. Measured steps are fine. In the vast majority of cases "doing everything" to solve a problem leads to even worse problems.
 
Verax said:
The goal is to save the ecosystems of the world. We could care less about your precious fossil fuel industries that spend millions every year convincing people like you the end of the world is near if their profits are threatened.
Click to expand...

Let's say you are 100% correct. Do you really believe that by the U.S. doing ALL of this, while the rest of the major countries like China, Russia, etc. do nothing that it will make the "difference" needed to turn the tide? The U.S. is already a "clean" country compared to the rest of them while the other countries are full steam ahead INCREASING their CO2 output.

Point being that until you get countries like China and Russia on board, forcing the cuts, forcing the increase in costs, is doing nothing but hurting Americans and crippling our economy. And my point is only assuming you are 100% correct. I don't believe you are, so basically you are crippling the U.S. economy, while hurting Americans. Good job!
 
Verax said:
Hysterical tantrum. Why don't we just take some measured steps to fix the problems with minimal cost and intrusiveness? Because the end game is to transition away from fossil fuels and that industry is the most profitable in history.
Click to expand...

Still waiting on the environmentalists to suggest some, so far their approach is draconian.
 
TheNextEra said:
Let's say you are 100% correct. Do you really believe that by the U.S. doing ALL of this, while the rest of the major countries like China, Russia, etc. do nothing that it will make the "difference" needed to turn the tide? The U.S. is already a "clean" country compared to the rest of them while the other countries are full steam ahead INCREASING their CO2 output.

Point being that until you get countries like China and Russia on board, forcing the cuts, forcing the increase in costs, is doing nothing but hurting Americans and crippling our economy. And my point is only assuming you are 100% correct. I don't believe you are, so basically you are crippling the U.S. economy, while hurting Americans. Good job!
Click to expand...

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
American said:
That won't satisfy the environazis whose goals is to destroy these industries, not take reasonble steps that assure the grid's maintenance and growth through the introduction of proven technologies.
Click to expand...

eh, maybe some of them, but i don't really buy into the meme.

personally, i want to replace fossil fuels because they are an outdated technology that leaves us beholden to dictators and other assholes. countries like Russia can use it as leverage, too. we put a man on the moon with less technology than is probably in a smart phone. we can replace oil, and then our kids won't have to deal with massive problems when reserves run low.
 
Verax said:
What Obama is doing is basically the only thing that is politically feasible and its going to be another "scandal" or outrage. If we could make things happen however we want of course things would be done differently.
Click to expand...

oh, i get that. i just think it's the wrong strategy. neither party would sign onto the correct one.
 
Helix said:
eh, maybe some of them, but i don't really buy into the meme.

personally, i want to replace fossil fuels because they are an outdated technology that leaves us beholden to dictators and other assholes. countries like Russia can use it as leverage, too. we put a man on the moon with less technology than is probably in a smart phone. we can replace oil, and then our kids won't have to deal with massive problems when reserves run low.
Click to expand...

Do you think we should use rocket technology to power our homes? That's what took us to the Moon. I'm being fiscious, but my point is that it's not as snap-of-the-finger simple as many untrained, non-technical environmentalist policy-wonks make it. You don't turn a whole country around overnight. And so far some of these environment mearsures don't produce the results they envisioned. Take corn energy, and how much net energy it takes to produce ethanol.

Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist | Cornell Chronicle

And that is just ONE example of the flawed renewable-energy culture we're developing in this country, using politics and buzzwords instead of science with integrity.
 
Verax said:
Oh please :roll:, go to the conspiracy forum.
Click to expand...

No conspiracy. Just the facts. Go back to Obama's first Climate Change czar, Carol Browner.

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change. By Thursday, Mrs. Browner’s name and biography had been removed from Socialist International’s Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group’s congress in Greece was still available.

Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world’s social democratic political parties such as Britain’s Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.

The group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization’s action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Obama, who has said action on climate change would be a priority in his administration, tapped Mrs. Browner last month to fill a new position as White House coordinator of climate and energy policies. The appointment does not need Senate confirmation.

Mr. Obama’s transition team said Mrs. Browner’s membership in the organization is not a problem and that it brings experience in U.S. policymaking to her new role.

“The Commission for a Sustainable World Society includes world leaders from a variety of political parties, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who succeeded Tony Blair, in serving as vice president of the convening organization,” Obama transition spokesman Nick Shapiro said.

“Carol Browner was chosen to help the president-elect coordinate energy and climate policy because she understands that our efforts to create jobs, achieve energy security and combat climate change demand integration among different agencies; cooperation between federal, state and local governments; and partnership with the private sector,” Mr. Shapiro said in an e-mail.

Mrs. Browner ran the Environmental Protection Agency under President Clinton. Until she was tapped for the Obama administration, she was on the board of directors for the National Audubon Society, the League of Conservation Voters, the Center for American Progress and former Vice President Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection.

Her name has been removed from the Gore organization’s Web site list of directors, and the Audubon Society issued a press release about her departure from that organization.

Republicans said Mrs. Browner’s work with Socialist International raises questions.

“Does she agree with the group’s positions on global governance - that the United States should abdicate its international leadership to international organizations? Does she support its position that the international community should be the ultimate arbiter of climate change policy?” said Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

“These are questions that merit answers - especially when you consider this group’s deep skepticism about America’s ability to be a force for positive change in the world,” she said.

An aide on the Obama team said its information shows that Mrs. Browner resigned from the organization in June 2008. The aide, who asked not to be named because he was discussing internal matters, said the transition team was aware she had been a member of the group when she was vetted.

The Socialist International Web site didn’t have a copy of her June 30 speech, but the agenda for the meeting had her scheduled to speak as part of a panel on “How do we strengthen the multilateral architecture for a sustainable future?”
Click to expand...
Browner was picked for the position because her stance is on the same page of this administration. And if anything, Obama and the left have shown us that they are willing to make people poor and shrink their incomes, slow economic growth, and implement feckless policies like Obamacare and feckless energy policies that cause hardships for many Americans making them poorer by the day. The less money they have the easier it is to shrink the economy and lessen their consumption.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/?page=2
 
TheNextEra said:
Do you really believe that by the U.S. doing ALL of this, while the rest of the major countries like China, Russia, etc. do nothing that it will make the "difference" needed to turn the tide?
Click to expand...
1) The actions of other nations do not absolve the US of its responsibilities to reduce emissions.
2) The US is still the 2nd largest emitter in absolute terms, and one of the highest per capita.
3) Other nations are reluctant to do anything, when they see the US (a big and affluent polluter) do nothing. So yes, this will encourage other nations to take action.


The U.S. is already a "clean" country compared to the rest of them...
Click to expand...
It really isn't.

GreenhouseGasEmissions_Int_EN.gif



Point being that until you get countries like China and Russia on board....
Click to expand...
And how would the US do that, if we don't even bother to get our own house in order?

I agree that China is going to be a huge problem for emissions, and real soon. But that doesn't justify the US doing nothing at all, and the US doing nothing will certainly not convince China to do anything.


Nor will this "cripple" the US economy. E.g. the US Chamber of Commerce claims, which are on the hysterical side, modeled the economic impacts with greater reductions than Obama actually suggested, and don't credit any positive economic activity at all from the proposed rules. Even with those flaws, it suggests the new rules will put a 0.32% dent in GDP. That hardly sounds like a death blow to me.
 
American said:
...it's not as snap-of-the-finger simple as many untrained, non-technical environmentalist policy-wonks make it.
Click to expand...
True. But....

1) That doesn't change the fact that we really do need to start taking action, and soon.
2) That doesn't mean that change is impossible, even rapid change.
3) Costs for renewable energy sources have been dropping over the past 30 years, notably solar. As we put more work into renewables, the costs will continue to drop.
4) Keep in mind that energy usage does often respond to price fluctuations. When California went through the Enron-induced price hikes a few years ago, usage also dropped, and very rapidly.
 
Visbek said:
True. But....

1) That doesn't change the fact that we really do need to start taking action, and soon.
2) That doesn't mean that change is impossible, even rapid change.
3) Costs for renewable energy sources have been dropping over the past 30 years, notably solar. As we put more work into renewables, the costs will continue to drop.
4) Keep in mind that energy usage does often respond to price fluctuations. When California went through the Enron-induced price hikes a few years ago, usage also dropped, and very rapidly.
Click to expand...

True, but....................none of that is true. Nothing to see here, let's go on with our agenda. :roll:
 
American said:
Do you think we should use rocket technology to power our homes? That's what took us to the Moon. I'm being fiscious, but my point is that it's not as snap-of-the-finger simple as many untrained, non-technical environmentalist policy-wonks make it. You don't turn a whole country around overnight. And so far some of these environment mearsures don't produce the results they envisioned. Take corn energy, and how much net energy it takes to produce ethanol.

Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist | Cornell Chronicle

And that is just ONE example of the flawed renewable-energy culture we're developing in this country, using politics and buzzwords instead of science with integrity.
Click to expand...

nah, i think we should build a **** ton of nuclear (i prefer thorium, from what i've read about it) and renewables. blanket the country with windmills like they have done in my town (they're actually pretty neat,) solar panels in the desert, and hydroelectric in the ocean. that would be a hell of a good start, IMO.
 
Visbek said:
1) The actions of other nations do not absolve the US of its responsibilities to reduce emissions.
2) The US is still the 2nd largest emitter in absolute terms, and one of the highest per capita.
3) Other nations are reluctant to do anything, when they see the US (a big and affluent polluter) do nothing. So yes, this will encourage other nations to take action.



It really isn't.

GreenhouseGasEmissions_Int_EN.gif
Click to expand...


This is typical begging the question. IF you accept that CO2 is "pollution" then the US is unclean.

But CO2 isn't pollution.
 
Helix said:
nah, i think we should build a **** ton of nuclear (i prefer thorium, from what i've read about it) and renewables. blanket the country with windmills like they have done in my town (they're actually pretty neat,) solar panels in the desert, and hydroelectric in the ocean. that would be a hell of a good start, IMO.
Click to expand...

Probably no eco-problems caused by any of that, right? Nice the way didn't even read what I said.
 
TheNextEra said:
Let's say you are 100% correct. Do you really believe that by the U.S. doing ALL of this, while the rest of the major countries like China, Russia, etc. do nothing that it will make the "difference" needed to turn the tide? The U.S. is already a "clean" country compared to the rest of them while the other countries are full steam ahead INCREASING their CO2 output.

Point being that until you get countries like China and Russia on board, forcing the cuts, forcing the increase in costs, is doing nothing but hurting Americans and crippling our economy. And my point is only assuming you are 100% correct. I don't believe you are, so basically you are crippling the U.S. economy, while hurting Americans. Good job!
Click to expand...

We are also the richest and the world leader. It is our job to be the role model for other countries to follow. China is the biggest polluter by far, we are second, Russia is a distant fifth. We need to help China transition to clean energy and the first step in that is doing it ourselves and leading the way.

We can make the excuse that everything we do to combat this is going to be hard so we shouldn't do it. We can do that until the consequences wreak havoc and cause far more damage than the mitigation would have costed. Or we can be responsible, put a few bucks aside for the future and give our children a world that was hopefully at least as decent as the one we inherited.
 
vesper said:
No conspiracy. Just the facts. Go back to Obama's first Climate Change czar, Carol Browner.


Browner was picked for the position because her stance is on the same page of this administration. And if anything, Obama and the left have shown us that they are willing to make people poor and shrink their incomes, slow economic growth, and implement feckless policies like Obamacare and feckless energy policies that cause hardships for many Americans making them poorer by the day. The less money they have the easier it is to shrink the economy and lessen their consumption.

Obama climate czar has socialist ties - Washington Times
Click to expand...

:doh LoL, just stop.
 
American said:
Probably no eco-problems caused by any of that, right? Nice the way didn't even read what I said.
Click to expand...

any ecological problems will probably not be as bad as fossil fuels. however, i'm not really looking at this from an environmental view. i'm looking at it from an energy independence / 21st century tech / jobs / kids will no be beholden to asshole dictators point of view. the fact that it will probably be better environmentally is a great side benefit.

either way, what Obama is proposing isn't the way i'd choose to do it.
 
Verax said:
:doh LoL, just stop.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm sure progressives would just love it if everyone who speaks out and questions the motives of the left would "just stop". No doubt. But while you do your part to sound the alarms and ratchet up the rhetoric on CO2, more and more polls are showing a decline of concern among the masses not just in the U.S. but globally. And when folks start experiencing the increases in their energy bills a direct result due to forced regulations based on unsettled science promoted by scientists funded by socialist leaders across the globe, progressives may be forced into hiding. ;)
 
Last edited:
Verax said:
Scientists recommend this. It's a step in the right direction. We need to do everything we can to curb Co2 emissions.
Click to expand...

What scientists recommend that the US unilaterally curb carbon emissions and give our competitors an advantage?
 
Verax said:
We are also the richest and the world leader. It is our job to be the role model for other countries to follow. China is the biggest polluter by far, we are second, Russia is a distant fifth. We need to help China transition to clean energy and the first step in that is doing it ourselves and leading the way.

We can make the excuse that everything we do to combat this is going to be hard so we shouldn't do it. We can do that until the consequences wreak havoc and cause far more damage than the mitigation would have costed. Or we can be responsible, put a few bucks aside for the future and give our children a world that was hopefully at least as decent as the one we inherited.
Click to expand...

We need to help China with their transition? Say what you really mean....U.S. taxpayers need to pay for it. You are willing to make people poor and decrease their standard of living with less consumption and exuberant prices for energy while forcing them to pay for others to "conform" to this so called science that is unsettled. What a scam to bring about global governance.
 
vesper said:
Yes I'm sure progressives would just love it if everyone who speaks out and questions the motives of the left would "just stop". No doubt. But while you do your part to sound the alarms and ratchet up the rhetoric on CO2, more and more polls are showing a decline of concern among the masses not just in the U.S. but globally. And when folks start experiencing the increases in their energy bills a direct result due to forced regulations based on unsettled science promoted by scientists funded by socialist leaders across the globe, progressives may be forced into hiding. ;)
Click to expand...

You're probably right. Most people aren't very scientific and will take the seemingly easy way out. This is why agw is such a terrible problem. Down the road we will pay dearly for these missteps promoted heavily by the ignorant right.
 
Dittohead not! said:
What scientists recommend that the US unilaterally curb carbon emissions and give our competitors an advantage?
Click to expand...

That we curb emissions. This issue is many magnitudes larger than a perceived economic disadvantage from mitigation strategies. We can do things in an intelligent manner than minimize potential losses. If you listen to the right they will scream at the top of their lungs that we are slitting our own throats, like they do about everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom