It has long been known that the Sun is neither featureless nor steady. The Sun produces radiant and thermal energies. Climate change is impacted by our sun not carbon dioxide. A visit to your Indiana State Museum and you will see proof that Indiana was once tropical and drowned in water with fossil of sharks, ferns and palm trees. Our world is dynamic and always changing “Cap and Trade” is just a clever way to tax our citizenry and another “bucket of water” on our economy. Consider learn more about our sun and particularly solar flares before you sign on for lowering emissions from our Indiana Industry of coal.
Solar flares are intense, short-lived releases of energy. They are seen as bright areas on the Sun in optical wavelengths and as bursts of noise in radio wavelengths; they can last from minutes to hours. Flares are our solar system’s largest explosive events. The primary energy source for flares appears to be the tearing and reconnection of strong magnetic fields. They radiate throughout the electromagnetic spectrum, from gamma rays to x-rays, through visible light out to kilometer-long radio waves
Dedicated to Eric Stallsmith for creating a forum of discussion
Cap and trade bills are nothing short of a government re-engineering of the American economy. And S. 2191, with its aggressive targets to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use, would put the nation on a path of serious economic harm not justified by any benefits.
What I really hate is that the debate on cap and trade does not include the optimal way to handle this. You are right in saying re-engineering the american economy. We already have a well defined means to assign costs to things....MONEY. Cap and trade introduces an inefficient and clumsy exchange medium to the equation.
In addition we are so focused on carbon these days that nobody talks about funky cancer causing emissions and heavy metals and stuff. It is a crazy thing to be solely focused on global warming when there are a million problems to also address.
Think about these facts that are part of any college level introduction to taxation economics class.
For capitalism to work effectively then the government's duty is to tax negative externalities (things that do harm to others without the harm being assessed financially) So the government should be taxing pollution! If they did then the capitalistic market would make energy production operate on a fair playing field. Then renewables would be more cost effective because they do not pollute as much. Market forces would drive down prices on renewables ... Manufacturing would ramp up once renewables were cost effective -vs- other forms of energy.
Look at these facts
- The govt needs money to run. It has to get it from somewhere.
- the govt could tax pollution and begin to earn it's revenue from this. Energy cost increases could be offset by lower income and business tax.
- any company could reduce emissions and save on their taxes. Any home could save energy and save money.
- pollution emissions are already calculated and tracked so this is nothing new.
- a subsidy to renewables costs the govt money...so taxing pollution would gain the govt the pollution tax PLUS the savings from not giving subsidies.
- incentives come and go and cannot be planned on by businesses. But taxes never go away so a renewable business can count on price stability.
If the govt taxed pollution then it is a relatively simple set of rules...unlike cap and trade where all sorts of crazy crazy schemes would get funded.
If somebody knows of something more efficient in allocating resources than money then let me know! America is great because of capitalism...capitalism efficiently allocates resources if the govt taxes pollution. So to me it makes sense to harness capitalism to also help then environment.
Senate Bill 1733 Seems like a war on climate to me
I quote the Kerry/Boxer Bill:
" military officials, including retired admirals and generals, concur with the intelligence com
munity that climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability and presents significant national security challenges for the United States; massive portions of the infrastructure of
the United States, including critical military infrastructure, are at risk from the effects of climate
Capitalism under a cap and trade system would increase the cost of electricity rates. President Obama acknowledges that the cost of electricity will skyrocket. Capping greenhouse gases in Indiana coal power plants will require a retrofitting of their operations. This capital investment will cost money that is loaned from a bank at interest and it will all be pass on to consumer. Equipment purchase from whom...I smell a money trail?
Can you afford to pay more for your utilities? Carbon Dioxide a danger... 31,072 scientists don't think so.
Responded to the JG letter" Humans can't destroy 4.6 billion year-old-earth," that says cap and trade legislation will suck the life out of our free market economy, and global warming is a fraud.
Our economy is already sucking wind.
Global warming a hoax?
This isn't about global warming, but quality of life for all species.
Sure, the earth will survive, but our depleting resources won't. A do nothing approach is guaranteed suicide(homicide) for humans.
This is about saving ourselves from ourselves, not any government.
It makes simple sense Eric...we actually have similar EPA rules & regulations on pollution in place,er well we did, rarely enforced correctly,if at all. Underfunding,understaffed,budget cuts to the EPA makes enforcing such laws/regulations difficult. I'm not as currently up to date on a lot of rules/regulations,etc. as I was a few years ago. I do need to check status of new/current legislation to be certain on this. Your post/comment made good sense to me..anyway.
Soon as I get settled in to my new apartment(moved Sun.& not finished yet) I'll do some researching. Update on current & proposed legislation. As well as getting back to work on my website/online Green biz.
Climate change is real its happening now, you and your children will suffer. cheap oil and coal are being subsidized by your military. We are in two wars and thousands of bases all over the world to protect our oil interests. If we spent that cost on domestic energy freedom we'd all be driving electric cars and producing all the elect we need from solar and wind. Cap and trade just forces the inc readably profitable big oil big coal and big elect corps to pay for the damage they do raise elect costs yes to make solar and wind affordable. turn off talk radio and get a clue.
Theoretically dave Yes that is how it SHOULD work..but not (highly doubtful) how it would be implemented. Greedy Corporations lining our Elected officials pockets with huge contributions(bribes) is the main problem.
Has been & will continue to be..as long as citizens continue to allow it & won't stand up together for TRUE Campaign Finance reform!
Climategate: Quotes from Pielke Sr, Koutsoyiannis, and von Storch
Roger Pielke Sr: “In the news today, there is an erroneous statement by Phil Jones regarding the surface temperature data sets that are used to diagnose global warming. These claims of that the surface temperature series are “completely independent” is false and Phil Jones knows that.”
Demetris Koutsoyiannis: “Having had several negative experiences in my (rather indirect) interaction with mainstream “scientists” involved in “climate change” and “climate change impacts” (I put all these quotation marks because I believe that the latter terms are not scientific), I must say that what I’ve been reading in the recently hacked and released confidential files from the CRU (aka “Climategate” documents) is not a surprise to me. Rather, and sadly, it verifies what I had suspected about some in the climate establishment. I wonder if they take pride in seeing their own words—now in a public forum.. So, I hope that, as this story continues to unfold, it gives us pause to consider how secrecy and anonymity are non-productive and destructive practices in science. Indeed, through such consideration, we may come to realize that transparency forces us to be more productive and progressive in pursuing the truth—particularly in science.”
Hans von Storch: “I would assume that more interesting issues will be found in the files, and that a useful debate about the degree of politicization of climate science will emerge. A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC.”