Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    (snip)"Energy Secretary Steven Chu made the protectionist point during an underreported House hearing this month, when he said tariffs and other trade barriers could be used as a "weapon" to force countries like China and India into cutting their own CO2 emissions. "If other countries don't impose a cost on carbon, then we will be at a disadvantage," he said. So a cap-and-trade policy won't be cost-free after all. Apparently Mr. Chu did not get the White House memo about obfuscating the impact of the Administration's anticarbon policies.

    The Chinese certainly heard Mr. Chu, with Xie Zhenhua, a top economic minister, immediately responding that such a policy would be a "disaster" and "an excuse to impose trade restrictions." Beijing's reaction shows that as a means of coercing international cooperation, climate tariffs are worse than pointless. China and India are never going to endanger their own economic growth -- and the chance to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty -- merely to placate the climate neuroses of affluent Americans in Silicon Valley or Cambridge, Massachusetts. And they certainly won't do it under the threat of a tariff ultimatum.

    But give Mr. Chu credit for candor. He had previously told the New York Times that "The concern about cap and trade in today's economic climate is that a lot of money might flow to developing countries in a way that might not be completely politically sellable." He is admitting that one byproduct of cap and trade is "leakage," by which investment and jobs are driven to nations that have looser or nonexistent climate regimes and therefore lower costs. At greatest risk are carbon-heavy industries such as steel, aluminum, paper, cement and chemicals that are sensitive to trade and where business is won and lost on the basis of pennies per unit of product. But the damage could strike almost any industry when energy prices "necessarily skyrocket," as Mr. Obama put it last year.

    So in addition to all the other economic harm, a cap-and-trade tax will make foreign companies more competitive while eroding market share for U.S. businesses. The most harm will accrue to the very U.S. manufacturing and heavy-industry jobs that Democrats and unions claim to want to keep inside the U.S. A cap-and-tax plan would be the greatest outsourcing boon in history. And it may even increase CO2 emissions overall, because the developing nations where businesses are likely to relocate -- if they don't simply close -- tend to use energy less efficiently than does the U.S.

    Meanwhile, carbon trade barriers would almost certainly violate U.S. obligations in the World Trade Organization. Since carbon energy cuts across so many industries, a tariff would presumably have to hit tens of thousands of products. Any restriction the U.S. imposes on imports can also just as easily be turned around and imposed on U.S. exports, whatever their carbon content."(snip)


    I include this in Dollar Den since carbon taxes and carbon tariffs have the potential to greatly increase the prices of (currently) low cost products imported from China, India, Korea etc. ... while at the same time encourage the loss of even more US manufacturing jobs. Carbon taxes also have the potential of greatly increasing the cost of US electricity and heating bills, both directly for residential customers, and indirectly for customers of US businesses that will be forced to pass on these higher costs of doing business in the form of higher prices.

  2. #2
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    All to do with a phony problem. The Earth's average temperature has not increased in the last ten years. Polar ice is GROWING at a near record pace. Canada is experiencing record cold. Texas is expecting it's second blizzard.

    Former advocates and adherents of the man-made global warming T H E O R Y ( and that is all that it is; at most ! ) are now skeptics or on the fence. Former skeptics and fence sittters are now clearly against the "carbon" theory.

  3. #3
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 17 Times in 17 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    I still remember when we were being told we were going to go into another ice age (Global Cooling). That didn't pan out, so they needed another excuse for a power grab, hence Global Warming..
    Quote Originally Posted by The Snark View Post
    But then I suppose the sort of people who write this kind of crap generally don't allow their opinions to be tainted by things like "facts" and "reality".
    Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness
    The note that began all can also destroy

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    ^^^ be that as it may, for a fact Obama is advocating a carbon tax and the democrats in the US congress have the votes to enact it ... regardless of the accuracy of the science (or lack thereof). Also the UN is strongly behind a global carbon tax. The odds of this happening are quite high. Also keep in mind that the government will be the one handing out carbon allotments, meaning that they can choose US industries that will wind up paying low/no carbon taxes versus other US industries that will be saddled with uncompetitively high carbon taxes. And the use of a US carbon tariff on imported products will serve as a means of 'protecting' those US industries that the gov't chooses to favor (by erasing some of the foreign competition's pricing advantage re US consumers)


    Let me put it another way ... how much easier will it be to sell a 2011 GM car if GM is given a large carbon allotment such that the embedded carbon tax per new GM car is $300, while the carbon tariff increases the US price of a Hyundai by $3000 ?

    Besides, enacting carbon cap and trade will provide a reason for 100,000 new unionized gov't white collar jobs to be created which helps to solve America's unemployment problem ... and also will provide a new 'commodity trading' exchange that will provide a brand new source of profits for the major players ( like Al Gore ) which will help solve future political campaign funding problems. Arguably the only Americans that will have a 'problem' with carbon cap and trade are those who will be forced to pay higher prices for just about everything !

    .
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-31-2009 at 03:22 AM.

  5. #5
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ be that as it may, for a fact Obama is advocating a carbon tax and the democrats in the US congress have the votes to enact it ... regardless of the accuracy of the science (or lack thereof). Also the UN is strongly behind a global carbon tax. The odds of this happening are quite high. Also keep in mind that the government will be the one handing out carbon allotments, meaning that they can choose US industries that will wind up paying low/no carbon taxes versus other US industries that will be saddled with uncompetitively high carbon taxes. And the use of a US carbon tariff on imported products will serve as a means of 'protecting' those US industries that the gov't chooses to favor (by erasing some of the foreign competition's pricing advantage re US consumers)


    Let me put it another way ... how much easier will it be to sell a 2011 GM car if GM is given a large carbon allotment such that the embedded carbon tax per new GM car is $300, while the carbon tariff increases the US price of a Hyundai by $3000 ?

    Besides, enacting carbon cap and trade will provide a reason for 100,000 new unionized gov't white collar jobs to be created which helps to solve America's unemployment problem ... and also will provide a new 'commodity trading' exchange that will provide a brand new source of profits for the major players ( like Al Gore ) which will help solve future political campaign funding problems. Arguably the only Americans that will have a 'problem' with carbon cap and trade are those who will be forced to pay higher prices for just about everything !

    .
    Inter alia, it will be the death knell of the American Auto Industry. With the government controlling GM, they will only be able to build that which the Obamanations want them to build regardless of what the American consumer wants. Ah. the rebirth of the Yugo, Pinto and VEGA !
    Since most of these "green" cars are only economically viable with $4 a gallon gas, then that's just what we'll get. Remember what Obama said during the campaign. He didn't mind $4 a gallon gas. He was just troubled by how fast we got there.

  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    ^^^ I agree with the $4 gasoline, but disagree with GM's 'green cars' not being economically viable. By the imposition of tariffs on imported competing models, the US gov't can guarantee the economic viability of GM ... and at the same time provide itself with a fat new revenue stream. Of course, this will be accomplished by pricing the Chevy Volt at $35k, and increasing tariffs to the point where a Kia or Hyundia also cost $35k inside US borders !

  7. #7
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 17 Times in 17 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Ah. the rebirth of the Yugo, Pinto and VEGA !

    What's wrong with the vega? I loved mine (and my monza). Of course I did drop a 468 rat into it.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Snark View Post
    But then I suppose the sort of people who write this kind of crap generally don't allow their opinions to be tainted by things like "facts" and "reality".
    Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness
    The note that began all can also destroy

  8. #8
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    Quote Originally Posted by glambman View Post
    What's wrong with the vega? I loved mine (and my monza). Of course I did drop a 468 rat into it.
    The Vega and Yugo each had one of the worst engines ever made. To save weight and increase gas mileage GM made an ALUMINUM block engine ! They rarely made it past 50,000 miles before a piston wore out or a cylinder blew.

    The Pinto was less bad so long as you didn't mind risking immolation from a rear end impact.

    The problems with ALL of the so-called "green" cars are cost and SAFETY.

  9. #9
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 17 Times in 17 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    ^^^^^ lol I know about what you wrote.

    A 468 rat is a 2nd generation big block engine.... a 454 cubic inch block bored 0.030 over. i.e.: in a "race" car.

    An aluminum block is not a bad thing in and of itself, though.

    On Top Gear, Jeremy Clarkson did a comparo between a new M3 and a Prius. The Prius led, with the M3 following his moves. The M3 got better gas mileage then the Prius. A lot has to do with how one drives a car.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Snark View Post
    But then I suppose the sort of people who write this kind of crap generally don't allow their opinions to be tainted by things like "facts" and "reality".
    Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness
    The note that began all can also destroy

  10. #10
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    All to do with a phony problem. The Earth's average temperature has not increased in the last ten years. Polar ice is GROWING at a near record pace. Canada is experiencing record cold. Texas is expecting it's second blizzard.

    Former advocates and adherents of the man-made global warming T H E O R Y ( and that is all that it is; at most ! ) are now skeptics or on the fence. Former skeptics and fence sittters are now clearly against the "carbon" theory.
    Scientists who actually do research in the field overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real and human activity contributes to it.

    Global warming is based on long term trends. The average temperature of the past 10 years is warmer than the average temperature of the previous 10 years.

    Arctic ice is melting at record page.

  11. #11
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    ^^^ and Antarctic ice is forming at a record pace. Again it isn't necessary to argue the validity of the global warming theory (or lack thereof). For a fact the recently elected US president and the majority of the US congress are prepared to vote for the institution of a 'carbon cap and trade' system. In that sense, this 'battle' is already over.

    Such a carbon cap and trade system will vastly increase the price paid by all Americans for gasoline / diesel fuel / fossil fueled electricity, as well as the price paid for American made goods and services that must also bear and pass on these additional costs. The deepest effects will be felt by midwest and southern states which currently get much of their (cheap) electricity from coal. The least affected will be states like California and New York, who have already banned coal fired power plants and who already pay outrageous electricity prices.

    Depending on whether or not the US gov't also enacts carbon tariffs on imported products, Americans will either face much higher prices for Asian goods or face yet more outsourcing / bankruptcies of US industries as their non-competitive costs of doing business widen even further vs foreign countries that do not tax carbon / energy. Least affected will be businesses like banking / software / health care which have minimal energy use. Most affected will be businesses like raw materials refning (Alcoa for example), auto manufacture, plastics manufacture, durable goods manufacture i.e. energy intensive industries. Tim Geithner clearly understands that US industries cannot survive a further competitive disadvantage being imposed on them by the gov't (in addition to the taxes / environmental compliance costs / worker safety costs / worker benefit costs already imposed on them by the gov't), thus the call for carbon tariffs on imported products.

    Of course the institution of carbon cap and trade will require the formation of a new gov't agency, and the hiring of hundreds of thousands of new gov't employees, to administer and enforce the carbon cap and trade system. It is unclear how such expanded gov't employment would be funded ... by additional personal and business tax increases, by a 'cut' of the carbon credit sales and purchases ?

    Also, the US cap and trade system will rely on the government issuing a certain amount of 'carbon credits' to particular industries ... beyond which those industries must purchase additional carbon credits if they wish to consume more carbon / energy to produce more product. Since the gov't controls the amount of 'free' carbon credits that are handed out to US businesses and industries, the government is in a position to effectively subsidize particular industries and penalize other industries.

    PS this is also potentially good news for anybody that happens to own an interest in a central american forestry project that 'grows' additional carbon credits which US industries may soon need to buy ( right along with European industries who must already buy such credits !)

    PPS the bad news is that any industries that relocate / outsource to countries that do not tax or regulate carbon will probably wind up using energy less efficiently than they would / have been in the USA since those foreign countries pose no financial incentive to invest in the most energy efficient / cleanest processing equipment. As a result the total amount of carbon released is likely to actually increase, since each car / refrigerator / bushel of tomatoes produced in a foreign country and imported into the USA will actually consume more energy in its production than those previously produced inside the USA. Thus a US carbon tax / tariff will provide the US gov't with a huge new revenue stream, but will arguably not reduce carbon emissions at all on a global basis (and may very will increase them !)


    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 04-02-2009 at 03:31 AM.

  12. #12
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    Scientists who actually do research in the field overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real and human activity contributes to it.

    Global warming is based on long term trends. The average temperature of the past 10 years is warmer than the average temperature of the previous 10 years.

    Arctic ice is melting at record page.
    Not true. According to the University of Illinois Climate Research Center, Arctic Ice has GROWN this year at a record pace.

    If the Man-made theory could hold a drop of water we'd all be baking our balls and tits off by now. Here's why. The THEORY says that man-made CO2 traps heat from the Earth and raises the Earth's temperature ( repeatedly modified by the proponents in the face of climatic EVIDENCE to now be "disruption of Earth's climatic patterns".) Over ten years ago, while the Earth was in fact experiencing a period of overall warming, the Chinese , Indian, Brazilian, Eastern European and other developing economies were all revving up.Their consumtion of fossil fuels and output of greenhouse gases radically increased. So did that of the developed world. According to the theory, the Earth ought to have experienced a resultant increase in overall temperature. It did not. So the Man-Made proponents scrambled to try to deal with the "inconvenient truth" of actual climate data directly contrary to their theory. Remember how "Global Warming" had to be renamed "Climate Change" ?

    There is another ridiculous assumption built into the whole "Green Machine" and that is that the Earth is relatively static and that it's climate does not experience radical changes. It is a well documented historical fact that on a macro basis, the Earth has experienced long periods of cooling and heating sometimes lasting CENTURIES. Some parts of the Earth sometimes get warmer, or drier, or colder or wetter depending on whether or not a broad or narrow chronological window is used. It often seems that some of these ninnies would never be able to figure out how and why people could drown wading across a river that only AVERAGED 3 feet in depth. Worse yet, there is documented case after case where they have actively tried to suppress scientific data that contradicts their theory. E. g.

    Increased solar activity linked to warmer weather on Earth- IGNORE IT !

    Temperatures increasing or decreasing on Mars ? - try to explain it away as a result of "dust storms". Or attack the accuracy of the measurements when THEY are the very people who designed, built and developed the equipment and methods for measuring same. When Mars heated up it was : "Uh, must have been a malfunctioning thermometer or something." I am NOT making this up.

    Arctic ice increasing at a pace not seen in over twenty years ? - ATTACK the NUMBERS ! When the very same people who document and store the data that they like, and agree with, are also noting and recording the data that doesn't fit ? NASA and The University of Illinois among others. When the numbers support them, the repositories of the data are paragons of accuracy and integrity. When they don't, they suddenly morph into "corporate handmaidens" who are fudging the numbers.

    Study after study showing NO LINK between carbon emissions and climate and/or showing the Earth's climate is within historical norms ?- IGNORE THE SCIENCE and just collaterally attack the authors based on WHO funded them. Aside from anything else, the Climate Change proponents never have to defend THEIR funding and run away from EVERY challenge to REALLY defend their THEORY in either a debate or before a neutral peer review panel.

    Afaik, and I'm open to correction, no Climate Change theorist has EVER sat before a neutral panel of scientists and had to reconcile their findings and conclusions with all of the contrary evidence. Doctors have to do it with Morbidity Conferences. Medical Researchers have to do it BEFORE they are published in most reputable peer review journals. What is so special about so-called climate researchers that they are exempt ?

    It never ceases to amaze me how intellectually cowardly Gore and other "Greenies" really are. (Well actually Gore doesn't surprise me because he's probably smart enough to know how easily he'd be exposed as an ignorant dummy. He couldn't bear the thought of having to give back his Nobel Prize and/or his Oscar.) But the point is if , IF, they REALLY had the SCIENCE on their side ; if the conclusion were so inescapable that human activity is affecting the Earth's climate; one would think that they would leap at the chance to debate their opponents and just roll over them with all the scientific evidence supposedlyat their fingertips. But afaik, they never have.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 04-02-2009 at 08:56 AM.

  13. #13
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    ^^^ again all of this is arguably true, but irrelevant in the context of US carbon cap and trade. The necessary majority of politicians who are willing to support this new legislation are ALREADY in office, and the US mainstream media have shown no indication whatsoever that they are going to publicly criticize a carbon cap and trade system which might dissuade those politicians from voting for cap and trade. Therefore the odds are at least 10:1 in favor of this actually happening before a new congress is elected in 2010, regardless of the validity of the science behind it. And due to the expected hue and cry if congress fails to do so, enacting carbon tariffs on imported products will almost certainly be an indispensible part of the carbon cap and trade package.

  14. #14
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ again all of this is arguably true, but irrelevant in the context of US carbon cap and trade. The necessary majority of politicians who are willing to support this new legislation are ALREADY in office, and the US mainstream media have shown no indication whatsoever that they are going to publicly criticize a carbon cap and trade system which might dissuade those politicians from voting for cap and trade. Therefore the odds are at least 10:1 in favor of this actually happening before a new congress is elected in 2010, regardless of the validity of the science behind it. And due to the expected hue and cry if congress fails to do so, enacting carbon tariffs on imported products will almost certainly be an indispensible part of the carbon cap and trade package.
    Yeah but there are a few glimmers of hope. One, what's left of the unions in the U.S. whose members will be thrown out of work ( U.M.W ; U.A.W. ; etc. ) by the actual implementation and the American consumer who is going to see his pump prices and utility bills rocket upwards.

    The actual costs of this nonsense are going to simply be passed along by the oil, utility and energy companies. Not to mention the radical increases in the price of imported goods from China and India and the resulting retaliation on OUR exports to them. This is one reason why some Democrats from the Rust Belt and coal producing areas- Bayh, Levin, Nelson and others ( plus a few Dem. House members) are being circumspect and cautious about hopping on to the Cap & Trade bandwagon. It still will require 60 Senators to get anything actually passed.
    At some point, just 3 or 4 Dem Senators who can add up the economic costs and disruptions piled on top of a RECESSION will be enough to block or at least blunt the worst aspects of this legislation.

  15. #15
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    Eric,

    Arctic ice is currently melting at an alarming rate.

    http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...ures-rise.html

    The link between CO2 and climate has been well established. Among the people who actually work and do research in this field, there is little disagreement. The main opposition to the global warming theory is coming from people who oppose it based on ideological reasons, not scientific.

  16. #16
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ and Antarctic ice is forming at a record pace.
    No it isn't. The Antarctic ice cap is melting much faster than predicted.

    http://en.mercopress.com/2009/03/19/...than-predicted

  17. #17
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    950
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 651 Times in 272 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    Melonie, how can one invest in a central american forestry project?

  18. #18
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    by moving to a central american country !

  19. #19
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    Eric,

    Arctic ice is currently melting at an alarming rate.

    http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...ures-rise.html

    The link between CO2 and climate has been well established. Among the people who actually work and do research in this field, there is little disagreement. The main opposition to the global warming theory is coming from people who oppose it based on ideological reasons, not scientific.
    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but NOT their own facts. According to the World Meteorlogical Organization and the University of Illinois, Arctic Ice is GROWING and the Earth has NOT warmed at all in the last ELEVEN (11) years.

    The link between CO2 and climate has NOT been established as a scientific certainty. Not even within a "sufficient degree of scientific probability".

    Do you know what one of the biggest sources of CO2 is ? US ! We all exhale CO2. So does every other living animal on Earth. Want to limit methane and other greenhouse gases ? Kill every head of cattle, buffalo, elephant and every other large herbivore on the planet. Their flatulence is a major source.

    Do you know how much the average American home "saves" by switching to flourescent bulbs ? $5.40 a year IF they don't drive to the nearest approved disposal facility for worn out flourescents. Has anyone READ what you're supposed to do if one of those things accidentally breaks in your house ? It's literally a Haz-Mat situation because of the mercury they contain. By 2014 all incandescent bulbs are to be banned in the U.S. thanks to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which made ZERO provision for safe disposal of worn out or broken flourescent bulbs. If just 10 % of a population of 300 million disposes of them improperly we'll have a MAJOR hazardous waste problem.

    Let's suppose the Earth IS warming. So what ? Inter alia, it means that Greenland will be more habitable and hospitable to agriculture as it was up to about 1300. Humans will have to adapt and adjust as they have for centuries to climatic changes and shifts. That is one thing that amazes me about some of these so-called Scientists. They act like they just invented the wheel. They blithely ignore the overall climatic history of the Earth.

    Btw, how do these meteorological geniuses explain the record cold in Canada this year ? Especially the parts within the ARCTIC CIRCLE ?
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 04-03-2009 at 08:30 AM.

  20. #20
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 17 Times in 17 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    Eric,

    Arctic ice is currently melting at an alarming rate.

    http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...ures-rise.html

    The link between CO2 and climate has been well established. Among the people who actually work and do research in this field, there is little disagreement. The main opposition to the global warming theory is coming from people who oppose it based on ideological reasons, not scientific.
    A more modern article would be Bloomberg's Feb/ Mar article detailing how The Arctic data Collection unit (forget there exact name) admitted that a sensor was 'bad' and caused under reporting of ice the equivalent of the size of California. It also reported how the unit uses Defense Dept satellites and not NAOA satellites. The Defense satellites are not as accurate.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Snark View Post
    But then I suppose the sort of people who write this kind of crap generally don't allow their opinions to be tainted by things like "facts" and "reality".
    Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness
    The note that began all can also destroy

  21. #21
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but NOT their own facts. According to the World Meteorlogical Organization and the University of Illinois, Arctic Ice is GROWING and the Earth has NOT warmed at all in the last ELEVEN (11) years.
    and where do you get your facts from?

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0225073215.htm
    (snip)
    ScienceDaily (Feb. 26, 2009) — Multidisciplinary research from the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-2008 provides new evidence of the widespread effects of global warming in the polar regions. Snow and ice are declining in both polar regions, affecting human livelihoods as well as local plant and animal life in the Arctic, as well as global ocean and atmospheric circulation and sea level.

    These are but a few findings reported in “State of Polar Research”, released February 25 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the International Council for Science (ICSU). In addition to lending insight into climate change, IPY has aided our understanding of pollutant transport, species’ evolution, and storm formation, among many other areas.
    (snip)

    The earth has warmed over the past 11 years.



    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    The link between CO2 and climate has NOT been established as a scientific certainty. Not even within a "sufficient degree of scientific probability".
    What are your qualifications to determine this? According to most of the scientists who actually work in the field, it has. In a recent poll, 97% of the climate scientists polled agreed that the climate is warming and human activities are contributing to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Do you know what one of the biggest sources of CO2 is ? US ! We all exhale CO2. So does every other living animal on Earth. Want to limit methane and other greenhouse gases ? Kill every head of cattle, buffalo, elephant and every other large herbivore on the planet. Their flatulence is a major source.
    Do you know what some of the other biggest sources of C02 are? Coal and Petroleum. Reducing the burning of both of these fuels will reduce CO2 emissions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post


    Let's suppose the Earth IS warming. So what ? Inter alia, it means that Greenland will be more habitable and hospitable to agriculture as it was up to about 1300. Humans will have to adapt and adjust as they have for centuries to climatic changes and shifts. That is one thing that amazes me about some of these so-called Scientists. They act like they just invented the wheel. They blithely ignore the overall climatic history of the Earth.
    It also means there will be droughts, massive flooding; many densely populated areas will end up under water, vast increases of disease-carrying insects. I would like to avoid this if we could.

  22. #22
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    Yet again, I will point out that arguments over the scientific validity of Human Caused Global Warming are now irrelevant from an economic standpoint !!!!! In the North America, in Western Europe, in Australia etc. the politicians that are currently in office clearly support the introduction of carbon emissions limits in one form or another. Same goes for the vast majority of world and national media. All that remains is for those politicians to agree on specifics, and to start enacting new carbon control laws / taxes. I would further speculate that world and national media are not actually interested in any determination of scientific validity of reduced CO2 emissions = reduced global warming. As long as the 'argument' is still open, the politicians advocating carbon control laws can be painted as the 'saviours' of the planet, and anyone opposing carbon control laws can be painted as a greedy racist, the move toward carbon control laws / taxes remains relatively unobstructed.

    As long as China / Asia / other 3rd world countries are allowed the unrestricted use of 'cheap' energy (i.e. coal), and as long as Chinese / Asian / 3rd world industries are allowed to operate without carbon emissions limits, the passage of carbon control laws / taxes in Western Europe, North America, Australia etc. will serve as an even stronger incentive for remaining industries to close down / outsource / relocate to China / Asia / the 3rd world. This will create a double whammy for Western European, North American and Australian residents, since they will not only wind up paying higher prices to cover the embedded carbon tax in all domestic products, but they will also lose the jobs and tax revenues associated with whatever currently remains of their domestic production related industries. And based on Geithner's trial balloon, it's likely that they will also be paying much higher prices for otherwise low cost goods being produced with 'cheap' coal power and without carbon emission control costs in China / Asia / 3rd world countries thanks to the imposition of a carbon tariff on goods imported from these countries.

  23. #23
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    I would further speculate that world and national media are not actually interested in any determination of scientific validity of reduced CO2 emissions = reduced global warming.

    No, it's the conservative ideologues who are not interested in any determination of scientific validity of reduced CO2 emissions = reduced global warming. No matter what the evidence is, they're always going to deny it, because the solution might require them to go against their ideology.

  24. #24
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    and where do you get your facts from?

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0225073215.htm
    (snip)
    ScienceDaily (Feb. 26, 2009) — Multidisciplinary research from the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-2008 provides new evidence of the widespread effects of global warming in the polar regions. Snow and ice are declining in both polar regions, affecting human livelihoods as well as local plant and animal life in the Arctic, as well as global ocean and atmospheric circulation and sea level.

    These are but a few findings reported in “State of Polar Research”, released February 25 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the International Council for Science (ICSU). In addition to lending insight into climate change, IPY has aided our understanding of pollutant transport, species’ evolution, and storm formation, among many other areas.
    (snip)

    The earth has warmed over the past 11 years.




    What are your qualifications to determine this? According to most of the scientists who actually work in the field, it has. In a recent poll, 97% of the climate scientists polled agreed that the climate is warming and human activities are contributing to it.


    Do you know what some of the other biggest sources of C02 are? Coal and Petroleum. Reducing the burning of both of these fuels will reduce CO2 emissions.


    It also means there will be droughts, massive flooding; many densely populated areas will end up under water, vast increases of disease-carrying insects. I would like to avoid this if we could.
    Do you actually READ your own stuff. You cite figures from 2007-2008 and I am talking about THIS year, 2008-2009.

    NASA has had to admit that some, repeat SOME, of their climate numbers are inaccurate. According to the two sources I cited, the Earth has NOT warmed in the last eleven years and this was confirmed, sort of , by the New York Times that looked at both the proponents and skeptics of "climate change".

    Again, if you look at narrow chronological windows of what the Earth's weather is doing, you can concoct all sorts of theories and Doomsday scenarios. I will remain a skeptic until at least one "climate change" proponent can explain away GREENLAND and EASTER ISLAND and dozens of other similar examples. From around 1000 to about 1300 (approx) Greenland was populated by thousands of Vikings who raised cattle and grew crops. The Earth was experiencing a 500 year long period of warming. That followed a period of cooling of about 400 years that followed a period of warm, mild weather that lasted from about 500 B.C. to about 400 A.D. From 1300 to about 1850 the Earth cooled radically and all sorts of major economic and social disruptions occurred. ( Including the Great Irish Potatoe Famine) At one time, Easter Island was populated by a people advanced enough to erect those huge statues. Where'd they go ? They were long gone when the island was "discovered" by Europeans.

    Anyway, back to Greenland. Starting around 1300 the Earth started cooling. Crops froze and cattle starved and the Vikings either left, intermarried with the local Inuit or STARVED to death. Greenland is just starting to RETURN to where it had been for about 500 years running from about 800 to 1300 A.D.

    The Sahara, about 10,000 years ago was a lush, water filled "Garden of Eden". Obviously, something happened to turn it into a desert. It certainly wasn't anything humans were doing.

    At times, I wonder how much hubris some of these scientists have that they think that humans can really control everything. Including the climate.

    More importatly, for every adherent to the Carbon Theory there is now a skeptic. They just get a LOT less publicity and a lot fewer open forums than the Man-made Climate Change supporters. In a perverse way, the Bushies helped to aggravate this situation by increasing the cred of guys like Hansen by trying to shut him up.

  25. #25
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Obama's Energy Secretary 'floats' carbon tariffs

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Yet again, I will point out that arguments over the scientific validity of Human Caused Global Warming are now irrelevant from an economic standpoint !!!!! In the North America, in Western Europe, in Australia etc. the politicians that are currently in office clearly support the introduction of carbon emissions limits in one form or another. Same goes for the vast majority of world and national media. All that remains is for those politicians to agree on specifics, and to start enacting new carbon control laws / taxes. I would further speculate that world and national media are not actually interested in any determination of scientific validity of reduced CO2 emissions = reduced global warming. As long as the 'argument' is still open, the politicians advocating carbon control laws can be painted as the 'saviours' of the planet, and anyone opposing carbon control laws can be painted as a greedy racist, the move toward carbon control laws / taxes remains relatively unobstructed.

    As long as China / Asia / other 3rd world countries are allowed the unrestricted use of 'cheap' energy (i.e. coal), and as long as Chinese / Asian / 3rd world industries are allowed to operate without carbon emissions limits, the passage of carbon control laws / taxes in Western Europe, North America, Australia etc. will serve as an even stronger incentive for remaining industries to close down / outsource / relocate to China / Asia / the 3rd world. This will create a double whammy for Western European, North American and Australian residents, since they will not only wind up paying higher prices to cover the embedded carbon tax in all domestic products, but they will also lose the jobs and tax revenues associated with whatever currently remains of their domestic production related industries. And based on Geithner's trial balloon, it's likely that they will also be paying much higher prices for otherwise low cost goods being produced with 'cheap' coal power and without carbon emission control costs in China / Asia / 3rd world countries thanks to the imposition of a carbon tariff on goods imported from these countries.

    Yes But. The very scenario you lay out holds the seeds of salvation. WHEN the American people pay the costs and WHEN they have to sit back and watch China and India continue to pollute with impunity and WHEN they actually read the so-called "science" a lot of these measures are based on and WHEN they find out how expensive , INEFFECTIVE and in a few cases NONEXISTENT a lot of these so-called alternatives really are, they will be open to other points of view and more sensible measures.

    I am open to the idea that we ALL ought to reduce carbon emissions on the basis of "couldn't hurt". So anybody who is really SERIOUS ought to be a MAJOR proponent of nuclear power. If we shift from burning coal to nuclear for generating electricity; if we build enough wind farms and burn natural gas in at least half our vehicles, we can easily meet our target goals of reducing carbon emissions. We'll all be able to feel great about ourselves and the U.S. and on an overall world-wide climatalogical basis , it won't make a damn bit of difference. Overall, world -wide carbon emissions will continue to increase no matter what the U.S. does or doesn't do.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-13-2009, 08:14 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-25-2009, 08:21 AM
  3. weekend commentary - Obama favors 'carbon tax'
    By Melonie in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-08-2008, 01:19 PM
  4. Tariffs on foreign direct investment
    By aussiebelle in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-26-2008, 03:53 PM
  5. Wendy's Root Beer Floats
    By KamrynAnne in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-16-2007, 09:23 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •