Cap and Trade

WaveCameCrashin

thank you

g under p

prfctlefts wrote:

g under p wrote:

He's been in office now 6 months and in 8 GWB really kept us safe when 911 happened right! Which by far was worse than what has happened so far, as you so have stated so lighten dude.

We were attacked twice on Clinton's watch do you not remember The Cole and the first WTC bombing ? Alqeda grew on Clinton's watch.And Clinton didn't do a damn thing. He had several chances to get Bin Laden and didn't. He was to busy getting a B.J in the oval office. Why don't you go back and look at all the plots and cells The Bush administration stopped since 911. To blame bush for 911 is ridiculous

9II happened on his watch and that's a fact. To give him a free pass and that he protected us for 8 years which Cheney says repeated IS ridiculous. Bush had his same oppurtunities to get OBL in near the Afghan border and he didn't. Remember Bush said, "we're gonna smoke em out of those caves" and never came close.

Peace

gimmesometruth27

ledvedderman wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

spearhead wrote:

Well .... Hello to Jerry from Chicago...
Now we know where prfctlefts hangs out when he's not on the Pearl Jam site...the Heritage Foundation!!!

so what who cares wher i hang out where the hell do you hang out when your not here O'yeah thats right you give your free time at the abortion clinic . How's that going for ya DeadHead

Please do one post without radical generalizations of people who you disagree with...just one. Just bring a little substance to the conversation and not just a hack for your views.

would you expect anything less from this guy? thats all he does.

by the way, whew that was hard work dodging all of those bullets at the women's clinic today.

WaveCameCrashin

g under p wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

g under p wrote:

He's been in office now 6 months and in 8 GWB really kept us safe when 911 happened right! Which by far was worse than what has happened so far, as you so have stated so lighten dude.

We were attacked twice on Clinton's watch do you not remember The Cole and the first WTC bombing ? Alqeda grew on Clinton's watch.And Clinton didn't do a damn thing. He had several chances to get Bin Laden and didn't. He was to busy getting a B.J in the oval office. Why don't you go back and look at all the plots and cells The Bush administration stopped since 911. To blame bush for 911 is ridiculous

9II happened on his watch and that's a fact. To give him a free pass and that he protected us for 8 years which Cheney says repeated IS ridiculous. Bush had his same oppurtunities to get OBL in near the Afghan border and he didn't. Remember Bush said, "we're gonna smoke em out of those caves" and never came close.

Peace[/quote
Im not giving Bush a pass but to blame all of 911 on his administration is wrong. It's obvious you don't know or care to know the events that led up 911 or why we haven't been able or weren't able to catch OBL after 911.

TriumphantAngel

prfctlefts wrote:

Im not giving Bush a pass but to blame all of 911 on his administration is wrong. It's obvious you don't know or care to know the events that led up 911 or why we haven't been able or weren't able to catch OBL after 911.

maybe you could enlighten us as to why Osama bin Laden has yet to be captured. of course it wouldn't have anything to do with Bush's comments 6 months after september 11th now would it?

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." President Bush, 3/13/02

it's not our priority? interesting.

and for fucks sake learn how to use the quoting feature. it's not that hard. you've had 1008 practices.

Pepe Silvia

ledvedderman wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

g under p wrote:

He's been in office now 6 months and in 8 GWB really kept us safe when 911 happened right! Which by far was worse than what has happened so far, as you so have stated so lighten dude.

We were attacked twice on Clinton's watch do you not remember The Cole and the first WTC bombing ? Alqeda grew on Clinton's watch.And Clinton didn't do a damn thing. He had several chances to get Bin Laden and didn't. He was to busy getting a B.J in the oval office. Why don't you go back and look at all the plots and cells The Bush administration stopped since 911. To blame bush for 911 is ridiculous

To blame Clinton for 9/11 is just as ridiculous. Truth is, they both dropped the ball. You're right Clinton could have got Bin Laden...but it had nothing to do with him getting a BJ.

Your ability to resolve to personal attacks and generalizations are amazing.

and let's not forget when Bush took office he actually cut money from the FBI and other agencies dealing with terrorism....Clinton also had drones searching for OBL to kill him, early in Bush's first term drones found OBL but he couldn't resolve the bickering of which agency should control the kill and he got away.

it could also be pointed out under Reagan and Bush al qaeda was funded and created, OBL worked for another group until we got involved in Afghanistan then broke off to create training camps and supply routes for the mujhadeen with a generous contribution from our government (and a few others)

that said, here's another critique of the bill

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Kucini ... 6-786.html

Kucinich: "Passing a weak bill today gives us weak environmental policy tomorrow"-

"I oppose H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The reason is simple. It won't address the problem. In fact, it might make the problem worse."

"It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term,
and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods.
It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the problem that should be
on its way out"" coal "" by giving it record subsidies. And it is
rounded out with massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense. There is $60
billion for a single technology which may or may not work, but which enables
coal power plants to keep warming the planet at least another 20 years.

"Worse, the bill locks us into a framework that will fail.
Science tells us that immediately is not soon enough to begin repairing the
planet. Waiting another decade or more will virtually guarantee catastrophic
levels of warming. But the bill does not require any greenhouse gas reductions
beyond current levels until 2030.

"Today's bill is a fragile compromise, which leads some to
claim that we cannot do better. I respectfully submit that not only can
we do better; we have no choice but to do better. Indeed, if we pass a
bill that only creates the illusion of addressing the problem, we walk away
with only an illusion. The price for that illusion is the opportunity to take
substantive action.

"There are several aspects of the bill that are problematic.
1. Overall targets are too weak. The bill is
predicated on a target atmospheric concentration of 450 parts per million, a
target that is arguably justified in the latest report from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, but which is already out of date. Recent science
suggests 350 parts per million is necessary to help us avoid the worst effects
of global warming.

2. The offsets undercut the emission reductions.
Offsets allow polluters to keep polluting; they are rife with fraudulent claims
of emissions reduction; they create environmental, social, and economic unintended
adverse consequences; and they codify and endorse the idea that polluters do
not have to make sacrifices to solve the problem.

3. It kicks the can down the road. By
requiring the bulk of the emissions to be carried out in the long term and
requiring few reductions in the short term, we are not only failing to take the
action when it is needed to address rapid global warming, but we are assuming
the long term targets will remain intact.

4. EPA's authority to help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in the short- to medium-term is rescinded. It is our
best defense against a new generation of coal power plants. There is no room
for coal as a major energy source in a future with a stable climate.

5. Nuclear power is given a lifeline instead
of phasing it out. Nuclear power
is far more expensive, has major safety issues including a near release in my
own home state in 2002, and there is still no resolution to the waste problem.
A recent study by Dr. Mark Cooper showed that it would cost $1.9 trillion to
$4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than to generate
the same amount of electricity from energy efficiency and renewables.

6. Dirty Coal
is given a lifeline instead of phasing it out. Coal-based energy
destroys entire mountains, kills and injures workers at higher rates than most
other occupations, decimates ecologically sensitive wetlands and streams,
creates ponds of ash that are so toxic the Department of Homeland Security will
not disclose their locations for fear of their potential to become a terrorist
weapon, and fouls the air and water with sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates,
mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and thousands of other toxic
compounds that cause asthma, birth defects, learning disabilities, and
pulmonary and cardiac problems for starters. In contrast, several times more
jobs are yielded by renewable energy investments than comparable coal
investments.

7. The $60 billion allocated for Carbon Capture and
Sequestration (CCS) is triple the amount of money for basic research
and development in the bill. We should be pressuring China,
India and Russia to slow and stop their power
plants now instead of enabling their perpetuation. We cannot create that
pressure while spending unprecedented amounts on a single technology that may
or may not work. If it does not work on the necessary scale, we have then spent
10-20 years emitting more CO2, which we cannot afford to do. In addition, those
who will profit from the technology will not be viable or able to stem any
leaks from CCS facilities that may occur 50, 100, or 1000 years from now.

8. Carbon markets can and will be manipulated
using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial
crisis.

9. It is regressive. Free allocations doled
out with the intent of blunting the effects on those of modest means will pale
in comparison to the allocations that go to polluters and special interests. The
financial benefits of offsets and unlimited banking also tend to accrue to
large corporations. And of course, the trillion dollar carbon derivatives
market will help Wall Street investors. Much of the benefits designed to
assist consumers are passed through coal companies and other large corporations,
on whom we will rely to pass on the savings.

10. The Renewable
Electricity Standard (RES) is not an improvement. The 15% RES
standard would be achieved even if we failed to act.

11. Dirty energy options qualify as "renewable"-:
The bill allows polluting industries to qualify as "renewable energy."-
Trash incinerators not only emit greenhouse gases, but also emit highly toxic
substances. These plants disproportionately expose communities of color and
low-income to the toxics. Biomass burners that allow the use of trees as a
fuel source are also defined as "renewable."- Under the bill,
neither source of greenhouse gas emissions is counted as contributing to global
warming.

12. It undermines our bargaining position in international
negotiations in Copenhagen
and beyond. As the biggest per capita polluter, we have a responsibility to
take action that is disproportionately stronger than the actions of other
countries. It is, in fact, the best way to preserve credibility in the
international context.

13. International assistance is much less than demanded by
developing countries. Given the level of climate change that is already in the
pipeline, we are going to need to devote major resources toward adaptation. Developing
countries will need it the most, which is why they are calling for much more resources
for adaptation and technology transfer than is allocated in this bill. This
will also undercut our position in Copenhagen.

"I offered eight amendments and cosponsored two more that
collectively would have turned the bill into an acceptable starting point. All
amendments were not allowed to be offered to the full House. Three amendments
endeavored to minimize the damage that will be done by offsets, a method of
achieving greenhouse gas reductions that has already racked up a history of
failure to reduce emissions "" increasing emissions in some cases ""
while displacing people in developing countries who rely on the land for their
well being.

"Three other amendments would have made the federal government a
force for change by requiring all federal energy to eventually come from
renewable resources, by requiring the federal government to transition to
electric and plug-in hybrid cars, and by requiring the installation of solar
panels on government rooftops and parking lots. These provisions would
accelerate the transition to a green economy.

"Another amendment would have moved up the year by which
reductions of greenhouse gas emissions were required from 2030 to 2025. It
would have encouraged the efficient use of allowances and would have reduced
opportunities for speculation by reducing the emission value of an allowance by
a third each year.

"The last amendment would have removed trash incineration from the definition of
renewable energy. Trash incineration is one of the primary sources of
environmental injustice in the country. It a primary source of compounds in
the air known to cause cancer, asthma, and other chronic diseases. These
facilities are disproportionately sited in communities of color and communities
of low income. Furthermore, incinerators emit more carbon dioxide per unit of
electricity produced than coal-fired power plants.

"Passing a weak bill today gives us weak environmental policy
tomorrow,"- said Kucinich.

WaveCameCrashin

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

and let's not forget when Bush took office he actually cut money from the FBI and other agencies dealing with terrorism....Clinton also had drones searching for OBL to kill him, early in Bush's first term drones found OBL but he couldn't resolve the bickering of which agency should control the kill and he got away.

it could also be pointed out under Reagan and Bush al qaeda was funded and created, OBL worked for another group until we got involved in Afghanistan then broke off to create training camps and supply routes for the mujhadeen with a generous contribution from our government (and a few others)

With all due respect, do your self a favor and go read the book: JAWBREAKER The attack on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, A personal account by the CIA's key field commander by Gary Bertsen

That is if you really want to know the facts.

gimmesometruth27

prfctlefts wrote:

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

and let's not forget when Bush took office he actually cut money from the FBI and other agencies dealing with terrorism....Clinton also had drones searching for OBL to kill him, early in Bush's first term drones found OBL but he couldn't resolve the bickering of which agency should control the kill and he got away.

it could also be pointed out under Reagan and Bush al qaeda was funded and created, OBL worked for another group until we got involved in Afghanistan then broke off to create training camps and supply routes for the mujhadeen with a generous contribution from our government (and a few others)

With all due respect, do your self a favor and go read the book: JAWBREAKER The attack on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, A personal account by the CIA's key field commander by Gary Bertsen

That is if you really want to know the facts.

this book is probably just another hatchet job that blames clinton for everything written by one of the hawks in the cia, because nothing is ever the cia's fault. curveball, shitty iraq intelligence, link between saddam and osama etc etc, all of which have turned out to be complete bullshit..

ledvedderman

prfctlefts wrote:

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

and let's not forget when Bush took office he actually cut money from the FBI and other agencies dealing with terrorism....Clinton also had drones searching for OBL to kill him, early in Bush's first term drones found OBL but he couldn't resolve the bickering of which agency should control the kill and he got away.

it could also be pointed out under Reagan and Bush al qaeda was funded and created, OBL worked for another group until we got involved in Afghanistan then broke off to create training camps and supply routes for the mujhadeen with a generous contribution from our government (and a few others)

With all due respect, do your self a favor and go read the book: JAWBREAKER The attack on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, A personal account by the CIA's key field commander by Gary Bertsen

That is if you really want to know the facts.

We all know that OBL could have been captured at Torra Borra, and that is the basis of this book. Nothing really new there.

WaveCameCrashin

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

and let's not forget when Bush took office he actually cut money from the FBI and other agencies dealing with terrorism....Clinton also had drones searching for OBL to kill him, early in Bush's first term drones found OBL but he couldn't resolve the bickering of which agency should control the kill and he got away.

it could also be pointed out under Reagan and Bush al qaeda was funded and created, OBL worked for another group until we got involved in Afghanistan then broke off to create training camps and supply routes for the mujhadeen with a generous contribution from our government (and a few others)

With all due respect, do your self a favor and go read the book: JAWBREAKER The attack on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, A personal account by the CIA's key field commander by Gary Bertsen

That is if you really want to know the facts.

this book is probably just another hatchet job that blames clinton for everything written by one of the hawks in the cia, because nothing is ever the cia's fault. curveball, shitty iraq intelligence, link between saddam and osama etc etc, all of which have turned out to be complete bullshit..

Haven't you ever heard the term don't judge a book by it's cover ?
Well this is one of those books

ledvedderman

So is Richard Clarke's "Your Government Failed You"...

PearlJain

ledvedderman wrote:

The cost of this will be about $150 a year. If you can afford a postage stamp a day, then you have no need to worry about this.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/sta ... st-about-/

I actually pay attention to your comments. Your comments give me a reason to "pause" and think from a different perspective (unlike other posts in this forum). But you are wrong in this case. You are basing your opinion on the "Liberal Spin" that is so common now. Please do some further research. Cap and Trade will SUCK - for ALL US Citizens .........

ledvedderman

PearlJain wrote:

ledvedderman wrote:

The cost of this will be about $150 a year. If you can afford a postage stamp a day, then you have no need to worry about this.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/sta ... st-about-/

I actually pay attention to your comments. Your comments give me a reason to "pause" and think from a different perspective (unlike other posts in this forum). But you are wrong in this case. You are basing your opinion on the "Liberal Spin" that is so common now. Please do some further research. Cap and Trade will SUCK - for ALL US Citizens .........

The highest figure I've seen for your typical American family is an extra $80/month. I don't like it. I am pinching my pennies like so many others. However, I believe that in the long run this is a plan that could have a positive impact and force energy companies to be "greener" (for a lack of a better word).

PearlJain

spearhead wrote:

Obama is NOT perfect ... far from it.

He has not kept all of his promises ... he sounds like george bush when he tries to defend holding detainees indefinitely without trial, or when he fails to end DADT NOW, or when his DOJ files briefs tryng to keep dick cheney's admission to patrick fitzgerald that he broke valerie plame's cia cover from becoming public, or when he refuses to release photos of the torture this country committed under the bush adimnistration in our names, and other things too ... what a shock. He is a politician after all, and part of the same old tired two party system that has fucked this country for decades ... that said, I was glad to vote for him and I still fucking shudder to think how much worse it would have been had that maniac mccain and that idiot palin been elected.

Now you're telling me that he is RAISING TAXES ON POLLUTERS?

Pick your battles, man...that one ain't mine.

Okay - Let's close "Gitmo." The U.S. is now free to allow these "Terrorsts" to "shack" up in your "digs. Give an intelligent response as to what to do with these people. Hell yeah - let's put them on trial here in a US court of Law. Wow - THAT makes a lot of sense. You're smarter than most people whom hold office.

soulsinging

PearlJain wrote:

Okay - Let's close "Gitmo." The U.S. is now free to allow these "Terrorsts" to "shack" up in your "digs. Give an intelligent response as to what to do with these people. Hell yeah - let's put them on trial here in a US court of Law. Wow - THAT makes a lot of sense. You're smarter than most people whom hold office.

Uh... what's so bad about that idea? Trial and prison... sounds like a pretty decent idea for how to handle terrorists. It worked for McVeigh and the terrorist plotters in Toledo, Ohio a few years back. And it's served our country pretty well for centuries.

Lauri

prfctlefts wrote:

http://www.heritage.org/Press/FactSheet/fs0034.cfm

Obama's cap and trade is nothing more than a huge tax hike on enerygy
This could cost the average family up to $3000.00 more a year to heat and cool your home.

We will also see more jobs being lost due to this

http://www.foe.org/flawed-climate-and-energy-bill-passes-house

Yes, of course it's a tax hike on energy, that's the point.
It's not going to cost that much per year at all, and it how much it will cost people will depend on what part of the country they live in.

This program is definitely not the best cap-and-trade one could come up with. There is a concession to merchant coal generators that seems unnecessary. It is a step in the right direction though, and a lot of the other provisions of the bill that aren't directly related to the cap-and-trade program are very good (energy efficiency, national RPS, etc).

PearlJain

soulsinging wrote:

PearlJain wrote:

Okay - Let's close "Gitmo." The U.S. is now free to allow these "Terrorsts" to "shack" up in your "digs. Give an intelligent response as to what to do with these people. Hell yeah - let's put them on trial here in a US court of Law. Wow - THAT makes a lot of sense. You're smarter than most people whom hold office.

Uh... what's so bad about that idea? Trial and prison... sounds like a pretty decent idea for how to handle terrorists. It worked for McVeigh and the terrorist plotters in Toledo, Ohio a few years back. And it's served our country pretty well for centuries.

I sorta agree. But...what about the troops whom gave their lives fighting and at some point - capturing them. I think "trying" them in a U.S. Court is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. If tax-payer dollars need to spent - then I think "Military Tibunals" are in order. These people ARE NOT U.S. Citizens and should NOT be treated as such. Oh yeah - forgot - I'm on a liberal websight - where everyone whom comes to this county "illegally" should be considered a U.S. Citizen. I like Texas more and more every day.

soulsinging

PearlJain wrote:

I sorta agree. But...what about the troops whom gave their lives fighting and at some point - capturing them. I think "trying" them in a U.S. Court is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. If tax-payer dollars need to spent - then I think "Military Tibunals" are in order. These people ARE NOT U.S. Citizens and should NOT be treated as such. Oh yeah - forgot - I'm on a liberal websight - where everyone whom comes to this county "illegally" should be considered a U.S. Citizen. I like Texas more and more every day.

I'm ok with military tribunals, though that's taxpayer money too you know. What I'm not ok with is tossing them into nameless prisons not subject to any sort of oversight or accountability to be held and interrogated for years on end without even telling them what they're accused of or allowing them any sort of counsel or defense. If they're really terrorists, put them on trial somewhere, let them state their case, and if they're guilty, convict and sentence them. If we're doing our job and only rounding up guilty people, then this should not be a problem.

gimmesometruth27

PearlJain wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

PearlJain wrote:

Okay - Let's close "Gitmo." The U.S. is now free to allow these "Terrorsts" to "shack" up in your "digs. Give an intelligent response as to what to do with these people. Hell yeah - let's put them on trial here in a US court of Law. Wow - THAT makes a lot of sense. You're smarter than most people whom hold office.

Uh... what's so bad about that idea? Trial and prison... sounds like a pretty decent idea for how to handle terrorists. It worked for McVeigh and the terrorist plotters in Toledo, Ohio a few years back. And it's served our country pretty well for centuries.

I sorta agree. But...what about the troops whom gave their lives fighting and at some point - capturing them. I think "trying" them in a U.S. Court is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. If tax-payer dollars need to spent - then I think "Military Tibunals" are in order. These people ARE NOT U.S. Citizens and should NOT be treated as such. Oh yeah - forgot - I'm on a liberal websight - where everyone whom comes to this county "illegally" should be considered a U.S. Citizen. I like Texas more and more every day.

yeah they are not citizens, so lets just hold them indefinitely without charges. they are not american so they have no right to due process... :roll: :roll: :roll:

Pepe Silvia

PearlJain wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

PearlJain wrote:

Okay - Let's close "Gitmo." The U.S. is now free to allow these "Terrorsts" to "shack" up in your "digs. Give an intelligent response as to what to do with these people. Hell yeah - let's put them on trial here in a US court of Law. Wow - THAT makes a lot of sense. You're smarter than most people whom hold office.

Uh... what's so bad about that idea? Trial and prison... sounds like a pretty decent idea for how to handle terrorists. It worked for McVeigh and the terrorist plotters in Toledo, Ohio a few years back. And it's served our country pretty well for centuries.

I sorta agree. But...what about the troops whom gave their lives fighting and at some point - capturing them. I think "trying" them in a U.S. Court is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. If tax-payer dollars need to spent - then I think "Military Tibunals" are in order. These people ARE NOT U.S. Citizens and should NOT be treated as such. Oh yeah - forgot - I'm on a liberal websight - where everyone whom comes to this county "illegally" should be considered a U.S. Citizen. I like Texas more and more every day.

well, maybe Obama can be a member of the World Court again, they could be tried there but we refuse to acknowledge them since they found us guilty of basically terrorism by attacking Nicaragua because they wouldn't do what we wanted (like block and mine their bays and harbors when they had no navy but just to stop any supplies coming in

i think this is a very weak bill and shows there is no real change to be had from either the executive or legislative branches. sure, it makes *some* minor progress but gives in way more than it makes a positive impact. i'm hesitant to rely on fining companies that violate the laws because as it is a very few ever pay those fines anyway, it's more for show. Exxon never even finished paying and cleaning what they were supposed to over the Valdeez! They disabled the spill alarms on tankers and other cutbacks to save money, as if they don't make enough, and they get a public slap on the wrist and the show of heavy fines and damages and it's mostly for show, to appease the public