Cap And Trade..shut Down!!!
06-28-2009, 12:34 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Dry hopping a 90 Min IPA
Posts: 215
Dude, I make no assumptions about you. I simply replied to your insulting post:
You claim that Global Warming is real which implies that you want something done about. You claim that anyone that thinks the science is overblown must assume it is a liberal plot. I provide you 2 clear cut examples of where the global warming movement is a political leftist campaign:
1. Commies start "Green" Party.
2. Friday Nights power Grab.
I will now make an assumption about you. You think anyone who agrees with you is wise, non-political and altruistic and anyone who disagrees with you is politically motivated.
You claim that Global Warming is real which implies that you want something done about. You claim that anyone that thinks the science is overblown must assume it is a liberal plot. I provide you 2 clear cut examples of where the global warming movement is a political leftist campaign:
1. Commies start "Green" Party.
2. Friday Nights power Grab.
I will now make an assumption about you. You think anyone who agrees with you is wise, non-political and altruistic and anyone who disagrees with you is politically motivated.
I'm not a member of the Green party, but I'm pressed to understand where you get the infomation that they were founded by communists? Can we draw the same parallel between groups that identify themselves as rightists, Aryan Nations, the kkk and other separatist movments? Seems like a long walk doesn't it? Regardless of how I feel about Sean Hannity, I stop WAY short of lumping him into groups like that.
Yes, you did make an assumption, and a VERY incorrect one at that. You are very free to disagree with me, and I with you. I simply made the point that the term "liberal" made it's way into this discussion before any real, substantive conversation could be had about the issue. Further, I said that it's disheartning that we seem to reflexively dismiss this phenomenon to politics. Whatever is happening will problably not wait until we have this debate to do it's worse, and we should be addressing that. Civilly and with the benefit of science, science from all angles.
May I suggest that you outline the effect on global warming this bill will have and present us with a reasonable cost/benefit estimate?
Once you can do that it is reasonable for people to think it is something other than a sop to special interests and something other than a power grab.
Until then....
Once you can do that it is reasonable for people to think it is something other than a sop to special interests and something other than a power grab.
Until then....
If that is the consequense, then sure. But "junk science" according to who? Each side of this debate has thier own take on it, and there are those that would argue that ingnoring it, regardless of it's cause, is junk science.
Last edited by ZDub; 06-28-2009 at 12:52 PM. Reason: Spellin'
06-28-2009, 12:53 PM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: dogstyle
Posts: 375
Next we'll have some cerebral politico spreading the theory that overpopulation has shifted Earth's axis due to differential weight, which in turn has altered its orbit around the Sun in addition to Earth's magnetic shift from the overproduction of magnets for the billions of electric motors humans have produced resulting in altered weather patterns over the Galapagos Islands....all with full scientific backup.
Human arrogance is almost laughable sometimes
Human arrogance is almost laughable sometimes
06-28-2009, 01:26 PM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Jet Pilot
Posts: 797
Next we'll have some cerebral politico spreading the theory that overpopulation has shifted Earth's axis due to differential weight, which in turn has altered its orbit around the Sun in addition to Earth's magnetic shift from the overproduction of magnets for the billions of electric motors humans have produced resulting in altered weather patterns over the Galapagos Islands....all with full scientific backup.
Human arrogance is almost laughable sometimes
Human arrogance is almost laughable sometimes
06-28-2009, 02:17 PM
#54
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 28
Guys I hate to break it to you, but the only important people that do not agree that global warming is real are right wing politicians. Let me be clear: Global warming is happening, that is an undisputed fact. What is not as clear is the nature of the cause of global warming. No matter the cause, strategies should be explored to try to reverse its effects, which are very serious. If global warming is real, and a carbon emissions cap helps solve the problem, then such a cap should be put in place, even if it is not %100 "business friendly". In fact, the only way that positive change can be effected without adverse effects on business is through government regulation. This levels the playing field, and forces all companies to abide by the same set of environmental regulations. Without a regulated cap system, environmentally conscious businesses would be at a competitive disadvantage. The US is behind even most 3rd world countries in the area of environmental regulation.
The fundamental economics and business knowledge needed to objectively evaluate these types of situations is seriously lacking in most posters on these boards. From outsourcing, to marketing, to business strategy, to environmental regulation and politics, this general lack of knowledge and yes, sometimes even intelligence, is clearly evident. Is it that hard to actually research an issue you are posting about, instead of watching fox news and yelling about "damn liberals" and hippies like some ignorant redneck?
I consider myself neither a democrat nor a republican. Recognize that some issues go beyond politics, and something as complex and globally relevant as this goes beyond party politics, and even goes beyond the desires of individual and businesses to reduce their tax burden.
Final takeaway: If all US airlines, and airlines flying into the US are required to abide by this system, there will be no change in relative competitive advantage for individual companies. This may increase the cost of flying, but really, airlines contribute so little to the overall world carbon emissions that I think this industry has little to worry about. This is a cost that would be passed directly onto the customer anyways, and would result in a fee of a few dollars AT MAX to each ticket. Studies have shown that a full carbon trading system could result in prices of ~$20 per ton of CO2 emitted (this figure is highly speculative until actual trading begins). I actually took the time to run the numbers on this (unlike most of you):
Using a 3000 mile flight as an example, the average C02 emissions are .18 Kg per passenger per mile. At $20/ton of C02, this would equate to $9/passenger. Say the price was doubled, this would still be less than $20 per passenger. This is pretty reasonable, and would not drive down air travel a significant amount. Air travelers are price shoppers, to be sure, but $9 hardly even represents a go/no go decision on the part of passengers. As long as the regulations are applied fully and consistently, this should not represent a problem for the airline industry.
Check your facts people, most pilots are intelligent people, but you would never guess it from reading these threads. Instead of acting like a political reactionary, actually take the time to get your facts, issue by issue, instead of merely taking the official "party line", be it democrat or republican.
The fundamental economics and business knowledge needed to objectively evaluate these types of situations is seriously lacking in most posters on these boards. From outsourcing, to marketing, to business strategy, to environmental regulation and politics, this general lack of knowledge and yes, sometimes even intelligence, is clearly evident. Is it that hard to actually research an issue you are posting about, instead of watching fox news and yelling about "damn liberals" and hippies like some ignorant redneck?
I consider myself neither a democrat nor a republican. Recognize that some issues go beyond politics, and something as complex and globally relevant as this goes beyond party politics, and even goes beyond the desires of individual and businesses to reduce their tax burden.
Final takeaway: If all US airlines, and airlines flying into the US are required to abide by this system, there will be no change in relative competitive advantage for individual companies. This may increase the cost of flying, but really, airlines contribute so little to the overall world carbon emissions that I think this industry has little to worry about. This is a cost that would be passed directly onto the customer anyways, and would result in a fee of a few dollars AT MAX to each ticket. Studies have shown that a full carbon trading system could result in prices of ~$20 per ton of CO2 emitted (this figure is highly speculative until actual trading begins). I actually took the time to run the numbers on this (unlike most of you):
Using a 3000 mile flight as an example, the average C02 emissions are .18 Kg per passenger per mile. At $20/ton of C02, this would equate to $9/passenger. Say the price was doubled, this would still be less than $20 per passenger. This is pretty reasonable, and would not drive down air travel a significant amount. Air travelers are price shoppers, to be sure, but $9 hardly even represents a go/no go decision on the part of passengers. As long as the regulations are applied fully and consistently, this should not represent a problem for the airline industry.
Check your facts people, most pilots are intelligent people, but you would never guess it from reading these threads. Instead of acting like a political reactionary, actually take the time to get your facts, issue by issue, instead of merely taking the official "party line", be it democrat or republican.
06-28-2009, 02:37 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 770
Do you have any idea how many tons of pollutants get dumped into the air when a volcano erupts?
Science itself is not without merit, but the data they used for this bill was cherry picked to support it.
This tax is a way to redistribute wealth, raise energy costs, give biased control to politicians, and increase government.
The are going to set up direct deposits to bank accounts of the poor in order to compensate them for their reduced energy purchasing power as a direct result of this bill.
I don't know what's more disturbing, the economic impact, or the fact that your money will flow so quickly and directly to someone else with practically no oversight.
That my friends, is robin hood wealth redistribution.. and it's spooky.
Science itself is not without merit, but the data they used for this bill was cherry picked to support it.
This tax is a way to redistribute wealth, raise energy costs, give biased control to politicians, and increase government.
The are going to set up direct deposits to bank accounts of the poor in order to compensate them for their reduced energy purchasing power as a direct result of this bill.
I don't know what's more disturbing, the economic impact, or the fact that your money will flow so quickly and directly to someone else with practically no oversight.
That my friends, is robin hood wealth redistribution.. and it's spooky.
06-28-2009, 02:51 PM
#56
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 28
Do you have any idea how many tons of pollutants get dumped into the air when a volcano erupts?
Science itself is not without merit, but the data they used for this bill was cherry picked to support it.
This tax is a way to redistribute wealth, raise energy costs, give biased control to politicians, and increase government.
The are going to set up direct deposits to bank accounts of the poor in order to compensate them for their reduced energy purchasing power as a direct result of this bill.
I don't know what's more disturbing, the economic impact, or the fact that your money will flow so quickly and directly to someone else with practically no oversight.
That my friends, is robin hood wealth redistribution.. and it's spooky.
Science itself is not without merit, but the data they used for this bill was cherry picked to support it.
This tax is a way to redistribute wealth, raise energy costs, give biased control to politicians, and increase government.
The are going to set up direct deposits to bank accounts of the poor in order to compensate them for their reduced energy purchasing power as a direct result of this bill.
I don't know what's more disturbing, the economic impact, or the fact that your money will flow so quickly and directly to someone else with practically no oversight.
That my friends, is robin hood wealth redistribution.. and it's spooky.
So what exactly was "cherry picked"? And do you really think volcanos release more C02 than the combined activities of almost 7 billion people?? Maybe, you should research this a bit more carefully... And if you are worried about where the money is going and the oversight component of this bill, well that is a legitimate concern, but that does not mean the bill itself is bad. This is not robin hood wealth distribution. The money will go towards supporting climate reversal and protection. What specifically is it that you have an issue with? The economic impact is overblown, and the cost per person is very low... so this isn't as big of a deal as you might think.
06-28-2009, 03:01 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,948
Sorry. Since I last checked, I see three TOS violations at this thread for political bashing/commentary. Rather than give out infractions, I'm just going to lock this.
06-28-2009, 03:10 PM
#58
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guys I hate to break it to you, but the only important people that do not agree that global warming is real are right wing politicians. Let me be clear: Global warming is happening, that is an undisputed fact.
gmcd05
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hate to break it to you, but the subject is whether warming is caused by man or other mechanisms. I am not sure who you consider to be "important" people, but many scientists doubt the conclusion you have reached and even more so after the data shows a cooling trend over a good part of the last decade.
Your cost estimates are way off and do not include electricity, jobs, required changes to a home being sold, trade barriers and other items covered by the bill. Some estimates put it in excess of $2,000 per person, and show a net ZERO improvement in climate.
Can you show conclusive proof that this will in fact improve the climate? This has not been the case with countries using a Cap and Trade system over the last few years.
Guys I hate to break it to you, but the only important people that do not agree that global warming is real are right wing politicians. Let me be clear: Global warming is happening, that is an undisputed fact.
gmcd05
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hate to break it to you, but the subject is whether warming is caused by man or other mechanisms. I am not sure who you consider to be "important" people, but many scientists doubt the conclusion you have reached and even more so after the data shows a cooling trend over a good part of the last decade.
Your cost estimates are way off and do not include electricity, jobs, required changes to a home being sold, trade barriers and other items covered by the bill. Some estimates put it in excess of $2,000 per person, and show a net ZERO improvement in climate.
Can you show conclusive proof that this will in fact improve the climate? This has not been the case with countries using a Cap and Trade system over the last few years.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
