FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Not good...
Posted on 12/23/2007 2:31:42 PM PST by Delacon
Dallas, TX - The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is expected today to debate amendments to a bill proposed by Sens. Lieberman (I-CT) and Warner (R-VA) that would create a "cap and trade" system designed to cut total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. Yet an expert with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) says the cap and trade system would slow economic growth with little if any environmental improvement to show for it.
"Back in 1997 the Senate took the sensible position that the U.S. should not adopt any climate treaty that would either harm the economy or that didn't include meaningful participation by major developing countries," said H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the NCPA. "Now, with an election year fast approaching, many of the same Senators are rushing to adopt a unilateral bill that violates both of those principles. The good news is this proposal has little chance of becoming law."
The bill, titled "America's Climate Security Act," would restrict greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, petroleum refiners, major manufacturers and natural gas supplied to both residential and commercial buildings under what is called a "cap and trade" mechanism. Under a cap and trade system, government establishes a cap on total emissions, and then auctions or gives allowances to the affected industries, allowing them to emit carbon dioxide at certain levels. Companies are also allowed to trade their emission allowances among themselves, so that companies that can cost effectively cut emissions more than their allowed amount can sell their excess emission credits to others. Over time, the annual emissions limits would decline.
Burnett noted that an analysis of cap and trade proposals in general by the Congressional Budget Office estimated costs to the economy in tens of billions and perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars annually and concluded that the poor would bear the brunt of resulting higher energy prices.
"These costs could be quite high since the technologies don't exist at the present to meet the emission reduction goals," said Burnett. "There is no telling if and when we can separate economic growth from growth in energy use or at least from growth in fossil fuel use."
Increasingly scientists are advocating geo-engineering approaches, as more immediate, cost-effective ways to reduce warming. And politicians and analysts world wide are coming to embrace the need for adapting to future warming.
Call your senators.
I can’t believe their STUPIDITY.
Which is why the House of Lords...er, the Senate feels free to pass it.
If 43 really wanted to set the cat among the pigeons, he'd threaten to sign the bill.
Then see what the House of Lords...er, the Senate does.
Where are the greeeenies? Trees will be deprived of CO2 and die. They will not make O2 from CO2 and we will die. Chilren and minoririties hit hardest, while Algore Manbearpig gets prizzzzes.
What a wonderfull world!!
All of this based on a SCAM! Doesn’t anyone do their own research???
“The good news is this proposal has little chance of becoming law.”
I saw that line. I dunno. I may have jumped the gun but maybe not. Given that “America’s Climate Security Act” has bi partisan support in its co sponsors and Bush’s recent wishy washy rhetoric on global warming, I could see this bill making it out of committee. In fact, the writer lays that line on us then doesn’t say anything to back it up.
“Global warming” hoax BUMP!
They are stupid.
American Indian Proverb - Nez Perce
The older I get
The more libertarian I get
The Government needs to get out of the way.
But will it decrease other countries’ emmissions? Nope, didn’t think so.
US emissions fell by 2% last year without any democrat laws.
At the rate of things...US emissions might continue a 1 to 2 percent decrease each year, for the next ten years. It might also help if we added a huge reforestation plan throughout the western and southern states...and in twenty years...add another 1 percent a year cut. We really don’t have to do much but eventually turn off the older coal-fired plants and put cleaner ones online. This is the more amusing thing about US efforts....technology and infrastructure improvements will carry the load for the nation and the world. This massive...gotta tax everyone with carbon credit scheme...doesn’t really understand the push and movement already in place today.
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
read
~~AGW ™ ping~~
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.