"Carbon dioxide is a pollutant? But that's what we exhale! HAHAHAHA! Stupid Americans!"
Posted on 04/17/2009 2:17:27 PM PDT by texrepub76
April 17 (Bloomberg) -- House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said he won’t compromise on his proposed 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases over the next decade in the face of criticism from lawmakers who say the economy could suffer.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaE9Lr1448tM&refer=home
2 feet of snow in Denver tonight. We better act before it’s too late!
Keep those air head, radicals away from any compromise. The resulting inaction could save us all.
Waxman is an ass who owes his job to the enviro nuts.
The country is in a long term deep recessionary mode, and will be in it for as long as folks like Waxman are in power.
Under that kind of slowdown, a 20% reduction in industrialization and travel should occur naturally without any further governmental intervention.
Waxman has had his nose firmly to the grindstone on this issue hasn't he?
thats George Bush making it snow from him and Cheney’s secret underground weather lab just to throw off the critics...
Waxman Won’t Compromise on 20% Carbon Cap in Climate Measure
translated:
Waxman Won’t Compromise on 20% Tax Increase Measure
Too much CO2 in Denver these day's?
With those nostrils of his - he's sucking up more than his share of good air!!
The Senate and House have declared themselves to be America’s Royalty.
They rule the way they want and let the people and the Constitution be damned.
Waxman Won’t Compromise Until Entire U.S. Economy Destoyed
There. Fixed it.
Yep. The Thing From Beverly Hills.
If Thundernose would just breath less...
"I hate the damn things . . ."
SCOTUS, EPA Vow To Wipeout Trees
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman joins war against trees
2 feet of snow in Denver tonight. We better act before it’s too late!”
28” of snow 2 nights ago in Orovada, Nevada at the Oregon border.
Blowing snow and cold wind here in Silver Springs, Nev.
It's just a sad state of affairs, Exactly who are these scientists? These people are going to destroy what little industry we have left and cause energy prices to double or triple over a short period of time. It just doesn't make any sense.
20% is BIG, it will damage the economy.....
.....and it will not make one bit of difference.
A 100% reduction will not make a difference either. These reductions are absolutely suicidal.
Real, real big, with only 10 years to get there. You'd probably agree that most people don't understand just what that means.
This is about energy, not light bulbs. Swapping out for CFL's might get a little here and there as might energy efficiency programs (largely already being and have been done by utilities).
This is about 20% of everything. 20% of water supply plants. 20% of waste water treatment plants. 20% of hospital X-ray and MRI machines. 20% of weather radars. 20% of streetlights. 20% of dialysis machines. 20% of manufacturing. 20% of cement. 20% of refrigerators. 20% of computers. 20% of web sites. 20% of livestock production. 20% of grain production. 20% of fruit and vegetable production. 20% vacation travel. 20% of business travel. 20% of personal travel. 20% of emergency travel. 20% of security systems. 20% of cell phones. 20% of cam corders. 20% of schools. 20% of homes.
And the list could go on...
You are correct - the damage to the economy will be great.
.....and it will not make one bit of difference.
Not one at all. Even if one were to accept the premise that man made GHG emissions are, or even could have the potential to change the climate of the planet, our actions are certainly moot.
We have been supplanted as the number 1 GHG emitter. China now takes that spot. Kind of odd that while our pundits are beating up the USA for their GHG emissions, China gets a pass and even kudos for maintaining 7+% growth through the downturn. Must be their superior socialist system since the journalists won't relay any information regarding CO2 emission per unit of GDP. That would obviously be unfair...
A 100% reduction will not make a difference either. These reductions are absolutely suicidal.
Agreed. We are wasting our resources on this issue. Again, accepting the premise, devoting our resources to reducing GHG's means less resources for adapting to any percieved consequences (such as longer growing seasons, less deaths from cold etc.). This approach will not only not work (India is about a decade behind China in industrialization - my opinion) but handcuffs us for the purposes of being economically competitive on the global market, and worse yet reduces our capacity to grow and adapt to future scenarios.
You are right - this is absolutely suicidal.
Here is my opinion. Utilities and manufacturers will flock to natural gas in an attempt to make the first round of cuts. Coal jobs drop a bit, but will have a floor somewhere since it can be shipped overseas (until banned under future CO2 provisions). Natural gas prices spike. As such home heating prices, particularly in the midwest spike. Associated manufacturing costs spike. Manufacturers sprint away for profitable pastures. This isn't more profitable pastures, its just profitable pastures to stay in business.
Secondarily, electricity costs spike. That will be either becuase natural gas prices spiked or CO2 credits / taxes increas the fee. Cost of everything increases. Another hit to any remaining manufacturers that tried to survive. A hit to consumers.
This will get ugly.
Other options to resolve that won't fly because the purveyors of this crap don't appear to be about solutions but are technically feasible:
New coal plants. We could reduce CO2 emission from coal fired generation by replacing the existing fleet of coal fired units with new units. These units would employ a super critical steam cycle resulting in 10 - 20% efficiency gains just from the steam cycle. Modern boiler designs could enhance that further. As a side benifit, modern but not draconian emission controls would result in substantially less air pollutant emissions.
While new coal plants certainly could accomplish reductions, existing hurdles - the clean air act, activist group lawsuits, and the uncertainty related to CO2 requirements make this technically feasible approach to securing recutions in CO2 infeasible from a practical perspective.
New nuclear plants. GHG free by in large. Good luck siting and permitting a new one. Also, there is that little problem of what to do with spent waste. Government mandates won't let it be reprocessed, government failures won't let it be stored safely.
A big part of me thinks that the climate change crew doesn't care about GHG reductions, but instead only care about knocking us down a notch.
If they acutally cared about GHG emissions they would be pushing for replacement of old coal units with modern ones and the development of new nuclear energy plants.
Unfortunately, that apparently makes too much sense to be national policy.
Just my opinion though.
EPA and the administration believe that they can use the potential ability to regulate CO2 to leverage legislative action on the issue plain and simple.
They fully expect that when their endangerment finding is final it will be litigated. This allows them to to appear as doing someting to placate their base in the short term. It also ensures that nothing of substance happens in the short term other than putting pressure on utilities, vehicle manufacturers, and industrial operations to support "common sense" legislation on the issue.
That is exaclty what the global warming alarmsts want - incremental success.
My recommendation for the nation is not to bite on this approach.
Let EPA try to regulate under their existing authorities. They will hit a brick wall quickly.
Under their existing authorities anyone who is a new source of at most 250 tons per year of CO2 will have to get a new source review permit. That ain't much for a new office complex, hospital, government office etc. This could change the current EPA requirements from applying to 15,000 plants to over 1.5 million plants, 1.485 million that were not subject to the CAA NSR requirements before...
Also, existing "CO2 control" techniques work much better on smaller operations than larger operations. The big plants might be able to get out on a "technical infeasibility" argument. If not from a technilogical standpoint, from a sequestration standpoint. Smaller operations, malls, hospitals, apartment complexes, etc., would need to prove they could "dispose" of their CO2 to a CO2 user dispacing production of CO2.
If I were king, I'd say - don't bite. Make EPA play the hand it is bluffing. Let them try to regulate CO2 under the existing CAA. No legislative fixes. It is very out dated for other pollutants at this time and is even less designed to address CO2 emissions. Let it fail under it's own shortcomings.
Tweaking the CAA to address CO2 or GHG's legislatively will on allow the global warming alarmists and Congressional socialists to accomplish their goal without taking any responsibility in the matter. This would allow them to target specific sectors, electric plants, cars, industrial operations, etc., while legislatively excusing other economic sectors from the pain. If EPA had to live under their own rules for everyone, the pain would be widespread to a whole lot of new folks.
It would be hard to US companies to support, but I hope that they recognize that EPA, the global warming alarmists, and the administration are attempting to use their fear of the CAA to drive a wedge between utility and industrial companies and the rest of the economy. Hopefully the non-utility and non-industrial sectors will realize that they are next on the chopping block.
Let EPA attempt to regulate under the existing CAA - it's the only way to fix this issue.
Carbon dioxide, or CO2, is a desirable byproduct that is produced when the carbon from the fuel is fully oxidized during the combustion process. As a general rule, the higher the CO2 reading, the more efficient the engine is operating. Therefore, air/fuel imbalances, misfires, or engine mechanical problems will cause CO2 to decrease. "Ideal" combustion produces large amounts of CO2 and H2O (water vapor)
http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h56.pdf
I have been saying a long time that this will end up in riots and bloodshed all over the world.
I can see carbon reduction inspired revolutions.
I can see revolution weakening inspired military conquest plans by the Chinese and Russians.
When this started years ago, I think the Europeans embraced it as a way to weaken the very strong US economy. It has never been about saving the planet, at least on the part of governments. Some of the followers who do believe we can save the planet are nothing but useful dupes.
Stalemate. Good.
America wins.
The truth is, their plan is to shut down ALL coal plants, modern or older.
As you said, they don't want nuclear either.
Their dream is solar and wind EVERYWHERE. Most supporters have no clue that this means wires everywhere too. There will not be any unspoiled land left if we are to even attempt to replace the reliable and powerful steam stations with these lightweight and unreliable replacements. Despite all of the wind and solar installed, there will not be enough, not even close.
Thats where their stupid smartgrid will simply force you to reduce use in an instant if necessary. In previous times, this would be called an unnacceptable interruption, a brown or black out. But we will now redefine it to mean something ----good.
The future is not bright anymore. Give me the 1980's again.
Of all the insanity that comes with the Democratic Party, including Al Gore's Globull Warming, Barney's Franks regulating banks, and the Great Obamamateur, Henry Waxman has to be the most repulsive useless turd to produce CO2. It is positively mind blowing that Waxman can get enough votes to keep going back to DC.
On the Justice Department’s release of Bush administration legal memos on the treatment of terror suspects, Waxman said he supports the creation of a commission to investigate alleged abuses, with the possibility that the inquiry will lead to prosecution.
“It should go all the way to the top,” said Waxman.
Investigating the financial meltdown on Wall Street...is no longer on his agenda.
“I’m much too busy,” Waxman said.
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.
