Democrats Unveil Ambitious Global Warming Bill

[PapaG]

You have got to be kidding me. Tax our economy back to the Stone Age for a bulls**t scam. Meanwhile, watch the explosion of industry in China and India. It's almost like they are deliberately trying to sabotage the US and its citizenry. This, if passed, will destroy this country as we know it. Prepare for sky high rates on heating your house, filling your car, and feeding your family. Meanwhile, the fat cats in DC get to take even more of our money as they flit around the nation in their private jets and limosuines.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/us/politics/01energycnd.html?_r=1&hp

WASHINGTON — The debate on global warming and energy policy accelerated on Tuesday as two senior House Democrats unveiled a far-reaching bill to cap heat-trapping gases and move the country quickly from dependence on coal and oil.

But the bill leaves crucial questions unanswered and as of now has no Republican support. For those reasons, it marks the beginning, not the end, of debate in the current Congress on how to deal with two of President Obama’s top priorities, climate change and energy.

The draft measure, written by Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, sets a slightly more ambitious goal for capping greenhouse gases than President Obama’s proposal, requiring a reduction in emissions of 20 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels. President Obama’s plan envisioned a 14 percent reduction by 2020. Both would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases linked to global warming by roughly 80 percent by 2050.

The Waxman-Markey bill, known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, emerges at a time when many Americans, and their representatives, are wary of wide-ranging environmental legislation that could raise energy costs and potentially cripple industry. The bill also comes as the Environmental Protection Agency is about to exert regulatory authority over greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The bill would pre-empt that effort and create a new cap-and-trade scheme to control carbon emissions.

The new bill would require every region of the country to produce a quarter of its electricity from renewable sources like wind, solar and geothermal by 2025. A number of lawmakers from some regions of the country, particularly the Southeast, call that goal unrealistic because the natural resources and technology to meet it do not currently exist.

The bill also calls for modernization...

continued at link

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Just go all nuclear. probably cleaner than current energy and infinitely more efficient than wind and solar energy.

going back to the stone ages for sources of energy will bring us through the future? hardly, wind and solar energy is a total scam. Its prohibitively expensive to set up a system that will generate what is required for the country..let alone a home.

 

[SodaPopinski]

Personally, I think we should increase our country's dependence on oil so we can continue our addiction to the only natural resource the Middle East offers. I actually love relying on their political and economic stability to keep the engine of our economy running. Not to mention we get to continue to invest in 19th Century technology in a 21st Century economy.

Holla back if you with me!

-Pop

 

[PapaG]

Just go all nuclear. probably cleaner than current energy and infinitely more efficient than wind and solar energy.

going back to the stone ages for sources of energy will bring us through the future? hardly, wind and solar energy is a total scam. Its prohibitively expensive to set up a system that will generate what is required for the country..let alone a home.

Nuclear energy isn't included in this plan.

 

[PapaG]

Personally, I think we should increase our country's dependence on oil so we can continue our addiction to the only natural resource the Middle East offers. I actually love relying on their political and economic stability to keep the engine of our economy running. Not to mention we get to continue to invest in 19th Century technology in a 21st Century economy.

Holla back if you with me!

-Pop

Totally ridiculous. We are sitting on a virtual gold mine of oil, natural gas, and coal, yet our government and the enviro-movement won't let us touch it because of the global warming scam.

 

[PapaG]

Not to mention we get to continue to invest in 19th Century technology in a 21st Century economy.
Holla back if you with me!

-Pop

Yes, windmills are a product of the 21st century. So is solar energy.

 

[Minstrel]

I think I'd be a proponent of more nuclear power. It's a sustainable, essentially unlimited source of power and the melt-down risks seem vanishingly small. The waste is a bit of a problem, but it can be contained pretty safely and effectively and there's a lot of underground area to turn into shielded waste holding areas.

I also wonder whether nanotechnology, in the future, can rearrange the actual neutrons and protons of the waste isotopes into new ones that are stable and not radioactive.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Nuclear energy isn't included in this plan.

Nuclear energy is the future. What is surprising to figure is this plan basically assumes a steady power consumption instead of the need to develop more powerful methods of energy production. While its all noble and great to use available resources like light and wind to make energy...the bottom line is that it doesn't make that much to begin with. Solar cells are extremely costly and don't put out that much energy...while its a good adjunct to energy, for it to produce 25% of our energy when in all likelyhood the world will develop new technologies in production that will require more energy will bring us to a future of brownouts and running out of energy. Manufacturing will be forced to run on certain days of the week to save energy.

 

[Minstrel]

Solar cells are extremely costly and don't put out that much energy...while its a good adjunct to energy, for it to produce 25% of our energy when in all likelyhood the world will develop new technologies in production that will require more energy will bring us to a future of brownouts and running out of energy.

What you're not accounting for here is that solar power technology will also benefit from technology's accelerating development.

But for that to happen, there have to be people working on that technology, which requires money.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Well, we have to start somehwere with a meaninful debate on weaning us off of oil & coal. I don't care how they wrap it, just so it gets done. Granted, this is an idiotic start, but let's get the ball rolling and do what we can NOW to make some serious changes.

The last thing we need to do is putz around until it's near too late (as we usually do).

 

[PapaG]

I think I'd be a proponent of more nuclear power. It's a sustainable, essentially unlimited source of power and the melt-down risks seem vanishingly small. The waste is a bit of a problem, but it can be contained pretty safely and effectively and there's a lot of underground area to turn into shielded waste holding areas.

I also wonder whether nanotechnology, in the future, can rearrange the actual neutrons and protons of the waste isotopes into new ones that are stable and not radioactive.

That would all be nice to find out for the present and future. Meanwhile, starting in 2025, we're going to be using the wind, the sun, and naturally hot water to run 25% of our power grid needs.

I imagine soon we'll be using horses to pull our cars and lamps to light our homes. To the future!

 

[Minstrel]

That would all be nice points for the future. Meanwhile, starting in 2025, we're going to be using the wind, the sun, and naturally hot water to run 25% of our power grid needs.

I don't see that as clearly a mistake. There's no way wind and solar could account for 25% of our power needs today, but 15 years is an eternity in terms of technology life cycle, especially since the pace of innovation has been accelerating exponentially. In 15 years, with proper funding, solar and wind could very well be far superior technologies to the solar and wind technologies of today.

 

[PapaG]

I don't see that as clearly a mistake. There's no way wind and solar could account for 25% of our power needs today, but 15 years is an eternity in terms of technology life cycle, especially since the pace of innovation has been accelerating exponentially. In 15 years, with proper funding, solar and wind could very well be far superior technologies to the solar and wind technologies of today.

"Proper funding". Where did you plan on getting this funding?

Meanwhile, rates are low now and pretty much everybody has power if they need it because of the relatively low cost.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

What you're not accounting for here is that solar power technology will also benefit from technology's accelerating development.

But for that to happen, there have to be people working on that technology, which requires money.

The money would be better spent on nuclear technology. Solar is great for a grade school science project or some environmental wacko with too much money and who can afford putting a half million dollar system into their house.

 

[Minstrel]

The money would be better spent on nuclear technology. Solar is great for a grade school science project or some environmental wacko with too much money and who can afford putting a half million dollar system into their house.

Yes, it's expensive today. My point was that with technology benefiting from exponential increases in effectiveness over time, that will be less and less true in the future. Almost all commonly used technologies started as expensive ideas that only "wackos with too much money" used in the beginning. Cell phones, for example.

 

[Minstrel]

"Proper funding". Where did you plan on getting this funding?

Tax monies.

Meanwhile, rates are low now and pretty much everybody has power if they need it because of the relatively low cost.

That's great. Wind and solar aren't ready for prime-time right now, so it's good to have oil. The "25%" thing is for the future.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Yes, it's expensive today. My point was that with technology benefiting from exponential increases in effectiveness over time, that will be less and less true in the future. Almost all commonly used technologies started as expensive ideas that only "wackos with too much money" used in the beginning. Cell phones, for example.

perhaps, I'm not saying abandon it, but spending lots of money in a down economy is not the best idea...requiring it without knowning more about it is a bit scammy as well.

 

[PapaG]

Yes, it's expensive today. My point was that with technology benefiting from exponential increases in effectiveness over time, that will be less and less true in the future. Almost all commonly used technologies started as expensive ideas that only "wackos with too much money" used in the beginning. Cell phones, for example.

All of which were the products of the private sector and without federal mandates and rules setting time restrictions and excessive environmental restrictions on their completion. Who gets the federal funding for improving wind or solar efficiency? Are we even giving tax money to the right people? Do we care?

 

[Minstrel]

All of which were the products of the private sector and without mandates setting time restrictions on their completion.

That's true in many cases. Energy is a little bit different in terms of national security, environmental issues and entrenched interests. A private enterprise attempt to develop consumer solar/wind power alternatives can be crowded out by oil companies. The government can resist such attempts.

Who gets the federal funding for improving wind or solar efficiency? Are we even giving tax money to the right people? Do we care?

We care. I don't personally know who to give it to, but people with interest in developing such technologies who have qualifications and plans of scientific merit should get the funding.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I remeber when hybrid vehicles were used as a punchline to a joke . . . and some of the hybrid cars back then were jokes.

Today's hybrid vehicles are no joke and not a step back into the stone ages.

 

[PapaG]

I remeber when hybrid vehicles were used as a punchline to a joke . . . and some of the hybrid cars back then were jokes.

Today's hybrid vehicles are no joke and not a step back into the stone ages.

What do hybrid cars, yet another invention of the private market, have to do with this proposed bill?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

What do hybrid cars, yet another invention of the private market, have to do with this proposed bill?

There seems to be an arugment that it would be a step backwards to invest into resources such as wind and solar ( ) . . . I heard the same arguments about hybrid cars years ago (not worth the investment).

I say let the tech heads have at it and generate as much energy as you can from the sun and wind (and ocean for matter) . . . that is not a step backwards . . . that is the future (whether some like it or not). It just took a non-oil president to make this a top agenda item.

 

[PapaG]

There seems to be an arugment that it would be a step backwards to invest into resources such as wind and solar ( ) . . . I heard the same arguments about hybrid cars years ago (not worth the investment).

I say let the tech heads have at it and generate as much energy as you can from the sun and wind (and ocean for matter) . . . that is not a step backwards . . . that is the future (whether some like it or not). It just took a non-oil president to make this a top agenda item.

Me pointing out to Pop that the wind and the sun as a source of energy has been around longer than oil or natural gas elicits this response from you? The fact that wind and solar power have been around in the private sector for a lot longer than oil or natural gas, yet are not nearly as efficient to power our national grid, would cause most people to at least take a step back and wonder why that could be.

Why are we spending what could be trillions of dollars when, by Obama's plan, 86% of energy will still be based on current methods? I'd guess a "non-oil" President would surely want to restrict that energy source by more than 14%, especially considering the growth in our population and the horrific effects of global warming ( ) that are obviously associated it.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Me pointing out to Pop that the wind and the sun as a source of energy has been around longer than oil or natural gas elicits this response from you? The fact that wind and solar power have been around in the private sector for a lot longer than oil or natural gas, yet are not nearly as efficient to power our national grid, would cause most people to at least take a step back and wonder why that could be.

Why are we spending what could be trillions of dollars when, by Obama's plan, 86% of energy will still be based on current methods? I'd guess a "non-oil" President would surely want to restrict that energy source by more than 14%, especially considering the growth in our population and the horrific effects of global warming ( ) that are obviously associated it.

You know papa . . . it's not always about you.

Without going back, I think it was ADP who insinuated that the future is not about solar and wind power . . . that is stepping back to the olden days.

 

[Sinobas]

This is really intelligent. Why don't they just tax the shit that comes out of my ass so I won't have to wipe anymore. That would make just as much sense.

How about instead of spending Billions of dollars in Iraq and to bail out banks, spend it on developing alternative energy?

And to the original poster, ding-ding-ding! They ARE deliverately trying to ruin us. These same assholes have been doing the same thing to South American countries for years. Give them loans they know will bankrupt them, raise taxes, lower wages, then you get to buy up everything on a fire sale.

 

[barfo]

I also wonder whether nanotechnology, in the future, can rearrange the actual neutrons and protons of the waste isotopes into new ones that are stable and not radioactive.

I don't think so. Nanotechnology is atom-based, what you need is something that works at the subatomic level. Picotechnology, if you will.

But it aint likely even so. You can transform atomic structure, but it involves a lot of energy - that's how that radioactive waste got generated in the first place.

barfo

 

[hasoos]

This is really intelligent. Why don't they just tax the shit that comes out of my ass so I won't have to wipe anymore. That would make just as much sense.

How about instead of spending Billions of dollars in Iraq and to bail out banks, spend it on developing alternative energy?

And to the original poster, ding-ding-ding! They ARE deliverately trying to ruin us. These same assholes have been doing the same thing to South American countries for years. Give them loans they know will bankrupt them, raise taxes, lower wages, then you get to buy up everything on a fire sale.

Because they wouldn't make anything. All that bullshit comes out your mouth.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't think so. Nanotechnology is atom-based, what you need is something that works at the subatomic level. Picotechnology, if you will.

Right, I was using "nanotechnoloy" as a catch-all for the nano-and-smaller.

But it aint likely even so. You can transform atomic structure, but it involves a lot of energy - that's how that radioactive waste got generated in the first place.

Yeah, I was thinking of that. But there's a concept of "reversibility" in computing, whereby if you do a (certain type of) computation and then reverse the computation, you end up with a zero (or near-zero) energy burned state. I'm starting to move into things I definitely don't understand well, but I was wondering whether potentially that has applications to sub-atomic states...doing the nuclear reaction, reversing it and ending up without the radioactive (energetic) state. But maybe you end up without the energy.

 

[PapaG]

You know papa . . . it's not always about you.

Without going back, I think it was ADP who insinuated that the future is not about solar and wind power . . . that is stepping back to the olden days.

My apologies for taking it personally. My larger point was that wind, sun, and geothermal energy has been around a lot longer than oil or natural gas as a "fuel", yet the private sector has discovered that oil and natural gas are a much more efficient, varied, and practical source of energy, which is why private companies have expanded on these sources. I don't see how throwing additional public funds is going to suddenly make wind and solar energy more affordable and more efficient that what we currently have.

I like the nuke ideas, for what it is worth. Too bad those who govern us don't.

 

[Minstrel]

My apologies for taking it personally. My larger point was that wind, sun, and geothermal energy has been around a lot longer than oil or natural gas as a "fuel", yet the private sector has discovered that oil and natural gas are a much more efficient, varied, and practical source of energy, which is why private companies have expanded on these sources. I don't see how throwing additional public funds is going to suddenly make wind and solar energy more affordable and more efficient that what we currently have.

Because technology changes. Wind, solar and geothermal have been "around," but that doesn't mean humans ever had the technology to effectively harness them. Nuclear power, an option you say you like, has been around for billions of years...it just takes a higher level of technology to use than burning fossil fuels does.

So far, burning fossil fuels has been the most efficient form of energy. However, A. it's non-replenishable and B. improving technology has made nuclear very efficient and could very well make wind/solar/geothermal very efficient in the future.

I don't think using oil should be stopped, but other forms of energy (including nuclear, but not excepting wind/solar/geothermal) should be explored. The fact that it has "been around" a long time without being efficient is only a comment on the past, not the future.