There's no such thing as wasting if there's an almost infinite amount of energy. Plus, humanity's long history deserved us to some luxory. Think about this: would your factory working great-great grandfather want his family to be told what to do and live an unfair life?

Yes, there is wasting even if there was an infinite amount of energy (which, of course, is so very far from the truth). Pointless spending of resources just to get that tiniest bit of luxury is essentially wasting. Adding on to that, where are you getting the "infinite amount of energy"?

 

As it stands, we are running on a very limited and very destructive fuel. Perhaps one day, the Earth will finely wisen up and take the millions upon millions of watts of energy that hits the sun and convert it into energy, instead of spending time, manpower, and the environment on drilling dead animals out of the crust of the Earth in the name of fuel.

 

Additionally, your second sentence is pretty arrogant. Why is it that humans get to have luxury? Other animals have been here much longer than us, yet we are stealing from them by destroying their habitats and killing them for ourselves, only to use a marginal amount of their body - or none at all. How do we deserve that?

 

And nice emotional appeal there. Right, because curbing excessive lifestyles is much akin to slavery and wage-slavery. Oh dear, you will not have the most beautiful, expensive house! What ever will you do?

 

Ahh, the young and naive, always thinking about the trees but ignoring the papers. Most people, including you I bet, won't be willing to waste thousands of CURRENT dollars to fix something that will save who knows how much FUTURE dollars. Not to mention those who simply can't afford it.

I know many people who would personally make that investment, including myself. If I keep those thousands of dollars, but there is nothing to use them on because the Earth has become a sludge of "life" due to us, what point is there in ever have having them?

 

Oh, right, the government knows best. Independent people can't think at all. No, their taste for art is selfish. Society must run like a computer: to the most logical and reasonable with no comforts or emotions whatsoever.

Nice flame there, pal. That's always the best way to persuade a person's opinion.

 

No one is saying that society must be perfect. The bill simply wants to cut wasteful energy loss due to, well, ignorant civic planning. Where do you get the idea that "Oh dear, making effecient housing will completely destroy all human emotion and it's ability to display it!"?

This actually sounds like a really, really good idea to me. It would be great to see other nations follow suit.

Heh

It's not about saving money. It's about saving energy.

No, it's about the money. It's always about the money. We're not going to get solar panels because the money it saves us will be less than the cost of the solar panels themselves.

It's not about saving money. It's about saving energy.

No, it's about the money. It's always about the money. We're not going to get solar panels because the money it saves us will be less than the cost of the solar panels themselves.

Where in the article does it say that?

 

As far as I know it doesn't. What it seemed to me was that they're trying to cut energy usage. If they're willing to renovate buildings that would cost a lot to do so in the name of energy effeciency, wouldn't that imply that they're interested in energy-saving rather than money saving?

It's not about saving money. It's about saving energy.

No, it's about the money. It's always about the money. We're not going to get solar panels because the money it saves us will be less than the cost of the solar panels themselves.

Where in the article does it say that?

 

As far as I know it doesn't. What it seemed to me was that they're trying to cut energy usage. If they're willing to renovate buildings that would cost a lot to do so in the name of energy effeciency, wouldn't that imply that they're interested in energy-saving rather than money saving?

Not the companies, the consumers. I said in my comment how we aren't going to go with it, not the companies won't give it to us to save them money.

It's not about saving money. It's about saving energy.

No, it's about the money. It's always about the money. We're not going to get solar panels because the money it saves us will be less than the cost of the solar panels themselves.

Where in the article does it say that?

 

As far as I know it doesn't. What it seemed to me was that they're trying to cut energy usage. If they're willing to renovate buildings that would cost a lot to do so in the name of energy effeciency, wouldn't that imply that they're interested in energy-saving rather than money saving?

Not the companies, the consumers. I said in my comment how we aren't going to go with it, not the companies won't give it to us to save them money.

Have to agree with this. These changes will never be supported by the masses if it's going to cost them a lot. Personally, I'm willing to make financial sacrifices where possible to save energy and help treat the planet better, but a lot of people would rather not miss their Caribbean vacation.

Cap and trade is the most idiotic bill I've ever seen. Even the healthcare [bleep] bill made some sense in an idealistic train of thought. But cap and trade is [bleep]ing [developmentally delayed]ed. Pardon the language.

Cap and trade is the most idiotic bill I've ever seen. Even the healthcare [bleep] bill made some sense in an idealistic train of thought. But cap and trade is [bleep]ing [developmentally delayed]ed. Pardon the language.

 

Of course, even though I supported passage of the health care bill, it doesn't mean I think it made sense; it would have been cheaper and better to extend Medicare to everyone, and allow the government to negotiate drug prices and import drugs from other countries. Big Pharma, doctors and medical equipment providers would not allow that to happen, so I had to take a half of a loaf: attack the insurance companies first with a bungled up health care bill that helps 30 million people.

 

To wit, cap and trade is in the same caliber, but not quite as bad. A carbon tax makes much more sense, and most economists agree. Cap and trade, however, is the only way, politically feasible way, to place a price on carbon. And, theoretically and practically, it can and has worked.

 

So, what are your misgivings with cap and trade, and why do you think it doesn't make any sense? Just a note, Kerry and Lieberman's American Power Act does more at a lower cost than anything the Republicans have put up to the table (it was the Graham-Kerry-Lieberman legislation, until Graham withdrew support from a bill that he wrote); not to mention that cap and trade was the old Republican position, and Democrats used to support a carbon tax.

Emmisions trading has failed in my country. Companies that haven't used their caps til the max have sold it to other companies that have been able to utilize it.

Emmisions trading has failed in my country. Companies that haven't used their caps til the max have sold it to other companies that have been able to utilize it.

 

Right, and that will happen until the caps are tightened. Europe's biggest problem was giving away too many of the permits in the initial stage. Sweden in particular, assuming you're from Sweden, started early in the 1990's with a carbon tax. And if you think it has failed, then I don't know what to say considering Scandinavian countries will be off of oil and coal before we know it. They'll also be reaping in the benefits when they're allowed to sell their permits to other countries that have been slower.

 

Sweden outpaced the Kyoto Protocol with cutting carbon emissions by 9% between 1990 and 2006, and has been out-pacing everyone with renewable energies. [1]

 

I'd call it a fantastic success.

 

Still, with the ability to sell carbon permits off when they're totally off of fossil fuels, the carbon will move elsewhere until everyone hops on board with a carbon tax.

Cap and trade is the most idiotic bill I've ever seen. Even the healthcare [bleep] bill made some sense in an idealistic train of thought. But cap and trade is [bleep]ing [developmentally delayed]ed. Pardon the language.

 

Of course, even though I supported passage of the health care bill, it doesn't mean I think it made sense; it would have been cheaper and better to extend Medicare to everyone, and allow the government to negotiate drug prices and import drugs from other countries. Big Pharma, doctors and medical equipment providers would not allow that to happen, so I had to take a half of a loaf: attack the insurance companies first with a bungled up health care bill that helps 30 million people.

 

To wit, cap and trade is in the same caliber, but not quite as bad. A carbon tax makes much more sense, and most economists agree. Cap and trade, however, is the only way, politically feasible way, to place a price on carbon. And, theoretically and practically, it can and has worked.

 

So, what are your misgivings with cap and trade, and why do you think it doesn't make any sense? Just a note, Kerry and Lieberman's American Power Act does more at a lower cost than anything the Republicans have put up to the table (it was the Graham-Kerry-Lieberman legislation, until Graham withdrew support from a bill that he wrote); not to mention that cap and trade was the old Republican position, and Democrats used to support a carbon tax.

 

 

Because its based on the idea that global warming is a very real thing that will kill all of us. That is plain foolhardy, and a slippery slope. Remember climategate? Most of the facts were faked. And because cap and trade isn't needed. And thats the MAIN problem I have with these types of gov'ts is they try to pass laws that aren't needed. And I realllllly dislike that. I honestly do think the gov't should really just stay the crap outta my life. It might not be the most sensible or logical principle, but that is mainly the core value as to which I base a lot of my anti obama ideas on.

Because its based on the idea that global warming is a very real thing that will kill all of us.

 

First, global warming is very real and it is probably the largest threat that humanity will ever face in this coming century. America will probably be fairly safe, domestically, but we will lose most of Florida and probably big portions of the coasts. Still, we have a lot of the Mid West to populate. The worry with us, though, is that food will become more scarce, as will water. On the whole, America won't suffer that badly, especially not until 2100. Russia will probably benefit, putting aside the fact that their border will become a major source of chaos, terrorism and war. Most of Europe will probably be alright, as well. Africa, Australia, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and South America are more or less [bleep]ed. The glaciers in the Himalaya Mountains provide water to over one billion people, and they're receding into nonexistence. This is a region that's already constantly at war, deprived of food and water as it is, and is mired in poverty. This is why the United States military considers climate change to endanger our own national security.

 

Remember climategate? Most of the facts were faked.

 

Where did you hear this? Glenn Beck? Alex Jones? I'm not trying to be impolite, but this is absolutely false. First, watch this video:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

 

Moreover, after the investigation, Michael Mann was cleared of any wrongdoing:

 

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/mann-cleared-in-final-inquiry-by-penn-state/

 

If the data was indeed faked, as you claim, that would be a major falling out with many prominent scientists, and people like Michael Mann would never find a job again; however, it would do absolutely nothing to the fact that we're experiencing climate change and that it's anthropogenic. It would be like saying that the fake Piltdown Man disproves evolution.

 

An example of faking the data was Andrew Wakefield, and we all know what happened with him; too bad the damage is already done, and whopping cough is making a comeback in states like California.

 

And because cap and trade isn't needed.

 

Well, a price on carbon is needed if we're to move away from fossil fuels. The only other answer is to withdraw all oil, gas and coal subsidies worldwide (they're around the tune of $550 billion). Seeing as that will NEVER happen, the only option is to make a price on the negative externalities of coal and oil.

 

I honestly do think the gov't should really just stay the crap outta my life.

 

This is larger than you, though. In an alternate universe, I would agree with you. I [bleep]ing hate the government; in case you hadn't noticed all of my posts about it in the Israel thread, they're very vibrant in the Fourth of July thread. Government sucks. However, it is necessary and because it is necessary, I fight to make it work better and for the people.

 

It might not be the most sensible or logical principle, but that is mainly the core value as to which I base a lot of my anti obama ideas on.

 

Fair enough, but dealing with the real world in principle or how you would like for it to be is not a solution. We can't allow corporations like BP to make their own rules; they will cut corners at first glance, and now the United States, especially Florida, is paying for it. We can't allow banks to do whatever they want, as we've seen with Europe and the United States; Canada and Australia had strong regulations in place, and now they're the envy of the world for their banking systems.

 

I have a friend from England, well not a friend, an acquaintance, who admits that the NHS is better than any free-market health care. However, he opposes it on principle. This makes zero sense when we're dealing with the real world, with real world problems, where people are actually suffering.

Emmisions trading has failed in my country. Companies that haven't used their caps til the max have sold it to other companies that have been able to utilize it.

 

Right, and that will happen until the caps are tightened. Europe's biggest problem was giving away too many of the permits in the initial stage. Sweden in particular, assuming you're from Sweden, started early in the 1990's with a carbon tax. And if you think it has failed, then I don't know what to say considering Scandinavian countries will be off of oil and coal before we know it. They'll also be reaping in the benefits when they're allowed to sell their permits to other countries that have been slower.

 

Sweden outpaced the Kyoto Protocol with cutting carbon emissions by 9% between 1990 and 2006, and has been out-pacing everyone with renewable energies. [1]

 

I'd call it a fantastic success.

 

Still, with the ability to sell carbon permits off when they're totally off of fossil fuels, the carbon will move elsewhere until everyone hops on board with a carbon tax.

Yes, i'm from Sweden.

I'm not saying that our entire energy politics has failed. I'm simply stating the fact that cap&trade has failed here, since the companies are legally able to sell their caps to another company which may use them. And thus it doesn't work as intended.

Now i'm going into a bit of local politics, but the fossile fuel need is still here and will be for a long time. There's not nearly enough gas stations were you can refuel on bio-fuel. And the red opposition have said that they will increase tax on petrol by 2kr (20 cent) atleast, which is mad. Even crazier when we are still in an economic recession and our fuel price is currently about 12.8kr á liter, and it would kill the country side since the green party seem to think that everyone live in a town and doesn't consider the yearly increase in cost for people living in the country side - where there's very bad bus connections. Let's hope they don't win in autumn.

1) I mean I guess its just opinion. I never saw the big deal in global warming, because i don't think its fair.

 

2) I don't blame you for asking me that XD all my mom watches is glenn beck. well, now she cut off tv so she watches none. And I really got my information from numerous places, I probably couldn't list them for you =\

 

3) In that sense I do agree that we should stop with oil.. And I think at the very end if cap and trade is the only answer I will consent, but I'm sure we can try other ways to reduce our oil use.

 

4) I acutally took that into consideration, and usually I am for the greater good. I guess I just don't see the greater good and thats that. :XD:

 

5)touché

'm simply stating the fact that cap&trade has failed here, since the companies are legally able to sell their caps to another company which may use them. And thus it doesn't work as intended.

 

http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2009/11/18/how-carbon-markets-work-in-europe

 

European Union emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gases (GHG) declined for the third consecutive year in 2007, according to the EU's GHG inventory report compiled by the European Environment Agency. The EU-27's overall domestic emissions were 9.3 % below 1990 levels, which equalled a drop of 1.2 % or 59 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent compared to 2006. The EU-15 now stands 5 % below its Kyoto Protocol base year levels.

 

http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/2009-greenhouse-inventory-report

 

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/EU-ETS-In-Perspective-Report.pdf

 

http://www.wri.org/stories/2009/11/truth-about-cap-and-trade-europe

 

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/group-says-european-cap-and-trade-system-reduced-emissions/

 

I'm not saying that it's a problem, but again, I would not call this a failure. These risks of a cap and trade system are known, which is why most economists and environmentalists prefer a carbon tax. C&T is the only viable option.

 

I suspect bio-fuels won't be lasting long, and the switch to electric cars should be more or less in full swing by 2025-2030.

And again, i'm not saying our energy politics have failed except for the cap&trade part. I'm not denying that emmisions have reduced, that's great. My point that i'm trying to get across, is that the fundamental part of cap&trade is lost when a company can sell it's unused bit.

Personally i'm hoping for hydrogen fuel cells.