House successfully vote to help raise taxes against poor and middle class

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh damn, ugh at democrats.

I hope that 2010 congressional election will be similar to 1994.
 
Wait.... Your link is right wing biased and don't any word is true to me.
 
kokonut said:
Watch your utility bills go up by $700 to $1400 (or more CNSNews.com - Cap and Trade a ?Declaration of War,? Say Republicans ) once this energy taxation takes place in the very near future.

House Democrats win key test vote on climate bill

Oh, btw, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. So, don't be an idiot and say that it is.
Click to expand...

Is the Supreme Court made up of idiots? They ruled in April of 2007 that carbon dioxide should be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
 
But Democrats disputed the Republicans’ cost figure and said the plan can be accomplished without imposing a net cost on the American people.
Click to expand...
If anyone believes this, please PM me. I have some premium snake oil I'd love to sell you.

The world simply won't have the will to halt economic activity enough to meet the ambitious goals the AGW advocates say we need to meet. Any attempt to do so will only fall short. Look at Europe.

The only way I can see us meeting those goals is by finding alternative energy sources that don't release carbon and don't require government subsidies to survive in the market. That requires research and development which only a wealthy society can do. The great irony is that cap and trade, by making us all poorer, would actually hinder energy research.

I have to wonder why I keep hearing these global warming doomsday scenarios and very few calls for nuclear energy. That would merely require cutting up the red tape. It's almost as if increased government power in our lives is the real goal here. Hmm...
 
kokonut said:
Watch your utility bills go up by $700 to $1400 (or more CNSNews.com - Cap and Trade a ?Declaration of War,? Say Republicans ) once this energy taxation takes place in the very near future.

House Democrats win key test vote on climate bill

Oh, btw, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. So, don't be an idiot and say that it is.
Click to expand...


You might want to check your chemistry on that one. And nice attempt at a misleading title. The dem-bashing continues. Your tune is getting old and tiresome.
 
Regardless of what the science says (which is in dispute among scientists), it is reasonable to say that the poor and middle class will be hit the hardest by cap and trade. Any legislation that lowers the standard of living for society across the board will inevitably be harder for the poor to bear.
 
Beowulf said:
Is the Supreme Court made up of idiots? They ruled in April of 2007 that carbon dioxide should be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
Click to expand...

How can it be a pollutant? You and I and every living human being exhale CO2 every single day. Plant requires CO2 to function and grow. In fact, the higher the CO2 the better plants respond and grow.

Now, tell me, how can it be a pollutant? It's not even toxic to human beings until it gets around 50,000 ppm (or 5% concentration). Currently in the air we breathe CO2 is around 360 to 380 ppm. People who work daily in greenhouses work in CO2 concentration of 1000 ppm or so will no ill effect at all. You go to a high school auditorium filled with people with poor ventilation can reach to 10,000 ppm and though no ill effect. So, how can it be a pollutant? This is all a political move, pure and simple. Again, anybody who think that CO2 is a pollutant is an idiot. Rather the EPA is "concerned" about the higher concentration of CO2, not CO2 itself. DUH! Still, again ridiculous to even go there.

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT
Click to expand...

"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama
Click to expand...

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University
Click to expand...

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction." - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Click to expand...

"Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned." - Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo
Click to expand...

"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant." - Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University
Click to expand...

"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product." - Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology
Click to expand...

"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land." - David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma
Click to expand...

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth." - Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany
Click to expand...

"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants." - Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry
Click to expand...

Again. Once more, tell me why CO2 is a pollutant. :cool2:
 
because CO2 builds up in the atmosphere that blocks the sunlight (and heat) from escaping Earth which then causes global warming.

However - CO2 and this same old warming/cooling process has been around for millions of year so obviously CO2 is not the culprit of it. It's the man-made chemical in air called CFC - chlorofluorocarbons... and hundreds of other chemical that's altering the balance of heating and cooling.
 
jillio said:
You might want to check your chemistry on that one. And nice attempt at a misleading title. The dem-bashing continues. Your tune is getting old and tiresome.
Click to expand...

Rather, it's you who need to take Chem 101. CO2 is not a pollutant in of itself. Concentration of CO2 has a toxicity level to be sure but not at 300, 1000 or 10,000 ppm for human beings. Yet, ironically so, by breathing pure oxygen for a period of time can be fatal. Though oxygen isn't a pollutant. Go figure! Maybe we need to classify oxygen as a pollutant, too? Seriously, Jill, you need to stop before you embarrass yourself further. It's funny how you don't even attempt to explain or correct on what I said. Pretty revealing when you do that.

The title isn't misleading in the sense that is what the House has done when you consider on how cost is usually transferred over to the consumers, and not the companies themselves that bear the burdern. That is exactly how it will happen. The House voted for the cap and trade which is an equivalent to a tax on carbon emissions and with the increased cost to utility companies it will be transfered over to consumers whether they're rich or poor. Didn't you know?

*sigh*
 
Jiro said:
because CO2 builds up in the atmosphere that blocks the sunlight (and heat) from escaping Earth which then causes global warming.

However - CO2 and this same old warming/cooling process has been around for millions of year so obviously CO2 is not the culprit of it. It's the man-made chemical in air called CFC - chlorofluorocarbons... and hundreds of other chemical that's altering the balance of heating and cooling.
Click to expand...

Er, Jiro, water vapor does a better job on blocking sunlight and trapping heat than CO2. What's more, CO2 only makes up less than .03% (that's percent) or .0003 of all the atmospheric gases in the atmosphere. Water vapor (H20) makes up as much as 3% of the total atmosphere. You're right, CO2 has never been known to be the cause for climate change. The obvious source of energy input (heat) to Earth is, of course, the sun. Though people need to ask themselves what causes the increasing cloudiness on Earth. And realize that the sun's energy output fluctuate in a cyclical pattern which means the strength of the sun's magnetic field changes as well. And think cosmic rays, too, while you're at it.
:hmm:
 
The funny thing is.... "Inconvenient Truth" was a misleading movie too. It was an insidious bash on Republicans for not passing much green-friendly laws. My liberal British geography professor pointed out quite a handful of misleading facts from that movie. It got to the point where the movie can pose a more harmful effect on general public than its beneficial nobility for Earth.
 
kokonut said:
Er, Jiro, water vapor does a better job on blocking sunlight and trapping heat than CO2. What's more, CO2 only makes up less than .03% (that's percent) or .0003 of all the atmospheric gases in the atmosphere. Water vapor (H20) makes up as much as 3% of the total atmosphere. You're right, CO2 has never been known to be the cause for climate change. The obvious source of energy input (heat) to Earth is, of course, the sun. Though people need to ask themselves what causes the increasing cloudiness on Earth. And realize that the sun's energy output fluctuate in a cyclical pattern which means the strength of the sun's magnetic field changes as well. And think cosmic rays, too, while you're at it.
:hmm:
Click to expand...

yes water is primarily the best source of storing CO2. Same for ice. Blocking the sunlight is O3's job as the first line of defense. Because of tremendous amount of CFC being released to atmosphere - there is a significant reduction of O3. With that first line of defense being weakened, more amount of sunlight and radiation got thru.

Water vapor serves as diffuser too. That way - we won't get hit by radiation at concentrated level.

the green land and ice land serve as a very effective deflector for sunlight (and heat). Now... with our world being industrialized and modernizing.. the green land has been reduced to parking lots (asphalt) and shopping malls. Our ice land is melting. Because of that - more sunlight is being observed than being deflected out. More heat is going into water and land (asphalt absorbs more heat than green land) thus the world is getting warmer.

my solution - "you wanna help the Earth? nuke on ourselves" :lol:
 
Jiro said:
The funny thing is.... "Inconvenient Truth" was a misleading movie too. It was an insidious bash on Republicans for not passing much green-friendly laws. My liberal British geography professor pointed out quite a handful of misleading facts from that movie. It got to the point where the movie can pose a more harmful effect on general public than its beneficial nobility for Earth.
Click to expand...

Because Gore and others are banking on the fact that we have enough stupid people who won't know the difference. He's right tho.
 
kokonut said:
How can it be a pollutant? You and I and every living human being exhale CO2 every single day. Plant requires CO2 to function and grow. In fact, the higher the CO2 the better plants respond and grow.

Now, tell me, how can it be a pollutant? It's not even toxic to human beings until it gets around 50,000 ppm (or 5% concentration). Currently in the air we breathe CO2 is around 360 to 380 ppm. People who work daily in greenhouses work in CO2 concentration of 1000 ppm or so will no ill effect at all. You go to a high school auditorium filled with people with poor ventilation can reach to 10,000 ppm and though no ill effect. So, how can it be a pollutant? This is all a political move, pure and simple. Again, anybody who think that CO2 is a pollutant is an idiot. Rather the EPA is "concerned" about the higher concentration of CO2, not CO2 itself. DUH! Still, again ridiculous to even go there.





















Again. Once more, tell me why CO2 is a pollutant. :cool2:
Click to expand...

Chemistry 101.
 
kokonut said:
Rather, it's you who need to take Chem 101. CO2 is not a pollutant in of itself. Concentration of CO2 has a toxicity level to be sure but not at 300, 1000 or 10,000 ppm for human beings. Yet, ironically so, by breathing pure oxygen for a period of time can be fatal. Though oxygen isn't a pollutant. Go figure! Maybe we need to classify oxygen as a pollutant, too? Seriously, Jill, you need to stop before you embarrass yourself further. It's funny how you don't even attempt to explain or correct on what I said. Pretty revealing when you do that.

The title isn't misleading in the sense that is what the House has done when you consider on how cost is usually transferred over to the consumers, and not the companies themselves that bear the burdern. That is exactly how it will happen. The House voted for the cap and trade which is an equivalent to a tax on carbon emissions and with the increased cost to utility companies it will be transfered over to consumers whether they're rich or poor. Didn't you know?

*sigh*
Click to expand...

Nope, you are the one that needs to develop some degree of understanding for that which you claim to comprehend. Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant, and is toxic. Is a minimal level toxic. No. That doesn't mean that it isn't a pollutant as you have stated. Again, with the attempts to mislead.

And, yes, your title is extremely misleading. But, at least you are consistent in your questionable tactics.
 
Jiro said:
yes water is primarily the best source of storing CO2. Same for ice. Blocking the sunlight is O3's job as the first line of defense. Because of tremendous amount of CFC being released to atmosphere - there is a significant reduction of O3. With that first line of defense being weakened, more amount of sunlight and radiation got thru.

Water vapor serves as diffuser too. That way - we won't get hit by radiation at concentrated level.

the green land and ice land serve as a very effective deflector for sunlight (and heat). Now... with our world being industrialized and modernizing.. the green land has been reduced to parking lots (asphalt) and shopping malls. Our ice land is melting. Because of that - more sunlight is being observed than being deflected out. More heat is going into water and land (asphalt absorbs more heat than green land) thus the world is getting warmer.

my solution - "you wanna help the Earth? nuke on ourselves" :lol:
Click to expand...

But the issue is not just the storing, but the trapping.
 
kokonut said:
How can it be a pollutant? You and I and every living human being exhale CO2 every single day. Plant requires CO2 to function and grow. In fact, the higher the CO2 the better plants respond and grow.

Now, tell me, how can it be a pollutant? It's not even toxic to human beings until it gets around 50,000 ppm (or 5% concentration). Currently in the air we breathe CO2 is around 360 to 380 ppm. People who work daily in greenhouses work in CO2 concentration of 1000 ppm or so will no ill effect at all. You go to a high school auditorium filled with people with poor ventilation can reach to 10,000 ppm and though no ill effect. So, how can it be a pollutant? This is all a political move, pure and simple. Again, anybody who think that CO2 is a pollutant is an idiot. Rather the EPA is "concerned" about the higher concentration of CO2, not CO2 itself. DUH! Still, again ridiculous to even go there.





















Again. Once more, tell me why CO2 is a pollutant. :cool2:
Click to expand...

I am no scientist, but I know carbon dioxide is a pollutant. I have the distinct feeling that you will not accept ANY explanation that differs from your own. So be it. I am sure the Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides of this matter, and reached a reasoned conclusion that carbon dioxide is indeed a pollutant. I accept that without whining.
Al Gore won the Pulitzer Prize. I feel confident that the scientists you quote are eligible for pullet surprises. :P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top