Quote: Originally Posted by
Nik 
Quote: Originally Posted by
Skull Pilot
Quote: Originally Posted by
Nik Oh, and thanks for the hint. I contacted them and told them to vote for it.
Only an idiot like you would vote to increase the size scope and cost of government and in the process increase your own cost of living.
I know, who cares about the environment, eh? Companies should be able to use public resources and fuck them up, and who cares about the consequences!
Where do you live...I want to buy the land next door and start making asbestos next to you.
the environment?
cap and rape is not about the environment
Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) — MasterResource Quote:
Using mainstream models and assumptions, Mr. Knappenberger finds that in the year 2050 with a 83% emissions reduction (the aspirational goal of Waxman-Markey, the beginning steps of which are under vigorous debate), the temperature reduction is nine hundredths of one degree Fahrenheit, or two years of avoided warming.
and you might be surprised at how green I run my home and business. In fact i expect to spend 30% less on energy this year than i did last year because of my efforts.
we don't need the government collecting and redistributing more of our income via cap and trade. so go ahead and breathe in your asbestos. i hope you get lung cancer.
The High Cost of Cap and Trade: Why the EPA and CBO Are Wrong Quote:
The EPA Is Wrong
* False Assumptions: Proponents of cap and trade point to the low cost estimates by the EPA and CBO as a reason to pass Waxman-Markey. The EPA underestimates that the bill would cost households an additional $140 a year.
* Based on Consumption: The EPA's numbers are based on consumption changes, which are typically less than income changes, as families respond to income losses by saving less.
* Uses Discounting: Discounting is a reasonable approach for comparing costs and benefits that occur at widely different times. However, costs of climate change rarely use a discounted rate this high. Without discounting, the impact per household is $1,288 in 2050. Adjusting household size to reflect a family of four raises this cost to over $1,900.
* Assumes Rebates: The EPA assumes all the allowance proceeds will be rebated directly to consumers. This clearly isn't the case, since most of the allowances have been promised to industry.
* No New Taxes?The loss that the EPA calculates doesn't include the cost of the energy tax to consumers, since the EPA assumes that all of the money is rebated. The cost of the energy tax is actually $4,600 per family of four in 2035.
Quote:
The CBO Is Wrong
* False Assumptions: CBO underestimates that the bill would cost households $175 in 2020. They assume that the carbon tax isn't a tax if the government spends the money. When have Americans ever seen all of a tax returned to them? It's like suggesting your tax rebate will be as large as the amount taken from your paycheck every year.
* Numbers Don't Add Up: The CBO's allowance cost numbers don't add up. They say the allowance price will be $28. Since there are 5.056 billion tons of CO2 equivalent in the cap that year, that implies a $141 billion gross cost. They list $91.4 billion.
* Hard to Believe: In the CBO's June 5 analysis, they projected allowance revenues of $119.7 billion, $129.7 billion, $136 billion, $145.6 billion and $152.9 billion for the years 2015-2019. It's hard to believe that the next number in that series would be $91.4 billion.
* Ignores Economic Damage: The CBO doesn't include the decrease in GDP as a result of the bill. The GDP hit in 2020 would be $161 billion (in 2009 dollars) according to our analysis. For a family of four, that is $1,870 that they ignore.
so much for the $175
And hell if it was really only going to cost taxpayers $175, the government should just take back its rebates of the past couple years and apply them to greening up. wouldn't that make more sense than some convoluted tax and rebate scam?