Discussion in 'Politics' started by Citizen, Jul 2, 2009.
If so please explain why, because I, for one, am not.
Could you please explain why?
No, I can't.
Thanks for being honest, I can respect that.
Well based on the multiple post on the subject Citizen that I have been invovled in here, I can assure my answer is a firm no , on this disaster of a bill. First of all let's set aside the fact this bill will raise the cost of goods, and services on everyone, and as President Obama has said, ;
"Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers."
I happen to agree with that, let's set all that aside for a moment, the basic principle of the bill is to set up a method of capping carbon and trading for credits so that those industries deemed not eco friendly will reduce CO2 emissions in an effor to reduce Global Warming. Well let's set aside for a moment the EPA has suppressed data stating that CO2 does not cause "Global Warming"
into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.
The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.
Let's set all that aside, the aim of the bill is to reduce CO2, well if that is the goal, it takes into account that EVERY single country that produces CO2 follows this same self imposed plan and that includes the worlds largest producers of CO2 China, and Indian who have indicated that they have no intentions of following such a plan. In fact both counties are producing coal fired plants at a rate of one a week. So even if implemented the goals of this bill are completely shot from the day it is signed, and it becomes a massive tax on every single American to enrich enviro-business on as yet unproven science. The IPCC report(s) that all this "Global Warming" marketing scheme is based on is taken to be the gospel truth by many however that is not the case in the scientific community and the findings within the report are disputed by literally tens of thousands of scientists worldwide. If this nation wanted an energy policy to end its' dependance on foreign sources of energy , then this nation should concentrate it's efforts in promoting technologies that and the construction of those technologies that do just that , like wind, solar, nuclear, bio-mass, natural gas, and yes domestic oil. All of these can be done in a safe and environmentally friendly manner and are currently done the world over. So yes this bill is complete nonsense, it's set up to enrich enviro-business and is based on unproven science and the ultimate inslut of it is the American people will pay for it all in a time when they cannot afford it.
If you wouldn't have asked for an explanation you probably would have gotten more Obama bots that said yes but sense you want an explanation you won't get any responses...
The only people that like it are the liberals in Congress... No one else in the country wants it.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. "
If you believe that, then you should believe that future generations have, at the very least, the same inalienable right to "life" as the present generation does.
So yes, I do.
As a policy instrument, ACES ably addresses a wide range of concerns with the appropriate government departments while withdrawing us from the tipping point that would make life on earth uninhabitable for future generations. These actions should have been achieved in (and because of the lessons of) the seventies. If they were, the US wouldn't be sucking hind tit to other countries regarding new technologies in renewable energy. We can still be a leader in innovation, and if this passes, we will reap the rewards and bestow the "Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." More often than not the right thing to do is profitable. It might take a minute longer than to rape and pillage, but the rewards are longer lasting.
It's bullshit. Just more government control over flawed science ... even environmental scientific communities are saying it's a bad idea ... just sayin'.
You haven't read it either, eh?
Separate names with a comma.