The TRUE cost of carbon-based fuels

[Dot Com]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVZN1GGwya0&feature=youtu.be]How To Save The Climate In One Simple Step - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr. H.]

 

[Kosh]

Yep the true cost of carbon based fuels would seek to destroy the far left social engineer programs that exist now. Without carbon based fuels running the world economy the far left would not be able to fund their over bloated and disastrous social engineering programs.

So is the far left willing to give up their social programs via giving up carbon based fuels?

 

[Abraham3]

the far left would not be able to fund their over bloated and disastrous social engineering programs.

This is off topic and all, but I'm curious. What specific "disastrous social engineering programs" do you oppose?

 

[Dot Com]

the far left would not be able to fund their over bloated and disastrous social engineering programs.

This is off topic and all, but I'm curious. What specific "disastrous social engineering programs" do you oppose?

Yes I am also interested in a SOURCED reply from that user

 

[ScienceRocks]

He doesn't believe in any social programs or safety nets. Let them die!

 

[Kosh]

He doesn't believe in any social programs or safety nets. Let them die!

Wrong!

 

[Kosh]

the far left would not be able to fund their over bloated and disastrous social engineering programs.

This is off topic and all, but I'm curious. What specific "disastrous social engineering programs" do you oppose?

I will answer your question if you answer mine. And no it is not off topic as this is about funding.

So is the far left willing to give up their social programs via giving up carbon based fuels?

 

[skookerasbil]

meh


Anther irrelevant thread from Dotcom.......


Only the fringe left is concerned about this stuff. Shit.....even Germany is punting on solar and wind.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, no one has the guts to address the issue at all? What is suggested is there is a $40 per ton tax on carbon. So, you burn a ton of coal, you pay an extra $40 for the electricity it generates. However, this tax does not stay in DC. It is returned to every citizen on a per capita basis. So, if you are someone that uses very little fossil fuel, you make a profit on that tax and it's refund. If you are a profligate user of fossil fuels, you pay out the nose.

Seems like a very conservative type of solution. Rewarding those who are frugal and careful with their money, penelizing those who are foolish, through the free market mechanism.

 

[Old Rocks]

meh


Anther irrelevant thread from Dotcom.......


Only the fringe left is concerned about this stuff. Shit.....even Germany is punting on solar and wind.

Really? How many other businesses are expanding by 18% annually?

Wind power by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global wind power installations increased by 44,799 in 2012, bringing total installed capacity up to 282,587 MW, a 18.7% increase on the 238,050 MW installed at the end of 2011. During 2010-2011 more than half of all new wind power was added outside of the traditional markets of Europe and North America, mainly driven by the continuing boom in China which accounted for nearly half of all of the installations at 18,000 MW in 2011. China now has 75,324 MW of wind power installed.[2]
Several countries have achieved relatively high levels of wind power penetration, such as 21% of stationary electricity production in Denmark,[3] 18% in Portugal,[3] 16% in Spain,[3] 14% in Ireland[4] and 9% in Germany in 2010.[3][5]
As of 2011, 83 countries around the world are using wind power on a commercial basis.[5]

 

[Old Rocks]

15% growth in solar worldwide in 2013, predicted increase in 2014 for the US of over 50%.

Substantial Solar Energy Expansion Predicted Worldwide for 2014 | EcoWatch

Mercom predicts that new U.S. installations will total 6 GW in 2014, which would be impressive given resistance from some states and the ongoing, congressional debate regarding the future of federal renewable energy policies. Those 6 GW would be adding on to the country’s current total of 10.25 GW.

The report says utility-scale projects and leased residential projects have been the main drivers of U.S. growth. through third party-financed residential installations have been the catalysts of growth. Third-party owned installations earned $3 billion in solar lease funds to finance installations so far this year.

Mercom predicts that the U.S. will trail only China and Japan in new installations next year.

 

[Old Rocks]

the far left would not be able to fund their over bloated and disastrous social engineering programs.

This is off topic and all, but I'm curious. What specific "disastrous social engineering programs" do you oppose?

I will answer your question if you answer mine. And no it is not off topic as this is about funding.

So is the far left willing to give up their social programs via giving up carbon based fuels?

You are a silly ass. We are talking a tax that would benefit the people in this nation that act in the wisest manner. And would very much benefit the nation. Coal mining, processing, and use is damnabley dirty, poisons our air and water. Fracking has it's own set of problems, and natural gas would be very expensive were we not to frack.

A tax that would encourage and reward people to have the least impact on the environment would be a very wise tax.

 

[Dot Com]

So, no one has the guts to address the issue at all? What is suggested is there is a $40 per ton tax on carbon. So, you burn a ton of coal, you pay an extra $40 for the electricity it generates. However, this tax does not stay in DC. It is returned to every citizen on a per capita basis. So, if you are someone that uses very little fossil fuel, you make a profit on that tax and it's refund. If you are a profligate user of fossil fuels, you pay out the nose.

Seems like a very conservative type of solution. Rewarding those who are frugal and careful with their money, penelizing those who are foolish, through the free market mechanism.

 

[waltky]

Mitch McConnell ain't gonna like it - gonna cost too many coal mining jobs...

Obama unveils historic rules to reduce coal pollution by 30%
Monday 2 June 2014 • New EPA rules spur prospects for deal to end climate change • Climate groups welcome 'momentous development' • Coal lobbyists say plans will create new US energy crisis

The Obama administration unveiled historic environment rules cutting carbon pollution from power plants by 30% on Monday, spurring prospects for a global deal to end climate change but setting up an epic battle over the environment in this year's mid-term elections. The new rules, formally announced by the Environmental Protection Agency, represent the first time Barack Obama, or any other president, has moved to regulate carbon pollution from power plants – the largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change. The EPA said the regulations, which would cut carbon pollution from power plants 30% from 2005 levels by 2030, would “fight climate change while supplying America with reliable and affordable power”.

The EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, said the new rules would be critical to Obama's efforts to deliver on his promise – to Americans and the international community – to fight climate change. "The EPA is delivering on a vital piece of President Obama's climate action plan by proposing a clean power plan that will cut harmful carbon pollution from our largest source – power plants," she said in a statement. “This is not just about disappearing polar bears and melting ice caps,” McCarthy said in a speech at EPA headquarters. “This is about protecting our health and protecting our homes. This is about protecting local economies and this is about protecting jobs.”

The new rules were not as ambitious as some environmental groups had hoped. America is already a third of the way towards meeting the national average of a 30% cut in emissions. Some states, especially those in the north-east, have already exceeded the standard. Even so, reaction from environmental groups to the new power plant rules ranged from “momentous” to “historic”. Al Gore said the new rules were “the most important step taken to combat the climate crisis in our country's history”.

MORE

See also:

Senators Predict 'Pain' for Americans as a Result of New EPA Rule
June 2, 2014 - U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) says that President Obama's new regulations on carbon emissions from existing power plants as part of his Climate Action Plan will be a big blow to Americans' pocketbooks.

Sen. Vitter says today's announced regulations will bypass Congress - and the American people - to institute and force taxpayers to fund cap-and-trade: "This rule is all pain, no gain. American families and businesses will have to shoulder all the costs and burden from this rule without contributing to any significant reduction in global carbon emissions. "It's cap and trade all over again - but this time without giving the American public a voice to vote on it in Congress. This rule is just a payday for President Obama's friends and political allies."

This rule is expected to have a less than 2% impact on carbon emissions reductions because it will not impact the world's largest carbon emitters like China, India, and Russia. However, the rule will impose less reliable electricity with much higher prices on all Americans.

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) echoed Vitter's prediction of "pain" for Americans" "Another tragedy in today's announcement is that for all the pain this new rule will inflict on ordinary Americans, there is no clear benefit. These new rules will cheer the far-left patrons of Washington liberals, but there is simply no question that our competitors around the world will eagerly replace whatever industry we lose as a result of these new rules. The notion that these competitors will follow our lead is pure and utter fantasy."

Senators Predict 'Pain' for Americans as a Result of New EPA Rule | CNS News

Related:

Study: New EPA Reg to Cost Half-Trillion in Compliance, 224,000 Jobs Per Year
June 2, 2014 - A new U.S. Chamber of Commerce report analyses how new EPA regulations will "threaten to suppress average annual U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $51 billion [annually] and lead to an average of 224,000 fewer U.S. jobs every year through 2030."

The Chamber of Commerce concludes that the devastating effects of the regulations raise serious concerns, especially since they would cost a half a trillion in compliance expense: This Energy Institute report provides clear evidence that, even with implementation features designed to keep compliance costs low, regulating CO2 emissions at the thousands of existing fossil fuel-fired electricity generating plants in the United States under the CAA leads to nearly a half trillion dollars in total compliance expense, peak GDP losses over $100 billion, hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, higher electricity costs for consumers and businesses, and more than $200 on average every year in lower disposable income for families already struggling with a weak economy.

Given the significant and sustained harm to the U.S economy coupled with the limited overall impact on worldwide greenhouse gas emissions that would result from implementing these regulations, serious questions must be raised and answered about the timing and scope of what EPA is pursuing The regulations would also cripple the fossil fuel industry - which Americans rely on for nearly two-thirds of their electricity - and reduce coal's contribution to nearly a third of its current level. The regulations will decrease fossil fuel use across the nation even though "fossil fuel-fired power stations comprise almost 75% of the generating capacity and nearly 66% of the electricity generated in the United States." Meanwhile, when the regulations are put into place, "coal's share of total electricity generation decreases from 40% in 2013 to 14% in 2030, while natural gas's share increases from 27% to 46%."

Lost GDP and Jobs, by Region, Due to EPA Regulation

The Chamber of Commerce report breaks down the regulation's impact on each of the nine census regions and details the damage to each area's GDP and job market. The South Atlantic, which is comprised of Delaware, the District of Colombia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North and South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, would be heaviest-it - crushed with a loss of nearly 60,000 jobs and $10.5 billion from the GDP annually. Both East North Central and West South Central lose more than 30,000 jobs and $7 billion each year. Not surprisingly, New England and the Pacific lose only approximately 8,000 jobs each year between the two regions that have historically been against the use of fossil fuels. However, they do lose a combined $6.7 billion of GDP annually.

For all of these job and GDP losses, how much is gained environmentally? When natural gas begins to take over as the leading energy producer, "annual power sector CO2 emissions decline to about 1,434 million metric tons CO2, resulting in an emissions reduction of about 970 million metric tons, or about 40% below the 2005 level by 2030." However, those figures are only the baseline standards without adding on any additional federal regulations. When new regulations are added, "these dramatic changes fall short of the 42% emissions reduction goal."

MORE

 

[jc456]

So, no one has the guts to address the issue at all? What is suggested is there is a $40 per ton tax on carbon. So, you burn a ton of coal, you pay an extra $40 for the electricity it generates. However, this tax does not stay in DC. It is returned to every citizen on a per capita basis. So, if you are someone that uses very little fossil fuel, you make a profit on that tax and it's refund. If you are a profligate user of fossil fuels, you pay out the nose.

Seems like a very conservative type of solution. Rewarding those who are frugal and careful with their money, penelizing those who are foolish, through the free market mechanism.

How about you first provide the experiment that shows 120PPM increase of CO2 causes a temperature to go up. hah, still zeroes!!!!!!!!

 

[Dot Com]

deniers need to start sourcing UP FRONT

 

[jc456]

deniers need to start sourcing UP FRONT

ahem...your experiment!

 

[Kosh]

deniers need to start sourcing UP FRONT

Ok you denier of real science..

Post one link with datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

If you can not, then you are the true denier and are a part of the far left/AGW cult.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How To Save The Climate In One Simple Step - YouTube

Unprovable damages with imaginary costs, all to give the Feds a huge pile of money.......money that they'll give back. Promise.

No thanks.