And your point is? Less driving will get it back to 4 months? Stopping industry will get it to 5 months? This is a serious question...What are the draw backs to a 1-2 degree rise in temps in the next 100 years? Will it be time to panic when the earth goes through a cooling phase like it did in the 1970's? And who are you inviro-whackos to say that colder is better? That is a question the green/communists have yet to answer.
The greeinies and the socialists are only the tools in the box, the real people running this are wealthy industrialists and banking groups like Goldman Sachs. They just use the greenies and leftists because they are useful idiots.
Wow. It just doesn't get any better than this. Between the two posts, I am a Communist, and a tool of the super capitalists. Talk about a split personality!
Really, all this reveals is that you two haven't a clue as to how to answer to the fact that the whole of the scientific community is in consensus concerning AGW.
Who cares..............nobody apparently. Why? Because the public is on to this crap and they're not at all liking another ginormous tax ( see Cap and Tax legislation), thus, the "consensus" is irrelevant, as in, it's nothing more than a bunch of people with an OCD condition kicking around some scientific data like drunks around a poker table on Friday night................
Barack Obama's Cap and Trade Program Is a Tax on the Working Class - WSJ.com
Who Pays for Cap and Trade? Hint: They were promised a tax cut during the Obama campaign..
Cap and trade is the tax that dare not speak its name, and Democrats are hoping in particular that no one notices who would pay for their climate ambitions. With President Obama depending on vast new carbon revenues in his budget and Congress promising a bill by May, perhaps Americans would like to know the deeply unequal ways that climate costs would be distributed across regions and income groups.
Politicians love cap and trade because they can claim to be taxing "polluters," not workers. Hardly. Once the government creates a scarce new commodity -- in this case the right to emit carbon -- and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. Stating the obvious, Peter Orszag -- now Mr. Obama's budget. Hit hardest would be the "95% of working families" Mr. Obama keeps mentioning, usually omitting that his no-new-taxes pledge comes with the caveat "unless you use energy." Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating.
The Congressional Budget Office -- Mr. Orszag's former roost -- estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That's about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive (all five of them).
But the greatest inequities are geographic and would be imposed on the parts of the U.S. that rely most on manufacturing or fossil fuels -- particularly coal, which generates most power in the Midwest, Southern and Plains states. It's no coincidence that the liberals most invested in cap and trade -- Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey -- come from California or the Northeast.
Coal provides more than half of U.S. electricity, and 25 states get more than 50% of their electricity from conventional coal-fired generation. In Ohio, it totals 86%, according to the Energy Information Administration. Ratepayers in Indiana (94%), Missouri (85%), New Mexico (80%), Pennsylvania (56%), West Virginia (98%) and Wyoming (95%) are going to get soaked.
Another way to think about it is in terms of per capita greenhouse-gas emissions. California is the No. 2 carbon emitter in the country but also has a large economy and population. So the average Californian only had a carbon footprint of about 12 tons of CO2-equivalent in 2005, according to the World Resource Institute's Climate Analysis Indicators, which integrates all government data. The situation is very different in Wyoming and North Dakota -- paging Senators Mike Enzi and Kent Conrad -- where every person was responsible for 154 and 95 tons, respectively. See the nearby chart for cap and trade's biggest state winners and losers.
Democrats say they'll allow some of this ocean of new cap-and-trade revenue to trickle back down to the public. In his budget, Mr. Obama wants to recycle $525 billion through the "making work pay" tax credit that goes to many people who don't pay income taxes. But $400 for individuals and $800 for families still doesn't offset carbon's income raid, especially in states with higher carbon use.
All the more so because the Administration is lowballing its cap-and-trade tax estimates. Its stated goal is to reduce emissions 14% below 2005 levels by 2020, which assuming that four-fifths of emissions are covered (excluding agriculture, for instance), works out to about $13 or $14 per ton of CO2. When CBO scored a similar bill last year, it expected prices to start at $23 and rise to $44 by 2018. CBO also projected the total value of the allowances at $902 billion over the first decade, which is some $256 billion more than the Administration's estimate.
We asked the White House budget office for the assumptions behind its revenue estimates, but a spokesman said the Administration doesn't have a formal proposal and will work with Congress and "stakeholders" to shape one. We were also pointed to recent comments by Mr. Orszag that he was "sure there will be enough there to finance the things that we have identified" and maybe "additional money" too. In other words, Mr. Obama expects a much larger tax increase than even he is willing to admit.
Those "stakeholders" are going to need some very large bribes, starting with the regions that stand to lose the most. Led by Michigan's Debbie Stabenow, 15 Senate Democrats have already formed a "gang" demanding that "consumers and workers in all regions of the U.S. are protected from undue hardship." In practice, this would mean corporate welfare for carbon-heavy businesses.
And of course Congress is its own "stakeholder." An economy-wide tax under the cover of saving the environment is the best political moneymaker since the income tax. Obama officials are already telling the press, sotto voce, that climate revenues might fund universal health care and other new social spending. No doubt they would, and when they did Mr. Obama's cap-and-trade rebates would become even smaller.
Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth -- but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street "green tech" investors who know how to leverage the political class.
When's the last time you heard a Democrat besides Barbara Boxer or Henry Waxman talking about slamming the coal companies with billions in taxes? LOL.......you havent because the topic is radioactive on Capitol Hill and the Dems just finished getting their asses handed to them a few weeks ago.
The environmental activist radicals on this forum conveniently ignore the political realities related to the "consensus".........as if the "consensus" means anything in the real world........thus, the discussion on these forums is akin to speculation as to whether Big Foot exists or not.
And now with the other political reality related to this past election, nothing is happening with this carbon credit garbage for the next ten years at a minmum ( the House will be in the hands of the GOP until 2020 due to domination in governorships and the attendent upcoming redistricting
)
This concept of redistribultion of wealth is embraced only by the 20%ers in this country like Chris and Old Rocks..........nobody else ( see election results ). A vast majority of Americans rejects radical left public policy like we've seen for the last 2 years. Indeed.........the best chance the environmental k00ks had for advancing their agenda is now gone. FTMFW!!!!
But hey..............knock yourseves out with the jibberish of glacier advances and lake temperatures!!!
