How would you do that and how would you enforce it. Reminds me of the carbon trade/carbon credits scam. You pay x amount of dollars to plant trees somewhere and that gives you the right to trash the regulatory laws about energy use. At what point do you prove that those dollars actually planted trees that are going to be taken care of and replace the carbon you used up. That part of the equation is missing. Do you think that those peons who plant the trees are going to insure that they grow and prosper? If you don't enforce the one side of the equation, then you do not have an equation at all, you have a scam, and that is what it is. Same principle with your suggestion. I can throw x amount of dollars at alternate energy source research but unless it is actually tracked to make sure it is used as it is supposed to be then it is garbage. Look at the AGW conference that was held earlier this year. They held it in Bali and the attendees all flew in on their private jets for a week of swanning around a fancy resort and making soundbites about all the good they were doing. Then they got back in their private jets and flew elsewhere to tell us we need to conserve energy and use one sheet of toilet paper and pay twice as much in gas tax and pay more for heating and cooling because it is for the good of the environment and for the cheeellllddddrrrreeeennnn. Thank you Algore.
THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: > Keith, who owns and therefore profits from oil exploration and > subsequent drilling has EVERYTHING to do with whether or not it is > actually done or even allowed. If the Gringo-American people actually > had a vested interest in oil and its profits (not just the taxes from > its use) you could bet that derricks would be springing up all over > the place as well as refineries and piping systems. Why should they > take the chance on despoiling the natural beauty of an area just to > have a multinational take the money and run ?? Unfettered drilling > and profit taking by oil that stayed at home would be a great boon and > even the looneys know that and would, I'm sure, be in favor especially > if a portion of that profit would be used solely for developing > alternative energy and eventually CLOSING the wells and refineries. > The Chinese get it.... but they despoil OTHER countries and areas to > accomplish the goal of garnering profit for their Government. > > On Jun 27, 6:02 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Holly, >> >> I don't know what your comment has to do with our Nation having a >> comprehensive energy plan. The Chinese at the behest of Cuba is getting >> ready to start drilling just a few miles off of our coastline for oil. We >> are not, because of the current Administration, who has refused to allow for >> more oil exploration, and instead is "capping and trading" energy, under >> some policy based on fraudulent, non-existent scientific data that claims we >> are "Globally Warming". >> >> Again, I haven't seen you up in arms about our current lack of a >> comprehensive energy plan. >> >> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Hollywood >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> KIT, >>> >>> The Chinese and Cubans are communists, they own the oil industry in >>> their respective countries. They might well pay a private Corp. to >>> explore for and even bring up the product (oil) but the Govt.'s of >>> China & Cuba OWN it. >>> >>> On Jun 27, 5:33 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Why would we want the government involved in regulating this? Why would >>>> >>> we >>> >>>> want the government involved in "capping or trading" energy? >>>> >>>> Why is our government not encouraging a Comprehensive Energy Policy, >>>> >>> which >>> >>>> promotes alternative energies while also attempting to allow for private >>>> entities to explore for more oil reserves, as are the Chinese and Cubans >>>> right off of our coast? >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:15 PM, ConservativeJack < >>>> >>> > [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>> I don't see anything surprising here. Alternative Energy providers say >>>>> this is a good thing and that it will all be peachy in the end. >>>>> The companies that stand to lose billions or even eventually be put >>>>> out of business, claim it's doom and gloom. >>>>> What else would anyone expect to be said by the opposing sides? >>>>> So the choice is I can believe one or the other, based on what I WANT >>>>> to believe, or I can believe that both are stating things in terms >>>>> that suit their own interests and that things will probably end up (as >>>>> always) neither as bad or good as predicted. >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 27, 10:35 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> [Get Copyright Permissions] >>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> E-Mail >>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/g1/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Print >>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/g2/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Save >>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/s13/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Post >>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/g3/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Get >>>>>> >>> Photos >>> >>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/g5/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Get >>>>>> Reprints <http://license.icopyright.net/s17/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> >>>>>> >>> | >>> >>>>>> Reuse Options <http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86 >>>>>> >>>>>> Jun 27, 11:12 AM EDT >>>>>> >>>>>> Winners and losers emerge in climate bill >>>>>> >>>>>> By CHRIS KAHN >>>>>> AP Energy Writer >>>>>> >>>>>> NEW YORK (AP) -- In addition to raising energy prices, the climate >>>>>> legislation that's winding through Congress would create a parallel >>>>>> financial system with a carbon-based currency. >>>>>> >>>>>> The House on Friday narrowly passed landmark legislation meant to >>>>>> >>> curb >>> >>>>>> greenhouse gas emissions and create an energy-efficient economy, >>>>>> >>> voting >>> >>>>>> 219-212. President Barack Obama on Saturday urged senators to follow >>>>>> >>>>> suit. >>>>> >>>>>> Everyone from small farmers to nuclear energy companies would be >>>>>> >>> forced >>> >>>>>> to re-evaluate their place in the new order. Power plants, factories >>>>>> >>> and >>> >>>>>> refineries would feel the first impact if the federal government >>>>>> >>> moves >>> >>>>>> ahead with plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from >>>>>> >>> 2005 >>> >>>>>> levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent near the end of the century. >>>>>> >>>>>> The sharply debated bill's fate is unclear in the Senate. A major >>>>>> struggle is expected with 60 votes needed to overcome a certain >>>>>> Republican filibuster. >>>>>> >>>>>> How much it will affect other industries is still a matter of intense >>>>>> debate, though the primary winners and losers are already emerging. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> The Winners: >>>>>> >>>>>> Solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable energy companies, >>>>>> >>> including >>> >>>>>> nuclear, are some of the obvious winners in a carbon economy. >>>>>> >>>>>> In addition to the billions of federal stimulus dollars they expect >>>>>> >>> to >>> >>>>>> receive, those industries can expect to see a huge boost in >>>>>> >>> investment >>> >>>>>> as utilities and power companies are forced to cut their carbon >>>>>> emissions. Companies like Florida Power & Light Co., Arizona Public >>>>>> Service, Southern California Edison and others are already investing >>>>>> >>> in >>> >>>>>> solar farms and other renewable energy projects, and they'll likely >>>>>> spend even more to increase the mix of carbon-neutral energy sources. >>>>>> >>>>>> Farmers also will find new ways to make money in a carbon economy. >>>>>> Carbon consultants like the International Carbon Bank & Exchange in >>>>>> Florida see huge potential in agriculture for managing carbon >>>>>> >>> emissions. >>> >>>>>> Farmers that till their soil differently or apply new environmental >>>>>> techniques can get money by cooperating with a polluter as a carbon >>>>>> "offset." >>>>>> >>>>>> Owners of large tracts of forest land also will get a lot of interest >>>>>> from the business community. Like farmers, environmental experts see >>>>>> them as a huge player in the carbon economy because of their natural >>>>>> ability to absorb carbon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Louis Blumberg, director of climate change for the Nature >>>>>> >>> Conservancy's >>> >>>>>> California chapter, envisions a system in which forest owners could >>>>>> >>> make >>> >>>>>> money simply by signing an agreement to cut down fewer trees for >>>>>> >>> lumber. >>> >>>>>> The Nature Conservancy did just that last year with the Conservation >>>>>> Fund, a nonprofit agency that owns about 24,000 acres of redwood and >>>>>> douglas fir forest northwest of San Francisco. The groups changed the >>>>>> logging schedule on the property, and the fund expects to receive >>>>>> >>> about >>> >>>>>> $2 million from Pacific Gas and Electric, which participates in a >>>>>> regional climate initiative similar to the one that the Waxman-Markey >>>>>> bill would create around the country. >>>>>> >>>>>> "This is really a model of what can happen," Blumberg said. "Property >>>>>> owners everywhere want to figure out a way to be part of this." >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> The Losers: >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone who pays an electric bill would likely feel the impact of >>>>>> >>> climate >>> >>>>>> legislation. Utilities will try to raise rates as they invest in >>>>>> cleaner-yet-more-expensive energy sources. Some have already >>>>>> >>> announced >>> >>>>>> plans to do so. Petroleum companies also may try to import more of >>>>>> >>> their >>> >>>>>> refined gas and heating oil from countries with no carbon law, which >>>>>> will raise costs. >>>>>> >>>>>> The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental >>>>>> Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would >>>>>> affect energy costs. >>>>>> >>>>>> The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. >>>>>> >>> The >>> >>>>>> EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year. >>>>>> >>>>>> The American Petroleum Institute disputed both estimates, saying the >>>>>> bill could cost the average household up to $3,300 by 2020. >>>>>> >>>>>> "That is more than a few postage stamps," API President Jack Gerard >>>>>> >>> said >>> >>>>>> in a slap at Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. Markey has compared new >>>>>> >>> energy >>> >>>>>> costs to a postage stamp per day. >>>>>> >>>>>> API has tried to paint the bill as a job killer that would choke off >>>>>> efforts to pull the economy out of recession. >>>>>> >>>>>> "While we support creating new jobs, the legislation offers an >>>>>> unnecessary and false choice of eliminating good jobs in the oil and >>>>>> natural gas industry to create green jobs," Gerard said. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oil and gas companies have spent record amounts of money lobbying >>>>>> Congress recently as they try to blunt the impact of the bill. >>>>>> >>>>>> Refiners, in particular, say the inherent costs in the legislation >>>>>> >>> could >>> >>>>>> shift some fuel production outside the U.S., where refiners would not >>>>>> >>> be >>> >>>>>> bound by its provisions. >>>>>> >>>>>> The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association also says the >>>>>> legislation hurts them two different ways, by capping emissions from >>>>>> refineries as well as emissions from the fuels they produce. But >>>>>> refiners say they are not recieving enough credits. >>>>>> >>>>>> The association says the legislation could cost U.S. refiners as much >>>>>> >>> as >>> >>>>>> $58 billion a year. >>>>>> >>>>>> Coal miners also are worried because it might cut into demand for >>>>>> >>> coal, >>> >>>>>> which is loaded with carbon. Mining also uses a lot of energy, so the >>>>>> rise in energy costs would hurt their bottom line. >>>>>> >>>>>> The country gets about half of its electricity from coal. Some >>>>>> >>> utilities >>> >>>>>> that rely on coal to generate much of their electricity worried about >>>>>> initial versions of the legislation that they said would lead to >>>>>> skyrocketing rates. The current version will mean much smaller >>>>>> increases, they said. >>>>>> >>>>>> Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power said the legislation >>>>>> >>> will >>> >>>>>> send rates about 25 percent higher by 2015; the initial version would >>>>>> have meant rate hikes of 65 percent to 75 percent. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another big utility that relies on coal, Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke >>>>>> Energy, said the legislation creates regulatory certainty for an >>>>>> industry that spends billions on capital >>>>>> >> ... >> >> read more ยป- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
