Apparently the EPA thinks the science behind global warming is bogus. More and more scientists are coming forward expressing doubts that global warming is man made as liberal icon Al Gore claims, along with most Democrats. They are going to be scrambling to cover up evidence denying the role of humans and discredit those who step up to challenge them. Typical
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Pat (guess you have an Irish connection? :-) )
ReplyDeletecould not comment on examner.com re cap and trade
About that and Co2
The bill is bad pro-green, bad anti-green, in all a bloated bad bill!
Keep Life simple, deal with the problem (assuming there is one)
OK, fossil fuel emissions have a lot of noxious substances in them, whatever about CO2.
Electricity Generation (coal, gas) and Transport (mainly automobiles) alone account for nearly 80% of fuel combustion emissions
The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages - apart from lowering CO2 emissions:
1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all else that's in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.
2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills for consumers.
3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other energy sources), which also reduces the dependency on oil imports.
Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.
The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and predictability surrounding the funding.
Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared expense and disruption.
This is even more obvious from energy efficiency regulation not being necessary either.
Compare with
today's all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions, with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other hand - together with extensive regulation on what people can or can't buy and use - light bulbs for example are chosen 19 out of 20 times by Americans, so they must be banned, for the savings (living in caves using candles would give even better savings ;-) )
Understanding Cap and Trade, and why it is bad for America and bad for lowering emissions: http://ceolas.net/#cce5x
Market Reduction of CO2: Cap and Trade - or Not?
Basic Idea -- Offsets -- Tree Planting -- Manufacture Shift -- Fair Trade -- Surreal Market -- Real Market -- Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs -- Allowance Trading -- Companies: Business Stability + Cost -- In Conclusion
Instead, A New Electric America: http://ceolas.net/#cc10x onwards