How Bad Will YOUR State be Hit with Lieberman-Warner Globaloney Bill?
By Warner Todd Huston Posted in Congress — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Senate's most influential global warming bill is the Lieberman-Warner global climate change bill, a bill that claims to combat so-called global warming. Well, it won't do much for global warming (in fact, nothing man can do can either cause or stop climate change) but it WILL cost each and every person in the country more money in higher energy bills, lost productivity and jobs as well as higher regulatory costs.
So, Illinois (Where I am from), let's say you have been bamboozled by this global warming hysteria. You say that you want Lieberman-Warner to pass so that we can "do something" about your mythical global catastrophe you are so sure is coming. Well, open up you wallets and pay up, because it's gonna cost you.
Let's start with your energy costs. By 2025 the Lieberman-Warner bill will add $263 dollars a year top your electric costs. Natural gas prices will be artificially forced up $178 and gasoline an additional $324 dollars a year. Now this will be ON TOP of all the other price increases that will be naturally added to the costs of these products. (The costs are based on current prices)
Worse will be the loss of jobs. By 2030 over 100,000 jobs will be lost to the state of Illinois because of Lieberman-Warner. Personal income will fall statewide by over 5 MILLION dollars.
And this is just Illinois.
There are similar numbers of the loss in every state n the Union. Some states take an even bigger hit than Illinois.
So, if you want to "save the earth," expect to be living in grass huts because the so-called cure will send us all back to the dark ages.
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!
I have heard and read it many times before, but this global warming hoax is nothing more than a ruse to get the entire world under something that resembles...let's see...COMMUNISM. We fought the cold war against the very same sort of governmental tyranny that global warming stands poised to deliver to the entire world! I'm sorry, but there are far to many stupid, idiotic, ignorant, poorly educated, gullible, and uninformed Americans who are swallowing all this global warming tripe. McCain is onboard too! Why does no one ever point to how much carbon is locked up in the sedimentary rocks like limestone (CaCO3)? All the carbon in limestone came out of the atmosphere in ages past, and dwarves the amount of carbon found in coal, oil, and natural gas. Anyone who has seen a coal seam can easily see that coal is a very thin band compared to the amount of limestone in the mountain. Scientist say that during the Carboniferous Period, CO2 levels were up to 1500 PPM compared to 350 PPM today. Life survived and thrived! Sorry for the long comment...this is one of my buttons. I just can't believe how many people are falling for the global warming fairytale!
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room"
President Merkin Muffley
My biggest irk about the global warming issue is the limited viewing of the facts. The alarmists have "filtered" out 80% of available facts and using only what supports their claim.
Nowhere in any of the Algore bible do you ever read or hear of anything man has done that has reduced CO2 emmissions. Not even inadvertantly. That would be practically impossible. If you don't weigh in man made REDUCTIONS in CO2 emmisions, you will never have a clear picture.
As an example:
Up until 100 or so years ago, our populations were mostly centered around towns and cities with few people actually living out in forests. When a fire would start, it would burn until it ran out of fuel. The CO2 emmissions of that were huge. We began to move out into the environment and developed processes to combat forest fires and now, most burn only a fraction of what they would burn if left on their own.
I too am sorry for the long post... :)
Here is a petition on this subject.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Here in the Globaloney Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where National Grid sends people glossy color postcards telling them to save energy to combat global warming (and so they can be Deval Patrick's handmaidens in never building any new powerplants while raising the price of electricity) the strangest things have been happening this Spring:
It's been COLD. It's almost the beginning of June and the lake I live near is still too cold to venture in for most people other than the members of the Polar Bear Club. It's 61 degrees outside right now after a full day of unrepentant sunshine and today has been one of the *warmer* sunny days in the past month. Nighttime temperatures have been around 40 degrees and I've had frost on my car's windshield several times in the past two weeks. This is LATE MAY.
In fact, the Spring bloom here was delayed because when the buds emerged on the trees, they were shackled by frost for the next several nights. It almost looked like Autumn in Spring there for a while.
But remember, folks: Al Gore and his friends need your money!
I live in Mass too, it has been very chilly lately. This is following one of the worst winters in my lifetime!
What I want to know is, why will giving somone money affect global warming? Will the printers save electricity by printing me a smaller paycheck?? Who says that life wouldn't be better for humans if the temperature was warmer? Can you imagine how much crops would grow if there were shorter, warmer winters? How much money and fuel would be saved if it didn't snow so much? I don't buy the polar ice flooding the world. Ice is much less dense than water (think ice cubes in a bowl).
Even if I am wrong, so what? People will move and rebuild, just like they do after a devastating storm.
80% of our planet is covered by the ocean. I think people forget how freaking BIG our planet is. Humans cover a very small amount of the earth that isn't covered with water. (exactly how much, I have no idea) To think that the tiny amount of CO2 that we(as humans, or Americans, depending on who you hate more) contribute to the entire planetary atmosphere actually drastically changes the whole world is silly.
Pride is a Fool's Fortress.
"we(as humans, or Americans, depending on who you hate more) contribute to the entire planetary atmosphere actually drastically changes the whole world is silly."
At different times, people have felt it impossible to wipe out the buffalo (there were so many) or pollute great rivers or the Great Lakes.
As a child, I remember learning the oceans were so vast it was impossible for man to pollute them or over fish them.
We could set off a bunch of nukes and I bet you it would impact the climate and life on this planet. I wouldn't be so quick to conclude what can and can't be done by man.
That being said, this bill is a bunch of hooey and should be defeated.
"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,
At different times, people have felt it impossible to wipe out the buffalo (there were so many) or pollute great rivers or the Great Lakes.
We nearly wiped out the buffalo.....how long ago? They are on the rebound, thanks to man's realization that we did something stupid. Great point! Humans, a long time ago, decimated several populations of animals. Now we realize that we did wrong and impose hunting limits...but people are still allowed to hunt.
As a child, I remember learning the oceans were so vast it was impossible for man to pollute them or over fish them.
Just like the buffalo, the oceans can be over-harvested. So we set seasonal limits on how many fish can be legally harvested per season. It seems to be working, because we have been fishing the same waters since people relaized fish tasted good.
We could set off a bunch of nukes and I bet you it would impact the climate and life on this planet. I wouldn't be so quick to conclude what can and can't be done by man
Well....nobody sane wants to set off a buncha nukes, so why even mention it? Obviously it would be a disaster.....so would a comet hitting the Atlantic ocean. We have complete control of our nuclear arsenal ( I hope) but we do not have complete control of our environment. Thats my point.
Pride is a Fool's Fortress.
which today, in their "What's News" section reports the following:
"North Korea said cold weather is affecting crop growth, adding to concerns about a potential food crisis."
I live in MN where this is the coldest spring in, oh about 30 years (ya know, back when the same socialists, um, I mean scientists, were predicting a new Ice Age) and corn/soybean yields are expected to be down because....wait for it....the cold, rainy weather.
AGW, my arse. And, again, the leaders of the GOP are driven by expediency and chic policies rather than conservative principles.
Sigh!!
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
continue to feed this global green polar killer bee bear o zone toxen crapola. I told Lugi and byyourleave the only thing I'm afraid of is it will be over before they're done passin legislation on it. This my friends is only the beginning.
When were we going to die from the huge hole in the OZONE because everyone was using hairspray? 1980's? Maybey the whole global climate change issue is a time-tested process to change American fashion trends.
Pride is a Fool's Fortress.
In his remarks in Jersey City, N.J., on Friday, GOP presidential contender John McCain appeared to offer an off-handed endorsement of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. "I hope it will pass," he told the crowd, "and I hope the entire Congress will join in supporting it and the president of the United States would sign it."
While he's offered tepid support for the bill before, he's hesitated to fully endorse it and has suggested that he'd like to see more subsidies for nuclear energy. Swampland's Eric Pooley got McCain's traveling press secretary on the phone for follow up; she suggested that the remarks still shouldn't be considered a definite signal that the candidate has decided to sign on: "He wants to support the bill, he supports the goals of the bill, but he believes a comprehensive nuclear component needs to be added to it."
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/10/83157/2597
May I suggest that we stay on message here. McCain accepts the prevailing scientific consensus that human-caused global warming is real. And he is looking for the best methods to deal with it. I think we need to get on board with that basic idea, instead of splitting the GOP and the conservative movement by embracing some paranoid theory of a "global warming hoax."
The word "hoax," according to my dictionary, refers to a deliberate trick. If you go around claiming that thousands of the world's top scientists and research institutions are engaged in some plot to deliberately bamboozle the public, you are putting yourself out in the lunatic fringe with the black helicopter crowd, the 9-11 Truth Movement, the UFO Coverup loons and similar wacko groups.
By all means, welcome research on all aspects of climate change. Approach all state-of-the-art science with skepticism and an open mind. But leave the paranoia at the door, PLEASE.
Not a hoax exactly...really just a trend that has some scientific theory that suggests humans may be at fault for global warming. The problem with trends is that there are many contributing and confounding factors. A trend does not prove causality, it mearly uncovers possible relationships. Scientific method and experimentation must then be used to experiment on a system with most of the confounders controlled or eliminated to suggest causality. Problem is, how do you run an experiment whos results can be extrapolated to fit a system as large and complex as a planet?? This is why people will always be able to legitimatly take either side of the Global Warming debate--until it either happens or doesn't happen, it remains a theory, as debatable as Evolution or the Big Bang. There is correlating scientific evidence that suggests all three are possible, but these scientific measures are incapable of actually proving anything (it's actually really hard to prove anything scientifically--impossible really--we can say we think X=Y with 99.5% confidence P=.005 but generalyl can't say X leads to Y even when "proven" by an experiment. After all there is always a .00something chance the results of an experiment were caused by random error.)
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/raven/2008/apr/25/lets_just_assume
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
To answer your question, the low-ball experts, namely Sen. Lieberman himself, say it'll only add 30 cents to a gallon of gas (on a good day). Great timing to push this "mandate" on the people. Stay classy there "Indy Joe". Nice to know you are Sen. McCain's BFF...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Given the choice of Freedom or the "slave-chains" of climatologly demagoguery, I choose Freedom. What pray tell do you choose?
Was it not Braveheart (the movie) who proclaimed "Freedom" in his dying breath? It was also the disputed slave Cinque (in the movie Amistad) that uttered his first heart-felt (*English) words, "Give us Free"...
As El Rushbo highlighted Czech president Vaclav Klaus' debate challenge to socialist AlGore, it is vitally important that we all understand --and utilize-- his central arguement against the climate change (f.k.a. "global warming") mantra: Choose. Choose freedom or the latter. I prefer the former and further proffer that the latter is nothing more than is "neo-Marxism".
Feel-good for the "common good" and damn the people to get us there. Whether it's death, loss of jobs, increase in crime... so long as that "goal" for the State's common good is achieved, the ends justify the means. I have not defended this country for 18 years to let this dog lie without kicking it off the porch.
If certain GOP-types can be called neo-Cons(ervatives), then I too can define the opposition on this front.
These are neo-Marxists folks, plain and simple. It is my belief and they will have to work to prove me wrong, and fail doing so, because (we) are in the "right"... as usual. (sigh)
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/208338%2Cczech-president-klaus-r...
Sometimes a picture is worth 1,000 words.
At a rate of 6,000 earmarks per spending bill, Speaker Pelosi is selling America's future to the special intrest groups.
appears to be a main goal of all the environmentalist groups. Has been that way for decades. To achieve "no harm" to the environment, we'd need to be living in caves.
Good post and recommended.