Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Patriot1259
I am confused. I hope someone can answer these basic questions for me so I can call my Senator and tell him how I want him to vote on Cap and Trade.

Cap And Trade legislation does not even purport to eliminate the consumption of oil in America, why do the proponents of the legislative seek to prohibit or at least severely curtail the production of oil in America? Why do they seek to severely curtail the refining of petroleum in America? If we are going to continue to consume oil but we are not going to be able to produce it, does that mean we must import it? If we must imported, does that means we must export dollars? Same questions for coal?

Accepting as gospel the promises made by the proponents of the legislation including the chimerical notion that pouring billions of dollars into windmills and solar panels will somehow make them economically competitive with oil (and coal) and further that this can be so economically attractive that we can transition away from oil, how long will it take? How much oil will we have to import during this transition period? Why must the oil be imported? Why don't we expand domestic production during this transition period? If the proponents of the legislation are wrong, would it not be better to have producing fields to compensate for the failure of the transition to windmills and solar? If the transition succeeds, would it not be economically advantageous to have surplus oil to export?

Let us assume that we all run around in battery operated cars charged by windmills and solar panels, what will the Chinese be driving? Will the Chinese observe the protocols of the Kyoto treaty? Is it not obvious that the Chinese will not do so for they have already rejected it? Are not the Chinese building a coal burning power plant at the rate of about one week? So even though America eliminates the consumption of oil, is there any reason to believe that the Third World will do so? Have not the Chinese and the Indians already made it plain that they will not do so? What contribution does it make in solving the alleged problem of climate change if only America and Western Europe are reducing CO2 emissions? Is not Western Europe reneging on its pledges to reduce CO2 emissions to Kyoto standards?

Assuming that the provisions which were originally in the bill to put tariffs on goods imported from countries which do not operate on windmills and solar panels becomes part of the legislation, what is to prevent the world from cascading into the deepest recession in history caused by a replay of the calamitous Smoot-Hawley tariffs which plunged the world into the Great Depression?

If our legislation does not contain provisions for imposing tariffs, what will we do about global warming if the majority of the people on this earth do not comply and decline to live on windmills and solar panels? Will the provisions of the Cap and Trade law avail anything? Will we have paid massive taxes for nothing?

If the idea is to eliminate CO2 emissions, why are the proponents of the bill opposed to nuclear power?

Will the taxes imposed by Cap and Trade on the consumption of energy be offset by the creation of jobs in green industry, that is, will enough people be put to work making windmills and solar panels to compensate for the massive loss of growth and jobs caused by the energy tax? How do we know? If the calculations, or assumptions, of the proponents of the bill are wrong and the effect of Cap and Trade is to eliminate millions of jobs without replacing green jobs, and the country afford such a mistake at these difficult economic times?

Will the government not have to impose arbitrary quotas on CO2 emissions? Will the government not have to monitor those emissions for virtually every business in America? Will not virtually every business and perhaps every family in America be required to file annual compliance statements, much like federal income tax returns? Will these statements have to be audited? Will this process generate a massive set of regulations and experts to interpret those regulations, prosecute and defend violators, and negotiate the regulators? Will this not generate huge expenses for private industry and for the government? Is it likely that such a complicated system will generate corruption?

When the president said during the campaign that he would bankrupt the coal industry, is Cap and Trade the way he intends to do it?

Is the science of global climate change well enough established to risk increasing taxes, increasing dependence on foreign oil, job losses, worsening economic situation, potential trade wars, energy shortages, widespread corruption, and loss of individual liberties?


23 posted on 07/05/2009 8:55:32 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: nathanbedford

In a word, Al. Gore has made a hundred million dollars doing it.

T. Boone Pickens has made a similar fortune.

They have no reason to stop.


31 posted on 07/05/2009 9:29:07 AM PDT by Sundog (I hope Michelle Obama isn't going to be punished with a baby.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford; Jeff Head; Grampa Dave; Ernest_at_the_Beach; potlatch; devolve; ntnychik; ...
From China Reform Monitor - No. 769 examples of Russia and China proceeding apace to monopolize and utilize available oil and gas reserves:

June 16:

In September Chinese state oil firms will begin construction on a 1,100 km long pipeline to import 20 million tons of oil and 12 billion cubic meters of gas per year through Myanmar. The pipeline – which is actually two parallel structures for gas and oil – will allow China to avoid the troublesome Straits of Malacca, cut transportation costs, and considerably shorten the sea journey from the Middle East and Africa. The pipelines will start in Kyaukryu on the west coast of Myanmar and enter China at the border city of Ruili in Yunnan province, the Times of India reports. The natural gas pipeline will be extended an additional 1,700 km from Yunnan to Guizhou and Guangxi provinces. China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) will build the pipelines in Myanmar and either CNPC or PetroChina will build the domestic section, the official China Securities Journal reports. The announcement came the day before Maung Aye, Myanmar’s second-in-command, landed in Beijing. Myanmar prime minister's General Thein Sein’s meeting with Premier Wen Jiabao last April laid the ground work for the pipeline deal.

[Editor’s Note: This deal has concerned India. New Delhi has watched the expansion of Beijing’s influence in Myanmar with anxiety. Most recently it’s firms lost a 30-year concession for the construction of Myanmar hydroelectric dams to Chinese firms.]

~~~

June 18:

While meeting in Moscow Russian President Medvedev told President Hu Jintao that China and Russia’s new oil deals are worth “roughly $100 billion, the largest of any agreement ever signed by our countries,” Russia’s Interfax News Agency reports. A year ago the two presidents established a mechanism to prioritize oil project approval that “allowed for signing off on new, extremely beneficial projects, " Medvedev said. The next step, continued the Russian president, is how to expand cooperation in oil to "other forms of energy cooperation, for example in the sphere of gas and coal production."

See also the cooperation between Russia and Iran et al, and that of China and Venezuela et al for further proof that this president destroys America and strengthens its enemies.

By design and intent, not by naivete or incompetence.

40 posted on 07/05/2009 12:41:47 PM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Kenya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford
I think you are quite unconfused. The honest answers to your rhetorical questions all militate in a common direction: toward reality rather then obfuscation. The true object of Cap and Trade legislation is at variance with the one its proponents have advanced. Whereas the Warmists claim environmental defense as their goal, in truth they seek power as supplied by the control of resources properly belonging to others.

How do I know this to be so? Here are two a priori questions of my own: do human beings exercise effective control over a gas (CO2) which itself comprises a mere 0.038% of our atmosphere and further, does CO2 have a demonstrable correlation with global temperature?

I think an honest answer based on observable data will lead a dispassionate person to conclude that neither proposition has been verified by accepted scientific method (at least as it once existed when objectivity reigned). At the same time, the proposed legislation is so extensive in scope and draconian in effect that only certain and imminent catastrophe would begin to justify its infringements on human liberty.

But such is not the case, and even those who advance the cause of Climate Change-ology dare not offer such a preposterous notion, even as their legislative proposals would dramatically reduce freedom, restrict property rights and impose gargantuan costs.

Instead, a set of desired assumptions has been pronounced as a matter of faith by those willing to warp science in the service of politics. But you knew that - and expressed your doubts by your questions far more convincingly than those who substitute selective data for fact and demand absolute acquiescence based on their claim to good intention.

48 posted on 07/05/2009 1:35:40 PM PDT by andy58-in-nh (You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson