Global Warming?
Posted on 07/06/2005 5:23:39 AM PDT by OESY
...Mr. Bush stands himself in excellent company here with some of the most respected names in business: GE's Jeff Immelt, Duke Energy's Paul Anderson, Ford's Bill Ford Jr. They, in turn, have benefited from the pioneering PR efforts of BP's John Browne, whose conversion to climate change was based firmly on science -- sociology not climatology....
Mr. Browne and his copycats have largely restricted themselves to acknowledging the inevitability of carbon regulation, not the inevitability of carbon-driven global warming. Most of all, they see a cornucopia of subsidies and tax breaks flowing from an emerging Western consensus to treat carbon as a problem, and Mr. Bush, with his talk of "technological" fixes, is clearly moving their way....
Even as social pressure to affirm global warming has become nigh irresistible, the cost of complying with this naggingly uncertain hypothesis has been steadily falling....
Next came the dawning realization that, hey, a company might actually get paid twice for these efficiency gains. BP has led the way here too. Last month, its lobbyists were quietly working Capitol Hill to promote the Hagel bill, which would grant tax breaks for companies that reduce CO2 emissions....
The amount of manmade CO2 pouring into the atmosphere will continue to increase thanks to the fast-developing Chinese and Indian economies, home to half of mankind....
Indeed, opponents of mandatory carbon restraints... readily concede the claim that CO2 is raising the earth's temperature -- because all the evidence points to the effect being small and innocuous....
Global warming -- the belief system, not the scientific puzzle -- has now been fully domesticated and institutionalized.... From a threat to the earth or threat to the economy (depending on your point of view), climate change has become just another excuse for tax breaks, corporate subsidies and soppy PR.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
This guy nails it.
Does the conversion of the Great Plains from poor grasses to super-charged crops mean that the U.S. has become a CO2 sink?
In other words, I'll bet we soak up more CO2 in our crops than the Plains used to do. And that effect is so huge, I'll bet it overwhelms the effect of cars pumping out CO2.
Anyone seen science on that?
Tax breaks for CO2 emissions?
It the Democrat Party BS tax breaks for sociali change / control.
If a tax break is that easy and irrelevant so as to be manipulated, then the tax should be eliminated.
Global Warming and carbon regulation is a much-worse replay of the ozone hole / Freon scare of the 80s. We are still paying for that one, today, in increased energy use and costs due to the use of less-efficient refrigerants for air conditioning, food storage, etc.
Now we can kiss googbye to what remains of our manufacturing jobs.
Global Warming?
The US traps more CO2 than it emits. Its been published in several science magazines.
Yet Duke Energy is a major opponent of the Wind Farm off Nantucket.
You have to think of global warming theory differently. Part of it is cars pumping out CO2, but that kick started a process that will continue naturally. The more cars, the faster the "machine" runs, but the machine has already been set in motion and will continue to run whether we eliminate all the cars or not.
Someone needs to send GWB the book "State Of Fear" by Michael Crichton.
Why doesn't the President just say that every time the subject is raised?
"We are still paying for that one, today, in increased energy use and costs due to the use of less-efficient refrigerants for air conditioning, food storage, etc."
But DuPont didn't mind a bit.
Exactly. If you believe the tinfoil hat explanation for all that, the patents for the Freons had run out, and DuPont used the environmental movement to force everyone to use new, patented refrigerants for which they could collect patent licensing fees.
"If you believe the tinfoil hat explanation for all that..."
Tinfoil hat? I think when you use that phrase, you are talking about a conspiricy that is either unprovable, or outlandish. The dots seem to connect very nicely for this one.
bookmark
Not to mention the bovine flatulence from all those buffalo.
Probably because its not about CO2. Its about giving an economic veto on our growth to Eurocrats and Greenazi/Socialists. F them.
You've got the right idea, but......
If those crops get eaten, the CO2 gets released. It's long term sequestration of carbon that is the key. The spread of forest on the East Coast locks up carbon for a long time. That's what makes the US a CO2 sink. Also, putting garbage in better sealed dumps locks up a lot of carbon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.