FReepmail me to get on or off
Click graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
~ WSJ spin ~
Posted on 02/15/2007 4:19:22 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
With mandatory curbs on U.S. global-warming emissions looking increasingly likely in the next several years, industries are starting to argue over who will pay for the cleanup. One thing is clear: Whatever the cost, it will get passed along to consumers.
A new report from the utility industry's think tank, the Electric Power Research Institute, says the U.S. utility sector could ratchet back its global-warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2030. That would be a major feat, given that emissions are projected to rise significantly over the next few decades.
But Congress is unlikely to boost taxpayer-funded energy research by enough to develop the necessary technologies, says Jeffry Sterba, chairman of the institute, who is expected to present the study today at an energy-industry conference. One option he said utilities are considering proposing: that the government allow them to tack an additional modest charge onto consumers' electric bills to raise roughly $2 billion a year to cover the cost.
As the Democrats who now control Congress start pushing for federal global-warming regulations, industry heavyweights are changing their stance on the issue. Exxon Mobil Corp., which has long opposed emission constraints, now is talking about how such rules should be structured. And the Edison Electric Institute, the electric-utility industry's chief trade group, announced last week that it is dropping its longstanding opposition to mandatory emission limits.
The corporate change is a concession to political reality. Even if they would prefer not to have an emissions limit, industries targeted by regulators are angling to shape whatever they get slapped with to minimize their portion of the bill.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Click graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
~ WSJ spin ~
Doesn't sound like they think Bush will veto carbon credit schemes.
>>With mandatory curbs on U.S. global-warming emissions looking increasingly likely in the next several years, industries are starting to argue over who will pay for the cleanup. One thing is clear: Whatever the cost, it will get passed along to consumers.<<
That's what happens when one party is unified and the other party splits needlessly - the unified side wins.
Conservatives have wasted too much time arguing with the obvious data that the surface temperature is warming instead of focusing on "why" and "what are the other possible causes?" and "this is slow, we have time to investigate."
While liberals are united in assuming that the fact of global warming means man is to blame.
Of course we are losing.
Global warming on Free Republic
Junk Science home page commentary on latest IPCC summary
In Chilly Washington Global Warming Gets New Airing
No Cheers In Carbon Market As Kyoto Protocol Heads For Second Birthday
Right on or as I used to say right arm and hay down.
>>
I tend to think that this is what happens when two parties merge...<<
On the budget deficit, spending (particu pork spending), border security and government intrusion into private areas etc I agree with you.
But I think the success of the rush to assume that global warming is human caused and that we have to spend a trillion dollars to fix it with no time to study the situation is the result of liberals being unified while conservatives dicker over whether the data from a dozen different disciplines are all fake.
Recent global warming of the earths surface is a fact and the sooner conservatives unify, accept that fact and start working to prevent giant rushed spending while we cripple industry, the better the chance we will have of slowing this train down. Its already left the station.
>>As we spend billions to regulate CO2, it may take ten years to find what cause the earth's temperature to increase or decrease. I just want to know who to sue when they find out CO2 is not causing global warming.<<
If that happens would care to bet that people stepping up to take responsibility will be few and far between while those claiming they had doubts all along will be front and center?
The USA must enroll in Kyoto. The USA will buy "carbon credits" from failed authoritarian regimes that do not produce anything useful. This will not reduce the actual carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere but it will provide a revenue stream to those who wish to destroy Western Civilization! The UN can Tap this revenue divorcing UN policies from UN funding.
The United States will just have to pay more. While we didn't have anything to do with the volcanoes in the Philipines and elsewhere, we do have the most money. Add to that political correctness, white guilt, and the liberal hatred of the successful, you wind up with a screwed over Americna economy.
It's ALL about the money, and the goal is redistributing our wealth.
Bingo!!!!
Man to volcanoes is 100:1 (for CO2). Pinatubo in 1991 put out less than 1/100 of what man did that year.
You can sue God, but serving the subpoena might be a bit of a problem.
Bump for Lunch.
This is incorrect. Volcanoes are not a major source of CO2 emissions.
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.