Global Warming on the Rocks

Campus Report ^ | June 2, 2008 | Emily Ham

[bs9021]

Global Warming On the Rocks

by: Emily Ham, June 02, 2008

As the congressional curtains open on the Lieberman-Warner “Climate Security Act,” the subjects of higher taxes, job expansion and economic growth are taking center stage in many people’s minds.

The act, which deals with controlling levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) produced by the United States in order to protect the government will be open for Senate discussion for the few following weeks.

And while many agree measures must be taken to protect the environment from carbon dioxide levels and such, some people are seeing a flaw in the act that they say could potentially cause more problems than GHGs ever could.

In an open letter sent on May 28 to the U.S. Senate “on behalf of the 326,000 members of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU)” Andrew Moylan, government affairs manager for the NTU, urged senators to vote against the Lieberman-Warner act. “This bill would impose an annual cap on the emissions of six greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, and would establish a trading system for emissions allowances. The ‘cap-and-trade’ system constitutes a colossal tax hike and should be opposed due to its enormous cost and regulatory implications,” Moylan wrote.

Indeed, even the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) April 2008 cost estimate for the Lieberman-Warner Act shows the bill would be a costly endeavor for Congress to undertake. “The most costly mandates would require certain types of private-sector entities to participate in the cap-and-trade programs for GHG emissions created by the bill. CBO estimates that the cost of those mandates would amount to more than $90 billion each year during the 2012-2016 period, and thus substantially exceed the annual threshold established in [Unfunded Mandates Reform Act] UMRA for private-sector mandates ($136 million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation).”...

[Dick Bachert]

I wonder if we might get their attention if several million folks sent a message such as this one to their legislators. And given the $$$$ the Middle East potentates surreptitiously funnel into our political campaigns, it will TAKE millions!

It’s NOW time to do the following things to break our dependence on FOREIGN supplies for our URGENT energy needs:
1. SPEED the permitting and construction of NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS HERE. If France can safely generate 80% of THEIR needs with nukes, what’s OUR problem?
2. Immediately begin safe and ecologically sensitive drilling of the MASSIVE U.S. OIL SHALE DEPOSITS (Bakken Formation and others) and our off-shore coastal regions.
3. Immediately ease the permitting of NEW REFINERIES HERE (ecologically sensitive, of course.)
4. Halt the IDIOTIC CORN ETHANOL based fuel program. It may be popular with agribusiness legislators and their pals BUT it is a NET ENERGY LOSER (more units IN than come OUT – DUUUHHHHH!) This goofy program is – along with the oil situation – killing Americans on food prices but ACTUALLY killing FOLKS in other parts of the world. And THAT’S not only STUPID — it’s IMMORAL.

And here’s a REAL benefit American families can understand: Once we’re no longer dependent on oil from the Middle East, we can bring our troops home and let those folks go back to doing what they’ve honed into an art form over their several thousand year history – killing one another instead of OUR boys and girls. Heck, once we’re out of there, they might even get along for a few decades.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

‘jever notice the names of these big bills are exactly the opposite of what they tend to accomplish ?

[JoanneSD]

I call my congress people several times a day.. we need to do like we did with the immigration amnesty, clog up their phone lines for several days..or longer if necessary...I love asking my house member what happened to Nancy Pelosi, and her commonsense approach to lowering gas prices...

[wideminded]

1. SPEED the permitting and construction of NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS HERE. If France can safely generate 80% of THEIR needs with nukes, what’s OUR problem?

Electrical generating plants are constructed in the country by private companies. Why aren't they asking to build more nuclear plants? One reason is that nuclear plants cost too much to operate compared with oil and coal-fired plants. Apparently one reason the French plants can operate is that they are able to sell surplus off-peak power to other European customers. We don't have similar power-hungry neighbors with equivalent populations.

2. Immediately begin safe and ecologically sensitive drilling of the MASSIVE U.S. OIL SHALE DEPOSITS (Bakken Formation and others) and our off-shore coastal regions.

You can't drill for oil in oil shale deposits. No one has found an efficient, large-scale way to extract oil from oil shale (which in fact does not even contain oil). The Bakken formation is not oil shale.

3. Immediately ease the permitting of NEW REFINERIES HERE (ecologically sensitive, of course.)

According to recent statements by T. Boone Pickens (who should know), we do not have a refinery shortage because current refineries are only operating at about 83% capacity.

[Dick Bachert]

And YOUR solution to these problems are??

Please feel free to list as many as you wish.

[B4Ranch]

>According to recent statements by T. Boone Pickens (who should know), we do not have a refinery shortage because current refineries are only operating at about 83% capacity.<

When a refinery goes down for annual maintenance, why does gasoline immediately jump 4 cents nationwide?

[steelyourfaith]

 

Calculate your one-day Carbon Belch !

[Brett66]

while many agree measures must be taken to protect the environment from carbon dioxide levels and such

Have we conceded their point already? Last time I checked CO2 was helpful for plant growth, not exactly a pollutant.