There are many arguments against cap-and-tax AKA cap-and-trade. One is that Earth has not been getting warmer over the last 10 years, although some scientists say this is an aberration. Another argument against cap-and-trade is that even drastic cuts in emissions would have a negligible effect on climate. Who wants to spend trillions of dollars to prevent "warming" of 0.3 degree Fahrenheit?
I am skeptical of Lomborg's call for massive spending energy R&D. Nuclear energy is ready now. Maybe Lomborg advocates the R&D spending to show that he is in favor of doing something.
To: reaganaut1
Economic estimates that assign value to the long-term benefits that would come from reducing warming — things like fewer deaths from heat and less flooding — show that every dollar invested in quickly making low-carbon energy cheaper can do $16 worth of good.This is just an outright lie. How can they prove this "theory"? It's never been tried.
2 posted on
04/25/2009 4:53:31 AM PDT by
raybbr
(It's going to get a lot worse now that the anchor babies are voting!)
To: reaganaut1
Economic estimates that assign value to the long-term benefits that would come from reducing warming — things like fewer deaths from heat and less flooding — show that every dollar invested in quickly making low-carbon energy cheaper can do $16 worth of good.
Sorry, I call BS on this claim. Big time. These “studies” probably assign blame for every flood, heat wave, or general weather anomaly to global warming.
3 posted on
04/25/2009 4:55:51 AM PDT by
rbg81
(DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
To: reaganaut1
Several recent polls have revealed Americans’ growing skepticism. Solving global warming has become their lowest policy priority, according to a new Pew survey.
Moreover, strategies to reduce carbon have failed. Right track - wrong train.
It is patently obvious that lower emissions is not the goal at all - it is pablum for the masses
The goal is control - just like in the movie, The Matrix
Control and taking trillions of dollars from the Western World, and giving it to the Socialist cause & the third world, both of which achieve the goal of making us poorer and legalizing the theft of our hard earned wealth.
To this end they will also camouflage the immediate effects of this impoverishment by printing trillions of dollars, thereby pushing the consequence of this onto a newer, even more dumbed down and controlled, generation.
see tagline.
5 posted on
04/25/2009 5:08:24 AM PDT by
bill1952
(Power is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
To: reaganaut1; FrPR; enough_idiocy; Desdemona; rdl6989; Little Bill; IrishCatholic; Normandy; ...
6 posted on
04/25/2009 5:08:42 AM PDT by
steelyourfaith
("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." -Lady Thatcher)
To: reaganaut1
The only way to save the planet is to rape taxpayers. Got it.
7 posted on
04/25/2009 5:11:51 AM PDT by
Oldeconomybuyer
(The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
To: reaganaut1
Coal burning provides half of the world’s electricity, and fully 80 percent of it ok? in China and India Sure, for the NY Times making up statistics is A-ok.
8 posted on
04/25/2009 5:13:14 AM PDT by
Reeses
(Leftism is powered by the evil force of envy.)
To: reaganaut1
Libs should volunteer to live a life of poverty. Al Gore first.
9 posted on
04/25/2009 5:28:31 AM PDT by
Paladin2
(Big Ears + Big Spending --> BigEarMarx, the man behind TOTUS)
To: reaganaut1
To: reaganaut1
Cap-and-trade! China WILL NOT play by the rules, U.S. industry gets SCREWED and Al Gore gets even richer!
13 posted on
04/25/2009 7:16:35 AM PDT by
WellyP
To: reaganaut1; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; America_Right; ..
To: reaganaut1
This guy Bjorn Lumborg is a middle of the roader who will get run over by both sides.
16 posted on
04/25/2009 7:47:14 PM PDT by
TenthAmendmentChampion
(Be prepared for tough times. FReepmail me to learn about our survival thread!)
To: reaganaut1
I think Bjorn Lomberg's strategy makes sense. Rely on the free market to wean us off fossil fuels and improve the quality of life. In contrast, the Algore approach would mandate governmental limits on emissions and increase costs for every one. There's a right way and a wrong way to preserve the environment for future generations. Just don't expect the politicians to listen to Lomberg's sensible advice.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
18 posted on
04/26/2009 3:26:50 PM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; george76; ...
19 posted on
04/26/2009 7:54:17 PM PDT by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
