Posted on 04/11/2007 8:59:31 PM PDT by ckilmer
Ok lets get the 5% wrong part out of the way. Both Newt and Kerry agreed that the current warming goes back 400 years. It only goes back about 200. Current reseach shows that there was a cooling period or mini ice age from the early 1400's to the early 1800's. Up until about 1810 the Thames River in England froze over sufficiently for London to have fairs on the river annually. After about 1810 those fairs ended. The ice was not solid enough to support the people.
Both Kerry and Newt agreed that carbon dioxide has gone up since the first industrial revolution which began in the 1830's. Both seemed to suggest that man burning coal oil & wood was the principle reason for the upsurge. Scientists are saying these days that since Mars is currently warming its more likely that the reason the earth is warming has more to do with the suns radience.
More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is an effect rather than a cause.
Still the earth is warming on average and carbon dioxide may be one the reasons for the warming.
So why did Newt agree with Kerry and say not only that there is a problem but that the problem is so urgent that it calls for immediate and dramatic action right now.
Environmental concerns over carbon dioxide and national security concerns over oil dependence on regimes that wish US ill and monetary concerns over the current accounts deficits are three sides of the same problem.
The faster the USA can get out from under dependence on foreign oil the better all around.
The center of the arguement was how to drop carbon dioxide use the fastest and most cost effectively. Kerry was argueing for what he referred to as cap in trade or the Europeans call carbon credits. Cap in trade or carbon credits are disincentives in the form of taxes for carbon dioxide emmissions. Newt was arguing for tax breaks and more federal spending on research. Tax breaks and federal dollars for research are incentives for creating new technologies.
I agree with Newt's line of reasoning. His arguement that any regime that doesn't include the indians and the chinese won't be effective in cutting world wide carbon dioxide emissions. He said the way for India and China to cut their carbon dioxide emissions and -- also their dependence on mid east oil was to create the technologies that precluded the need for such things as oil.
He concluded his remarks by mentioning that 100 years ago no on could have imagined the LA that we know today. There simply is no water in the area. There is an amazing amount of technological adaptability at our disposal.
Newt didn't say so but I think one thing that will happen in the next decade will be that the cost of water desalination will collapse to 1/10 current costs thereby making it possible to turn the deserts of the world green and doubling the size of the habitable planet and reversing the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere.
Ain't gonna happen unless we have a civil war and decapitate the oil barons. The Arab Sheiks and wealthy western oil corporate elite will kill any practical incentive - nuclear and coal power. They already allowed the lunatic fringe to kill nuclear.
Look at the way oil companies are now promoting themselves as environmentally friendly with their new green processing technologies. They will sit by and watch idiots try to develop impractical solar and wind power. While posturing themselves as environmentally friendly, they will direct the lunatic fringe to go after real competitors like coal and nuclear. Nuclear is dangerous. Coal is sooty, it kills mother earth because of strip mining. The older I get, the more clear the wealthy elite play the greenies as useful idiots. The elite (New World Order types) are sticking with oil. Remember James Baker. He said we went to war in 1991 over oil before his buddies told him to shut his mouth. He is fishing buddies with Bush the Elder who is the father of Bush the Younger.
And if Americans get concerned and start driving more fuel efficient cars, the Bushes will call for more Mexicans to increase the pool of poor drivers using gas guzzling old cars. The oil barons have lots of money on their side.
From my post yesterday:
Newt is trying to head the "central planners" off at the pass because they have spent many years indoctrinating people and too many of them now believe the Chicken-Little alarmist lies. Luckily, we now have an opening to turn the tables on the eco-wackos, and convince the people to go for Newt's "pleasure" solution over Kerry's "pain" solution - which is how Newt brilliantly phrased it yesterday.
I think that the fact that they picked CO-2 in the atmosphere to use as their culprit behind "anthropomorphic-induced warming", means that they shot themselves in the foot. The FASTEST way to reduce CO-2 in the atmosphere is to build more nuclear power plants. And if we're to be able to bring nuclear power plants on line as fast as France, China and Russia do, (5 years) that means we will have to roll back our draconian "taxes and regulations" which were deliberately designed to thwart the building of more plants.
June 26 2006 Other Inconvenient Truths - Click to listen to Newt's one and 1/2-minute spot
*
March 1 2007 The Branson Prize (25 million to the scientist who can invent a ..) - Click to listen to Newt's one and 1/2-minute spot
*
April 5 2007 Kerry, Gingrich announce climate showdown- HERE
Excerpt: ".... Gingrich, the architect of the “Contract with America” that led to the Republican takeover of the House in 1994, recently teamed up with conservationist Terry Maple to author A Contract with the Earth. Like his Contract with America, A Contract with the Earth, due out Nov. 1, 2007, is based on a 10-point “contract” calling for a bipartisan approach to solving climate issues.
“America should focus its energy policy in four areas,” Gingrich writes on his website. “Basic research for a new energy system, incentives for conservation, more renewable resources, and environmentally sound development of fossil fuels. “The lengthy process of environmental planning must be made more efficient and cost effective,” he adds.
*
Re: the Debate on 4/10/07 mentioned below. No doubt the video of the debate will be available today or tomorrow: HERE
John Kerry, Newt Gingrich Take On Environment, Each Other
Foxnews.com Greg Simmons
The global warming debate has been heating up in Washington lately, but reached new heights Tuesday when partisan heavies Sen. John Kerry and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich went head-to-head over the issue on Capitol Hill.
What might have been a surprise to some people watching the debate was that Kerry and Gingrich were cordial, not at each other's throats, and actually agreed and said so several times on the key point at hand: that climate change is a problem and something needs to be done.
In their opening statements, both men made reference to the prize-fight billing, but downplayed any expectations of animosity.
"I'm sure we're going to have an interesting dialogue about this," Gingrich said with a grin during his opening remarks.
Part of what made the debate enticing was the political backdrop: Kerry was the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee and remains a Bush administration critic; and Gingrich led the conservative revolution that swept Congress in 1994 and might be positioning himself as a candidate for the presidency in 2008.
But how they said they would tackle the global warming problem is where they differed.
Talking from a podium in the Russell Senate Office Building, Gingrich argued that a program including cash prizes, targeted tax cuts and other economic incentives will lure business entrepreneurs to develop technology to tackle the climate problem. He said that type of program would be faster than a bureaucratic government program because it will avoid the rush of special interests to avoid regulation and costly litigation.
Kerry said he favors government regulation first because markets, while they work, cannot act fast enough to tackle the looming problem he pointed to frequently: reaching the "tipping point" level of greenhouse gases of 450 parts per million. Scientists believe that level of greenhouse gases would seriously hurt worldwide economies. Kerry also advocated a so-called cap-and-trade program that would set economy-wide carbon emission limits.
Gingrich began first with a concession to his opponent. Holding the new book by Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, Gingrich said, "This is a very good book. As a clearly right-wing reader, I would commend the book" as one that shows examples of local leadership on environmental issues.
"I would agree with about 60 percent of this book," he added.
Kerry of Massachusetts also took a friendly stance in his opening remarks before turning to the debate, which was sponsored by the New York University Robert Wagner School of Public Service, the Brookings Institution and the Cato Institute.
"While I don't have his book in hand, and I don't know what it's about, I've always enjoyed every dialogue he and I have ever had," Kerry said, calling the global-warming face-off the "environmental version of the Lincoln-Douglas debates."
Gingrich said he will be pushing for a way to deal with climate change that is not heavy on regulation a point on which he criticized Kerry's plan.
"I want to suggest that we need a new science- and technology-based, entrepreneurial, market-oriented and locally led environmentalism," Gingrich said.
Gingrich raised some discrepancies among the science that has led to the current data on climate change, but when asked pointedly about science doubters, like Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., Gingrich strongly held the case that climate change is a problem.
"What would you say to Sen. Inhofe and others in the Senate who are resisting even science? What's your message to them here today?" Kerry asked.
"My message, I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere "
"And do it urgently, now?" Kerry interrupted.
"Urgently, yes," Gingrich said. [[[Yes- we have urgently needed to go to nuclear energy, etc., for many years but the environmentalist-whacko base of the DemocRAT party have stopped us cold. But Nuclear power is the only option if we head towards a low carbon, hydrogen economy - a hydrogen economy requires vast amounts of energy which only nuclear can provide. "75% of France's energy supplies are derived from nuclear generation. ..concerns voiced throughout the industry is the dearth of skilled technicians and engineers, the result of an industry perceived for years as having no future. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials regularly cite access to qualified staff as a prerequisite to approving a ramp-up of the industry. "There are still quite a few challenges facing the industry, starting with the fact that they haven't built one of these plants in a long time. .." 10/16/06 HERE ]]]
But Gingrich also said that up to now, conservatives have been slow to loathe with environmental policy because, he said, "For most of the last 30 years, the environment has a been a powerful emotional tool for bigger government and higher taxes. And therefore if you're a conservative, if you hear these arguments, you know what's coming next."
"So even though it might be the right thing to do, you might end up fighting it because you don't want the bigger government and the higher taxes."
Gingrich said there must be a "green conservatism." [Newt knows that there already is a Green Conservatism]
"There has to be a willingness to stand up and say, alright, here's the right way to solve these as seen by our values system," Gingrich said. [See above]
Gingrich said there needs to be more money available in the form of incentives to find better ways of bringing forward new technology.
"Regulation and litigation are the least effective" ways to get change.
Kerry said he's not against a market-based approach, but he believes that the nation's corporations and international governments will not take more environmentally friendly measures without U.S. government response.
"Ladies and gentleman, this is a moral obligation. It's one in which we can [make] money. That's what those business leaders realize. We need to show the leadership. It's the only way to get China and India to participate, and that's why you have to take this with a global pricing of carbon certainly economy wide in the United States to start with and we need to offer the leadership."
Kerry argued that Gingrich's position doesn't allow for fast enough action.
"He takes the consensus of the U.N. report, but then essentially says, what we need to do is encourage the marketplace to go out and respond, and to unleash science, to unleash technology," Kerry said.
He contended that Gingrich's solution won't deal with "the crises that we have to respond to immediately, quickly," and added that Gingrich's stance is "like saying, 'Barry Bonds, go investigate steroids.' "
bttt
Because there's tons of money to be made on this scam and Newt wants his cut.
“The French have used nuclear power reliably for years without any incidents. The French.”
OK, I have used that French argument with people who are against nuclear power - they aren’t tree huggers. Their concern is nuclear waste and they are almost irrational on the subject. Rational in most other ways though so can anyone help me with some arguments to convince them that we wouldn’t have a bunch of mini Chernobyls?
So why did Newt agree with Kerry and say not only that there is a problem but that the problem is so urgent that it calls for immediate and dramatic action right now.
Because there’s tons of money to be made on this scam and Newt wants his cut.
////////////////
You weren’t listening. The scam was the cap in trade or carbon credits regime that Kerry was advocating.
Newt was opposed to that.
He was in favor of giving tax credits to companies that produced non carbon based energy and investing considerable sums in getting the USA away from dependence on foreign oil.
US oil companies are a mere shadow of the companies we knew 35 years. They don’t have the money power and influence they used to.
On the other hand US technology is moving five times faster than it was 35 years ago. There’ll be more scientific and technological change in the next 20 years than in all of the last 120 years put together.
No use calling a ring tailed monkey a boll weavel.
He says there is global warming and that means he will support controls.
//////////
this is pure turkey twat.
you bill that horny toad and you’ll catch cold.
Newt said he was dead set against controls..He won’t have em. What he wants to do is invest in the research that will create the technologies that will be carbon dioxide neutral. This is the same thing as saying you want to get the freak off dependence on foreign oil.
You may love foreign oil. But I don’t.
The problem is not US production capacity. The problem is international capitalists who own the international oil corporations. They don't have American interests at heart. In fact the rich Arab royalty is funding our enemies all the while American politicians know about it.
On the other hand US technology is moving five times faster than it was 35 years ago. There’ll be more scientific and technological change in the next 20 years than in all of the last 120 years put together.
My office is filled with computers and peripheral equipment made in Asia. I use electronic gadgets for engineering evaluations made in Europe. I think the furniture in my office was made in America. The siding and roofing in my office was replaced in large part by migrants from Central America. The technology you say is moving five times faster than 35 years ago is either 5 times zero (no movement) or 5 times the speed of light. i don't see it.
No use calling a ring tailed monkey a boll weavel.
Now that you mention the boll weevil -- a pest from south of the border -- it just reminds me nothing good comes from Mexico.
What a cop out. We have more oil in this nation but the liberals and greenies won't let us get it. Open your eyes, this issue is not about foreign oil, which is a red herring, but about putting this country back into the Dark Ages. If that is what you want for the future of this country then toss away everything you have that takes oil to manufacture. I dare you.
I am against the carbon credits regime. Anyone with sense is against the stupid euro carbon credits nonsense.
Newts against carbon credits as well. He’s no dummy. He advocated tax breaks for non carbon based energy sources and massive research to get the US off its addiction on foreign —or domestic- oil.
People complain every time the price of gas goes up. What will they be complaining about when we will be made to buy overpriced ethanol? The price of food at the store because that is going to go WAY up.
I say we burn theirs first. Save ours for later.
The French generate about 70% of their power from nuclear plants.
I agree. Ethanol is a bad idea. There are better ones around.
CO2 is heavier than air! CO2 does NOT rise in our atmosphere and trap the heat of the sun - CO2 sinks to the ground!
BTW, the same applies to Freon, the stuff that replaced it, methane, etc., etc., etc!
Hydrogen and Helium are lighter than air, and they rise in the atmosphere, but the Hydrogen doesn't last long - it combines/burns and makes water, which is heavier than air. The Helium goes to Heaven.
Clouds are water that's about to fall to earth .............. FRegards
My take on this “debate” was that Newt, being in front of the “far left green” audience, decided to sidestep the arguing about how much, if anything, CO2 is a problem, and tried to redirect their fear of “global warming” into market-based solutions to the problem of dependence on foreign oil - like nuclear power etc.
In other words, he is trying to hijack their irrational fear of GW, and point them to solutions to our real problems, instead of them blindly following the scammers like Al Gore if they can’t be convinced that GW isn’t caused by CO2...
Right now, scammers like Gore present to their faithful a “problem” (”Global Warming” and “climate change” due to man-caused excess of CO2 output) and a “solution” (”cut down CO2 output, and/or pay for it and submit to draconian regulations”) - so, if you can’t convince them that “problem” doesn’t exist, you can’t convince them that “solution” isn’t needed. Newt correctly decided in this “debate” not to argue about the “problem” (much to our chagrin, but probably correctly, given the audience) and concentrate on more productive task of redirecting them to understanding why the alternative “solutions” would be significantly better.
He may have done it clumsily but, given the audience and the task in hand, I think he may have reached far more people to at least see that the GW alarmists’ scam will not bring the results they truly want.
Clumsy from our point of view, but more effective overall to help achieve the same goals we desire - less energy dependence, cheaper, more efficient, cleaner energy?
Now you tell me! I'd better become friends with Helium...
Cheaper? Never happen. There is no alternative energy source projected which would be cheaper. More efficient? Possibly, but at what cost to our economy. Cleaner? Every energy source has it's negative. What will the negative be of a cleaner source? That remains to be seen once this cleaner source is developed.
“...The Helium goes to Heaven.
Now you tell me! I’d better become friends with Helium...”
It’s easier to make friends with God and His Son.
Helium is so elusive, but God is everywhere ............. FRegards
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.