Obama to Seek 30% Cut in Emissions at Power Plants

[tangent4ronpaul]

yep - global warming, er... climate change causes asthma. heard that one too.

She was downplaying that costs would skyrocket, saying it's a right wing meme that is being spread around. That costs would rise no more than the costs of normal things like milk and would keep pace with inflation...

uhhh....

I also seen to clearly remember Obama saying on national TV that under his plan, energy costs would necessarily skyrocket...

-t

 

[oyarde]

yep - global warming, er... climate change causes asthma. heard that one too.

She was downplaying that costs would skyrocket, saying it's a right wing meme that is being spread around. That costs would rise no more than the costs of normal things like milk and would keep pace with inflation...

uhhh....

I also seen to clearly remember Obama saying on national TV that under his plan, energy costs would necessarily skyrocket...

-t

Well , milk up , probably 100 % since 07 and that is with price controls. No thanks govt , I do not need your wisdom or help .Fuck off .

 

[RabbitMan]

So here is what I posit to you guys:

Assuming the premise of human-influenced Climate Change is real, and that projections of temperatures and sea levels rising is also true, would you still be opposed to a societal enforced effort to slow this process down by curbing emissions? Even if it would take 50 years to really see the progress? Or would the violation of your liberties be your #1 concern above all? Again, assume that the premise is true.

I'm not trying to push people one way or the other, and to be pure liberty is not to be selfish, but I do see a lot of folks' dodging this tough question by a cop-out attack of its premise.

For those that say the tech isn't there yet, Germany has broken several records lately with a net generation of 75% of its country's needs worth of renewable electricity(though they only used 25% of it domestically).

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

lets talk about sea levels rising for a second... where is all this extra water supposed to come from.

anyone remember basic science in jr high school. You know that lecture on phase changes.

take 100ml of water and add 100ml of water and it takes up 200ml of space.
then take 100ml of liquid water and add 100ml of frozen water and it takes up 225ml of space...

now we've got 2 really F'n huge ice cubes on the planet. If they melt, the 225ml of offset space becomes 200ml of space. That means more beach front property, not NYC turning into a submarine!

I can believe liberals being stupid enough to believe this, considering the, ahem, stellar quality of education in this country, but when this BS is spouted by people that have earned science degrees and having letters after their name... SRSLY...

-t

 

[CableNewsJunkie]

ALL economic activity relies on energy, and prices will go up across the board.

This strikes me as an indirect dollar devaluation more than anything else.

 

[Carlybee]

They say..as they fly to and fro in jets and drive in Tahoes and Suburbans.

 

[Root]

Yet the US Military remains the worlds largest polluter. Someone let me know when they cut back 30% mkay?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Obama to Seek 30% Cut in Emissions at Power Plants

I'd be happy with a 30% cut in "emissions" at the White House ...

 

[jbauer]

lets talk about sea levels rising for a second... where is all this extra water supposed to come from.

anyone remember basic science in jr high school. You know that lecture on phase changes.

take 100ml of water and add 100ml of water and it takes up 200ml of space.
then take 100ml of liquid water and add 100ml of frozen water and it takes up 225ml of space...

now we've got 2 really F'n huge ice cubes on the planet. If they melt, the 225ml of offset space becomes 200ml of space. That means more beach front property, not NYC turning into a submarine!

I can believe liberals being stupid enough to believe this, considering the, ahem, stellar quality of education in this country, but when this BS is spouted by people that have earned science degrees and having letters after their name... SRSLY...

-t

To play devils advocate, there is plenty of water held up in ice sheets above water. Whether that be the two big ice cubes or the significant amount of water held up in the glaciers. Not all the "ice" is in the water, hence the difference in densities. Still think that the illustrations showing the entire world drowning are nothing more than propaganda though.....although my 1k ft above sea level looks pretty good!!

 

[jbauer]

So here is what I posit to you guys:

Assuming the premise of human-influenced Climate Change is real, and that projections of temperatures and sea levels rising is also true, would you still be opposed to a societal enforced effort to slow this process down by curbing emissions? Even if it would take 50 years to really see the progress? Or would the violation of your liberties be your #1 concern above all? Again, assume that the premise is true.

I'm not trying to push people one way or the other, and to be pure liberty is not to be selfish, but I do see a lot of folks' dodging this tough question by a cop-out attack of its premise.

For those that say the tech isn't there yet, Germany has broken several records lately with a net generation of 75% of its country's needs worth of renewable electricity(though they only used 25% of it domestically).

Assuming global climate change is happening, I think the main rub is that it isn't being changed via our elected officials. Its being done via executive order and by a "letter agency" in the EPA. Now you have to go back to the assumption. To what extent is human involvement part of climate change & to what extent are you willing to change the economies of the world for something like it? How do you factor in the human variable to an equation that we don't know the outcome or even many of the variables and should we be making significant changes to how the world works because someone said so?

I think most people would agree we've had some messed up weather over the past decade. I can say from personal experience that its warmer than it was when I was a kid, no doubt about it but it was dang COLD this past winter. Now attribute how much if any is attributable to humans burning nonrenewable fuels?

 

[klamath]

So here is what I posit to you guys:

Assuming the premise of human-influenced Climate Change is real, and that projections of temperatures and sea levels rising is also true, would you still be opposed to a societal enforced effort to slow this process down by curbing emissions? Even if it would take 50 years to really see the progress? Or would the violation of your liberties be your #1 concern above all? Again, assume that the premise is true.

I'm not trying to push people one way or the other, and to be pure liberty is not to be selfish, but I do see a lot of folks' dodging this tough question by a cop-out attack of its premise.

For those that say the tech isn't there yet, Germany has broken several records lately with a net generation of 75% of its country's needs worth of renewable electricity(though they only used 25% of it domestically).

What if AGW is true? Well until AGW believers start being realistic about the problem and not hysterically screaming that everything from more diaper changes to super nova's in distant galaxies are going to be the result of AGW then maybe people can talk sanely about it. Not all effects of GW are going to be bad, and the end of the earth. Life on earth DEPENDS on heat energy to thrive on earth. The earth has been colder and hotter throughout its history but you know what life has found a way. A ice age would be far far more catastrophic than a warming earth. If the oceans raise so what! people can and do migrate. Canada and Siberia and Greenland would become temperate.
The constant FEAR, FEAR, FEAR! is blowing all sane discussion of the possible problem. Politicians thrive best during a hysterical crisis and that is the reason the fear is being pushed.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Does China have to cut emissions, too?

Oh on the contrary. They're probably designing a power plant which burns medical waste and ejects the emissions straight into the water supply. China is not stupid enough to sacrifice their entire economy so they can have squeaky clean windmills that need to run for a week to power half a house for 5 minutes.

 

[Occam's Banana]

So here is what I posit to you guys:

Assuming the premise of human-influenced Climate Change is real, and that projections of temperatures and sea levels rising is also true, would you still be opposed to a societal enforced effort to slow this process down by curbing emissions? Even if it would take 50 years to really see the progress? Or would the violation of your liberties be your #1 concern above all? Again, assume that the premise is true.

I'm not trying to push people one way or the other, and to be pure liberty is not to be selfish, but I do see a lot of folks' dodging this tough question by a cop-out attack of its premise.

Why should I "assume" that the "premise" that "a societal enforced effort would slow this process down" is true?

"But just assume that the premise is true!" Well, then ...

Let's "assume" that the "premise" that "socialist wealth-redistribution schemes will achieve economic equality" is true.
Let's "assume" that the "premise" that "the NSA's violations of civil rights keep us safe from terrorism" is true.
Let's "assume" that the "premise" that "the world would be better off if the Jews were exterminated" is true.
Let's "assume" that the "premise" that "totalitarian Communism is the best form of government" is true.
Let's "assume" that the "premise" that "the War on Drugs and the police state protects children" is true.
Let's "assume" that the "premise" that "pink unicorns fart rainbows that smell like flowers" is true.

What then? What do you imagine that any of those "assumptions" would actually prove?
And why should it be any different if we just "assume" that the "premise" you posit is true?

It is utterly ridiculous to accuse people of "dodging this tough question" because they do not want to play a rigged game with the stacked deck of your "assumptions." The only "cop-out" here is your insistence that other people should take your string of assertions and just "assume" that they are true.

 

[VIDEODROME]

So should we be more like China?

 

[jbauer]

So should we be more like China?

China did 7.8% GDP growth last year.

 

[Ranger29860]

Also left out of his analysis was the bigger explosion in civilization and population that came after the discovery of oil. It was just a very one sided analysis in favor of a green economy and I am afraid that a lot of people are slowly buying into that way of thinking. My guess is nothing of political consequence will come off this policy and more regulations like this will follow without congress or society as a whole doing anything.

You might want to go watch it again. They did a very good job of explaining exactly why solar (which existed at the time of discovery of oil) did not take hold. It was the cheapness of and availability of oil over solar at the time and how that led to a boom. Nothing in that episode was wrong or misleading. If anything I think it was one of the best ways I have seen the greenhouse effect explained.

 

[Ranger29860]

lets talk about sea levels rising for a second... where is all this extra water supposed to come from.

anyone remember basic science in jr high school. You know that lecture on phase changes.

take 100ml of water and add 100ml of water and it takes up 200ml of space.
then take 100ml of liquid water and add 100ml of frozen water and it takes up 225ml of space...

now we've got 2 really F'n huge ice cubes on the planet. If they melt, the 225ml of offset space becomes 200ml of space. That means more beach front property, not NYC turning into a submarine!

I can believe liberals being stupid enough to believe this, considering the, ahem, stellar quality of education in this country, but when this BS is spouted by people that have earned science degrees and having letters after their name... SRSLY...

-t

Seriously?

Ok lets try your experiment with things that actually mirror Antarctica.

Take a large bowl and fill it half way with water. Now in the middle turn a cup upside down in it. Now put a large block of ice on top of the cup and not in the water. Now come back 2 hours later.

 

[RabbitMan]

Assuming global climate change is happening, I think the main rub is that it isn't being changed via our elected officials. Its being done via executive order and by a "letter agency" in the EPA. Now you have to go back to the assumption. To what extent is human involvement part of climate change & to what extent are you willing to change the economies of the world for something like it? How do you factor in the human variable to an equation that we don't know the outcome or even many of the variables and should we be making significant changes to how the world works because someone said so?

I think most people would agree we've had some messed up weather over the past decade. I can say from personal experience that its warmer than it was when I was a kid, no doubt about it but it was dang COLD this past winter. Now attribute how much if any is attributable to humans burning nonrenewable fuels?

I'm no scientist, but I did take advanced environmental classes in school a ways back. The term global warming is a misnomer that seems to confuse a lot of people. If I recall correctly, the warming part primarily referred to the ocean warming up due to more heat being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere. Even small changes in such a vast body of water could lead to accelerated melting in the polar ice-caps and the ice-sheets off places like Greenland. By the way, these are MASSIVE. If Antartica's ice melted, we're talking about a quarter of the USA being under sea level here. Greenland's ice sheets, which in recent weeks have stunned the world by melting and breaking apart exponentially faster then scientists had modeled, would raise the sea level 16-20ft--enough to submerge significant portions of some low lying coastal states.

But it isn't just the ice. Water like everything else expands when the temperature goes up. Normally imperceptible, but at this scale it's another contributing factor. And again all of this melting and expanding accelerates as the ocean temperature increases in a positive feedback loop. Weather patterns are influenced by the oceans, and while you can not just say that all crazy weather is due to this, it is undeniably a factor and will increasingly be one as this process continues. One reason is due to the way ocean currents develop. As water cools it becomes denser, displacing warmer water below in a grand movement. With the polar extremes of the earth warming up, the differences in temperature that drive this process shrink. Since currents are responsible for distributing much of the heat that hits the equator to Northern and Southern parts of the planet, this can cause changes in weather pattern(climate change) that paradoxically makes some areas of the Earth much more hot and others much more cold. Which in turn....

See where I'm headed? Unintended consequences, a term we should know pretty well from Austrian Economists. Forget 'Global Warming', that's just a term thrown out there to help people understand it. Climate Change, whether or not it is influenced by humans, is real and there is no conceivable way we can stop it. The point most mainstream scientists make is that there are steps we could take to slow the process down so that it isn't so calamitous. And so the question realistically is: Does Man contribute to the problem, how much do we affect it, and if so is there anything we can do to slow it?

Feel free to disagree on any of those points, but please don't let arguments that begin with "It felt colder this winter" be the basis of your understanding of this complex issue.

 

[acptulsa]

I remember the propaganda that surrounded the emissions controls that cut down on actual toxins belching from all the exhaust pipes back then. They talked about how the particulates that we were spewing into the sky were cutting down on the sunlight, and predicting a new ice age.

Seriously.

Now cars don't produce much in the way of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons or oxides of nitrogen and it's the carbon dioxide (though I think it has more to do with the water, and every man-made lake causes extra evaporation). If we ban coal completely, what then? Won't the greenhouse problem become worse because burning natural gas spews fewer protective particulates?

This is half-assed theoretical science being used by the oil companies to screw the coal companies. Nothing more. I'd feel differently if they knew what they were talking about or what the unintended consequences of their 'cures' would be. They don't.

 

[bunklocoempire]

Taking climate "pollution" advice from a representative of a government that is 17 (?) trillion $'s in the hole...

Um, no. You figure out how to balance a flippin' check book first and then we'll talk about you "controlling" the weather. Laughable.