House passes global warming bill

The effects on the environment, by this bill's own admission, are negiligible at best.

The effects on the economy will be staggering.

If you want to see what's left of our industrial sector in Asia, go right ahead and pass this bill.

There are ways to reduce carbon emissions without passing some onerous bill ... nuclear power. It's clean, it's cheaper than wind/solar, it's powerful and we already have the technology to harness it inexpensively on a mass scale, unlike other renewables.

Just like there are ways to fix health care -- decouple it from employment and create a free market for it with individual tax credits to purchase insurance, which would introduce true competition into the industry and bring prices down.

Congress won't explore those options because, in the long run, it doesn't want health care fixed, it wants health care to be controlled by the state so we are indebted to them and therefore will keep voting for them.

Cap-and-trade isn't about the environment. It's about giving the state a foothold into more and more control of us, while taking more of our cash in the process.

 

How much are we spending on health care costs due to the proliferation of illnesses caused by polluted air? Far more than the cost of this bill, for sure.

Remember, if we followed the argument that the GOP continues to raise, we would never have the EPA to begin with, and America's rivers would still be flowing black like they were in the 60s. America's voters spoke in 2008 -- they want a clean environment, and America's industry will soon adapt and thrive as a result.

A

 

I agree 100 percent on this. Mother Jones magazine - that famed conservative mouthpiece - had a big story about a year ago on energy and nuclear was by far the winner.

It's just been so stigmatized that it's - excuse the pun - radioactive for politicians.

 

Noted liberal group Ducks Unlimited was for this bill. That shows just how radical this bill is!

 

Stigmatized? Whatever do you mean?

 

$3,000. Nice try, but that's the figure that's been put about by Republicans and Energy leaders to scare people.

The Congressional Budget Office has something to say about that.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_climate_bill_69

Scare tactics have apparently spread to every issue for one side.

 

I concur.

 

Where in the Constitution does the federal government have the authority to pass such a tax and regulate what kind of energy we produce?

It must be in the 28th Amendment.

 

As do I.

"The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of green jobs as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles — and away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal."

Millions of jobs? I call bullshit on that....later in the article "In California alone, Obama said, 3,000 people will be employed to build a new solar plant that will create 1,000 permanent jobs."

And sorry GB-Hack, the EPA has an obvious bias, so I don't take their estimates anymore than the extreme on the other side.

It's a 1,200 page report, that will affect everyone....this needs to be scrutinized from all sides, and if it's passed by the Senate just to "do something" it will be a sin.

 

And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office? They're obviously biased as well?

 

In Spain, which now has a 17% unemployment rate, 2.2 jobs have been lost for every one created since the passage of their cap-and-trade bill.

Australia is in the process of ditching its cap-and-trade bill because of the damaging effects on its economy.

Interestingly, another renewable energy that has been ignored in this bill is hydroelectric. It's renewable, clean and efficient, which apparently means it's not "green" enough for the environmentalists.

 

What would the cost to implement it be as far as set-up?