Logged in as: Anonymous Search | Active Topics |

3 Pages 123>
Say NO to the "Cap and Trade" bill Options
Pat Miketinac
#1 Posted : Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:43:29 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Hi practicalman45, it is so encouraging to find others who know about campaignforliberty.com. I found  a local group and eagerly await their monthly meetings. I have no confidence in the 2 party system and believe that our country must return to the values of the Constitution if we are to survive. Ron Paul's movement is growing rapidly. I hope you are able to attend a function in your area. Someday, we just may be able to outvote those who vote for handouts. Some local politicians have attended our meetings and learned a lot. It's a good start.

John Edward Mercier
#2 Posted : Saturday, June 27, 2009 6:47:30 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Interstate commerce is part of the US Constitution.

You might want to check the history, the US Constitution was written by Federalists to replace the Articles of Confederation. It was opposed by the anti-federalists (anti-administration party) that would later become the Democratic Republican Party under Jefferson.

Many refer to Jefferson as a strict constitutionalist... but his papers on the Louisiana Purchase show otherwise. Even his support of coin based on weight with the market determining value are rarely understood by strict constitutionalists.

 

practicalman45
#3 Posted : Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:33:12 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

 Defeat Any Form of 'Cap and Trade' Energy Tax Bill in the Senate!

“[U]nder my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” -- Barack Obama, 2008 (click on photo below to see video of this statement)
 

An expensive new 'cap and trade' energy tax bill was approved by the House of Representatives by a vote of 219 to 212 on June 26 (click here to see how your rep voted). This bill is known as the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” H.R. 2454, also known as the Waxman-Markey climate change bill.

Now the 'cap and trade' debate moves on to the Senate where a vote is expected to occur this fall. However, sufficient pressure to defeat any form of 'cap and trade' bill must be developed as soon as possible in case Senate consideration is scheduled earlier. Committee hearings on a Senate version of a 'cap and trade' bill are planned for early July.

Take action now by clicking here and help preserve your freedom and prosperity by telling your U.S. Senators that you are strongly opposed to any form of a cap and trade bill!

Let's draw a line in the sand. We must defeat this huge energy tax!

Thanks.

 

practicalman45
#4 Posted : Thursday, July 02, 2009 6:09:29 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Help support the production of a new feature length documantary film about the Global Warming disinfo:

http://noteviljustwrong.com/

-see the trailer here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/noteviljustwrong

John Edward Mercier
#5 Posted : Thursday, July 02, 2009 12:57:38 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

This becomes problematic for two reasons.

First many of the States, including all of New England, are now in some cap-n-trade program (ours is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative). This means its unlikely to get the senators in those States to oppose the legislation.

It also has a back door... because of the SCOTUS (US Supreme Court) finding in the Massachusetts vs. EPA case... either the Congress or the EPA by default must regulate the gases listed within the case law.

The plaintiffs in the case were able to change the position on the atmospheric expansion of some of these gases by accrediting them to their toxicity levels... so it became a human health rather than climate issue.

 

practicalman45
#6 Posted : Thursday, July 02, 2009 6:39:25 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

We must try John. With enough opposition from the public a strong enough number of opposing senators could manage a filibuster and kill the bill..for now.

 

Carbon Dioxide should not be classified as a toxic gas. It is essential for all life on planet earth.  Earth is a carbon-based planet. This nonsense about it being toxic is not scientifically founded. It is a ploy of those globalists who would rule the earth. We need to expose it for what it is and defeat these measures being brought against us to literally enslave us by the elite.

John Edward Mercier
#7 Posted : Friday, July 03, 2009 5:55:04 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Carbon dioxide is listed as toxic to humans because it is scientifically founded.

Just not anywhere near these concentrations.

NH's senators will vote party line regardless of any constuent influence... so Shaheen will support and Gregg oppose.

 

 

LaserBillA
#8 Posted : Saturday, July 04, 2009 12:46:31 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

My only beef with the cap-n-rape bill is how it is implemented. It puts too much emphasis on yearly caps and then it assumes that some sort of trading system will come along to take care of the huge yearly swings. A trading system will be created, however the brokers will make a lot of money from it.

Ironically I think we would be better off with a simple "carbon tax" with the proceeder's earmarked for renewable energy and power grid upgrades.


Pat Miketinac
#9 Posted : Saturday, July 04, 2009 4:08:01 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

A local talk radio host said today that there is a provision in this bill that will require an energy audit of your home before you are allowed to sell it. You must then bring it up to new codes. He estimated costs over $10,000 for a typical house. I don't know if it's true, I'm not going to wade through 1300 pages to find out. Anybody know?

Also, months ago I read a report on greenhouse gases that said water vapor is 100 times more of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Makes CO2 seem insignificant as far as climate change is concerned.

John Edward Mercier
#10 Posted : Saturday, July 04, 2009 4:33:54 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Sort of. They'll be pushing for States, that haven't already, to adopt international energy conservation code.

Water vapor is a GHG. I don't know where the 100 times figure comes from... though it may be due to the atmospheric concentration which can be much higher than CO2. The difference between them is water vapor concentration (specific humidity) is highly subjective to temperature...

Its actually this water vapor component that many fear... CO2 would need to reach roughly 2000ppm to have toxicity in a noticeable percentage of the population... though it affects other species at a much lower level. Particularly marine life in that the oceans absorb such a large concentration (absorbtion diminishes with increased temperature).

The water vapor component is where they are focused on the droughts and heavy precipitation events.

davisonh
#11 Posted : Tuesday, July 07, 2009 3:09:55 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

No I think we should be saying yes to the cap and trade bill,and yes it will shoot our power bills and yours up too.And it's not because I support Obama but because of why it's being implemented.Time for us to pay the piper.All this consumption has a lasting effect that must be paid for..No ,water in liquid or vapor form is not a heat-trapping gas but a heat transfer gas.Water is one of the few gases thats able to transfer massive amounts of heat very rapidly and why it's used so prevalently in doing just that.More of a concern IMO is the gas no one wants to talk about and thats methane.A heavy gas its able to trap 1000 times more heat than CO2 which is lighter,breaks down quicker and has a smaller refractivity index than methane.No one talks about it because its a result of our own consumption figuratively and literally.When we can come to terms with that we will have grown more as a society.If you  want more power generate it yourself .Want to know how much your house consumes? Try heating your house and powering it thru the winter with an engine-generator.Use gasoline,that'll give you a good idea how much power you use.

LaserBillA
#12 Posted : Tuesday, July 07, 2009 5:41:21 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Hmmm.

quote- "Starting on June 1, 2009, most Austin, Texas homeowners will be required to have an energy audit completed before selling their home...Read the ordinance."

On the other hand there are soo many tax rebates for insulating it's hard not to justify doing it.


Pat Miketinac
#13 Posted : Thursday, July 09, 2009 4:12:42 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Thanks for the info, LaserBillA. Austin sure enjoys stating what all the penalties will be if you don't comply. The main reason I am against the Waxman-"Malarky" bill is because it uses an environmental concern to pass 1500 pages of new rules and regulations that are more about controlling people and expanding government than about correcting a problem. The vote even took place before the bill was complete. During a TV interview, Waxman denied that the home inspection requirement is in the bill. I guess he didn't bother to read it. I wonder who really wrote it.

John Edward Mercier
#14 Posted : Thursday, July 09, 2009 11:52:11 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Then he's an idiot, because all government-backed mortgages require a home inspection to be passed.

practicalman45
#15 Posted : Monday, July 13, 2009 4:42:18 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Faced with a "consensus" view which looks increasingly implausible, a fast-growing body of reputable scientists from many countries has been coming up with a ''counter-consensus'', which holds that their fellow scientists have been looking in wholly the wrong direction to explain what is happening to the world's climate.

 

"The two factors which most plausibly explain what temperatures are actually doing are fluctuations in the radiation of the sun and the related shifting of ocean currents. There is a growing counter concensus in the international scientific communities that the computer models used to predict the "global warming" climate changes are flawed."

"Two episodes highlight the establishment's alarm at the growing influence of this ''counter consensus''. In March, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has a key role in President Obama's plans to curb CO2 emissions, asked one of its senior policy analysts, Alan Carlin, to report on the science used to justify its policy. His 90-page paper recommended that the EPA carry out an independent review of the science, because the CO2 theory was looking indefensible, while the "counter consensus'' view – solar radiation and ocean currents – seemed to fit the data much better. Provoking a considerable stir, Carlin's report was stopped dead, on the grounds that it was too late to raise objections to what was now the EPA's official policy. "

(quotes taken from an article at the London Telegraph:    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5804831/Climate-change-The-sun-and-the-oceans-do-not-lie.html )

 

I think that before we institute draconian measures that will literally be the death knell of modern industrial civilisation and the world's economies we should really be sure about the science that these assumptions are being based upon.

John Edward Mercier
#16 Posted : Monday, July 13, 2009 5:26:41 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

There are a couple of problems with the counter consensus. Our scientific data on solar output is only a few decades old... and doesn't show a wide degree of fluctuation within that period. Our scientific data on ocean currents is quite old... with really good data coming during and after WWII. It doesn't show a vast variation in course, speed, etc.

While global temperature during that time show an increase.

The fact is science have known, for quite some time before we were born, that Earth's atmosphere produces a tempering by its absorbtion and reflection of IR. Without this the Earth would be as hot and cold as the moon in its sunlight/darkside phasing. And life would not exist.

The actual debate is to what level is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 beneficial. Below roughly 200ppm and photosynthesis stops... because of these low atmospheric levels plants in greenhouses are generally ventilated during the growing season... and some are carbon dioxide supplemented.

While the toxicity level to humans is documented, and varies in degree throughout the population beginning around a constant exposure of 1000 ppm. This is what the US Supreme Court ruled on in the Massachusetts vs. EPA case under the Clean Air Act.

So we're sort of stuck between Congress and the EPA.

 

practicalman45
#17 Posted : Monday, July 13, 2009 6:22:50 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

I've found scientific data on solar sunspot activity going back some 400 years. This corresponds closely with earth temperatures over that period.

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/solar.pdf

"Solar irradiance and global temperature (Fig. 13) show the relationship as solar activity (sunspotsand global temperature (Fig. Solar irradiance from 1750 to 1990shows almost exactly the same pattern as global warming and cooling ovethe past 250 years. "

 

John Edward Mercier
#18 Posted : Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:26:45 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Sunspots indexes have long periods of data in that they just count the number of spots visible. Its the TSI data that is only short period. It registers the actual energy output of the sun and its variation.

But to knowledge don't effect the toxicity level of CO2.

davisonh
#19 Posted : Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:26:39 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Back to the original issue,the cap & trade bill is a 'get real' bill.The bills' come due for the cheap fuel we've enjoyed for decades is the real issue.Last years' issues with skyrocketing oil prices and the obvious influence it had on destabilizing the world's individual economies  is the real reason for jacking energy prices now.You all forget that power companies,gas companies and the like were regulated to a certain extent for many many years by the state and federal governments and still are to a certain degree.Most cannot raise prices per kwh without state approval etc. Yes this adds an 'exhaust tax' to their costs.And you know what ,I think they should and this is why: Polluting the air that we all use and don't have a choice but to use.This extra $ could be used not only to clean up their mess but also to pay for future health costs and/or health care.One could call it an 'energy stabilization' fund also as far as to provide incentive to companies to find different ways to get around and keep ourselves warm/cool.As far as the economy now,we have gone thru far worse times than what we see now,believe me it can get a whole lot worse than what I've seen now.As far as global warming,we shall see.We're responsible for whats around us,it's our resposibility to keep it clean no matter what happens.

practicalman45
#20 Posted : Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:08:34 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

The cap and trade bill is a scheme cooked up by international bankers and globalists. Those who would collect and transfer the monies (and also benefit the most from the marketting and transfering and investing and speculating in of these "indulgences") are the same ones who are promoting it so hard in the governments they control and the medias which they own. This scheme sets the precedent of "global taxation". Of course, for global or international taxation we are  also going to need the global govt. to execute it. That erodes national sovereignty, and reduces human rights, eliminates or overrides our constitutional protections against abusive governments.

This "energy regulation" is not going to be  done on a universal worldwide basis. The western countries will be the ones regulated the most, and several fast developing countries will not be under the same rules and regulations. This will have the effect of driving industry to move to those places that are not regulated. just as you and I tend to buy at the cheapest place to shop, industry will locate in the least costly places to manufacture. This will not reduce energy consumption, merely relocate it to other parts of the globe. All this is a part of the globalization and world govt. by the bankers plan. They  intend to "equalize" the various world markets by holding some back. Others will benefit from the unfair adavantages they are allowed. In a true free market, market forces would determine supplies and demands.  (they are going to make us use less by piling on of tariffs and restrictions, turning us into paupers by decree).  Others will be indirectly encouraged to use more to bolster their economies.

This inequity that is engineered into the cap and trade scheme is going to destroy our nation, our economy, our freedoms. The free market (if it was truly allowed to function) can achieve the result we need without the control and oversight from the world money tyrants who have shown themselves so very incapable of managing anything, as they have demonstrated with their housing bubbles, their counterfeiting of currencies to lend to nations, and their promoting of military might and empire around the globe to support their global reserve fake money. This cap and trade is simply their next currency bubble scheme.

Users browsing this topic
Anonymous
3 Pages 123>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.





Subscribe Today - Pay Now & Save 66% Off the Cover Price

First Name: *
Last Name: *
Address: *
City: *
State/Province: *
Zip/Postal Code:*
Country:
Email:*
(* indicates a required item)
Canadian subs: 1 year, (includes postage & GST). Foreign subs: 1 year, . U.S. funds.
Canadian Subscribers - Click Here
Non US and Canadian Subscribers - Click Here

Lighten the Strain on the Earth and Your Budget

MOTHER EARTH NEWS is the guide to living — as one reader stated — “with little money and abundant happiness.” Every issue is an invaluable guide to leading a more sustainable life, covering ideas from fighting rising energy costs and protecting the environment to avoiding unnecessary spending on processed food. You’ll find tips for slashing heating bills; growing fresh, natural produce at home; and more. MOTHER EARTH NEWS helps you cut costs without sacrificing modern luxuries.

At MOTHER EARTH NEWS, we are dedicated to conserving our planet’s natural resources while helping you conserve your financial resources. That’s why we want you to save money and trees by subscribing through our earth-friendly automatic renewal savings plan. By paying with a credit card, you save an additional $5 and get 6 issues of MOTHER EARTH NEWS for only $12.00 (USA only).

You may also use the Bill Me option and pay $17.00 for 6 issues.