It did not work for SPAIN and several other countries so what in the hell makes this country think it will work here ?
Arrogance has led to the demise of civilizations perhaps we will follow ?

Fred

 

That is what liberals call "discussion". If you disagree, it is hate speach.

We just want to talk about how irrational this bill is.

This economy ain't doing too good right now. This bill is the last thing the airline industry, or any industry (you know, those "thingeses" that employ people?) needs right now.

This is a massive tax. Period. No country ever taxed thenselves in to prosperity!

This is not good, any way you look at it.

 

Yes, it is important, which is why we should resent the efforts to jam it through without most of us being given a chance to see what it contains. Why the efforts to hide content if it is really good? Why the last minute 300 page addition? Why the lack of public debate on merit?









An excerpt from another source:



"You heard correctly: progressives have authored a bill that earns the mortal enmity of domestic energy consumers and our most crucial trading partners at the same time. Economy-killing climate policies and a trade war — together at last!

Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and the co-author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know. Sallie James is a trade policy analyst at Cato and author of the forthcoming A Harsh Climate for Trade: How Climate Change Policies Threaten the Global Trading System.

More by Patrick J. Michaels
More by Sallie James
What happened is this: An early draft of Waxman-Markey already contained triggers that gave the president the choice to introduce carbon tariffs if jobs and industry "leak" overseas to countries that don't constrain emissions so dramatically. (China and India come to mind.) The original version empowered the president to impose the carbon-linked tariffs beginning in 2025.

But though the language is not public yet, the House Ways and Means Committee is reportedly considering provisions that will give extra comfort to protectionists. Leaks from Hill offices indicate that the president would now be forced to impose the carbon tariffs — and could only opt out of doing so with permission from both chambers of Congress. Carbon-intensive imports would be subject to penalties at the border unless the country of origin requires emission reduction measures at least 80 percent as costly as ours. (The original Waxman-Markey bill had a threshold of 60 percent.)

Unfortunately for the amendment's authors, World Trade Organization rules make fairly clear that trade-limiting measures imposed to protect the environment should have the purpose of protecting the environment, and not to address any adverse competitiveness effects on domestic industry. Break that connection between measure and purpose, and you've got yourself a problem. The result could be litigation, retaliatory tariffs, or both. Does anyone really expect China to stand idly by in 2025 as their trade is embargoed?

And just for the sake of discussion, exactly how much global warming will be prevented by this assurance of future trade turmoil? Well, let's use the federal government's own model which — we are not making this up — is called MAGGIC (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change). It comes from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

Let's compare the effects of Waxman-Markey to the United Nations' "business-as-usual" emissions scenario that's in their big 2007 climate change compendium. If the U.S. only adopts Waxman-Markey, global warming would be reduced by a grand total of 0.2ºF by 2100. This is too small to even detect, because global temperatures bounce around by about this amount every year. For those who like to think more near-term, the amount of warming prevented by 2050 would be 0.07 of a degree.

According to the UN, without Waxman-Markey the warming from 1990 to 2050 would be 2.8ºF, and 5.3º by 2100. (Of course, observed warming since 1990 is running about 40 percent below the expected rate, largely because there hasn't been any net warming since the very warm year of 1998.)

Now, let's be completely unrealistic and assume that every nation that has "obligations" under the (failed) Kyoto Protocol cuts emissions as much as we do. Then the saved warming balloons all the way to 0.14ºF by 2050 and 0.4º by 2100, or 5 and 7 percent, respectively, of the "business-as-usual" total.

Let's add it all up. We don't do anything measurable to reduce global warming, we alienate some of our biggest trade partners, we risk a trade war, and Americans are allowed to emit the same carbon volumes as the average citizen did in 1867. What's not to hate?

All of which explains why Waxman-Markey is being rushed to the floor."







Gentlemen, let's try to keep the politics out of it and point out the errors of the bill or concept itself. It is important and it is worthy of a logical debate. I doubt any of us have read the entire bill, just as those voting on it did not. There are many things in it that may effect us and our homes and property and our jobs.

 

All politicos lie, we know it, they know it and they know we know it. Now please try to talk about the bill and not the players. Take the you and I out of the debrief. Rise above the petty aspect of personality and agenda and debate the bill itself. Point out the lie or error in logic and kill the proponent with that most uncommon of virtues: common sense.

 

The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years

 

"Now please try to talk about the bill and not the players. Take the you and I out of the debrief. Rise above the petty aspect of personality and agenda and debate the bill itself."

Mod note:

That's what it's gonna take to keep this thread open...

 

This is not a political issue in so much as we have any effect on the outcome. The folks behind it are not of any particular party, simply a very effective lobby that has very effectively made their point to the policy makers. It is all about the dough, and there will be alot of dough involved. Would be nice to be able to vote on it but we will not be given that chance. It is not a party thing, doesn't matter who is in office or controlling the congress. This program has long been bought and paid for by the ones that will get the reward, and I am pretty certain that it does not include us.
WG

 

NASA Admits that 1934, Not 1998, was the Warmest Year on Record
August 14, 2007 by Brant McLaughlin

NASA In one more devastating blow against the global warming or "climate Apocalypse" supporters such as former Vice President Al Gore, NASA stated today that it was wrong when it release a report that 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded in modern history.

According to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), NASA scientist and famous man-made global warming proponent James Hansen's well-known claims that 1998 was measured as the warmest year
NASA Admits that 1934, Not 1998, was the Warmest Year on Record
Date: August 14, 2007
Dallas, TX
United States of America on record in the U.S. were the result of a serious mathematical error. NASA has now corrected that error, and 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed.

Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980.

And perhaps most devastating of all to the man-made global warming backers, it is now admitted that six of the 10 hottest years on record occurred when only 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the last century were in the atmosphere.

NASA has been forced to correct calculations for temperatures of the last 120 years taken from ground-based measuring facilities. Critics of the man-made global warming theory have long been vocal that these measurements are distorted because the ground, and even more the urban ground where most of these measurements took place, is warmed considerably by human activities and cannot accurately represent atmospheric conditions.

 

What happens if this idea blows up in our faces then what ?
Anyone want to take a guess on this ?



Fred

 

If you (we) truly care about this issue as much as we are stating in this forum, then take the 10 minutes you would have spent on the internet with APC and sit down and type a letter to both members of the Senate that represent your state.

Now that the issue is time sensitive, an email or even a phone call would be more appropriate. The Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121. I know for a fact that on hot-button issues such as this, each member's office will be keeping a record of its constituent correspondence. Only a fraction of a fraction of constituents ever take the time to make their opinions/concerns really known. If just a quarter of the professional pilots in this country were to call in, it would overwhelm them.

One piece of advice, call your own legislators, not all 100---you're call will not matter b/c they do not represent you. When you do initiate correspondence, you must make sure you leave them with at least a name and address, because this is how a member's office generates a response. Simply calling and yelling over the phone and hanging up WILL NOT make a difference and will not be 'counted' as anything.

I used to work in the business. If enough constituents make noise on an issue, the legislators do listen.