|
Post by trbixler on Mar 9, 2012 2:57:50 GMT
Kill those jobs Mr Green and his EPA! "Democrats Reject Latest Bipartisan Attempt to Rein in Obama-EPA's Job-Killing Agenda" ""Despite their continued calls to rein in the Obama-EPA's job-killing regulatory agenda, Senate Democrats again voted against a reasonable bipartisan amendment that would do just that," Senator Inhofe said. "In fact, six out of the twelve Democrat cosponsors of the Collins amendment must have gotten a call from President Obama, as they voted against their own measure. This just goes to show that although Senate Democrats say over and over that EPA regulations are destroying thousands of jobs and increasing energy costs for their constituents, when the time comes, they side with President Obama and his radical environmental base. "Boiler MACT is in dire need of a legislative fix as it is one of the most ruinous and expensive EPA regulations. It will result in $1 Billion in lost GDP and put 800,000 good paying American jobs, as well as our manufacturing base, at risk. That is why a majority of the United State Senate voted to rein in the EPA. " epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=f3f1011b-802a-23ad-43eb-619a086562c9
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 9, 2012 14:23:00 GMT
Mr. Green and Lisa do not like the pipeline and certainly they know better as they are in charge. Skyrocket! "Senate sends message to Obama on Keystone" "Thursday’s squeaker of a Senate vote on the Keystone XL pipeline serves both as a warning to President Barack Obama that a majority of both houses of Congress supports the pipeline and as encouragement to Republicans to keep pushing the issue. Obama had personally lobbied Senate Democrats with phone calls urging them to oppose an amendment to the highway bill that would fast-track the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline. And as it turned out, he needed every bit of their help. In all, 11 Democrats joined 45 Republicans to support the pipeline. Only the fact that 60 votes were needed for passage saved the White House from an embarrassing defeat. (Also on POLITICO: Oil industry jumps gun on Keystone vote) Sen. thingy Lugar (R-Ind.) wryly congratulated Obama on his lobbying efforts. “That was very strong work by President Obama himself, making personal calls to Democrats,” Lugar said. “He understood that a majority of the American public and a majority at least of the Senate are strongly in favor of this project. Read more: www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73795.html#ixzz1od5ltsHP
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 12, 2012 2:23:21 GMT
Mr Green has decided that the science is settled just as GE! The corporate master scientists have apparently confused efficiency with global warming. Of course it cannot hurt that GE is a major producer of wind turbines (bird choppers). No vested interest here no siree! www.ge-energy.com/wind"GE rejects Republicans’ climate change doubts" "High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. www.ft.com/cms/s/0/85e8629e-6a20-11e1-b54f-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1orgkPDOv“We found enough data there to have a company like GE respond and we have responded,” said Mark Vachon, head of the “ecomagination” sustainable business initiative GE launched in that year. He said revenues generated by operations in his portfolio now totalled $100bn and were growing at more than twice the rate of those in the rest of the company. GE’s environmental strategy had also helped it shave $140m from its own energy bill and meant “we’re viewed as relevant in the world”, he said. Mr Vachon was responding to questions about how GE, a company that has positioned itself as a champion of climate-friendly technologies, views the prospect of voters electing a president reluctant to accept the scientific consensus that carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and oil are warming the earth’s climate." www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/85e8629e-6a20-11e1-b54f-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/world_us_politics/feed//product#axzz1org6KcQc
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 12, 2012 2:36:05 GMT
trbixler: That sure looks like the wind farm just to the west of me.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 12, 2012 2:41:37 GMT
trbixler: That sure looks like the wind farm just to the west of me. I wonder if we could call it our wind farm as I am sure our taxes helped pay for a major portion of its costs. Of course I am not happy with that partial ownership but somehow the balance sheet should reflect reality.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 13, 2012 0:01:53 GMT
Really I do not make this stuff up! This guy must have not read about YAD06. Or maybe the money was just to great for his ethics. "How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change" "The threat of global climate change has prompted us to redesign many of our technologies to be more energy-efficient. From lightweight hybrid cars to long-lasting LED's, engineers have made well-known products smaller and less wasteful. But tinkering with our tools will only get us so far, because however smart our technologies become, the human body has its own ecological footprint, and there are more of them than ever before. So, some scholars are asking, what if we could engineer human beings to be more energy efficient? A new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment proposes a series of biomedical modifications that could help humans, themselves, consume less. Some of the proposed modifications are simple and noninvasive. For instance, many people wish to give up meat for ecological reasons, but lack the willpower to do so on their own. The paper suggests that such individuals could take a pill that would trigger mild nausea upon the ingestion of meat, which would then lead to a lasting aversion to meat-eating. Other techniques are bound to be more controversial. For instance, the paper suggests that parents could make use of genetic engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth smaller, less resource-intensive children. " Maybe the professor wants to volunteer. www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-engineering-the-human-body-could-combat-climate-change/253981/
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 13, 2012 0:26:19 GMT
trbixler: Ya know, this just keeps getting nuttier and nuttier.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 13, 2012 12:50:08 GMT
A highlight from the article. Margret Mead would be proud. "Isn't it ethically problematic to allow parents to make these kinds of irreversible choices for their children? Liao: That's a really good question. First, I think it's useful to distinguish between selection and modification. With selection you don't really have the issue of irreversible choices because the embryo selected can't complain that she could have been otherwise---if the parents had selected a different embryo, she wouldn't have existed at all. In the case of modification, that issue could certainly arise, but even then I think it's important to step back and ask why we are looking at these solutions in the first place. The reason we are even considering these solutions is to prevent climate change, which is a really serious problem, and which might affect the well being of millions of people including the child. And so in that context, if on balance human engineering is going to promote the well being of that particular child, then you might be able to justify the solution to the child. " " Liao: That’s right. It’s been suggested that, given the seriousness of climate change, we ought to adopt something like China’s one child policy. There was a group of doctors in Britain who recently advocated a two-child maximum. But at the end of the day those are crude prescriptions—what we really care about is some kind of fixed allocation of greenhouse gas emissions per family." www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-engineering-the-human-body-could-combat-climate-change/253981/
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Mar 13, 2012 12:59:25 GMT
trbixler: Ya know, this just keeps getting nuttier and nuttier. Yeah, it is. Getting very close to previous attempts at population control of undesirables (eugenics) .
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 13, 2012 15:45:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 15, 2012 15:05:22 GMT
Well I do not see Taxes as exactly "voluntary". "Climate Coup — The Politics How the regulating class is using bogus claims about climate change to entrench and extend their economic privileges and political control. Guest Post: Dr David M.W. Evans, 29 Feb 2012, last updated 13 Mar 2012, latest pdf here" "Who Are You Going To Believe—The Government Climate Scientists or Your Own Lying Eyes? The climate models are incompatible with the data. You cannot believe both the theory of dangerous manmade global warming and the data, because they cannot both be right. In science, data trumps theory. If data and theory disagree, as they do here, people of a more scientific bent go with the data and scrap the theory. But in politics we usually go with authority figures, who in this case are the government climate scientists and the western governments—and they strongly support the theory. Many people simply cannot get past the fact that nearly all the authority figures believe the theory. To these people the data is simply irrelevant. The world’s climate scientists are almost all employed by western governments. They usually don’t pay you to do climate research unless you say you believe manmade global warming is dangerous, and it has been that way for more than 20 years. [ii] The result is a near-unanimity that is unusual for a theory in such an immature science." "The supporters of the theory of manmade global warming are mainly financial beneficiaries,[vi] believers in big government, or Greens. They are usually university educated. They generally prefer the methods of government, namely politics and coercion, rather than the voluntary transactions of the marketplace—especially when it comes to setting their own remuneration. They are an intellectual upper class of wordsmiths, who regulate and pontificate rather than produce real stuff. There is little demand in the economy for their skills, so they would command only modest rewards for their labor in the marketplace. Arguably they are a class of parasites enriching themselves at the expense of producers, because they are rewarded out of proportion to the value they create—value as determined not by themselves, but by voluntary transactions in the marketplace." joannenova.com.au/2012/03/climate-coup-the-politics/#comment-1014902
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 17, 2012 13:53:31 GMT
Mr. Green stops oil and gas production with his EPA. He then tells us that it is not his fault. Those stupid "Flat-Earthers" happen to know the renewable wind and solar are non starters no matter how much government tax monies are poured over them. Soon the U.S. will look like Spain with no jobs, no money and no energy. "Obama hits back at GOP 'Flat-Earthers' over rising fuel prices " "Barack Obama struck back at his potential Republican opponents in the row over rising US fuel prices on Thursday, comparing them to medieval "Flat-Earthers" for their attitudes towards renewable energy." www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9146843/Obama-hits-back-at-GOP-Flat-Earthers-over-rising-fuel-prices.html
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 18, 2012 3:27:38 GMT
I am sad to say that President Obama has no clue as to what drives fuel prices.
He keeps thinking that wind or solar is going to bring down gasoline prices.
I have yet to see a solar powered vehicle, nor a wind powered vehicle. Seems they predominantly run on gasoline. Of course, I live in a rural area and might be missing some huge improvement in tech.....right?
This President is an insult to thinking people. Those that support him....well.....they must believe in AGW as both lines are reasoning are similiar.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 18, 2012 13:48:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Mar 18, 2012 14:03:11 GMT
I am really not fond of subsidies but our tax dollars would be much better spent subsidizing automobile conversions from gasoline to natural gas then they are on wind farms. Natural gas burns five times cleaner and we have plenty of it. It is the most practical way to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and lower our carbon footprint at the same time.
|
|