Hey, some religious freaks blame homosexuals for 9-11 (Robertson) and some blame global warming for cyclones and hurricanes. What can you do they’re religious freaks.
-on Newt no longer being a considered a conservative leader.--
If he wants to work towards solving potential problems that could arise from climate change that’s fine. BUT, allying yourself with somebody who does nothing but blame human activity , while profiting quite well from it I might add, is unforgivable.
Hmmm, Pelosi, Gingrich, Robertson and Sharpton in global warming ads yeah that really ups the credibility factor.
tkdude - 08:05pm on 05/06/2008
Should we not plan for this if (hypothetically) we knew it were coming?
Or it might cool, or things might stay the same. Is Newt saying we need to prepare for those eventualities. No.
The fact is he’s bought into the fallacy that we must do something to combat global warming. Newt thinks he’s clever by proposing “market based” solutions which amount to bribing people with their own (tax breaks) and other peoples “cash prizes.”
The fact is that IF we conservatives buy into the garbage, we’ve lost the war. Newt’s plan won’t work because we aren’t warming up the globe. So when it fails (or if it succeeds) we’ll move closer to the goal of socializing our economy.
If you want to think about an example of “market based reforms” you can use the ethanol fiasco, which doesn’t contribute much new energy, isn’t all that good for the environment and is very expensive where we pay 1)at the pump; 2)to the taxman for the subsidies; and 3) in higher costs of food.
Meanwhile if Newt had a clue he’d realize that the true market rewards efficiency. As this post on Willism shows the freer American economy is outperforming the countries that signed up for Kyoto.
A conservative would keep the government OUT of the market not think you’re smarter than the market and propose whacky solutions that will probably cause more problems then they solve.
The Whistler - 08:05pm on 05/06/2008
Whistler:
If you want to think about an example of “market based reforms”, you can use the ethanol fiasco.
Well, isn’t that exactly the point? The ethanol fiasco was never market-based. It was a federally subsidized joke.
Other than that, your post is long on form and short on substance. “We” conservatives tend to throw any other conservative under the bus, as soon as they say something we don’t want to hear.
pparets - 08:05pm on 05/06/2008
One other thing, Whistler. Your original post on Herr Gore is right on the mark! What a scum-bag he is.
Well done!
pparets - 08:05pm on 05/06/2008
The ethanol fiasco was never market-based. It was a federally subsidized joke.
I’m pretty sure that Newt’s plan will be much worse, at least by the time it makes it through Congress.
Running diesel vehicles on biofuels is a good thing, right? Not always, according to Greenpeace Argentina. It seems that the export of soybeans from Argentina is causing more pollution than was initially estimated. Also, too much of Argentina’s native forests are being mowed down for the soybeans. These issues are in stark contrast with two of Greenpeace’s stated charters: (1) catalyzing an energy revolution to address the number one threat facing our planet: climate change and (2) supporting sustainable agriculture by encouraging socially and ecologically responsible farming practices.
DKK
LifeTrek - 08:05pm on 05/06/2008
I hope the Weather Channel wins its lawsuit against him.
Really? How public is this lawsuit? What are the charges?
Global warming or not, pollution is still a problem, and so is energy effeciency.
dirl126 - 09:05pm on 05/06/2008
Climate change - might as well not talk about it since it is out of our control. As far as preparing for it, we have no idea which way to go. Hell, we have trouble preparing for hurricanes for which we have a lot more data.
Energy efficiency - nothing to do their either as the market place is the determining factor. i.e. assuming energy efficiency is cost effective, it will happen in what ever form is most productive.
docdave - 09:05pm on 05/06/2008
Switching to fleurescent light-bulbs is energy efficient. Engines that require less gasoline is also energy effecient.
The question is: how much of your rights do you want to give up to be energy effecient?
I think, don’t quote me on this, but by 2012 (or 2014), Fleurescent light-bulbs will only be sold, this is part of a bill I don’t agree with. It expands government power.
You are definitely right about it being cost effective docdave. That is probably the first factor looked into making energy efficient products, next comes is consumer interest, and then last, our rights.
No wait, make consumer interest first! ; )
dirl126 - 09:05pm on 05/06/2008
Also, too much of Argentina’s native forests are being mowed down for the soybeans.
They don’t use soyboeans grown in the Amazon rain forrest region for biofuel, under international treaty. Most of that comes from the southern grasslands....
Very little of the destruction of the rain forest is associated with biofuels. As to the pollution aspect, of course Greenpeace objects. As far as I can tell, their goal is the end of our modern civilization.
Hey, some religious freaks blame homosexuals for 9-11 (Robertson) and some blame global warming for cyclones and hurricanes. What can you do they’re religious freaks.
-on Newt no longer being a considered a conservative leader.--
If he wants to work towards solving potential problems that could arise from climate change that’s fine. BUT, allying yourself with somebody who does nothing but blame human activity , while profiting quite well from it I might add, is unforgivable.
Hmmm, Pelosi, Gingrich, Robertson and Sharpton in global warming ads yeah that really ups the credibility factor.
Or it might cool, or things might stay the same. Is Newt saying we need to prepare for those eventualities. No.
The fact is he’s bought into the fallacy that we must do something to combat global warming. Newt thinks he’s clever by proposing “market based” solutions which amount to bribing people with their own (tax breaks) and other peoples “cash prizes.”
The fact is that IF we conservatives buy into the garbage, we’ve lost the war. Newt’s plan won’t work because we aren’t warming up the globe. So when it fails (or if it succeeds) we’ll move closer to the goal of socializing our economy.
If you want to think about an example of “market based reforms” you can use the ethanol fiasco, which doesn’t contribute much new energy, isn’t all that good for the environment and is very expensive where we pay 1)at the pump; 2)to the taxman for the subsidies; and 3) in higher costs of food.
Meanwhile if Newt had a clue he’d realize that the true market rewards efficiency. As this post on Willism shows the freer American economy is outperforming the countries that signed up for Kyoto.
A conservative would keep the government OUT of the market not think you’re smarter than the market and propose whacky solutions that will probably cause more problems then they solve.
Whistler:
Well, isn’t that exactly the point? The ethanol fiasco was never market-based. It was a federally subsidized joke.
Other than that, your post is long on form and short on substance. “We” conservatives tend to throw any other conservative under the bus, as soon as they say something we don’t want to hear.
One other thing, Whistler. Your original post on Herr Gore is right on the mark! What a scum-bag he is.
Well done!
I’m pretty sure that Newt’s plan will be much worse, at least by the time it makes it through Congress.
Save The World—Ignore An Environmentalist
DKK
Really? How public is this lawsuit? What are the charges?
Global warming or not, pollution is still a problem, and so is energy effeciency.
Climate change - might as well not talk about it since it is out of our control. As far as preparing for it, we have no idea which way to go. Hell, we have trouble preparing for hurricanes for which we have a lot more data.
Energy efficiency - nothing to do their either as the market place is the determining factor. i.e. assuming energy efficiency is cost effective, it will happen in what ever form is most productive.
Switching to fleurescent light-bulbs is energy efficient. Engines that require less gasoline is also energy effecient.
The question is: how much of your rights do you want to give up to be energy effecient?
I think, don’t quote me on this, but by 2012 (or 2014), Fleurescent light-bulbs will only be sold, this is part of a bill I don’t agree with. It expands government power.
You are definitely right about it being cost effective docdave. That is probably the first factor looked into making energy efficient products, next comes is consumer interest, and then last, our rights.
No wait, make consumer interest first! ; )
They don’t use soyboeans grown in the Amazon rain forrest region for biofuel, under international treaty. Most of that comes from the southern grasslands....
Very little of the destruction of the rain forest is associated with biofuels. As to the pollution aspect, of course Greenpeace objects. As far as I can tell, their goal is the end of our modern civilization.