Cap & Trade legislation; any thoughts?

[Bob Jentges]

The Democrat controlled U.S. House of Representatives has scheduled a vote on the above captioned approximate 1200 page bill tomorrow. As usual this is a crisis and needs immediate attention. No doubt each member will be burning the midnight oil, or should I say all-night oil, to read and analyze every word so that they can make an informed vote tomorrow. Most of us probably will not take the time to do that, but might be interested in reading a column today addressing the issue with much more brevity.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1062509.php3

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

It's not "Cap & Trade", it's "Cap & Tax" -- another nail in the coffin of capitalism.

Cap & Trade Is Not A Market Solution (http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/06/04/cap-trade-is-not-a-market-solution/)

June 4, 2008

By Robert P. Murphy, Economist

As the U.S. Senate debates climate change legislation this week, many have proclaimed the virtue of its “cap and trade” system as a “market solution” to reducing carbon emissions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Unlike a direct tax, cap and trade is a European-style scheme that masks its negative consequences on the economy behind the rhetorical benefits of new government programs designed to help us. In truth, neither is good for consumers or the economy, but a closer look reveals why so many politicians find comfort in cap and trade.

The economic argument for penalizing carbon emissions is straightforward. If emissions from human activities are contributing to dangerous temperature increases as some scientists claim, then textbook theory says that the government should take steps to increase the private costs to those emitting carbon. Markets are efficient only when firms take all costs of their behavior into account.

If one agrees so far, the next question is which mechanism should be used to raise the pain of carbon emissions? One approach would have the government levy an outright tax. This is favored by most economists, and a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis in February recommended a carbon tax because of its efficiency in meeting climate change targets. But politicians shy away from the dreaded T-word, especially with the economy entering recession and energy prices hitting all-time highs.

Enter cap and trade, which gives only the illusion of reducing carbon emissions without imposing costs on the average citizen. In this approach, the government distributes permits that entitle the holder to emit a specific quantity of carbon dioxide. The trick is that these permits would be tradable in the market, just as surely as shares to IBM or contracts on copper futures.

This, unfortunately, is why some have mistakenly viewed a cap and trade program as a “market solution.” Because the carbon permits are turned into property with a market price, they should end up in the hands of those who value them the most, i.e., the most efficient emitters. In theory this means that a cap and trade system achieves a desired reduction in carbon emissions at the lowest possible compliance cost.

For example, if the government arbitrarily decreed that every firm had to reduce its carbon emissions by 10 percent, this would cause unnecessary economic damage, because it is much easier for some operations to scale back emissions than others. If instead the government issued tradable permits allowing total emissions of 90 percent of the previous year’s amount, then the desired reduction would be much cheaper. Those firms that could scale back more easily would do so, and would sell their permits to those firms that found it too expensive to cut emissions. It is the elegance of this outcome that has hoodwinked market enthusiasts into supporting cap and trade.

Yet despite the superficial resemblance, cap and trade isn’t really a free market. The number of permits is an arbitrary scarcity imposed by government fiat. In the real market, resource prices indicate genuine scarcity. If an oil pipeline is attacked, the price of oil goes up, causing industry and consumers to economize on the commodity. This response is rational, because the available supply truly has gone down.

But if the prices of oil, coal, and other fossil fuels explode because of a cap and trade program, this won’t reflect genuine economic scarcity. Consumers will be forced to restrict their use not because there is less supply available, but because of a number dreamed up by Washington bureaucrats. This is no more a “market price” than if the government decided to sell people permits giving them permission to sneeze. (This actually makes sense, since exhaling emits CO2.)

Cap and trade is not a market-based solution. It relies on a political scheme to increase costs, and can therefore be justly viewed as a tax, stealthy or otherwise, on energy - the lifeblood of our economy. So here’s the real difference: cap and trade masks the causes of higher consumer prices much better than a straightforward tax. And that is precisely why so many politicians endorse it.

Murphy is an economist with the Institute for Energy Research. He received his Ph.D. in economics from NYU. He has written and lectured extensively on the benefits of market-oriented policies.

[Bob Jentges]

Here is an article from today's WSJ on the topic. Numerous scientists are skeptical, more each day, so in spite of the Democrat mantra this is not "settled science"! The ramifications on the U.S. economy are significant, but that does not seem to matter to those with socialist leanings.

The U.S. House is scheduled to vote today. From what I hear no Republicans will vote for it, so we need some cross over votes form clear thinking Democrats. Unfortunatly our District One representative does not seem to be one of them!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

[Mary Peterson]

I could not believe my ears when I heard that they passed the bill today. Are they all from another planet? Obama admitted how high our utilities are going to go. I guess he will pay for all the poor people's bills with our tax money, but how much more are we going to take?

[Mary Peterson]

[QUOTE=Mary Peterson;1320]I could not believe my ears when I heard that they passed the bill today. Are they all from another planet? Obama admitted how high our utilities are going to go. I guess he will pay for all the poor people's bills with our tax money, but how much more are we going to take? What can we do to stop this? How do you deal with a person who is not living in the real world? None of the politicians in D.C. seem to remember what normal life is like. Obama held a Hawaiian party-that's all he seems to be doing is having one big party at our expense.

[Bob Jentges]

[QUOTE=Mary Peterson;1320]I could not believe my ears when I heard that they passed the bill today. Are they all from another planet? Obama admitted how high our utilities are going to go. I guess he will pay for all the poor people's bills with our tax money, but how much more are we going to take? What can we do to stop this? How do you deal with a person who is not living in the real world? None of the politicians in D.C. seem to remember what normal life is like. Obama held a Hawaiian party-that's all he seems to be doing is having one big party at our expense.

Mary, from the number of telephone calls I receive, many from people I have never met, and from the discussions at my "hangouts" I believe there is a groundswell of the "silent majority" who have had enough. I think they are beginning to understand that many (including some of them) made colossal
mistakes in casting their votes in 2008. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me should be the cry of any that voted for glib talkers, over people of substance last November.

I am writing a letter to the editor about the Cap & Trade Bill recently narrowly passed by the House. I hope my letter is published soon!

[Bob Jentges]

I read in The Free Press that Meridith Salsbery of Tim Walz office said the calls and emails to Walz office were about evenly split for/against the House Cap & Trade bill, before the vote. I read in a prominent national publication that the calls and emails to the offices of all House members combined was about 16 to 1 against the bill. If both those proclamations are accurate some conclusions can be drawn. Let me cite just two of mine:

1) Walz District (District One) is far out-of-step with the much rest of the
country.

2) Walz Office was flooded with calls and emails from the greater Mankato
area and other cities heavily populated with academics/educators/government employees i.e. Marshall, Winona, etc.(no intent to paint those employees with a broad brush), while the "silent majority" in the district remained silent.

Does anyone without "conservative baggage" see it different from me?

[Bob Jentges]

My article on the Cap & Trade bill was published in the electronic edition of The Free Press this morning. I have sent an email advising they overlooked including "the link to the New York Times story reporting the EPA report and the repoer itself". Hopefully they will make the correction.

I do not know for sure, but I expect the article will be published in the home delivery edition soon. If you agree with the content of my letter, tell your friends that do not have a computer to watch for it in the hard copy of the paper.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Bob, as I mentioned to you in a separate e-mail. The link was posted from the get go on the left of the page right above your photo and at the bottom. It is now also embedded into the text of your article highlighted as "internal report" when you use that word in the sentence referring to the internal report.

[Ellen Mrja]

There are some of us who are very concerned with what type of world we are leaving for the next generation. If more of a sacrifice (tax, higher cost for fuel oil) from me can benefit them, I will try to give it.

"Think not forever of yourselves, O Chiefs, nor of your own generation. Think of continuing generations of our families, think of our grandchildren and of those yet unborn, whose faces are coming from beneath the ground."

Eliot, T. S. on Peace

[Bob Jentges]

There are some of us who are very concerned with what type of world we are leaving for the next generation. If more of a sacrifice (tax, higher cost for fuel oil) from me can benefit them, I will try to give it.

"Think not forever of yourselves, O Chiefs, nor of your own generation. Think of continuing generations of our families, think of our grandchildren and of those yet unborn, whose faces are coming from beneath the ground."

Eliot, T. S. on Peace

I too am concerned with what type of world we are leaving for the next generation, but I am not convinced the House Cap & Trade bill would be a positive move toward that end, all considered. Without even considering the damage the bill as written could do to the economy, it almost certainly would not decrease "pollution"; it would simply transfer the right to pollute from one to another, for a price.

Other countries that have tried something similar e.g. New Zealand, Australia, Sweden and others in Europe have not been impressed and are moving away from the idea.

Most Americans and most members of Congress understand Cap & Trade is a bad idea. The only way the majority was able to get it passed in the House was by running roughshod over the minority through deceit, a lack of transparency, and the majority leadership offerring earmarks to members for their respective districts, in exchange for their vote.

I, like almost every American, support a clean enviroment uncluding development of alternative sources of energy where they make sense.

[Ellen Mrja]

Bob: Then you and I agree on the ultimate concern -- protection of our future generations. Unlike you, I believe global warming is "settled science" and would rather plan with that premise in mind than blindly continuing the way we have been.
We also agree: alternative sources of energy must be developed. The next step would seem to be doing our part, and insisting that our representatives do their part, in keeping this as a priority.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Bob: Then you and I agree on the ultimate concern -- protection of our future generations. Unlike you, I believe global warming is "settled science" and would rather plan with that premise in mind than blindly continuing the way we have been.
We also agree: alternative sources of energy must be developed. The next step would seem to be doing our part, and insisting that our representatives do their part, in keeping this as a priority.

Science is never "settled". It was not so long ago that smoking was good for you (http://www.crestock.com/uploads/blog/2009/controversial/21-Camels-smoke-a-fresh-cigarette-doctor.jpg), and not much longer ago that the earth was the center of the universe. It is naive and arrogant of us to assume that we are finally smart enough to have arrived at the correct answer, and especially presumptuous to assume that we have correctly and completely analyzed dozens of extremely complex, chaotic, interconnected systems over an extremely long period of time (most of it with no or unreliable data) and that we have arrived at exactly the correct legislative steps to take to solve the problem.

Due to the immense amount of government money that gets dumped into research, science in the United States is highly politicized. Studies that are politically favorable get funded; studies that are not don't. What private investor is going to sink $100 million into a study showing that global warming isn't happening? It's easy to settle the science when only one side is being funded.

Regardless of whether man-made global warming is real (global cooling was "settled science" in the mid-1970s), and regardless of whether it's even a bad thing (global food production may skyrocket if temperatures increase and more land becomes arable), environmental legislation is extremely dangerous in the long term because it is literally limitless: Everything humans do affects the environment, so everything anyone wants to do can be outlawed by politicians. There is, in my estimation, no greater threat to life, liberty, and personal property than the idea that a government official can legitimately and arbitrarily declare anything you might do to be harmful to the environment. This gives those with political power (including unelected workers in government agencies) immense control over anyone who disagrees with them. This is devastating to the great American principles of liberty and constitutionally restrained government.

Worse yet is the fact that the government has a terrible track record of actually guarding the environment. Dumping regulations onto a problem either a) is ineffectual because people find their way around the regulations through loopholes or other political maneuvers, b) the regulatory agency is eventually overtaken by people intentionally placed there by the companies targeted by the regulation ("friends on the inside"), or c) the companies simply move their operations elsewhere.

If Cap & Trade is passed, energy costs in the U.S. will skyrocket and U.S. companies will move abroad to places where energy consumption is not so heavily taxed or regulated. Millions of jobs will go overseas, never to return, and we Americans will have no jobs and high living costs. The wealthy will also leave (or be destroyed by a crushed economy), and we'll have no one left to support our expensive social programs.

Aside from it's disastrous economic effects, Cap & Trade will accomplish virtually nothing environmentally. I seem to recall an estimate somewhere that implementing C&T would reduce global temperatures by something like 1/8 of a degree by 2100 -- not 1/8 of a degree from current temperatures, but 1/8 of a degree lower than projected temperatures (which, of course, are just speculation). Is risking our entire economy on a bet this big a good idea?

Further destroying C&T's chances for success is the Jevons Paradox: energy we conserve here under C&T will only free up resources in places where C&T (or similar regulatory schemes) is not the law. This means that energy will be expensive here, so we'll use less, but energy will be less expensive there, so they'll use more. The net global energy usage is exactly the same, but we've completely crippled ourselves in the process. If the total energy usage will remain the same either way, would you rather have the environmentally-conscious developed countries using it, or couldn't-care-less-about-pollution third world countries?

Did you know that the largest polluter in the United States is the U.S. government? The best way to protect the environment is to make sure someone owns everything and enforce property rights. This means someone has a vested interest in protecting it:

Want to protect an endangered species? Making it legally protected helps somewhat, but there will always be poachers who will evade the law and the animals will probably stay on the endangered list forever. Instead, start eating the endangered species. Someone will start making money by protecting and producing them (such as the resurgence in U.S. buffalo population thanks to meat production) and the endangered species will be restored.

What if someone polluting the river? What if someone is polluting your river? With the former situation, a giant agency has to be formed to monitor and regulate everything, and the polluters will just find somewhere else to dump their garbage. With the latter situation, you will do everything in your power to find and stop the polluter, all at no cost to the taxpayer.

And so on. Government efforts to protect the environment will always fall short of their goal, always cost a great deal of money, and always trample on the rights of individuals and their natural incentives to protect their own environment.

A slogan of the environmental movement is to think globally and act locally. If you want to protect the environment with government force, then the government has to be everywhere to protect it. The people are already local, and are the best suited and best incentivized to act locally. If you must have the government involved in the environment at all, have them support information and awareness campaigns, not ride roughshod over us with regulations and taxes.

[Bob Jentges]

I found an article in the Washington Post that said: "The Obama administration has privatly concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200B a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15%...the cost per householdwould be an extra $1765 a year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09

[Dan Conner]

I too am concerned with what type of world we are leaving for the next generation, but I am not convinced the House Cap & Trade bill would be a positive move toward that end, all considered. Without even considering the damage the bill as written could do to the economy, it almost certainly would not decrease "pollution"; it would simply transfer the right to pollute from one to another, for a price.

Other countries that have tried something similar e.g. New Zealand, Australia, Sweden and others in Europe have not been impressed and are moving away from the idea.

Most Americans and most members of Congress understand Cap & Trade is a bad idea. The only way the majority was able to get it passed in the House was by running roughshod over the minority through deceit, a lack of transparency, and the majority leadership offerring earmarks to members for their respective districts, in exchange for their vote.

I, like almost every American, support a clean enviroment uncluding development of alternative sources of energy where they make sense.
Bob, why are you so willing to except the experiences of other countries for a clean environment, but you aren't when it comes to universal healthcare? This seems inconsistent to me.

[Dan Conner]

I found an article in the Washington Post that said: "The Obama administration has privatly concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200B a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15%...the cost per householdwould be an extra $1765 a year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09 Hey that's only the cost of a year in Iraq or the amount of money in taxes concealed in illegal Swiss and other foreign country bank accounts. Republicans were more than willing to spend that money on those things. Maybe the priorities need to be reshuffled.

[Dan Conner]

Science is never "settled". It was not so long ago that smoking was good for you (http://www.crestock.com/uploads/blog/2009/controversial/21-Camels-smoke-a-fresh-cigarette-doctor.jpg), and not much longer ago that the earth was the center of the universe. It is naive and arrogant of us to assume that we are finally smart enough to have arrived at the correct answer, and especially presumptuous to assume that we have correctly and completely analyzed dozens of extremely complex, chaotic, interconnected systems over an extremely long period of time (most of it with no or unreliable data) and that we have arrived at exactly the correct legislative steps to take to solve the problem.

Due to the immense amount of government money that gets dumped into research, science in the United States is highly politicized. Studies that are politically favorable get funded; studies that are not don't. What private investor is going to sink $100 million into a study showing that global warming isn't happening? It's easy to settle the science when only one side is being funded.

Regardless of whether man-made global warming is real (global cooling was "settled science" in the mid-1970s), and regardless of whether it's even a bad thing (global food production may skyrocket if temperatures increase and more land becomes arable), environmental legislation is extremely dangerous in the long term because it is literally limitless: Everything humans do affects the environment, so everything anyone wants to do can be outlawed by politicians. There is, in my estimation, no greater threat to life, liberty, and personal property than the idea that a government official can legitimately and arbitrarily declare anything you might do to be harmful to the environment. This gives those with political power (including unelected workers in government agencies) immense control over anyone who disagrees with them. This is devastating to the great American principles of liberty and constitutionally restrained government.

Worse yet is the fact that the government has a terrible track record of actually guarding the environment. Dumping regulations onto a problem either a) is ineffectual because people find their way around the regulations through loopholes or other political maneuvers, b) the regulatory agency is eventually overtaken by people intentionally placed there by the companies targeted by the regulation ("friends on the inside"), or c) the companies simply move their operations elsewhere.

If Cap & Trade is passed, energy costs in the U.S. will skyrocket and U.S. companies will move abroad to places where energy consumption is not so heavily taxed or regulated. Millions of jobs will go overseas, never to return, and we Americans will have no jobs and high living costs. The wealthy will also leave (or be destroyed by a crushed economy), and we'll have no one left to support our expensive social programs.

Aside from it's disastrous economic effects, Cap & Trade will accomplish virtually nothing environmentally. I seem to recall an estimate somewhere that implementing C&T would reduce global temperatures by something like 1/8 of a degree by 2100 -- not 1/8 of a degree from current temperatures, but 1/8 of a degree lower than projected temperatures (which, of course, are just speculation). Is risking our entire economy on a bet this big a good idea?

Further destroying C&T's chances for success is the Jevons Paradox: energy we conserve here under C&T will only free up resources in places where C&T (or similar regulatory schemes) is not the law. This means that energy will be expensive here, so we'll use less, but energy will be less expensive there, so they'll use more. The net global energy usage is exactly the same, but we've completely crippled ourselves in the process. If the total energy usage will remain the same either way, would you rather have the environmentally-conscious developed countries using it, or couldn't-care-less-about-pollution third world countries?

Did you know that the largest polluter in the United States is the U.S. government? The best way to protect the environment is to make sure someone owns everything and enforce property rights. This means someone has a vested interest in protecting it:

Want to protect an endangered species? Making it legally protected helps somewhat, but there will always be poachers who will evade the law and the animals will probably stay on the endangered list forever. Instead, start eating the endangered species. Someone will start making money by protecting and producing them (such as the resurgence in U.S. buffalo population thanks to meat production) and the endangered species will be restored.

What if someone polluting the river? What if someone is polluting your river? With the former situation, a giant agency has to be formed to monitor and regulate everything, and the polluters will just find somewhere else to dump their garbage. With the latter situation, you will do everything in your power to find and stop the polluter, all at no cost to the taxpayer.

And so on. Government efforts to protect the environment will always fall short of their goal, always cost a great deal of money, and always trample on the rights of individuals and their natural incentives to protect their own environment.

A slogan of the environmental movement is to think globally and act locally. If you want to protect the environment with government force, then the government has to be everywhere to protect it. The people are already local, and are the best suited and best incentivized to act locally. If you must have the government involved in the environment at all, have them support information and awareness campaigns, not ride roughshod over us with regulations and taxes. I hardly think any intelligent person, even back then, would accept the word in a cigarette company advertisement as real credible evidence that smoking was healthy. Maybe some looked to only rationalize their habit, but I think most people knew it was not healthy. My father knew it wasn't healthy and I have always knew it was not healthy, even when I smoked.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, why are you so willing to except the experiences of other countries for a clean environment, but you aren't when it comes to universal healthcare? This seems inconsistent to me.

I have tried to be consistant in my aversion to what I consider wastefull spending that, in my opinion, brings no positive results.

[Bob Jentges]

Hey that's only the cost of a year in Iraq or the amount of money in taxes concealed in illegal Swiss and other foreign country bank accounts. Republicans were more than willing to spend that money on those things. Maybe the priorities need to be reshuffled.

I usually vote Republican, but consider myself a conservative. There were many things that the Bush Administration did that I did not necessarily agree with, at least in there entirity. Your idea of reshuffling priorities then was probably a good one, just like I think my idea of reshuffling priorities now is probably a good one.

[Dan Conner]

I have tried to be consistant in my aversion to what I consider wastefull spending that, in my opinion, brings no positive results. How would you know if something is a waste without trying it? If you are willing to accept the experiences of other nations, then shouldn't that willingness to accept experiences mean for both good and bad experiences? I mean, I speak from a country rated #37 in healthcare, compared to many of the same nations you refer to that are in the top 10. I agree that we should take something from foreign countries when it comes to pollution, but I think that learning from experience should be consistently applied.

[Dan Conner]

I usually vote Republican, but consider myself a conservative. There were many things that the Bush Administration did that I did not necessarily agree with, at least in there entirity. Your idea of reshuffling priorities then was probably a good one, just like I think my idea of reshuffling priorities now is probably a good one. I think that reshuffling priorities is a good idea as times require, but I don't think that mean reshuffling values. That should be consistent. Concern ofr future generations also means concern for their health (lives), not just their (your) pocketbook.

[Bob Jentges]

How would you know if something is a waste without trying it? If you are willing to accept the experiences of other nations, then shouldn't that willingness to accept experiences mean for both good and bad experiences? I mean, I speak from a country rated #37 in healthcare, compared to many of the same nations you refer to that are in the top 10. I agree that we should take something from foreign countries when it comes to pollution, but I think that learning from experience should be consistently applied.

Simple trial and error is not the type of governing I prefer, just like it is not the best way to live ones life, in my opinion. Although I think governing, like life, is about choices, I also think choices should be based on the most reasoned and logical analysis by those who are considered knowledgable on the issue. If we make our choices on that basis (as opposed to politics or emotion) and things do not work out as we had hoped, yes we should learn from those experiences.

[Dan Conner]

Simple trial and error is not the type of governing I prefer, just like it is not the best way to live ones life, in my opinion. Although I think governing, like life, is about choices, I also think choices should be based on the most reasoned and logical analysis by those who are considered knowledgable on the issue. If we make our choices on that basis (as opposed to politics or emotion) and things do not work out as we had hoped, yes we should learn from those experiences.I think you are missing the point if you think proposed changes are trial and error. It is as you have said, the process has been used by others. Also, venturing into a trial and error process is certainly better than languishing in a definitely bad system now. If it weren't for people willing to experiment and try the great unknown, the pioneer spirit would have been lost and we would probably still be the 13 original colonies. There is nothing that is done that can't be undone. It is a typical reactionary impulse that prevents us from change and progress. I think it is foolish to think that many of the reasoned proposed changes are arbitrary capricious. Many years of deliberation has gone into many of them. It is typical that opponents see proposed changes as unreasonable. Much like most all of the failed Bush changes, there might be some less than totally successful future legislation, but that can be tweaked like all the other legislation. However, the fear of the unknown and change should not stop progress. Without change our country will continue its global decline. We have to begin to compete and get off the thinking that everything we are doing is the best. It is plainly not. Japan has the world's second largest economy, with almost no mineral resources and having an area of about the size of California. They are prospering in Tokyo right now. The are new skyscrapers going up in every direction you look. I thought a very notable thing was that their raod are nearly flawless. I never saw one pothole, or even a significant bump. Their subway system was unbelievably efficient and huge. They were a vibrant and growing economy. Much better off than ours.

[Bob Jentges]

It seemed to me we may have drifted from the basic theme of this thread (Cap & Trade) so I decided to scroll back a few posts. I found the drift began in your post # 20 on Thursday when you introduced healthcare. You continued in the healthcare mode in your post #21 and from there the discussion seemed more about general philosophy than Cap & Trade.

Since it seems it will be some time before the U.S. Senate takes-up Cap & Trade legislation (if at all) I think I will suspend further posts for now with these opinions. First, sound science seems to support that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity is not a significant cause of "global warming". Second, Cap & Trade is not good for the consumer, the economy, and most likely will not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

[Dan Conner]

It seemed to me we may have drifted from the basic theme of this thread (Cap & Trade) so I decided to scroll back a few posts. I found the drift began in your post # 20 on Thursday when you introduced healthcare. You continued in the healthcare mode in your post #21 and from there the discussion seemed more about general philosophy than Cap & Trade.

Since it seems it will be some time before the U.S. Senate takes-up Cap & Trade legislation (if at all) I think I will suspend further posts for now with these opinions. First, sound science seems to support that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity is not a significant cause of "global warming". Second, Cap & Trade is not good for the consumer, the economy, and most likely will not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.Bob, you're pretty good at identifying theme drift and finding post numbers. I only wish you were as good at identifying environmental and healthcare problems in the US.

I was trying to point out the general opposition to change being a reactionary point of view, in the true sense. It is demonstrated by resistance to any substantive change/progress, particularly if others are helped at any inconvenience to others. It is a skepticism about new ideas with few ideas for alternatives. I guess, that way it is not necessary to "stake out any ground" about which to be criticized.

As far as "Cap and Trade" is concerned, I think most anything is better than the status-quo. Conservatives ideas are a barren field, but oh how fertile their criticism is. Pollution is getting worse and something needs to be done. Bad ideas can be changed or "tweaked." Of course change means a cost, but so will continued pollution. Unfortunately, it will be the following generations that pay that status-quo price with their health. But what the...they probably will be denied medical coverage because of pre-existing condition anyway. I guess that's the conservative way: hold ground no matter how bad things get.

[Bob Jentges]

It is next to impossible to have lived 72 years without having to have made many changes in my personal and professional endeavours.

I am always willing to consider change, but try to limit them to what I think will be change for the better. Fortunatly I have been right most of the time. If I was wrong, I changed. If that is not "the conservative way" I guess I need to consider changing how I describe my approach to life. Don't hold your breath!

But back to the theme of the thread i.e. Cap & Trade legislation. I read an article this morning where Blanche Lincoln, new Democrat Chairperson of the Senate Agticulture Committee, called Cap & Trade "a complete non-starter". Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid followed that by saying Cap & Trade may not be considered until "next year".

Hopefilly "next year" means never, because I doubt the Democrats will bring-up something as contraversial as Cap & Trade during an election year. Who knows what the make-up of Congress will be after the 2010 elections.

Maybe we should suspend further discussion until at least after the issue comes-up for debate in the Senate.

[Dan Conner]

It is next to impossible to have lived 72 years without having to have made many changes in my personal and professional endeavours.

I am always willing to consider change, but try to limit them to what I think will be change for the better. Fortunatly I have been right most of the time. If I was wrong, I changed. If that is not "the conservative way" I guess I need to consider changing how I describe my approach to life. Don't hold your breath!

But back to the theme of the thread i.e. Cap & Trade legislation. I read an article this morning where Blanche Lincoln, new Democrat Chairperson of the Senate Agticulture Committee, called Cap & Trade "a complete non-starter". Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid followed that by saying Cap & Trade may not be considered until "next year".

Hopefilly "next year" means never, because I doubt the Democrats will bring-up something as contraversial as Cap & Trade during an election year. Who knows what the make-up of Congress will be after the 2010 elections.

Maybe we should suspend further discussion until at least after the issue comes-up for debate in the Senate.That sounds good. As of now, it is pure speculation. It's getting your shirt in a bundle about something that hasn't been decided on yet. All I know is that pollution has to be reduced. If not through cap and trade, then through another less flexible way. This gets to more government regulation. Doing nothing is not a sound solution.

[Bob Jentges]

That sounds good. As of now, it is pure speculation. It's getting your shirt in a bundle about something that hasn't been decided on yet. All I know is that pollution has to be reduced. If not through cap and trade, then through another less flexible way. This gets to more government regulation. Doing nothing is not a sound solution.

If you recall, the House passed their Cap & Trade bill on a very close vote so their position on the matter has been decided.

I never said do nothing! You may not recall, but I have expressed the opinion that we need to continue to explore alternative sources of energy. Lets get at it and forget the Cap & Trade disaster.

[Dan Conner]

If you recall, the House passed their Cap & Trade bill on a very close vote so their position on the matter has been decided.

I never said do nothing! You may not recall, but I have expressed the opinion that we need to continue to explore alternative sources of energy. Lets get at it and forget the Cap & Trade disaster.Here you go again. In just twwo posts earlier you said you were not going to talk about this issue anymore, but here you go. It seems like a disconnect with what was said erlier, like many of the other posts.

And by the way who is "we" when you say we need to continue to explore alternative sources of energy? Since you think business is the panacea for all problems, then why haven't they explored that already? Could it be they don't care about the environment, if there is no money in it? You want to forget cap and trade and somehow wait for business to explore??? Come one, don't be so polyannish. Cap and trade should be a good place to start reducing pollution. Plus, it will be an opportunity for business to make money by reducing pollution. They should like that.

There are too many statements of "we" should do, but a gross lack of ideas about how "we" should do it. That is particularly bad, when the "we" proclaimers offer no alternative actions. It comes across as a typical reactionary response to change.

[Bob Jentges]

Just my attempt to get in the last word---for once!

Are you trying to tell me that no private businesses are exploring altermative sources of energy? What about wind turbines, solar panels, ethanol etc?

The "we" refers to the citizens of the USA.

[Dan Conner]

Just my attempt to get in the last word---for once!

Are you trying to tell me that no private businesses are exploring altermative sources of energy? What about wind turbines, solar panels, ethanol etc?

The "we" refers to the citizens of the USA.WOW! The last word is really important to you isn't it. You seem to be preoccupied with that now and in prior posts. It seems juvenile to me. When people announce they are terminating a debate/discussion, but don't because of an inclination to get the last word in, I believe that is an obsession to get the last word in.

As far as exploring alternative sources of energy is concerned, the "we" you use, apparently referring to businesses, is a joke. The US is behind other industrialized countries. Your wonderful businesses have not been exploring like they should have. In fact, the only manufacturers of wind turbines were in Europe. We had to import them. The ethanol alternative really is turning out to be a super bad idea. Ethanol is not energy efficient, considering that it takes more energy to make it than what we get out of it, and it has diverted needed corn crops from livestock feed and other food products. It is most of the European countries that are far ahead of us in alternative sources of energy. Not bad for a bunch of "commies", huh?

It's amazing how you cling to the infalibility of our country while we continue fall further and further behind most other industrialized nations. You want to continue that insanity doing the same things over and over again expecting a different result. We need to change bigtime, or our country with become a second-rate has been. Our country didn't respond to Sputnik by saying we were staying the course because we are so good. And we didn't land on the moon because we felt we were doing things fine already. We, like the tough, got going.

[Bob Jentges]

This is not going to be another all-day back and forth for me. I do not want to keep you from counting the "My plan" references on TV this morning.

If getting the last word is "juvenile" you might stop insisting you always get it.

I said the "we" referred to citizens of the USA. Since the federal government has not yet taken over all businesses in the USA and some are still owned by people, if you want to go ahead and extend the "we" to include businesses.

Implementing Cap & Trade would lead our country down the road to becomming a "second-rate has been", in the opinion of many experts. That is why it is doomed!

[Bob Jentges]

Why have Kerry & Boxer have changed the name of the bill without making many (if any) substantive changes in the bill?

According to the NY Times the Administration may not want the Senate to take-up the bill this year. If not this year I doubt something so contraversial will be taken-up during next years mid-term elections. If not next year, maybe the results of the election will have some effect on whether it is taken-up at all. I think it is dead, unless the Obama Administration can figure out a way to avoid Congress and have the EPA put it in effect through some administrative move.

In the meantime we need to continue to explore alternative sources of energy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/us/politics/03climate.htl

[Dan Conner]

This is not going to be another all-day back and forth for me. I do not want to keep you from counting the "My plan" references on TV this morning.

If getting the last word is "juvenile" you might stop insisting you always get it.

I said the "we" referred to citizens of the USA. Since the federal government has not yet taken over all businesses in the USA and some are still owned by people, if you want to go ahead and extend the "we" to include businesses.

Implementing Cap & Trade would lead our country down the road to becomming a "second-rate has been", in the opinion of many experts. That is why it is doomed!If you are using "we" to mean people of the US, then you should stop using the word. I am a citizen, along with millions of others, who vehemently disagree with you. I suggest you either find a better word to define what you mean or better explain what you say. You commonly mistate things and then have to clarify. Do it better the first time. The second paragraph is unintelligible.

I'm afraid I don't put alot of stock in your economic accumen. Your conservative ideas/leaders are what has got our country into its terrible "fix", and you seem to want to continue the failed ways. To forcast economic doom for something not yet implemented is reactionary and illogical. Stating Cap and Trade is doomed because "many economic experts" oipinionss say it will lead to the US becoming a "second-rate has been" is not persuasive. You better come up with somethin more authoritative and pervasicve than that.

[Bob Jentges]

If you are using "we" to mean people of the US, then you should stop using the word. I am a citizen, along with millions of others, who vehemently disagree with you. I suggest you either find a better word to define what you mean or better explain what you say. You commonly mistate things and then have to clarify. Do it better the first time. The second paragraph is unintelligible.

I'm afraid I don't put alot of stock in your economic accumen. Your conservative ideas/leaders are what has got our country into its terrible "fix", and you seem to want to continue the failed ways. To forcast economic doom for something not yet implemented is reactionary and illogical. Stating Cap and Trade is doomed because "many economic experts" oipinionss say it will lead to the US becoming a "second-rate has been" is not persuasive. You better come up with somethin more authoritative and pervasicve than that.

I consider your above quote something probably not worthy of a reply, but I had a satisfying lunch and have nothing other to do until the Twins game starts.

The final sentence in my post #33 (which was not addressed specifically to you) reads: "In the meantime we need to continue to explore alternative sources of energy". My use of the word "we" in the sentence/statment refered to more than one person, or people in general. It was not intended (nor was it stated) to mean anyone in particular, or everyone. If I had wanted to address anyone in particulae I would have addressed the post to that person, or at least named them in the post. If I had wanted to include everyone I probably would have used something like the phrase: all of us.

If you do not care to be included with the people in my use of the word "we" in the sentence/statment that is your prerogative. But to want to be excluded from those who think there is a "need to continue to explore alternative sources of energy" would be far out of the mainstream, in my opinion. I know plenty of people who do want to be included to make my use of the word in the sentence/statement appropriate.

Regarding your contention that my second paragraph is "unintelligible", if you are saying it is "unintelligible" to you I can understand. But I seriously doubt that it would be "unintelligible" to most that might happen to read it.

I do not know if you read the NY Times link in my post, but I simply expressed an opinion based on that article which opined that the Obama Administration would prefer the bill not be taken-up in the Senate this year. Obviously you can disagree with my opinion, but to insinuate the issue is not contraversial suggests to me you have not been following very closely.

Finally, taking a chance on being picky, the phrases you placed in quotation marks in your post #34 were not phrases I used in my post #33. They may have been used in posts prior to #33; I did not go back to look, but if they were I am reasonably certain you addressed them at that time whether they were my quotes or me quoting others.

[Dan Conner]

I consider your above quote something probably not worthy of a reply, but I had a satisfying lunch and have nothing other to do until the Twins game starts.

The final sentence in my post #33 (which was not addressed specifically to you) reads: "In the meantime we need to continue to explore alternative sources of energy". My use of the word "we" in the sentence/statment refered to more than one person, or people in general. It was not intended (nor was it stated) to mean anyone in particular, or everyone. If I had wanted to address anyone in particulae I would have addressed the post to that person, or at least named them in the post. If I had wanted to include everyone I probably would have used something like the phrase: all of us.

If you do not care to be included with the people in my use of the word "we" in the sentence/statment that is your prerogative. But to want to be excluded from those who think there is a "need to continue to explore alternative sources of energy" would be far out of the mainstream, in my opinion. I know plenty of people who do want to be included to make my use of the word in the sentence/statement appropriate.

Regarding your contention that my second paragraph is "unintelligible", if you are saying it is "unintelligible" to you I can understand. But I seriously doubt that it would be "unintelligible" to most that might happen to read it.

I do not know if you read the NY Times link in my post, but I simply expressed an opinion based on that article which opined that the Obama Administration would prefer the bill not be taken-up in the Senate this year. Obviously you can disagree with my opinion, but to insinuate the issue is not contraversial suggests to me you have not been following very closely.

Finally, taking a chance on being picky, the phrases you placed in quotation marks in your post #34 were not phrases I used in my post #33. They may have been used in posts prior to #33; I did not go back to look, but if they were I am reasonably certain you addressed them at that time whether they were my quotes or me quoting others.Oh, you are changing "we" to more than one now. Big change from people of the United States. I think you need to be clearer when you use words. You change your meaning like Hedda Hopper changes hats. Try to be clearer/more accurate the first time.

Also, you better start using clearer language. If "we" doesn't denote anyone, then I guess "you" doesn't either. In which case, why are you (Bob) getting your shirt in such a bundle? Seems pretty sensitive for my use of a nondirected term. I'll try to explain what I said in more specific terms. You are the one who thinks everything is fine and businesses have and will solve all our problems. You feel we are number one in everything and don't need to change. You are the one who thinks business holds the key to solve all our energy problems. Yet, it is business who has always had those opportunities/responsibilities. We are far far behind most developed countries in alternative energy. So, I guess business hasn't done too good up until now. They certainly need to bump up the pace to catch up.

Bob, you are getting seriously close to name calling in your third paragraph about "unintelligible."

I never read your post with the NY Times link. That isn't the post I referred to. Again, I don't know where you are coming from. I think you need to read your post in my reply. I think you are confused. You worry to much about post numbers instead of what you say.

[Bob Jentges]

Oh, you are changing "we" to more than one now. Big change from people of the United States. I think you need to be clearer when you use words. You change your meaning like Hedda Hopper changes hats. Try to be clearer/more accurate the first time.

Also, you better start using clearer language. If "we" doesn't denote anyone, then I guess "you" doesn't either. In which case, why are you (Bob) getting your shirt in such a bundle? Seems pretty sensitive for my use of a nondirected term. I'll try to explain what I said in more specific terms. You are the one who thinks everything is fine and businesses have and will solve all our problems. You feel we are number one in everything and don't need to change. You are the one who thinks business holds the key to solve all our energy problems. Yet, it is business who has always had those opportunities/responsibilities. We are far far behind most developed countries in alternative energy. So, I guess business hasn't done too good up until now. They certainly need to bump up the pace to catch up.

Bob, you are getting seriously close to name calling in your third paragraph about "unintelligible."

I never read your post with the NY Times link. That isn't the post I referred to. Again, I don't know where you are coming from. I think you need to read your post in my reply. I think you are confused. You worry to much about post numbers instead of what you say.

Although very little of what you say addresses any substance about Cap & Trade, in an attempt to make some sense out of your post for others (if there are any) still following the Forum I offer the following.

First, the word "we" can be interpruted in a number of ways, depending on the context in which it is used. The way I used it it could mean "We the people..." or people of the United States, people in general, etc. It would not be correct to construe it to mean just you and me, for reasons previously stated.

Second, the phrase I used was "anyone in particular". That is significantly different than your quote of just "anyone".

Third, my use of your word "unintelligible" was in the fourth paragraph of my post, not the third paragraph as you indicate. Regardless, you first suggested the second paragraph in a previous post of mine was "unintelligible". I interpruted that to mean you did not understand what it said. In responding I said I did not think it would be "unintelligible" to most that read it. If you think that is getting "seriously close to name calling", so be it.

Fourth, with respect to your final paragraph the NY Yimes link was the one I referrenced in my recent post. You said you did not read it. That is fine, but it might have been a good idea to read it before responding with a series of insults essentially unrelated to that link, rather than apparrently responding to some previous post way back when.

Finally, irrespective of your best efforts I am not confused yet. I heard there is a book currently #3 on the Amazon.com "any catagory" best seller list titled "Arguing with idiots". I am seriously considering buying it and taking a break from the Forum. That statement should not be construed as either a threat or a promise. I make it because it seems like you and me are almost the only ones left that contribute to the Forum, and I think I already know all I want to know about how you think and write.

[Dan Conner]

Although very little of what you say addresses any substance about Cap & Trade, in an attempt to make some sense out of your post for others (if there are any) still following the Forum I offer the following.

First, the word "we" can be interpruted in a number of ways, depending on the context in which it is used. The way I used it it could mean "We the people..." or people of the United States, people in general, etc. It would not be correct to construe it to mean just you and me, for reasons previously stated.

Second, the phrase I used was "anyone in particular". That is significantly different than your quote of just "anyone".

Third, my use of your word "unintelligible" was in the fourth paragraph of my post, not the third paragraph as you indicate. Regardless, you first suggested the second paragraph in a previous post of mine was "unintelligible". I interpruted that to mean you did not understand what it said. In responding I said I did not think it would be "unintelligible" to most that read it. If you think that is getting "seriously close to name calling", so be it.

Fourth, with respect to your final paragraph the NY Yimes link was the one I referrenced in my recent post. You said you did not read it. That is fine, but it might have been a good idea to read it before responding with a series of insults essentially unrelated to that link, rather than apparrently responding to some previous post way back when.

Finally, irrespective of your best efforts I am not confused yet. I heard there is a book currently #3 on the Amazon.com "any catagory" best seller list titled "Arguing with idiots". I am seriously considering buying it and taking a break from the Forum. That statement should not be construed as either a threat or a promise. I make it because it seems like you and me are almost the only ones left that contribute to the Forum, and I think I already know all I want to know about how you think and write.Well I see you are at the name calling again. I won't go into the book you plan to purchase. I first think you need to start with a dictionary. Your use of the word context is another poor use of the word. Here you are writing to me, using the word "we" and you talk about context? What would you think? You are the one who gets upset about the use of unintelligible? Then you use a veiled name-calling effort using idiots? Bob, you need to practice what you preach.

As for Cap and Trade, you re the typical man-on-the-street forcasting doom, when you neither have that ability or education. You are simply mouthing some reactionary extremeist who knows little except a hate toward the President and other progressives. Probably because of some unfounded fear of the socialist boogey man. Basically, it comes down to someone who has bought into the fear of anything but capitalism. It is also someone thoroughly propagandized to fear exerything but what they have. The most disturbing thing to all that is, our system is failing and, failing badly. Sound reasoning indicates we are, and have been, proceeding in the wrong economic direction. There are more and more indications our system of capitalism is failing us, but you continue to cling to it, as if it was some kind of security blanket. That might have worked in the Charlie Brown cartoon, but not in our economy.

I believe we have to be open minded to new ideas for the future, not stuck in the past because of fears of the unknown. Our country has lost a lot of economic clout over the years, and it will continue if we don't change directions. Hoarding wealth, health benefits, and other personal items will never elevate our country in the world of nations. Selfishness and greed are not stated national values, so get off them and think about values that will enable all the people to thrive and prosper. This will lead to growth of our country. Divided we fail.

I won't get into your Amazon purchase, but I think it is just another personal attack obfuscating your arguement.

[Bob Jentges]

The link below espouses what I have been opining in this Forum and letters to the editor of The Free Press and Star Tribune for months i.e. human causes of global warming N/K/A climate change are miniscule at best, and the entire issue is a fraud based on a myth.

This should not be a partisan issue. It should be based on science, fiscal responsibility and common sense But the progressive envitomental extremists in Congress continue their attempt to shove a Cap & Trade bill (I do not recall off-hand the new title they attempted to put on the bill) that will significantly increase energy costs to to families and business over the next decade at least, down our throats.

http://townhall.com/columnists/DebraJSaunders/2009/10/13/what_happened_to_global_warming?page=full

[Dan Conner]

The link below espouses what I have been opining in this Forum and letters to the editor of The Free Press and Star Tribune for months i.e. human causes of global warming N/K/A climate change are miniscule at best, and the entire issue is a fraud based on a myth.

This should not be a partisan issue. It should be based on science, fiscal responsibility and common sense But the progressive envitomental extremists in Congress continue their attempt to shove a Cap & Trade bill (I do not recall off-hand the new title they attempted to put on the bill) that will significantly increase energy costs to to families and business over the next decade at least, down our throats.

http://townhall.com/columnists/DebraJSaunders/2009/10/13/what_happened_to_global_warming?page=fullI think you have a long way to go to prove your point that human causes of global warming is a "fraud based on a myth."

You're right it shouldn't be a partisan issue. It is a scientific one. When the issue was raised and established by renowned scientists, Democrats supported it and committed to stop it. It was the Republicans who reacted to this in a partisan way. Republicans politically REACTED to the evidence, not Democrats. Also, using an extreme right wing internet link to prove your point is hardly credible. I think you need to find scientific, not political, evidence refuting global warming. Then, that needs to be evaluated and compared to the preponderance of evidence. Your right wing URL doesn't do that. It's more "just say no" stuff.

Here's some non-political evidence showing it is for real and significantl;y contributed to by man: http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm

[Matt Christianson]

here's an interesting fount of info..

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37AE6E96-802A-23AD-4C8A-EDF6D8150789

[Dan Conner]

here's an interesting fount of info..

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37AE6E96-802A-23AD-4C8A-EDF6D8150789I thought very interesting, but not any game changer. I thought it amusing the paper mentioned that the UN started the 10-year environmental alarm 9 years before Gore. So, I guess they felt it was even more urgent. That bolsters Gore's concerns. Certainly, predicting such a large scale event should not be expected to be so precise.

Then, I thought it was more amusing showing that the refuting evidence was released in a minority (Republican) report from Congress. While I only read to the first contributor in the report (Russia), I thought there is an obvious bias against global warming, knowing that Russia is just getting into tapping its vast oil reserves. They are hardly motivated to have countries get off fossil fuels. I think there needs to be better evidence than this to refute global warming.

[Dan Conner]

The link below espouses what I have been opining in this Forum and letters to the editor of The Free Press and Star Tribune for months i.e. human causes of global warming N/K/A climate change are miniscule at best, and the entire issue is a fraud based on a myth.

This should not be a partisan issue. It should be based on science, fiscal responsibility and common sense But the progressive envitomental extremists in Congress continue their attempt to shove a Cap & Trade bill (I do not recall off-hand the new title they attempted to put on the bill) that will significantly increase energy costs to to families and business over the next decade at least, down our throats.

http://townhall.com/columnists/DebraJSaunders/2009/10/13/what_happened_to_global_warming?page=fullBob, I think you should read the attached link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/another-company-may-leave_n_319782.html

The Chamber of Commerce championing your position that global warming is a myth is losing many big names from his membership. They all disagree with the ridiculous Chamber of Commerce global warming position. They don't feel global warming is a myth.

Also, very interestingly, the article states that the vast majority of scientist attest to the fact that global warming is man-made and a danger to global environment. I think it is foolish to continue sticking your head into the sand. Hey Bob, try some change, it might be good for you.

[Bob Jentges]

The NPR website recently had an article indicating the Kyoto climate treaty is "dead" after it expires in 2012. What will replace it is apparrantly to be discussed in Copenhagen this December. But according to NPR it will almost certainly not be globally binding, which to me means it will be feckless.

Looks like their may be some "change" comming soon, but it may not involve the USA. The overwhelming concensus seems to be the U.S. Senate will not take-up global warming/climate change/Clean Air Act legislation this year before Copenhagen. If so, who will we send to Copenhagen; what will they say; we have good intentions?

[Dan Conner]

The NPR website recently had an article indicating the Kyoto climate treaty is "dead" after it expires in 2012. What will replace it is apparrantly to be discussed in Copenhagen this December. But according to NPR it will almost certainly not be globally binding, which to me means it will be feckless.

Looks like their may be some "change" comming soon, but it may not involve the USA. The overwhelming concensus seems to be the U.S. Senate will not take-up global warming/climate change/Clean Air Act legislation this year before Copenhagen. If so, who will we send to Copenhagen; what will they say; we have good intentions?Yes, many other participants in the Kyoto treaty stated it would probably fail because the world's biggest polluter, the US, refused to join in. I can't think of a situation when the UN, or other world organizations, could make pollution requirements binding. There is really no provision for enforcement. It has to be a consensus decision.

We have attempted numerous trade embargos on many countries and they have generally all failed. Other countries still trade behind the scenes. We have done that too. Remember President Reagan traded missiles to Iran during an embargo?

I think it is likely that the US will have far better intentions about complying with global pollution standards. Obama has repeatedly voiced his support for it.

[Bob Jentges]

Yes, many other participants in the Kyoto treaty stated it would probably fail because the world's biggest polluter, the US, refused to join in. I can't think of a situation when the UN, or other world organizations, could make pollution requirements binding. There is really no provision for enforcement. It has to be a consensus decision.

We have attempted numerous trade embargos on many countries and they have generally all failed. Other countries still trade behind the scenes. We have done that too. Remember President Reagan traded missiles to Iran during an embargo?

I think it is likely that the US will have far better intentions about complying with global pollution standards. Obama has repeatedly voiced his support for it.

Yes, Koyoto was a treaty. Treaties entered into by our Executative branch of government must be approved by the U.S. Senate with a 2/3 vote. In spite of Vice President Al Gore the Clinton Administration did not even submit Koyoto to the Senate for a vote because they knew it would not pass. I do not know if what comes out of Copenhagen in December will be in the form of a treaty but if it is I doubt the Obama Administration will submit it to the Senate for a vote for the same reason the Clinton Administration did not. So as I said previously, as far as the USA is concerned whatever comes out of Copenhagen will be "feckless".

I am not overly concerned about Copenhagen and I am becomming less concerned about Cap & Trade A/K/A The Clean Air Act as time passes. But the global warming/climate change hoax is still interesting to follow, because the more time passes what proponents had been referring to as "settled science" becomes less and less settled.

[Dan Conner]

Yes, Koyoto was a treaty. Treaties entered into by our Executative branch of government must be approved by the U.S. Senate with a 2/3 vote. In spite of Vice President Al Gore the Clinton Administration did not even submit Koyoto to the Senate for a vote because they knew it would not pass. I do not know if what comes out of Copenhagen in December will be in the form of a treaty but if it is I doubt the Obama Administration will submit it to the Senate for a vote for the same reason the Clinton Administration did not. So as I said previously, as far as the USA is concerned whatever comes out of Copenhagen will be "feckless".

I am not overly concerned about Copenhagen and I am becomming less concerned about Cap & Trade A/K/A The Clean Air Act as time passes. But the global warming/climate change hoax is still interesting to follow, because the more time passes what proponents had been referring to as "settled science" becomes less and less settled.Hey Bob, you neglect to mention that it was George W. Bush that rejected Kyoto. He said the US did not want to join in the treaty, let alone submit it for vote.

[Bob Jentges]

Hey Bob, you neglect to mention that it was George W. Bush that rejected Kyoto. He said the US did not want to join in the treaty, let alone submit it for vote.

I did not mention President Geo. W. Bush in my post because the Kyoto Protocol was initially adopted in 1997 when Bill Clinton was President. The USA was a non-member then for reasons stated in my previous post.

But you are correct in that Bush did not sign after he became President, before Kyoto went into effect in 2005.

I am betting President Obama will break the string this December, but whether he can get the 2/3 approval vote in the U.S. Senate after that is doubtful. Maybe he will try to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, which established a Representative Republic, not a Dictatorship.

But circumventing the Constitution would be nothing new for those we elect to represent us, and who take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They have been treating the Constitution as an operation guide or suggestion manual for decades!

[Dan Conner]

I did not mention President Geo. W. Bush in my post because the Kyoto Protocol was initially adopted in 1997 when Bill Clinton was President. The USA was a non-member then for reasons stated in my previous post.

But you are correct in that Bush did not sign after he became President, before Kyoto went into effect in 2005.

I am betting President Obama will break the string this December, but whether he can get the 2/3 approval vote in the U.S. Senate after that is doubtful. Maybe he will try to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, which established a Representative Republic, not a Dictatorship.

But circumventing the Constitution would be nothing new for those we elect to represent us, and who take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They have been treating the Constitution as an operation guide or suggestion manual for decades!I think you are worrying needlessly here. You worry about Constitutionality with Obama is President? He was a Constitutional Law professor. So far, he has even tried to work with the Congress in a bi-partisan way to get important legislation passed. Far more than GW Bush did. Bush frequently used whatever method he could ge by with to ram things through Congress. I think Obama has been more than collegial. I agree circumventing the Constitution was frequently practiced by Bush. There were Habeas corpus, free speech, vetos of fragments of bills, illegal spying, torture, and on and on. I think we need to be concerned about Constitutional infractions when either party does it unless it erodes our credibility.

[Bob Jentges]

"...unless it erodes our credibility"???

[Dan Conner]

"...unless it erodes our credibility"???

Yes, being only concerned about Constitutional issues when opne party is in office, and not the other shows only political bias, not credibility. Hopefully, it doesn't show racial bias, but certainly political bias. If there is no attempt at objective reasoning and analysis, then there is no credibility. If you are aware of unconstitutional acts committed by Obama, then enumerate them. I can't think of any, but maybe you can illuminate me.

[Bob Jentges]

Yes, being only concerned about Constitutional issues when opne party is in office, and not the other shows only political bias, not credibility. Hopefully, it doesn't show racial bias, but certainly political bias. If there is no attempt at objective reasoning and analysis, then there is no credibility. If you are aware of unconstitutional acts committed by Obama, then enumerate them. I can't think of any, but maybe you can illuminate me.

I said: "Maybe he will try...". But your above post does not address my question about your "...unless it erodes our credibility" remark! Do you intend to retract it?

[Dan Conner]

I said: "Maybe he will try...". But your above post does not address my question about your "...unless it erodes our credibility" remark! Do you intend to retract it?No, I meant what I said. Being so totally biased as to lose objectivity, does and should erode credibility.

[Dan Conner]

I did not mention President Geo. W. Bush in my post because the Kyoto Protocol was initially adopted in 1997 when Bill Clinton was President. The USA was a non-member then for reasons stated in my previous post.

But you are correct in that Bush did not sign after he became President, before Kyoto went into effect in 2005.

I am betting President Obama will break the string this December, but whether he can get the 2/3 approval vote in the U.S. Senate after that is doubtful. Maybe he will try to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, which established a Representative Republic, not a Dictatorship.

But circumventing the Constitution would be nothing new for those we elect to represent us, and who take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They have been treating the Constitution as an operation guide or suggestion manual for decades!

Your statement really intrigues me. Since Clinton was President when the protocol was adopted by the UN, Clinton is at fault for not adopting it? That's a stretch beyond the breaking point. The protocol was not opened for agreement (signatures) until the spring of 1998. The last country to sign on was in 2005. In fact, the Clinton Administration did support the treaty, but never got it to a vote before the elections. Bush not only didn't bring it to a vote, he rejected it as poor science. He refused to sign it. This obviated a Congressional vote. Bob, I'm afraid Bush is the one responsible for our failure to support the Kyoto Protocol.

[Bob Jentges]

No, I meant what I said. Being so totally biased as to lose objectivity, does and should erode credibility.

I see you slipped the "race card" in your post #51. I am not interested in going there!

I went back and read the final sentance in your post #49 and do not see how that could be construed to mean anything even close to the final sentance in your post quoted above.

Regarding your post #54, I stand by what I said in my post # 46.

All this rapid fire jumping from post to post to try to make sense of what you seem to be TRYING to tell me has helped me decide to sign-off for today

[Dan Conner]

I see you slipped the "race card" in your post #51. I am not interested in going there!

I went back and read the final sentance in your post #49 and do not see how that could be construed to mean anything even close to the final sentance in your post quoted above.

Regarding your post #54, I stand by what I said in my post # 46.

All this rapid fire jumping from post to post to try to make sense of what you seem to be TRYING to tell me has helped me decide to sign-off for todayI see you dodge a discussion you are unable to win Bob. You might be interested to know that only 20% claim to be Republicans today and only 19% feel Republicans are doing a good job in Congress. Not very good news for your reactionary agenda.

[Dan Conner]

I did not mention President Geo. W. Bush in my post because the Kyoto Protocol was initially adopted in 1997 when Bill Clinton was President. The USA was a non-member then for reasons stated in my previous post.

But you are correct in that Bush did not sign after he became President, before Kyoto went into effect in 2005.

I am betting President Obama will break the string this December, but whether he can get the 2/3 approval vote in the U.S. Senate after that is doubtful. Maybe he will try to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, which established a Representative Republic, not a Dictatorship.

But circumventing the Constitution would be nothing new for those we elect to represent us, and who take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They have been treating the Constitution as an operation guide or suggestion manual for decades!More fear mongering Bob? Circumventing the Constitution? Before dropping these little false rhetorical "bombs", why don't you offer some examples of all this circumvention? I think this is just playing to fear with no proof. It's making irresponsible statements unrelated to reality. In a previous post you said, "But circumventing the Constitution would be nothing new for those we elect to represent us, and who take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They have been treating the Constitution as an operation guide or suggestion manual for decades!"

I think you need to offer evidence of this or you are simply engaging in fear mongering and irresponsible rhetoric. I would ask that you tone down the hyperbole and stick to the facts in an issue. There is no use in playing to the emotions of the reader, especially if what you say is not true.

[Bob Jentges]

More fear mongering Bob? Circumventing the Constitution? Before dropping these little false rhetorical "bombs", why don't you offer some examples of all this circumvention? I think this is just playing to fear with no proof. It's making irresponsible statements unrelated to reality. In a previous post you said, "But circumventing the Constitution would be nothing new for those we elect to represent us, and who take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They have been treating the Constitution as an operation guide or suggestion manual for decades!"

I think you need to offer evidence of this or you are simply engaging in fear mongering and irresponsible rhetoric. I would ask that you tone down the hyperbole and stick to the facts in an issue. There is no use in playing to the emotions of the reader, especially if what you say is not true.

The examples are numerous, including many social engineering programs.

Regarding my: "But circumventing the Constitution...They have been treating..." remarks, you might read Paul Bade's letter to the editor in The Free Press this morning. He suggests they are trying it again through another social engineering program. I and I hope many, many others agree with him even though what we the prople think does not seem to make much difference to some elected officials. But fortunatly we the people will have the last word (yourself in this Forum excluded) next election cycle.

[Dan Conner]

The examples are numerous, including many social engineering programs.

Regarding my: "But circumventing the Constitution...They have been treating..." remarks, you might read Paul Bade's letter to the editor in The Free Press this morning. He suggests they are trying it again through another social engineering program. I and I hope many, many others agree with him even though what we the prople think does not seem to make much difference to some elected officials. But fortunatly we the people will have the last word (yourself in this Forum excluded) next election cycle.WOW!! More wild unsubstantiated charges! I could care less about a letter to the editor. Afterall, you and I could write those too. And what "social engineering" program are you talking about, and what is your proof that it is unconstitutional? I think you are showing you reactioanry colors here. You seem to resent change. And you're right, the next election will be yours and my opportunity to make our choices. However, I think you better pay more attention to the polls and less to one letter to the editor. Gallup polled the public, finding 57% of the pulbic want a "public option". And almost all of those people want the "public option" without working with the Republicans in a bipartisan fashion. Also, only 20% of the people will admit they are Republicans and only 19% feel Republicans are doing a good job in Congress.

You're right Bob. People will decide in the next election and I seriously doubt Republicans will benefit from it. Meanwhile, you can continue your baseless fear-mongering statements that our Congresspersons are acting unconstitutionally. It's just another shrill attack from a person far out on the reactionary right of the political fringe. I think you better check again and see where your plurality is.

[Dan Conner]

Bob, I waiting to hear from you about all the unconstitutional things our Congress is doing. You're still avoiding the topic. Don't make rash and irresponsible statements without proof.

[Matt Christianson]

Since the Gallup polling data is being thrown around I thought this might interest everyone

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123497/Parties-Nearly-Tied-Congress-2010.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123491/Approval-Congress-Falls-21-Driven-Democrats.aspx

The last survey is especially interesting. Congressional Democrats approval rating fell 18 percentage point from September to October

[Dan Conner]

Since the Gallup polling data is being thrown around I thought this might interest everyone

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123497/Parties-Nearly-Tied-Congress-2010.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123491/Approval-Congress-Falls-21-Driven-Democrats.aspx

The last survey is especially interesting. Congressional Democrats approval rating fell 18 percentage point from September to OctoberYes, but that is still more than 20 points higher than Republicans.

[Dan Conner]

The examples are numerous, including many social engineering programs.

Regarding my: "But circumventing the Constitution...They have been treating..." remarks, you might read Paul Bade's letter to the editor in The Free Press this morning. He suggests they are trying it again through another social engineering program. I and I hope many, many others agree with him even though what we the prople think does not seem to make much difference to some elected officials. But fortunatly we the people will have the last word (yourself in this Forum excluded) next election cycle.So far Bob, you haven't even given one example. I think you know not what you are talking about. You use hyperbole without knowing anything specifically. If you can't lay out one unconstitutional instnace, you are just dabbling in paranoia. You just copntinue to make baseless claims without proof. It's like I said before, you just deal from emotional fear. There is no reasoned thaought there.

Unless you want to turn your arguem,ent into a fairytale, I suggest you substantiate your fears.

[Matt Christianson]

I don't think the rest of us know what the subject it any longer. Unconstitutional in what regard? Cap and trade? Healthcare? Or things done in general the last few months?

[Bob Jentges]

I don't think the rest of us know what the subject it any longer. Unconstitutional in what regard? Cap and trade? Healthcare? Or things done in general the last few months?

Matt, I think this all started from a general comment in my post #48 in the Cap & Trade thread yesterday. But Dan has chased me through at least two other threads until I finally decided to start a seperate thread i.e. "Uncondititional Acts of Congress", this morning. The last time I checked that thread there had been no "Replies", even though Dan posed his question to me again, about an hour ago.

Also Matt, I think a correct reading of the two Gallop Polls you cited earlier would be: 1) In the generic poll 46% would vote Democrat and 44% would vote Republican. 2) 9% of Republicans polled approve of the job Congress is doing; 36% of Democrats polled approve; 21% of all those polled approve. But it does not surprise me that my friend Dan might misinterpret the results!

Maybe someone did a Google search on "Obama unconstitutional acts" and is studying the opinions of what that writer wrote, which I am not necessarrily endorsing in there entireity. Moreover, none of the Obama acts the writer mentions have been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court yet, and who knows if any of them will ever be challanged.

[Dan Conner]

Matt, I think this all started from a general comment in my post #48 in the Cap & Trade thread yesterday. But Dan has chased me through at least two other threads until I finally decided to start a seperate thread i.e. "Uncondititional Acts of Congress", this morning. The last time I checked that thread there had been no "Replies", even though Dan posed his question to me again, about an hour ago.

Also Matt, I think a correct reading of the two Gallop Polls you cited earlier would be: 1) In the generic poll 46% would vote Democrat and 44% would vote Republican. 2) 9% of Republicans polled approve of the job Congress is doing; 36% of Democrats polled approve; 21% of all those polled approve. But it does not surprise me that my friend Dan might misinterpret the results!

Maybe someone did a Google search on "Obama unconstitutional acts" and is studying the opinions of what that writer wrote, which I am not necessarrily endorsing in there entireity. Moreover, none of the Obama acts the writer mentions have been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court yet, and who knows if any of them will ever be challanged.Bob, you were the one who accused the Congress of repeatedly acting in an unconstitutional way. I asked for some evidence to establish your paranoia was valid and you haven't offered anything. You made a typical fippant inflamatory statement with little to no truth and you are ashamed or incpable of admitting error. You are so loaded with fear and prejudice you are unable to see anything but black helicopters. This is a quote from you in post #48:

"But circumventing the Constitution would be nothing new for those we elect to represent us, and who take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They have been treating the Constitution as an operation guide or suggestion manual for decades!"

This is a pretty uninformed and paranoid statement. I suggest you have something to back up your uninformed accusations before you make them. Your don't have much credibility. And I'll continue to followup one this subject until you give a competent answer because it has a common thread through all your posts.

[Matt Christianson]

Matt, I think this all started from a general comment in my post #48 in the Cap & Trade thread yesterday. But Dan has chased me through at least two other threads until I finally decided to start a seperate thread i.e. "Uncondititional Acts of Congress", this morning. The last time I checked that thread there had been no "Replies", even though Dan posed his question to me again, about an hour ago.

Also Matt, I think a correct reading of the two Gallop Polls you cited earlier would be: 1) In the generic poll 46% would vote Democrat and 44% would vote Republican. 2) 9% of Republicans polled approve of the job Congress is doing; 36% of Democrats polled approve; 21% of all those polled approve. But it does not surprise me that my friend Dan might misinterpret the results!

Maybe someone did a Google search on "Obama unconstitutional acts" and is studying the opinions of what that writer wrote, which I am not necessarrily endorsing in there entireity. Moreover, none of the Obama acts the writer mentions have been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court yet, and who knows if any of them will ever be challanged.

My fault with the 2nd poll. I misread it.

[Bob Jentges]

Getting back to the theme of this thread, it looks doubtful many, if any countries will be signing a climate change treaty at Copenhagen this December. Apparrantly President Obama has deciced not to attend.

http://www.co.uk/tel/news/enviroment/article6888165.ece

Now all that needs to be done is wake-up Congress with respect to the damage their Cap & Trade/Clean Air..., or what ever title they have assigned it now will cause to the United States consumers and economy.

[Bob Jentges]

I understand the Senate Committee on Enviroment and Public Works intends to begin hearings on the Kerry/Boxer version of Cap & Trade this week. Their version would seek to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83% by 2050. I heard an interview with renound Climatologist Patrick Michael of UVA and Cato Institute this morning in which he said that would take us back to the 1867 level. I am old but not old enough to have lived in 1867, however, I am not interested in returning to that economy or standard of living. I probably will not be on earth in 2050 but if I were that would be too much "change" for me!

If you are interested in what many consider sound science on global warming/climate change you might try reading some of what Richard Lenzen of MIT,whom many think is the most respected expert on the subject, has written.

[Bob Jentges]

From what I have been reading over the past few weeks there may be serious questions about anything of any significance happening at Copenhagen next month. The reason---further study by scientists suggest the human caused climate change claims can not be supported by findings.

The most recent article I have read is from the 11/12 telegraph.co.uk by scientist Ian Pilmer. He opines that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a natural phenomenen and not responsible for climate change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6553592/Climate-change-sceptic-Ian-Pilmer-argues-CO2-is-not-causing-global-warming.html

The Boxer/Kerry bill has passed out of committee (without any Republican support) but it almost certainly not be called up for Senate floor debate this year, if ever!

[Bob Jentges]

Recent news is that there will be no legally binding agreement signing in Copenhagen this December. I doubt that is because many of the UN representatives have come to their senses, but more likely because they learned developing countries i.e. countries interested in growing their economies and improving their citizens standard of living, will not agree unless the developed countries give them billions/trillions to improve their emission technology.

In a related matter John Kerry said the Kerry/Boxer Clean Air Act A/K/A Cap & Trade, will "wait until next year".

The economy is certainly not good, but at least politicians will not be taking actions to make it worse, in the immediate future.

[Bob Jentges]

Since my 11/17 post #71, yesterday I read an interesting article by Nigel Lawson in the UK Times titled: "Copenhagen will fail---and quite right too".

Also last week there was an interesting exchange in the Senate Energy Committee on the America Clean Act A/K/A Cap & Trade between ranking member James Inhoff (D OK), and Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D CA). Boxer was complaining her bill would not be called for floor debate until late next year. (some say it will not be called at all) Inhoff told her: "You lost; get over it". Not very collegial, but in my opinion neither Boxer or Inhoff are very collegial toward each other.

More interesting to me were articles in the NY Times and Washington Post yesterday with evidence that scientists promoting the pro human caused global warming theory may have been less than forthright with the media in the battle to influence public perception on global warming/climate change. In addition there is evidence some of these same scientists may have attempted to prevent some major science publications from publishing articles by skeptics. Pat O'Connor for one.

Makes one wonder if a large part of the scientific community is corrupt. Science based on flawed models is junk science. No science, especially "junk science", base on consensus is fact science.

These were articles in the NY Times and Washington Post, not exactly extreme right-wing publications. Day's have passed and CBS, ABC, and NBC TV have been silent on what some have said might be the greatest scandal in modern science.

I have been writing for month's that in my opinion this has been a fraud based on a hoax. Is Al Gore available for an interview?

[Bob Jentges]

Interesting!

http://americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html

Nothing from mainstream media TV yet i.e. ABC, CBS, NBC. They seem to be busy covering last nights State Dinner Menu, Sea Lions, Pete the Moose, etc., as President Obama makes plans to attend the climate conference in Copenhagen

[Matt Christianson]

It occured to me tonight while listening to BBC Worldwide on my way home that the data sets concerning CO2 concentrations are collected primarily on the top of Mauna Loa, a CO2 belching highly active volcano in Hawaii, a highly active volcanic island. Now I do not claim to be a scientist but doesn't this seem like the last place one would want to collect accurate CO2 data?

[Dan Conner]

I thought this was very interesting article about the global warming debate:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html

[Dan Conner]

I thought these were very interesting articles about the global warming debate:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/jon-stewart-on-climategat_n_376672.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/colbert-talks-copenhagen_n_375465.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/climategate-phil-jones-uk_n_375670.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/green/

[Matt Christianson]

That is not a source for reliable unbiased info. The Huffington Post is more slanted than Fox News in terms of credible reporting only from the point of view from the far left.

[Dan Conner]

That is not a source for reliable unbiased info. The Huffington Post is more slanted than Fox News in terms of credible reporting only from the point of view from the far left.While I differ from your opinion about Huffington, I suggest you read if for the facts contained therein. Also, it links to other sites. The object here is to learn from the facts and try to filter out the propaganda.

P.S. It is not more slanted than FOX. It tries to report the news, not make it.

[Bob Jentges]

Seems to me the global warming hoax has been fully exposed over the past few months. Putin recently said he fears global cooling but you probably would too if you lived in Russia!

If you think the founder of the weather channel might be a credible source on the topic, here is a web site you might find of interest while you enjoy the "January thaw".

http://www.kusi.weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html

[Bob Jentges]

I heard Harry Reid say the Senate would be moving ahead with Cap & Trade (or did he call it an energy bill) this year. I am not sure I heard him correctly, or that he did not misspeak, but I can not imagine taking up Cap & Trade, which if passed into law would most likely bankrupt the country, during an election year because:

---It barely passed the House of Representatives (and may not if voted on again today) and seemingly has more resistance in the Senate than it had in the House.

---The vaunted U. N. Copenhagen Conference produced essentially nothing.

---Significant human caused global warming/climate change has effectivly been exposed as a hoax.

But fear not enviromental extremists, the EPA is apparrently moving toward arbitrarily setting global warming regulations which could be the most expensive and expansive enviromental regulations in history.

Rather than taking up Cap & Trade Congress might better serve Americans by amending the Clean Air Act to prevent the unelected bureaucrats in the EPA from usurping Congress' power.

[Bob Jentges]

It seems to me the great majority of people, except possibly Democrats in Congess, think Cap & Trade is and should be dead. The EPA had been considering by-passing Congress and regulating carbon dioxide emissions, but I understand they are putting that on the back burner in hopes somehow Congress can push Cap & Trade through because it has significantly more oppertunity for tax increases than simply regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Your government at work for your best interests.

Here is an informative article by Michael Barone about the global warming science hoax.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/How-climate-change-fanatics-corrupted-science-85396362.html

[Bob Jentges]

Interesting article in The American Thinker this morning titled "The end if the IPCC". Before being to reactive I recommend you read the credentials of the auther, Fred Singer PhD.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_end_of_the_ipcc.html

In The Hill paper this morning Senator Jim De Mint said something to the effect: It will not stop snowing in Washington D.C. until Al Gore cries "uncle". That's a joke , Dan

[Bob Jentges]

Two of those in the forefront of the erronous IPCC report, lead author John Christy and Phil Jones the scientist at the center of the row, have now changed their positions. They say temperature records do not support any global warming since 1995. I think the end of this hoax is near.

But that does not seem to have any effect on Senator John Kerry (D MA) who insists he will try to get the Cap & Trade (or whatever the Democrats are calling it now) before the Senate this year. He seems determined to increase the average anual cost of energy for U.S. people by $875/$1875 per household. Indications are that Kerry is fighting a losing battle.

Additionally, President Obama apparrantly is asking the EPA to put forth a regulation limiting Carbon Dioxide emissions. Representative Colin Peterson (D MN) has a bill which I beleive would prevent such action by the EPA.

The amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is miniscule (less than 1% I think) and is essentially harmless according to many scientists. Humans exhale it, and it is good for plant growth.

Stop the madness until a credible full and indepentent scientific investigation of climate data can be gathered and evaluated.

[Dan Conner]

There are some of us who are very concerned with what type of world we are leaving for the next generation. If more of a sacrifice (tax, higher cost for fuel oil) from me can benefit them, I will try to give it.

"Think not forever of yourselves, O Chiefs, nor of your own generation. Think of continuing generations of our families, think of our grandchildren and of those yet unborn, whose faces are coming from beneath the ground."

Eliot, T. S. on PeaceRight on Ellen. There are too many selfish people in our country promoting the "me-me" attitude. Jentges is one of the flagrant ones. Don't worry though. He makes sure he can get all he can out of the system. He reminds me of the recent exposure of Rep. Aaron Schock, Republican from Illinois, who voted against and publicly condemned the stimulus bill, but was at a ribbon cutting for a major project in Illinois, paid for by that bill, touting what a great thing it was for the State of Illinois. It's called hypocrisy, and there seems to be no shortage of it among Republicans. They say they care about people, but want to continue the dying for lack of health insurance. I guess they have theirs.

[Bob Jentges]

I too am concerned with what type of world we are leaving for the next generation, but I am not convinced the House Cap & Trade bill would be a positive move toward that end, all considered. Without even considering the damage the bill as written could do to the economy, it almost certainly would not decrease "pollution"; it would simply transfer the right to pollute from one to another, for a price.

Other countries that have tried something similar e.g. New Zealand, Australia, Sweden and others in Europe have not been impressed and are moving away from the idea.

Most Americans and most members of Congress understand Cap & Trade is a bad idea. The only way the majority was able to get it passed in the House was by running roughshod over the minority through deceit, a lack of transparency, and the majority leadership offerring earmarks to members for their respective districts, in exchange for their vote.

I, like almost every American, support a clean enviroment uncluding development of alternative sources of energy where they make sense.

For some background and possibly clarification, above you will find my July 10, 2009 reply to Ellen's July 9, 2009 post that Dan quoted yesterday. Although he did not reply to Ellen's post until yesterday (February 15, 2010), he did briefly reply to my September 17, 2009 post, which was his first activity in this thread.

Back to the exchange between Ellen and me, Ellen replied to my above quoted post the same day. Included in her remarks were: "Bob: Then you and I agree on the ultimate concern--protection of our future generations...We also agree: alternative sources of energy must be developed...".

[Dan Conner]

For some background and possibly clarification, above you will find my July 10, 2009 reply to Ellen's July 9, 2009 post that Dan quoted yesterday. Although he did not reply to Ellen's post until yesterday (February 15, 2010), he did briefly reply to my September 17, 2009 post, which was his first activity in this thread.

Back to the exchange between Ellen and me, Ellen replied to my above quoted post the same day. Included in her remarks were: "Bob: Then you and I agree on the ultimate concern--protection of our future generations...We also agree: alternative sources of energy must be developed...".Man you are observant Bob. You should be the Forum archivist. You probably would do best at that.

[Dennis Mikkelson]

Man you are observant Bob. You should be the Forum archivist. You probably would do best at that.

does govt. spending cause inflation? If so are poor hurt the most?

[Dan Conner]

does govt. spending cause inflation? If so are poor hurt the most?Of course it does. ANY SPENDING by ANYONE causes inflation.

[Bob Jentges]

does govt. spending cause inflation? If so are poor hurt the most?

Although I am not certain your questions are relevant to this Cap & Trade thread, never the less I think they are good ones, Dennis.

As to your first question, I read an article by Terry Jeffrey this morning where, after studying the OMB historical chart of spending as a percentage of GDP, he concluded the Obama Administration is on track to be the biggest spending administration since they started keeping such records in 1930. If Jeffrey is correct, and Dan is also correct that " Of course..." government spending causes inflation I think we should be concerned, unless we think inflation is a good thing.

As to your second question it seems to me the people "hurt the most" in times of inflation are indeed the "poor". They have the least money to spend on necessities in good times, and that would seem to become even more of a problem for them during inflationary times.

[Dan Conner]

Although I am not certain your questions are relevant to this Cap & Trade thread, never the less I think they are good ones, Dennis.

As to your first question, I read an article by Terry Jeffrey this morning where, after studying the OMB historical chart of spending as a percentage of GDP, he concluded the Obama Administration is on track to be the biggest spending administration since they started keeping such records in 1930. If Jeffrey is correct, and Dan is also correct that " Of course..." government spending causes inflation I think we should be concerned, unless we think inflation is a good thing.

As to your second question it seems to me the people "hurt the most" in times of inflation are indeed the "poor". They have the least money to spend on necessities in good times, and that would seem to become even more of a problem for them during inflationary times.I think it comical how you point out the Obama spending...The wonderful Republican Party left our nation with an economy in tatters, and now you discredit the President that is actually fixing the God awful mess.

It was President Bush who said we were heading for something worse that the Great Depression, but yet we never got there because Obama spent enough stimulus money to prevent it. Now you criticize Obama's spending? If it were up to Republicans we would all be in the "tank."

I am so mystified that you are now concerned about the poor? You didn't care if they couldn't get health insurance of medical care and just died. Now, I'm to believe you care about the poor and the travails of inflations? Come on Bob, you can be more genuine than that. You think I should believe you care about how much they have to spend on the necessities? Then, you must not think health care is a necessity. Many of them don't have health care now and you don't see they should have it, if it costs you anything. What's that that you've said? Let charities take care of them.

Inflation basically means too many dollars chasing to few goods. If production/productivity can not be increased to meet demand, inflation occurs. If production can keep pace, there is not inflation. However, there are many other influences, like are there monopolies or oligarchies at work? Are resources limited? And is it a truly competitive industry, etc.? So, the answer it can't be easily predicted whether government spending causes inflation. It depends on supply. That same element applies to private sector spending. You look at the matter in such as simplistic way, only in a way to rationalize your reactionary politics.

[Dennis Mikkelson]

I think it comical how you point out the Obama spending...The wonderful Republican Party left our nation with an economy in tatters, and now you discredit the President that is actually fixing the God awful mess.

It was President Bush who said we were heading for something worse that the Great Depression, but yet we never got there because Obama spent enough stimulus money to prevent it. Now you criticize Obama's spending? If it were up to Republicans we would all be in the "tank."

I am so mystified that you are now concerned about the poor? You didn't care if they couldn't get health insurance of medical care and just died. Now, I'm to believe you care about the poor and the travails of inflations? Come on Bob, you can be more genuine than that. You think I should believe you care about how much they have to spend on the necessities? Then, you must not think health care is a necessity. Many of them don't have health care now and you don't see they should have it, if it costs you anything. What's that that you've said? Let charities take care of them.

Inflation basically means too many dollars chasing to few goods. If production/productivity can not be increased to meet demand, inflation occurs. If production can keep pace, there is not inflation. However, there are many other influences, like are there monopolies or oligarchies at work? Are resources limited? And is it a truly competitive industry, etc.? So, the answer it can't be easily predicted whether government spending causes inflation. It depends on supply. That same element applies to private sector spending. You look at the matter in such as simplistic way, only in a way to rationalize your reactionary politics.

did Rome have inflation when it had no more lands to conquer, did France after it sold Louisiana Purchase or Russia after selling Alaska. What can USA sell to pay our debt?

[Dan Conner]

did Rome have inflation when it had no more lands to conquer, did France after it sold Louisiana Purchase or Russia after selling Alaska. What can USA sell to pay our debt?I have no idea, do you? What possible relevance do these have? Are you trying to use a hypothetical to prove some kind of a point here? I think you need to drop the hyperbole and state what you mean.

Do muti-million dollar bonuses cause inflation? Does ridiculously high executive pay cause inflation? Do non-competitive contracts cause inflation?

[Bob Jentges]

Two of those in the forefront of the erronous IPCC report, lead author John Christy and Phil Jones the scientist at the center of the row, have now changed their positions. They say temperature records do not support any global warming since 1995. I think the end of this hoax is near.

But that does not seem to have any effect on Senator John Kerry (D MA) who insists he will try to get the Cap & Trade (or whatever the Democrats are calling it now) before the Senate this year. He seems determined to increase the average anual cost of energy for U.S. people by $875/$1875 per household. Indications are that Kerry is fighting a losing battle.

Additionally, President Obama apparrantly is asking the EPA to put forth a regulation limiting Carbon Dioxide emissions. Representative Colin Peterson (D MN) has a bill which I beleive would prevent such action by the EPA.

The amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is miniscule (less than 1% I think) and is essentially harmless according to many scientists. Humans exhale it, and it is good for plant growth.

Stop the madness until a credible full and indepentent scientific investigation of climate data can be gathered and evaluated.

Reportedly eight (8) coal state Democrat Senators recently sent a letter to the EPA claiming the agency lacks the power to restrict greenhouse gasses.

The public is overwhelmingly against Cap & Trade, it can not pass the Senate through the legislative process, and now it looks like there is not a great deal of support for trying to get it through by regulation.

The Obama Administration and the Democrats seem in disaray, desperate, and backed into a corner on both of President Obama's signature programs i.e. Cap & Trade and Health Care Reform.

Power to the people!

[Dan Conner]

Reportedly eight (8) coal state Democrat Senators recently sent a letter to the EPA claiming the agency lacks the power to restrict greenhouse gasses.

The public is overwhelmingly against Cap & Trade, it can not pass the Senate through the legislative process, and now it looks like there is not a great deal of support for trying to get it through by regulation.

The Obama Administration and the Democrats seem in disaray, desperate, and backed into a corner on both of President Obama's signature programs i.e. Cap & Trade and Health Care Reform.

Power to the people!Good try Bob, but more wild unsubstantiated claims don't make what you say, true. However, you are right about one thing...Power to the people. Unfortunately, I don't think the plurality see it as you do. The EPA will be able to control green house gases, if empowered by the Congress. We'll see if that happens. However, I will leave that to Congress, not you.

[Bob Jentges]

Good try Bob, but more wild unsubstantiated claims don't make what you say, true. However, you are right about one thing...Power to the people. Unfortunately, I don't think the plurality see it as you do. The EPA will be able to control green house gases, if empowered by the Congress. We'll see if that happens. However, I will leave that to Congress, not you.

To suggest the first two paragraphs of my post #93 were "...wild unsubstanciated claims..." is pure nonsense.

If you do not like or agree with my third paragraph maybe you should read, listen and watch what is happening in the real world a little closer.

[Dan Conner]

To suggest the first two paragraphs of my post #93 were "...wild unsubstanciated claims..." is pure nonsense.

If you do not like or agree with my third paragraph maybe you should read, listen and watch what is happening in the real world a little closer.Well, I certainly know what you say is wildly unsubstantiated...You even refer to the wrong post. I think you must mean post #94. Bob, I do listen to and read in the news. Believe me, I certainly don't care to buy your twisted aberrations of it.

I think you need to spend more time getting informed and less time passing down your propaganda...Roman Empire a failure? Come on!

[Bob Jentges]

You even refer to the wrong post. I think you must mean post #94....Roman Empire a failure? Come on!

No, I did mean my post #93 as I said---not your post #94 in which you quoted my post #93!

I wrote the letter to the editor with a short reference to the Roman Empire months ago to make a point on the ludicrous too big to fail claims. I do not know why it came to your mind again now, but since you bring it up: What ever happened to the Roman Empire (rhetorical question)---Seems to me much has been written about The Fall of The Roman Empire!

[Dan Conner]

No, I did mean my post #93 as I said---not your post #94 in which you quoted my post #93!

I wrote the letter to the editor with a short reference to the Roman Empire months ago to make a point on the ludicrous too big to fail claims. I do not know why it came to your mind again now, but since you bring it up: What ever happened to the Roman Empire (rhetorical question)---Seems to me much has been written about The Fall of The Roman Empire!Bob, more paranioia. I never said anything about your 2 first paragraphs. You have not idea what I was referring to. The ordinary person might ask, but you use your paranoia and unilaterally decide I was referring to the first 2 paragraphs. You interpret the written word like some one looking at themselves in one of the funny distorting mirrors at the fair. There is reality and there is the way you see things.

By the way, Post #94 includes post #93, along with my response. #93 is your response to your previous post.

Bob I could care when you used the Roma Empire. You were stating your opinion, unless you have some expiration date on that. If so, you better apprise The Free Press readers. You used the Roman Empire as an example of faillure, period. I replied to your letter by saying picking the longest lasting empire in the history of the world is a poor example to prove your case. In fact, it proves the opposite. Afterall, the failing Roman Empire only lasted 2000 years. Guess what? More poor research. You make entirely too many flippant remarks.

Do you really read what you write? Your reference to the Roman empire had nothing to do with too big to fail.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, it has taken me a while to try to decipher your post #98, but I think I am in a position to reply.

Any rational person would have read your post #94 to include my enitre, short post #93 which you quoted in #94. If you did not intend to include the first two paragraphs of my #93 you should have said so, either in #94 or your subsequent #96.

This is getting silly, but my post #93 was what could be considered an addendum to my post #83. I quoted #83 in #93 in an attempt to continue the train of my thought, because in between #83 & #93 there were other exchanges eg. your quote of Ellen's July 9, 2009 post #10 and some exchanges between you and Dennis.

My reference to the Roman Empire did have something to do with "too big to fail". The letter referenced the contention at the time that some financial institutions were too big to fail and needed bailouts. I beleive I made a comment something to the effect that my opinion was if something got too big it was almost certain to fail. I used the USSR and Roman Empire as examples, and why I was of the opinion we should get back to a more decenteralized government, a position I still hold today as you should well know from articles published in the Free press since the so-called Roman Empire letter.

The way I see it the USSR and Roman Empire both ended up as failures! They may have had some periods of success, but they eventually failed!

[Dan Conner]

Dan, it has taken me a while to try to decipher your post #98, but I think I am in a position to reply.

Any rational person would have read your post #94 to include my enitre, short post #93 which you quoted in #94. If you did not intend to include the first two paragraphs of my #93 you should have said so, either in #94 or your subsequent #96.

This is getting silly, but my post #93 was what could be considered an addendum to my post #83. I quoted #83 in #93 in an attempt to continue the train of my thought, because in between #83 & #93 there were other exchanges eg. your quote of Ellen's July 9, 2009 post #10 and some exchanges between you and Dennis.

My reference to the Roman Empire did have something to do with "too big to fail". The letter referenced the contention at the time that some financial institutions were too big to fail and needed bailouts. I beleive I made a comment something to the effect that my opinion was if something got too big it was almost certain to fail. I used the USSR and Roman Empire as examples, and why I was of the opinion we should get back to a more decenteralized government, a position I still hold today as you should well know from articles published in the Free press since the so-called Roman Empire letter.

The way I see it the USSR and Roman Empire both ended up as failures! They may have had some periods of success, but they eventually failed!I refuse to decode your mixed up communication. I included all of your post #93 that was on the site at the time. No matter what, it was all included with my reply. I refuse to follow the maze of explanation for #83, #96, #94, and hike.

Your reference to the Roman Empire had nothing to do with too big to fail. I think you better refresh yourself with your own writings. Normally, one would be expected to know what they said, if they truly felt that way, and more particularly when it was rebutted. No, that is not what you used the USSR or the Roma Empire for. Can't you find what you wrote? I have it here.

NBow, you are way off the original text. You consider the USSR and Roman Empires failures...WHO CARES! Believe me, you are not a historian with a great deal of credibility. You don't even know the context of you using the USSR or Roman Empire? Bob, you sure have a short, or more importantly, inaccurate memory. I suggest you look for the letter to the editor. There aren't that many that you have written. Let me know if you can't remember what you said or you can't find it. I will find it for you.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, for someone seemingly wandering confused and aimlessly wandering in the forest, a topic from another thread we have been discussing recently in the event you did not get the pun, I will try the KIS approach---Go back to post#83 and read forward from there.

I am flattered that you saved my letter, one of 40 articles of mine published in The Free Press Print edition even if "not many" in your estimation. You do not need to bother finding my letter for me, I just happen to have it along with the other 39 articles (which I consider more than your "not many" characterization) that have been published in The Free Press print edition.:)

Since you and me have the letter but others (if there are any) who might be following this trivia may not have access I will quote the first two paragraphs so they can form their own opinion.

"The buzz words surrounding our economic 'crisis' are that some financial institutions are 'too big to fail'. Some politicians say we need to bail them out. I take a differrent view. I think if something gets too big it is almost certain to fail because it becomes unmanageable.

Set aside financial instutitions for a while and consider something even bigger, governments. The ancient Roman Empire comes to mind. So does the more recent USSR. In no way am I predicting the fall of the United States of America, but it certainly seems the time is right to consider the effect the growth of government is having on the way of life our founding fathers designed for us. When I hear politicians say: "Only the government can..." it scares me.

Now before you go off on one of your frequent tyraids about me, the reason I saved the letter and other articles is because one of my grandsons gave me a booklet and asked me to save them for him.

Why did you save my letter? Did you also save the other 39 letters/articles of mine that were published in The Free Press? Did you save my letters that have been published in tht print editions of the Star Tribune---Pioneer Press? Did you save copies of your letters?

Might you be waffeling a bit on whether or not the USSR and Roman Empires were failures? If you are let me say, like I said in a different post to you recently---it is OK, in fact I think commendable, for someone to be flexible to change their mind when new evidence warrants such a change!

[Dan Conner]

Dan, for someone seemingly wandering confused and aimlessly wandering in the forest, a topic from another thread we have been discussing recently in the event you did not get the pun, I will try the KIS approach---Go back to post#83 and read forward from there.

I am flattered that you saved my letter, one of 40 articles of mine published in The Free Press Print edition even if "not many" in your estimation. You do not need to bother finding my letter for me, I just happen to have it along with the other 39 articles (which I consider more than your "not many" characterization) that have been published in The Free Press print edition.:)

Since you and me have the letter but others (if there are any) who might be following this trivia may not have access I will quote the first two paragraphs so they can form their own opinion.

"The buzz words surrounding our economic 'crisis' are that some financial institutions are 'too big to fail'. Some politicians say we need to bail them out. I take a differrent view. I think if something gets too big it is almost certain to fail because it becomes unmanageable.

Set aside financial instutitions for a while and consider something even bigger, governments. The ancient Roman Empire comes to mind. So does the more recent USSR. In no way am I predicting the fall of the United States of America, but it certainly seems the time is right to consider the effect the growth of government is having on the way of life our founding fathers designed for us. When I hear politicians say: "Only the government can..." it scares me.

Now before you go off on one of your frequent tyraids about me, the reason I saved the letter and other articles is because one of my grandsons gave me a booklet and asked me to save them for him.

Why did you save my letter? Did you also save the other 39 letters/articles of mine that were published in The Free Press? Did you save my letters that have been published in tht print editions of the Star Tribune---Pioneer Press? Did you save copies of your letters?

Might you be waffeling a bit on whether or not the USSR and Roman Empires were failures? If you are let me say, like I said in a different post to you recently---it is OK, in fact I think commendable, for someone to be flexible to change their mind when new evidence warrants such a change!It is not my job to piece together your broken and incoherent thought by hopping around the forum to piece together your contorted thoughts. It is your job to present your views in an understandable and clear manner. I'm not responsible to look all over the Forum to prove you right. That's your job Bob.

Bob, I'm glad you have finally realized one thing. KIS. You seem to know the term, but can't follow it. You need to learn how to present an idea. The only way you know is to throw up some reactionary link and ask, "What do you think?" That you do coherently. After that, you run into trouble. When you present an opinion/idea, your blantant prejudice leasks out of all the porous seems.

There you go with more of your "puffery". Well, I'm glad you have published 40 letters to the editor. Undoubtedly, something you consider a major accommplishment. I might look at it as someone who like the attention and being "on stage." But accommplishment? NOT. I hate to break your bubble, but most all submissions are published. So, if most anyoine in the Mankato area wished to waste as much time writing letters to the editor as you, they too could brag about it. However, I'm glad you are pleased by small things. I think that means that it won't take much to make you happy. I did notice you like to dominate the stage. That's great, but I classify your presentations as burlesque.

Your right, I kept your letter. I needed it when making my response and I thought it was an extreme illustration of historical ignorance. I have shown it to others, as well. You know Bob, if you want to take selfish positions, just do it, as Nike would say, but don't compound your self-centered opinions with poor research and poor understanding of history, that goes a long way to disprove your point. You were fine with your opinion, but when you base it on ignorance and lies, the foundation of your belief looks to be based on sand.

Meanwhile, I'm glad you are flattered. What can I say?

[Bob Jentges]

Piece together??? Posts go in succession eg. 83, 84, etc.

The next two Paragraphs of your post #102 do not contain anything of substance---only personal remarks. I doubt I will ever understand someone who asks me for something and when I present it criticizes me for presenting it.

As to your paragraph four, please get off the "poor research" accusations, unless you can come up with some specific examples. Just because you may not agree with the facts or opinions of people I reference in posts or links does not constitute "poor research".;)

[Dan Conner]

Piece together??? Posts go in succession eg. 83, 84, etc.

The next two Paragraphs of your post #102 do not contain anything of substance---only personal remarks. I doubt I will ever understand someone who asks me for something and when I present it criticizes me for presenting it.

As to your paragraph four, please get off the "poor research" accusations, unless you can come up with some specific examples. Just because you may not agree with the facts or opinions of people I reference in posts or links does not constitute "poor research".;)Well, I willuse what you have...Bob just look in prior posts. I have given many examples of your poor research. In fact, I just commented about a couple on another thread. I've given many examples along the way, but apparently you don't read them? Remember Bob, your are entitled to your opinion, just not your own facts.

[Bob Jentges]

I read an article by Joel Kotkin in Forbes.online this morning titled "Decentralize The Government". The article covers a number of topics, but here is a quote about the topic of this thread i.e. Cap & Trade.

"Climate change provides another critical and necessary rational for the expansive government role. With the 'cap and trade' system all but dead, the administration now wants to regulate energy and land use through the gentle graces of a largely unaccountable EPA approach. As a result, we may see energy use, land use and transportation--as is increasingly the case in California--controlled by the whims of the unelected bureaucracies."

Before someone gets the impression I deny any climate change I will say I do not---never have! Climate changes over time, and the change is cyclical. But the way I see it humans are not a significant cause of climate change and have little, if any, ability to effect any significant change in the overall climate one way or another.

PS---Subsequent to my above post I read a letter to the editor in the Star Tribune by Kelly Cote
Jasper that I think fits the theme of the "Decentralize The Government" article discussed in my
post: "More government control does equate godliness. Usually, its just the opposite."

[Dan Conner]

I read an article by Joel Kotkin in Forbes.online this morning titled "Decentralize The Government". The article covers a number of topics, but here is a quote about the topic of this thread i.e. Cap & Trade.

"Climate change provides another critical and necessary rational for the expansive government role. With the 'cap and trade' system all but dead, the administration now wants to regulate energy and land use through the gentle graces of a largely unaccountable EPA approach. As a result, we may see energy use, land use and transportation--as is increasingly the case in California--controlled by the whims of the unelected bureaucracies."

Before someone gets the impression I deny any climate change I will say I do not---never have! Climate changes over time, and the change is cyclical. But the way I see it humans are not a significant cause of climate change and have little, if any, ability to effect any significant change in the overall climate one way or another.

PS---Subsequent to my above post I read a letter to the editor in the Star Tribune by Kelly Cote
Jasper that I think fits the theme of the "Decentralize The Government" article discussed in my
post: "More government control does equate godliness. Usually, its just the opposite."Too bad, this is more of the "black helicopter" paranoia. However, prior posts shows he adores insurance companies, without regard to the number of policy holders cheated. This person is a corporatist. He wants the country ruled by corporations, and every one knows how much they care about us all.

Heaven knows government is not perfect, but they are subject to input through elections. Certainly it has been demonstrated corporations only act when it PROFITS them, not when it is good for the public.

This writer is polyannish to believe that corporations will run our country for the common good? They would only collude to take it all.

[Bob Jentges]

I have given many examples of your poor research.

I asked you to cite "some specific examples". I am still waiting.

[Bob Jentges]

This may be old news to some, but a friend from Arizona sent me this link today. I found it rather shocking if ever implemented, and you intend to sell your house in the next year or so.

Cap and Trade passed the House last year. I doubt it will go anywhere in the Senate. However, Barbara Boxer (D CA) and John Kerry (D MA) have a proposal in the Senate that they call a "pollution reduction" bill that they say will "build on" the House passed bill. Boxer/Kerry could possibly come-up for debate in the Senate this year.

I do not know if the provision in the link below will be included in the Boxer/Kerry proposal. I think it is something to watch for, along with other destructive parts of the House bill which might be included that most likely will cause more job losses, higher gasoline prices, higher food and electricity costs, etc., for consumers. New items in the Boxer/Kerry proposal could make things worse, if that is possible.

As you read the link, keep in mind Tim Walz voted for the House passed Cap and Trade bill. If he follows true to form he will probably vote for Boxer/Kerry when/if it passes the Senate and is sent to the House for a vote.

http://federalobserver.com/2009/10/01/thinking-about-selling-your-house-a-look-at-h-r-2454-cap-and-trade-bill/

[Bob Jentges]

When it passed the House it was called "Cap & Trade", then Kerry/Boxer came-up with something they named "Pollution Reduction" and in the Senate yesterday Kerry/Leiberman introduced what they call "American Power Act".

There are numerous articles about Kerry/Leiberman in a variety of publications, but I chose to link the one from the Huffington Post to demonstrate they are really "fair and balanced".:D

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ernest-instook/insiders-cash-in-big-cons_b_574172.html

[Bob Jentges]

When it passed the House it was called "Cap & Trade", then Kerry/Boxer came-up with something they named "Pollution Reduction" and in the Senate yesterday Kerry/Leiberman introduced what they call "American Power Act".

There are numerous articles about Kerry/Leiberman in a variety of publications, but I chose to link the one from the Huffington Post to demonstrate they are really "fair and balanced".:D

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ernest-instook/insiders-cash-in-big-cons_b_574172.html

It does not look like it has much chance in the Senate this year, whatever they call it, so the Obama Adninistration turns it over to the EPA. Interesting article titled: "EPA Global Warming Regs Dangerous".

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/heritage-epa-global-warming/2010/05/23/;id/359887

[Bob Jentges]

A just released report by the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics says the climate change (Kerry/Lieberman) bill pending in the senate will be an economic bust for America by killing jobs and raising prices for just about everything.

Interesting opinion considering the "Institute" is a human caused global warming advocate.

[Bob Jentges]

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2010/05/26/going_green?page1

Libertarian John Stossel authored the article, but it is filled with quotations from a scientist, including: "Going green is just a bunch of bunk". Support is fading in Europe, but the liberal/progressive Democrats just don't get it---or is it part of their plan?

We need to find alternate sources of energy, but solar and wind are not the asnswer.

[Dennis Mikkelson]

we must find energy that doesn't need subsidies to survive. Govt. has at all levels spent more then their revenue. We are the most indebted nation in the world and this can't go on.

[Bob Jentges]

we must find energy that doesn't need subsidies to survive. Govt. has at all levels spent more then their revenue. We are the most indebted nation in the world and this can't go on.

I agree, Dennis.

The U.S. Senate will vote on S.J. Res 26 June 10th. If it passes it would overturn the EPA's global warming regulations and force the current administration to leave the Cap & Trade (or whatever they call it now) bill to pass Congress before any horrendous, economy devistating, carbon admissions restrictions would become law.

S.J. Res 26 is not subject to a filibuster, and it looks possible that a sufficent number of Democrats might vote for it! If that happens the Kerry/Liebermanany so-called energy bill would be subject to a filibuster, which means it would be likely it could not pass.

[Bob Jentges]

I agree, Dennis.

The U.S. Senate will vote on S.J. Res 26 June 10th. If it passes it would overturn the EPA's global warming regulations and force the current administration to leave the Cap & Trade (or whatever they call it now) bill to pass Congress before any horrendous, economy devistating, carbon admissions restrictions would become law.

S.J. Res 26 is not subject to a filibuster, and it looks possible that a sufficent number of Democrats might vote for it! If that happens the Kerry/Liebermanany so-called energy bill would be subject to a filibuster, which means it would be likely it could not pass.

The vote in the U.S. Senate is today, and I think important to watch for reasons stated above as well as it will decide whether the Democrat controlled Senate will cede their power to legislate to the government bureaucrats in regulatory agencies.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/10/epa-vote-coming-down-to-the-wi

[Bob Jentges]

S.J. 26 failed in the Senate on a close vote, but "Climate change leglislation teatering after setbacks...". Thank heavens!

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/103737-climate-bill-teatering

[Bob Jentges]

While discussing the Democrat energy bill and climate change, in his "Obama's Answer To Spill Comes Up Short" article Chas. Krauthammer compares reality with fantesy/dreaming!

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=537684

[Bob Jentges]

Hope springs eternal. More and more Democrats in the Senate (not Walz in the House) seem to be comming to their senses!

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37595

[Bob Jentges]

Hope springs eternal. More and more Democrats in the Senate (not Walz in the House) seem to be comming to their senses!

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37595

...But Obama's Czars seemingly are not.

Article:"Obama Science Czar Called for Carbon Tax to Redistribute Wealth from Global 'North' to 'South':confused:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/69081

[Bob Jentges]

If somenow the Democrat leadership is successful in shoving Cap & Trade (or whatever they call their "Energy" bill now) down our throats it's almost over as far as keeping energy costs from skyrocketing. Worthwhile to read the specifics the article addresses.:mad:

http//townhall.com/columnists/PaulDriessen/2010/07/17/its_really_about_controlling_our_lives/page/1

[Bob Jentges]

Recent study suggests Kerry-Lieberman (should some Democrats change their position and vote for it) will cost individuals between $850 and $1,100 in addidional energy costs annually.

Http://www.accf.org/piblications/137/accf-sbe-council-study-on-kerry-lieberman-bill

[Bob Jentges]

Recent study suggests Kerry-Lieberman (should some Democrats change their position and vote for it) will cost individuals between $850 and $1,100 in addidional energy costs annually.

Http://www.accf.org/piblications/137/accf-sbe-council-study-on-kerry-lieberman-bill

UPDATE---Washington Post: "Senate Democrats abandon comprehensive climate bill"

One for the "good guy's---at least for now.

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR201007223614.html?hpid=topnews