« Congresscritters Help Themselves to More Gulfstreams | Main | Separated at Birth? »

For the economy as a whole, immediate energy price spikes would be followed by relative calm as the economy adjusted.

The mind boggles.

Funny, FactCheck, which I HATE linking, discusses the CBO and Heritage Foundation estimates. There is an incredible disparity and the CBO has a proven track record of on-the-ball estimates.

Plus, aren't energy rate caps coming off at the end of next year? This will ADD to the cost of energy EXPONENTIALLY.

This WILL devastate the economy.

Thats something PAUL EHRICH and the eco-freaks would like to see hapen seeing america economicly ruined THE GREENS SUCK

I heard that the pollution in China was so bad during last years Olympics that you could only run on certain days. What causes that?

...President Obama's prediction that it would create new jobs...

This kind of propagand really gets to me....what"new jobs"? What kind of "jobs"? And what exactly is the blueprint for making all these green jobs?

What business sectors are transitioning? What's the criteria for retraining? What's the retooling criteria for manufacturers? Any quality assurance SOPs? No? How are the jobs capitalized for the long term? What's the liquidity here? Are these secret business? Any on the NASDAQ? Why haven't they come out as part of the freemarket?

What are we missing that only BO knows for sure? How has BO magically become the most conversant economist in the world able to transform the American economy?

BO sits in the highest office of the land, excreting his Czars and pontificating pure crap because people will believe any damn thing.

According to Obamadinejad, being unemployed is a job in itself. Some of those folks are working 24/7/365. Rough stuff.

So, technically, he's "created" "green" jobs if they, by some stretch of their imagination, consider unemployment a job. I forget who it was that mentioned it here the other day but being unemployed does save the environment (in a very convoluted way)...

Drive less, buy less (less production of evil CO2), use less energy.

Sounds like they've accomplished their "green" jobs with incredible success.

FANTASYLAND!

Meanwhile, back here in reality... Give us our damn country back you nitwits.

Well, YEAH, they always said, looking for a job is a full-time job...

Kids school text books telling them that chinas a perfect example for america to follow they have bikes and they use footpumps NOW THE DRAGON IS THE WORLDS #1 POLUTER so SCREW STUPID ECO-FREAK JERKS

Economics 101: Raising the cost of energy will raise the cost of a product, forcing consumers to buy less. Less production = more unemployment.

But that is the socialist agenda, it is quite transparent. Less capitalism and more dependence on the government. So much for prosperity.

Global warming is [supposedly] the greatest threat to mankind. But some nations will not partake in carbon offsets. At what point do we [try] to impose economic sanctions, or threaten these nations with military action, in order to SAVE the planet from global warming?

It appears that hardship and death, associated with sanctions and war, are good mechanisms for thinning the evil carbon emissions of an ever growing population.

Me thinks there is a storm brewing, and it has nothing to do with the weather. God help us.

Carbon footprint: Mark of the beast?

Revelations 13:17 "And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number representing his name. Wisdom is needed here. Let the one with understanding solve the meaning of the number of the beast. His number is 666."

The [beast], as found in the bible, is associated with hell or fire. When fire burns matter, it turns it into [carbon].

The [carbon] atom consists of 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons, [666], the number of the [beast].

The definition of a [mark], is an impression, like the impression left by a [footprint].

Could our [carbon footprint] be associated with the [mark of the beast]?

I report. You decide :)

number of the beast is six hundred sixty and six not simply three 6's strung together.

Nobody could answer the question about China's horrendous air pollution problem that makes it nearly unbearable most of the time

So unless you can come up with an answer carbon dioxide is not as harmless as you may think!

Posted by: Anonymous Whinerbat at August 5, 2009 11:34 AM- "I heard that the pollution in China was so bad during last years Olympics that you could only run on certain days. What causes that?"

Socialism.

Posted by: Anonymous Homobat at August 5, 2009 2:56 PM- "Nobody could answer the question about China's horrendous air pollution problem that makes it nearly unbearable most of the time. So unless you can come up with an answer carbon dioxide is not as harmless as you may think!"

Particulates
ozone
carbon monoxide
chlorofluorocarbons
Hydrocarbon gas
nitrogen oxides
Sulfur oxide
lead

Co2 is not a "pollutant". Cretin.

I am a whiner, homo and cretin because I asked a legitimate question. You sure you guys arent liberals? WOW talk aboout stand up guys

But you can NOT deny China has the worst pollution on the planet. Now if we take a look at your list:
Particulates
ozone
carbon monoxide
chlorofluorocarbons
Hydrocarbon gas
nitrogen oxides
Sulfur oxide
lead

Thats some serious pollution. Of course cars have nothing to do with it everyone knows LA leads the US in air pollution because, well because thats where Hollywood is. But are you telling me the US doesnt produce that list of pollutants on its own? Can you answer that question too

1. People exhale CO2.
2. Trees take in CO2 and emit O (it's called photosynthesis)... ironic that they see O as a "waste byproduct."
3. People breathe in O.
Repeat 1-3.

More CO2 has proven to increase crop fertility, produce stronger crops, and yield MORE food.

And there you have the circle of life. Imbeciles.

Evirotards want to "cap" CO2 output... thus hurting forestry. And you retards want to "save the rainforests?" Boy you people are so very disconnected from reality and emit nothing short of unhinged, unbridled idiocy.

Case in point, liberalism and environazism are mental disorders... curable only by death.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2009/08/04/a-year-after-olympics-beijings-air-quality-back-at-square-one/

So air pollution is only a figment of imagination?

We are not arguing that pollution doesn't exist. We're explaining to you that nothing about CO2 makes it a pollutant because, by definition, pollution is something that is expelled and is actually harmful.

CO2 is helpful... thus refuting your ignorance to the facts.

Pollution DOES exist... but trying to claim that CO2 is a pollutant shows, once again, your absolute disconnect from reality.

I'm waiting for your kind to argue that food is, in some way, a pollutant... because when food is eaten, it is processed and results in defecation. This leads to expelling methane gas and OH NOES!!! Down goes the environment.

I'll break it down for you and relate it for the previous example of trees and CO2...

1. Food is grown (plants take in CO2, produce O)
2. Food is consumed/edible (people breathe in O)
3. Food is excreted, poo... used as fertilizer, food for crops (exhaling CO2)

By your logic, we should all just stop eating.

But only an idiot would claim cars are not the reason LA is so polluted

SO if its not CO2 that causes so much smog, what else that comes out of automobile is so unhealthy?

Sulfur, nitrogen oxides and the other things that were listed by Anonymous at August 5, 2009 3:41 PM.

I also have another serious question. How can pollution cause global warming? Wouldn't, theoretically, the smog insulate the earth from the sun rays, thus, inhibiting warmth?

It's like looking through a window. A clean window lets in more sunlight and a foggy window let in less sunlight. By simple logic, wouldn't the window that lets in less light inhibit the entry of heat into the home? Kinda the reason we have blinds, no?

I am not concerned with 'climate change' there are many scientists who claim its natural and we will have another ice age if anything(and yes I have noticed the cooler temps in the past decade)

What is inarguable is that air pollution is crippling some cities in China and LA and NY, where asthma is increasing without a doubt

We have to do something about air pollution unless we all want to hack up a lung before our 50's, its serious business

"Anonymous at August 5, 2009 5:36 PM"

Talk to Red China about polution. They'll laugh in your face.

That's all well and good but taxes and fees aren't going to magically alter the climate. Cap and trade, in its current form, is nothing more than an extremely large money and power grab.

Of course pollution exists and is bad, that I'm not debating, but this bill is not a feasible solution (ESPECIALLY in this economic climate).

There's no incentive to anybody. It forces one to lower their standard of living which adversely affects my "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." Infringing upon these fundamental tenets is nothing but atrocious.

Oh I know the carbon scheme is the most fascist program ever created. I hear they are gonna make those poor Brits carry cards they have to use for all their purchases scary shit

But the pollution is troubling as well as something has to be done unless we all want to wear gasmasks for the rest of our lives

You are all nuts! Didn't you hear. The debate is over. Al Gore says so because there are 'Peer Reviewed' papers that say so. There.

Now, any of you in academia who chase grant dollars know that 'Pier Reviewed' papers are worth about as much as an Zimbabwean 100 bill.

Gas masks? Please. What a fearmonger.

When the hell was the last time you went outside anywhere in this country and choked on the air? Were you taking the trolley past the telegraph factory on the way home from the nickelodeon?

ONE MOONBAT PER FAMILY

Anonymous whining homobat cretin at August 5, 2009 3:41 PM- "I am a whiner, homo and cretin..."

Yes. Yes you are.

Dude, there's nobody here denying that "pollution" is a problem worth mitigating. We've made a great deal of progress on that in the last 40 years. China, not so much. However, what does that have to do with the smash & grab bill this thread is about? It doesn't address any pollutants at all, just delivers blows to the economy for no good reason.