House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

[Dancing Mustard]

Answer: because it's not economically beneficial. CFLs cost more money to purchase than traditional lights,

Yet provide savings in the long run by consuming less energy.

But of course, as you'll no doubt know (what with being totally clued up on how the 'free' market works and all), US Public Companies find it very difficult to make changes which are expensive in the short-term but pay off in the long-run, as their shareholder-focused operational models are fixated on maximising short-term gains. Making a big switch to green-lighting is an expensive move that'll upset short-termist shareholders at an annual AGM and which could also make stock-prices take a small wobble... something that any CEO wants to avoid.

Anybody who is particularly well-versed in the history of something like, say, the global motorcycle and automobile market would know that it is precisely this short-sighted 'profits now, forget about three years time' attitude that allowed American automobile manufacturers to be so thoroughly de-pantsed by their Japanese competitors during the 80's and 90's.

So that Nighty, as evidenced by verifiable historical precedent which I can't believe you appear to be ignorant of, is why American industry will not make the switch to more efficient lightbulbs without a government incentive to do so, even though doing so will save them money in the long-run... it's because of the inherent weakness of their shareholder-focused organisational structure.

they come with the added harm of containing mercury (which no one talks about).

After the fight to remove lead from our gasoline, paints, and toys, why are we now forcing a more toxic metal into our homes?

Because this time the mercury will be contained in well-sealed non-porous units, rather than plastered on the surface of products designed to be touched by humans.

It's the same difference that you observe when you bring radioactive materials into your home to use in a smoke-alarm, the very same materials that you wouldn't dream of brining in to give to your children as toys, or to use them to veneer your dining table. A fairly simple concept really.

Most elements aren't so dangerous that they can't be safely utilised in some fashion. Just as lead is fine to use as a material for well-shielded internalised components that you aren't going to put in your mouth, but isn't ok to burn on an open-fire and subsequently inhale; mercury is safe to use as an internal component that you aren't going to rub all over yourself, but isn't ok to use in a material which will come into regular contact with your child's skin.

Got that? Good. Now stop making silly alarmist arguments that rely on stupid people irrationally panicking whenever they hear the word 'mercury'.

even higher fuel efficiencies are not possible with the current designs and technology.

Prove it.

No one likes to have to pay for a lot of gas, so it makes sense that the company that designs the car that gets the best fuel mileage at a low cost will sell the most cars.

Bull-Knitters, pure and unadulterated lies and codswallop. That's a deliberate misrepresentation of reality, and you know it.

Last time I checked my elementary economics textbook I'm pretty sure that I was informed that (and, get this) consumers actually take into account several factors when they buy products. I mean, I realise that this is a crazy concept and all, but apparently they actually think about multiple qualities of the vehicle that they're looking at, not simply at its MPG rating. Then, once they've done that, they weight all of those factors in their mind and make a, shock horror, informed decision about the product that they will purchase.

How can we prove this? Well, actually with one of America's best selling automobiles: The Hummer.

It's a gas-guzzling behemoth that has shitty mileage even for a 4x4, but American customers buy them by the score. Clearly demonstrating that there is at least one sector of the car-buying American public who do not give a shit about gas-mileage when buying their vehicles.

Indeed, to extrapolate the point, there's a great deal of evidence to suggest that American consumers are particularly unconcerned about gas-mileage when making automobile purchasers, as they consistently prefer less efficient vehicles than their European customers... seeming to weight other factors more highly when making buying decisions.


So as such, you're wrong. Improving mileage per gallon is only one way to make a product such as an automobile more attractive to consumers, and in the US it appears to be a relatively poor way to do so; therefore it absolutely does not follow that if companies design more efficient cars that they will sell more to customers... as there are a great number of other ways that they can increase their vehicles marketability instead.

Thus, there is no weight to your claim that automobile fuel-efficiency cannot be increased given the current state of technology. QED.

You lose. Again.

why is the administration trying to force unprofitable practices on the industry?

Perhaps it's got something to do with the fact that they're able to rise above the traditionally short-termist approach of private shareholders, and are aiming to ensure long-term competitiveness for a company that has gone bankrupt because it has historically taken a consistently short-sighted approach to maximising its profits... leaving it an ailing dinosaur compared to its more efficient overseas competitors.

Seriously, sometimes I wonder if you Neo-Cons even bother to think about your trite Keynsian principles before you spout them. I swear that even a child could break-down your arguments most of the time. It's not even a clash of opinions here, it's that you're demonstrably logically wrong.

[HapSmo19]

posted this in "lets pretend global warming exist" earlier.

I saw that and thanks for posting it

There’s one thing the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill doesn’t do: Work.

Actually, it does work. And it works perfectly,...if the aim is to destroy the american economy.

@ Waxman-Markey

Wax-Verb
to increase gradually in size, strength, or power

Mark-Verb
make or leave a mark on; "ash marked the believers' foreheads"

Here's what I want to know: if all of these measures such as changing to compact fluorescent light bulbs and building cars that get high fuel efficiency, why aren't businesses already doing it? Businesses are in place to make money, why do they have to have the government tell them that to switch?

Answer: because it's not economically beneficial. CFLs cost more money to purchase than traditional lights, and they come with the added harm of containing mercury (which no one talks about). After the fight to remove lead from our gasoline, paints, and toys, why are we now forcing a more toxic metal into our homes?

2nd Answer: because even higher fuel efficiencies are not possible with the current designs and technology. No one likes to have to pay for a lot of gas, so it makes sense that the company that designs the car that gets the best fuel mileage at a low cost will sell the most cars. It's a plain and simple business model that the government doesn't need to get involved in: if consumers want high mileage cars AND it's profitable to make those cars, then the companies WILL do it. Obama says he wants to make GM a reliable company after it gets out of bankruptcy, so why is the administration trying to force unprofitable practices on the industry?

Well sure. It doesn't stand up in the free market so they'll destroy it in order to dictate from behind the sheild of their scientific fallacy.

[HapSmo19]

Now stop making silly alarmist arguments that rely on stupid people irrationally panicking whenever they hear the word 'mercury'.

I agree. Save the alarmist arguments for the stupid people that irrationally panic whenever they hear the words 'global warming'.

why is the administration trying to force unprofitable practices on the industry?

Perhaps it's got something to do with the fact that they're able to rise above the traditionally short-termist approach of private shareholders....

The US government is able to rise above the short term approach?

Fucking please.....

[Night Strike]

How can we prove this? Well, actually with one of America's best selling automobiles: The Hummer.

It's a gas-guzzling behemoth that has shitty mileage even for a 4x4, but American customers buy them by the score. Clearly demonstrating that there is at least one sector of the car-buying American public who do not give a shit about gas-mileage when buying their vehicles.

Indeed, to extrapolate the point, there's a great deal of evidence to suggest that American consumers are particularly unconcerned about gas-mileage when making automobile purchasers, as they consistently prefer less efficient vehicles than their European customers... seeming to weight other factors more highly when making buying decisions.

Actually, this completely proves the point that Obama is doing the exact opposite of what the public wants. He's forcing higher standards across the whole industry and making sure that GM drops low-efficiency vehicles even before/if laws are passed. All contrary to what the market is calling for. Sounds to me like that's a plan for continued losses and bankruptcy.

Seriously, sometimes I wonder if you Neo-Cons even bother to think about your trite Keynsian principles before you spout them. I swear that even a child could break-down your arguments most of the time. It's not even a clash of opinions here, it's that you're demonstrably logically wrong.

I never claimed to be a neo-con, and Keynsian principles are completely opposite of any conservative view. Obama is the one that operates under counter-intuitive Keynesian principles, not the conservative.

they come with the added harm of containing mercury (which no one talks about).

After the fight to remove lead from our gasoline, paints, and toys, why are we now forcing a more toxic metal into our homes?

Because this time the mercury will be contained in well-sealed non-porous units, rather than plastered on the surface of products designed to be touched by humans.

It's the same difference that you observe when you bring radioactive materials into your home to use in a smoke-alarm, the very same materials that you wouldn't dream of brining in to give to your children as toys, or to use them to veneer your dining table. A fairly simple concept really.

Most elements aren't so dangerous that they can't be safely utilised in some fashion. Just as lead is fine to use as a material for well-shielded internalised components that you aren't going to put in your mouth, but isn't ok to burn on an open-fire and subsequently inhale; mercury is safe to use as an internal component that you aren't going to rub all over yourself, but isn't ok to use in a material which will come into regular contact with your child's skin.

Got that? Good. Now stop making silly alarmist arguments that rely on stupid people irrationally panicking whenever they hear the word 'mercury'.

So you've never broken a light bulb? It's quite easy to break them, and most people don't know how to clean up mercury spills (if they even know that it's in the bulb). Vacuuming up the spill makes the situation worse. And, while these global warming alarmists are calling for use of CFLs, they fail to realize that almost all these bulbs will get thrown into landfills, and, upon breaking, the bulbs will seep their mercury into the water supply. That's guaranteed to harm or kill more people than global warming will do. I don't irrationally panic when I hear the word mercury; I know it's a dangerous chemical.

[Dancing Mustard]

the stupid people that irrationally panic whenever they hear the words 'global warming'.

Yes, all of those incredibly well educated experts who panic over silly little things like well evidenced, peer-reviewed studies that clearly indicate that global warming is occurring, and who refused to be swayed by clever arguments such as 'simple incredulity' and 'hollow ridicule'.

Yep, they're the irrational ones panicking for no reason... you're absolutely right.

The US government is able to rise above the short term approach?

Fucking please.....

Ahhh yes, that'll be that 'simple incredulity' and 'hollow ridicule' that I was just talking about. I note that they appear in a post entirely devoid of things such as 'evidence', 'logical argument' and 'reality', which is exactly what I should have anticipated I guess.

After all, what need have you of reason and thought when you can just feign laughter and spam smily-faces at your detractors? There's just no way they can come back from such a blistering argument, is there?

[Dancing Mustard]

I never claimed to be a neo-con

Actions > Words.

So you've never broken a light bulb?

Broken the glass part of a lightbulb? Sure I have, plenty of times.

Broken the sealed base-unit of an energy-efficient lightbulb? No; because I've never hit one with a jack-hammer before.


Seriously, learn how the things are actually constructed before trying to make ridiculous points like that. The mercury isn't in the fragile glass bit.

[HapSmo19]

Yes, all of those incredibly well educated experts.......

Like these ones?: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39973/113/
And don't forget, the debate was over when this article/paper was published.

I mean, shit, where are they? If we're all gonna die, pronto, you'd think they'd be all over the tube putting their asses on the line, front and center, for what they believed but, we get Al, Ted Turner, Arnold, Hillary, Bon Jovi, Tony Hawk(I cant belive this shit), etc....

Or are those the experts?

..who panic over silly little things like well evidenced, peer-reviewed studies that clearly indicate that global warming is occurring,..

So what if it is? There's no concensus that it's caused by humans. So why the rush to destroy the fucking economy over it?

Yep, they're the irrational ones panicking for no reason... you're absolutely right.

I knew you'd come around.

It's also interesting to see the number of outspoken believers in this shit drop to virtually zero over the last year. Maybe they're all just off saving the polar bears though, I don't know.

[bedub1]

there are several studies that estimate the actual cost could run as high as $1000/year for every family.

This bill has nothing to do with cleaner energy. Nothing to do with saving the planet. Like everything else associated with global warming, this is about income redistribution. They're going to increase the energy bills of most people in the country. But then they'll send money to the poor to offset their increase.

the House passed the biggest tax in United States history.

Warren Buffett saying the bill is “a huge tax, and there's no sense calling it anything else … and it's a fairly regressive tax.”



With the bill, Obama delivers on his promise to radical leftists last year to ‘fight global warming’ by driving entire businesses into bankruptcy.

The 1,200-plus page Waxman-Markey climate change legislation is nothing more than an energy tax in disguise that by 2035 will raise:

•Gasoline prices by 58 percent
•Natural gas prices by 55 percent
•Home heating oil by 56 percent
•Worst of all, electricity prices by 90 percent

In the year 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609. And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are $71,493.

But on second thought, cap and trade is much more than that.

It Kills Jobs: Over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline (without a cap and trade bill). Particularly hard-hit are sectors of the economy that are very energy-intensive: Manufacturers, farmers, construction, machinery, electrical equipment and appliances, transportation, textiles, paper products, chemicals, plastics and rubbers, and retail trade would face staggering employment losses as a result of Waxman-Markey. It’s worth noting the job losses come after accounting for the green jobs policymakers are so adamant about creating. But don’t worry, because the architects of the bill built in unemployment insurance; too bad it will only help 1.5% of those losing their jobs from the bill.

It Destroys Our Economy: Just about everything we do and produce uses energy… The average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) lost is $393 billion, hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. From 2012-2035, the accumulated GDP lost is $9.4 trillion. The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an almost unbelievable $114,915 by 2035.

It Provides Red Meat for Lobbyists: Businesses, knowing very well this would impose a severe cost on their bottom line, sent their lobbyists to Washington to protect them. And it worked. Most of the allowances (the right to emit carbon dioxide) have been promised to industry, meaning less money will be rebated back to the consumer. Free allowances do not lower the costs of Waxman-Markey; they just shift them around…

There’s one thing the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill doesn’t do: Work. All of the above-mentioned costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree Celsius in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree Celsius at the end of the century. In the name of saving the planet for future generations, Waxman-Markey does not sound like a great deal: millions of lost jobs, trillions of lost income, 50-90 percent higher energy prices, and stunning increases in the national debt, all for undetectable changes in world temperature.

Apparently nobody read this, or knew they couldn't respond to it. I asked in the "Lets pretend global warming exists" thread how far people would be willing to go. Well, I say this is too far. Way too far. And it accomplishes nothing. did you read that? "Hundredths of a degree Celsius by 2050". And a cost of how much money? This is what the Global Warming alarmist, and even more than that, the crazy environmentalists always do. They are great intentioned, but too stupid to come up with something actually helpful. I like the idea....I am going to trade in my v8 350cubic inch engine car for a 2009 VW jetta sportwagen TDI that gets awesome mileage using the "Cash for Clunkers" program. It's a good idea, but again poorly executed, and it's only because I have a monster of a car that I qualify. I want to help, I think it's a good idea to be "eco friendly". It's just the cost that is all wrong. The cost benefit analysis just shows that it's a terrible idea, and nothing more than a massive tax with no benefit.

[thegreekdog]

First, I would like an answer to my three questions by someone other than Hapsmo. According to this bill, who is poor and who is rich?

Second, on the "companies being run by shareholders" which "necessitate short term gains" argument. In my limited time in the business world, there is much less of an emphasis on short term gains and shareholders than there has been in the past. This may stem from the Enron debacle or because accounting firms are held more accountable (get it... accounting... more accountable?) or because most visible companies are held more accountable. In any event, the argument is facile, especially when comparing corporations to the government. The federal government, as it now currently exists, is being run by the people, right? This is what the people want? Ignoring whether it's what they want, is it what's best for the people? The answer to all three questions is no. The representatives that passed this bill have no interest in what their constituents say, and have far more interest in how much money they are going to make from this bill (whether through bribes... er, campaign contributions, or by controlling more tax dollars). The people don't want this, as evidenced by the lack of public support for the bill. Assuming that man-made global warming exists and that this bill will help solve the problem, it may be what's best for the people, except that projections from the fedearl government itself (conservative at best) show that it will impact the people in a financially negative way.

Third, and again, I would urge people to at least skim the bill. That might provide a greater understanding of the haphazard nature by which the bill was prepared. I would also urge people to look at the supporters of the bill in Congress to see what the actual motivation is.

Fourth, and finally, it never ceases to amaze me that people are so partisan as to either believe one particular party at all costs or to disbelieve the opposing political party at all costs. This smacks of the people in the US not being able to think for themselves. Frankly, it's disappointing at best and scary at worst. Either people don't support the bill because their local or national conservative talk show host opposes it, or people support the bill because it will help global warming and punish the evil corporations from poisoning us.

As an aside, I've seen one Hummer today. And "scores" is not that many (assuming that the term "score" means twenty). I see far more fuel efficient vehicles on the road than fuel inefficient vehicles.

As a further aside, please note DM, that your arguments have little to do with the bill and a lot more to do with support of doing something about global warming. Commendable, but perhaps more effective if you actually addressed the bill.

[spurgistan]

Actually, the CBO estimates that Waxman-Markey will make give our poorer around $70 a month more, as I recall (too rushed to get supporting info). It also is expected to cost our rich a whopping $240 per month.

I have a couple of related questions:

(1) Can you please define "poorer?" A range of yearly income would be appreciated.
(2) Similarly, can you please define "rich?" A range of yearly income would be appreciated.
(3) I'm not certain where in the bill the "give our poorer around $70 a month" is located. Unless they've changed it since last week, I don't see it.

Here's the report on Wax-Mar. It's not too long, compared with the average bureaucratic mumbojumbo, and I will probably read it soon, but not now, for I am frazzled. Yes, frazzled.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc103 ... eCosts.pdf

I just recall reading that somewhere. Edited for wrongness, but I read in a reputable source that the cost of cap-and-trade was expected to be distributed rather progressively.

[got tonkaed]

I have been quite a bit lazy, but the few things I had stumbled across seem to suggest the CBO is undercutting the possible costs as a result of a poor framework in framing their estimates. To be honest the CBO can at times be sketchy with their projections though I would still take them more credibly on average.

[spurgistan]

I have been quite a bit lazy, but the few things I had stumbled across seem to suggest the CBO is undercutting the possible costs as a result of a poor framework in framing their estimates. To be honest the CBO can at times be sketchy with their projections though I would still take them more credibly on average.

However, among other things none of these estimates take into account any of the benefits associated with avoiding climate change! That's kind of the point of this legislation.

[thegreekdog]

I have been quite a bit lazy, but the few things I had stumbled across seem to suggest the CBO is undercutting the possible costs as a result of a poor framework in framing their estimates. To be honest the CBO can at times be sketchy with their projections though I would still take them more credibly on average.

However, among other things none of these estimates take into account any of the benefits associated with avoiding climate change! That's kind of the point of this legislation.

Depends on whether you think the point of the legislation is to control climate change or whether the point of the legislation is to put more money in Congress' collective pockets. Further, it depends on whether this is the best, most effective, and least economy-damaging measure to combat climate change or not.

[Nobunaga]

... It's not about emissions and pollution, climate or polar bears, it's about turning one of the most abundant substances on the planet into a money machine, creating a taxable and tradeable commodity where none existed.

... and that I have to pay for every time I buy a hamburger, a coffee mug, a carpet or a Honda.

... Freakin' morons. How much more obvious must it be? Anybody who falls for the "For the good of the planet" line is an imbecile.

... That and about 3000 earmarks (anybody here recall campaign promises against earmarks? Selective amnesia among the liberals here... par for the course)

... Hope and Change, Baby! Isn't life wonderful?!

...

[jbrettlip]

I never claimed to be a neo-con

Actions > Words.

So you've never broken a light bulb?

Broken the glass part of a lightbulb? Sure I have, plenty of times.

Broken the sealed base-unit of an energy-efficient lightbulb? No; because I've never hit one with a jack-hammer before.


Seriously, learn how the things are actually constructed before trying to make ridiculous points like that. The mercury isn't in the fragile glass bit.

I believe there is mercury vapor in the glass parts of CFL's. When the glass breaks, the mercury comes out. I don't think a jackhammer is necessary.

[jbrettlip]

CFLs, like all fluorescent lamps, contain small amounts of mercury[41][42] as vapor inside the glass tubing, averaging 4 mg[43] or 5 mg[44] per bulb, and it is a concern for landfills and waste incinerators where the mercury from lamps is released and contributes to air and water pollution. Mercury emissions from centralized plants are easier to regulate than the proper disposal of home-use products. In the U.S., lighting manufacturer members of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) have voluntarily capped the amount of mercury used in CFLs.[45] Many manufacturers now manufacture CFLs with only 1.0 mg or less than 1.5 mg of mercury per bulb.[46]


Oh, but if DM types it must be so. Perhaps all that mercury from his "harmless" broken lightbulbs is getting the best of him. Ski masks do not double as hazmat suits.

PS I actually have CFL's throughout my house, and believe they are a good thing. Just wanted to point out the facts.

[PLAYER57832]

As an aside, I've seen one Hummer today. And "scores" is not that many (assuming that the term "score" means twenty). I see far more fuel efficient vehicles on the road than fuel inefficient vehicles.

Among my 10 "immediate" neighbors and us are 2 jeep Cherokees, 1 older Windstar, a brand new Explorer type vehicle (the hige deluxe one ... not sure of make), 3 half ton pickups, one with a full utility back, 4 big, older "sedan" type cars, a jeep wrangler, another pickup of moderate size, and 1 of the new smaller, fuel-efficient cars. About half were bought new in the past 2 years. I could go over a few streets (anywhere in town other than the old folk's facilities, in fact) and you would see roughly the same picture.


Anyway, the problem with saying that businesses are looking "more long term" is that "long term" for a business is still around 5-10 years. Longer term is not the same as long term.

[Night Strike]

Anyway, the problem with saying that businesses are looking "more long term" is that "long term" for a business is still around 5-10 years. Longer term is not the same as long term.

Long term for a politician is the next election.

[spurgistan]

Anyway, the problem with saying that businesses are looking "more long term" is that "long term" for a business is still around 5-10 years. Longer term is not the same as long term.

Long term for a politician is the next election.

Exactly. Which is why nobody has cared about environmental problems and dramatic increases in the price of health care that haven't happened yet, but are a direct consequence of choices we make (or don't make) today.

[PLAYER57832]

Anyway, the problem with saying that businesses are looking "more long term" is that "long term" for a business is still around 5-10 years. Longer term is not the same as long term.

Long term for a politician is the next election.

Exactly. Which is why nobody has cared about environmental problems and dramatic increases in the price of health care that haven't happened yet, but are a direct consequence of choices we make (or don't make) today.

Don't care?

Maybe where you live, but around here both are pretty hot topics. (they yes, that includes my legislators)

[Pedronicus]

ExxonMobil continuing to fund climate sceptic groups, records show

Records show ExxonMobil gave hundreds of thousands of pounds to lobby groups that have published 'misleading and inaccurate information' about climate change.
link

[Night Strike]

ExxonMobil continuing to fund climate sceptic groups, records show

Records show ExxonMobil gave hundreds of thousands of pounds to lobby groups that have published 'misleading and inaccurate information' about climate change.
link

That's the same things wind and solar benefactors, especially GE, have been doing. It comes down to whose science and interpretations are more reliable, and contrary to popular belief, the case is not closed.

[Dancing Mustard]

That's the same things wind and solar benefactors, especially GE, have been doing.

Proof plz.

Getting bored of constant idle speculation now.

kkthxbi.

contrary to popular belief, the case is not closed.

Again, proof plz.

Also, please refrain from the usual 'flat-earther' tactics of (1) citing speculation as fact, (2) citing artfully presented pseudo-science and guesswork as 'reliable studies', (3) trying to use ad hominem to shout down valid studies that you don't like the sound of, (4) misrepresenting the findings of genuine studies by claiming that they support your points of view when they are in fact pointing out how utterly wrong you are, and (5) claiming that simply because there exists a body of people who remain unconvinced by the now glaringly obvious fact of man-caused climate-change that this fact gives their opinions relevance in and of itself.

Basically, the case can be re-opened just as soon as you find some evidence that can't be blown down by a feather. But right now, it's distinctly closed... mainly due to the fact that "well I don't buy it" isn't a valid argument in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


kkthxbi x2

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox