The average American consumer, screwed into paying higher costs for a bit of s*** they need and most s*** they don't. par for the course. It's amazing how in the frame of 100 years, a microsecond in the history of this earth, we have consumed the equivalent of a couple of million of years of resources. Not saying cap & trade or other prepositions on the table will do anything to solve the root of this problem but godd*** it, it's about time we attempted to restrain ourselves.
Where is that $2 trillion going? Saudi Arabia? Venezuela? If more the money is being spent locally than on foreign oil, that means more income taxes and corporate taxes will be collected from the clean energy industries than from Arabian oil companies.
This isn't going to cost the government $2 trillion and add to the national debt. It's actually going to generate revenue for the government.
Sorry, hoss, all I can think of is a fat woman, in a "God Bless the USA!" T-shirt, and an american flag painted on her cheek, with a "PATRIOTS NOT PAY-TRIOTS!" sign, and her three- and four- year olds in tow, telling me how communist muslim kenyan is destroying the american revolution by passing satanic debt spending measures ONTO THE CHILDREN, and how it's making Samuel Jefferson and George Adams Washington and Forey Father spin in their graves, and if they were cremated, it makes their ash blow in the wind in a circular patter...like a small dirt devil, if you will. I think of it and I cry. Like the native american in those pollution commercials from the 70's. Then I see GLORIOUS REVENUE on the horizon to save the ship of state.
when I was growing up the white kids called me 'spic' the mexican kids called me 'gringo' now the republicans call me unpatriotic and the democrats call me right wing nut there's a lot of love in America
Oh, I'm well aware of the fact that consumers will be paying for it. But I was responding to a comment that made it sound like the government was going to be spending even more money they don't have, when that's not the case. Consumers will finally be charged for the negative consequences of their excessive energy consumption.
The only time I can think of something like that happening was the second comin' of the jesus (1983/88, right?) and Y2K. Neither of which had any factual basis to them.
1) Almost none of these "many" people are actual climate scientists. 2) I'd rather take precautions now that may turn out to be unnecessary than not take them and screw over many future generations. 3) There are other consequences of our excessive use of dirty sources of energy than just climate change. Do you remember what fresh air is like? Neither do I.
They don't understand how to analyze large data sets, which is fine I guess. But let's play denialist advocate. Let's say 99% of climate scientists are dead wrong and all the accumulated data, from CO2 levels and ice melts, etc, are just completely random and misleading. What will be the major long-term harm in America becoming more energy independent and humankind embracing more sustainable energy practices in general? Is there any argument against this other than some short-term profit margins? If not, the position of denialists is not just flimsy on the evidence, it's 100% flimsy on the basis of logic. If you want to say overeating cheeseburgers might not lead to a heart attack, couldn't we just agree it's better and more healthy and more happy not to be obese? I think so.
Obama to Usher In New World Order at G-20 President will announce Friday morning a significant expansion of the consortium of countries that tackles global economic and climate change issues. By Kelly Chernenkoff FOXNews.com Friday, September 25, 2009 In a surprising late-night twist on the eve of the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh, FOX News has learned President Obama will announce Friday morning a significant expansion of the consortium of countries that tackles global economic and climate change issues. Obama will tell reporters that the G-20, comprised of 19 industrial and emerging-market countries plus the European Union, will supplant the smaller Group of Eight nations, G-8, as the go-to group for solving the world's economic ills. "This decision brings to the table the countries needed to build a stronger, more balanced global economy, reform the financial system, and lift the lives of the poorest," the White House said in a statement. The G8 will retain its national security focus, but be replaced by the broader G-20 on the issues of climate change, financial regulatory reform and global imbalances. President Obama pressed for the change at the last G-8 Summit in Italy, expressing his displeasure at the unwieldy array of G-8 meeting variations. Obama said, "There is no doubt that we have to update and refresh and renew the international institutions that were set up in a different time and place. What I've noticed is everybody wants the smallest possible group, the smallest possible organization, that includes them. So, if they're the 21st largest nation in the world, they want the G-21, and think it's highly unfair if they have been cut out." Though the news itself was an unexpected turn, the reasoning behind it was written in the tea leaves Thursday when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner sang the praises of broadened global cooperation; making special note of the strides China, a non-G-8 country, has made in financial reforms. The more inclusive approach will allow countries such as Brazil, China, and India, who have griped about not being part of the G-8, to now have a bigger stake in strengthening global cooperation and economic stability. President Obama also supported their inclusion, noting fewer meetings would be more effective. The G-20 started ten years ago as a group of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors from industrialized and developing economies, but has involved Heads of State Summits, such as the one taking place Friday. The G-8's members are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission attends as well. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/25/obama-announce-expansion-global-cooperation/ A brief overview of the G20 from Ron Paul: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/COtE1J5NMbo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/COtE1J5NMbo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Now can we all agree that there's a new world government and financial system taking place right in front of our eyes. This brings to mind an old movie clip... listen carefully... <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/te6qG4yn-Ps&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/te6qG4yn-Ps&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
This brain says no. Sorry. But get thee to thine bunker! It's too late to save idiots like me from the new world government, (cleverly disguised as an infrequent meeting of 20 nations to discuss issues of mutual concern.) Riddle me this: if you want to convince people in your community to keep the sidewalks clean, do you contact 8 neighbors or 20 neighbors? (That B-Bob has really drunk the Koolaid!)
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7criyE09uy0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7criyE09uy0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
