[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 23, 2:07*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 22, 11:33*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
WASHINGTON - A nonpartisan congressional study projects only modest
household cost increases as a result of a Democratic proposal to limit
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, contradicting claims by
many Republican lawmakers that the climate legislation amounts to a
huge energy tax on average Americans.

...

The findings contrast sharply with cost projections — some as high as
$3,100 per household — use by many Republicans including House
Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio who repeatedly has blasted the
Democrat's climate legislation as economically devastating to average
Americans.

"This analysis underscores that this legislation is effective and
affordable," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., one of the climate bill's
chief sponsors, said Monday.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., also a leading co-sponsor, compared the
cost to "a postage stamp a day" and not the economic catastrophe
suggested by the bill's opponents.

http://tiny.cc/onkAU

2pid? Is the sky still falling? Are you still really REALLY ****ed off
about this?

*Effective?

*Here's another view.

"But the bill's offset plan has been battered by environmental
activists as too generous. They argue that the offsets would undermine
the new greenhouse gas emissions limits that would be mandated by the
legislation.

The fear, said Emily Figdor of Environment America, is that if carbon
offsets are cheap and readily available, companies may purchase them
instead of cutting their pollution.

As a result, U.S. emissions might not dip for years - and could even
increase in the short term - despite new greenhouse gas limits.

"The fact that 2 billion tons of offsets were included puts in
jeopardy the environmental goals of the bill," Figdor said.

An analysis by the Breakthrough Institute, a think tank in Oakland,
found that if polluters purchase the "relatively cheap carbon
offsets ... emissions in supposedly capped U.S. sectors (could) rise
by up to 9 percent between 2005 and 2030."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...6/21/MNCE18AEO....

You might get what you pay for which isn't much.

BTW, did you ever compare our modest reduction goals *to China's
projected growth in CO2 emissions? * I hope you like mosquitoes in
November.

Oh, so you're really REALLY ****ed because the bill doesn't go *far*
enough!

My bad. I thought you were really REALLY ****ed about something else.
LoL.