BF2S Forums President Obama on Historic Energy Bill

Cool, I will go and google " Agency thats not the EPA that USmarine says climate bill will make things worse".
Damn , now I am being a smartass.

Ahhh, but  I think there may not be another Agency that says it may make things worse, therefore I will be googling something that doesnt exist.


Pong.

No worries, better let you get back to work. Dont want the boss to catch you

i dunno..have a go at these.

Environmental Groups See Divide over Landmark Climate, Energy Bill Weakened by Industry Lobbying
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/22/climate_debate

Burwhale wrote:

If your power bill goes up 10% then use less power. Gas goes up, use less gas. Its happened , so stop whinging about it and find a solution.
BO was elected for policies that include Greenhouse gas reductions, so he is just sticking to his promise. You would probably also whinge if he did nothing.

I must disagree...that's not always the case.  You drive lets say 60 miles aday to go to/from work.  How can do you drive less?

Hopefully you can join a carpool, I guess, but most people work at small companies and you'll be lucky if someone lives near you willing to carpool.  You could also buy a smaller more economical car, but if you have a family you can't fit all your kids in a sub-compact or want the increased chance of dying (smaller cars have a higher casualty rate) - additionally, hybrids are still expensive.



So the power goes up and you go out and buy eco-bulbs and then what?  Its not that the power bill will go up 10% its that its going to go up 40-90%.  In California our water bill and energy bills have already gone up 35% year-over-year and that's BEFORE this bill has been passed.



So the gas went to $4/gallon (that was like a 100% increased), in 2008 and look at what it did to our economy; I can tell you it didn't help.  All these new programs as much I want us all to be energy independent means higher costs and a lower standard of living as we pay for the forced transition.



Rather than force the transition, why not invest in technologies that make alternative energy competitive with existing technologies.  I would tell you that if someone figured out how to make something that costs less than Gasoline/Petrol that we would be using that in 10 years.

here is info on the EPA report ...
http://michellemalkin.com/
http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/ … nsored-epa

.pdf
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

This Bill hasn't been read...but they had to vote by Friday or the world would end...
It's not to much to ask the people who were voting on this to read through it...

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-06-27 13:34:14)

Spark wrote:

Is a neutral source too much to ask? Everything you've posted so far in this thread has been from a conservative blog or CE-fucking-I, who are amongst the most insincere corporatists I've ever seen.

Here a link to the 648 page document:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2454:

Enjoy.

EDIT: Here's a good summary:

http://www.reuters.com/article/gwmBuild … 7920090626


EDIT2:

Reuters wrote:

Provides that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have a duty to serve very low, low and moderate income communities while developing underwriting standards to facilitate a secondary market for energy-efficient and location efficient mortgages;

Isn't that what got us in trouble with the current housing mess to begin with?

Last edited by Harmor (2009-06-27 18:03:18)

Look, the Earth will be here alot longer than our species will.  Its basically how comfortable do we want to live.  Do we want our food grown in the United States or in Canada/Russia?

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The amount of pressure on China is pathetic. I'm talking about all around pollution.

But China doesn't pollute much. Exceedingly low PER-CAPITA emissions.

That's what it's all down to. Not what country you are, how many people your emissions are supporting and China and India are really rather good on this. Maybe their overall emissions are quite high, but they're entitled to have higher emissions, they need to support lots of people (almost half the worlds population tbh).

It's those damned Australians and Canadians we need to blame....

Really? Cause the earth gives a rats ass about per capita rates? Is it our fault that a good portion of their country is severely impoverished and can't afford modern conveniences? The rate at which they have jumped is staggering. I'm not just talking Co2 also. Look at their lakes, rivers, and air quality. We're not talking dirty, we're talking deadly.. we're talking birth defects galore. Jesus Bert, you can't sit there with a straight face and tell me that the China problem is somehow less relevant due to a massive population. da fuck

I totally can and will.

Population is a very important factor when you're looking at greenhouse gas emission quotas.

On your point about the earth not giving a rats ass about per capita rates, I'd have to say from that perspective you'd be looking at emissions compared to land mass, where again China is in a better position than the US.

All the sorts of cuts that need to be made will have an impact on quality of life. The only fair way of assigning emissions quotas is on a per capita basis.

All this bitching and whining I hear about China and India polluting kinda shows an inflated sense of self importance. Why should an American (or rather an Australian or a Canadian (although they do have the land mass get out - if you look at it like that)) be allowed to pollute more than someone from China or India? They shouldn't, especially considering the fact that the pollution in China primarily comes, directly or indirectly, from production of goods to export to the West.

This bill is about greenhouse gases and their impact on the world in general. China's pollution problem is very much localised around their cities and the impact to the rest of the world of them having semi-toxic air and water is negligible. It's their problem to sort out. Greenhouses gases are where international action is needed and where action is being taken. Shifting the subject onto China dubious air and water quality isn't exactly directly relevant to their emissions quotas for greenhouse gases now is it?

China are also doing a damn good job of addressing their pollution problem. If you look at the figures for all types of pollution, they have dropped massively in recent years (build up to the Olympics may have been a factor).

Number of Pollution and Destruction Accidents; 2000:2411, 2004:1441 - big drop there, nearly halved in a few years.
Water Pollution; 2000:1138, 2004:753 - again, this has almost halved.
Air Pollution; 2000:864, 2004:569 - dropped by around a third.
Solid Waste Pollution; 2000:103, 2004:47 - more than halved.

They've really been cutting back on polluting. It's an impressive rate of improvement. Hard to criticise results like that.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-06-28 03:33:35)

LividBovine wrote:

Who came up with these figures?  The Chinese?

I think it was the IOC....

Part of their bid commitment.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-06-28 04:03:48)

LividBovine wrote:

Who conducted the study?  Not who called for it.

Dunno. Probably a team appointed by them.

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

But China doesn't pollute much. Exceedingly low PER-CAPITA emissions.

That's what it's all down to. Not what country you are, how many people your emissions are supporting and China and India are really rather good on this. Maybe their overall emissions are quite high, but they're entitled to have higher emissions, they need to support lots of people (almost half the worlds population tbh).

It's those damned Australians and Canadians we need to blame....

Really? Cause the earth gives a rats ass about per capita rates? Is it our fault that a good portion of their country is severely impoverished and can't afford modern conveniences? The rate at which they have jumped is staggering. I'm not just talking Co2 also. Look at their lakes, rivers, and air quality. We're not talking dirty, we're talking deadly.. we're talking birth defects galore. Jesus Bert, you can't sit there with a straight face and tell me that the China problem is somehow less relevant due to a massive population. da fuck

I totally can and will.

Population is a very important factor when you're looking at greenhouse gas emission quotas.

On your point about the earth not giving a rats ass about per capita rates, I'd have to say from that perspective you'd be looking at emissions compared to land mass, where again China is in a better position than the US.

All the sorts of cuts that need to be made will have an impact on quality of life. The only fair way of assigning emissions quotas is on a per capita basis.

All this bitching and whining I hear about China and India polluting kinda shows an inflated sense of self importance. Why should an American (or rather an Australian or a Canadian (although they do have the land mass get out - if you look at it like that)) be allowed to pollute more than someone from China or India? They shouldn't, especially considering the fact that the pollution in China primarily comes, directly or indirectly, from production of goods to export to the West.

This bill is about greenhouse gases and their impact on the world in general. China's pollution problem is very much localised around their cities and the impact to the rest of the world of them having semi-toxic air and water is negligible. It's their problem to sort out. Greenhouses gases are where international action is needed and where action is being taken. Shifting the subject onto China dubious air and water quality isn't exactly directly relevant to their emissions quotas for greenhouse gases now is it?

China are also doing a damn good job of addressing their pollution problem. If you look at the figures for all types of pollution, they have dropped massively in recent years (build up to the Olympics may have been a factor).

Number of Pollution and Destruction Accidents; 2000:2411, 2004:1441 - big drop there, nearly halved in a few years.
Water Pollution; 2000:1138, 2004:753 - again, this has almost halved.
Air Pollution; 2000:864, 2004:569 - dropped by around a third.
Solid Waste Pollution; 2000:103, 2004:47 - more than halved.

They've really been cutting back on polluting. It's an impressive rate of improvement. Hard to criticise results like that.

You seem to be under the impression that I don't think the USA should be doing anything about this. This is not the case. Why would I even start this topic? My question was why is there so little relative pressure on such a huge polluter? The bottom line matters, and they are in a position to do the most to change the trend. The government of China can regulate this, not the consumer half way around the globe.

Their efforts to reduce pollution while the world watched the Olympics were indeed extreme (the weather helped more than anything), but most importantly they were only temporary. However, the air quality in Beijing still violated WHO guidelines 81 to 100 percent of the time. They remained 2 to 4 times smoggier than our worst cities. Those plants have since resumed and those cars are back on the road.

I'm not trying to make this political, really. If I was I'd be pointing out all the other countries that have a higher co2 per capita rate. But it makes sense to me to at least apply the same amount of pressure on china when it comes to ALL things green. BECAUSE, if we wait until their population has the same amount of purchasing power to apply this pressure we will all be up shit creek. They are only about half in terms of PPP. As they continue to rapidly grow economically so will their fuel usage. I think coal amounts to 70% of their energy.

I know this is an energy bill. But I also think it's important to consider all factors impacting the environment when harvesting energy. Their pollution, Co2 aside, has escaped their borders. The nations of the world do share the environment beyond Co2. So yea, it does affect other nations.

Harmor wrote:

Looks like you won't be able to sell your house unless it passes Energy Star requirements.  This basically means that all your appliances and windows/doors must be rated to a minimum standard before you're allowed to sell your house.

Basically, you can no longer buy a 'fixer-upper' because the government won't allow the transaction to go though.

seriously? thats a bit fucked up, source?

i remember then energy star thingo on a pc we had years ago lul