BF2S Forums President Obama on Historic Energy Bill

sarcasm?

I do, and yes you are reading it wrong (going by what you posted). It's called constructive notice. .. full disclosure type stuff. It's designed to makes sure the buyer knows what they are getting. We already do it with lots of things.. mold, termites, etc.

RPAC would never let something like that stand in the way of a sale. The bill is going to die in the senate imo.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jun/2 … use-gases/

Search for "sell their home".  Its in the comments...trying to find a better source.

Someguy wrote:

Just for starters this bill would require anyone wanting to sell their home to bring it up to government mandated "energy efficiency" standards before it can be sold. So before you sell your 30 year old house, be prepared to put another $20,000 to $30,000 into it. There goes home sales and here comes more foreclosures. And now the whole country has California's building codes. But hey, if you haven't heard, they know better than you.

Last edited by Harmor (2009-06-29 22:22:24)

Hmm...some callers to Rush Limbaugh's show said the same thing... http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/ … guest.html


Sorry, but I can't prove my original acersion.  The sources provided aren't credible enough.

ATG wrote:

Q: why the silence about building new nuclear power plants and/or nuclear desalinzation plants?

Spoiler (highlight to read):
because the democrats will not let it happen.

According to my extensive research on the subject, nuclear power is the least efficient, compared to the cost of other "clean energy" sources.  Until we find a good source of tritium for nuclear fusion, or a new design for nuclear power plants, nuclear power is just a bad idea.

Lawd, that was as dull, predictable and vague a speech as he has ever given!

Last edited by Deadmonkiefart (2009-06-30 23:38:58)

I dunno about anybody else, but I consider the cap and trade a tax. Energy prices, along with food prices are going to skyrocket because of his policies.

And the whole global warming thing is nothing more than an insane power grab, a total hoax and a fraud. Nobody wants pollution, but please people, don't be stupid.


I base the aforementioned statement on a slightly more than casual study of geology and the glaciers of California. Glaciers come and go and nobody knows exactly when they will come again, or why they melted in the first place.
This is just plain fact.

Kmarion wrote:

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.

I agree there should be pressure on China to cut back on polluting, but with direct reference to CO2 emissions, they're not in too bad shape (relatively speaking).

What I disagree on is that the changes could be best driven by the Chinese government and not the "consumer half way around the globe". Traditionally consumer forcing is one of the most powerful tools for creating big market shifts. One of the things I support most for cutting back on CO2 emissions is a universal carbon labeling scheme. If everything had its carbon cost on it in a clear and uniform way that was obvious to the buyer, it is likely that the trend would be towards buying products with a lower carbon cost, even if they are slightly more expensive (much like fairtrade products, which have been highly successful). This gives those producing stuff (globally) an incentive to heavily cut back on emissions.

Kmarion wrote:

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 didn't expect the reduction efforts would really continue, but hadn't realised that was the case. I haven't seen any figures to support that assertion, but I can well believe it to be true.

Kmarion wrote:

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.

Again, on the whole point of taking action before their purchasing power is upto Western levels, I completely agree - but, I think this should be achieved through market forcing. Although carbon quotas could help too, but I can't see how it can be considered remotely fair to allocate carbon quotas by anything other than population. Why should Americans and Europeans be allowed a bigger carbon footprint than someone from China? Another potential plus of a universal carbon labeling scheme is that it could easily and acurately show consumer carbon consumption and this could be used to count towards the carbon quota of the consuming nation, not the producing nation - which again seems far more fair.

Kmarion wrote:

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.

I can totally appreciate your position on all the other pollution problems China has. It is obviously a problem and a big problem at that, but I think that is a problem for China and her neighbours to work out, since it is really their problem. This bill is about CO2 and purely on that issue, China isn't too bad considering how big and heavily populated it is.

LividBovine wrote:

You ever dealt with the Chinese for anything?

Are you asking if I've ever dealt directly with the Chinese government?

That seems like rather a silly question.

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

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.

I agree there should be pressure on China to cut back on polluting, but with direct reference to CO2 emissions, they're not in too bad shape (relatively speaking).

What I disagree on is that the changes could be best driven by the Chinese government and not the "consumer half way around the globe". Traditionally consumer forcing is one of the most powerful tools for creating big market shifts. One of the things I support most for cutting back on CO2 emissions is a universal carbon labeling scheme. If everything had its carbon cost on it in a clear and uniform way that was obvious to the buyer, it is likely that the trend would be towards buying products with a lower carbon cost, even if they are slightly more expensive (much like fairtrade products, which have been highly successful). This gives those producing stuff (globally) an incentive to heavily cut back on emissions.

Kmarion wrote:

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 didn't expect the reduction efforts would really continue, but hadn't realised that was the case. I haven't seen any figures to support that assertion, but I can well believe it to be true.

Kmarion wrote:

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.

Again, on the whole point of taking action before their purchasing power is upto Western levels, I completely agree - but, I think this should be achieved through market forcing. Although carbon quotas could help too, but I can't see how it can be considered remotely fair to allocate carbon quotas by anything other than population. Why should Americans and Europeans be allowed a bigger carbon footprint than someone from China? Another potential plus of a universal carbon labeling scheme is that it could easily and acurately show consumer carbon consumption and this could be used to count towards the carbon quota of the consuming nation, not the producing nation - which again seems far more fair.

Kmarion wrote:

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.

I can totally appreciate your position on all the other pollution problems China has. It is obviously a problem and a big problem at that, but I think that is a problem for China and her neighbours to work out, since it is really their problem. This bill is about CO2 and purely on that issue, China isn't too bad considering how big and heavily populated it is.

LividBovine wrote:

You ever dealt with the Chinese for anything?

Are you asking if I've ever dealt directly with the Chinese government?

That seems like rather a silly question.

Bert I established in the beginning of this exchange that my china remark was intended for everything relating to the environment. I am expanding on the topic since I think if we are looking at energy we need to look at the whole picture. China get's 70% of it's energy from coal and that number is growing. That's a problem. Their pollution has reached North America, so I guess that makes us neighbors?

The consumer is going to try to get the most cost effective product. Bottom line. The government (imo) is the most powerful position to enforce environmental legislation. If it wasn't we would not need this energy bill.

I do not think anyone should be allotted a bigger carbon footprint than China. I was making the point that if we don't crack down on China (along with everyone else) it's game over. Their economy has been expanding at a rapid pace. If China doesn't acknowledge and address the problem now, then it's game over by the time they join the economic first world. I think it's pretty obvious the west is feeling the pressure. It's results can at least be partially seen in this energy bill.

Harmor wrote:

So are you saying we now have a "Coal War" with China?

We lose...

SupremeCommunityOrganiser69 wrote:

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch … ns-to.html

*edit: we need more nuclear power plants.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-07-01 20:32:16)

Kmarion wrote:

Bert I established in the beginning of this exchange that my china remark was intended for everything relating to the environment. I am expanding on the topic since I think if we are looking at energy we need to look at the whole picture. China get's 70% of it's energy from coal and that number is growing. That's a problem. Their pollution has reached North America, so I guess that makes us neighbors?

The consumer is going to try to get the most cost effective product. Bottom line. The government (imo) is the most powerful position to enforce environmental legislation. If it wasn't we would not need this energy bill.

I do not think anyone should be allotted a bigger carbon footprint than China. I was making the point that if we don't crack down on China (along with everyone else) it's game over. Their economy has been expanding at a rapid pace. If China doesn't acknowledge and address the problem now, then it's game over by the time they join the economic first world. I think it's pretty obvious the west is feeling the pressure. It's results can at least be partially seen in this energy bill.

Yes, I get what you're saying about Chinas other pollutants, but ultimately that is not what this bill is aimed at addressing and you can't exactly criticise it for that. It's also a bit hypocritical for the West to criticise China for polluting, to make all the products we use. It's all about consumer responsibility.

On the point about China using lots of coal, I think the US still uses more (about 55% - but that adds up to more coal)...

I completely disagree about the government beign in the most powerful position (realisitically) to enforce environmental legislation. None of the governments with quotas in place are looking on track to meet those targets. I think the consumer is much better placed to do so. Such change brought about by consumer demand would be natural and wouldn't screw anything up. It's already been demonstrated that consumers are largely prepared to pay more for responsibly sourced products (by the runaway success of fair trade products and organic produce), all that is needed is enough obvious product information - which government legislation could provide really easily, putting the ball squarely in the consumers court.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-07-02 03:09:36)

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bert I established in the beginning of this exchange that my china remark was intended for everything relating to the environment. I am expanding on the topic since I think if we are looking at energy we need to look at the whole picture. China get's 70% of it's energy from coal and that number is growing. That's a problem. Their pollution has reached North America, so I guess that makes us neighbors?

The consumer is going to try to get the most cost effective product. Bottom line. The government (imo) is the most powerful position to enforce environmental legislation. If it wasn't we would not need this energy bill.

I do not think anyone should be allotted a bigger carbon footprint than China. I was making the point that if we don't crack down on China (along with everyone else) it's game over. Their economy has been expanding at a rapid pace. If China doesn't acknowledge and address the problem now, then it's game over by the time they join the economic first world. I think it's pretty obvious the west is feeling the pressure. It's results can at least be partially seen in this energy bill.

Yes, I get what you're saying about Chinas other pollutants, but ultimately that is not what this bill is aimed at addressing and you can't exactly criticise it for that. It's also a bit hypocritical for the West to criticise China for polluting, to make all the products we use. It's all about consumer responsibility.

On the point about China using lots of coal, I think the US still uses more (about 55% - but that adds up to more coal)...

I completely disagree about the government beign in the most powerful position (realisitically) to enforce environmental legislation. None of the governments with quotas in place are looking on track to meet those targets. I think the consumer is much better placed to do so. Such change brought about by consumer demand would be natural and wouldn't screw anything up. It's already been demonstrated that consumers are largely prepared to pay more for responsibly sourced products (by the runaway success of fair trade products and organic produce), all that is needed is enough obvious product information - which government legislation could provide really easily, putting the ball squarely in the consumers court.

It is not ALL about consumer responsibility. I really don't get how you can excuse the manufacturer or the governments that are charged with the responsibility of regulating them. Maybe the goals set were unrealistic. There is no reason to think that the self serving consumer would have better results.

You say it's wrong for us to criticize them for excessively polluting to make our products and then you say only the consumer can make them change.. wtf? It's not like we aren't also pressuring companies at home.

I said the percent of energy coming from coal. China should probably diversify more seeing as they are at 70% coal and growing rapidly.

The consumer is all about the lowest price .. for the most part. If left up to the person who cares most about the bottom line there will never be a meaningful change. That is reality.

So new homes will cost more?