Jump to content

'We're Getting There,' House Majority Whip Says as Climate Bill Vote Nears


Auburn85

Recommended Posts

I've got to (surprise surprise) disagree who say now is the wrong time do this. First of all, you can always come up with reasons why the timing is wrong. If the economy was going great - you'd say 'don't do it now, things are going great' - so what are we supposed to do? Wait until the economy is just average? Well seeing that the SOONEST this bill could become law is October, and more likely Novemberish, I for one would like to believe that by around then thing will have completely stabilized. So you could almost argue the timing is perfect - but I digress.

I'd say "the worst economic situation since the great depression" forces special circumstances where you try to spend as little as possible, and impose as few NEW financial burdens on your citizens as possible.

If the economy was going great, I think people wold have more capacity to afford the tax, whether they liked it or not. But considering you guys say we've been harming the planet for about 100 years, I don't think waiting a year or two on this legislation will kill the planet.

Bottom line, this is all immaterial. They KNOW the American people don't want this tax. That's why you haven't heard ANYTHING about it. It's another case of politicians not properly representing the people who elected them. I promise you if this tax went to a national election it would get crushed...because people would get to know what it ACTUALLY was. Again, people care/believe in climate concerns when it's not affecting the bottom line. You start messing with people's money check, and the concern drops way down the line.

"We need to act now, what's the cost of doing nothing?"...That's a whole lot of hyperbole for something your scientists can't even prove. And thousands upon thousands of scientists disagree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

link: http://www.api.org/Newsroom/cbo_statement.cfm

API statement on CBO calculations for the Waxman-Markey bill

Bill Bush | 202-682-8069 | bushw@api.org

WASHINGTON, June 24, 2009 - The American Petroleum Institute issued the following statement today from President Jack Gerard on the most recent costs CBO calculated for the Waxman-Markey climate bill:

“The calculations give new meaning to the term ‘rosy scenario.’

“CBO pegs the annual household cost of Waxman-Markey at $175 per household, yet its own report suggests gasoline could rise 77 cents a gallon. That’s $800 more a year just for gasoline, assuming a family uses 20 gallons a week.

“CBO also claims free emission allowances will offset this. But they go to businesses and government, not consumers. Also, unlike other analyses, including EPA’s, CBO assumes the legislation won’t slow down the economy. Tweak CBO’s assumptions with common sense and the annual bill to households is more like $3,300. And that’s in 2020 before the emissions cap ratchets down and the costs climb thousands more.

“Proponents of Waxman-Markey want you to believe cap-and-trade isn’t going to cost more than taking a few people to Disney World for a day. No amount of econometric sleight-of-hand can make that true.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WASHINGTON, June 24, 2009 - The American Petroleum Institute .... :lol:

Note: These are the same guys who put out the $3k estimate. They don't see the writing on the wall now do they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, acknowledging that the API has an agenda, are you trying to say they are the only ones that have one? Do you really think your favored sources are the default and all others are at variance with their more "accurate" analysis.

And don't give me "nonpartisan" CBO arguments. The problem with the CBO isn't partisanship. It's that they are so horrendously bad at forecasting anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, acknowledging that the API has an agenda, are you trying to say they are the only ones that have one? Do you really think your favored sources are the default and all others are at variance with their more "accurate" analysis.

And don't give me "nonpartisan" CBO arguments. The problem with the CBO isn't partisanship. It's that they are so horrendously bad at forecasting anything.

Honestly, I don't see how any one can have an accurate estimate at this point. By definition, the bill is still very much in an evolving phase. My point all along was simply that the opposition has cherry-picked the worst estimate they could find, which just so happens to come from a group with an obvious agenda. And I think that point is worth recognizing and considering when weighing your own POV on this issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted. But your side on this is also cherry picking the most rosy estimates. The thing we know is that EVERY estimate is saying it's going to cost us more on our utility bills. It's not like there are some saying it's going to save us money and others saying it will cost us a lot. We're just arguing as to whether it's going to be minimal or a kick in the gut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, acknowledging that the API has an agenda, are you trying to say they are the only ones that have one? Do you really think your favored sources are the default and all others are at variance with their more "accurate" analysis.

And don't give me "nonpartisan" CBO arguments. The problem with the CBO isn't partisanship. It's that they are so horrendously bad at forecasting anything.

Honestly, I don't see how any one can have an accurate estimate at this point. By definition, the bill is still very much in an evolving phase. My point all along was simply that the opposition has cherry-picked the worst estimate they could find, which just so happens to come from a group with an obvious agenda. And I think that point is worth recognizing and considering when weighing your own POV on this issue.

Speaking of cherry picking, what has been the number you have latched on to? $150 per year or some such asinine low ball number?

Anyone with half a brain knows this will cost the U.S. economy untold billions of dollars. And who pays those billions?

Several times I have asked Justin what are the estimates and projections staffers are talking about. But no response. Would that be because there are no projections? I don't think so. Would it because they are terrified that the American people will see this for what it is? Oh yes I'm thinking that is close to the mark.

For the record the projection amounts at somewhere in the $2 trillion range. But that may be a conservative projection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, there are some saying it will reduce costs - eventually. Here are all of the published estimates I've seen...

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) - LOWER energy costs by $3,900/yr by 2030

CRA International - LOWER energy costs by $600 and $1,600/ in 2020

EPA - $80-$110/yr

Congressional Budget Office - $175/yr

American Petroleum Institute - $3,300/yr

Some interesting reads on this entire back-and-forth...

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/...-climate-costs/

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/06/26/26...bate-91816.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, acknowledging that the API has an agenda, are you trying to say they are the only ones that have one? Do you really think your favored sources are the default and all others are at variance with their more "accurate" analysis.

And don't give me "nonpartisan" CBO arguments. The problem with the CBO isn't partisanship. It's that they are so horrendously bad at forecasting anything.

Honestly, I don't see how any one can have an accurate estimate at this point. By definition, the bill is still very much in an evolving phase. My point all along was simply that the opposition has cherry-picked the worst estimate they could find, which just so happens to come from a group with an obvious agenda. And I think that point is worth recognizing and considering when weighing your own POV on this issue.

Then why not put limitations in the bill that say "we will enact this bill, but cap it's burden on american families at X dollars"

That way we aren't putting a bill into action that has no limit on the damage it could POTENTIALLY do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, acknowledging that the API has an agenda, are you trying to say they are the only ones that have one? Do you really think your favored sources are the default and all others are at variance with their more "accurate" analysis.

And don't give me "nonpartisan" CBO arguments. The problem with the CBO isn't partisanship. It's that they are so horrendously bad at forecasting anything.

Honestly, I don't see how any one can have an accurate estimate at this point. By definition, the bill is still very much in an evolving phase. My point all along was simply that the opposition has cherry-picked the worst estimate they could find, which just so happens to come from a group with an obvious agenda. And I think that point is worth recognizing and considering when weighing your own POV on this issue.

Speaking of cherry picking, what has been the number you have latched on to? $150 per year or some such asinine low ball number?

Anyone with half a brain knows this will cost the U.S. economy untold billions of dollars. And who pays those billions?

Several times I have asked Justin what are the estimates and projections staffers are talking about. But no response. Would that be because there are no projections? I don't think so. Would it because they are terrified that the American people will see this for what it is? Oh yes I'm thinking that is close to the mark.

For the record the projection amounts at somewhere in the $2 trillion range. But that may be a conservative projection.

I've seen tons of projection, but I don't really stand behind any of them. There is no concrete number to gone on, and thats just the fact of the matter.

That said, that's not a reason to pass or not pass something - or do or not do something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, that's not a reason to pass or not pass something - or do or not do something.

So you don't care what's in the bill...as long as they do SOMETHING.

Hell you don't even need the scientists to offer concrete proof, or come to a consensus on man-made global warming...to scream for a crippling tax on American citizens. We just voted for a bill that imposes a tax...to help us fight something we don't even know exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, that's not a reason to pass or not pass something - or do or not do something.

So you don't care what's in the bill...as long as they do SOMETHING.

Hell you don't even need the scientists to offer concrete proof, or come to a consensus on man-made global warming...to scream for a crippling tax on American citizens. We just voted for a bill that imposes a tax...to help us fight something we don't even know exists.

From day 1, I haven't seen this as a climate change bill; I've seen it as an energy independence bill. Fossil fuels are FINITE as in they run out. Better make the change now, when we can gradually move forward - rather than wait for us to get to the point where we are paying $50 a gallon for gas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, that's not a reason to pass or not pass something - or do or not do something.

So you don't care what's in the bill...as long as they do SOMETHING.

Hell you don't even need the scientists to offer concrete proof, or come to a consensus on man-made global warming...to scream for a crippling tax on American citizens. We just voted for a bill that imposes a tax...to help us fight something we don't even know exists.

From day 1, I haven't seen this as a climate change bill; I've seen it as an energy independence bill. Fossil fuels are FINITE as in they run out. Better make the change now, when we can gradually move forward - rather than wait for us to get to the point where we are paying $50 a gallon for gas.

No one will be paying $50 a gallon for gas because the free market will come up with a more economic alternative; the free market will ALWAYS come up with a more efficient solution than the government imposing a heavy hand. Your government meddling will skew and delay true energy independence by picking and choosing the wrong solutions, that is a fact. Just like you think you can run GM better, you cannot, Ford, Toyota and Honda will eat your lunch; that is, if you don't abuse your power and skew that market too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, that's not a reason to pass or not pass something - or do or not do something.

So you don't care what's in the bill...as long as they do SOMETHING.

Hell you don't even need the scientists to offer concrete proof, or come to a consensus on man-made global warming...to scream for a crippling tax on American citizens. We just voted for a bill that imposes a tax...to help us fight something we don't even know exists.

From day 1, I haven't seen this as a climate change bill; I've seen it as an energy independence bill. Fossil fuels are FINITE as in they run out. Better make the change now, when we can gradually move forward - rather than wait for us to get to the point where we are paying $50 a gallon for gas.

Funny how ya'lls tune changes when you find out that nobody REALLY believes in man-made global warming.

Next thing you know, Cap & Trade will be about healthcare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, that's not a reason to pass or not pass something - or do or not do something.

So you don't care what's in the bill...as long as they do SOMETHING.

Hell you don't even need the scientists to offer concrete proof, or come to a consensus on man-made global warming...to scream for a crippling tax on American citizens. We just voted for a bill that imposes a tax...to help us fight something we don't even know exists.

From day 1, I haven't seen this as a climate change bill; I've seen it as an energy independence bill. Fossil fuels are FINITE as in they run out. Better make the change now, when we can gradually move forward - rather than wait for us to get to the point where we are paying $50 a gallon for gas.

Funny how ya'lls tune changes when you find out that nobody REALLY believes in man-made global warming.

Next thing you know, Cap & Trade will be about healthcare.

One is the byproduct of the other. If you burn a fossil fuel there are emissions. I don't understand why you are having such trouble connecting the two. And I certainly can't fathom why you don't believe that putting less gook in the air and buying less oil from the middle east are good things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious about one other point: Do all of you who are concerned about your utility bills already take proactive measures to bring down costs? (i.e., have you changed out your light bulbs? do you un-plug your cell phone charger when not in use? do you turn off lights when you aren't around? Do you have energy star appliances? Do you wash your clothes in cold water with cold water detergents?, etc)

I'm not trying to play a gotcha-game or preach but rather understand if your concerns are matched with actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious about one other point: Do all of you who are concerned about your utility bills already take proactive measures to bring down costs? (i.e., have you changed out your light bulbs? do you un-plug your cell phone charger when not in use? do you turn off lights when you aren't around? Do you have energy star appliances? Do you wash your clothes in cold water with cold water detergents?, etc)

I'm not trying to play a gotcha-game or preach but rather understand if your concerns are matched with actions.

Yes, and you should see how many times a day I yell at my kids for leaving their bedroom lights on!! And oh yeah, we have 3 Honda's and a Mazda Protege, the Rexbo Family fleet-wide standard is about 33 mpg...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do all of you who are concerned about your utility bills already take proactive measures to bring down costs? (i.e., have you changed out your light bulbs?

Every light fixture in my house with the exception of a couple that don't work well with the CFs have been changed out. I like knowing that I'm using less than 1/4th of the electricity when I turn on my 13-watt CFL and get the same light as my old 60-watt incandescents gave me.

do you un-plug your cell phone charger when not in use?

Everytime.

do you turn off lights when you aren't around?

Yes. As well as computers and ceiling fans.

Do you have energy star appliances?

Some. Can't afford to replace everything right now though. Paying more a month on energy bills for doing the same things won't help that get better any time soon.

Do you wash your clothes in cold water with cold water detergents?, etc)

We wash everything in cold except our sheets.

I'm not trying to play a gotcha-game or preach but rather understand if your concerns are matched with actions.

Yes. I do everything in my power to lower my utility bills. The AC is put on 77 during the day, we keep the blinds closed (especially on the side the sun is hitting) to keep things cooler. We run ceiling or floor fans to circulate air rather than pushing the AC down. I'm even looking at adding more insulation to the attic. I've never owned an SUV and I drive a four-cylinder car.

There's not a lot else I can do that's affordable and will make a big difference. And I'm trying to do all of this while getting out of debt. So any extra monthly costs are not helping me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it great how all the little measures can add up? Luckily, I have a newer construction home so insulation, appliances, etc are all up to the latest standards. I have also changed most of my light bulbs, only wash on cold, run full loads in the dishwasher, turned down the temp on my water heater, stay diligent about changing air filters, put a timer on exterior landscape lights, keep blinds closed, turn off lights, etc. And I have really been able to tell a difference in my utility bills. Just imagine if every one took these few small steps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it great how all the little measures can add up? Luckily, I have a newer construction home so insulation, appliances, etc are all up to the latest standards. I have also changed most of my light bulbs, only wash on cold, run full loads in the dishwasher, turned down the temp on my water heater, stay diligent about changing air filters, put a timer on exterior landscape lights, keep blinds closed, turn off lights, etc. And I have really been able to tell a difference in my utility bills. Just imagine if every one took these few small steps.

I think a good start would be the federal government. If those asshats would practice what they preach (and mandate) it would save a lot of money. Why don't you send in a suggestion to the President and ask him to turn off the outside lights at the White House? He could also turn down the thermostat during the winter months. I do remember him having the temp raised as soon as he moved in. W on the other hand kept the temp a little lower.

But the O talks a better talk. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't Jimmy Carter the one who wouldn't let them run the AC in the White House to save on energy costs? A message is one thing...but extremes are extremes.

President Obama does have several initiatives and funding for making Government buildings more efficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious about one other point: Do all of you who are concerned about your utility bills already take proactive measures to bring down costs? (i.e., have you changed out your light bulbs? do you un-plug your cell phone charger when not in use? do you turn off lights when you aren't around? Do you have energy star appliances? Do you wash your clothes in cold water with cold water detergents?, etc)

I'm not trying to play a gotcha-game or preach but rather understand if your concerns are matched with actions.

do you un-plug your cell phone charger when not in use?

Tell me more about this, please. We have two Verizon LG VX8300 models that we charge every night, but leave the chargers where they plug into the wall outlets plugged in. We need to unplug both chargers from the wall outlets, right? Is that what you're saying. Never heard that energy savings tip. :thedeal:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it great how all the little measures can add up? Luckily, I have a newer construction home so insulation, appliances, etc are all up to the latest standards. I have also changed most of my light bulbs, only wash on cold, run full loads in the dishwasher, turned down the temp on my water heater, stay diligent about changing air filters, put a timer on exterior landscape lights, keep blinds closed, turn off lights, etc. And I have really been able to tell a difference in my utility bills. Just imagine if every one took these few small steps.

Sorry, I just pay my utility bill every month and live comfortably. Of course if BamBam and his Obots would let America built more power plants, we would not have a problem, would we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious about one other point: Do all of you who are concerned about your utility bills already take proactive measures to bring down costs? (i.e., have you changed out your light bulbs? do you un-plug your cell phone charger when not in use? do you turn off lights when you aren't around? Do you have energy star appliances? Do you wash your clothes in cold water with cold water detergents?, etc)

I'm not trying to play a gotcha-game or preach but rather understand if your concerns are matched with actions.

do you un-plug your cell phone charger when not in use?

Tell me more about this, please. We have two Verizon LG VX8300 models that we charge every night, but leave the chargers where they plug into the wall outlets plugged in. We need to unplug both chargers from the wall outlets, right? Is that what you're saying. Never heard that energy savings tip. :thedeal:

That was one the enviro Nazi's put out several years ago to make themselves feel good. It's not the savings to individuals it's the aggregate savings of the entire population. 50,000,000 cell phone users all unplugging their chargers will save a lot of energy. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious about one other point: Do all of you who are concerned about your utility bills already take proactive measures to bring down costs? (i.e., have you changed out your light bulbs? do you un-plug your cell phone charger when not in use? do you turn off lights when you aren't around? Do you have energy star appliances? Do you wash your clothes in cold water with cold water detergents?, etc)

I'm not trying to play a gotcha-game or preach but rather understand if your concerns are matched with actions.

do you un-plug your cell phone charger when not in use?

Tell me more about this, please. We have two Verizon LG VX8300 models that we charge every night, but leave the chargers where they plug into the wall outlets plugged in. We need to unplug both chargers from the wall outlets, right? Is that what you're saying. Never heard that energy savings tip. :thedeal:

That was one the enviro Nazi's put out several years ago to make themselves feel good. It's not the savings to individuals it's the aggregate savings of the entire population. 50,000,000 cell phone users all unplugging their chargers will save a lot of energy. ;)

And, more importantly, reduce the average temperature of the earth by .0000158234 degrees C!!!! (They have the computer models to prove it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...