New cap & trade TAXES will hit everything.

High food, clothing, energy…prices.

Man made global warming is a lie anyhow, as climategate has proved. It’s all over the news. of course, the facts were out there way before this bombshell ever came to light. Cap and tax is not only unethical and based on junk science, but it is totalitarian in nature.

When reading about this shell game called “Cap and Trade” remember that “Big Oil” is not domestic oil.  Even though big oil participates in American exploration, the backbone of domestic oil is a thousand independent operators not unlike the mostly extinct independent loggers and lumber mills.  Big timber companies did not care if logging on public lands was halted because they did not need those lands to succeed.  The big oil that has purchased the opinion of many in congress does not care if domestic exploration prospers.  If we kill domestic production their monopoly becomes that much stronger. “Cap and Trade” is just disguised “crap then raid”.  I would call it cleverly disguised but it’s not.  Environmentalism is not only an ideology we are all morally bound to, it is also an old tool used by the powerful to rig the outcome of a game.
Over the last 5 years, ingenious individuals and their small companies have made magnificent strides in oil and gas extraction from shale in a dozen states.  Let’s allow them to grow and prosper, they will bring thousands of extremely high paying engineering and blue color jobs to Montana.

First of all, Thanks to Mr. Galt for telling us who he is, who the MPA is and what their agenda is.

This is in stark contrast to another recent article on this same subject co-authored by a NC lawyer on behalf of his energy-industry clients.

I agree with some of the articles points.

It WILL ‘increase the cost of finding, producing and refining
the energy we need for heating, cooling, power and
transportation ...and raise costs to consumers.’

Whether you like it or not this is EXACTLY what C&T is designed to do. (It’s not some ‘hidden secret’) :

Raise the cost of emitting carbon so that cleaner forms of alternate energy can compete with increasingly unstable supplies of oil and coal. This was alluded to in the article and is part of shell game BILL mentions, I believe.

...also FCB is correct, it WILL raise costs elsewhere in the economy as well.  Just as sharp rises in per-barrel-oil prices do now.

...and finally, mb said “Told ya so.”  (Sorry, best I could
for you there Buddy.)

The idea is, down the road this will reduce reliance on carbon based, imported fuels. 

The article also states C&T won’t :

• Impact climate change on a global scale.

True, by itself it won’t. NO single bill implemented by a single country is going to do that.  Its going take a hundred bills in a hundred different countries to do it.  Is this a start?

You might think I’m in favor a C&T.  Not necessarily.  But after decades of a crazy-quilt approach to energy policy it’s nice to see the MPA is at least ‘becoming increasingly concerned’ that things are starting to shift.

However, don’t kid yourself.  With or without passage of this bill or ones similar to it…your future energy costs are on an upward trend.

Gee, the Montana Petroleum Association doesn’t want to be regulated. Now that’s news.

A new University of California study found that ACES or similar carbon regulation would create jobs, increase Montana’s GDP and increase real household income in Montana. Western states would save more because we spend more for our energy. Fossil fuels produce few jobs in Montana and extract a high cost in pollution, climate and health that is not factored in to what we pay at the pump.

“...energy efficiency reduces import dependence and the costs for transportation, heating, electricity, etc., saving households and businesses money”, money that can be invested in Montana, not Saudi Arabia.

http://are.berkeley.edu/~dwrh/CERES_Web/Docs/ES_DRHFK091024.pdf

I have to agree with Lucky here on the economic benefits of the bill. All independent, non-partisan economic analyses of the clean energy bill have found that it would cost the average American about three to four dollars a month, and household energy costs would actually be lower because of energy efficiency measures the bill encourages. Researchers at the University of Massachusetts found this bill would contribute to the creation of at least 6,000 new jobs in Montana, which makes sense given that this state ranks 5th in the nation for wind energy potential but only 18th in the nation for current wind production. Add that to a host of other clean energy and energy efficiency opportunities that this state has yet to exploit, and you’ve got a brand new industry that could help Montana’s economy and job market boom.

Then you’ve got the dangers of our current energy use. As long as we rely so heavily on oil and coal, we remain vulnerable to price spikes for those fuels, just as we saw for gas prices in the past few years. We need an energy safety net—access to a wide variety of fuels, including the ones that aren’t going to run out someday (like sun, wind, and biomass). This would keep our pocketbooks safe, not to mention our livelihoods. Yes, energy prices for traditional sources will go up, but cleaner, safer sources will become cheaper and more accessible.

Oil companies have profited for years off of a fuel that no longer makes sense for us to use. It’s contributing to not just environmental but also economic and national security problems. We shouldn’t hold back progress for the sake of preserving their profits, especially when it’s Montana workers who will benefit from investment into the clean energy industry. As for coal, the other big corporate lobby protesting clean energy development, clean tech creates more jobs per unit of energy than coal at this point, because these days they use dynamite rather than manpower to mine the coal.

I hope Senators Baucus and Tester can broaden their interests to include all of Montana, not just the portion of the oil industry that resides in Montana. They should vote in favor of the clean energy bill.

The ‘Schweitzer Energy Policy’ can be found at:

http://commerce.mt.gov/energy/energypolicy.asp

Cap and trade is just another progressive policy that will raise our taxes and cost even more jobs:

http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/3/3/what-obamas-cap-and-trade-plan-will-cost-you.html

I just don’t get it. All we have to do to find the beacons of progressive policy is to look at states like California, New York and Massachusetts. They have worked really well there right? The tax payers will be bailing out California very soon. I am not interested in paying higher taxes so that companies like GE can sell billions in “green technology” to the American consumer.

Scott - Thanks for pointing out how well energy policies have worked in CA. “...over the last thirty years, California reduced its per capita electricity consumption to 40% below the national average. This saved households $56 billion, and those savings created 1.5 million additional jobs in California with $45 billion in additional wages and salaries.” There are many reasons why CA is in bad shape, their energy consumption is not one of those.

A recent University of California study found that regulation like ACES will create 5,000 to 13,000 jobs in MT and increase real household income by $599 to $1,736 per year.

Yes, the cost of energy will go up, it would even without more regulation, but that money will be invested in the U.S. not in Saudi Arabia. Western states will benefit more because we pay more for our energy and because we have more natural gas, solar and wind sites.

Hiya Lucky,

From your description, it sounds like a green progressive utopia down there. We should be very proud of the politicians in Californa.

Meanwhile back on planet earth, California has a 42 billion dollar deficit:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-01-15-schwarzenegger-california-deficit_N.htm

They had to raise taxes on all wage earners:

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=422838

And…. while you point out that their energy consumption is 40% below the national average they still have rolling blackouts throughout the state. Google for recent news on those which is causing by the way difficulties for businesses down there.

And of course let us not forget that it seems like the whole state is on fire every summer and it is causing health problems down there:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/30/us/the-california-fires-health-problems-effects-of-wildfire-smoke-vary-experts-say.html

Add to all that the smog clouds around every major city and the fact that nobody drinks tap water down there.  Don’t even get me started on how the car manufacturers have had to drastically redesign diesel engines to meet California emissions standards which have resulted in massive problems on bluetec diesels on 3/4 ton pickup trucks nationwide.

Please explain to me how this progressive utopia is what we Montana residents should shoot for? It looks to me like you pay more taxes, have a lower quality of life and live in a world where a government has to hand out IOU’s because it can’t pay it’s debts.

@littlehawk123 aka littlehawkXX aka littlehawkX aka Truther:

Thanks for providing a link at the end.  For minute there, I thought you had discovered erudite elocution.  Then I clicked on the link and found that your post was a lazy cut and paste posting.

The ClimateGate issue has been conclusively debunked as an out-of-context cherry picking expedition by climate change denialists.

I guess that’s why you’re in Alasssska.  You love being waaaaaaay behind comtemporary reality.

Hey mooseberry, ya gotta stop eating beans dude…you’re affecting the “carbon footprint” of the Flathead with all that gaseous emission.

don’t worry about it L.H.  doubt most read your posts anyway.  They’re either paranoid ravings or cut and paste.

...he’s got ‘interesting’ sources though…Ya gotta admit.

LHXXX:  Your tantrums are so cute.

Give this a look.

http://www.slate.com/id/2237253/?from=rss

Short version: two other datasets (NASA and NOAA) essentially agree with the CRU conclusion.  Your claim that there is no climate change and historic global warming has not occurred is proven to be false.

Sorry, you lose…again.

Datasets in and of themselves do not prove anything - it’s how the data is gathered as well as analysis of the data.

For example, global temperature data was at one time based on a single reading per day, instead of taking the weighted mean of a set of data points.  Also, the further back the data is gathered, the more inaccurate it will be, based on the quality of the instrumentation and the control methods (or lack thereof) used in gathering the data.

Taking this into account, it’s difficult to justify that “climate change” is actually happening, based on the gathered data.  And any trend (as you well know) depends heavily upon its start and end points.

Trends cannot be extrapolated meaningfully unless scientists:

(a) Thoroughly understand all relevant climate factors;

(b) Are confident that the trends in each individual factor will continue; and

(c) Are confident that interactions between factors will not cause a disruption to the overall trend.

The UN IPCC’s Third Assessment Report of 2001 listed 11 possible climate factors and indicated that the level of scientific understanding was “very low” for 7 of them and “low” for the remainder.  No similar listing appears in the recent Fourth Assessment Report, but it does contain a list of factors relevant to the absorption and emission of radiation that shows that the level of scientific knowledge of several of those factors is still quite low.

Scientists are still struggling even to understand the influence of clouds on temperature. Observational data shows that low-level clouds outside the tropics has decreased since 1998, but scientists cannot be certain that the decreasing trend will continue, nor what such a decrease would mean. Perhaps clouds act as a natural thermostat and higher temperatures will ultimately create more clouds and this will have a cooling effect.

Again, if random natural events dictate the historical trend, then extrapolation of the trend makes no sense. Even if those natural events can be expected to continue in the future, their severity – which often dictates the short-term trend – is unknowable.

If you also look at consensus among scientists, the extent of such that dangerous human-caused global warming is occurring is unknown and it is unsupported by any objective data.  However, this is irrelevant because by its nature any consensus is a product of opinions, not facts.

Though consensus determines legal and political decisions in most countries, this simply reflects the number of persons who interpret data in a certain way or who have been influenced by the opinions of others. Consensus does not confer accuracy or “rightness”.

Scientific matters are certainly not settled by consensus. Einstein pointed out that hundreds of people agreeing with him were of no relevance, because it would take just one person to prove him wrong.

Science as a whole is replete with examples of individuals or small groups of researchers successfully undermining the prevailing popular theories of the day. This is not to say that individuals or small groups who hold maverick views are always correct, but it is to say that even the most widely-held opinions should never be regarded as an ultimate truth.

Science is about observation, experiment and the testing of hypotheses, not consensus.

Global warming is REAL…. we can either choose to ruin the earth for life as we know it or move away from oil and coal - and replace it w/ solar and wind….

the answers easy .....but with the money that the oil and coal industry throw around there will always be people like Jb that refuse to believe…would rather nbeleive a corporate propaganda report…...who refuse to think outside the “Corporations running (ruining) our lives is the ONLY WAY” mindset…..

but as his side used to think,

but as we now know

the earth IS NOT FLAT

nor is it 6,000 years old but rather billions years old

and global warming is REAL. 

THE cap and trade is nothing but a corporate handout…. at least sell them as the euros did….the true problem with the costs of energy is that the industries have been monopolized….by around 3-4 firms controlling the whole market…..

sound familiar?

http://www.mountainjusticesummer.org/facts/steps.php

go look at those pictures of mountain top removal for the coal and tell me that it’s worth it?

What gave this GENERATION the right to destroy the world for the next 100 generations?

we are in a period since industrialization of the greatest level of species going extinct since the wipeout of the dinosauers….

and that’s not a problem?

only to the suicidal…....

NASA has been stonewalling a FOI request concerning “their” climate data for TWO (2) years. The EPA has been using the CRU data instead of allowing their internal people to gather and decipher information.

The Goracle announced today that he is cancelling his meet & greet at the Copenhagen conference due to “unforseen scheduling issues”.

OK, here goes…

No woody, mountain removal is not worth it - but it has absolutely nothing to do with “global warming”.  I agree, strip mining and mountaintop removal do harm the earth - and obviously people’s lives are affected by it - but the burning of coal does not contribute to climatic change.

I will admit that it does affect people’s lives in other ways - look at China, who is probably the biggest polluter of air and water on the planet - where the pollution is so thick in some places it is difficult to breath unassisted.  They won’t agree to the Copenhagen treaty because they would be forced to slow their economic growth by cutting back on the amount of pollutants they put into the atmosphere.  Neither will any of the other developing countries, for that matter.

So it really doesn’t matter whether you believe “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever is real or not.  These issues are separate and have nothing to do with each other - so your argument falls flat on its proverbial face.

Oh, and woody, that report I mentioned is from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - try actually reading my comments next time you make a supposition.

JB:

Curious how you describe a system so large and complex as to be humanly “unknowable”.

...then a few hours later follow that up with :

“So it really doesn’t matter whether you believe “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever is real or not.”

A flash of divine insight, perhaps?

....er….please append:

“These issues are separate and have nothing to do with each other - so your argument falls flat on its proverbial face”

mountaintop removal has nothing to do with global warming?

burning coal has nothing to do with global warming?

The only way that is true is if you don’t believe in global warming to begin with.

come on that is one the dumbest things I’ve read here in a while…...and that’s saying a lot coming from JB.

mountain top removal is a mining process to get coal…..one of the leading causes of glaobal warming…...

the USA is the largest emitter of global warming pollutants on the planet.

Why should the developing countries have to make all the changes and the USA doesn’t have to do a thing?

And I suppose the fact that China is building 1 coal fired electrical plant a week isnt’ contributing to global pollution or global warming either.  Do you actually believe the idiocy you spout here JB?

And I suppose the Eskimo women who have over 30 different chemicals in their breast milk poisioning their children from birth on is all their fault. 

You sure do a good job of being a self-proclaimed pro-corporate hack -  I hope you’re on the payroll w/ all the absolute lies and utter nonsense you bring in here…....

and considering that most of those factories in China are American factories -  of course China wont’ change -  until our corporations tell them to - that is.

and if we’re waiting for corporate america to save the planet or our economy we’re doomed…..

hey the end times right around the corner!

hip hip hurrah!

jesus told us to do it….......

picture a bright blue ball just spinning free….it’s dizzy the possibilities….but history’s page will be recarved in stone”

go read nomi prins, wendell potter, and john perkins (the economic hitman)  all insiders at goldman, the world bank and an ex ceo of a health care insurance company and get the true story from those that lived it - 

corporate america is a vampire and needs to have a wooden stake driven thru it’s heart if this world is to survive in any way that supports humans….

what’s funny is kill 3000 in NY on 9-11 and we need to blow up the world and create endless war…..

but drive people into poverty and kill 44,000 americans a year due to lack of health care and no one cares…....

if we are going to follow the pro-corporate insanity into massive debt, pollution, poverty, misery and starvation then America will deserve it’s 3rd world status we’ll soon have…......

and allowed to happen by pro-corporate hacks believing any sort of garbage that the corporations shove down your throats…....

You nailed it, woody - I don’t believe in “global warming”, “climate change”, or whatever the politically correct term is.  The data does not support the facts.  Read what I said earlier:

“Science is about observation, experiment and the testing of hypotheses, not consensus.”

Answer me this:  is CO2 harmful to the environment or not?  What is the total impact of human activity per year in CO2 output worldwide?  Do you even know?

@Vud:  I was referring to “mountaintop removal” and “global warming/climate change” being two separate issues.

JB:  Yeah, you got me.  I did ‘get that’ - belatedly though.

However, Woody’s response makes the counter-point:

The 2 are NOT seperate issues.

My question still stands, however:

How can YOU be so sure of YOUR position given the complexities, you yourself, stated?

Haven’t you just reached a ‘consensus’ B4 all the facts are in?

Finally you asked:

Answer me this: ” Is CO2 harmful to the environment or not?  What is the total impact of human activity per year in CO2 output worldwide?  Do you even know?”

Pray Tell what source could anyone POSSIBLY quote that might convince you?  There ARE sources aplenty.

lhxxx: The master of the incisive, witty retort.  Wow.

Followed by the most incompetent over-simplification of a complex issue one could possibly imagine, from a five year old.

wow! little hawk admitted that the earth was older than 6,000 years!  there’s hope for you yet LH…..

and of course the climate has ben changing for billions of years but it is only relatevely lately that the climate supported human life….

a few questions for global warming deniers:

1. do we want to destroy the climate that allowed HUMAN life to flourish?

2. and do you believe in evolution?

3.  did evolution end w/ Humans?

4. do you admit we are in a period of time featuring the largest species dieoff since the extinction of the dinosauers?

5. do you really believe that humans have no effect on the environement?

and anyone who thinks coal and global warming are not related aren’t worth the energy it takes to refute them….

kind of like people argung over environmental issues and having never heard of thoreau…..

Amazing how a building block of life itself can be labeled as dangerous…ok, lets start with a basic definition of carbon dioxide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

From Wikipedia:

“Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars, which may either be consumed in respiration or used as the raw material to produce other organic compounds needed for plant growth and development. It is produced during respiration by plants, and by all animals, fungi and microorganisms that depend either directly or indirectly on plants for food. It is thus a major component of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is generated as a by-product of the combustion of fossil fuels or the burning of vegetable matter, among other chemical processes. Small amounts of carbon dioxide are emitted from volcanoes and other geothermal processes such as hot springs and geysers and by the dissolution of carbonates in crustal rocks.”

Also note:

“CO2 is a trace gas being only 0.038% of the atmosphere.”

Rebuttal?

Here are some more leading scientists and academia, from many different sources, all stating that CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html

Saying that CO2 is a pollutant is like saying that dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) is poisonous to drink!!!

From a professor at MIT:

“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

From ABC’s 20/20:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHCJ-UhZFT4&feature=player_embedded

found this interesting….cap-and-trade originated in the Reagan administration as a market-oriented strategy for reducing acid rain pollution. Cap-and-trade was proposed to counter the one-size-fits-all, command-and-control rules that Democrats and their liberal environmental allies wanted to impose.

By giving power companies the flexibility to cut pollution in economically sensible ways, cap-and-trade worked to reduce acid rain, defying the predictions of bureaucrats that it would never work, the claims of electric utilities that its costs were unaffordable, and the wails of environmentalists that tradable emissions allowances were a morally suspect “license to pollute.”

Two decades later, Democrats have finally realized that the Republican idea was the better idea and have embraced it for reducing carbon pollution linked to climate change. What a great “I told you so” moment that could be for the Republicans. Instead, however, like Orwell’s character Winston Smith rewriting history, they say cap-and-trade is a liberal idea and always was a liberal idea.

http://www.rep.org/