Comments on: New Paper Shows Staggering Cost to Americans of Waxman-Markey

By: ws ketola

ws ketola — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:42:10 +0000

Opps… 25% of 19ppm is 4.75ppm not 0.95… must have been distracted somehow… recalculating 17% of 4.75 is 0.8075… say 0.81 over 10 years, or 0.081ppm/yr. In the analogy then the figure is 8cents/yr, not 1.6cents/yr. So the cost per "ppm" is only $1,238,390,092.88 – still cheap… right??? Sorry about the mistake.

By: ws ketola

ws ketola — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:57:48 +0000

I tried this once already – must be it didn't take… I'll try again. Al Gore (et.al.) facts: 380ppm CO2 in the atmosphere; 95% of CO2 is generated by nature – thus 5% from mankind. That's 19ppm from man. Now my observations: Let's say 25% is from the USA, that's 0.95ppm. I've heard (unconfirmed) that Cap&Trade will save 17% over the next 10 years, so 17% of 0.95ppm is 0.1615ppm – that's over 10 years. Annually that would be… 0.01615ppm/yr. We're discussing a "million" parts of our atmosphere per year. Cap&Trade will reduce our CO2 contribution by 0.01615ppm/yr!!! For perspective let's say we have a business with a "million" dollar revenue per year, by analogy if we want to improve that revenue by the same amount as we can improve our atmosphere with Cap&Trade, we will improve our revenues by 1.6 cents/yr… How much will that cost us?? How much will Cap&Trade cost??? Maybe $1,000,000,000/yr for 0.01615ppm/yr??? Maybe 5? or more??? In my opinion no one can rationally support C&P no matter how it can be presented. One last point, since we are discussing a "fraction" of a "ppm", how much is 1.0ppm? We we divide the cost by the fraction – or $1B/0.01615ppm… or $61,919,504,644.00/ppm. Cheap at twice the price. Right??

By: John A. Jauregui

John A. Jauregui — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 00:20:16 +0000

As common sense would strongly suggest, new Climate Change GCM models show the sun is the source of observed Global Warming, NOT CO2. “Previously, the direct impact of increased irradiance on global average temperature has been estimated at around 0.25°C last century—a threefold amplifying effect would raise that to 0.75°C. This leaves practically no warming effect for CO2 to account for and renders the whole anthropogenic global warming argument moot. In other words, if the atmospheric solar amplifier theory is correct anthropogenic global warming is wrong, a useless theory describing a nonexistent phenomenon. It seems like poetic justice that a modeling experiment may point the way to discrediting global warming once and for all.” See http://solarcycle25.com/?id=84 for details.

By: Rubicon

Rubicon — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:33:24 +0000

Once again, someone wants us to pay for something, despite flawed reasoning & seriously flawed science. While Americans once again pay through the nose, and supposedly poor people around the world benefit as supposedly so too does the environment, we know as fact that some folks invested in the green energy scheme, will benefit handsomely. I suspect Al Gore's personal wealth will go up into the billions, while he lives an energy consuming life & preaches to all the rest of us how terrible we are. (Will Al ever get over being rejected by the American electorate? Could revenge actually be behind his motivations to promote hysteria?)

By: Patsy

Patsy — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:43:25 +0000

This site lays it out--Waxman Markey--not a good idea for citizens. If we don't want higher taxes and energy costs then make your voice heard and go to this site: http://tinyurl.com/klfut8

By: Troy

Troy — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:16:50 +0000

"while the developing world is in desperate need of greater wealth – and better access to energy – today"

This is the problem right here – we don't NEED more wealth. More wealth and access to cheaper energy is the bulk of our problems. Both create population explosions. We don't NEED more people. We need a strong population. Currently, the poor population is exploding, taxing the rest of us as well as the environment. This is what we need to fix!