[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but in the last 30 years it’s been the so-called “Conservatives” that have drastically expanded the size and role of the government, as well as the national debt. Reagan and George II especially.
There’s nothing “liberal” about expanding the government anymore. [/quote]
So called conservative is right. Reagan was moderately conservative, but everyone after was not. The first Bush helped cause a recession with his tax increases, then Clinton kind of slowed down a recovery with his increases.
The Republican take over of Congress was conservative… for a couple of years. They were the reason for the drop in deficits. (And regardless of what we have been told, there were no surpluses.) The stupid idea of spending “next years” surplus suddenly came into vogue with these idiots.
Liberal is all about expanding the role and power of government, and conservative is all about shrinking the role and power of government. (Over it’s own people that is.) It may be an oversimplified explanation, but it is the core of each philosophy. [quote]
Republicans aren’t conservatives. [/quote]
Most of them aren’t.[quote]
You have any sources for your numbers? [/quote]
Most are from http://junkscience.org
I looked up our percentage of CO2 release last night, and cannot remember the website.
I have heard plenty of people put down the junk science website, and it’s author/owner, but haven’t found any real dispute of what he says. (And yes he does in fact state that human activity, and CO2 has had, and is having an increase in temperature. He disagrees with the inflated numbers, and ridiculous claims that have no real scientific backing.)[quote]
And why exactly would cap and trade cost more for the average person? Even if it did, would the costs not be reduced in 5 or 10 years when the companies came up with alternatives?[/quote]
Obama himself said the prices would “skyrocket”
And assuming companies did come up with alternatives, that doesn’t mean they will be able to implement them. Environmental groups are actually fighting against wind farms.
But the cap part causes an immediate increase, while the trade part results in a continued increase in the price. Also the trade part may be cheaper then actually cutting CO2 levels, so most will simply buy the credits, and pass on the cost to the consumer.
New Scientist had an article / opinion piece on the subject.
Carry On Polluting | The Corner House [quote]
A bad plan for capping pollution is not a leftist idea. It’s just a a bad plan. It’s certainly no worse than Bush I fighting like hell to keep leaded fuel around. [/quote]
There is a big argument as to what pollution is.
When I am breathing heavy, am I polluting? I don’t think so.
At least you seem to realize this is a bad plan. But no, bad plans are not left or right.
Simply building new-q-ler plants, and allowing repossessing (recycling) of the waste material would drop waste, and CO2 levels dramatically. In fact the waste material is 96% recyclable. France does it, and they barely have any waste to dispose of.
If the idiot environmentalists didn’t block these plants from being built in the past 30 years, the CO2 levels produced in this country would be dramatically lower.
