addiitional grant why no just do away with the tax??? if solar power is so viable then they would be affordable. raise the ceiling instead of lowering the roof.
It is a false presumption that global warming is man made. Over 35,000 scientists have done studies and know that the cause is from solar flares caused from the sun, imagine that... the sun causes heat... anyway they have petitioned the carbon tax. To state that only 80-90% of scientists agree that it exists is to be pulling a number out of your ass. Not even 10% believe that anymore.
First I do not buy this global warming the sky is falling scare tactics. There is a recorded ice age in Europe during the middle ages. We came out of that with not one car on the road.
It cost 41 cents a kilowatt hour using solar and three cents a kilowatt hour using coal. That is a hell of a lot more than a couple of hundrend dollars a year.
Currently solar is one tenth of one percent of our total electricity.
MIT Professor tells GOP to stop misrepresenting his work:
Today, Professor Reilly sent a forceful letter to Boehner and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to denounce this blatant distortion being told by Congressional Republicans. Reilly noted that $3,100 was actually 10 times the correct estimate which is approximately $340″ and that the costs on lower and middle income households can be completely offset by returning allowance revenue to these households
It has come to my attention that an analysis we conducted examining proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Report No., 146, Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals, has been misrepresented in recent press releases distributed by the National Republican Congressional Committee. The press release claims our report estimates an average cost per family of a carbon cap and trade program that would meet targets now being discussed in Congress to be over $3,000, but that is nearly 10 times
but that is nearly 10 times the correct estimate which is approximately $340. [...] Our Report 160 shows that the costs on lower and middle income households can be completely offset by returning allowance revenue to these households.
Subsidizing innefficient energy sources and mandating their usage is a drag on our economy. Cap and trade and Kyoto failed in Europe and have NOT delivered the promised reductions in carbon emmissions. If solar, wind and the rest of them were as good as they say, venture capital would be lining up to cash in on a winner. If the Gov't wants to invest in more research fine-don't tax businesses and people to fund a loser.
Subsidizing energy is a bad idea. Do we really trust the economic central planning capabilities of the federal government. Bush tried to pick winners with ethanol and what has that done for us.
So much for the Obama "transparency" on everything. I just love too how the "no new taxes" idea has just been killed thanks to his cap-n-trade policy that will hit 98% of Americans when it comes to electricity and about 95% who use gasoline. About the only people safe from this taxation are the Amish and Welfare people who have no car! WAY TO BE ALL FOR THE AMISH, OBAMA!
Well I suspect all the states who have coal mining as a major industry who voted for OBama after he said he wanted to bankrupting them feel stupid and angry right now. Hopefully he will be impeached. Amish land here I come.
addiitional grant why no just do away with the tax??? if solar power is so viable then they would be affordable. raise the ceiling instead of lowering the roof.
circusboy90210 1 year ago
It is a false presumption that global warming is man made. Over 35,000 scientists have done studies and know that the cause is from solar flares caused from the sun, imagine that... the sun causes heat... anyway they have petitioned the carbon tax. To state that only 80-90% of scientists agree that it exists is to be pulling a number out of your ass. Not even 10% believe that anymore.
ddmmkk 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
search 'climate chains' on youtube.
It is a compelling view on Obama's 'energy' plan
danchad79 2 years ago
Lets keep burning coal until we prove 100% that global warming will screw up the planet,
Right now...only 80-90% of scientists think that. ..so, Its way too soon to worry.
Hey...I'm willing to gamble that my kids might live on a fucked up planet...in order to save me a few hundred bucks a year in cap and trade taxes.
givethemahand 2 years ago
First I do not buy this global warming the sky is falling scare tactics. There is a recorded ice age in Europe during the middle ages. We came out of that with not one car on the road.
It cost 41 cents a kilowatt hour using solar and three cents a kilowatt hour using coal. That is a hell of a lot more than a couple of hundrend dollars a year.
Currently solar is one tenth of one percent of our total electricity.
dougstevens11689 2 years ago
MIT Professor tells GOP to stop misrepresenting his work:
Today, Professor Reilly sent a forceful letter to Boehner and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to denounce this blatant distortion being told by Congressional Republicans. Reilly noted that $3,100 was actually 10 times the correct estimate which is approximately $340″ and that the costs on lower and middle income households can be completely offset by returning allowance revenue to these households
cont'
dluviam 2 years ago
It has come to my attention that an analysis we conducted examining proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Report No., 146, Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals, has been misrepresented in recent press releases distributed by the National Republican Congressional Committee. The press release claims our report estimates an average cost per family of a carbon cap and trade program that would meet targets now being discussed in Congress to be over $3,000, but that is nearly 10 times
dluviam 2 years ago
but that is nearly 10 times the correct estimate which is approximately $340. [...] Our Report 160 shows that the costs on lower and middle income households can be completely offset by returning allowance revenue to these households.
dluviam 2 years ago
Subsidizing innefficient energy sources and mandating their usage is a drag on our economy. Cap and trade and Kyoto failed in Europe and have NOT delivered the promised reductions in carbon emmissions. If solar, wind and the rest of them were as good as they say, venture capital would be lining up to cash in on a winner. If the Gov't wants to invest in more research fine-don't tax businesses and people to fund a loser.
122369 2 years ago
Subsidizing energy is a bad idea. Do we really trust the economic central planning capabilities of the federal government. Bush tried to pick winners with ethanol and what has that done for us.
dougstevens11689 2 years ago
re: dougstevens11689
==Subsidizing energy is a bad idea.==
You do realize that Coal gets 3 billion dollars worth of subsidies a year right?
Where solar only gets 0.014 billion a year.
greyflcn 2 years ago
This is brilliant. Where has Newt been hiding this past decade when we've needed thinking like this the most...
patreko1 2 years ago
You know you are right. The smart ones are the Amish. They have know for years you can't trust government. So they rely on themselves. Good for them.
pandabead 2 years ago
So much for the Obama "transparency" on everything. I just love too how the "no new taxes" idea has just been killed thanks to his cap-n-trade policy that will hit 98% of Americans when it comes to electricity and about 95% who use gasoline. About the only people safe from this taxation are the Amish and Welfare people who have no car! WAY TO BE ALL FOR THE AMISH, OBAMA!
sensfaninohio 3 years ago 4
Well I suspect all the states who have coal mining as a major industry who voted for OBama after he said he wanted to bankrupting them feel stupid and angry right now. Hopefully he will be impeached. Amish land here I come.
pandabead 2 years ago
My God, is this loud!
CountArtha 3 years ago