Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Despite President Obama's prediction that it will create new jobs, the global warming bill passed by the House of Representatives will mean fewer jobs by 2030 than if Congress did not act at all, according to the first comprehensive study of the measure by the federal government.

The Energy Information Administration report, requested by the two Democrats who wrote the House bill, says the short-term economic consequences are small, but "after 2025, the rapid increase in energy prices causes the economy to contract" as more rigid requirements kick in...

The study by the EIA, an Energy Department agency that is the government's official analyst for energy issues, does not say how effective the bill would be in reducing global temperatures or in lessening U.S. reliance on foreign sources of energy -- two other primary goals its Democratic sponsors have laid out.

The Democratic authors of the global warming bill -- Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, a subcommittee chairman -- requested the EIA study to look at the consequences of their bill. EIA says the bill will hurt the economy.

The climate measure "increases the cost of using energy, which reduces real economic output, reduces purchasing power and lowers aggregate demand for goods and services. The result is that projected real gross domestic product (GDP) generally falls relative to the reference case," according to the EIA study.

Appaholic wrote:Yes it will hurt the economy in the short term.....much in the same way the advent of the auto industry hurt the Buggy Whip Manufacturers Local 391.....guess we should have stayed with horse-and-buggy?

Appaholic wrote:Yes it will hurt the economy in the short term.....much in the same way the advent of the auto industry hurt the Buggy Whip Manufacturers Local 391.....guess we should have stayed with horse-and-buggy?

Pwns wrote:

Appaholic wrote:Yes it will hurt the economy in the short term.....much in the same way the advent of the auto industry hurt the Buggy Whip Manufacturers Local 391.....guess we should have stayed with horse-and-buggy?

The automobile wasn't a fantasy. It replaced the covered wagon via market forces. Obama's plan to replace the energy gap with wind and solar without building a single nuclear plant is a fantasy.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Pwns wrote:
The automobile wasn't a fantasy. It replaced the covered wagon via market forces. Obama's plan to replace the energy gap with wind and solar without building a single nuclear plant is a fantasy.

Hey, we need more wind and solar, bottom line.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:There is enough solar irradiation bombarding planet earth every day to power every thing ever made...
Seriously: Photovoltaic power generation if properly incentivized on a global level - we'd have mastered solar power by 1985...

Until super-corporations like BP & Exxon-Mobile or even Bayer corp science get proper motivation to capitalize on Solar we'll be futzing around arguing over petty crap like this forever...

But the facts are in: We could power the world with Solar (no problem) in fact in a very real way, the world has been completely solar powered for over 3 billion years

Thoughtless Soundbiteman wrote:Hey, we need more wind and solar, bottom line.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:There is enough solar irradiation bombarding planet earth every day to power every thing ever made...
Seriously: Photovoltaic power generation if properly incentivized on a global level - we'd have mastered solar power by 1985...

Until super-corporations like BP & Exxon-Mobile or even Bayer corp science get proper motivation to capitalize on Solar we'll be futzing around arguing over petty crap like this forever...

But the facts are in: We could power the world with Solar (no problem) in fact in a very real way, the world has been completely solar powered for over 3 billion years

travelinman67 wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:There is enough solar irradiation bombarding planet earth every day to power every thing ever made...
Seriously: Photovoltaic power generation if properly incentivized on a global level - we'd have mastered solar power by 1985...

Until super-corporations like BP & Exxon-Mobile or even Bayer corp science get proper motivation to capitalize on Solar we'll be futzing around arguing over petty crap like this forever...
But the facts are in: We could power the world with Solar (no problem) in fact in a very real way, the world has been completely solar powered for over 3 billion years

So, tell me Dr. Hippie...
...using current surface area conversion factors of 20% for active solar cells (photovoltaic), what surface area would be necessary to replace JUST COAL within the U.S.?
And now, how much would be required throughout Western Europe?
Asia?
And the cost at current commodity price?
Don't know, huh?
Not available anywhere, huh?
Now...
...according to Energy Secretary Chu, humans could change global temperatures by painting their roofs white, which, in similar effect, could also be accomplished by replacement/supplanting all roofs with solar arrays (reflectivity/absorption)...
...but if humans eliminate coal, oil, carbon gas emissions, to the degree being sought by the Goristas...
...and solar arrays are now reflecting radiation that otherwise would have warmed the planet's surface...
...won't we end up with a negative feedback situation and cause global cooling?

Or is Chu just full of shit, and the Goristas science genuinely based on non-cognitive, non-scientific intuitions and myth?
Go smoke a bowl and let me know.

Ivytalk wrote:The economic effects of "cap-and-tax" will be just as destructive as any VAT that the fertile minds of Congressional staffers may be hatching: Costs will be passed along to the consumer at every stage of production, and jobs will disappear. Q.E.D.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
So, tell me Dr. Hippie...
...using current surface area conversion factors of 20% for active solar cells (photovoltaic), what surface area would be necessary to replace JUST COAL within the U.S.?
And now, how much would be required throughout Western Europe?
Asia?
And the cost at current commodity price?
Don't know, huh?
Not available anywhere, huh?
Now...
...according to Energy Secretary Chu, humans could change global temperatures by painting their roofs white, which, in similar effect, could also be accomplished by replacement/supplanting all roofs with solar arrays (reflectivity/absorption)...
...but if humans eliminate coal, oil, carbon gas emissions, to the degree being sought by the Goristas...
...and solar arrays are now reflecting radiation that otherwise would have warmed the planet's surface...
...won't we end up with a negative feedback situation and cause global cooling?

Or is Chu just full of ****, and the Goristas science genuinely based on non-cognitive, non-scientific intuitions and myth?
Go smoke a bowl and let me know.

How hysterical... Grampa got an idea.. (But it was a small idea... and snuk away)
I have a question for you - since you clearly do not understand what I'm saying... nor have you spent so much as even a minute of time trying to pry your head from your ass...

Q: How big did a computer need to be in 1960 - that was capable of doing what a cereal box calculator can do today...?
A: About the size of a normal home, sometimes they took up an entire floor of an office building...

Point: But there was incentive to continue researching computer technology

Now since we are a fossil fuel based society - and always will be - that is where the focus is and the research and the money and all the brain power goes... comparatively there has been almost zero incentive to develop any other power source other than fossil fuels - so naturally they are immature technologies...

Now pay attention Grampa this part gets tricky...
The power behind Fossil fuels is so HUGE so Global so organized and so focused and so politically invasive that we may never see any real incentive in any other power sources...

The sun casts more power onto the surface of the earth every day (in one day) than the world automobiles burn in a year... we could harness this power were it as focused and as incentivized and it politically invasive as fossil fuels are in world societies

now please return to your senile blathering

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Pwns wrote:
The automobile wasn't a fantasy. It replaced the covered wagon via market forces. Obama's plan to replace the energy gap with wind and solar without building a single nuclear plant is a fantasy.

Hey, we need more wind and solar, bottom line.

native wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
Hey, we need more wind and solar, bottom line.

You don't offer much light, Cap'n, but the wind alone emanating from your locale could power the midwest.

native wrote:
As usual: passionate ideas sprinkled with brilliant insights, but poorly connected with facts and logic. Marinated with a lifetime of arrogance and unseasoned with practical common sense.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:The economic effects of "cap-and-tax" will be just as destructive as any VAT that the fertile minds of Congressional staffers may be hatching: Costs will be passed along to the consumer at every stage of production, and jobs will disappear. Q.E.D.

Nowhere in my posts do I suggest that Cap-and-tax is the solution
However: There will come a day when it is understood and agreed - how destructive the global fossil fuel mega companies have been to the growth and development of photovoltaic technology development

We're at least 3 decades of committed research and development behind where we should be...

Cap'n Cat wrote:Is Cap'n Cat the only fvcking liberal in the world who supports nuclear power?