Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

August 31, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

GLOBAL WARMING....California is on the verge of passing a law that would mandate modest but meaningful reductions in greenhouse gases:

Leaders of the state legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced a deal yesterday under which California will mandate a reduction in the state's emissions of gases contributing to global warming to 1990 levels by 2020....California, the world's sixth-largest economy, accounts for only about 2% of the world's annual global-warming emissions. But California leaders made clear their intent is to spur other states, and ultimately the federal government, to follow the state's lead. That has happened with a string of past environmental regulations, notably restrictions on automotive pollution.

....The Bush administration which has rejected the international Kyoto Protocol emissions-reduction treaty reacted tepidly to word of the California push. "The states are free to make their own decisions about their policies," said Kristen Hellmer, a spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. But she reiterated the administration's philosophical opposition to global-warming caps, saying a cap imposed in one state or country simply causes industry to move to another location. "They're going to still produce greenhouse gas," she said.

As usual, Bush has his head in the sand over this. As he knows very well, we could prevent industries from moving to other states by adopting national standards, something he's dead set against.

Still, this is a good first move, and I'll bet all comers that not only does it not have a negative impact on California's economy, it will have a noticeably positive impact. It will spur R&D in new technologies, it will motivate businesses to become more efficient, and it will make California a better place to live. And as for businesses moving out, I'll bet against that too. Moving heavy industrial plants to new states is a lot less appealing than it sounds, and if it does start to happen I'll bet other states will follow California's lead. After all, what state wants to be the dumping ground for all the poor corporate citizens who are moving out of California because they want to relocate somewhere that doesn't mind them belching tons of pollutants into the air?

But liberals need to get on board with a few things too. California's legislation allows the rulemaking authorities to implement a cap-and-trade system, and this is something we should embrace. It's a system that works well for things like greenhouse gases that disperse widely (i.e., local hotspots aren't an issue), and it allows the business community to adapt to new rules in the least painful and most efficient way possible. And that's a good thing: "more efficient" means we get the biggest bang for our limited bucks; it means less resistance from the business community; and it makes it easier to create a consensus for more stringent rules in the future if we need to. There's no reason to get upset about individual businesses buying their way out of the new regulations as long as we achieve our overall goals. We should take their money and run.

But the main reason this is good news is California's well known role as a bellwether state. If California implements this new law efficently and fairly, other states will follow. And if other states follow, maybe other countries will too. Mighty oaks from little acorns grow.

Kevin Drum 1:48 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (133)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Wrong again, Kevin. Carbon monoxide is good for you. Tonight I'm even planning on sitting in my running car with the garage closed to enjoy this naturally occuring chemical.

Posted by: Al on August 31, 2006 at 1:57 AM | PERMALINK

Best. Fake. Al. Ever.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you fucking idiot, don't you get it? How obvious does it have to be? Industrial waste management is no longer a problem in the US!
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords!

Posted by: jay boilswater on August 31, 2006 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINK

"Meanful" as in "Won't make a difference at all"?

Posted by: enozinho on August 31, 2006 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINK

"Meaningful", sorry.

Posted by: enozinho on August 31, 2006 at 2:10 AM | PERMALINK

What a stupid law.

First passing the law would make businesses move from California to other states because remaining in California would make them less competitive. This will have a catastropic effect on California's economy causing the left coast economy to be even worse than now as California businesses rush to red states in the South that do have have these draconian anti-business laws.

Second, this law is almost certainly unconstitutional because it violates the right of the federal government to exclusively make laws which have such a broad ramification on the economy. Watch for the Roberts court to strike down the law for violating the original meaning of the constitution.

Third why is global warming bad in the first place? It would make certain places like Alaska more hospitable by making it warmer. So it would actually have a good effect.

Posted by: Al on August 31, 2006 at 2:10 AM | PERMALINK

It certainly has been fun watching Arnie play a moderate on TV. He may act like a fool, but at least he shows a capacity for learning and changing.

So I'm sure the GOP is about ready to take away his decoder ring and change the secret handshake.

Posted by: craigie on August 31, 2006 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINK

That's right, Al. Just breathe d-e-e-p .... ssssssssssssssssss ... now hold it for awhile.

Aw, hell, Al, if you *really* want it good, just climb out of the car and wrap your lips around that tailpile.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

"As he knows very well, we could prevent industries from moving to other states by adopting national standards, something he's dead set against."

Fortunately for us, it's impossible for industries to move to countries with less-stringent laws.

Posted by: unionman on August 31, 2006 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

Most of the CO2 sources aren't things that can be easily moved out of state.

Graph

Posted by: Ein on August 31, 2006 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

It can't be stressed enough that you don't want to simply rely on cap and trade for, say, mercury emissions at refineries or power plants. You want to study the populations effected in addition to retrofit costs. Least brain damage for the buck.

carry on.

Posted by: B on August 31, 2006 at 2:22 AM | PERMALINK

Someone is impersonating me in the comments. I didn't comment at all today. until now of course.

Posted by: enozinho on August 31, 2006 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINK

The first Al post is me, the real Al. The second Al post is Drum being provocative.

Posted by: Al on August 31, 2006 at 2:39 AM | PERMALINK

Somewhat off topic, but check this out:
http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm

Posted by: gyp on August 31, 2006 at 2:42 AM | PERMALINK

"And as for businesses moving out, I'll bet against that too. Moving heavy industrial plants to new states is a lot less appealing than it sounds, and if it does start to happen I'll bet other states will follow California's lead. "

I want to believe, Kevin, but my understanding is that a substantial fraction of CA's power is already generated in Arizona and Nevada. Electricity is a special case, BUT it is also pretty much CO2 generating industry #1. AZ and NV are both states that don't seem to care much about generating lots of electricity (and CO2) --- they have lots of desert and not much to offer anyone apart from regulatory arbitrage.

My guess is that the main reason this passed was that the business consensus was that it didn't matter a damn. Power can move out of CA to keep the CO2 numbers down, and nothing else will have to change.

The optimistic view is to say, well it is a political first step, like Kyoto. The pessimist will point out
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2226061573523196174
that Kyoto is a pretty pathetic first step, even apart from the US complaints about how it gives India and China "unfair advantages", and that if the best we can do is a basically useless Kyoto and this basically useless CA proposal, then you might as well give up right now. I certainly have.

Posted by: Maynard Handley on August 31, 2006 at 2:44 AM | PERMALINK

enozinho:

I had a feeling. I also saw a comment posted under your handle yesterday that provoked a snark from a regular, which gave me a vibe wasn't you, either.

Sheesh.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 2:44 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, Kevin.

Did you have to? Really?

"Mighty oaks from little acorns grow."

It makes me so sad to see you write that.

But, upon a bit of reflection ...

Come to think of it, with respect to global warming, a stitch in time really will save nine, and California is proving that a rolling stone won't gather any moss.

Posted by: rcc on August 31, 2006 at 2:47 AM | PERMALINK

"But liberals need to get on board with a few things too. California's legislation allows the rulemaking authorities to implement a cap-and-trade system"

uh... why do liberals need to get on board with this? this is a liberal idea. cap-and-trade is good. conservatives need to get on board--global warming is real.

ps - unless by "liberal" you mean "evironmental extremist who mostly exist in right-wing fantasies"

Posted by: colorless green ideas on August 31, 2006 at 2:48 AM | PERMALINK

Moving heavy industrial plants to new states is a lot less appealing than it sounds,

Sometimes I wonder how naive you really are. The issue is where the businesses choose to grow. There is a natural dynamism with companies closing and new companies expanding or being created all the time. Old companies won't move out (although some of that does happen), there just won't be new businesses moving in to replace them.

Consider automobiles and television manufacture: since the mid 1960s the population of California has more than doubled, but the production of new aoutos and televisions has occurred elsewhere: in the red states and overseas.

This law will most likely make it more costly, hence less likely to occur, for manufacture of wind turbines and PV cells to increase in CA: production will be ramped up in Arizona and Texas instead. We'll have to buy more electricity from Texas than ever before.

What makes you think that CA is a bellwether state? You need to pay more attention to "flyover country".

I repeat: the problem isn't companies that leave; the problem is the companies that do not move in to replace the natural deaths of old companies.

Posted by: republicrat on August 31, 2006 at 2:49 AM | PERMALINK

(Fake) Al-bot: "Carbon monoxide is good for you. Tonight I'm even planning on sitting in my running car with the garage closed to enjoy this naturally occuring chemical."

It's even more totally cool when you run a hose from the car's exhaust through a slightly open window into the vehicle's interior while listening to Pink Floyd's >i>The Wall on the car stereo!

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 31, 2006 at 2:58 AM | PERMALINK

California will mandate a reduction in the state's emissions of gases contributing to global warming to 1990 levels by 2020.

Less costly and more productive would have been increased CO2 sequestration: growing more trees and shrubs, and growing more biofuels. With biofuels, the solid waste is returned to the farms for fertilizer, which cuts down on the use of fuel for that purpose. Simpling changing (some of) the agricultural water subsidy to a biofuels subsidy would have had a more positive environmental effect at no extra net cost to the state.

Posted by: republicrat on August 31, 2006 at 3:04 AM | PERMALINK

republicrat "What makes you think that CA is a bellwether state?"

You know, I'm not sure. Could it be the fact that one in eight Americans call California home? Or is it because the state's economy is the fifth or sixth largest in the world?

What do you think?

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 31, 2006 at 3:07 AM | PERMALINK

Republicrat, while I agree with some of what you are saying, let's not get carried away with sequestration. As far as I know there is zero evidence that this will actually work for as long as it needs to.

I predict sequestration will be THE prime issue in corrupt corporate America in ten years. It is perfect. Your Halliburton type company can promise to store CO2 in oil wells for ten thousand years, can rake up tons of public money in the constriction for this project, and all the execs involved will be dead in a hundred years when the CO2 starts to leak out.

Posted by: Maynard Handley on August 31, 2006 at 3:10 AM | PERMALINK

' "They're going to still produce greenhouse gas," she said. '

That zesty combination of arrogance and bad grammar is just so Bush Administration, isn't it?

Posted by: Kenji on August 31, 2006 at 3:14 AM | PERMALINK

Donald from Hawaii >"...What do you think?"

Apparently republicrat doesn`t

"...Only the most naive gamblers bet against physics, and only the most irresponsible bet with their grandchildren's resources..." - William H. Calvin

Posted by: daCascadian on August 31, 2006 at 3:14 AM | PERMALINK

republicrat:,/b> "Less costly and more productive would have been increased CO2 sequestration: growing more trees and shrubs, and growing more biofuels. ... [Simply] changing (some of) the agricultural water subsidy to a biofuels subsidy would have had a more positive environmental effect at no extra net cost to the state."

On that, you make an excellent point, and I hereby take back my snarky remark in my previous post.

However, without that subsidy, I'd fear that much of California's precious water resources could well be diverted to the more profitable (albeit short-term) construction of subdivisions on agricultural lands. That's happened here in Hawaii, especially on Oahu. You can only grow one crop of cement and asphalt.

Is my concern valid in California? And if so, is there a way that concern could be properly addressed without provoking the private property-rights crowd?

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 31, 2006 at 3:18 AM | PERMALINK

Maynard Handley: My guess is that the main reason this passed was that the business consensus was that it didn't matter a damn. Power can move out of CA to keep the CO2 numbers down, and nothing else will have to change.

I planned to say that, but you beat me to it. However, much will change eventually to get CO2 numbers down to 1990 levels. CA can't really afford to buy all of its electricity from out of state. As I wrote, the crimp is in the growth of other industries, growth which will grind to a halt. What you wrote will work for a while.

Mighty oaks from little acorns grow. I thought that you were a Darwinian. Don't you realize that most little acorns don't grow up to be anything, much less "mighty"? They get eaten by the bacteria, birds and squirrels.

Posted by: republicrat on August 31, 2006 at 3:26 AM | PERMALINK

Donald from Hawaii: Is my concern valid in California? And if so, is there a way that concern could be properly addressed without provoking the private property-rights crowd?

Yes. No. It's complicated. Here in San Diego the city is buying water from the title-holders in the Imperial Valley, and purchasing more efficient irrigation systems for the farmers.

The most ghastly waste of water is up north where the subsidy helps to grow cotton, corn and rice, which competes with the same crops grown in Arkansas, Illinois and Louisiana without nearly such large subsidies. At no extra cost to the state, it could plant "acorns" and grow millions of acres of CO2 sequestering "oak" trees. Just like Kevin Drum advocated in his last line. Interleaved with low-water-consuming "switchgrass", and jojoba bushes, and all kinds of native plants and bushes, it would be the perfect combination of biofuels and CO2 seqestration.

Posted by: republicrat on August 31, 2006 at 3:37 AM | PERMALINK

Maynard Handley: let's not get carried away with sequestration. As far as I know there is zero evidence that this will actually work for as long as it needs to.

right now I have to work and go to bed. I'll try to look up, for the fourth time, the Science article on sequestration, sometime tomorrow night.

The best sequestration, provided for in the Kyoto treaty in a way unfair to the US, is reforestation and afforestation. An example: a Japanese-American scientist has created salt-tolerant mangrove trees, and has planted hundreds of thousands of them in (of all places) Somalia. There are other salt-tolerant plants: soybeans, tomatoes, asparagus, millet, potatoes; they can be planted on the desertified but daily flooded Colorado River Delta.

Posted by: republicrat on August 31, 2006 at 3:53 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, planting trees only sequesters carbon until the trees die. Once they're dead, the process of decomposition balances the equation, consuming the oxygen the trees produced and returning it as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Burying the trees, or turning them into phonebooks to be buried eternally in landfills would accomplish sequestration. Turning them into biofuels at least wouldn't exacerbate the problem.

The larger problem is that we've been burning plants that were buried hundred of millions of years ago, and we can't restore the pre-industrial atmosphere without somehow restoring that ancient repository.

Posted by: bad Jim on August 31, 2006 at 4:11 AM | PERMALINK

What do you think?

Well, Texas exports more manufactured goods and produces more electricity from windfarms. Alabama produces more televisions, and Kentucky manufactures more refrigerators and washing machines. One Californai innovation was parking lots with electrical sockets for electrical cars: that idea pretty much died here. San Francisco city government provides sex-change operations for its city empoyees, and I don't see that idea spreading. The biggest entertainment draw outside of las Vegas is Branson, MO. Washington, Kansas, Missouri, Texas and Georgia each manufactures more aircraft. Mississippi manufactures more ships.

California handles a lot of goods shipped between the rest of the US and Asia.

I'm not saying we're hopeless, but I don't think we are a bellwether either.

Posted by: republicrat on August 31, 2006 at 4:13 AM | PERMALINK

In other words, the holy grail of carbon neutrality is only the first step (and good luck getting there, but at least California's legislature takes it more seriously than our feckless president). We need photovoltaic roofing and windmill ridgelines, friendlier factories and grass-topped offices, and humans willing and able to walk more than 100m to their destination.

Posted by: bad Jim on August 31, 2006 at 4:19 AM | PERMALINK

"Mighty oaks from little acorns grow."

Don't ever say anything like that ever again. That's a bad Kevin Drum. Bad. Must.Self.Censor.Bad.Writing.For.Readers.Sake.

May a mighty oak grow from that acorn.

You see my point.

Posted by: TomK on August 31, 2006 at 4:21 AM | PERMALINK

There's actually a nugget of a decent point in here; it's no good California committing to CO2 reductions if all it means is the same amount of coal-fired electricity plants just across the border.

Would I be right in assuming that any proposal to include the emissions of any electricity imported from other states in the cap is constitutionally problematic?

Posted by: Robert Merkel on August 31, 2006 at 4:24 AM | PERMALINK

bad jim: Actually, planting trees only sequesters carbon until the trees die.

Most solutions are only temporary. California oaks can last about 150 years, and I think that's enough time to address other problems. So, I basically agree with you.

Posted by: republicrat on August 31, 2006 at 4:30 AM | PERMALINK

California can certainly choose not to consume energy from sources that don't meet our standards without raising constitutional issues.

Our 2001 electricity crisis was partly a result of our summertime dependence on hydroelectric generation from Washington & Oregon. They were experiencing a drought just when deregulation went live, making it that much easier for the peak producers to game the system.

We have a limited ability to use our power as consumers to mold the system nearer to our hearts' desire, and (yes!) we're using it, hoping (1) that others will agree that it's the right thing to do, and swell our ranks, and (2) that by taking the vanguard position we'll reap the benefits of being (3) the pioneers or (4) the early adopters (or both) of the only course available to this planet.

Posted by: bad Jim on August 31, 2006 at 4:48 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks, republicrat. More green things around us will do more than temporarily improve the air. They can even restore some of the quality of life our parents and their parents endured (which they were hellbent on changing, god bless and damn them).

Posted by: bad Jim on August 31, 2006 at 4:56 AM | PERMALINK

"If California implements this new law efficently and fairly, other states will follow. And if other states follow, maybe other countries will too"

In case you hadn't noticed, America is not leading on this issue, its following.

Posted by: still working it out on August 31, 2006 at 7:00 AM | PERMALINK

Exactly which state does republicrat think is going to be building coal-fired power plants to replace the ones that will have to reduce emissions or go off line in California? Texas, I believe he said? Would that be central Texas, currently running up against the edge of being declared a Non-Attainment Area under the Clean Air Act by the EPA, which would mandate federal limits on new pollution-emitting businesses? Yeah, I'm sure they'd welcome more dirty power plants to produce energy for California. It'd make it that much more pleasant, every time they recorded an 8-hour poisonous ozone level period in San Antonio or Dallas, to think that they were sacrificing so that Californians could enjoy clean air AND cheap electricity.

Yeah. I really see that happening.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 7:03 AM | PERMALINK

Incidentally, why is growing rice, cotton, and corn not "sequestration"? They're plants, right? Or, if it's because they're annuals and give up much of their CO2 when they die or are processed, then why is switchgrass sequestration?

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 7:10 AM | PERMALINK

And, finally...

Shorter Conservative: This government regulation will have no effect, and will also destroy the economy and ultimately the world.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 7:20 AM | PERMALINK

New Nukes?

Posted by: JOe on August 31, 2006 at 8:07 AM | PERMALINK

Why don't business schools require a little course in ecology for all graduates? Every resource that's extracted for today's wealth is really just a tax on future generations. I doubt if they will be able to pay.

Posted by: slanted tom on August 31, 2006 at 8:08 AM | PERMALINK

"Moving heavy industrial plants to new states is a lot less appealing than it sounds, and if it does start to happen I'll bet other states will follow California's lead. After all, what state wants to be the dumping ground for all the poor corporate citizens who are moving out of California because they want to relocate somewhere that doesn't mind them belching tons of pollutants into the air?"

Don't worry, the heavy industries will be moving to Asia, this will only accelerate the pace. If heavy industries are such poor citizens, then liberals should stop whining about manufacturing moving overseas.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on August 31, 2006 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

It seems global warming has resulted in fewer and less powerful hurricanes. Please explain why global warming is such a bad thing?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on August 31, 2006 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

"More green things around us will do more than temporarily improve the air. They can even restore some of the quality of life our parents and their parents endured (which they were hellbent on changing, god bless and damn them)."

Really? Are you sure the environment was in a better state 30 years or 100 years ago?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on August 31, 2006 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

Here's an interesting OPEC factoid from Bloomberg today.

"The cartel's members -- Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela -- together sit atop 75 percent of the world's reserves and account for about 42 percent of total production, according to BP."

Then consider how great our global energy diplomacy is with these states. Seems to me Kah-li-fone-ya is doing the prudent thing to get ahead of drifting federal policy on this issue. If coal wants to come to the party, they'll have to bring their best fluidized bed boilers. Also with eastern California having some of the highest albedos on the planet, there are great opportunities for integrating photovoltaics into structures and vehicles.


Posted by: kostya on August 31, 2006 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

Don't worry, the heavy industries will be moving to Asia, this will only accelerate the pace.

You know this how? Oh, that's right - you just made it up, so it must be true.

Freedom Fighter - proudly fact-free since the first Year of the Reich.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

"The Clinton administration has decided to commit the United States to finalizing a treaty in December 1997 that would impose legally binding, internationally enforceable limits on the production of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2). That decision was based on the belief that global warming is significant, that humans are its primary cause and that only immediate government action can avert disaster.

Yet there is no scientific consensus that global warming is a problem or that humans are its cause. Even if current predictions of warming are correct, delaying drastic government actions by up to 25 years will make little difference in global temperature 100 years from now. Proposed treaty restrictions would do little environmental good and great economic harm. By contrast, putting off action until we have more evidence of human-caused global warming and better technology to mitigate it is both environmentally and economically sound."

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html


Global warming measures are the latest feel good, accomplish nothing policies from the left. Maybe if they convince enough people, they could finally succeed in their quest to financially hurt big business.

And then the left conveniently ignores the FACTS!

"President Bush on Tuesday called for stepped-up government research into alternative fuels for American cars and trucks, saying this could help dramatically reduce U.S. dependence on oil imports from the Middle East.

Focusing a major part of his State of the Union address on the auto industry, Bush stressed the potential for alternatives to gasoline, proposing a 22-percent increase in federal research dollars to develop clean energy sources, including ethanol, electric and other nonpetroleum fuels."

http://www.apolloalliance.org/apollo_in_the_news/archived_news_articles/2006/2_1_06_detriotnews.cfm


Smarter liberals please

Posted by: Jay on August 31, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

It seems global warming has resulted in fewer and less powerful hurricanes.

Hey, the moon hasn't come out in several hours now. It seems nighttime has been eliminated!

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

Wrong again, Kevin. Carbon monoxide is good for you. Tonight I'm even planning on sitting in my running car with the garage closed to enjoy this naturally occuring chemical.
Posted by: Al on August 31, 2006 at 1:57 AM

Third why is global warming bad in the first place? It would make certain places like Alaska more hospitable by making it warmer. So it would actually have a good effect.
Posted by: Al

Which is the fake Al? I'm more and more convinced that the real Al is indeed a parody troll. Nobody could possibly believe the crap he writes.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on August 31, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

I think all of the Als have been replaced by parodies at this point, but I'm not sure whether they're all the same parody, or different ones. I think it may soon be possible to set up al.blogspot.com, at which all of the posts and all of the comments will be by Al, in his many guises, viciously disputing himself across every conceivable spectrum of the batshit.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

Don't you realize that most little acorns don't grow up to be anything, much less "mighty"? They get eaten by the bacteria, birds and squirrels.
Posted by: republicrat

Is this what passes for neo-con "logic"? Pretty pathetic, republicrap. Kevin said nothing about all, or even most, acorns becoming mighty oaks, but that any mighty oak must have come from one little acorn. Are you disputing that fact?

Unless, of course, it was "intelligent design"!

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on August 31, 2006 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe: I think it may soon be possible to set up al.blogspot.com, at which all of the posts and all of the comments will be by Al, in his many guises, viciously disputing himself across every conceivable spectrum of the batshit.

Line of the week! I'm howling.

Posted by: shortstop on August 31, 2006 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

Yet there is no scientific consensus that global warming is a problem or that humans are its cause.

Oh, great, moronic Jay is on the case. Read the scientific journals, you idiot, there is overwhelming consensus that a)global warming exists, and b)that it is largely caused by human activity.

Focusing a major part of his State of the Union address on the auto industry, Bush stressed the potential for alternatives to gasoline, proposing a 22-percent increase in federal research dollars to develop clean energy sources, including ethanol, electric and other nonpetroleum fuels.

One thing you should learn about Dumbya, Jay, is to focus on what he does, not what he says, they're usually very different. Find the budget where funds were allocated for this and you'll notice a big difference between promise and delivery. Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on August 31, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, by the way how's that Plame conspiracy coming along?

Posted by: Jay on August 31, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

What I find interesting about California's inititve and the similar state legislation on a variety of topics all across the country is that state governments are trying to tackle important issues in very responsible ways. Something you might ordinarly expect from the Federal government. Of course, the current Republican crew in Washington doesn't do anything responsibly.

I guess life goes on.

Posted by: Ron Byers on August 31, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

For at least twenty years now, I've been saying, that we should be building an infrastructure, to provide all the free energy we need, through wind, solar, and hydro power.

Posted by: AkaDad on August 31, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK
15:00 PM Apr, 10, 2001

WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush's first federal budget would slash funding for environmental programs, energy conservation and agricultural preservation.

Among the funding cuts are $162 million from the Wetlands Reserve program, which provides assistance to farmers who wish to restore and protect agricultural wetlands. Energy efficiency research programs would be cut by 30 percent, and renewable energy programs by 40 percent.

In contrast, the Department of Defense would see its budget rise by $14.2 billion, to $310.5 billion in 2002.

Energy: Some of the largest cuts in the president's budget proposal are in the alternative energy sector.

The budget provides $19.0 billion in 2002 -- $700 million, or 3 percent, below the 2001 budget. The reductions come largely from $277 million in cuts for renewable energy research and development programs. Energy efficiency programs would be cut by up to 50 percent.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,42983,00.html

That Bush. What a fucking visionary.

Posted by: trex on August 31, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

"....there is overwhelming consensus that a)global warming exists,...."


Except for this:

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

and this:

www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3322


and this:

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761536604?v=glance

And there is this:


Energy Policy Act of 2005

"The Congressional Budget Office review of the conference version of the bill estimated the Act will increase direct spending by $1.6 billion, and reduce revenue by $12.3 billion between 2006 and 2015. The CBO noted that the bill could have additional effects on discretionary spending, but did not attempt to estimate those effects."


Liberals should just keep thier mouths shut and appear to be fools rather than open them and remove all doubt.


Posted by: Jay on August 31, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I sure hope you are planning to participate in Impeachment Day tomorrow.

Posted by: The Liberal Avenger on August 31, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

That Bush. What a fucking visionary.

I have it on authority from Pickles that he's no visionary in that arena, either.

Hey, why is she called Pickles, anyway? A little searching only turned up Betty Bowers' explanation, which wasn't even that funny.

Posted by: shortstop on August 31, 2006 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

"Freedom Fighter - proudly fact-free since the first Year of the Reich."

Have you no shame? You guys lied about the connection between global warming and hurricanes, and now you want to push legislation based off lies?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on August 31, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

"Hey, the moon hasn't come out in several hours now. It seems nighttime has been eliminated!"

Is that the best you can do after being caught lying?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on August 31, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

God damn Jay, you're so fucking stupid. You're so eager to be counted among the adults here that you furiously google to find somebody -- anybody -- who disagrees that global warming is happening.

The first problem with that is that finding a couple of people that deny it does not contradict the fact that there is a concensus.

But secondly, and wildly more stupid, you quoted Ron Bailey's book -- without knowing that he has changed his position and now is an ardent believe in global warming.

http://www.reason.com/links/links081105.shtml

There is a kiddie blog just down the Net. I think you've made it very clear from the content of your posts that range from puerile to psychotic that that's where you belong.

Posted by: trex on August 31, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Jay,

I know its really hard for conservatives to get their brains around new thoughts, but you really need to reject all the oil company propaganda bouncing around your tiny skull. All you need to know about the first anti-global warming link you provided, is that Pete du Pont is their top expert. Actually, the reptilian du Pont started the National Center for Policy Analysis, which is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the large chemical companies of which he is an heir. This bespectacled turd has never done an honest days work in his life (like our president), other than cash his trust fund checks and lobbies hard to make sure the EPA doesnt stop his familys chemical company from besmirching the environment or making them pay taxes on the money they came by without working for.

So, better sources please, Jay. Maybe do some brain-stretching exercises. Your head is way-y-y too small.

Posted by: Jay Blows Big Weenies on August 31, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

"The first problem with that is that finding a couple of people that deny it does not contradict the fact that there is a concensus."

Are these the same people that lied about the connection between global warming and hurricanes? More honest liberals please.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on August 31, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: "But liberals need to get on board with a few things too. California's legislation allows the rulemaking authorities to implement a cap-and-trade system, and this is something we should embrace."

Is Kevin really that ignorant and clueless about this subject? Cap-and-trade systems have always been a cornerstone of all "liberal" approaches to reducing GHG emissions, including Kyoto.

Either Kevin simply doesn't know anything about this, in which case he should not pontificate about it, or he does know it, and for some reason is pretending that cap-and-trade systems are an invention of "conservatives" and/or Republicans that "liberals" need to "get on board" with.

I'd add that on no subject do the neo-brownshirt Bush-bootlicking mental slaves who infest these comment pages more blatantly expose themselves as ignorant, weak-minded dupes than on the subject of global warming.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on August 31, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

So his stand on reducing greenhouse gasses means you now support Schwarzenneger's bid for a second term?

Nope. But he can make another shitty movie if he likes.

Posted by: ckelly on August 31, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

The libs on the left coast ought to stop fornicating in their hot tubs all night, and we wouldn't HAVE a pollution problem!

Posted by: The Other Al on August 31, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

>You guys lied about the connection between global warming and hurricanes,

Amazing. He lies about us lying.

>So his stand on reducing greenhouse gasses means you now support Schwarzenneger's

No, it means that you fuckers and your Know-Nothing party are doomed, and then end is coming sooner than any of us dared hope.

The Great Austrian Hope for the Presidency, the ones you clowns were so ready to rewrite the Constitution for (and what the hell is it with you guys and changing the Constitution?), is embracing gays, pro-woman's rights to their body (at least the inside of the womb, I don't know if he's finally keeping his hands to himself), talking about pollution, and not putting up a real great fight against UHC.

Like anybody with half a brain would do. Even a steriod-sodden, Hollywood stardom twisted brain.

You should aspire to be a half-wit like him. Or a 3/4 wit like Michael Bloomberg, a recent Democrat that is also gay, environment, and NARAL friendly.


Posted by: doesn't matter on August 31, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

Trolling isn't for everybody. Yeah, it's a glamorous life, full of dirty underwear, empty Doritos bags, obsessive masturbation and the need to read as much as one book per year, but it's no shame to be too stupid to make the cut.

Serving as troll support--the guy who e-mails the actual trolls at 3 a.m. to say, "Yeah! You fucking OWNED those fucking Dimocrats tonight with your post quoting 1986 BLS data!"--can be a dignified life, too. Jay, we're looking at you. There is no man so unhappy as one who struggles against his place in the universe.

Posted by: shortstop on August 31, 2006 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Not fully knowing the particulars of this law, I would predict that it will share the same fate as the Kyoto Protocol, which is to be ignored when the cuts in "greenhouse gases" translate into lower economic activity and a lower standard of living and the people get pissed off. All the countries that exceed the requirements of Kyoto have simply ignored them, albeit, dressed up in language expressly their commitment to the "process." I believe that Romania is the only country that has achieved the cutback that Kyoto requires

All in all, this represents typical liberal governing. A meaningless law that won't do anything about the problem, global warming which may or may not be happening or be outside Man's ability to do anything about, it was enacted to address.

Posted by: Chicounsel on August 31, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel, with regard to Kyoto, you are screamingly wrong and you obviously don't know anything about it. You are just regurgitating scripted right-wing extremist talking points -- in fact, almost word-for-word verbatim the same exact scripted right-wing extremist talking points that your fellow right-wing neo-brownshirt mental slave rdw regurgitates every time this subject comes up.

Like most so-called "conservatives" you are an ignorant, weak-minded dupe who is incapable of independent thought. You think what Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal tell you to think and you say what they tell you to say.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on August 31, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

"There is no man so unhappy as one who struggles against his place in the universe." shorty


You seem to be the one conflicted shorty.

"Yeah, it's a glamorous life, full of dirty underwear, empty Doritos bags, obsessive masturbation and the need to read as much as one book per year,....." - shorty

Revealing your true identity I see.

Posted by: Jay on August 31, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

"You are just regurgitating scripted right-wing extremist talking points -- in fact, almost word-for-word verbatim the same exact scripted right-wing extremist talking points that your fellow right-wing neo-brownshirt mental slave rdw regurgitates every time this subject comes up."

You guys have been caught lying about global warming in 2006, how can anyone know you aren't lying about global warming in 2106?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on August 31, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Don't fight it, Jay. Embrace your destiny. There is power in submission.

Posted by: shortstop on August 31, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah! When California implements these restrictions, the global temperature will be reduced by an entire 0.007 degrees C! If we can get everyone in the world to follw, maybe we can reduce it by 0.45 degrees C!

We're saved!

Posted by: Martian on August 31, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

"After all, what state wants to be the dumping ground for all the poor corporate citizens who are moving out of California because they want to relocate somewhere that doesn't mind them belching tons of pollutants into the air?"

Texas?

Isn't that pretty much thier economic plan?

Posted by: jefff on August 31, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

chicounsel,

Not fully knowing the particulars of this law, I would predict that it will share the same fate as the Kyoto Protocol, which is to be ignored when the cuts in "greenhouse gases" translate into lower economic activity and a lower standard of living and the people get pissed off.

That would be my guess too. EU Nowhere Near Meeting Kyoto Targets

Kevin,

As usual, Bush has his head in the sand over this. As he knows very well, we could prevent industries from moving to other states by adopting national standards, something he's dead set against.

The quote stated "a cap imposed in one state or country simply causes industry to move to another location." Unless you propose giving Bush the power to impose emissions standards on China and India too, national standards would have little effect. In fact, you'd be giving American companies a huge new incentive to move their production--and the associated jobs--to China, India and other developing countries not subject to Kyoto emissions reductions. I thought liberals are supposed to be against that.


Posted by: GOP on August 31, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Don from HI: 'one in eight Americans call California home'

'Americans'? As in citizens? You sure about that assertion, Don? Checked the US Census lately?

Posted by: CFShep on August 31, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Don P posting as "GOP" wrote: In fact, you'd be giving American companies a huge new incentive to move their production--and the associated jobs--to China, India and other developing countries not subject to Kyoto emissions reductions.

Please explain how power plants that provide electricity for California will be relocated to China.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on August 31, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

I won't argue the global warming issue here. I am a mild skeptic, meaning I think man is causing warming but much less than Al Gore & Co. are portraying. I also think it is still an open question as to whether a cooler but poorer world is better than a warmer and richer world.

Anyway, the one thing I wanted to point out here is that the notion that other states will object to the export of California's pollution won't work the way you portray it. Your logic is sound for something like SO2, which would carry with the winds east from, say, a power plant in Nevada and therefore not affect California. But the evidence is that CO2 mixes really well worldwide, so that CO2 from Nevada will warm California just as much as CO2 from California.

And kudos for supporting cap and trade, though as a good anarcho-capitalist I have a concern with the implementation of some such schemes that I think a good progressive should as well. That is, the initial lot of permits are sometimes given to incumbents based on past production. All this does is reward entrenched businesses and penalize upstarts and entrepeneurs. Initial permits need to be auctioned, like wireless spectrum or offshore oil leases

Posted by: coyote on August 31, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Jay wrote:
Except for this:

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

This was written almost 10 years ago, by H. Sterling Burnett, a well-known oil company shill.

and this:

www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3322

Did you even read this? It contradicts what you are saying. Example from the article:
"FACT: There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to human activities, not natural causes."

and this

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761536604?v=glance

Rave reviews from John Stossel. I think that says it all.

Posted by: George Dorn on August 31, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

The quote stated "a cap imposed in one state or country simply causes industry to move to another location." Unless you propose giving Bush the power to impose emissions standards on China and India too, national standards would have little effect.

I see. We would start buying electric power from China and India.

A suggestion: get Google Earth, or purchase an atlas.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Alexis Colby Carrington, posting as "SecularAnimist," writes:

Please explain how power plants that provide electricity for California will be relocated to China.

Please explain why you think "industry" and "heavy industrial plants" means only "power plants."

Posted by: GOP on August 31, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

I also think it is still an open question as to whether a cooler but poorer world is better than a warmer and richer world.

Please keep in mind that in the warmer world, many thousands of people will die because of floods, drought, and disease caused by higher sea levels and new rainfall patterns.

Posted by: George Dorn on August 31, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

I also think it is still an open question as to whether a cooler but poorer world is better than a warmer and richer world.

Well, coyote, I recently read an interesting abstract of a paper on cognitive therapies for compulsive gamblers. The treatment involves addressing gambling addicts' inaccurate perceptions regarding risk.

The situation as it stands is that the earth is warming faster than it has in tens of millions of years, and CO2 concentrations are moving towards levels almost unprecedented in the history of animal life on earth. The alternative involves reversing the growth of consumption of carbon fuels and holding them at the levels of 1990 - a year when human society was hardly impoverished; and, obviously, through increased energy efficiency and non-carbon fuels, we could generate far more economic activity on the same amount of carbon.

So: which alternative here is riskier? On the one hand, the possibility of extinction of animal life. On the other, the possibility of slower economic growth. Hm. Maybe you should try that therapy, eh?

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

I propose to solve the greenhouse gas problem by sequestering massive amounts of C02 in GOP, and watching as he floats away like a giant balloon.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe,

I see. We would start buying electric power from China and India.

No, you obviously don't see. Companies would start moving their industrial facilities--and the associated jobs--from the U.S. to China and India. Those facilities would not be subject to Kyoto or U.S. emissions standards. The Chinese and Indian power plants that produce the additional electrical power needed by those relocated industrial facilities would also not be subject to Kyoto or U.S. emissions standards.

A suggestion: get Google Earth, or purchase an atlas.

A suggestion: get a brain.

Posted by: GOP on August 31, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Companies would start moving their industrial facilities--and the associated jobs--from the U.S. to China and India.

Again: you believe this to be true because...you just said it, so it must be true.

What proportion of the differential in cost between goods produced in the US and those produced in China is due to stricter environmental and labor regulations in the US, as opposed to higher labor costs? You don't know. How severely would restrictions on CO2 emissions affect the cost of different kinds of goods currently manufactured in the US? You don't know. How do this price increases, if any, compare to factors which mitigate against US companies moving manufacturing to China: the cost of shipment from China to the US (which itself would involve CO2 emissions that might become pricier as a result of these regulations); the cost of lower Chinese worker productivity; the cost of business uncertainty in China's still-fledgling legal environment; and all the other factors which have so far prevented every single manufacturing job in the US from moving to China? You don't know.

You're just making this shit up. If the differential in cost of labor between the US and China is about 5000 percent, and new C02 regulations threaten to add, oh, let's be outlandish, 5 percent to the cost of a type of good, then how significant will that consideration be in a factory's decision to move?

But you just thought it would be, so it must be so. Okay then.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe,

I propose to solve the greenhouse gas problem by sequestering massive amounts of C02 in GOP, and watching as he floats away like a giant balloon.

Another baseless assumption on your part. Present your evidence that I don't already look like a giant balloon.

Posted by: GOP on August 31, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Eventually, and sooner rather than later, all nations will have to drastically reduce their fossil fuel emissions by amounts far beyond what the Kyoto Protocol requires -- first of all because of global warming, and second because the supplies of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) will become depleted. Those nations that move rapidly and aggressively now to migrate from fossil fuel energy to clean, renewable solar, wind and biofuel energy, will reap huge economic rewards.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on August 31, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe,

Again: you believe this to be true because...you just said it, so it must be true.

Nonsense. You have offered no data that proves that it isn't true.

Posted by: GOP on August 31, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

BTW: I would not be surprised if, in a few searches restricted exclusively to ideological right-wing sites like the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation, GOP manages to come up with some numbers arguing that if it were not for those evil environmental and worker-safety laws, American cars would cost under a thousand dollars each. These institutions exist to justify eliminating regulations, so they manage to produce the numbers they need. I would however be favorably impressed if, for once, you actually took a look at some impartial sources and made a reasonable argument as to the moderate increase in the cost of US manufactured goods which really is due to increased environmental regulation.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

George W. Bush is a heroin addict secretly in the employ of Al-Qaeda! Now, offer me some data that proves it isn't true.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

You lazy ass.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe,

I would however be favorably impressed if, for once, you actually took a look at some impartial sources and made a reasonable argument as to the moderate increase in the cost of US manufactured goods which really is due to increased environmental regulation.

Huh? It's hard to know what you mean by "reasonable argument." Unless you can demonstrate that I am not reasonable, you have nothing to offer here.

Posted by: GOP on August 31, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Nonsense. You have offered no data that proves that it isn't true.

But...

We can't find any data that proves GOP isn't a mentally diseased, pathologically antisocial, friendless outcast.

Posted by: norman licked my pee-pee on August 31, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, I'm not favorably impressed.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

I picture GOP as one of those guys in the striped short-sleeved shirts with a little film of sweat on his upper lip, cocking his finger in the air. "PREEEEUUUVE that I have not defeated you! Ha! You cannot preeeeuuuuve it! Hence, I have defeated you! I win again!" Then he breaks out the Snickers.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

2002: There is evidence that (Saddam Hussein has WMD/global warming is caused by human activities). There are also people who doubt that evidence.
Conservatives decide to attack Saddam but ignore global warming.

2006: Evidence for WMD has vanished. Evidence for global warming accepted by nearly everyone.
Conservatives still think both decisions were correct.

This is not rational behavior. (Unless you consider that in both cases, conservatives' choices benefit corporations at the expense of ordinary people.)

Posted by: George Dorn on August 31, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe,

The situation as it stands is that the earth is warming faster than it has in tens of millions of years, and CO2 concentrations are moving towards levels almost unprecedented in the history of animal life on earth. The alternative involves reversing the growth of consumption of carbon fuels and holding them at the levels of 1990 - a year when human society was hardly impoverished;

Utter nonsense. First, you're confused about the nature of what you call "the alternative." Kyoto isn't about reducing "consumption of carbon fuels," it's about reducing CO2 emissions. They're not the same thing. And second, the Kyoto emissions reductions are not an "alternative" at all. Even if Kyoto were fully implemented, it is estimated that it would reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration by only 6% from what it would otherwise be. The earth would still be "warming faster than it has in tens of millions of years," and CO2 concentrations would still be "moving towards levels almost unprecedented in the history of animal life on earth."

Kyoto would be a tiny mitigation of CO2 levels. If it were fully implemented. Which seems very unlikely to happen.

So: which alternative here is riskier? On the one hand, the possibility of extinction of animal life. On the other, the possibility of slower economic growth. Hm. Maybe you should try that therapy, eh?

So forget any serious evaluation of the magnitude of the risk. Forget any cost/benefit analysis of different kinds of policy to mitigate that risk or adapt to higher temperatures. As long as there is the mere "possibility" of "extinction of animal life," we should just uncritically throw any amount of money at trying to eliminate it, no matter what the cost. That's your suggestion, is it?

Posted by: GOP on August 31, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

Don P posting as "GOP" wrote: "You have offered no data that proves that it isn't true."

This is the standard rules of engagement for Don P.

His broad, sweeping, unsupported, dogmatic pontifications require no evidence to back them up.

Other commenters' challenges to his broad, sweeping, unsupported, dogmatic pontifications require evidence to prove that his completely unsupported assertions are wrong.

And when other commenters post evidence in support of their own assertions, or evidence that proves that his assertions were wrong, he summarily declares it irrelevant, and lies about what his original claim was, or simply pretends that they haven't posted it and pretends that he is "still waiting for it."

He engages in this behavior over and over again, on every thread where he comments, no matter what the subject.

He is a deliberate liar and an incorrigible fraud driven by the demands of a diseased and bloated ego to prove to himself over and over and over again that he is superior to others by impressing himself with his ability to waste their time with bullshit.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on August 31, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

GOP:

Unless you can demonstrate that I am not reasonable,

I think you've already done that quite well yourself. Any effort brooksfoe would make in that direction would be redundant.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 31, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Oppenents of this measure, like Chamber of Commerce have been using thus "Industry will leave" bullshit since at least the 60s when I lived in LA, and probably long. California now has what? 35 million people? Thankfully, nobody much pays attention to these Cassadras.

Posted by: r.t. thaddeus on August 31, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

I didn't write the posts of 2:12, 2:14 or 2:18 that appear under my name. My name-stealer is back.

Posted by: GOP on August 31, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

first of all because of global warming, and second because the supplies of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) will become depleted

GW is a fraud and at todays consumption levels we have 100 years of Oil left and 400 years of coal.

What CA is doing is fabulous for the GOP. There's no bad news here. It will chase business away from CA due to higher costs and slower growth and thus CA's population growth will stall. It will cost the Dems electoral votes. If not in 2010 then in 2020 and 2030.

Also the rest of the country benefits from whatever progress CA makes on smart pollution reduction if only by eliminating the dumb mistakes that are inevitable with such a massive program.

The beneficiaries here are clearly the southern states getting ready to expand their nuclear power production. There are over a dozen Southern Utilities which partially mothballed plans for multiple reactors at single sites. They built only one when two were approved or two when three were approved. The pads and entire infrastructure is in place for over a dozen new reactors and so far the utilities are meeting surprisingly little resistance to adding capacity.

Thanks to improved designs and controls these reactors are much cheaper. The South is going to have another substantial competitive edge over the north. They'll have more power available at a cheaper price and it's pollution free.

CA cannot compete with that. They can't even consider nuclear or hydro or coal. The enery price differential could be very substantial for homeowners as well as business and industrial.

Here's hoping CA develops some super-duper energy savings or energy sources that will save them from disaster.

Posted by: rdw on August 31, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

Don P posting as "GOP": Even if Kyoto were fully implemented, it is estimated that it would reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration by only 6% from what it would otherwise be.

No one has ever claimed that the reductions called for by the Kyoto Protocol were anything more than a first, small step towards addressing anthropogenic global warming caused by GHG emissions from burning fossil fuels. From the earliest IPCC reports up through today, the scientific consensus has been that much larger reductions in GHG emissions would be needed to stabilize the Earth's climate.

The value of the Kyoto Protocol is that it established for the first time legally binding international GHG reduction requirements, and created a framework within which nations could begin to establish GHG reduction strategies. Every advocate of Kyoto knows and has always said that it would need to be expanded to cover developing economies like China and India, and to mandate greater reductions.

Your opposition to the Kyoto Protocol is not because you don't think it goes far enough towards reducing GHG emissions.

You oppose the Kyoto Protocol because that's what the right-wing propaganda machine tells you to think and say, and like the mental slave that you are, you think what Rush Limbaugh and Fox News tell you to think, and you say what they tell you to say. And they oppose the Kyoto Protocol because their masters in the fossil fuel industry don't want any mandatory restrictions on increasing fossil fuel consumption, let alone mandatory reductions.

As always, you are thoroughly and maliciously dishonest on this subject.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on August 31, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

rdw appears again to vomit up his last meal of Rush Limbaugh's turds.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on August 31, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe,

Again: you believe this to be true because...

....increasing the cost of production in the U.S. is an incentive to move production outside the U.S. It's basic economics.

You're just making this shit up.

No, you're just making shit up. If you're claiming that the proposed emissions reduction standards would impose no meaningful costs on U.S. industrial facilities, and hence create no meaningful economic incentive for companies to relocate those facilities outside the U.S., it's up to you to present evidence in support of that claim. You haven't done that.


Posted by: GOP on August 31, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

Brooksfoe can't prove that all the things you predict will happen won't happen. First of all you can't prove a negative Donny and you know it. Nor nor can you predict the future -- a rationalist like you should know that!

And even if he just limited himself to assessing your predictive ability about California industry on their own merits, we'd still have to have some kind of baseline with which to evaluate your half-assed prophecies.

You keep getting your rhetorical ass kicked on thread after thread and now you're really grasping at straws.

Loved the "no, YOU ARE" tactic by the way. Classic! Do you stick your tongue out at the monitor when you type it? 'Cause that's how it reads.

Posted by: yepper on August 31, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Secular,

Kyoto has been a total disaster. It is the dumbest piece of garbage ever conceived and it will not continue if there are mandatory reductions involved. Kyoto has increased pollution by accelerating the transfer of heavy industry from the 1st world where pollution controls are in place to the 3rd world where pollution controls don't exist.

China, Brazil, India, etc., have already made it clear they will NEVER agree to mandatory limits and most of those nations who signed but didn't have limits because the base year was so high, i.e.Russia, the UK, Germany, Eastern Europe. etc. will not agree to mandatory limits.

Further, many of the nations who did sign won't be coming close to meeting their objectives and will pull out of the agrement unless a deal is made. It is bonehead stupid to have a system where by eco-friendly Canada will be paying large amounts to eco-disaster Russia.

Kyoto is an abomination only a liberal could have designed.

In the USA we now have the best cast scenario. Let blue state CA operate as a test bed and hopefully induce all other blue states to join them. If they works as they expect they reap great benefits for CA, the rest of the country, and the world. If it doesn't they lose a million or so jobs to the Red states, about 4x's as many people and a handful of electoral votes. The other states get to copy the programs and products that worked and avoid the mistakes.

Gotta love it!

Posted by: rdw on August 31, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

You guys have been caught lying about global warming in 2006, how can anyone know you aren't lying about global warming in 2106?
Posted by: Freedom Fighter

Wow, even for you, Freedom Fucker, that post was resounding in its stupidity. Poorly done, man! Keep up the crappy work!

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on August 31, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

The very first comment was LOL. (Oh and not that Al either!)

Posted by: Al's dad (not that Al) on August 31, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

GOP's demand for proof, while providing absolutely none of his own, sounds suspiciously like that lunatic, Norman. And, well, Charlie. And DonP. And Cheney...hey, they're not all the same person, are they???

Nah, couldn't be.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on August 31, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

The delusional neo-brownshirt Bush-bootlicking mental slave rdw wrote: "Kyoto has been a total disaster. It is the dumbest piece of garbage ever conceived [...] Kyoto is an abomination only a liberal could have designed."

So you are regurgitating the exact same, word-for-word, verbatim, scripted, corporate-sponsored right-wing extremist talking points that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal spoon-feed to you about Kyoto, the same bullshit lies and boilerplate liberal-bashing that you spew every time the subject comes up.

You are full of shit. Everything you say about Kyoto is false. You know nothing about it, as your every comment on the subject demonstrates. All you do is wallow in idiotic lies, like the weak-minded gullible dupe that you are.

You really are pathetic. Your only value is to serve as a sad example of the irreversible brain damage that results from a steady diet of Fox News, Fox News, Fox News and nothing but Fox News.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on August 31, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, I guess some people have nothing better to do with their time than engage in heated arguments on comment threads with people who AREN'T going to change their minds, no matter how many names you call them.

Take it from somebody who wasted a lot of time years ago on the Usenet - you can type till your fingers fall off, but you won't change the way the other side thinks.

Posted by: Duh on August 31, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Secular.

Take my word for it. Kyoto will not be extended with mandatory limits. Tony Blair told this to the choir 6 months ago and they were outraged. The UK got a free pass this time but know from watching Canada and New Zealand it's a really bad idea to commit to real limits. Tony sees the coming PR debacle when Canada pulls out.

Posted by: rdw on August 31, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

Take my word for it.

rdw, your optimism is truly.... one of a kind.

Wait right there while all of us rush out and 'take your word for it.'

We'll be right back.

Posted by: obscure on August 31, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

Look, Bush doesn't have his `'head in the sand on this.'' His vision on these issues is crystal-clear. It's not that he can't see that effective pollution controls make sense; he does not WANT effective pollution controls. He wants no pollution controls, no environmental oversight, no restrictions whatsoever on big oil and big business, none, ever, in any shape or form. He does NOT care in any way about unhealthy air and water, he doesn't give a rat's ass about anything but money. His energy and environmental policies are resolutely focused on regressing all environmental law and maximizing profits for the people he works for. Really, it's what he wants and he's fully aware of it.

Posted by: secularhuman on August 31, 2006 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

Ooh, those fiendishly clever Europeans! Emitting a fraction of the CO2 the US does per dollar of economic output! Relying on nuclear power, and taxing gasoline to discourage frivolous driving and urban sprawl!

In the 1980s, the US economy experienced healthy growth while consumption of fossil fuels per dollar of output dropped dramatically. I believe the president at the time was a gentleman named Reagan. In the '90s, the US economy grew rapidly while blowing out all the stops on fuel consumption. But apparently GOP prefers Clintonomics.

Conservatives lost their right to even mention the plausibility of economic regulation hurting growth on the day US forces entered Iraq. Whatever it might cost US industries to reduce C02 emissions, the effect will be dwarfed by the increased taxes they will have to pay to fund our $100 billion a year war to kill more Sunnis or Shiites or whoever the enemy is today.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

This means that while the European abatement program will cost roughly $5 per ton, the United States program could cost as much $100/ton.

Thankfully the U.S. economy is so much larger, stronger and robust than the European one, as you frequently point out.

As a result paying this larger amount should not be a problem.

Posted by: _ on August 31, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

Give an eager "saver of the environment" a crumb and he'll try to manufacture it so it looks like a skyscraper. The real action won't start for eleven years, old buddy; no enforcement or anything for eleven years. Think where California or Schwarzenegger or even you will be in eleven years. It's a joke, that's what it is. It's a farce. It's posturing. And you were taken in by it.

Posted by: OCPatriot on August 31, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

Some of you people just do not think, if it get to hot, the tree and animls will die then you will not have food put in your mouth, this place will be one big sand box, so you just think about that when your seating in that car.........

Posted by: jessica on September 1, 2006 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

duh: Take it from somebody who wasted a lot of time years ago on the Usenet - you can type till your fingers fall off, but you won't change the way the other side thinks.

The goal isn't to change the minds of "the other side". the goal is to change the minds of people who haven't chosen sides yer.

Posted by: republicrat on September 1, 2006 at 2:51 AM | PERMALINK

rdw appears again to vomit up his last meal of Rush Limbaugh's turds.
Posted by: SecularAnimist

Apparently he missed the 'slaughtering cows for butter' broadcast in which the bloviating idiot reaches a whole new level of KnowNothingism.

Gasp.

Posted by: CFShep on September 1, 2006 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

In contrast, the United States would have to reduce emissions by almost 30 percent to reach its Kyoto targets. This means that while the European abatement program will cost roughly $5 per ton, the United States program could cost as much $100/ton.

The US program won't cost $100/ton because there isn't a US program. There will not be a US program. That's one reason why this CA program is so cool. The Californians actually believe this nonsesne and are willing to fund it themselves. Bravo! This is the best of all worlds.

They also operate as a testbed for the other 49 states. Whatever improvements they develop will serve everyone. In addition those companies transferring capacity from CA will move into Southern States returning to nuclear power or more likely to India where Kyoto will never be an issue.

The European strategy of using 1990 as a base year was shrewd but also obvious. Eastern Europes manufacturing base was collapsing and the UK was switching from coal to natural gas. Their miscalulation was in over-estimating Clinton and Gore. They properly understood both were terrified of Eurpean public opinion and would agree to anything. But they missed the fact the right holds European public opinion in total comtempt and it's useless as a political tool. Kyoto never had a chance in the USA. It's been great for both Clinton and Gore who are seen as heroes over there.

Good for them.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Here's one:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/300/5626/1677?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=CO2+sequestration&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

a problem with trees here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/5756/1944?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=CO2+sequestration&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

another:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/292/5525/2261?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=CO2+sequestration&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=10&resourcetype=HWCIT

a caveat here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/307/5712/1017a?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=CO2+sequestration&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=20&resourcetype=HWCIT

a sidelight here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5682/305b?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=CO2+sequestration&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=30&resourcetype=HWCIT

Posted by: republicrat on September 1, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

this one is similar to winning the oil endgame, and shows what could be achieved without synfuels.

I prefer a combined strategy of increased efficiency, increased sequestration of CO2, increased use of all energy sources including synfuels, and then replacement of synfuels by alternatives later. It would be smoother, and spread out the costs of the transition.

Posted by: republicrat on September 1, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Don P posting as "GOP" wrote: "You support it for entirely symbolic and selfish reasons having to do with your pathological personal hatred of America and modern western industrialized democracies more broadly."

You really go out of your way to demonstrate to every reader that you are a pathetic little dipshit with nothing to offer but bullshit.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 1, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Secular Animist, what did you think of the articles I cited above?

Posted by: republicrat on September 1, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

ork, ork, ork, ork...

Liberals are weenies it's plain for to see
reagan, bush, cheney - they're the heroes for me.
Eh - deficit spending, we'll all soon be dead
(who cares about others - a pox on their head).
Holding my manhood I march to that drum
Oh wait, is that manhood or is that my thumb?
Come join us you all in our march to the sea
Like lemmings surge forward to our grand victory.

Posted by: Al on September 2, 2006 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly