Sandhusker
Well-known member
I was hoping to read the bill and, as it was voted on yesterday, by Obama's promise to us it should of been posted on the web for us all to see on Monday. I can't seem to find it.
Sandhusker said:I was hoping to read the bill and, as it was voted on yesterday, by Obama's promise to us it should of been posted on the web for us all to see on Monday. I can't seem to find it.
Sandhusker said:I was hoping to read the bill and, as it was voted on yesterday, by Obama's promise to us it should of been posted on the web for us all to see on Monday. I can't seem to find it.
redbrand said:Sandhusker said:I was hoping to read the bill and, as it was voted on yesterday, by Obama's promise to us it should of been posted on the web for us all to see on Monday. I can't seem to find it.
Bammer did run his campaign on the vague promises of "HOPE" and "CHANGE." Looks like he's living up to part of it anyway; we are HOPING to be able to read these bills before they're voted on as promised but, apparantly, he CHANGED his mind on that :wink: . Makes a guy feel kind of sorry for the gullible idiots that lapped up this snake's hype :x .
Sandhusker said:redbrand said:Sandhusker said:I was hoping to read the bill and, as it was voted on yesterday, by Obama's promise to us it should of been posted on the web for us all to see on Monday. I can't seem to find it.
Bammer did run his campaign on the vague promises of "HOPE" and "CHANGE." Looks like he's living up to part of it anyway; we are HOPING to be able to read these bills before they're voted on as promised but, apparantly, he CHANGED his mind on that :wink: . Makes a guy feel kind of sorry for the gullible idiots that lapped up this snake's hype :x .
Redbrand, you don't have time to wrangle with the air children here, you need to get to work and get some fence put up! Get off the puter, put down that crown, and get to work! :wink:
Farmers also will find new ways to make money in a carbon economy. Carbon consultants like the International Carbon Bank & Exchange in Florida see huge potential in agriculture for managing carbon emissions. Farmers that till their soil differently or apply new environmental techniques can get money by cooperating with a polluter as a carbon "offset."
Owners of large tracts of forest land also will get a lot of interest from the business community. Like farmers, environmental experts see them as a huge player in the carbon economy because of their natural ability to absorb carbon.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would affect energy costs.
The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. The EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year.
June 22, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of heat-trapping gases that cause global warming, but President Obama's plan to fight climate change would result in the nation burning more coal a decade from now than it does today.
The administration's plan, the centerpiece of a 700-page legislative package, proposes strict limits on emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.
But to attract vital support from congressional Democrats representing heavily coal-dependent areas, authors of the legislation, including Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), have made a series of concessions that substantially soften its effect on coal -- at least over the next decade or so.
As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency projects that even if the emissions limits go into effect, the U.S. would use more carbon-dioxide-heavy coal in 2020 than it did in 2005.
That's because the bill gives utilities a financial incentive to keep burning coal by joining the cap-and-trade system -- a kind of marketplace where polluters could reduce their emissions on paper by buying pollution reductions created by others. These so-called offsets, for example, could be created and sold by farmers who planted trees, which filter carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Environmental groups also say the bill could set off a boom in the construction of new coal plants because of provisions that would restrict legal efforts to block such projects.
Leading Democrats -- and some major conservation groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council -- say the moves have helped attract coal-district Democrats to support the bill without undermining the plan's environmental goals.
"We've ensured a role for coal" in the nation's energy future, said Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), one of the leading coal champions in the House.
Oldtimer said:Farmers also will find new ways to make money in a carbon economy. Carbon consultants like the International Carbon Bank & Exchange in Florida see huge potential in agriculture for managing carbon emissions. Farmers that till their soil differently or apply new environmental techniques can get money by cooperating with a polluter as a carbon "offset."
Owners of large tracts of forest land also will get a lot of interest from the business community. Like farmers, environmental experts see them as a huge player in the carbon economy because of their natural ability to absorb carbon.The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would affect energy costs.
The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. The EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year.
Also EPA says that coal usage and coal jobs will greatly EXPAND in the next 10 years- and then even later as more "clean coal" technology is used in the production of electricity that will replace some of the oil based energy now used- that keeps us captive to the Chavez's and Arabs of the world...
June 22, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of heat-trapping gases that cause global warming, but President Obama's plan to fight climate change would result in the nation burning more coal a decade from now than it does today.
The administration's plan, the centerpiece of a 700-page legislative package, proposes strict limits on emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.
But to attract vital support from congressional Democrats representing heavily coal-dependent areas, authors of the legislation, including Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), have made a series of concessions that substantially soften its effect on coal -- at least over the next decade or so.
As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency projects that even if the emissions limits go into effect, the U.S. would use more carbon-dioxide-heavy coal in 2020 than it did in 2005.
That's because the bill gives utilities a financial incentive to keep burning coal by joining the cap-and-trade system -- a kind of marketplace where polluters could reduce their emissions on paper by buying pollution reductions created by others. These so-called offsets, for example, could be created and sold by farmers who planted trees, which filter carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Environmental groups also say the bill could set off a boom in the construction of new coal plants because of provisions that would restrict legal efforts to block such projects.
Leading Democrats -- and some major conservation groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council -- say the moves have helped attract coal-district Democrats to support the bill without undermining the plan's environmental goals.
"We've ensured a role for coal" in the nation's energy future, said Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), one of the leading coal champions in the House.
leanin' H said:Oldtimer said:Farmers also will find new ways to make money in a carbon economy. Carbon consultants like the International Carbon Bank & Exchange in Florida see huge potential in agriculture for managing carbon emissions. Farmers that till their soil differently or apply new environmental techniques can get money by cooperating with a polluter as a carbon "offset."
Owners of large tracts of forest land also will get a lot of interest from the business community. Like farmers, environmental experts see them as a huge player in the carbon economy because of their natural ability to absorb carbon.The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would affect energy costs.
The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. The EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year.
Also EPA says that coal usage and coal jobs will greatly EXPAND in the next 10 years- and then even later as more "clean coal" technology is used in the production of electricity that will replace some of the oil based energy now used- that keeps us captive to the Chavez's and Arabs of the world...
June 22, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of heat-trapping gases that cause global warming, but President Obama's plan to fight climate change would result in the nation burning more coal a decade from now than it does today.
The administration's plan, the centerpiece of a 700-page legislative package, proposes strict limits on emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.
But to attract vital support from congressional Democrats representing heavily coal-dependent areas, authors of the legislation, including Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), have made a series of concessions that substantially soften its effect on coal -- at least over the next decade or so.
As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency projects that even if the emissions limits go into effect, the U.S. would use more carbon-dioxide-heavy coal in 2020 than it did in 2005.
That's because the bill gives utilities a financial incentive to keep burning coal by joining the cap-and-trade system -- a kind of marketplace where polluters could reduce their emissions on paper by buying pollution reductions created by others. These so-called offsets, for example, could be created and sold by farmers who planted trees, which filter carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Environmental groups also say the bill could set off a boom in the construction of new coal plants because of provisions that would restrict legal efforts to block such projects.
Leading Democrats -- and some major conservation groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council -- say the moves have helped attract coal-district Democrats to support the bill without undermining the plan's environmental goals.
"We've ensured a role for coal" in the nation's energy future, said Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), one of the leading coal champions in the House.
Are you really serious? What keeps us captive to the Chavez'z and Arabs is YOUR POSTERBOY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM PRESIDENT AND THE DEMOCRATS! :shock: Who stopped drilling? Who handcuffs any new developement? Who halted a bunch of offshore drilling? Who killed oilshale? And only a liberal could try to pass a giant cap and trade bill that's main focus is to LIMIT POLUTION and sell it by saying we will be burning MORE COAL in 10 years! :shock: And only a liberal would buy that BS story as fact! And would you please explain to me how this helps agriculture! If you want to stop being a producer and become a tree farm I'll bet the check will come! But if you really think these Vegan-led, radical sky-is-falling, global warming is imminent people who are pimping this baloney want you to continue tilling the earth and RELEASING CARBON you might want to buy some oceanfront property out my way! :roll: They want you out of buisness. They want your land in a conservation trust forever! They would rather see houses planted than corn or hay! They and the Dem. party leaders want the water for big cities and the land is a giant wildhorse/pot growing/ landbank! Alright, i threw in the pot growing just to dig a spur! :wink: But in reality, these people won't be happy till thier agenda is met across the board! But you keep pretending they have agricultures best intrests in mind if it hepls ya sleep! And let me know when that big Federal check rolls in, if you keep running YOUR LAND the way YOU WANT TOO! :wink:
Oldtimer said:leanin' H said:Oldtimer said:Also EPA says that coal usage and coal jobs will greatly EXPAND in the next 10 years- and then even later as more "clean coal" technology is used in the production of electricity that will replace some of the oil based energy now used- that keeps us captive to the Chavez's and Arabs of the world...
Are you really serious? What keeps us captive to the Chavez'z and Arabs is YOUR POSTERBOY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM PRESIDENT AND THE DEMOCRATS! :shock: Who stopped drilling? Who handcuffs any new developement? Who halted a bunch of offshore drilling? Who killed oilshale? And only a liberal could try to pass a giant cap and trade bill that's main focus is to LIMIT POLUTION and sell it by saying we will be burning MORE COAL in 10 years! :shock: And only a liberal would buy that BS story as fact! And would you please explain to me how this helps agriculture! If you want to stop being a producer and become a tree farm I'll bet the check will come! But if you really think these Vegan-led, radical sky-is-falling, global warming is imminent people who are pimping this baloney want you to continue tilling the earth and RELEASING CARBON you might want to buy some oceanfront property out my way! :roll: They want you out of buisness. They want your land in a conservation trust forever! They would rather see houses planted than corn or hay! They and the Dem. party leaders want the water for big cities and the land is a giant wildhorse/pot growing/ landbank! Alright, i threw in the pot growing just to dig a spur! :wink: But in reality, these people won't be happy till thier agenda is met across the board! But you keep pretending they have agricultures best intrests in mind if it hepls ya sleep! And let me know when that big Federal check rolls in, if you keep running YOUR LAND the way YOU WANT TOO! :wink:
Leaning H- the derricks have been stacked since oil prices dropped....Drilling is only now starting up again as prices go up....In the state of Montana alone they just announced thousands of more oil leases that will go out- many in the Bakken field...Go to the DNRC website and see them...There are hundreds of thousands of acres of more leases out there- that aren't being drilled on...
But all the talk of drilling won't do any good-- there isn't the rigs domestically- the pipelines- the refineries to handle it all...And there will not be that much investment into them until we get a LONGTERM energy plan....Oil should be- and is a major part of every plan by every party I've seen put out....But like Boone Pickens says- drill drill drill alone won't cut it anymore... We need alternative sources- gas, coal, wind, solar, biodiesel/gas, nuclear, etc. etc-- and we need a smart grid to move the electricity from the areas that make it- to the areas that need it- and one that is resistant from a terrorist attack....
You can sit and rant all you want about liberals- and blame them- and you'll still be yelling it when your buddies Chavez and the Arab Princes run the price of gas to $10 a gallon-- but some things like ANWR and some offshore (Pacific Coast) will never be allowed...Too many people there against it...
I had hoped Bush-having a majority party Congress would develop that plan- but again he dropped the ball and did nothing...Now the other team is going to do it- and you and probably I- am not going to like it all- but it has to be done....And done NOW...It should have been done 40 years ago...
Lonecowboy said:Oldtimer said:leanin' H said:Are you really serious? What keeps us captive to the Chavez'z and Arabs is YOUR POSTERBOY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM PRESIDENT AND THE DEMOCRATS! :shock: Who stopped drilling? Who handcuffs any new developement? Who halted a bunch of offshore drilling? Who killed oilshale? And only a liberal could try to pass a giant cap and trade bill that's main focus is to LIMIT POLUTION and sell it by saying we will be burning MORE COAL in 10 years! :shock: And only a liberal would buy that BS story as fact! And would you please explain to me how this helps agriculture! If you want to stop being a producer and become a tree farm I'll bet the check will come! But if you really think these Vegan-led, radical sky-is-falling, global warming is imminent people who are pimping this baloney want you to continue tilling the earth and RELEASING CARBON you might want to buy some oceanfront property out my way! :roll: They want you out of buisness. They want your land in a conservation trust forever! They would rather see houses planted than corn or hay! They and the Dem. party leaders want the water for big cities and the land is a giant wildhorse/pot growing/ landbank! Alright, i threw in the pot growing just to dig a spur! :wink: But in reality, these people won't be happy till thier agenda is met across the board! But you keep pretending they have agricultures best intrests in mind if it hepls ya sleep! And let me know when that big Federal check rolls in, if you keep running YOUR LAND the way YOU WANT TOO! :wink:
Leaning H- the derricks have been stacked since oil prices dropped....Drilling is only now starting up again as prices go up....In the state of Montana alone they just announced thousands of more oil leases that will go out- many in the Bakken field...Go to the DNRC website and see them...There are hundreds of thousands of acres of more leases out there- that aren't being drilled on...
But all the talk of drilling won't do any good-- there isn't the rigs domestically- the pipelines- the refineries to handle it all...And there will not be that much investment into them until we get a LONGTERM energy plan....Oil should be- and is a major part of every plan by every party I've seen put out....But like Boone Pickens says- drill drill drill alone won't cut it anymore... We need alternative sources- gas, coal, wind, solar, biodiesel/gas, nuclear, etc. etc-- and we need a smart grid to move the electricity from the areas that make it- to the areas that need it- and one that is resistant from a terrorist attack....
You can sit and rant all you want about liberals- and blame them- and you'll still be yelling it when your buddies Chavez and the Arab Princes run the price of gas to $10 a gallon-- but some things like ANWR and some offshore (Pacific Coast) will never be allowed...Too many people there against it...
I had hoped Bush-having a majority party Congress would develop that plan- but again he dropped the ball and did nothing...Now the other team is going to do it- and you and probably I- am not going to like it all- but it has to be done....And done NOW...It should have been done 40 years ago...
The President today submitted nominations to the Senate for key positions in the Department of Energy (DOE) and signed the Executive order setting October 1 as opening day for the new Cabinet Department.
Creation of the Department of Energy will give a clear direction and focus to America's energy future by providing the framework for carrying out a comprehensive, balanced national energy policy.
The new Department was proposed by President Carter on March 1 to provide the framework for carrying out national energy policy. On August 4, 1977, the Department of Energy Organization Act was signed' into law, and the following day James R. Schlesinger was confirmed by the Senate as the first Secretary of Energy.
Among the major programs under the new Department are: conservation, resource development and production, research and development, data information management, and regulation.
With a first-year budget of almost $10.4 billion, the new Department will inherit almost 20,000 employees under this Government reorganization.
so OT- if government is the answer how well has this been working out??
Thats why I say it is time NOW to get a Longterm Energy Plan...
Steve said:OTThats why I say it is time NOW to get a Longterm Energy Plan...
even if it is a bad plan, and a plan that will not work?
TexasBred said:Steve said:OTThats why I say it is time NOW to get a Longterm Energy Plan...
even if it is a bad plan, and a plan that will not work?
Certainly...if it doesn't work they'll blame Bush.