What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
333 Comments
- macmo, on 11/08/2009, -43/+143That's it? Then why haven't we passed it already? What a no-brainer.
It's like when they try to fearmonger about electricity going up 10% because of cap-and-trade. Big deal. The benefits are worth that 10 times. And how quickly they forget that Enron's market manipulation pushed prices up in California 1000%, putting the state 60 billion in the hole. But that was OK for years, all the way up until the bankrupcy, because it was the market operating efficiently. Oh ok then. - BerateBirthers, on 11/08/2009, -35/+9313 cents a gallon so that we don't have the world implode in 2020? WHY ARE WE NOT DOING THIS?
- geogeer, on 11/08/2009, -10/+57I'm callin' BS. 13¢ does nothing to demand.
- cajungal, on 11/08/2009, -36/+71Just in time for the falling dollar and rising unemployment.
- realeskimopimp, on 11/08/2009, -7/+38I'm for paying 13 cents to loosen Saudi Arabia's grip on our collective balls that is energy demand.
- prompel, on 11/08/2009, -19/+46So, exactly how is this going to save the world? And can this problem actually be solved by throwing money at it?
- kplo, on 11/08/2009, -8/+35Make it more expensive and people will use less, right?
- rocknog, on 11/08/2009, -4/+28Er, to be fair, most problems do, in fact, require money in order to be solved. The question is less about how much money is required and more about whether or not that money is being used effectively.
Though in this case, I have to say, I don't think this is a particularly effective use of money in terms of addressing the problem. - XopherMV, on 11/08/2009, -13/+34We're talking $0.13 a gallon. Gas is currently $3 in my area. An extra $0.13 is NOTHING.
Conservatives like to complain about "whiny liberals." But my god, the bitching and moaning over a minor tax increase like a $0.13 increase in a gallon of gas is unbelievable. All the conservative whining over this could shatter crystal. It's reaching a tone only dogs can hear. - anareric, on 11/08/2009, -4/+25Not to mention how when you raise the cost of energy it creates incentive to develop cheaper energy. It's a good thing.
- rocknog, on 11/08/2009, -21/+40What benefits? Grah, I'm not trying to defend the oil companies, I'm not trying to say global warming isn't real, but as long as we are primarily dependent upon fossil fuels as energy sources, I don't see how this will do anything to actually affect the problem of global warming. To stop the effects of global warming, we would need a major overhaul of our entire energy infrastructure, and that won't even be remotely feasible anytime soon. Until then, anything we do is simply drops in the bucket, and while I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything, I just don't understand why we should be blowing so much money on climate change legislation that won't really even make a difference.
- flip2trip, on 11/08/2009, -8/+27Of course, all problems can be solved if we just had the will to throw money at it. And if it doesn't work, we just didn't throw enough money at it the first time.
- nostalgichero, on 11/08/2009, -6/+23So companies like exxon, which make $181 Billion annual Profit, are going to make the consumer pay for increased regulations? And companies like BP are going to continue ignoring their maintenance and safety concerns (to cut costs), so more North Slope Oil spills can occur? Awesome! Go Energy Monopoly.
- Ninh, on 11/08/2009, -10/+27And that's just the gas. Which adds to any product moved in the country, heating oil, etc. etc.
- Leopards, on 11/08/2009, -5/+21With Gas ranging from $2.93 to $2.37 right now this extra 13 cents is going to get lost n the shuffle! My corner gas station has moved the prices more than that many times recently!!
- TrouserJazz, on 11/08/2009, -8/+24Man-made climate change? Ridiculous! Next they'll be telling us that man-made industrial pollution caused acid rain, and that a cap and trade program has reduced acid rain levels! Crazy! And then they'll tell us that human activity depleted the ozone layer, and that regulations to control the use of CFCs has been effective in halting the depletion! LIBRUL MEDIA ENVIRO-FASCIST LIES HURRRRRRRRR!!
- greenfyre, on 11/08/2009, -21/+36Yup, fighting a fire is expensive ... MUCH cheaper to just let the neighbourhood burn ... /s
Read the news much? economists point out fighting climate change is much cheaper ... duh
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/whos-c ...
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsite ... - TobiasParker, on 11/08/2009, -2/+17People forget that America has some of the cheapest gas in the world.
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasp ... - Laminarcissus, on 11/08/2009, -6/+20It's impossible to evaluate this number without a context for comparison.
How much does a new atmosphere cost? - rocketman42, on 11/08/2009, -5/+17@austroLogi
Ha! A conservative complaining about "religion" being imposed on them. When conservatives change their stance on Catholic sins (drugs, gambling, drinking, sex), then you are allowed to bitch about someone imposing their religion on you. - BerateBirthers, on 11/08/2009, -9/+21Plus more tax revenue equals cool new bullet trains and other cool stuff.
- apkchu, on 11/08/2009, -0/+12there's no incentive to develop clean fuels until social costs (pollution) are charged to those responsible. no business can use green fuels alone and still compete, unless the costs of pollution as a whole are factored into their cost benefit analysis (hence market based) climate legislation
- rocknog, on 11/08/2009, -13/+24Are you suggesting that no one's getting rich by upholding the status quo? What the ***** does profit have to do with anything here? I'm not saying that to defend climate change legislation, I'm simply pointing out that it isn't a ***** argument. Either way, whether or not global warming is real, someone stands to profit from lying. Once again, you've proven that you don't even understand the basic principles of ***** logic.
- rocknog, on 11/08/2009, -3/+14Unless we can develop the ability to eliminate our dependency on fossil fuels without sending us into the friggin' stone age, no climate legislation can actually solve the issue.
- blqysmg, on 11/08/2009, -4/+15Not really. They'll TALK about cool new bullet trains, but then decide they are too expensive. Fighting wars in several middle eastern countries and giving billions to their banker friends, those things are fine, but giving cheap, clean reliable transportation to the taxpayers? Nope, too expensive.
- DooM, on 11/08/2009, -4/+14I pay more for ***** Netflix. $130 doesn't phase me in the slightest... not as long as I'm getting something for it instead of paying to pad oil speculators profits which has cost me a LOT more over the last few years.
- ChuckDees, on 11/08/2009, -0/+10Yeah because leadership is waiting for others to do it first.
- ChuckDees, on 11/08/2009, -6/+16I guess we should not try to pass tighter environmental laws. Acid rain and smog not to mention all the pollution that chemical factories create is just a myth.
I think the best thing we can do is just ignore things we don't want to face and keep spending 1 trillion dollars a year on the military. To protect oil and the 100 + year old technology of the combustion engine.
btw we spend $400 a gallon to fuel our military in Afghanistan.
"Pentagon officials have told the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee a gallon of fuel costs the military about $400 by the time it arrives in the remote locations in Afghanistan where U.S. troops operate."
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-4 ...
Boy i bet the tax payer would like the cost to just be .13 cents above the average for fuel costs huh? - fury420, on 11/08/2009, -9/+184.25 cents per Litre?
wow, what a non-issue
I can find more variability than that in gas prices by driving 10-15 minutes in any direction or waiting an extra day or two between fill-ups - MissDeFacto, on 11/08/2009, -0/+9Hey, hey. I'm from Chicago and there are many people in the Midwest that care about the environment. And there are a lot who care but don't know how to make a difference. Or they're overwhelmed by what it's going to take to make a real positive impact. And, yes, there are some people that just don't care. And there are a lot of people who care but are lazy and don't want to adapt. But that's national. And global. And that's the whole problem. How is your blanketed statement going to motivate them to do something? It's not. But raising prices could help if executed properly. But knock it off with the ignorant comments. It's just rude. And we shouldn't be rude when talking about climate change. We should be looking for better solutions rather than knocking people down. So let's all offer up better solutions. Here's my offer: open communication. Let's talk to people and find out why they continue to contribute to the decline of our planet. That's where you find solutions. Sheesh.
- Propethic, on 11/08/2009, -8/+16You seriously think the world is going to be uninhabitable in 10 years?
- Swift2, on 11/08/2009, -3/+11Even large parts of the Christian right have gone green. Give it up, carbon-breathers.
- paker, on 11/08/2009, -1/+9I'm glad I'm converting a 1988 Honda CRX to electric so I don't have to contribute this tax.
- thegrantman, on 11/08/2009, -1/+9Rocknog seems to be the only one with a balanced view of the situation.
Dugg. - Swift2, on 11/08/2009, -2/+10You didn't read the oil company's response, according to the article. They whine that LOWERING demand for their fuels will not result in a price decrease, like it normally would in the real world, but somehow, magically, will "shutter refineries" and RAISE the cost of gasoline. Can you say, manipulating the markets? If they did that, it would be time for Teddy Roosevelt to be bashing in a few heads.
The oil companies better realize that they'd better start thinking of themselves as "energy companies," and get used to the fact that our national security and prosperity as a nation depends on reducing our dependence on oil and gas. And if they want to play those games, they'd better put on their crash helmets. - Castaa, on 11/08/2009, -8/+1613 cents is going to see like the most trivial complaint ever if the worst of the climate change fears are indeed real.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 11/09/2009, -1/+8You couldn't raise a 13% gas tax on Conservatives if it meant saving the planet from a giant asteroid. There is no amount of information you can give them to change their minds.
If it were a matter of 20% unemployment or a tax -- they'd go for the unemployment. It's like a religion. - rocknog, on 11/08/2009, -1/+8I figured you were just being snarky, it's just a statement that gets on my nerves. I hear it a lot in regards to education - and I mean, in the most basic sense, it's true that you can't just throw more money on the problem to fix it, because it does no good if, say, that money winds up going to self-esteem programs and whatnot. But then it bugs me, because in my opinion, more money is needed to fix our education system, it's just that it has to be used wisely. Like a big part of the problem in my opinion is that many people who have the skills needed to be excellent teachers simply don't go into teaching because they could make more money in other fields. If teachers were better paid, therefore, the most qualified people to teach might be more inclined to enter the field.
Sorry to get off topic there, but to bring things back, I see climate-change legislation as being the self-esteem programs in terms of addressing global warming. Sure, everyone feels good and we can all say we're doing something, but as I've said before, as long as we're dependent on fossil fuels, this doesn't change anything. - angryredplanet, on 11/08/2009, -3/+10If you know the definition of pollutant, you'd know that the release of fixed CO2 (from fossil based sources) does in fact fall into this category.
Exhaling CO2 does not have a net positive effect on free CO2 concentration in the carbon cycle. Your comment reflects your lack of understanding of the carbon cycle. - angryredplanet, on 11/09/2009, -0/+6Your comment is factually about 50% correct, but your premise is a lot less:
"The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.
The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. [...] Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis [...] to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports."
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm
I quote this specifically, because they don't do their own research in house. They amass the world's research, results and conclusions. With this said, their assessment reports are designed for governments to base policies on. Like any powerful organisation, governments need good information and on climate change, that information comes from the IPCC. - 5thdigg, on 11/08/2009, -2/+8Oh it's a religion? Maybe it can get tax-exempt status like brick and mortar churches do then. Even though they get involved in preaching politics.
end tax-exempt religion. - VitriolAndAngst, on 11/09/2009, -0/+6EVERY DAMN THING THE INDUSTRY SAYS IS A LIE.
Sure, the price of gas could go up -- it could go down. It's a fixed market driven by oil speculators. Plus, Bushy helped buy buying up gas for the reserves at peak prices. Thanks Shrub.
If the US were serious, we could create a super grid for electricity, and have new cars average 54 MPG, with competitive electric cars and a good price. But we aren't, because industry lobbyists run things.
I'll ignore the chirpings of the usual suspects who sound like the Exxon PR office.
Does anyone else remember Volkswagen Gulfs and other cars getting around 54 MPG in the early 90's? What is the crap that we have to give the industry 8 years to get to 35 mpg? - SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/09/2009, -1/+7So what's your explanation for the melting polar icecaps and centuries old glaciers around the world disappearing?
That's just some kind of coincidence I guess? It just HAPPENS that the world is getting warmer faster than even the gravest predictions of a few years ago (ironically based on the same "junk science" you deride)? The FACT that we have put several times more greenhouse gases into our atmosphere than it has seen even at its highest levels of the past half a millions years or so can't have anything to do with that?
You might be right. Maybe it is all "junk" science. But it's not what you think. If anything, it's a lot worse than what we believe, since virtually no one is willing to look at the real numbers. Who can blame them? Who can blame you? It's a deeply troubling reality.
http://fora.tv/2009/08/18/A_REALLY_Inconvenient_Tr ...
By the way, starting with a proposed conclusion (hypothesis) and performing experiments to test it is the very definition of the scientific method. You say a model can be used to show "ANYTHING", but when it matches up with reality to a certain degree of accuracy, as is the case here, it is worth paying attention to. - greenfyre, on 11/08/2009, -3/+9Interesting claim .... Here is a list of the 2907 most frequently cited authors of climate research with links to their work (10s of thousands of papers)
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate ...
Pls tell us which of those studies are wrong, how they are wrong, and how that makes all of the other 10s of thousands wrong too. - inactive, on 11/08/2009, -3/+9People will pay a lot more than that to pollute the world into an uninhabitable pos.
- theonlywizdum, on 11/08/2009, -4/+10But they still profit on it. It's like cigarettes, the government tries to make it out to be some "we're helping all the poor people who would get addicted" cause, when in reality, they just enjoy the billions of dollars a year they rake in.
- greenfyre, on 11/08/2009, -3/+9Ignorance does not make reality disappear ...
An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water
http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/22/an-introduct ...
Billions could go hungry from global warming by 2100
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16384-billio ...
get used to it
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away”. Phillip K Dick - Barackalypse, on 11/08/2009, -16/+22That is just the direct cost you pay at the pump, then you pay indirectly as the cost of anything shipped using petroleum products goes up, then you pay when you use electricity, or buy anything that was made with electricity, or buy anything else that generated large amounts of CO2 during production. Then you pay for the administration and the unemployment benefits for everyone that is left without a job because their company realized it can just move to Mexico and avoid the extra costs, plus not have to pay for employee health care.
- sulthernao, on 11/08/2009, -11/+17Guess what China is moving faster on climate change then we are. All the nations in the world are far more supportive of reducing carbon emission than us. We are the ones holding back a global carbon reduction that would prevent "businesses from moving overseas."
- neognostic, on 11/08/2009, -9/+15Really? Please cite your source.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 338 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is