Conservatives Falsely Assert That Green Economy Legislation Would Impose $3,100 Tax On Families
Conservatives in Congress are resting their objections to effective green economy legislation on a bogus stat. Conservative leaders like Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are attacking the cap-and-trade proposal before Congress by claiming that it would cost every American family up to $3,100 per year in higher energy prices.

This is a deliberate lie.

They seem to be getting this number from an intentional misinterpretation of a 2007 study performed by a group of researchers at the MIT.

In an interview with PolitiFact, John Reilly, an MIT professor and one of the authors of the study, explained about this $3,100 claim:

Its just wrong. Its wrong in so many ways its hard to begin. []

Someone from the House Republicans had called me (March 20) and asked about this, Reilly said. I had explained why the estimate they had was probably incorrect and what they should do to correct it, but I think this wrong number was already floating around by that time.

House Republicans apparently took the total revenues from the hypothetical cap and trade system that MIT analyzed and crudely divided it by the number of households in America, getting approximately $3,100 per family.

What they dont mention, however, is that not only did John Reilly explicitly tell them that this was an inappropriate way to do this calculation, but that MIT had determined the net welfare effect on a typical family and the burden would be less than 1/40th what they claim, and wouldnt occur until 2015.

As PolitiFact explains: The report did include an estimate of the net cost to individuals, called the welfare cost. It would be $30.89 per person in 2015, or $79 per family if you use the same average household size the Republicans used of 2.56 people. In exchange, wed get a clean & renewable energy economy, decreased reliance on oil, and a safer climate for the world.

The reason Boehners methodology is totally inappropriate?

Thats just not how economists calculate the cost of a tax proposal, Reilly said. The tax might push the price of carbon-based fuels up a bit, but other results of a cap-and-trade program, such as increased conservation and more competition from other fuel sources, would put downward pressure on prices. Moreover, consumers would get some of the tax back from the government in some form. [In this case,President Obama wants to use revenues from cap-and-trade to fund a tax cut for 95% of working families]

When conservatives tell you youd see your energy bills go up $3,100 every year, its not distortion or spin, its just a lie.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

Thats just not how economists calculate the cost of a tax proposal, Reilly said. The tax might push the price of carbon-based fuels up a bit, but other results of a cap-and-trade program, such as increased conservation and more competition from other fuel sources, would put downward pressure on prices. Moreover, consumers would get some of the tax back from the government in some form. [In this case,President Obama wants to use revenues from cap-and-trade to fund a tax cut for 95% of working families]

   "Up a bit?"  Not only increased prices in coal and NG for power plants, passed along, of course, but gas, diesel, home heating oil, and the countless other everyday products using petroleum in their mfg.  "Increased conservation"?  Where does that stop?  Do you think people struggling to stay afloat were going for joy rides on $5 gas?  So now what?  Regulated TV time?  minimum necessary lighting?  *Cold* houses?  Pardon me, but fuck you Jake!  Competition from *what* other fuel sources?  Bullshit.  And the less I say about Bommie's grandiose goddam "tax cuts", the better.

gus.

 

 

 

Any idiot who knows anything about cap and trade should be smart enough to know why green is the coming thing. Al Gore, Polosi and that wind giant T Boon Pickens. Yes I know it' Boone cut It is Boondoggle for you who don"t understan energy, politics or econonomica

What other fuel sources? wind and sun gus. 20 years of grid tied wind power is now 6 grand. Prices falling all the time.


Breezy 5.5

A Reliable 5500 Watt Homebuilt Wind Turbine Generator

By: Timothy D. McCall and Alan E. Plunkett




Built With Off-the-Shelf Components

Rugged Efficient Blade Design

Requires No Batteries, No Inverter

Grid Ready!!

Easy to Build and Maintain

100 Pages - Step by Step Details

47 Diagrams

84 Pictures

Table of Contents

Introduction

Economics

Theory of Operation

Blades





-----you can find it if you google breezy 5.5 just wait until the urban vawt becomes wide spread. Ignorance is the hallmark of the wing nut. Knowledge the prime requisite of the Liberal.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

What other fuel sources? wind and sun gus. 20 years of grid tied wind power is now 6 grand. Prices falling all the time.

  LOL...  And you think these little Popular Mechanics jazbos are going to "put downward pressure" on a global petroleum undustry? *chortle*  Do you have one yet?

gus.

 

EWS
Apr 2, 2009
Keeping carbon out of sight but not out of mind


Driving CO2 underground
Channelling vast quantities of carbon dioxide into deep underground bunkers sounds like the ultimate have your cake and eat it solution for meeting ambitious international CO2 emission targets. Now, a group of scientists have reminded us that before carbon capture and storage (CCS) can become a viable option we need to first understand what happens to the CO2 once it is buried underground.

"The energy provided by coal, oil, and gas is so valuable that it is crazy to think they we will just leave it all in the ground in a carbon-constrained world"
Ken Caldeira, Stanford University
The researchers, led by Stuart Gilfillan of the University of Edinburgh and the University of Manchester, studied a series of natural gas fields which are fed from beneath by natural CO2 sources. Reporting their findings in Nature, they found that over 80 % of the carbon dioxide dissolves in groundwater, with only a small fraction reacting with the cavity walls to form carbonates.

Our findings confirm that natural gas fields can be used to store CO2 safely over millions of years. More importantly, it tells us we need to take a closer look at the mobility of CO2 dissolved in these waters, Gilfillan told physicsworld.com.

Simple science
Despite significant investment in developing sustainable fuel, we will continue to burn coal and gas to meet at least half of global energy demand until 2030. That is according to the most optimistic forecasts of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change (IPCC). Therefore, if emissions are set to continue, the only way to cut carbon emissions in the short-term is to intercept the CO2 before it reaches the atmosphere.

For this job, carbon capture and storage is the front-running candidate; its concept is simple and it holds the promise of trapping up to 90% of carbon dioxide from power stations and industrial sites. The three-stage process involves: harvesting; transporting; and then storing the CO2 underground in gas reservoirs or vast saline aquifers. To date, each stage has been demonstrated in isolation but they are yet to be combined at a significant industrial scale.

The energy provided by coal, oil, and gas is so valuable that it is crazy to think they we will just leave it all in the ground in a carbon-constrained world. Carbon capture and storage appears to be a viable technology, said Ken Caldeira, a global ecology researcher at Stanford University.

Going underground
In the research reported today, the scientists address an important aspect of the storage ensuring that CO2 is safely contained. Gilfillan and his colleagues calculated what happens to CO2 over thousands of years by comparing levels of the gas with levels of the inert gas helium, based on samples from 9 natural gas fields in the US, Europe and China. In each case they found that dissolution of CO2 in the groundwater accounts for at least 82 per cent of the gas, with up to 18 per cent precipitating as carbonate minerals.

Natural gas fields are excellent locations for potential CO2 storage as the geology is well understood and the fact that the gas field was there in the first place indicates that the cap rock seal has already held gas on a geological timescale so should be able to also hold CO2 safely, said Gilfillan.


Latest IPCC figures predict that we could use these gas reservoirs to store up to 940 gigatonnes of CO2 the equivalent of 37 years of total global CO2 emissions at current rates. But on a global scale, saline aquifers are far more extensive and could store 60-400 years worth of CO2.

The physics of saline aquifers is comparable with that of gas fields, so based on our findings theres no scientific reason why we cant inject vast quantities of CO2 into them, said Gilfillan.

These latest findings will add to a growing international push to realize workable CCS within the next few years. The European Union is on the brink of signing a 1 bn Euro agreement to fund seven CCS projects and Canada has already agreed to supply Can$2bn to finance between three and five large-scale CCS technology demonstrators that should be operational by 2015.

About the author
James Dacey is a reporter for physicsworld.com


------So gus, the much despised actual science community labours on to provide you mush skulls with solutions and options. I say sequester, every one run a 5kw sun and wind operation in their home, use the power to make hydrogen and motor on down the road. Fuck the A-rabs and their oil.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

Simple science
Despite significant investment in developing sustainable fuel, we will continue to burn coal and gas to meet at least half of global energy demand until 2030. That is according to the most optimistic forecasts of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change (IPCC).

  Note "most optimistic".  Bommie has 4 years, tell him to go hug some more queens, and leave us the hell alone.

 To date, each stage has been demonstrated in isolation but they are yet to be combined at a significant industrial scale.

   Get back to me when that happens, okay? 

------So gus, the much despised actual science community labours on to provide you mush skulls with solutions and options. I say sequester, every one run a 5kw sun and wind operation in their home, use the power to make hydrogen and motor on down the road. Fuck the A-rabs and their oil.

    Fine and dandy, general.  As soon as I can switch over for no out of pocket additional costs without having to get out of the recliner, I'll be happy to.  Until then, those aren't "solutions and options", okay?

gus.

 

even Obama himself said it would drive coal plants out of business....how stupid are you?