<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for House GOP unveils energy bill heavy on fossil fuels and nuclear power]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by vbstenswick http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/ Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:48:08 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/1 This is nonsense.  These people are in the pockets of various corporate interests and have no interest in the welfare of the American people.  Next to weapons of mass destruction, climate change is the biggest threat to Americans well-being.  While it may be true that no one wants more taxes, it is absolutely necessary to cut GHG emissions.  These people are cowards, plain and simple.

]]> This is nonsense.  These people are in the pockets of various corporate interests and have no interest in the welfare of the American people.  Next to weapons of mass destruction, climate change is the biggest threat to Americans well-being.  While it may be true that no one wants more taxes, it is absolutely necessary to cut GHG emissions.  These people are cowards, plain and simple.

]]> Comment #2 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/ Sat, 13 Jun 2009 09:38:06 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/2 The real answers will come from private industry and business that will continue the work of implementing 21st technologies like fuel cells and nanomaterials.

The Republican plan is that of reality -- giving us the bridge power and energy we need for the next few decades.   We need energy to bootstrap ourselves and keep people employed and creating the next generation of power storage and production.

 

]]> The real answers will come from private industry and business that will continue the work of implementing 21st technologies like fuel cells and nanomaterials.

The Republican plan is that of reality -- giving us the bridge power and energy we need for the next few decades.   We need energy to bootstrap ourselves and keep people employed and creating the next generation of power storage and production.

 

]]> Comment #3 by vbstenswick http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/ Sun, 14 Jun 2009 03:38:42 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/3 This is not about Democrats versus Republicans.  It is about good energy policy.  I would not oppose nuclear power, though I do not think it is the correct approach.  I think enhanced geothermal or engineered geothermal is a better approach.  I would not even oppose offshore drilling, if we also forced better fuel economy.  What I dislike is their refusal to accept the science of climate change as real and caused by man's activities.  You, and most people, miss one of the huge energy sources, and that is waste heat from power plants and other industrial processes.  The problem is it is not sexy, and saving ratepayers a fraction of a cent per kwh does not generate the political support that building a new power plant which will employ 80 people and 700 during construction does.

]]> This is not about Democrats versus Republicans.  It is about good energy policy.  I would not oppose nuclear power, though I do not think it is the correct approach.  I think enhanced geothermal or engineered geothermal is a better approach.  I would not even oppose offshore drilling, if we also forced better fuel economy.  What I dislike is their refusal to accept the science of climate change as real and caused by man's activities.  You, and most people, miss one of the huge energy sources, and that is waste heat from power plants and other industrial processes.  The problem is it is not sexy, and saving ratepayers a fraction of a cent per kwh does not generate the political support that building a new power plant which will employ 80 people and 700 during construction does.

]]> Comment #4 by georgiact http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/ Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:35:00 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/4 AGW is s theory that has not only never been proven by the IPCC or any other body, but has been falsified on numerous fronts.  1. Experimentally, CO2 and other GHGs do NOT re-radiate heat back towards the earth.  That would defy the laws of physics 2. There is no correlation b/t CO2 and temperature in either the recent temperature record or in the past. 3. It appears that we are headed towards a multi-decade cooling period as had been predicted by Landschiedt and  others stutying the sun.  4. The only place where CO2 poses a problem is in computer models which have to make huge assumptions about areas of the climate we know little about such that their output is worthless.  Also, the models simply assume CO2 forcing, thus never prove it.  This is why they keep having to be adjusted downward.  The further the projections are out in time, the less reliable they are.  If they cannot even get short-term predictions correct, how could anyone put any weight into theri long-term projections.  One need only read the IPCC report and then read the executive summary for policymakers.  The report clearly does not support the summary - which was released 4 months before the report.  HHHMMMM, why would anyone want to do that?

For the most part, the republican plan looks pretty solid.  However, they should have the guts to shut down the ethanol industry as ethanol is a bust, creates more pollution, and is a sub-standard fuel.  Butanol is much better.

]]> AGW is s theory that has not only never been proven by the IPCC or any other body, but has been falsified on numerous fronts.  1. Experimentally, CO2 and other GHGs do NOT re-radiate heat back towards the earth.  That would defy the laws of physics 2. There is no correlation b/t CO2 and temperature in either the recent temperature record or in the past. 3. It appears that we are headed towards a multi-decade cooling period as had been predicted by Landschiedt and  others stutying the sun.  4. The only place where CO2 poses a problem is in computer models which have to make huge assumptions about areas of the climate we know little about such that their output is worthless.  Also, the models simply assume CO2 forcing, thus never prove it.  This is why they keep having to be adjusted downward.  The further the projections are out in time, the less reliable they are.  If they cannot even get short-term predictions correct, how could anyone put any weight into theri long-term projections.  One need only read the IPCC report and then read the executive summary for policymakers.  The report clearly does not support the summary - which was released 4 months before the report.  HHHMMMM, why would anyone want to do that?

For the most part, the republican plan looks pretty solid.  However, they should have the guts to shut down the ethanol industry as ethanol is a bust, creates more pollution, and is a sub-standard fuel.  Butanol is much better.

]]> Comment #5 by neosapiens http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/ Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:30:18 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/5 The proposal sounds like an attempt to line the pockets of Republican contributors, rather than a serious approach to solving the problem.  There are so many more cost-effective measures we can take rather than waste resources and time on building new nuclear plants that greed is the only possible reason for proposing we spend public money building more of them.  The very fact that they're all for pushing full steam ahead and ignoring the environmental consequences proves that they're not living in the real world.

]]> The proposal sounds like an attempt to line the pockets of Republican contributors, rather than a serious approach to solving the problem.  There are so many more cost-effective measures we can take rather than waste resources and time on building new nuclear plants that greed is the only possible reason for proposing we spend public money building more of them.  The very fact that they're all for pushing full steam ahead and ignoring the environmental consequences proves that they're not living in the real world.

]]> Comment #6 by EnviroFan http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/ Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:36:49 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/6 Could NOT agree more.  I like how their plan would also cost trillions of dollars to implement while they complain about that same point being true of ACES.  It's ridiculous.

]]> Could NOT agree more.  I like how their plan would also cost trillions of dollars to implement while they complain about that same point being true of ACES.  It's ridiculous.

]]> Comment #7 by vbstenswick http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/ Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:21:12 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/7 First, the GHG do not reradiate electromagnetic radiation to earth, certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation (energy) is converted to another form of energy--heat.  More GHG, more heat.  Second, is this guy really denying the graphs that Gore presents in 'An Inconvenient Truth'.  From those graphs you can conclude one of three things, 1) increased CO2 causes an increase in temperature--accepted theory, or 2) an increase in temperature causes an increase in CO2--this would be plausible if the oceans were saturated and the increased temperature caused the CO2 to come out of solution.  From what I have read, the oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorbing CO2, thus dispelling this option, or 3) some external factor(s) cause both CO2 and temperature to move in synch. I have read explanations of external events causing temperature to rise, but not to the degree that it has.  I, for one, would appreciate knowing his/her sources for ignoring the apparent correlation between CO2 and temperature.

]]> First, the GHG do not reradiate electromagnetic radiation to earth, certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation (energy) is converted to another form of energy--heat.  More GHG, more heat.  Second, is this guy really denying the graphs that Gore presents in 'An Inconvenient Truth'.  From those graphs you can conclude one of three things, 1) increased CO2 causes an increase in temperature--accepted theory, or 2) an increase in temperature causes an increase in CO2--this would be plausible if the oceans were saturated and the increased temperature caused the CO2 to come out of solution.  From what I have read, the oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorbing CO2, thus dispelling this option, or 3) some external factor(s) cause both CO2 and temperature to move in synch. I have read explanations of external events causing temperature to rise, but not to the degree that it has.  I, for one, would appreciate knowing his/her sources for ignoring the apparent correlation between CO2 and temperature.

]]> Comment #8 by randino http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/ Mon, 15 Jun 2009 04:37:01 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/8 There is one area where they are consistent.  They want to limit the ability of citizens and environmental groups to give input into the process of making energy decisions.  This is their love of democracy.   

The Repubican Party is to the environment, what the Aryan Nation is to Jews and African Americans. Wish it weren't so, but it is.  Saying that the issue is not a partisan one, is to show that you are as out of touch with reality as the GOP is.  Which is really scary.  Believe me.  I have tangled with Republicans before.  They don't "get it."  They aren't interested in "getting it." The reason is ideological and they are as rigid in this ideology as their former enemies the communists were.  Until there is a revolution in the GOP that will throw the jihadies out, Republicans will continue to spit when they hear the word environment.

Randy Cunningham

]]> There is one area where they are consistent.  They want to limit the ability of citizens and environmental groups to give input into the process of making energy decisions.  This is their love of democracy.   

The Repubican Party is to the environment, what the Aryan Nation is to Jews and African Americans. Wish it weren't so, but it is.  Saying that the issue is not a partisan one, is to show that you are as out of touch with reality as the GOP is.  Which is really scary.  Believe me.  I have tangled with Republicans before.  They don't "get it."  They aren't interested in "getting it." The reason is ideological and they are as rigid in this ideology as their former enemies the communists were.  Until there is a revolution in the GOP that will throw the jihadies out, Republicans will continue to spit when they hear the word environment.

Randy Cunningham

]]> Comment #9 by solargroupies http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/ Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:57:26 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/9 Talking points for the GOP: Our answer to the worst recession in decades is more of the same luddite policy that is economically and environmentally destroying the world. “Thousands of dollars in extra energy costs and millions of jobs lost is a high price to pay for an energy policy that is essentially the same one we have had for 8 years. “The American people deserve better. Go green means more jobs here at home, and a cleaner environment.” “The American people don’t want fossil-fuel dependency; they want energy independence. The Obama plan is the comprehensive common-ground energy solution this country desperately needs.”

]]> Talking points for the GOP: Our answer to the worst recession in decades is more of the same luddite policy that is economically and environmentally destroying the world. “Thousands of dollars in extra energy costs and millions of jobs lost is a high price to pay for an energy policy that is essentially the same one we have had for 8 years. “The American people deserve better. Go green means more jobs here at home, and a cleaner environment.” “The American people don’t want fossil-fuel dependency; they want energy independence. The Obama plan is the comprehensive common-ground energy solution this country desperately needs.”

]]> Comment #10 by Sean Casten http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/ Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:53:20 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/10 100 miles per hour?

]]> 100 miles per hour?

]]> Comment #11 by Kate Sheppard http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/ Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:56:38 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/11 Ah! Good catch Sean. Fixed above.

]]> Ah! Good catch Sean. Fixed above.

]]> Comment #12 by Sean Casten http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/ Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:58:37 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/12 I'm nothing if not anal-retentive.

]]> I'm nothing if not anal-retentive.

]]> Comment #13 by scarletlew http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/ Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:41:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-house-gop-energy-bill/13 The alternatives are brilliant, but I think there would be a big problem in the implementation. I am quite certain that some parties will not cooperate in this energy solution, etc. Besides, there should really stop addressing the issue with Republicans or Democrats. Its not about which party is better. Why not solve this together? maybe through a brainstorming they could produce a better solution and create a bill. And maybe somehow they could cut down the prices of some car parts like aceomatic extension hsng. bush 

]]> The alternatives are brilliant, but I think there would be a big problem in the implementation. I am quite certain that some parties will not cooperate in this energy solution, etc. Besides, there should really stop addressing the issue with Republicans or Democrats. Its not about which party is better. Why not solve this together? maybe through a brainstorming they could produce a better solution and create a bill. And maybe somehow they could cut down the prices of some car parts like aceomatic extension hsng. bush 

]]>