The Copenhagen That Matters

[_Simpson_ 250]

This attitude - and this falling for cheap sound bites from the coal and petrol industry - is exactly why America will fall ever further behind on innovation and competitiveness in the global economy of the 21st century. Again, the examples are on the table. And no, Denmark is not the only country getting a headstart and innovative advantage over the US> Most developed nations realize that the past is just that and that the future is not built on oil and coal.

Oh, but this sort of thing is just killing the economy, you say? Well, I thought that was addressed as well:

What about the attitude of people like you who think that if we all just jumped on the green band wagon eventually everything would be ok, we have to start addressing things like how it will affect our economy and quit exaggerating how bad the problem is

About Denmark, you cant give green credit for the low unemployment, you know many people go to other European countries to work because the taxes are so high in Denmark.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Here is some cost dealing with agriculture

USDA Analysis Confirms Cap-and-Trade Damages Agriculture

Dec 16, 2009 4:49 PM, Source: U.S. Sen. Mike Johanns, Nebraska

The USDA has provided a summary of its latest analysis of the cap-and-trade bill, and we now have a clearer picture of just how much damage the bill would do to agriculture. Several of my Senate colleagues and I requested the analysis in July, and it's taken USDA nearly six months to provide it. While the Senate has yet to be provided a copy of the actual analysis, the USDA testimony confirms we are right to be very worried.

USDA's claim that the legislation will result in a net gain of $22 billion in income for farmers notes that the increase is only because many producers will be forced out of business by increased input costs and decreased production. This leaves whoever is left standing to benefit from higher prices as the overall food supply goes down significantly. The details of USDA's own testimony paints a far more troubling picture.

USDA testified that the costs of fuel, oil and electricity will increase by about 22%. And here's a staggering estimate: the bill drives 59 million acres of cropland and pasture out of production by 2050. With millions of acres coming out of production and energy prices going through the roof, it’s not surprising that USDA also predicts significant declines in farm production. USDA’s testimony shows that corn production will decrease by 22%, soybean production will drop by 29%, beef production will decline by 10% and pork production will sink by 23%. This decline in production will threaten our nation’s food supply, and is estimated to drive up food prices by as much as 5%.

Yet the administration supports this bill. How can USDA support a policy that so drastically and negatively impacts agriculture? Hit hardest will be the small and mid-sized family farms, like many in Nebraska – many of whom cannot incur the cost increases imposed by this bill. Moreover, the net effect of the House bill is to take 59 million acres out of production as the world's population is projected to increase by 2 billion people. Two billion more mouths to feed and 59 million less American acres from which to feed them, while China, South America and our other global competitors gobble up the demand.

While our farmers will be sitting on the sidelines, planting productive acres into trees, our global competitors, unencumbered by the cap-and-trade dagger, will be tearing down forests and planting more crops.

This is not a vision for American agriculture, it's a death sentence. The administration-backed cap-and-trade bill passed by the House represents a paradigm shift in the wrong direction for American agriculture. It is a dangerous public policy proposal that would dramatically impact farmers and ranchers, driving many out of business. I find that unacceptable; the administration needs to go back to the drawing board.

http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/ag-issues/...culture-damage/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What about the attitude of people like you who think that if we all just jumped on the green band wagon eventually everything would be ok, we have to start addressing things like how it will affect our economy and quit exaggerating how bad the problem is.

Dude, what part of giving up an economic leadership position w/o even putting up a fight do you not get? Europe and the devolped nations of Asia are innovating and producing energy solutions for the future while we sit here pretending that an oil and coal based economy is going to take us through another century. It won't. By the time we're starting to get real about future energy solutions, the actually developed world will sit there laughing outperforming our economy w/o even breaking a sweat.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Here I will spell it out again for you. If the idiots running washington can write a few thousand page health care bill then it should be quite simple for them to declare "30 miles per gallon" cars on the cash for clunker program. If they were serious about global warming and our oil supply. Why did they pass on this line of thinking. They could of had a slam dunk in showing the world they care about the earth.

Very valid point. They should have attached a minimum fuel efficiency to the program. That just didn't sit well with the big three and hence, it wasn't done. It's a shame, really, how sold out Washington, D.C. is.

[Danno 1,228]

Very valid point. They should have attached a minimum fuel efficiency to the program. That just didn't sit well with the big three and hence, it wasn't done. It's a shame, really, how sold out Washington, D.C. is.

NOt that it's important but..... every time you people push for more -miles to the gallon, the chance of getting crushed to death in an accident increases as well.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

It is all smoke and mirrors out of washington. Cash for clunkers is the prime example. Obit is running around worried about running the U.S. out of oil.So he says. Just search for the most economical cars to own. Most get at least 30 miles / gallon. I own a yaris and last night filled it up and with snow tires .......31/gallon. Just on short trips around town. All that was needed when when the clunker deal was designed is mandatory 30/gal on EVERY car bought. The power is in all these liberals hands to get it done . Just show how green every liberal is in Washington. Mandate 30/gallon in dealing with that program. They could not do that instead fly up to a big party and give away a few hundred million of our tax dollars to 3rd world dictators . Borrrowed money at that. The green movement out of Washington is a joke. Just smoke and mirrors , just smoke and mirrors. Tax the working man to death with cap and trade. It in reality is about control of the people rather than save the earth. So simple 30/gal with the stroke of a pen. No jetting around the world attending partys.Just wait for the health care bill to get read. See all the money you save. Control of the people folks. That is the real goal.

I tend to agree... this was a major opportunity to get low mileage cars off the roads and it was pushed under the table...

I do not agree it was smoke and mirrors however... simple governmental stupidly covers it well...

-P

[PhiLandShiR 18]

NOt that it's important but..... every time you people push for more -miles to the gallon, the chance of getting crushed to death in an accident increases as well.

I do not agree with this. You imply the only way to improve mileage is to make the car more light weight. Reduce the safety features etc...

With 90% of the energy from gasoline fuels going out the tailpipe in the form of heat, there is a lot of room to boost mileage by making the engine better...

-P

[Dan J 277]

I do not agree with this. You imply the only way to improve mileage is to make the car more light weight. Reduce the safety features etc...

With 90% of the energy from gasoline fuels going out the tailpipe in the form of heat, there is a lot of room to boost mileage by making the engine better...

-P

It has more to do with the disparity of large vehicles to smaller ones. If a large and small vehicle crash, you want to be in the larger one. But larger vehicles are not necessarily safer as they have a higher center of gravity, and more prone to single vehicle accidents.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

NOt that it's important but..... every time you people push for more -miles to the gallon, the chance of getting crushed to death in an accident increases as well.

Oh please. What you're suggesting is that as long as some people drive tanks, everyone needs to drive a tank? That makes no sense.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Dude, what part of giving up an economic leadership position w/o even putting up a fight do you not get? Europe and the devolped nations of Asia are innovating and producing energy solutions for the future while we sit here pretending that an oil and coal based economy is going to take us through another century. It won't. By the time we're starting to get real about future energy solutions, the actually developed world will sit there laughing outperforming our economy w/o even breaking a sweat.

There providing it for the future? Care to give some examples?

Many in the United States are not willing to put a strangle hold on business and people, the real world reality is that it has to be affordable. When the technology is where it needs to be and its economically sensible american people will more than willing to move into a green future.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Oh please. What you're suggesting is that as long as some people drive tanks, everyone needs to drive a tank? That makes no sense.

I think what he means is that most high mileage performance automobiles are death traps, once again many things are compromised in the name of green, we need patience, wait for the technology to improve and you wont need to try cramming this down peoples throats.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think what he means is that most high mileage performance automobiles are death traps, once again many things are compromised in the name of green, we need patience, wait for the technology to improve and you wont need to try cramming this down peoples throats.

Bull.

Road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle km:

Switzerland - 5.9

Sweden - 5.9

United Kingdom - 6.3

Finland - 6.4

Norway - 6.5

Germany - 7.4 (people roll in death traps there w/o speed limits on significant stretches of the highway system)

United States - 9

Road fatalities per 100K population:

Switzerland - 4.9

Sweden - 5.2

United Kingdom - 5.4

Finland - 7.2

Norway - 5.0

Germany - 6.0 (people roll in death traps there w/o speed limits on significant stretches of the highway system)

United States - 11.2

It would appear that these "death traps" don't hold up so badly when compared to the "safe tanks" that you're trying to defend here.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There providing it for the future? Care to give some examples?

Many in the United States are not willing to put a strangle hold on business and people, the real world reality is that it has to be affordable. When the technology is where it needs to be and its economically sensible american people will more than willing to move into a green future.

Dude, read the piece on top of the thread.

As for the technology: the issue is that we're not the one's driving it's development. We're giving up an economic leadership position and the price that we'll pay for that down the road - not too far down the road - will be huge. We will be ill positioned to compete with modern economies.

[Dr. Obvious 49]

I think what he means is that most high mileage performance automobiles are death traps, once again many things are compromised in the name of green, we need patience, wait for the technology to improve and you wont need to try cramming this down peoples throats.

Well, you just need to pick the right kind of tank. We had a manual 1989 Volvo 240 wagon. It got 27-31 mpg. It completely destroyed the other guy's truck when he decided it would be awesome to turn in front of us and it still drove home.

[Danno 1,228]

Oh please. What you're suggesting is that as long as some people drive tanks, everyone needs to drive a tank? That makes no sense.

See this is what worries me about you folks, you want to turn a free society into your "ideal" society, in this instance by telling people what they can drive.

Example: I ask you, "Would you rather your family be in an SUV or a "smart Car" in your next accident"

You answer back (ignoring reality) "We should all be driving "Smart Cars".