Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Carbon Tax Would Be Very Expensive

January 20, 2013

Now that President Barack Obama has won election to his second term, he is free to pursue some of the radical goals he considered, but backed away from due to public outcry during his first four......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(14)

FreeWheeling

Jan-21-13 6:05 PM

Last night I dreamed I went to hillbilly heaven (WV). And you know who greeted me at the gate? The ole cowboy-philosopher himself, Will Rogers. He said to me, he said, "Tex, the Big Boss of the riders up here has asked me to kinda show you around. Right over yonder are a couple of your ol' compadres." My, was I glad to see 'em, Carson Robison and the Mississippi blue yodeler, Jimmie Rodgers.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Jan-21-13 1:54 PM

BTW, loons, any climatologist without an axe to grind (a relatively rare breed these days) will admit that of the two, warming is better than cooling. Heat is inconvenient. Cold kills. Drought is the killer with warming. Rainforests are hot and wet, and life thrives. Compare that to the Yukon, and tell me which is preferable.

BTW, have you seen the Danish Greenland coast survey from the 30s? Seems many coasts were bare then where the glaciers they are moaning about are today.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Jan-21-13 1:47 PM

Truthy, the geological record shows there were plenty of periods where there were NO glaciers on the earth. How does a little warming destroy anything? Besides, an ACCURATE evaluation of the data, using just the weather stations that go back to 1900 or earlier, shows the 30s were warmer than it is now, and we stopped getting "warmer" over a decade ago. How does the record cold temps around the country jibe with your claims?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Jan-21-13 1:42 PM

Anyone that thinks you can make fuel viably from CO2, I have a perpetual motion machine to sell you. WV, if they are profitable, it's from government subsidies. Did you fail high school chemistry? Burning fuel releases energy; going backwards CONSUMES energy, at least as much as what you got out. Where is that energy coming from, the Energy Fairy?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LogHog

Jan-21-13 6:01 AM

make no mistake..higher taxes are coming..all kinds of..global warming to be followed by global cooling..some very smart people looked at core tests from around the world...the info show the planet has had global warming and global cooling before...over thousands of years..if the current global warming is caused by mankind...Who caused the past global warming when the ice melted from the "ICE AGES?" ...before the industrial revolution?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WaterBuffaloRider

Jan-20-13 7:42 PM

McKinley & Meyer are weak, pathetic men who have declared "War on Earth" for the sake of politics.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1whoworks

Jan-20-13 6:47 PM

He will continue the big lie regarding global warming. Obambam and his friend are making HUGE money from the "green" subsidies. Believe me they want more!

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jan-20-13 1:42 PM

impact, nice “grammer”? Seriously? Nice spelling. LOL You make this too easy. Please be smarter. It’s no fun debating with a half-wit.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

impact

Jan-20-13 11:29 AM

Trollsucker, that old quote is the only thing the "war on coal" crowd can hang their collective hats on. Btw, nice grammer.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-20-13 9:47 AM

Cut the taxpayer subsidized pie in the sky crap, WVEGO, there is not ONE successful LARGE SCALE carbon sequestration facility in the world.

The science experiments so far showed:

1) It consumed more than 25% of the output of a power plant to keep the carbon sequestered

2) It can easily leak through cracks and fissures in the earth back into the atmosphere.

3)The financial costs of modern coal technology would nearly double if use of CCS technology were to be implemented.

Want to "capture" carbon dioxide?? PLANT MORE TREES!!!

Ummmh ummmh umnmmh! Plant FOOD! Yummeee!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jan-20-13 9:46 AM

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted." - Candidate Barack Obama, January 2008

Don't say he didn't told you this was his plan all along. Electric companies can't run trillion dollar deficits like Barry Bankrupter's Government can. So when your electric bill goes up, and the prices of American products that require electricity to produce go up, and American unemployment continues to go up because businesses in other countries that AREN'T "charging a huge sum" are producing and selling those products for less, remember libbies, you built that.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jan-20-13 9:36 AM

WVUGEO, does your miraculous process produce two units of carbon dioxide for every unit of carbon dioxide it converts to “synthesis gas,” or does it use two energy equivalent units energy from a “greener” source – say, solar or wind or geothermal – that if simply put directly onto the power grid would reduce production of carbon dioxide by those two units?

Given billions in taxpayer-provided Government subsidies you can certainly turn CO2 into fuel. That doesn’t mean it makes sense to do so. There’s a reason this isn’t being done commercially without subsidies. Do you think energy companies wouldn’t be making use of this idea to increase their profits if it were economically viable? Or at least to get the “bankrupt them” crowd off their backs if the process could even come close to breaking even?

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jan-20-13 9:03 AM

Left totally unacknowledged by this off-the-top-lightly reportage is the fact that Carbon Dioxide can be treated like a raw material resource and be consumed in the production of fuels, and, of plastics, where the Carbon would be forever sequestered. Plants are operating now in Iceland, Germany and Japan that capture CO2 and convert it, variously, into fuel alcohol, plastics manufacturing raw materials, and "synthesis gas", which can be catalytically and chemically condensed into a variety of hydrocarbons. The editor of this paper has been provided with complete documentation of those facts. We can profitably utilize CO2 while getting some of it out of the environment. We need more enlightened, more expansive reportage on this issue than we're being given herein.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

thetruthforonce

Jan-20-13 6:49 AM

McKinley, like his cheerleader newspaper, is short-sighted and unfriendly to our fragile environment. As our polar ice caps melt and our air becomes more poluted every day, he sells out the future of the world for a few lousy bucks. Fire him next election.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 14 of 14 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: