Published: Friday, June 26 2009 12:00 a.m. MDT
So what's your solution? None. A completely negative editorial whose outcome
would be an uninhabitable earth. So much for being stewards of Creation.
Go nuclear, fear-mongers notwithstanding.
While you're at it, run on up to Yellowstone and figure out how to plug up all
those mud baths, geysers and yes even the volcano building under the Yellowstone
Lake. We'll be so much better off once we've fixed this crisis!
So because a good and necessary thing will be difficult to do, we shouldn't do
it?And as for your photo caption about climate change being "still
hotly debated," all I can do is urge you to pay closer attention to the actual
science. I know the message boards here like the think there's some
kind of "debate" going on, but a review of the findings published in any number
of professional science journals makes it abundantly clear that the question is
not if man-made global warming is happening, the question is what are we going
to do about the reality of man-made global warming.
This editorial typifies the problem with conservatives. They seem to have lost
all sense of personal responsibility. They want to have cheap electricity at
the cost of clean air, but they refuse to be accountable for cleaning up the
pollution. I thought personal responsibility was supposed to be a hall mark of
Think of the innovations that could be made in clean energy if this bill were
passed. Anyone who could figure out a way to produce clean energy in a way that
was efficient enough to meet out wants (not really needs) would make lots of
money. This could spur governments and private businesses to invest in
researchers that are trying to find such technology.
...to the point where Americans would have little choice but to use less. That
means they would be forced into buying fewer laptop computers, iPods,
televisions and other electrical appliances." This isn't necessarily a bad
Why can't we control the greatest GHG, water vapor, oh that's right we couldn't
tax the citizens in 80% of the states.In this bill why does only 20% of
the money go to environmental projects? Can you say 'paying for future
entitlements'?In this bill why do non-CO2 emitting entities recieve
allownaces? Can you say 'patronage'?In this bill why does the West Coast
and Northeast actually make money? Cay you say 'wealth transfer'?If this
bill was truely for the environment and controlling that giant .03% of the
atmosphere then our dear leaders would mimic the Sulfur Dioxide model used, in
the past, to control Acid Rain.Start thinking with you minds and not your
Until there are viable alternatives ready to pick up the slack, we will be
hurting the poorest of Amreicans the most. Every state should build
a brand new nuclear reactor. Look at what they are doing in Japan and France.
Comparitively nuclear is much cleaner and more efficient than anything else we
have out ther.This Bill goes too far.
All those that worship at the feet of Obama, and Gore, should lead by example.
Remove the power box from your house, return your cars, give up all your money
to the government, and when you get ill, just roll over and die!
I completely agree with Robert Jacobson on this. Lots of sniping, but no
solutions. Always putting industry ahead of wise stewardship. Something has to
be done. The same crowd fought the clean air act and other anti-pollution
measures many years ago and, low and behold, we are better off for it. Enough
of the nattering nabobs of negativism. Let's move forward with something.
Besides, then the GOP was in charge, what got done except the weakening of the
law, regulations and enforcement on environmental issues.
People claim nuclear is the answer... and yet, these same people criticize the
government and greedy business for all the ills in our society... They don't
trust government healthcare! They don't trust government running GM or the
banks -- But they trust the federal government to regulate and oversee the
safety of nukes and nuke waste? And they trust private industry for protecting
society from leaks, radiation, etc.? Please! We need safe energy
where we don't have to rely on incompetent government and greedy "let's cut
corners" industry to make decisions about our fate! Invest in wind, solar, and
geothermal energy -- no toxic waste and no fears of incompetent government
If the stated goal of this bill is to combat climate change (which it is), and
scientific studies show the results of the bill would have negligible impact on
climate (which they DO), then the bill is worthless.The bill isn't
about air pollution, it's about carbon dioxide (which isn't part of air
pollution). Those are two vastly different problems.Nuclear power
already has a 50 year near-perfect track record of producing safe, clean
electricity. That's enough to make it the obvious solution.The
stereotyping above by liberal writers about conservatives and industry is
The debate on man-made global warming is far from over. You've chosen to read
only the liberal environmental rhetoric. You haven't even considered that the
theory of man made global warming breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the
principles of heat transfer. Please do YOUR homework. Let's have a real
Nuclear is a solution.(But no union nuclear plants)Greedy industry?
Why not greedy government? This congress and this president are
wanting to change the way we live and many of you are buying into it. You want
to FIGHT industry that makes the things that you want and need but you ROLL OVER
when the government wants to curtail your freedoms or take your money.The earth has been hotter and colder than it is now.Humans have concrete
weather data for only about 130 years.Hurricanes and tornados have
happened in the past as they do now.My weatherman was wrong yesterday
about the temperature and the rain potential.We are letting POLITICIANS
control our lives.Think with your minds not your hearts.
Robert Jacobson, anonymous 7:46, you appparently did not read the editorial.
they did offer an alternative - build more nukes.I see, Liberal
Larry, are YOU paying the extra $2/kilowatt hour RMP charges for green
electricity? How does making electricity more EXPENSIVE make electric cars
A Utah paper asking for Utah politicians to defeat a bill. Now that is a laugh.
The total lack of influence on the national level is the result of a one party
system, driven by the compulsion to throw reason out the door in favor of
extreme conservatism. Sorry, but if it comes from Utah, it will have zero
They need to ram this bill through, because facts on the ground (the earth) is
exposing the lie of global warming. This is purely a huge and vicious tax on
the American people. More money to dissapear into the government maw.
TO "liberal larry | 6:21 a.m." it isn't just conservatives that see this bill as
bad news.Martin Feldstein, George F. Baker Professor of Economics at
Harvard University, says "In my judgment, the proposed cap-and-trade system
would be a costly policy that would penalize Americans with little effect on
global warming. The proposal to give away most of the permits only makes a bad
idea worse."In other words, all this is is one big tax being wrapped
in global warming. It will have little to no effect on CO2 emissions.
@anon 8:44A sitting President asking a national tv network to do an all
day info-mercial for him and his huge power grab enviro bill? Now that is a
laugh that makes me want to cry!!Comrade - out...
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments