Published: Tuesday, July 9 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
yeah, Kirsten, he is SO brave standing up to the chinese and indians who are
pumping out much more pollution than we ever dreamed of and whose pollution
levels are INCREASING while ours are DECREASING.of wait, he is
not.Thank you, Governor Herbert, for working to ensure Utahans have
employment so we can put food in our bellies, clothes on our backs, and shelter
over our heads; unlike BO, who is more concerned about protecting his political
cronnies' investments in ill-designed "green" companies.
"...unprecedented..."You keep using that word. I do not
think it means what you think it means.
Sorry, but Obama doesn't give a hoot about climate change. He wants to
impose Al Gore's "carbon tax" on us. If you think that you're
paying excessive amounts of your personal budget for gas and electricity, just
wait until the government imposes a "carbon tax". Your bills will
double.Look at Social Security. It was just another tax levied on
us. The revenue from SS was to be used to pay us a modest retirement. Regular
insurance companies would have invested that money so that it would have grown
sufficiently to pay the policy holder when promised. The federal government
mixed SS funds with the general fund. All that is left is an I.O.U.Obamacare is just a tax. We pay about 18% of our income for health care.
Obama wants that 18%. He will mix it into the general fund where it won't
be available for health care.A "carbon tax" will not stop
"pollution". Since we don't sit in the dark, deep
inside a cave, we need heat and light in our lives. Gas, oil and coil produce
that heat and light. A "carbon tax" would take away our heat and light.
Re: "Thank you to President Barack Obama for courageously unveiling a bold
Climate Action Plan . . . ."It'll be interesting to see
what you think in a year or two, when gasoline is $10-15 a gallon, electricity
has "necessarily skyrocketed" to quadruple its current, and you'll
only be running your furnace an hour or two a day in the winter to keep pipes
from freezing, since that's all the natural gas you can afford.And your job, of course, has been outsourced to China, India, or Russia, where
there are no looney artificial government limits on energy use.We'll see how bold and courageous you think Obama is then.
Be sure and thank Obama for the billions of wasted and squandered taxpayer
monies on failed green energy projects and especially for killing the Keystone
Pipeline which guarantees high gasoline prices to the poorest Americans who can
afford it the least! In the meantime, the earth has not warmed for 16 years!
Agreed! Well said Kristen.
@lost in DC – “…chinese and indians who are pumping out much
more pollution than we ever dreamed of and whose pollution levels are INCREASING
while ours are DECREASING.”@Mike Richards –
“Sorry, but Obama doesn't give a hoot about climate change.”Glad to see you guys are finally on board! Now if we can
just convince the Chinese and Indians maybe we can begin to make real progress
in reducing pollution and mitigate whatever effects it is having on the
planet.Curious what changed your minds? Did you finally make peace
with science (i.e., are you guys good with the whole “evolution”
thing now too)?
@MountanmanHow much of the oil from the Keystone Pipeline do you
think will actually be used to lower gas prices to the poorest Americans vs. how
much of the oil is to be shipped overseas to a bidder who will pay more?
I am actually disappointed in how little President Obama has done to change
Global Warming in his first term. I mean really... what has he
done? Especially after blaming President Bush and Republicans for causing
Global Warming and then claiming he was the only candidate who could solve the
problem.And the Governor Herbert angle?? Now we're blaming
Global Warming on Utah and Governor Herbert?We need to give this
partisan hero worship a rest. In truth Governor Herbert didn't cause
Global Warming... and President Barack Obama has done almost nothing to fix it.
Both Herbert and Obama are just "politicians"... doing what
politicians do (basically nothing unless it's good for PR and may get their
party re-elected).I expected President Obama to do MUCH more to
change Global Warming in his first term (especially after all his grandiose
promises). I expected Gov Herbert to do about what he did (he is in no
position to fix global warming, he didn't promise to solve global warming
if elected, the Gov of Utah should focus on the Utah economy and Utah jobs,
which involves energy exploration in Utah. Yes, even the evil tar sands)
@procuradorfiscal"It'll be interesting to see what you
think in a year or two, when gasoline is $10-15 a gallon, electricity has
"necessarily skyrocketed" to quadruple its current,"You're just pulling random numbers out of thin air...
Mountanman:Again you are ill informed. Climate-change naysayers like
to cherry pick the 16 year figure. Why 16 years? Why not 20 or 15 or 25 or 10 or
30? Because all those numbers would show an average increase in global
temperature. The 16-year figure works because 16 years ago we had a very
atypical spike in temperatures. It was the hottest year ever. It was an anomaly,
but so if you use that as a starting point, then yes, the average since then has
not increased. But if you look at the overall trend, the earth is getting
hotter. And it's getting a lot hotter than air temperatures indicate. Much
of the increased heat is being trapped in the oceans. In time, that heat will be
released, and then the fun begins. So go ahead, conservatives, keep your heads
in the sand. When you finally pull them out, you'll find that the earth is
a lot hotter than you thought.
Re: "You're just pulling random numbers out of thin air..."Yeah, but unfortunately, they're some of the same numbers being
suggested by economists and commodities investors that are not wholly-owned
subsidiaries of the Obama regime.And, if your own random numbers
[which we'd love to hear] suggest that energy prices are NOT going to
"necessarily skyrocket," -- as even your anointed one admits --
you're bound to be seriously disappointed over the next couple years.
Mike - I agree with you about the usage of SS funds being mixed, it is wrong and
needs to be stopped.... but, not a single person has not been denied benefits
yet. The fund is solvent. What insurance companies have done isn't the
answer.... see what AIG managed to do with their policy holders funds.... and
how the government had to bail them out.... and now the leader of AIG during its
crash is suing the government because he lost money. Pretending the private
markets have our interest more in mind than the governments is just totally
misguided.Meanwhile - lost in DC would have us believe that the
private markets haven't wasted billions of people dollars. In one corner
we have the pro-green crowd.... in the other.... we have traditional energy
crowd as represented by Enron. Lets ring the bell and see which one is the
biggest failure. lost in DC- exactly how many jobs across
multiple states has green energy wiped out in one of their mistakes? You want
to start adding up the cost of Exxon-Valdize and BP Deep Sea Horizon? Lets try
to be a little balanced here...
This discussion would be more germane if the worst case scenario for climate
change would be a couple of degrees of warming or just a couple of bucks more at
the pump when the rest of the world has paid that and more for years. If it was
really just an issue in need of political horse trading we could give some here
give some there, but is it? If the science is correct the result could well be
that Richards boogie man ("sit in the dark, deep inside a cave") could
become reality. Can we "afford" to do nothing?
Kirsten,Here is a not-so-unique concept for you to seriously
consider the next time you have an urge to write an opinion letter about
anthropometric global warming:Until you get India, Russia, and
especially China to sign-up to reducing their CO2 emissions, then anything we do
here in the U.S.A. to decrease our emissions will be the equivalent of
"spitting into the wind."
@procuradorfiscalThe price attached to the tax or to cap and trade
hasn't been determined so I have no interest in pulling out a number that
isn't yet determined. For all we know it could be like the gasoline tax and
amount to a quarter a gallon, not 6-9 dollars as you suggest. Besides, if it's like a carbon tax used in Denmark then the money
collected would be turned around and mostly refunded to the taxpayers as a form
of redistribution from heavy energy users to those who use less in order to
Tyler D,where do you get the idea I have climbed on board? I spoke of
pollution, not carbon dioxide, which the doomsayers like BO are trying to
limit.bluedevilBO has promised to kill the domestic coal
industry. It's not a question of how many jobs has his failed green
companies killed, but how many jobs are his overall policies killing? why do
you think we have such a weak recovery and why unemployment is stuck so high?
The only job growth we have is in part-time employment.BO's EPA
and Obamacare are killing real jobs growth and prosperity in this country.
@Blue,As a former insurance agent, I know that any insurance company
in Utah is obligated to "buy out" a failing insurance company. NO
policy holder will ever be denied the benefits promised unless ALL insurance
companies fail. There is no possible way, given the revenue going
into Washington, that Congress can ever honor all future demands on SS. You can
easily do the math. Open a spreadsheet and get to work. The only way that
Congress can handle the coming influx of "baby-boomers" is to inflate
the money by printing by the ton, or by denying benefits.The carbon
tax is one way that devious liberals want to use to increase revenue. Obamacare
is another tax that devious liberals plan on using to let Peter pay Paul.It's a Ponzi scheme. It won't work. It only takes more money
from the private sector. It only decreases the ability of businesses to hire
employees. It only decreases SS payments and income tax revenues.Never take accept the "obvious" when a politician is speaking. Follow
the money. Always follow the money.
@lost in DC – “where do you get the idea I have climbed on board? I
spoke of pollution, not carbon dioxide…”My comment was
ironic (i.e., a joke)… figured the “evolution” thing would
have given that away.Regarding pollution, that’s what I spoke
of too, however, carbon dioxide is simply a subset of pollution as a whole. But you might want to be careful with the term “pollution”
because the minute the President starts to talk about limiting pollution in
general, you guys will have to be against it… it’s on the card they
give you at the meetings, or it might be written inside the foil hat (fyi - more
Yes... Thank you, THANK YOU oh thow great Obama! What would we have done
without you... and what will we do after you are gone?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments