Friday June 26, 2009, 4:38 pm
The $175 is the up front cost. The hidden cost in the bill will be more like $6,500 a year for the average consumer by 2030 and that is only if you live in a green State. Expect to be paying a lot more if your State isn't so green.

Saturday June 27, 2009, 11:04 am
And what does it cost in the long run if the bill doesn't pass?

Saturday June 27, 2009, 12:58 pm
Thank goodness it won't pass!

Saturday June 27, 2009, 1:07 pm
This is far worse than just a “new tax” as Republicans are complaining - this is the total takeover of the American economy by private banking interests through the carbon trading system.

It is also the entrée for the complete and total subjegation of any freedoms we had left and the beginning of nightmare regulation and suffocating control over every aspect of our personal lives by millions of green stasi tasked with enforcing impossible to attain goals of 80% carbon dioxide reduction - all based on the manufactured threat of global warming.

This bill will also sink the economy and create a new great depression, effectively obliterating America’s first world status.

Read our previous articles to truly understand the depth of tyranny that has been rubber stamped by the House this evening. This information is essential and only scratches the surface of what this nightmare bill has set in motion.

FLASHBACK: Climate Cops To Fine “Wasteful” Homeowners & Businesses

FLASHBACK: Obama’s Nightmare “Green Agenda” Officially Unveiled

FLASHBACK: Obama Intimately Tied To Carbon Trading Scam

FLASHBACK: Get Ready For The Obama “Green Brigades”

FLASHBACK: Obama Pushes Carbon Tax Proposal That Would Inflict New Great Depression

FLASHBACK: World’s Most Powerful Banks Behind Push To Introduce Global Carbon Trading Markets

FLASHBACK: Rothschild Australia and E3 International to take the lead in the global carbon trading market
http://www.prisonplanet.com/boehner-filibustering-pelosi-national-energy-tax-on-house-floor-right-now.html

Saturday June 27, 2009, 2:01 pm
Yes, this will cost a lot. It will cost more than if President Bush had kept his campaign promise and begun reducing carbon emissions in 2001. It will cost much more than it would if President Reagan had continued, rather than dismantling, President Carter's efforts to move us to energy independence. But it will cost much less than it will if we delay any further.

Saturday June 27, 2009, 2:18 pm
Since CO2 has absolutely no effect on climate, the only thing this bill does is strangle whatever recovery might have happened. Say hello to third world conditions.

The Trojan Hearse ,
Excerpt:
it would put Washington in charge of people's lives in a way not seen since the Second World War -- which was the last time Americans needed ration coupons to buy gasoline, food and other commodities.

The core of the complex 1,201-page bill is what's called a "cap and trade" system. This would put a cap or limit on greenhouse-gas emissions -- mainly on carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, oil and natural gas, three fuels that provide more than 80 percent of America's energy. And the law lowers the cap every few years -- ordering emissions to drop 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent below by 2050.

The "trade" part of the scheme would let companies buy and sell the government-issued ration coupons. Thus, a business closing down a factory and moving overseas could sell its no-longer-needed coupons to a firm that's still trying to stay in business.

Cap-and-trade backers tell us that it's a reasonable, effective way of replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources and higher energy efficiency. But it's proving anything but reasonable or effective in the European Union, which started a similar scheme several years ago. The prices of ration coupons have fluctuated wildly, electric rates have risen steeply and emissions haven't gone down (at least not until businesses began curtailing production in this recession).

But even if it produced the promised results, cap-and-trade wouldn't be worth it.

For starters, the bill's sneaky, indirect tax is still a tax -- and a huge one. This would vastly increase fossil-fuel prices -- which would make greens happy by making higher-priced alternatives such as wind power competitive, but would make Americans as a whole miserable, by forcing us to use less energy and pay much more for it.

Realize, too, that almost every recession of the last 60 years, including today's mess, has followed a sharp rise in energy prices. Why would we want lawmakers to mandate a recession?

Understandably, Waxman-Markey's supporters pretend the bill's impact won't be too severe. But independent economic studies have estimated the costs from $1,500 to more than $3,000 per year for the average family.

Then, this week, the Congressional Budget Office released an estimate of just $175 a year per family -- then dropped it to $80. Green groups crowed -- but no one really believes that number.

Certainly, the bill's supporters in Congress don't. If they did, these Democrats wouldn't have voted down Republican amendments to the measure that would have suspended cap-and-trade if gasoline hit $5 a gallon, electricity prices doubled or unemployment topped 15 percent.

For that matter, similar government policies in Britain are already costing families $1,200 a year -- and that's in just the early stages.

During last year's campaign, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged: "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06252009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/trojan_hearse_175976.htm

Saturday June 27, 2009, 3:35 pm
Unfortunately most people are not willing to change their very comfy life styles , which means in the end we`ll end up paying even more . So yeah , let`s keep denying we have a problem . Let`s go buy some more SUV`s , the newest cellphone , the funkiest plasma T.V , oh and all those fashionable clothes an shoes !!! Yeah baby keep the party alive !! (sarcasm) ......... wake up .. the party can`t go on forever .
This is what really gets me ... It is OK to spend $175 or even $6 .500 a year in stuff we don`t really need but then everyone goes berserk when we have to pay for our stupid , senseless consumption habits ???????? PLEEEASE !!!

Saturday June 27, 2009, 8:03 pm
The usual mumbo-jumbo above.

If CO2 had no effect on the atmostphere and the climate then the planet would be too cold to live on! (ie CO2 from the biosphere under pre-industrial revolution conditions helps warm the planet to an average of 15 degrees C) CO2 is a heat-trapping gas.

CO2 from fossil-fuel burning is causing further warming.

Those things can't be "FLASHBACKS" if they haven't even happened.

for goodness sake, people aren't stupid.

The bill proposes to change the way energy is made. That is not so very threatening, unless someone is a friend of fossil-fuel carbon emissions in some way.

Sunday June 28, 2009, 9:30 am
The Clean Water Act they have just passed gives the federal govt. control over all the water in the country not just navigable water. All of this is a step in the process of the UN AGENDA 21 which is part of the Kyoto Protocol that was sent up during the G8 Summit meeting in Brazil in 1992. Robert Pastor represented the US at this Summit meeting and he wrote a interesting document titled "Building a North American Community". It is my thought that all of this is orchestrated by design in order to spread the wealth.
I encourage you to read the Articles of Agenda 21, read the paper by Robert Pastor on Building a North American Community. There are other interesting papers out there too... for example a document by Michael Nield called "The Police State Road Map".
Here is a link to that document: http://www.policestateplanning.com/download/psrm.pdf
There are some other articles of interest too. Such as the Law of the Sea Treaty...
It seems to me that this more of a dismantle of the United States of America.

Sunday June 28, 2009, 12:24 pm
just like KOO J wrote: for goodness sake, people aren't stupid.
This will never pass, it was so close in the house but the senate will stop it or gut it. If it does pass I along with many others will be voting Republican next election.

Sunday June 28, 2009, 1:11 pm
Boehner: Climate bill a 'pile of s--t'
By Molly K. Hooper
Posted: 06/27/09 09:22 PM [ET]
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had a few choice words about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) landmark climate-change bill after its passage Friday.

When asked why he read portions of the cap-and-trade bill on the floor Friday night, Boehner told The Hill, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s--t."
Using his privilege as leader to speak for an unlimited time on the House floor, Boehner spent an hour reading from the 1200-plus page bill that was amended 20 hours before the lower chamber voted 219-212 to approve it.

Eight Republicans voted with Democrats to pass the bill; 44 House Democrats voted against it.

One Democrat was upset that his leaders would needlessly force vulnerable Dems to vote for a bill that will come back to haunt them. Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor (D) voted against the measure that he says will die in the Senate.

"A lot of people walked the plank on a bill that will never become law," Taylor told The Hill after the gavel came down.

Sunday June 28, 2009, 1:51 pm
noted, thanks Cal

Sunday June 28, 2009, 3:21 pm
Judy, Judy, Judy.... Get a grip on reality. We can't continue this way. If we had the strong leadership in the past to become energy efficient and independent of fossil fuels we wouldn't be in the boat we're in.

Sunday June 28, 2009, 7:10 pm
Is the pervasive hypocritical discinnect between Republican politicians (and those that elect them)and truth and the reality that a vast majority of American citizens live in a function of Republican egomania and personal stupidity or intentional ignorance or their assumption that the American voter is to stupid or uninformed to remember their lies and actions. Republicans are consistent in their insistance that Corporate America has more of a right to profiteering than American citizens have to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness,health, education,wellbeing and the ability to house, clothe, and feed themselves and their families! The Republican sre insistence that Corporate record profits are more important than having an Earth that will support life! These are the same fake dollar amounts and 'Big Brother' scare tactic lies six months old now from the Party of No, No to truth, No to people over profits, No ideas. Republicans would rather have Americas neck under the heel of Corporations than Americas (and the worlds) future in the hands of the elected goverment of Americas choice because they lost the last two elections and their power! While in power they had no problem allowing the single largest loss of American lives and property to foreign terrorists in American history; turning a surplus into a record deficit in only a few years, encouraged and subsidized the wholesale shipping of American jobs and manufacturing out of America, stood watch on the declineof middle class Americas income, allowing nearly the worst economic disaster in American history, creating an American stasi (secret police) to make the old USSR green with envy both for the power and scope of abilities, committed torture and othe war crimes, established American gulags around the world. And now they run around like headless chickens screaming 'Beware Big Goverment', 'Beware Goverment Spending'. Lying hypocrits! And am I the only one not surprised that most of the loudest are from States the still refuse to acknowledge that along with the last two elections they lost the Civil War and their slaves!

Sunday June 28, 2009, 7:21 pm
Obama will lead us to destruction, Don Cordell as your president would Restore America for Americans. 20 Million American citizens unemployeed, some 20 million homes in foreclosure. Everything for sale in our stores Made in China, and you don't see the treason going on? Wake up Americans save our nation, while we still have a nation.

Monday June 29, 2009, 8:51 pm
Debbie, Debbie, Debbie....you are the one who refuses to come to grips with reality
It’s the Sun, stupid!
New direct evidence demonstrate that changes in solar activity influence climate
Willie Soon
The theory that climate change is chiefly caused by solar influences “is no longer tenable,” says US National
Academy of Sciences president Ralph Cicerone. Carbon dioxide, he argues, is the key driver of recent climate
change. I beg to differ.
The amount and distribution of solar energy that we receive varies as the Earth revolves around the Sun and also
in response to changes in the Sun’s activity. Scientists have now been studying solar influences on climate for
5000 years.
Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records. They noticed that more sunspots meant warmer
weather on Earth. In 1801, the celebrated astronomer William Herschel noticed that when there were few spots,
the price of wheat soared – because, he surmised, less “light and heat” from the Sun resulted in reduced harvests.
Is it true then that solar radiation, which supplies Earth with the energy that drives our climate, and caused so
many climate shifts over the ages, is no longer the principal influence on climate change?
The UN’s climate panel claims there is scientific “consensus” that man-made CO2 emissions are causing
“dangerous” climate change. However, its 2007 Climate Assessment is fraught with serious scientific
shortcomings in its discussion of the Sun’s influence on Earth’s climate.
The UN said direct measurements of solar radiation since 1979 show little increase. However, this conclusion
depends upon disparate and adjusted measurements that were combined from several satellites and may be
incorrect.
Between 1645 and 1715, sunspots were very rare and temperatures were low. Then sunspot frequency grew until,
between 1930 and 2000, the Sun was more active than at almost any time in the last 10,000 years. The oceans can
cause up to several decades of delay before air temperatures respond fully to this solar “Grand Maximum.” Now
that the Sun is becoming less active again, global temperatures have fallen for seven years.
Next, the UN said estimates of the increase in solar radiation over the past 400 years should be reduced. The basis
for this claim was a modeling study by the US Naval Research Laboratory. However, the Navy computer program
was not designed to reach such conclusions, as it has no routine to calculate solar radiation.
We have known for nearly 80 years that small changes in solar activity can cause large climatic changes. Where
sunlight falls, for how long, and with what effect, determine how climate will respond.
The most recent scientific evidence shows that even small changes in solar radiation have a strong effect on
Earth’s temperature and climate.
In 2005, I demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic
over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the
Arctic, including the US mainland and China.
The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and of temperature that I have
identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and
hemispherically for the whole circum-Arctic, suggesting that changes in solar activity drive Arctic and perhaps even global climate
There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups
and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic.I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the
“conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven
changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, cause variations in sea surface
temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later.
These previously undocumented results have been published in the journal Physical Geography. They make it
difficult to maintain that changes in solar activity play an insignificant role in climate change, especially over the
Arctic.
The hallmark of good science is the testing of a plausible hypothesis that is then either supported or rejected by
the evidence. The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in
the Arctic.
It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions
about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic
activity, in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”
Bill Clinton used to sum up politics by saying, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Now we can fairly sum up climate
change by saying, “It’s the Sun, stupid!”
Willie Soon is a solar and climate scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. This is his
personal opinion based upon 18 years of scientific research.
]

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Willie_Soon-Its_the_Sun_Stupid.pdf