Want to pay $100 more per year in energy costs?

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: classy
LOL.
Look we have a situation with our climate. Now whether or not its as bad as some we have us believe is irrelvant. We have to make some changes and unfortunately to get a cleaner enviroment may cost everyone a few dollars more. Having a safer and cleaner enviroment does not come for free. And anyone who just posted in this thread will never ever miss $100 a year and you know it. If this was several hundred or into the thousands then its an issue. $10 a month please. If $10 a month is such a huge problem, you should not have an internet connection.

Uh hu. I'm already paying hundereds of dollars per month in fees to the government for all of their special projects. Is it still not an issue?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: classy
LOL.
Look we have a situation with our climate. Now whether or not its as bad as some we have us believe is irrelvant. We have to make some changes and unfortunately to get a cleaner enviroment may cost everyone a few dollars more. Having a safer and cleaner enviroment does not come for free. And anyone who just posted in this thread will never ever miss $100 a year and you know it. If this was several hundred or into the thousands then its an issue. $10 a month please. If $10 a month is such a huge problem, you should not have an internet connection.

Some experts' estimates are as high as $3000/year, per family, by 2020; and over $6000/year, per family, by 2035. Would it be OK to complain about it then?

 

[TruePaige]

8 bucks for cleaner energy? Sounds fair.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: DealMonkeySomeone's got to build alternate energy sources, right? They don't just poof into existence overnight.

But we could also continue to use coal and nuclear power, whatever is cheapest. My point is that finding an alternative and more expensive way to produce electricity does not create new wealth; rather it's similar to a make-work project. Now, we might want to invest in alternative energy for other reasons such as environmental reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not going to generate new wealth.

We can always "generate" new jobs by taxing people and then spending the money on infrastructure projects but that doesn't mean that jobs won't be lost in other areas as a result.

Well gee, we could keep on doing the same stupid crap we've been doing for decades (the official motto of the conservative party, from what I hear), or we can fix things the way they deserve to get fixed.

I'm not necessarily opposed to alternative energy if it can be shown that it is more practical and efficient than the evil N-word. However, I do think that taxing the populace to do all of this in the middle of the Second Great Depression might not be the best idea. We should focus on fixing our nation's economy first.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: classy
LOL.
Look we have a situation with our climate. Now whether or not its as bad as some we have us believe is irrelvant. We have to make some changes and unfortunately to get a cleaner enviroment may cost everyone a few dollars more. Having a safer and cleaner enviroment does not come for free. And anyone who just posted in this thread will never ever miss $100 a year and you know it. If this was several hundred or into the thousands then its an issue. $10 a month please. If $10 a month is such a huge problem, you should not have an internet connection.

Uh hu. I'm already paying hundereds of dollars per month in fees to the government for all of their special projects. Is it still not an issue?

Yea I know, the evil goverment. :roll: LOL, pathetic

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Wow, this is going to create millions of jobs! I'd like to see the math on that.

Frankly, I'm not too happy paying an additional $100 year in energy costs like this.

I feel like I'm being nickled and dimed for everything.

Not only because it's going to cost me an additional $100 per year, but I'll have to subsidize all of the people who can't afford the increase as well.

*sigh*

Gee you didn't feel "nickled and dimed for everything" under your hero Bush though eh?

I'm glad you're "not too happy"

Mission Accomplished Messiah Obama

Oh and you can forget $100 more per year, it will be more like $100 more per month and I bet more than that even. Pay up boy.

And yet you VOTED for him. TRAITOR. Thanks a lot for sticking us with the worst President ever!

 

[Fenixgoon]

congress will responsibly spend the money, right? :roll:

 

[Schadenfroh]

We have to make some changes and unfortunately to get a cleaner enviroment may cost everyone a few dollars more. Having a safer and cleaner enviroment does not come for free.

Time to build many new hydroelectric and nuclear power plants to replace our coal / oil power plants. It is also about time to get back to work on the Yucca Mountain (or equivalent) repository.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: classy
LOL.
Look we have a situation with our climate. Now whether or not its as bad as some we have us believe is irrelvant. We have to make some changes and unfortunately to get a cleaner enviroment may cost everyone a few dollars more. Having a safer and cleaner enviroment does not come for free. And anyone who just posted in this thread will never ever miss $100 a year and you know it. If this was several hundred or into the thousands then its an issue. $10 a month please. If $10 a month is such a huge problem, you should not have an internet connection.

Uh hu. I'm already paying hundereds of dollars per month in fees to the government for all of their special projects. Is it still not an issue?

Hey its only 10 bucks

 

[Patranus]

Its called nuclear.
Simple solution to a simple problem...yet that would put all of these "green" people out of jobs and Mr. Gore would lose his billions.
Do people not realize that this is just another push by a group that has a strong financial incentive to push it....

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
OMG OMG! I totally understand the fear and gnashing of teeth. It's like the nightmare world of paying $8/month to help clean up our energy production (at minimum) and maybe helping stave off climate change and creating tons of new jobs (at best) is coming true! Oh the humanity . . .

:roll:

If I thought it would actually help to "clean up our energy production" and "stave off climate change" I wouldn't mind paying it. In reality, 8 bucks a month isn't going to do shit to put a dent in either problem.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Its called nuclear.
Simple solution to a simple problem...yet that would put all of these "green" people out of jobs and Mr. Gore would lose his billions.
Do people not realize that this is just another push by a group that has a strong financial incentive to push it....

But nuclear is clean.

Don't those count as green jobs?

 

[Adrenaline]

Originally posted by: ebaycj
Really? All this bitching over an extra 8.33 per month on your combined total of electricity + natural gas ?

I guess there are a lot of broke-asses out there, though.

This bill passed a while ago, or was in discussion. I work in the oil industry, this will do a lot more than $8.33 a month. Find out what it will do to the price of gasoline per gallon alone.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Patranus
Its called nuclear.
Simple solution to a simple problem...yet that would put all of these "green" people out of jobs and Mr. Gore would lose his billions.
Do people not realize that this is just another push by a group that has a strong financial incentive to push it....

But nuclear is clean.

Don't those count as green jobs?

Isn't it funny how the "green" lobby are the major opposition to nuclear?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Patranus
Its called nuclear.
Simple solution to a simple problem...yet that would put all of these "green" people out of jobs and Mr. Gore would lose his billions.
Do people not realize that this is just another push by a group that has a strong financial incentive to push it....

But nuclear is clean.

Don't those count as green jobs?

Isn't it funny how the "green" lobby are the major opposition to nuclear?

I've...never understood that.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
I've...never understood that.

Its simple. They do not stand to make money on a viable solution. The "green" lobby would lose its power and means of income if nuclear was deployed on a large scale.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
congress will responsibly spend the money, right? :roll:

Congress couldn't spell the word.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: TruePaige
I've...never understood that.

Its simple. They do not stand to make money on a viable solution. The "green" lobby would lose its power and means of income if nuclear was deployed on a large scale.

While I'm sure there is a certain fringe group who would do that, I will go with Occam's razor on this one and simply say that we have a lot of stupid people in this country who get scared at the sound of the word nuclear.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Any of you cheap ass fuck heads figure up what global warming is going to cost you when we get the full effects?

Point taken, but can we even deal with it? Can we alone as a nation deal with it? How do you propose to get China and India and other nations to cut their emissions? In a way it's a tragedy of the commons situation--it isn't in any one nation's interest to do it unless all of the other nations are doing it.

What about addressing one of the huge underlying drivers of pollution--population explosion?

Can we walk and chew gum?

 

[Siddhartha]

The last I heard, it is recommended that pregnant women and children should not any eat fish from the Hudson river because of heavy metal contamination. A couple of years ago it was recommended that it was safe for everyone else to eat only one fish from the Hudson a year. I am not sure what is recommended now.

GE, GM, and other companies use to dumped their wastes into the river. This was not against the law at the time. It would have increase manufacturing costs to do something else with the heavy metal wastes besides dumping it into the river. But now it will cost huge amounts of money to clean up this mess.

My message is pay a small amount now or pay big later.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
And yet you VOTED for him. TRAITOR. Thanks a lot for sticking us with the worst President ever!

Bush isn't president anymore.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The last I heard, it is recommended that pregnant women and children should not any eat fish from the Hudson river because of heavy metal contamination. A couple of years ago it was recommended that it was safe for everyone else to eat only one fish from the Hudson a year. I am not sure what is recommended now.

GE, GM, and other companies use to dumped their wastes into the river. This was not against the law at the time. It would have increase manufacturing costs to do something else with the heavy metal wastes besides dumping it into the river. But now it will cost huge amounts of money to clean up this mess.

My message is pay a small amount now or pay big later.

Exactly. We are now reaping the negative repurcussions of bad business practices that were sowed in the past.

 

[StageLeft]

Wow, this is going to create millions of jobs! I'd like to see the math on that.

Last time the gov said that, uh, not so much.

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
"If you are a family making less than $250,000.00, my plan will not raise your taxes. Period..." but...

grrrRRR :|

Income taxes.

Funny how I never heard him say "I won't raise your income taxes" the many times I heard him talk about taxes on the campaign trail. Naw, he wasn't being intentionally misleading at all.

This has been talked about ad tedium elsewhere. He qualified his [Obama's] statement by saying "not any kind of tax". The "he only meant income taxes" is an argument used only by the hardest of the hardcore Obama supporters.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
OMG OMG! I totally understand the fear and gnashing of teeth. It's like the nightmare world of paying $8/month to help clean up our energy production (at minimum) and maybe helping stave off climate change and creating tons of new jobs (at best) is coming true! Oh the humanity . . .

:roll:

If I thought it would actually help to "clean up our energy production" and "stave off climate change" I wouldn't mind paying it. In reality, 8 bucks a month isn't going to do shit to put a dent in either problem.

I hear you! Just like acid rain, right? Oh wait ... there is no acid rain anymore. Hmmmm, I wonder how that happened? Hmmmm, 1990 Clean Air Act you say? Totally effective at cutting sulfur dioxide pollution, which causes acid rain, you say? At a cost of one fifth of the original EPA forecast, you say? Huh, how about that?

Nah, I hear you Chicken, the gov't can never do anything right. Never.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Patranus
Its called nuclear.
Simple solution to a simple problem...yet that would put all of these "green" people out of jobs and Mr. Gore would lose his billions.
Do people not realize that this is just another push by a group that has a strong financial incentive to push it....

But nuclear is clean.

Don't those count as green jobs?

They certainly should.