CBO; deficit NEUTRAL Cap & Trades 1.9M jobs consumer cost? +$30 annually until parity is reached by 2025.

How much did your E rates go up from w's $4.3T Faux oil war? +230%
Your gasoline? +320%
Taxes will increase? +20%
US MILT Dead Body Count? +4,400
US MILT Injured Body Count? +483,000
Collateral Dead unarmed Iraqi's +1.3 Million!
Increased Production cost of Goods & Services? +33%
Increased Cost of delivering Goods & services? +300%
The National Debt? From $5.5 Trillion to $12 Trillion!
The Deficit? From FY ' 01 +$250B surplus to w's left FY '09 -$400B monthly deficit & 1/20/09 deficit of -$1.2 Trillion!

W's $4.3 Trillion Fuax Oil War cost? Priceless!

Cost of Wind & Solar fuel? 0.00%
All Solar & Wind prices are Adjusted for 0 inflation from now through infinity...

Thank you very much, I will now buy my energy from the FREE Supplying SUN, WIND & Record Feed grain crop surpluses producing Ethanol, that all falls freely on US Soil, reducing the Peak oil demand via plug in hybrids & E85, 85% Alcohol that is US grown powering all 1993 or later vehicles.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. June 18-21, 2009. MoE ± 3.5 (for all adults)

"Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?"

> 6/18-21/09 Should 75% Should Not 22% Unsure 3%
> 4/21-24/09 Should 75% Should Not 21% Unsure 4%

Asked of those who answered "Should":
"What if it raised the price of things you buy? In that case do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases?"

> 6/18-21/09 should 80% Should Not 18% Unsure 2%

* Wind powers 10% or 10M US homes today, while ACES creates 1.7M WELL PAYING Domestic Energy JOBS! 5 Giga Watts of Thin Film Solar is NOW produced annually in the US = to 4 Nuclear plants, but w/o the radioactive waste & expensive fuel decontamination!

Explain this GW deniers: "w's NASA: The ten warmest years (Since 1880 when accurate instrumental measurements began) all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

Ma'am, it sure sounds like an all American area that you live in, enjoy it, learn from the locals, be apart of the cure not part of the problem.

Also, I dont know anyone that does or would support "Cap & Tax"!!!

P.S. Thank God Algore was never President...Semper Fi

as a fellow Southerner, I can tell you that you have no clue what you're talking about. My first boss - 25 YEARS AGO - was a woman; guess no one told her or the company that equal rights was a myth.

Global warming, meanwhile, at least the man-made variety IS a fallacy. How else do you explain similar periods of warming decades, even centuries, ago? Maybe instead of reading the DailyKos and watching MSNBC, you ought to try out Fox and hear a perspective or two that challenges your beliefs, particularly the ones that are disproven.

Climate change, by the way, is redundant. That is what climate does, and in the past ten years, the change has been to cooling from warming. Try research; it can be a wonderful tool and a good distraction to your default tack of insulting those who do not agree with you.

Re: health reform, just one question, though you won't be able to rely on left wing talking points to answer, so I'll take an especially deep breath: what in govt's administration of other programs gives you confidence in its ability to manage the equivalent of one-sixth of the nation's economy? Is it govt's record of being a responsible steward of public dollars? Can't be that. Govt isn't business, it was not set up to be a business, has no idea how to act like one and demonstrates that reality time and again. Yet, you believe that will change with health care. How and why?

Non Partisan CBO: The Economic Effects of Policies to Reduce Greenhouse-Gas Emissions

CBO Director; Yesterday I testified about the economic effects of legislation aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, drawing on a report that CBO released a few weeks ago.

Global climate change poses one of the nation’s most significant long-term policy challenges. A strong consensus has developed in the expert community that, if allowed to continue unabated, the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will have extensive, highly uncertain, but potentially serious and costly impacts on regional climates throughout the world. Moreover, the risk of abrupt and even catastrophic changes in climate cannot be ruled out.

Reducing the extent of climate change would entail substantial reductions in U.S. emissions and in emissions from other countries over the coming decades.

Achieving such reductions in this country would probably involve some combination of three broad changes: transforming the U.S. economy from one that runs on carbon-dioxide-emitting fossil fuels to one that increasingly relies on nuclear and renewable fuels; accomplishing substantial improvements in energy efficiency; and implementing the large-scale capture and storage of carbon dioxide emissions.

My testimony emphasized several points:

* The economic impact would depend importantly on the design of the policy.

Decisions about whether to reduce greenhouse gases primarily through market-based systems (such as taxes or a cap-and-trade program) or primarily through traditional regulatory approaches that specify performance or technology standards would influence the total costs of reducing emissions and the distribution of those costs.

The costs would also depend on the stringency of the policy; whether other countries imposed similar policies; the amount of flexibility about when, where, and how emissions would be reduced; and the allocation of allowances if a cap-and-trade system was used.
* Reducing the risk of climate change would come at some cost to the economy. For example, CBO concludes that the cap-and-trade provisions of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, would reduce GDP below what it would otherwise have been—by roughly ¼ to ¾ percent in 2020 and by between 1 and 3½ percent in 2050. By way of comparison, CBO projects that real (that is, inflation-adjusted) GDP will be roughly two and a half times as large in 2050 as it is today, so those changes would be comparatively modest.

In the models that CBO reviewed, the long-run cost to households would be smaller than the changes in GDP because consumption falls by less than GDP and because households benefit from more time spent in nonmarket activities.

*** Moreover, these measures of potential costs do not include any benefits of averting climate change.

* Climate legislation would cause permanent shifts in production and employment away from industries that produce carbon-based (PEAK oil Cost of Pollution Vs. Solar & Wind, Bio fuels & Geo Thermal) energy and energy-intensive goods and services and toward industries that produce alternative energy sources and less-energy-intensive goods and services.

While those shifts were occurring, total employment would probably be reduced a little compared with what it would have been without such a policy, because labor markets would most likely not adjust as quickly as would the composition of demand for different outputs.

* CBO has estimated the loss in purchasing power that would result from the primary cap-and-trade program in H.R. 2454, incorporating both the higher prices that households would face and the compensation they would receive (primarily through the allocation of allowances or the proceeds from their sale).

CBO’s measure omits some channels of influence on households’ well-being that cannot be readily quantified, and it appears that the measure probably understates the true burden to a small degree.

* As estimated, the loss in purchasing power would be modest and would rise over time as the cap became more stringent, accounting for 0.2 percent of after-tax income in 2020 and 1.2 percent in 2050.

Households in the lowest fifth of households when arrayed by income would see gains in purchasing power in both 2020 and 2050, because the compensation they would receive would exceed the costs they would bear. However, households in the middle fifth would see net losses in purchasing power amounting to 0.6 percent of after-tax income in 2020 and 1.1 percent in 2050.


* NASA fmr. w Chief Climatoligist, 6000 BC to 1780 AD co2 = 280 PPM unchanged for 8,000 years.

Untrue claims of no Co2 rise are also bogus in that when the industrial revolution began in 1780 & since 6000 B.C the stableized Co2 = 280 PPM.

1780 Co2 was 280 PPM +1/4 PPM@year
1960 Co2 was 330 PPM +1 PPM@year
1990 Co2 was 360 PPM +1.5 PPM@year
2008 Co2 was 385 PPM +2 PPM@year
Q1 3/30/09 2009 Co2 is 386 PPM +3 PPM@year
Q2 3/30/09 2009 Co2 is 387 PPM +3 PPM@year
Q3 3/30/09 2009 Co2 is 388 PPM +3 PPM@year

NASA Chief Climatoligist, James Hanson's undisputed data set above proves that at current rates, by 2050 Co2 will be = 500+ PPM

When this co2 level was last reached on Earth the oceans were 300 feet higher because polar ice was non-existant due to the "greenhouse effect" i.e. Global Climate change.
http://www.earthsky.org/teachers/article/ancient-ice-indicates-recent-and-rapid-co2-rise
(add h) ttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8369
(add h) ttp://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/climate-impact-of-quadrupling-co2
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090402_seaice.html

Denial of the obvious won't change the runoff results from the current 99% glacier meltdown, combined with today's ancient melting permafrost now releasing Methane, which is 28 times more Greenhouse gas destructive than Co2...

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The first comprehensive report into the human cost of climate change warns the world is in the throes of a "silent crisis" that is killing 300,000 people each year.

More than 300 million people are already seriously affected by the gradual warming of the earth and that number is set to double by 2030, the report from the Global Humanitarian Forum warns.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/05/29/annan.climate.change.human/index.html?iref=werecommend

I like your approach but Greenland was never "green" when it was discovered. It was named that to attract people there and away from Iceland... which has the better land and is somewhat green. Basically trickery through nomanclature. But yes the Earth naturally goes through cycles of warmer climates and colder climates. Has anyone stopped to think that maybe things are getting warmer not because of Global Warming but because the Earth is coming out of a mini Ice Age? The cycle continues.

If it sounds insane, looks insane, talks insane and smells insane - a lefty will believe it but will still think their nose is someone else's when they see it in the mirror.