Global warming presentation:

24 posts / 0 new
Last post
investorzzo's picture
investorzzo
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 7 2008
Posts: 1182
Global warming presentation:

We have been concentrating on economics for so long, I thought it would be good to start  on the  debate on Global warming.  This guy is very impressive.

http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42

Jarhett's picture
Jarhett
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 21 2008
Posts: 132
Re: Global warming presentation:

If peak oil is such an imminent threat, then global warming is not such a concern since it will not be possible to pollute more than we currently do.

Alex Szczech's picture
Alex Szczech
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 105
Re: Global warming presentation:
Jarhett wrote:

If peak oil is such an imminent threat, then global warming is not such a concern since it will not be possible to pollute more than we currently do.

Well, there's still a hell of a lot of coal in the ground.Frown 

Last night it occured to me that fossil fuels are the ultimate Faustian bargain -- humanity gets 200-300 years of unamagined prosperity and growth in exchange for an uninhabital planet.

Climate change is going to do us in. Short of a pandemic killing off 95% of the population in the near term, we don't have it in us to make the changes necessary to avoid the worst case scenarios. Game's up.

Stan Robertson's picture
Stan Robertson
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 7 2008
Posts: 665
Re: Global warming presentation:

Here is a link to a "handful" of dissenting scientists (31,748) mentioned in the video.Science doesn't operate on consensus, but since the public seems to think it does, then maybe this will change some minds. None of us want a dirty environment, but let's see something besides hysteria as a basis for our actions.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Jarhett's picture
Jarhett
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 21 2008
Posts: 132
Re: Global warming presentation:

A couple of months ago on the Financial Newshour, they had an interview with G. Edward Griffin who wrote the Creature From Jekyll Island.  His opinion on global warming was that it is nothing more than a political rouse used by Al Gore, and the voters rejected it.  I started thinking about the political ramifications on having global warming created by fossil fuels.  By vilifying fossil fuels and putting limits on them, we are stunting the growth of emerging economies.  It would be impossible for China, India, Thailand, etc.  to overtake the U.S. in economic terms if there were strict limits on the amounts of fossil fuels they could use.  Furthermore, the U.S could gain in global warming because it would have another thing to produce and sell the world.  Just how Al Gore invented the Internet, which invigorated the U.S. economy, Al Gore would invent going green, which would spur a new economic expansion.  Global limits on emissions is just another way to control the third world and emerging economies, sort of imperialism through global warming.  

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Re: Global warming presentation:

There are actually several threads on this subject in the forums already...

"Climate Code Red": http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/climate-code-red-telling-truth-power/11268

"Global Warming: Is it worth brushing off?": http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/global-climate-change-it-worth-brushing/5895

Cheers!

Aaron

SagerXX's picture
SagerXX
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 11 2009
Posts: 2252
Re: Global warming presentation:

Hmm.  Regardless of where one stands on the "Is It or Ain't It Real" vis-a-vis Climate Change, I'd find it hard to believe that anybody would say "The more pollution the better" with a straight face.  

So:  what are the drawbacks to a super-aggressive program to drive clean energy?  IMO the "it'd be too expensive" argument has little merit -- right now, instead of shoveling money at AIG, why not spend a trillion dollars across the spectrum of clean[er] energy?  

Stupendous incentives for PV in every home -- make it close to free w/tax breaks, etc.  Hydro, wave, wind, thermal solar power plants.  That'd be an economic stimulus which'd spread into so many corners of the economy it'd make our heads spin.  Subsidize public transit.  Subsidize electric cars.  Subsidize R&D so the cost per-Kilowatt for PV/wind/hydro goes *below* that of coal/gas/nuke generation.

Reduce oil consumption low enough that we simplify our geopolitical predicament.  All the effort in producing the new grid/generation would rebuild or manufacturing base.  Over 20 years, we'd probably earn back in savings the trillion we spent. 

Viva -- Sager 

SteveS's picture
SteveS
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 6 2008
Posts: 358
Re: Global warming presentation:

I should know better than get involved in Global Waming thread, but.....

First I do think Global Warming is occuring, but I remain a bit skeptical and am open to real data and arguments either way.

- On the petition project:

  I have a degree so I can sign the petition even though I have no real expertise in the exact field. It's a poll of opinion, not science.

- On G. Edward Griffin:

 Have you read the book?  In it I think you find his opinion on the environmental conspiracy is rather outlandish. He sees it as a substitute for war. Again opinion, not science.

 

 

 

 

charlesHearn's picture
charlesHearn
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Posts: 2
Re: Global warming presentation:

Look at what Chris says about what to do in the crash course. If Global Warming is or is not real is not the point, the point is there is a debate about it and we should be asking ourselves, for action and policy cues, the following questions:

If it is a problem and we do nothing; we're screwed.

If it isn't a problem and we do nothing; nothing happens.

If it is a problem and we do something; we tried hurray. But did we do enough?

If it isn't a problem and we did something: what do we stand to lose or gain? Cleaner environment, increased efficiency, money saved, healthier people etc...

Inaction only has a neutral outcome in one instance, action may be painful initially, but we all know deep down we shouldn't be lazy, greedy slobs anymore about anything anyway.

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Re: Global warming presentation:

SagerXX,

You said:

Quote:

Stupendous incentives for PV in every home -- make it close to free w/tax breaks, etc.  Hydro, wave, wind, thermal solar power plants.  That'd be an economic stimulus which'd spread into so many corners of the economy it'd make our heads spin.  Subsidize public transit.  Subsidize electric cars.  Subsidize R&D so the cost per-Kilowatt for PV/wind/hydro goes *below* that of coal/gas/nuke generation.

I wish. It'd serve to widen the gap between energy monopoly control and energy independence, so I'm fairly sure we won't see it happen.

Capitalism is great - but it can be retarding if planned obsolescense becomes the ruling policy.
We haven't had any great innovations in this country since the 1960's.

I'd venture to say even the PC has created less community and social interaction, softening of gray matter through easy access to information... and quite possibly the most vulnerable infrastructure ever created.

Flying cars might have been too ambitious, but it's not unreasonable to expect the governing bodies to facilitate advances that improve the standard of living.

Ironically, this punctuates the degree to which "taxation without adaquete representation" has strangled our society. I don't even think most people are aware of how badly they're being cheated. 

Well said as usual.
Cheers...

Aaron

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3200
Re: Global warming presentation:

As Aaron pointed out, this topic has been discussed rather extensively elsewhere on this blog.  I discovered during those discussions that the so-called "skeptics" aren't skeptical.  They are convinced, based almost exclusively on political ideology.  Anyone who really takes the time to objectively look at the science will note that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is not some politically motivated theory, actual observational data from around the globe confirms that the planet is warming and that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, particularly CO2 and methane, continue to go up at the upper edge of the range that the IPCC predicted just two years ago.  Not so coincidentally, global temperatures are also going up at the upper end of the range predicted in the same report.  In other words, the predictions of that report, which have been flamed by the political right for being ridiculously extreme, have been shown to be rather conservative by observational data.

BTW, a recent study by NASA found that aerosols, tiny particulates, being discharged into the atmosphere appear to have a greater effect on Arctic temperatures than previously believed.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html

Quote:

Though there are several varieties of aerosols, previous research has shown that two types -- sulfates and black carbon -- play an especially critical role in regulating climate change. Both are products of human activity.

Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.

Quote:

At the same time, black carbon emissions have steadily risen, largely because of increasing emissions from Asia. Black carbon -- small, soot-like particles produced by industrial processes and the combustion of diesel and biofuels -- absorb incoming solar radiation and have a strong warming influence on the atmosphere.

In 2007, as was alarmingly documented in the popular press, the Arctic sea ice extent went to the lowest level on record.  Arctic temperatures have risen faster than elsewhere on the planet, leading to melting ice cover.

Quote:

The regions of Earth that showed the strongest responses to aerosols in the model are the same regions that have witnessed the greatest real-world temperature increases since 1976. The Arctic region has seen its surface air temperatures increase by 1.5 C (2.7 F) since the mid-1970s. In the Antarctic, where aerosols play less of a role, the surface air temperature has increased about 0.35 C (0.6 F).

Quote:

Since decreasing amounts of sulfates and increasing amounts of black carbon both encourage warming, temperature increases can be especially rapid. The build-up of aerosols also triggers positive feedback cycles that further accelerate warming as snow and ice cover retreat.

So, there is good and bad news in the report.  Fortunately, aerosols are more short lived in the atmosphere than CO2 or methane.  However, China is busily building hundreds of coal fired power plants, as are many other developing countries.  Unless they can be convinced to scrub the discharges of black carbon, the ice cover in the Arctic could melt even faster.

I will again recommend that those interested in understanding the science behind the phenomenon, check out http://realclimate.org/.  It contains the most complete discussions of the science of climate change that I have found on the web.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Global warming presentation:

A couple of months ago on the Financial Newshour, they had an interview with G. Edward Griffin who wrote the Creature From Jekyll Island.  His opinion on global warming was that it is nothing more than a political rouse used by Al Gore

 

Yeah, well you tell that to Aussie farmers down south who are experiencing the worst drought since the white man arrived  http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/04/murray-darling/draper-text?sou... whilst at the same time my state of Queensland was 2/3 underwater (I was personally flooded out for two days last week) and 1/3 of the state of Victoria was on fire killing over 200 people.....  and all this while you guys were experiencing blizzards and ice storms.

There are far fewer skeptics in Australia, believe me.

Mike 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Global warming presentation:

I don't know how many times we have to go through with this head in the sand attitude of skeptics..

The same tactics were used when Rachel Carson blew the whistle on DDT.  She was right.  Ditto smoking, Hole in the Ozone, Hubber King's [then] Peak Oil Theory and I'm sure many more examples could be added to the list.

It's not like AGW believers want everyone to give up sex or something.....!

Mike 

SamLinder's picture
SamLinder
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 10 2008
Posts: 1499
Re: Global warming presentation:
Damnthematrix wrote:

I don't know how many times we have to go through with this head in the sand attitude of skeptics..

The same tactics were used when Rachel Carson blew the whistle on DDT.  She was right.  Ditto smoking, Hole in the Ozone, Hubber King's [then] Peak Oil Theory and I'm sure many more examples could be added to the list.

It's not like AGW believers want everyone to give up sex or something.....!

Mike 

I do love your way with words, mate. Well said!  Wink

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Re: Global warming presentation:

Mike/Doug,

I'm not really a skeptic. As a person with a degree in Meteorology, my skepticism is towards those who are pushing the agenda. There are signs that the globe is warming - but the factors involved are absolutely not limited to human interference.

Marcus Aurelius said "Of each particular thing asked, what is it in itself?"

The earth is an organism sustaining parasitic flora and fauna. No different than the digestive bacteria in our stomachs.

Knowing some very rudimentary things about the human body, one can say when the bacteria become invasive or destructive, the body heats rapidly and the bacteria find themselves in a situation where survival is difficult.

If we are to approach Global Warming and blame it on humans, we have to be prepared to realize and accept that we're not simply miricles upon God's creation, but symbiotic beings upon it. That said, the human body becomes ill for a number of reasons, and increased temperature is not wholly indicitive of infection. So, there are other things to consider in both cases.

I hope my reasoning makes sense here... I see a lot of ambigious information regarding global warming - but I whole-heartedly subscribe to the ideal of living without creating a massive impact on our biosphere.

Aaron

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3200
Re: Global warming presentation:

Aaron,

Here's an interesting survey of earth scientists on the question of AGW.  In general, it shows that the closer scientists' specializations are to climatology, and the more they publish on the subject, the more likely they are to agree that the earth's climate is warming and that humans are having a significant effect on that warming (97%).  Interestingly, meteorologists are one of the groups least likely to agree that humans are affecting global warming.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

The study shows that only 58% of the general public agree with the proposition that humans are affecting the climate.  I suspect this low number is related to the sorry state of science education in the public.

doug

GregSchleich's picture
GregSchleich
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 187
Re: Global warming presentation:
investorzzo wrote:

This guy is very impressive.

http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42

I agree, Wonderingmind is a very thoughtful and articulate guy. I love his line, "while we're running the experiment, we're in the test tube!" But unfortunately, for me, this video does not deliver on it's claim that it will enable us to "decide with confidence what we should do." Towards the end of the film he says "there's a lot of reason to think we can fix this." Really? If he's talking about imminent irreversible tipping points, as he alludes to in the film, then I'm very skeptical. In my view, solving the problem of global warming will be no less daunting than solving the problem of peak oil.

I think it's well accepted that even if all the developed nations strictly adhered to the present Kyoto agreement until 2012, (which they're not) any improvement would be far more than offset by the increase in emissions coming from China and India, anyway. And while nothing Bjorn Lomborg says or does goes unchallenged, I have not seen any refutation of his startling claim that using the IPCCs own data, strict adherence to Kyoto, even if the U.S. also participated, would only delay global warming in 2050 by about one week.

Lomborg infuriates a lot of people, but he brings up an important point, largely overlooked. Literally and metaphorically, are we better off spending 100s of billions of dollars in a perhaps futile attempt to stem rising sea waters and future hurricanes, or should we instead be building levees and be moving to higher ground? Sure, we could try to do both, but let's not forget, it's a zero sum game. Money and energy spent on ineffective solutions leaves less money and energy for effective ones. This could very well be critical. So taking action is not risk free. We risk accomplishing very little while compromising our ability to do other important things.

But also hugely important to me, Wonderingmind completely fails to account for what I view as potentially the most concerning consequence of taking dramatic action (necessary or unnecessary) to combat global warming. Unfortunately I think it's very unlikely governments will do the right thing, which in my view would be to get rid of the debt-money system with it's attendant uber-consumerism. As they will therefore be working at cross purposes - trying to promote growth and trying to promote conservation at the same time - they are likely instead to resort to increasingly intrusive and authoritarian measures, as they attempt to micromanage economies and behaviors. 

Global warming may or may not be the greatest challenge we face, but if taking action is going to lead us further down the path towards an Orwellian dystopia, I have to think twice about taking that bargain.

Greg 

 

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Re: Global warming presentation:

Doug,

Climotologists are a very specialized field in Earth Sciences, and they aren't particularly keen on observing the actual phoenomon - they rely on forecasters/observers to aquire the data and assess it.

The job they do is more or less assessing trends - which does show that there is warming going on.

However, I don't see how they could justify that 97% is due to humans, when one volcanic eruption like Mt. Tambora can sprew as much C02 in 2 hours as we have since the industrial revolution.

No doubt we're effecting things and making them worse.
No doubt that we need to step up and be more responsible...

But I am extremely reluctant to say this is anything other than a natural cycle.

Also, keep in mind that climotologists predominately study urban areas, which are heat islands.
As a rule, their temperatures are higher than the rural areas - which are a better place to start if you're talking about "global" warming and not just "habitat warming".

So there are really two distinctly different subjects to interrogate here.
Humans effect on micro/meso-scale climates and habitats, and the net effect on the earth as a whole.

With chunks of ice breaking off in Antarctica, it's pretty hard to say we're not having an effect, but some of that may be natural as well.

Cheers!

Aaron

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Global warming presentation:

Things are a little different here in Australia.....  "a new assessment of public
attitudes to global warming suggest that that’s not the case. In fact
85% of the people surveyed believe climate change is a problem causes
by humans."

 http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s530052.htm

I could find more results like that.....  AGW skeptics are few and far between in this country, but most people have no idea that there are no technological answers to this, we just need to reduce consumption by 90%!

I like Aaron's body temperature idea....  I think the human race is like a cancer on the Planet.  And it will give us the flick if we continue on our merry way.

Mike 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Global warming presentation:

"However, I don't see how they could justify that 97% is due to humans,
when one volcanic eruption like Mt. Tambora can sprew as much C02 in 2
hours as we have since the industrial revolution."

Do you have a link for that Aaron, because I believe this to be patently untrue....

Mike 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3200
Re: Global warming presentation:

Aaron,

I think you misinterpreted what I wrote, or I wrote it badly.  The 97% applies to the proportion of climate scientists who agree that the climate is warming and that human activities are having a significant effect on the warming.

Yes, volcanic eruptions could have a significant effect for a relatively short term (couple years maybe) but I find it interesting that one of the things contrarians like to harp on, solar activity, has been virtually non-existant for nearly a decade, but global temperatures continue to go up. 

True, climate scientists use models, but they are nearly obsessive about observational data to check the validity of their models and interactions with other climate zones.  I don't know where you got the idea that climate scientists predominantly study urban areas.  There computers may be back at the University, but with satellite technology, the sensors they are putting all over the globe are feeding back data to their computers where the numbers are crunched and compared to models.  They know how to compensate for readings in urban areas:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/#more-454

Quote:

UHI effects have been documented in city environments worldwide and show that as cities become increasingly urbanised, increasing energy use, reductions in surface water (and evaporation) and increased concrete etc. tend to lead to warmer conditions than in nearby more rural areas. This is uncontroversial. However, the actual claim of IPCC is that the effects of urban heat islands effects are likely small in the gridded temperature products (such as produced by GISS and Climate Research Unit (CRU)) because of efforts to correct for those biases. For instance, GISTEMP uses satellite-derived night light observations to classify stations as rural and urban and corrects the urban stations so that they match the trends from the rural stations before gridding the data. Other techniques (such as correcting for population growth) have also been used.

Quote:

How much UHI contamination remains in the global mean temperatures has been tested in papers such as Parker (2005, 2006) which found there was no effective difference in global trends if one segregates the data between windy and calm days. This makes sense because UHI effects are stronger on calm days (where there is less mixing with the wider environment), and so if an increasing UHI effect was changing the trend, one would expect stronger trends on calm days and that is not seen. Another convincing argument is that the regional trends seen simply do not resemble patterns of urbanisation, with the largest trends in the sparsely populated higher latitudes.

As you say, ice chunks continue to break off in Antartica, and, I might add, Alaska and Greenland also, not to mention high altitude glaciers that continue to recede.  I think that ice cover, both glacial and sea ice, is really the canary in the coal mine of the earth's climate.  I try to pay attention to what science is telling us, rather than believing everything I read on my favorite blogs, including this collection of generally more astute observers.

OT alert - I can't resist throwing in a little baseball from time to time.  Thursday, my son was playing 3rd base for the HS team, and, in the process of tagging out a guy sliding in, broke his glove hand (left) thumb.  Now, that in itself isn't all that noteworthy, accidents like that happen all the time.  What is bizarre is that he has broken his thumbs three times in less than a year and a half.  Right thumb playing basketball last year, right thumb snowboarding in January this year and now left thumb Thursday.  What makes it worse is that the team left this morning for a tournament in Myrtle Beach next week.  He went, but just as an observer.  (I suspect he'll still get some partying in)

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Re: Global warming presentation:

Doug,

With regards to research climotologists - I can't say with any authority exactly how their work breaks down.

However, most of the data that they have comes from existing stations - I do know this, because I transmit climo data at the end of shift, as do all other ICAO's that have observing duty. Temps at these stations report higher temperatures than a rural area may observe because they absorb more heat. Many are automated, which makes data even sloppier.

The field portions, where analysts are out studying ice core samples and so on - those cats aren't studying urban areas - but the folks putting together climate models are using data from observations that are predominately located in urban or sub-urban areas. More often than not, near airports, which are heat islands.

Also, you said:

Quote:

Yes, volcanic eruptions could have a significant effect for a relatively short term (couple years maybe) but I find it interesting that one of the things contrarians like to harp on, solar activity, has been virtually non-existant for nearly a decade, but global temperatures continue to go up. 

Solar activity being "non-existant" for a decade is impossible. Being low however, is a very common occurance.
The "Solar Cycle" as we know it is a 11 year process, a gradual, seven year climb to a solar maximum - in which peak activity is observed followed by a rapid 4 year decline to a solar minimum.

Now this has little or nothing to do with the heating on the Earth. The thermal effects are relatively unchanged.
It's more a measure of charged particles bombarding our atmosphere and degrading our communications and electronic systems.

The Solar Flare is a burst of radiation and energy, but not necessarially heat... so far as I know. I've never been able to observe any heating based on increased solar activity.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is this:
Like every other form of research, there is a lot of subjective data that doesn't hold up well to scrutiny. I believe that we're experiencing the tail end of a brief warming trend (a gradual climb) that coincided with the industrial revolution and has been exacerbated by human industry.

That said, we are approaching the "forecast" end of the Holocene Interglacial period, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a rapid cooling trend in the next few hundred years.

Time will tell - we're talking about a subject that dwarfs humans in its scope and importance to life on earth.

Cheers!

Aaron

r's picture
r
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 262
Re: Global warming presentation:

USGS.Gov Volcanic gases and their effects

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs.
human activities.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between
about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of
CO2 into the atmosphere
every year (Gerlach, 1999,
1991
). This estimate includes both subaerial and
submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of
CO2 by human activities, including
fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring,
amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.].
Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of
CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea
(Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002).

DevinD's picture
DevinD
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 10 2009
Posts: 1
Re: Global warming presentation:

We can’t deny the fact that Global warming is one of the issues that the world is confronted by. The increase of the use of the Carbon Monoxide, which contributes to the high concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, is increasing as the years passed. Well, nations are making bills to reduce the use of the Greenhouse contributor to lessen the effect of Global Warming. Actually, there's a new global warming bill that's going through Congress.  The global warming bill, or the Waxman Markey Act, establishes a cap and trade system on carbon emissions, which some think will lead to a greener economy, more jobs, and cheaper energy bills.  Others think it won't amount to much – consumers will still need payday loans for their electricity bills and energy companies will be pocketing cash as it creates another industry bubble, and will only lead to consumers having to pay more out of pocket and more government programs that will need taxpayer funding.  A global warming bill of some kind was due eventually, but more people needing a cash advance for utilities isn't a great idea.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments