Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

new electricty tax - Page 4

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Van Chocstraw on March 29, 2009, 2:29 pm
 
Eric wrote:

But you'll get a $000 rebate from the cap and trade scam.

--
<<//--------------------\>>
        Van Chocstraw
 >>\--------------------//<<

Posted by Eeyore on March 29, 2009, 3:32 pm
 


Eric wrote:


What is the source of your information.

Graham


Posted by Frank on March 29, 2009, 3:55 pm
 Eric wrote:

I, too, do not know where you saw that number but cap and trade and
carbon offset proposals will increase taxes and need more utility
employees to comply and more bureaucrats for overseeing.  Result will be
big increase in cost of electricity.

Politics may not belong here but people should understand the political
decisions that effect cost.

Posted by Morris Dovey on March 29, 2009, 4:09 pm
 Eric wrote:

[ Ignoring the obvious political trolling, and thinking about the
economic aspects of such a hypothetical "reality"... ]

It should only be a problem for those lacking the basic human
intelligence to adapt to (predictable) change.

I expect the loudest complaints to come from those who insist they have
a "right" to squander resources at everyone else's expense.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

Posted by Ken Maltby on March 29, 2009, 7:53 pm
 

  I suspose it is logical to expect that the "change" that would
be predictable from society accepting the "changes" imposed
by a liberal "progressive" agenda, would be more taxation on
the means of production.  Yes, anyone with "basic human
intelligence" should see that comming.  "Adapting" to liberal
crazieness, is never a good idea, though.



  Hmm..? "At everyone else's expense"?  So I'm imposing some
expense on others when I buy heavily taxed fossil fuel generated
energy, but you aren't, if you get heavily subsidized (with my tax
dollars) "alternate" energy?

  As to "a "right" to squander resources" that can be taken several
ways:  One would be conspicuious consumption, like Al Gore
jetting to yet another Global Warming Conference.  Or the
gigawatts it must take to power John Edward's 28000 square
foot house.

  Another deals with what amounts to "squandering" the resource,
True jetting across an ocean probably burns more fossil fuel per
person, than taking a steamship and the steamship more than that
used by a sailing vessel, does that mean, in your oppinion, anyone
not using a sailboat to cross the seas is squandering resources?
How about a "Lifeflight" helicopter transporting an eight year old
to the hospital?  Helicopters are hardly fuel efficient.  (Oh, I am
sure you and Obama would allow that exception, but why is it
your call?)

   To me just burnning up our Petrochemical source stock, is a
poor use of the resource, but I don't own it, I haven't spent the
effort or expense to aquire it, and you haven't any ownership
"right" to it either.  If you are saying that, as a passenger on
"spaceship earth", you are responsible for how all the earth's
resources are used; then why are you letting all that nuclear
fuel resource just decay in the ground?

  What I find most telling is that you seem to think you (or
like thinking surrogates in the goverment) should be able to
take ownership away from those who have spent the efforts
to aquire control over the resources.  That you claim to be
doing so for the benifit of all (the workers), is not convincing
to many of us.  That we should believe you can make "better"
use of the resource, that you believe shouldn't be used at all,
(global warming don't you know); is just laughable.

  While I would much prefer to be talking about practical
ideas for alt.energy.homepower, if we are going to discuss
the political and political philosphy of energy related actions,
so be it.

  Luck;
      Ken




This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread