![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
realthogPds_lit got a communique the other day from Representative Scott Garrett that she cites on her LJ blog. It's worth quoting here, too, because . . . well, read it first:
While there is little to no positive environmental impact from the regulation of CO2, the negative economic impact is tremendous. Under this regulation, facilities that emit more than 25,000 tons of CO2-equivalent per year and newly constructed or modified facilities that emit more than 75,000 tons per year, will be required to acquire emissions permits. The cost of compliance will lead to higher energy prices, which will ultimately affect American consumers. The overall economic effect will be trillions of dollars and would lead to a decrease of more than one million jobs in our economy. While the nation suffers from numerous months of unemployment at 9 percent or higher, I do not believe we should seek to burden job creators with more government red tape . . .
You've guessed the reason for quoting it, haven't you?
Yep. It is complete and utter bullshit from start to finish. It's hard to know whether (a) Garrett has been entirely bought and paid for by the fossil-fuel industry and is simply regurgitating their falsehoods or if (b) he is so entirely ignorant and/or stupid (in this context the same thing, if you think about it) as to believe the garbage he's uttering.
But, hang on: we pay our representatives not to be ignorant about the issues, and they have staffers -- whom we also pay for -- to research the information for them. So, since Garrett is issuing this tripe with all the faux-authority of someone who supposedly knows what he's talking about, I have to go along with option (a).
Sooner or later there'll be a time when Garrett's kids are going to nail his head to the wall, because they're going to have to live -- or not live -- with the consequences of his eager snuffling at the trough today.
While there is little to no positive environmental impact from the regulation of CO2, the negative economic impact is tremendous. Under this regulation, facilities that emit more than 25,000 tons of CO2-equivalent per year and newly constructed or modified facilities that emit more than 75,000 tons per year, will be required to acquire emissions permits. The cost of compliance will lead to higher energy prices, which will ultimately affect American consumers. The overall economic effect will be trillions of dollars and would lead to a decrease of more than one million jobs in our economy. While the nation suffers from numerous months of unemployment at 9 percent or higher, I do not believe we should seek to burden job creators with more government red tape . . .
You've guessed the reason for quoting it, haven't you?
Yep. It is complete and utter bullshit from start to finish. It's hard to know whether (a) Garrett has been entirely bought and paid for by the fossil-fuel industry and is simply regurgitating their falsehoods or if (b) he is so entirely ignorant and/or stupid (in this context the same thing, if you think about it) as to believe the garbage he's uttering.
But, hang on: we pay our representatives not to be ignorant about the issues, and they have staffers -- whom we also pay for -- to research the information for them. So, since Garrett is issuing this tripe with all the faux-authority of someone who supposedly knows what he's talking about, I have to go along with option (a).
Sooner or later there'll be a time when Garrett's kids are going to nail his head to the wall, because they're going to have to live -- or not live -- with the consequences of his eager snuffling at the trough today.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 06:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 06:37 pm (UTC)You're absolutely right. Until the atmosphere actually catches fire the most sensible judgement is that the science of climate change is not yet settled and it's all a global conspiracy by the alien reptiles who've taken over the reins of power, an' . . . an' . . . an' . . . I met this guy on a plane once who told me it was the freemasons.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-24 04:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-24 12:09 pm (UTC)Hm. You forgot to use the term "worldwide plot by climate scientists trying to safeguard their incomes" from that spiel!
no subject
Date: 2011-09-24 09:14 pm (UTC)I believe in climate change - the evidence is too overwhelming to disbelieve. However, evey time I see in print that something is going to cost, I cannot help but believe that someone, somewhere, will use anything as an excuse to get more money out of the poor and middle class. Witness: an oil shortage in the 70's led to higher prices. Later, when oil was more plentiful, prices were kept high in order to keep profits high, etc. Anhything for an excuse to bleed the consumer.
I did not mean that the science is "bull", just the rationale for costs. We will either take steps regarding climate change or we will ultimately go extinct, wont we?
no subject
Date: 2011-09-24 10:35 pm (UTC)I kind of share your cynicism. However, making clean fuel expensive is a political decision -- fuel can be either taxed or subsidized, as you imply -- while shifting to clean fuel can create millions of jobs . . . as other countries, including China and plenty of others, are demonstrating.
There's an article of relevance here: http://www.truth-out.org/amid-solyndra-mess-doe-stays-course-making-solar-cheap-coal/1316882588
no subject
Date: 2011-09-24 12:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-24 01:11 pm (UTC)I needed a reason to repeatedly pound my head against the wall this morning.
Repeatedly pounding Scott Garrett's head against the wall might be a more constructive approach?