What does science tell you about reducing earmarks?
Religious rhetoric does not scream “Tea Party” to me, though; one finds little of it on their rally-signs or in their literature (though one always senses a certain subtext, religious in style if not content). What one finds is all about a bloated federal government, high taxes, overregulation, etc., which is what one would expect “local notables” to complain about first and foremost, the things that affect their local power and autonomy and bottom-lines.
Not much, and that is why I did not use them as examples, so the point stands, there are indeed items that are clearly extreme positions; and it is important to let all Americans that do appreciate science and reason to be aware of what is going on with the Republican party nowadays.
Meanwhile, Keystone still languishes despite the science being 100% in support of the project.
Not from where I look at, Keystone is OK if you only look at the locations and technology, but being OK ignores that it means that even more CO2 will be dumped in the near future.
And when they get elected what do they do? They pass a bunch of religious stuff and try to invade people’s privacy.
Except that if we don’t build it, we still use the same amount of gas and oil, and further we use riskier means to transport it.
Maybe we need to start looking at the problem from that end.
And still missing the point, we have to reduce emissions, we have to reduce the use of specially dirtier fossil fuels, that it will be more risky does also make the point that we should reduce their use in the first place.
Can you at least agree that Trutherism and Birtherism are preposterous?
Yes. Those ideas and those who promulgate them are preposterous and not to be taken seriously.
Tea Party Nation has posted The Birther Manifesto. If ‘those who promulgate them are preposterous and not to be taken seriously’, and the Tea Party acknowledges that they, as a group, are Birthers, then the Tea Party is preposterous and not to be taken seriously.
We are. Hyrbid cars, electric cars, natural gas replacing oil for utilities, solar power getting closer to becoming viable.
But in the meantime, let’s not do what Europe did, see rates skyrocket with the risk of blackouts. They had to roll back their ambitious plans when reality set in.
GIGO, we should reduce their use. YOu don’t do that by trying to drive up the price by restricting supply. Not that it doesn’t ever work, but it’s the same theory behind fighting the drug war, made more difficult by the fact that you’re trying to restrict a legal product.
Now that is the most ridiculous excuse made for that. And this is because this is one item where adding the real price to us using the atmosphere as a sewer is necessary, as a carbon tax, cap and trade and other ideas are seen as better options than just doing regulations.
Oh? Germany: Bloomburg says its going along quite nicely:
Record German Wind Power Lifts Renewable Share Over ’20 Goal
Forbes, however, swears its all going straight to Hell in der handenbasket:
Germany’s Energy Goes Kaput, Threatening Economic Stability
(Should, of course, be noted that the Forbes is an editorial, an opinion piece.)
You have the unfortunate habit of blandly declaring issues to be settled fact instead of subjects of controversy. Do work on that, won’t you? There’s a good fellow…
psssttt
Got some premium hi-test here . . .
So today the House did something sane: they passed a clean debt limit increase. I told you all they were learning. Sometimes I do get it right.
And elucidator:
A deep and lasting economic slowdown, persistently high prices for renewable energy sources and years of inconclusive international negotiations are giving European officials second thoughts about how aggressively to remake the Continent’s energy-production industries.
The details are still being negotiated in Brussels, but officials said the European Commission’s energy and climate proposal will probably include a binding target of reducing emissions by 35 percent to 40 percent by 2030. Some officials wanted to make the new targets for renewable energy nonbinding. But opposition this week appears to have turned the tide in favor of having a binding renewable target — although it would be applied across the European Union rather than to individual nations, according to an official briefed on the negotiations.
…
Germany, which has pushed for the energy and climate targets, has been struggling with the realities of shifting its energy mix. Germany’s plan, backed by Chancellor Angela Merkel and opposition parties, to close its nuclear power plants and build up renewable energy is running into problems. German consumers are being hit with rising electric bills, and businesses worry that energy costs are putting them at a disadvantage with competitors in countries like the United States.
Now if Democrats want to push up energy bills in pursuit of emissions goals, they should run on that. GIGO evidently thinks they should.
And then there’s this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/16/eu-climate-transport-idUSL5N0KQ26K20140116
BRUSSELS, Jan 16 (Reuters) - The European Union’s climate and energy strategy for 2030 will not include a specific target on curbing emissions from transport, the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases in the bloc and the most expensive to cut.
Many in industry and some member states have pushed hard for a simplified EU climate framework after 2020, when current policies expire, that ditches existing sub-targets for sectors such as transport and energy.
That would allow governments to pursue the most cost-effective emissions cuts as they try to safeguard the bloc’s fragile economic recovery.
But critics say this will mean emissions from transport continue to rise in contrast to all other sectors, making it less likely that Europe will meet its long-term climate goals.
I guess we learned that Boehner can put the country above his job as Speaker? But you probably shouldn’t act like the Republican party supported this.
They weaseled. They supported it, but wanted to be seen as voting against it. But Boehner was given clearance to put this bill forward by key conservatives.
So weaseling into the good graces of right wing extremists is a successful long term strategy then? It’ll help in the primaries sure, but once in the general election having a voting record that supports a second government shut down (or can be easily made to look that way) is probably not ideal.
How is this vote not evidence that Tea Party extremists are still in control of the GOP if the majority of the GOP won’t even risk being associated with not shutting down the government and wasting billions of dollars? The only hope is to bank on everyone forgetting this by November, but considering it will almost certainly come up in the primaries as proof of “conservative cred” that seems unlikely. What positive spin do you see on this vote post-primaries for the Republican Party?