quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Cap and trade will put a hugh financial burdon on businesses and consumers. That is why republicans are against it, not because someone is telling them how to vote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Cap and trade will put a hugh financial burdon on businesses and consumers. That is why republicans are against it, not because someone is telling them how to vote.

Then why were they previously for it?

And why are they against it now if not just to obstruct anything Obama does?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Cap and trade will put a hugh financial burdon on businesses and consumers. That is why republicans are against it, not because someone is telling them how to vote.

Then why were they previously for it?

And why are they against it now if not just to obstruct anything Obama does?

"they" were never for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Cap and trade will put a hugh financial burdon on businesses and consumers. That is why republicans are against it, not because someone is telling them how to vote.

Then why were they previously for it?

And why are they against it now if not just to obstruct anything Obama does?

"they" were never for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Cap and trade will put a hugh financial burdon on businesses and consumers. That is why republicans are against it, not because someone is telling them how to vote.

Then why were they previously for it?

And why are they against it now if not just to obstruct anything Obama does?

"they" were never for it.

Better check with Lindsey Graham, Mary Bono Mack, Michael Castle, Mark Kirk, Leonard Lance, Frank LoBiondo, John McHugh, Dave Reichert and Christopher smith about that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Cap and trade will put a hugh financial burdon on businesses and consumers. That is why republicans are against it, not because someone is telling them how to vote.

Then why were they previously for it?

And why are they against it now if not just to obstruct anything Obama does?

"they" were never for it.

Do you ever bother to double-check any of the idiotic things that pop into your brain Willbeur?

I mean before you open your mouth and make yourself appear as foolish as always.

The Political History of Cap and Trade

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Your link supports exactly what I said....two Republican administrations, including majorities in both Houses at times, but no "emissions trading". Guess "they" didnt support it now, did they.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Your link supports exactly what I said....two Republican administrations, including majorities in both Houses at times, but no "emissions trading". Guess "they" didnt support it now, did they.

It actually helps if you read the link provided.


Getting all this to work in the real world required a leap of faith. The opportunity came with the 1988 election of George H.W. Bush. EDF president Fred Krupp phoned Bush's new White House counsel—Boyden Gray—and suggested that the best way for Bush to make good on his pledge to become the "environmental president" was to fix the acid rain problem, and the best way to do that was by using the new tool of emissions trading.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html#ixzz0rX4VP55v

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


I read it and your quote once again supports what I said. The "best way" to accomplish something was emissions trading, yet GHWB, the leader of the Republican party, didnt implement it. Again "they" didnt support it. Regulating carbon and CO2 has never been a platform of Republican party leadership.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


I read it and your quote once again supports what I said. The "best way" to accomplish something was emissions trading, yet GHWB, the leader of the Republican party, didnt implement it. Again "they" didnt support it. Regulating carbon and CO2 has never been a platform of Republican party leadership.

You didn't read a thing or you would not be continuing to embarrass yourself.


Whether cap-and-trade would curb acid rain remained in doubt until 1995, when the cap took effect. Nationwide, acid rain emissions fell by three million tons that year, well ahead of the schedule required by law. Cap-and-trade—a term that first appeared in print that year—quickly went "from being a pariah among policy makers," as an MIT analysis put it, "to being a star—everybody's favorite way to deal with pollution problems."

Almost 20 years since the signing of the Clean Air Act of 1990, the cap-and-trade system continues to let polluters figure out the least expensive way to reduce their acid rain emissions.


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

WTF does acid rain have to do with carbon/CO2? That is what we are discussing....not actual pollution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

WTF does acid rain have to do with carbon/CO2? That is what we are discussing....not actual pollution.

No, that wasn't what we discussing until you just tried to shift the focus to that.