Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (229820)	4/18/2005 7:42:18 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576633

In the first "statement" your problem is with "small increments", in your second you say "The extra spending bothers me less than the extra government control over how resources get used". It's obvious to the casual reader that you are shifting around... but maybe it all makes sense in your head. re: Second, who do you think controls all of the revenue the government receives? **** Congress controls it to a large extent and the people who administer various government departments control it to a finer extent. What's you point? My point is that you said: "The extra spending bothers me less than the extra government control over how resources get used and where investments are maid <sic>." Government ALREADY controls the resources as you admit; how can you say: "bothers me less than the extra government control over how resources get used"? More contradiction. re: That we vote for congress so that the people of the US control the money? That is true but it doesn't change a thing about my point. Democratically directed government power tends to be better than what you get from a dictatorship but it still leads to reduced freedom and often to reduced economic growth. It's hard to figure sometimes what's going on in the philosophical abyss of your libertarian mind. Besides, we are off the original topic (which always happens with you), the positives and negatives of government intervention to make our automobile fleet more efficient. John

To: TimF who wrote (229820)	4/19/2005 1:45:06 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576633

Apparently, the Kyoto Protocol would not be the negative that so many Bush adherents claimed it would be. ted ******************************************************* Emissions limits wouldn't hurt economy, government says** By JOHN HEILPRIN The Associated Press WASHINGTON — Mandatory limits on all U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases would not significantly affect average economic-growth rates across the country through 2025, the government says. That finding by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent arm of the Energy Department, runs counter to President Bush's repeated pronouncements that limits on carbon dioxide and other gases that warm the atmosphere like a greenhouse would seriously harm the U.S. economy. Bush has proposed voluntary ways of slowing the growth rate in U.S.-produced greenhouse gases and methods to reduce emissions of methane internationally. But he rejected U.S. participation in the Kyoto international treaty negotiated by the Clinton administration — a pact that seeks to mandate reductions in emissions. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., asked the EIA to study the possible effects of a proposal by the National Commission on Energy Policy, a nongovernment panel created and paid for by several U.S. philanthropic foundations. The commission proposed capping how much carbon dioxide, methane and other gases factories, mines and power plants would be allowed to emit. Beginning in 2010, businesses that pollute more than their allotment would have to pay up to $7 a ton to those that pollute less. The buying and selling of such pollution would slow growth of greenhouse-gas emissions by 2.4 percent a year, the commission said. EIA estimates the commission's plan would cut greenhouse gases by 7 percent, or 622 million tons, from what is forecast for 2025. Emissions would still increase 1 percent a year on average during the interim. But without imposing the limits the plan suggests, that rate would be 1.5 percent. Carrying out the plan also would reduce total fossil-fuel consumption by 2.7 percent by 2025, though "oil use is reduced only minimally," EIA said. At the same time, EIA found that coal use would increase 22 percent over that time, electricity prices would rise less than 5 percent and gasoline prices would go up by a few pennies a gallon. William K. Reilly, the commission co-chairman who headed the Environmental Protection Agency under the first President Bush, said it was an old argument that the economy could not withstand greenhouse-gas reductions. He said both his commission and the EIA have shown otherwise. EIA estimated that carrying out the commission's plan would cost each U.S. household $78 per year, reducing the gross domestic product in 2025 by about one-tenth of 1 percent. The commission also recommended a 36 percent increase in the average fuel economy for cars and light-duty trucks between 2010 and 2015, and doubling to $3 billion a year the budget for federal energy research and development. Adding those measures to the greenhouse-gas plan, EIA estimated, would reduce the nation's gross domestic product in 2025 by about four-tenths of 1 percent. The White House said yesterday the commission's plan would amount to losses of about $313 billion in GDP and 101,000 jobs a year by 2025. archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com