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: SiouxPal who wrote (389727)	6/8/2008 5:25:20 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573952

You should invite him to your thread Sioux. He's a hoot!

To: SiouxPal who wrote (389727)	6/8/2008 5:33:17 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573952

Put U.S.workers under Earth? Ben Lieberman Sunday, June 8, 2008 It may be time to put American workers on the endangered-species list. For nearly 40 years, the environmental movement has all but declared war on high-wage, blue-collar jobs, with considerable success. Now, a proposed global-warming bill called the America's Climate Security Act would finish off many of the remaining ones. Green activists and regulators have sent many such working men and women to the unemployment line, or to lower-wage service-sector jobs. Shutting down mines kills mining jobs, opposing logging decreases logging jobs, and, naturally, closing factories reduces factory jobs. Since 1969, more than a dozen environmental statutes, each spawning volumes of unnecessarily costly regulations and litigation, have targeted all manner of industrial activity. Some of these jobs have been destroyed outright, while others have been outsourced to nations with less expensive restrictions or none at all. But the Climate Security Act, currently debated in the Senate, may do more economic harm than all these past laws put together. Beginning in 2012, the bill cracks down on emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, which is blamed for global warming. This would raise energy prices significantly. Particularly hard-hit would be energy-intensive industries that rely on coal-fired electricity, such as steel, cement and paper. Also losing out are segments of the chemical industry that depend on natural gas as an energy source and chemical feedstock. Domestic oil production and refining would be hurt as well. According to a Heritage Foundation study, the bill would cost a half-million manufacturing jobs by 2018, 1 million by 2022, and more than 2 million by 2027. Of course, most of these displaced workers will eventually find something else to do, but often at lower wages. Some proponents claim new "green collar" jobs would make up the difference. For example, there will be more work at solar-panel manufacturers and other industries helped by the bill. But these jobs will be swamped by the number of those lost. The Heritage figures are net of any manufacturing jobs gained, and also exclude blue-collar jobs likely to be lost for reasons unrelated to the global-warming bill. The bottom line: This bill is a major job killer. The impact will disproportionately hurt the working class - both those who have blue-collar jobs already and those who will seek them in the future. For many people, these are the best jobs, and they offer the highest standards of living available. But if this bill passes, their numbers would dwindle considerably. To add insult to injury, as many households struggle with layoffs and shifts to lower-paying jobs, they also will have to endure higher prices for electricity, natural gas and gasoline thanks to this bill - a costly double whammy. The cost of gasoline alone is expected to rise 29 percent by 2030. Is there an upside that makes this sacrifice worthwhile? Even if one assumes the worst, environmentally speaking, of global warming, this bill is expected to reduce the Earth's future temperature by a small fraction of 1 degree - too small to even verify. And even less so if manufacturing jobs killed here are shipped to developing nations such as China, which is less energy efficient and has far more emissions. Overall, the America's Climate Security Act promises all economic pain for little or no environmental gain. The federal government recently listed the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, claiming that global warming is causing it harm. In reality, the number of polar bears has more than doubled in recent decades. Too bad there are no protections for something that is truly at risk of disappearing - the American blue-collar worker. Ben Lieberman is senior policy analyst for energy and environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).

To: SiouxPal who wrote (389727)	6/8/2008 6:32:50 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1573952

House Democrats “Kill” Investment in Alternative Fuels When Given the Chance, Congressional Democrats Refuse to Encourage American-Made Energy Production, Promote American Energy Independence and Lower Gas Prices June 4, 2008 With Americans paying $4 gasoline, they are demanding their elected officials take meaningful steps to increase the supply and use of American-made energy. Today, unfortunately, a number of House Democrats dashed those hopes, instead walking in lock-step with party leaders. Earlier today, Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA) offered an amendment in a House Science Committee session to allow the federal government to expand its use of alternative fuels and energy derived through next-generation, environmentally friendly means. The Capitol Hill publication Congressional Quarterly reported: “Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., offered an amendment to the NASA bill (HR 6063) that would have deleted language in the 2007 law (PL 110-140) that prohibits federal agencies from buying alternative fuels ... Gingrey called the provision in the law ‘misguided.’ … The amendment was then tabled, or killed, by a [party-line] vote of 20-14.” More than two years ago, Democrats who now control Congress promised a “commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.” And last July 4th was dubbed “energy independence day” by the Democratic Congress. Yet when given the chance to take decisive action to implement real solutions to our energy crisis, 20 Democrats on the Science Committee killed it. Who are they? gop.gov. Democratic Representative How They Voted on Expanding the Use of Alternative Fuels Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) NO Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO) NO Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY) NO Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL) NO Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) NO Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) NO Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN) NO Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-OR) NO Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX) NO Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) NO Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) NO Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) NO Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA) NO Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) NO Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ) NO Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA) NO Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) NO Rep. Charlie Wilson (D-OH) NO Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) NO Rep. David Wu (D-WA) NO Responding to the Democrats’ lack of leadership on this critical issue and their no-energy energy strategy, Rep. Gingrey said in a statement today: “NASA has historically been on the cutting edge of innovation with numerous contributions to the technologies that we use on a daily basis in the United Statees. Currently, NASA is partnering with the Air Force and is already aggressively conducting research to convert domestic energy sources – coal, natural gas, biomass, and oil shale – into cleaner and more economical alternatives to traditional jet fuel. However, as gas prices continue to rise, and at a time when we could best utilize the research of emerging technologies for alternative fuels, with Section 526 the Democratic Majority has effectively stymied innovation at NASA that could potentially help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”