You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Debate this week on the Lieberman-Warner carbon reduction bill that is being pushed through the Senate by Senator Boxer.
Some basic stuff:
Lieberman finally did something useful!
Bush promises to
Debate this week on the Lieberman-Warner carbon reduction bill that is being pushed through the Senate by Senator Boxer.
Some basic stuff:
Lieberman finally did something useful!
Bush promises to veto.
McCain is trying to have it both ways by saying he's for it, but that he's also against it because he wants it more nuclear friendly. Obama is for it.
About 73% of voters have expressed support for such a bill in the abstract.
Political, corporate and institutional support is very strong.
Republican opponents will filibuster it if need be, but opponents from both parties seem certain that it will fail on a straight up or down vote. Most supporters see it as a dress rehearsal and support building activity for next year or the year after.
As always, during debate a series of "poison pill" deal-killing amendments will be offered by senators from coal states and anti-taxers.
Harry Reid isn't going to push Democrats in the Senate who think this will be too costly politically in an election year that has high gas prices as an issue.
__________________
"For if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." Thomas DeQuincey, 1700's
Debate this week on the Lieberman-Warner carbon reduction bill that is being pushed through the Senate by Senator Boxer.
Some basic stuff:
Lieberman finally did something useful!
Bush promises to veto.
McCain is trying to have it both ways by saying he's for it, but that he's also against it because he wants it more nuclear friendly. Obama is for it.
About 73% of voters have expressed support for such a bill in the abstract.
Political, corporate and institutional support is very strong.
Republican opponents will filibuster it if need be, but opponents from both parties seem certain that it will fail on a straight up or down vote. Most supporters see it as a dress rehearsal and support building activity for next year or the year after.
As always, during debate a series of "poison pill" deal-killing amendments will be offered by senators from coal states and anti-taxers.
Harry Reid isn't going to push Democrats in the Senate who think this will be too costly politically in an election year that has high gas prices as an issue.
I think pretty soon you're going to have to call up your local Republican representative for permission to do anything in life - as long it's okay with them, you should be okay.
Why not take all of that money and invest it into building the infrastructure to move hydrogen around quickly and easily in the US. Give industrial/commercial business incentives to switch to hydrogen instead of gasoline or other carbon emitting fuels, and put service stations in, so its easier to own a hydrogen based vehicle. Americans will do whatever is convenient. If the infrastructure is there, everyone would want to own a hydrogen vehicle.
__________________ In order to do good, you may have to engage evil.
Why not take all of that money and invest it into building the infrastructure to move hydrogen around quickly and easily in the US. Give industrial/commercial business incentives to switch to hydrogen instead of gasoline or other carbon emitting fuels, and put service stations in, so its easier to own a hydrogen based vehicle. Americans will do whatever is convenient. If the infrastructure is there, everyone would want to own a hydrogen vehicle.
Hydrogen fuel cells aren't viable yet. And as long as the vast majority of electricity (which is required to make hydrogen fuel) in the US comes from gas, oil, and coal it won't make any difference because you're essentially shifting fossil fuel usage of your car to the local power plant.
__________________ I'd rather some one was holding the constitution and burning the flag than vice-versa.
Hydrogen fuel cells aren't viable yet. And as long as the vast majority of electricity (which is required to make hydrogen fuel) in the US comes from gas, oil, and coal it won't make any difference because you're essentially shifting fossil fuel usage of your car to the local power plant.
While I do agree that the fuel cells aren't ready for mass production right now, the largest hurdle to overcome is not the technology but the infrastructure to support it. There are plenty of auto makers that have hydrogen fuel cell based vehicles being tested, but there are very few places you can fuel up. If we wait around for the technology to catch up, it will take another 20-30 years before the infrastructure is in place to support the technology in the first place. Distribution is the key here, and it needs to addressed before we can even consider moving over to another fuel source.
__________________ In order to do good, you may have to engage evil.
While I do agree that the fuel cells aren't ready for mass production right now, the largest hurdle to overcome is not the technology but the infrastructure to support it. There are plenty of auto makers that have hydrogen fuel cell based vehicles being tested, but there are very few places you can fuel up. If we wait around for the technology to catch up, it will take another 20-30 years before the infrastructure is in place to support the technology in the first place. Distribution is the key here, and it needs to addressed before we can even consider moving over to another fuel source.
Sure. But until the electricity required to make hydrogen fuel comes from clean power plants (Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Geothermal, Hydroelectric, Tidal, etc.) you aren't actually reducing carbon emissions.
You're actually increasing them because you must burn carbon to make hydrogen fuel which you then use to power a vehicle which could be powered directly by carbon and produce less carbon dioxide. Law of conservation of energy. Plus, as of right now, a Lithium ion battery is much more efficient than hydrogen cells.
Last edited by OddManRush; June 3rd, 2008 at 04:07 PM.
Senate Debate, Amendments and Votes on Greenhouse Gasses Bill 
KINGS17
