- Posts: 15745
- Thank you received: 320
A Budget Plan That Treehuggers and Tea Partiers Can Love
- ScienceChic
-
Topic Author
- Mountain Champion
-
Less
More
25 Aug 2011 10:02 #1
by ScienceChic
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011 ... s-can-love
A Budget Plan That Treehuggers and Tea Partiers Can Love
—By Kate Sheppard
| Wed Aug. 24
A Budget Plan That Treehuggers and Tea Partiers Can Love
—By Kate Sheppard
| Wed Aug. 24
There's not much that Friends of the Earth and The Heartland Institute agree on. Friends of the Earth is among the most liberal of the environmental groups in the US. Heartland thinks that climate change isn't a crisis at all—actually, it might even be a good thing—and is the host of an annual Green Scissors Report, which looks at environmentally problematic government spending.
It's heartening to know that while two groups might not be able to agree on the question of whether or not climate change is real, they can agree that subsidies for corn ethanol are dumb. That was among the $380 billion in "wasteful government subsidies" that the groups, along with Taxpayers for Common Sense and Public Citizen, unveiled on Wednesday. While the report has been an annual event since 1994, this year they're hoping it gets more attention, given the supercommittee's charge to find spending cuts.
"We are a forthrightly conservative organization, and we disagree with many of the objectives of other partners," said Heartland Institute Vice President Eli Lehrer in a call with reporters on Wednesday. But they did agree, that "big government spending" can have "negative consequences" for the environment.
Some the proposed cuts for the 2012 to 2016 period: see article for more!
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- FredHayek
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 30243
- Thank you received: 178
25 Aug 2011 10:08 #2
by FredHayek
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Replied by FredHayek on topic A Budget Plan That Treehuggers and Tea Partiers Can Love
lol Grover, a hard core Republican tax fighter actually doesn't want to end these tax credits, because he thinks removing the tax credits actually raises the taxes on these firms.
:faint:
Some people you just can't reach! (Or some ADM lobbyist got to him.)
:faint:
Some people you just can't reach! (Or some ADM lobbyist got to him.)
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- PrintSmith
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 5707
- Thank you received: 40
25 Aug 2011 12:19 #3
by PrintSmith
Replied by PrintSmith on topic A Budget Plan That Treehuggers and Tea Partiers Can Love
Seems to me that our federal, state and local governments all have RFS that need to be met. Isn't this subsidy being used to develop the infrastructure necessary for the majority of the conditions in the RFS to be met with domestic production, which produces both jobs and tax revenue, instead of importing the ethanol needed to meet those mandates from foreign suppliers like Brazil? If we have an RFS governmental mandate that we us 15 billion gallons of biofuel in 2012, and we lack the capacity and infrastructure to produce them domestically, are we not simply trading our dependence on foreign oil for dependence on foreign biofuels?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- FredHayek
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 30243
- Thank you received: 178
25 Aug 2011 15:50 #4
by FredHayek
But if Brazil using sugar cane is so much more efficient than the US burning corn, I think we need to get out of supporting domestic ethanol production.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Replied by FredHayek on topic A Budget Plan That Treehuggers and Tea Partiers Can Love
PrintSmith wrote: Seems to me that our federal, state and local governments all have RFS that need to be met. Isn't this subsidy being used to develop the infrastructure necessary for the majority of the conditions in the RFS to be met with domestic production, which produces both jobs and tax revenue, instead of importing the ethanol needed to meet those mandates from foreign suppliers like Brazil? If we have an RFS governmental mandate that we us 15 billion gallons of biofuel in 2012, and we lack the capacity and infrastructure to produce them domestically, are we not simply trading our dependence on foreign oil for dependence on foreign biofuels?
But if Brazil using sugar cane is so much more efficient than the US burning corn, I think we need to get out of supporting domestic ethanol production.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- PrintSmith
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 5707
- Thank you received: 40
25 Aug 2011 15:56 #5
by PrintSmith
Replied by PrintSmith on topic A Budget Plan That Treehuggers and Tea Partiers Can Love
Ahhh, but if we depend on Brazil for the ethanol from sugar cane, they may deforest land to get the acreage to grow the cane, which could have more of an adverse effect on the global climate due to the loss of CO2 sinks contained in the forests. That would defeat the whole purpose of blending the fuel to lower the carbon emissions, wouldn't it?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Rick
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 15378
- Thank you received: 163
26 Aug 2011 06:40 #6
by Rick
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Replied by Rick on topic A Budget Plan That Treehuggers and Tea Partiers Can Love
Stop using common sense PS, it's a foreign concept around here.PrintSmith wrote: Ahhh, but if we depend on Brazil for the ethanol from sugar cane, they may deforest land to get the acreage to grow the cane, which could have more of an adverse effect on the global climate due to the loss of CO2 sinks contained in the forests. That would defeat the whole purpose of blending the fuel to lower the carbon emissions, wouldn't it?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- FredHayek
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 30243
- Thank you received: 178
26 Aug 2011 07:13 #7
by FredHayek
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Replied by FredHayek on topic A Budget Plan That Treehuggers and Tea Partiers Can Love
lol Unintended consequences? But since sugar cane produces so much more alcohol per acre than corn, they may not need to deforest that much.
Or better yet, stop using food based alcohol sources for motor cars.
Or better yet, stop using food based alcohol sources for motor cars.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.142 seconds
sponsors
