Comments on: Waxman-Markey: An Exercise in Unreality http://www.masterresource.org/2009/07/waxman-markey-an-exercise-in-unreality/ A free-market energy blog Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:09:24 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Robert Ayers http://www.masterresource.org/2009/07/waxman-markey-an-exercise-in-unreality/comment-page-1/#comment-2020 Robert Ayers Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:59:14 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=3768#comment-2020 "The last time GHG emissions were at the Waxman-Markey target for 2050 was 1910." Worse, that is the national figure, not the per-capita figure. To get a per-capita figure lower than the Waxman-Markey target, you have to go back before the Civil War. “The last time GHG emissions were at the Waxman-Markey target for 2050 was 1910.”
Worse, that is the national figure, not the per-capita figure. To get a per-capita figure lower than the Waxman-Markey target, you have to go back before the Civil War.

]]> By: Ed Reid http://www.masterresource.org/2009/07/waxman-markey-an-exercise-in-unreality/comment-page-1/#comment-2019 Ed Reid Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:57:36 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=3768#comment-2019 First, it would be handy to know if there really is/would be a "problem" before we start throwing money at "solutions". Second, assuming there is a "problem", it would be nice if any of the "solutions" would actually solve the problem as defined. Third, it would be instructive to focus discussion of the "solutions" on the investment required to achieve them, rather than on the potential federal revenue stream which might be extorted in the process. Fourth, it would be nice to implement the "solution" logically, rather than "politically correctly". First, stop increasing annual emissions; then, begin reducing annual emissions. Ready, fire, aim is bad enough. Fire, ready, aim is just silly. It's just "so Washington"! First, it would be handy to know if there really is/would be a “problem” before we start throwing money at “solutions”.

Second, assuming there is a “problem”, it would be nice if any of the “solutions” would actually solve the problem as defined.

Third, it would be instructive to focus discussion of the “solutions” on the investment required to achieve them, rather than on the potential federal revenue stream which might be extorted in the process.

Fourth, it would be nice to implement the “solution” logically, rather than “politically correctly”. First, stop increasing annual emissions; then, begin reducing annual emissions.

Ready, fire, aim is bad enough. Fire, ready, aim is just silly. It’s just “so Washington”!

]]>