Waxman-Markey: Science or Malarky?

I think this bill focusses on the wrong "polutants". While I do think it is admirable and necessary to try to increase the efficiency of energy generating capacity both in the US and abroad, the policy contained in the Waxman-Markey bill is just plain wrong on so many levels.

I think the science of global warming is weakly understood at best. There have been several authors who have published papers which get ignored by the climate community at large. Some ideas which have merit but have not been studied enough include solar sunspot cycles and the contributions of volcanoes. Such papers indicate dubious claims of "politically correct" politicians that greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, SF6 and clorofluorocarbons contribute significantly to global warming.

Yet we have politicians such as Waxman,Markey,Gore and even Barak Obama saying we need to implement severe reductions of these compounds by legislating a system called carbon,cap and trade. They have threatened to use the EPA to get what they want despite the dubious science if the senate doesn't pass their legislation.

The politicians do not educate the population on the sheer logistics of such legislation even if they do have merit (which has not been proven). On the contrary, they ignore informing the public at large the sheer quantity of carbon producing energy sources in the United States (and world's) infrastructure. They tout the benefits of biofuels, wind energy, solar energy, hydroelectric power and the like, without telling the public that such sources of energy can not realistically be used to replace fossile fuels and coal even in the next 100 years.

So we have a legislation plan that will mandate a reduction of these carbon emissions by 83% by 2050. And we have no way to make up the energy needed unless realistically we go to a full scale nuclear development plan like France and even then it won't be enough to meet the legislative goals (mandated goals) in the time frames alloted by this bill.

Logistically.....this bill will cripple the US economy for years to come. It needs to be discarded. Especially because the tenets of the global warming theories based on carbon emissions have not been proven.

Environmental legislation to protect air quality and water quality and insure sources of clean drinking water would benifit the US far better than this ill thought out Waxman-Markley bill.

If the country wants to go nuclear, we should say that and then we will be able to realize reductions in coal fired power plants which emits far worse environmental toxins such as soot, mercury and cadmium. If we allow this bill and its restrictions to be come law, we are absolutely finished as a viable country and maybe even for nothing, since our actually influence on climate may be so small in the long run, it didn't matter.

Don't pass bills effecting energy that are not based on proven science. And don't forget to look at the real energy logistics and inform Americans on what it takes to accomplish worthwhile goals.

I couldn't agree more.

Very well said. I would like to pass your comments on to the sheep that I know. You seem well educated in this subject. I would like to read and pass on more scientifically accredited articles that back up what you stated.

First of all, Carbon DiOxide especially from human industry, has little to do with climate change, The earth has gone thru climate changes since it was created. (In fact right now the climate is getting COOLER ). This bill is just a means for the Gov't to control Industry and tax us indirectly ( who doyou think will be paying the carbon tax?? Not the congress men ). YES I would like to see clean alternate energy specifically the Solar Gravitational Hydrogen Economy, I wrote an article on that back in the 70s. But not because of CO2 but rather as a/ a means to get the US independent of foriegn oil and b/ to remove the hydrocarbons and other pollutants from our air caused by burning carbon based fuels. (by the way, do we have to pay a tax when we breath out since we breath out CO2?). And I noted that neither Brazil, China, India or Russia are willing to slow CO2 production ( why should they? They are not stupid )