Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch
 Originally Posted By: Halo82


Oh come on. We know we contribute in ways that were never there before us. We know that our presence makes a diffrence. We know that we damage the earth and Ozone.



oh I agree wholeheartedly. but are we the main cause of climate change? all the science has established is that the temperature appears to be incrementally changing, and human activity has some impact on it. is that enough 'hard evidence' to hamstring the economy?


It may do a lot more than merely "hamstring" it:

  • A report released yesterday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should be opening some eyes to the true costs and ultimate ineffectiveness of proposed domestic legislation to fight global warming.

    The study is an analysis of the economic impact of New Mexico Democratic senator Jeff Bingaman’s version of climate legislation. It is important to note that Bingaman's bill is widely considered to be the least stringent climate bill, with less aggressive carbon-emission-reduction targets than any other proposal.

    Even so, the EPA estimates that Bingaman’s bill would cause gas prices to rise 22 cents per gallon by 2030 and 57 cents per gallon by 2050. In addition, it would spark a 19-percent rise in electricity prices by 2030 ticking up to 21 percent by 2050. All told, Bingaman’s legislation would cut between 0.5 percent and 1.4 percent ($124 billion to $370 billion) from the nation’s Gross Domestic Product.

    Reaching the emission targets set in the Bingaman bill would require a 150-percent increase in nuclear power and the replacement of coal-fired power plants with newer plants that can capture and store CO2. Most people believe that even with new nuclear power plants coming on line, the industry will struggle to maintain its current 20-percent share of power generated, much less increase by 150 percent. And as for carbon sequestration, the technology doesn't exist now, and the EPA is unsure whether it will exist in time to meet the targets (if ever).

    Even if Bingaman’s bill becomes law and successfully meets its carbon targets, the EPA estimates that it will only reduce CO2 concentrations by an insignificant 11 parts per million. So thanks to Bingaman’s landmark legislation will keep CO2 concentrations to an estimated 707 ppm, rather than the estimated 718 ppm without it: a 1.5-percent reduction for the low, low annual price of $124 billion — $370 billion, tops.