Is it too much to ask that our policy-makers in Madison and Washington, D.C., give business people some straight talk about what their sweeping changes to the energy industry are going to cost?
Legislation is supposed to have a fiscal note that outlines the tax and economic impacts of the proposed changes. It's just common sense that we understand how much we are going to pay for the goal of reducing carbon in our atmosphere by 17% to 20% by the end of the next decade and bigger percentages in the decades beyond.
Well, yah. Ain't going to happen, John, and you know it, too. It's control, not cost, at issue.
That's precisely what you should be aiming at, John. There is a long-term warming trend; according to the Greenland ice core, it's been going on for around 200 years.
But there's the long-term COOLING trend that preceded it--from about 1475AD to 1750AD. And the intermediate 'going-nowhere-with-lumps' trend between those two.
Oh, by the way, John: you can thank God for the current warming trend; it has a very salutary effect on prices of crops. In fact, someone could easily make the argument that sustaining the current temperatures is preferable--by far--than returning to the "Little Ice Age" of the mid-1600's to mid-1700's. Affordable eats are a consideration, aren't they?
However, there's nothing to indicate that "human activity" had anything to do with the cooling trend, the 'going-nowhere' trend, or the older warming trend (the one which resembles THIS one) which occurred between 800AD and 1050AD or so.
The argument is not over something so utilitarian as "what's it going to cost?", John.
The argument is over something far more essential: "What is truth?"
And THAT is the argument you should be picking.