In response to:

Apparently a Less-Warm Planet Requires Loads of Pork, Red Tape, and Union Favoritism

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Oct 13, 2009 10:48 AM

In the case of green legislation, I believe the author gives our legislators too much credit by suggesting they weigh the legislation with benefits that some may stand to reap. In my judgment the liberal legislator naturally favors green legislation for the altruistic (even though faultily reasoned) perceived benefit to the planet. Essentially, passing the green legislation makes them feel good about themselves because they believe the hype ... few are equipped to weigh the scientific truth or falsehood of the claims.

Plus (or perhaps primarily), it's increased federal revenue and controlling more of the nation's product is always worthy if one holds to socialistic ideals.

Join the Debate!

Read Full Story

Apparently a Less-Warm Planet Requires Loads of Pork, Red Tape, and Union Favoritism

An Associated Press story last week related "good news" about expected heating costs this winter: namely, it will cost people less to heat their homes this year, according to the Energy Information Administration. To read the story, one would think that the government considers that to be good news, too.

Under a cap-and-trade regime, however, this same news would be considered calamitous. By the government, that is – consumers would, of course, remain consistent in their opinion that higher energy costs are bad news and lower costs, good. Making energy more expensive is what the whole cap-and-trade scheme depends on.

Related Tags: Energy and Environment Global Warming