I am starting to loose confidence that this administration is serious about dealing with climate change.

<why did the govt take over student loans in what was called a “Health Care” bill. >

<Why did Obama include a provision to allow him to snuff investigations into executive brand departments by inspectors general in what was supposed to be a “stimulus bill”?>

Good God. I give up on your ever grasping the essential point. You win.

You elected this thugocracy, not me.

That said, I disagree that we couldn’t be further down this road in the U.S. and have done so in ways that benefit the economy. The Chinese made it a matter of national economic policy to try and get carbon Capture and Sequestration technology to a working, production cost scale. I still have my doubts about that whole enterprise – but IF they succeed, American Companies will have to buy Chinese tech to duplicate the concept, probably at high prices because the chinese will hold the patents. Instead, the U.S. could have led the development, and forced the Chinese to buy from us. Opportunity costs are a real bear sometimes.

I see that “Obama is allowing oil drilling 50 miles off Virginia’s shorelines” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36110038/ns/business-oil_and_energy/). I’m sure that is going to upset quite a few in here. He has decided to pass on some planned area in Alaska however, so I guess in a way it is a bit of a wash.

I honestly doubt any of you would actually be happy with what you “wish” would happen, our society is going to take decades to adjust to changing energy infrastructure and limited supplies, and even then there will likely be serious social dislocations in the process (and people tend to get rather upset with such).

We’ve had some of the conversation in other threads, but part of what I find trouble with is this attitude that there is actually enough cash lying around to spend on unproved “maybe’s” here (lots of great ideas, few proved and even fewer that are proven to be cost effective). I am not for any “subsidies”, and think neither fossil fuels nor alternative fuels should be getting subsidies, but rather the markets should be allowed to work (limited growth in fossil fuel development will lead to naturally rising prices and drive the development of real alternatives). The “western” world, or “developed” world is the part of the world’s economy that is viewed as being able to shoulder these expenses – a little reality on that thinking: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/03/irish-banks-need-43-billion-in-new.html gets into issues in almost every developed economy and points out just how bankrupt most of them actually are. There were comments in a previous thread about how great Canada is doing, again I suggest you gain a real economic education quickly, you will greatly served by having one the next few years. And, if you missed it our treasuries auctions didn’t go so swell this week, so the debt will likely be getting more expensive to carry already (and those of you with public pensions ought to be worried as well: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/03/states-have-517-trillion-in-pension.html).

Still, the subsidies are there to help keep costs down. Look at how many are already unable to afford to be with s “slight” increase in their utility bills that they will directly connect to many of these plans? If the answer is we will subsidies all of them that just means it will be that much more expensive for everyone else (and the middle class is already steaming)… “Money makes the world go round”, and at the moment the world seems to be a tad short. Many in here seem to greatly trivialize such real issues and instead seem to have this attitude that there are no limits to what we can spend money on…

ChrisD,

Welcome to how our government does business anymore – half of every bill has nothing to do with what is in it – which leads for a never ending stream of lawyers to figure out what the heck things actually mean (because stuff is stuck in 100’s of different bills). Take a good look through the health care bill as an example – there’s a lot in there that has nothing to do with health.

But hey, we are very likely to have a greatly reduced standard of living shortly one way or another, so our energy consumption should drop accordingly.

There should be no incentives for fossil fuels in a climate bill.

I would similarly call putting incentives to buy bourbon in a drunk driving bill “pretty weird.” But surely you would argue with that, too, since there are American jobs involved in making and selling bourbon. Or something.

I know that is a subtle point, or I guess it must be, but if that is too hard for you, I can’t help you.