Comments on: The ACCF/NAM Estimate of Waxman-Markey http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/08/13/the-accfnam-estimate-of-waxman-markey/ Institute for Energy Research Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Stop the Energy Freeze - How To Make A Billion Dollars http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/08/13/the-accfnam-estimate-of-waxman-markey/comment-page-1/#comment-5944 Stop the Energy Freeze - How To Make A Billion Dollars Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:20:03 +0000 http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/?p=4155#comment-5944 [...] the House in 2009—also known as Waxman-Markey—as being “moderate” in its approach, even though a study by the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and the National Associatio... found that implementing Waxman-Markey would result in economic losses up to $571 billion by 2030, [...] [...] the House in 2009—also known as Waxman-Markey—as being “moderate” in its approach, even though a study by the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and the National Associatio… found that implementing Waxman-Markey would result in economic losses up to $571 billion by 2030, [...]

]]> By: President Obama Nominates Environmental Advocate to be Next Commerce Secretary | Institute for Energy Research http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/08/13/the-accfnam-estimate-of-waxman-markey/comment-page-1/#comment-5940 President Obama Nominates Environmental Advocate to be Next Commerce Secretary | Institute for Energy Research Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:43:48 +0000 http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/?p=4155#comment-5940 [...] the House in 2009—also known as Waxman-Markey—as being “moderate” in its approach, even though a study by the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and the National Associatio... found that implementing Waxman-Markey would result in economic losses up to $571 billion by 2030, [...] [...] the House in 2009—also known as Waxman-Markey—as being “moderate” in its approach, even though a study by the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and the National Associatio… found that implementing Waxman-Markey would result in economic losses up to $571 billion by 2030, [...]

]]> By: HawkWatcher http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/08/13/the-accfnam-estimate-of-waxman-markey/comment-page-1/#comment-852 HawkWatcher Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:13:02 +0000 http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/?p=4155#comment-852 I'm so glad I found this excellent study, thanks IER. This is more ammo for the battle against ignorance. The facts of AGW are misrepresented by the EPA. Ratman-Pinkey Bill is extremely dangerous to our wallets, and for a whopping 0.02 degrees! How do you even measure that? There is a great financial impact study of Waxman-Markey Bill at heritage.org that will blow your mind. It's like they're socking us when we're down. That is their intent, is it not? Kill the Bill. I’m so glad I found this excellent study, thanks IER. This is more ammo for the battle against ignorance. The facts of AGW are misrepresented by the EPA. Ratman-Pinkey Bill is extremely dangerous to our wallets, and for a whopping 0.02 degrees! How do you even measure that? There is a great financial impact study of Waxman-Markey Bill at heritage.org that will blow your mind. It’s like they’re socking us when we’re down. That is their intent, is it not?

Kill the Bill.

]]> By: William Eichler http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/08/13/the-accfnam-estimate-of-waxman-markey/comment-page-1/#comment-779 William Eichler Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:55:44 +0000 http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/?p=4155#comment-779 In reply to Mr.Johnson: "But the reality is that global warming is real." Suggest you read the 24 links to the science before you make such a claim: http://ordonnance-economics.web.officelive.com/global_warming.aspx "that global demand for oil is outstripping production." Suggest you visit IEA and EIA websites on this...or go to: http://ordonnance-economics.web.officelive.com/oilspeculation.aspx You should also do more reading in economics...it shows. In reply to Mr.Johnson:

“But the reality is that global warming is real.”
Suggest you read the 24 links to the science before you make such a claim:
http://ordonnance-economics.web.officelive.com/global_warming.aspx

“that global demand for oil is outstripping production.”
Suggest you visit IEA and EIA websites on this…or go to:
http://ordonnance-economics.web.officelive.com/oilspeculation.aspx

You should also do more reading in economics…it shows.

]]> By: Brad Johnson http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/08/13/the-accfnam-estimate-of-waxman-markey/comment-page-1/#comment-747 Brad Johnson Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:24:32 +0000 http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/?p=4155#comment-747 Nice try. But GDP actually cratered under the Great Depression. It's certainly true that in a world where pollution didn't exist, oil and coal reserves weren't declining, and international competition for resources wasn't increasing, there wouldn't be a need for regulation of industrial pollution or standards for renewable energy. But the reality is that global warming is real and its effects are taking an increasing toll on the US economy; that global demand for oil is outstripping production; that US demand far outweighs US oil reserves; that the rest of the world is ahead in the race for new technologies and new energy. If the rest of the world was dominated by the same radical do-nothing extremism that's found in the United States conservative movement, then it's true that there would be little hope that global warming could be brought under control. Just like world hunger, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation, climate change is a global problem that requires international effort. And right now the United States is lagging far behind. We've seen the results of the conservative experiment, of gross deregulation of industry and corrupt mishandling of our nation's resources -- jobs killed and energy prices skyrocketing. It's time for a change. Nice try. But GDP actually cratered under the Great Depression.

It’s certainly true that in a world where pollution didn’t exist, oil and coal reserves weren’t declining, and international competition for resources wasn’t increasing, there wouldn’t be a need for regulation of industrial pollution or standards for renewable energy.

But the reality is that global warming is real and its effects are taking an increasing toll on the US economy; that global demand for oil is outstripping production; that US demand far outweighs US oil reserves; that the rest of the world is ahead in the race for new technologies and new energy.

If the rest of the world was dominated by the same radical do-nothing extremism that’s found in the United States conservative movement, then it’s true that there would be little hope that global warming could be brought under control. Just like world hunger, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation, climate change is a global problem that requires international effort. And right now the United States is lagging far behind.

We’ve seen the results of the conservative experiment, of gross deregulation of industry and corrupt mishandling of our nation’s resources — jobs killed and energy prices skyrocketing.

It’s time for a change.

]]>