Truthie says:

Airplanes: Hydrogen fuel. No carbon.

We are ALL endangered by excess carbon in our air.

Cost of photovoltaic energy is going down, also geothermal and wave generation. But the investment must precede the reaping of benefits.

Green jobs will replace jobs in the oil business, providing we reduce the oil business. But the number of maintenance people for a solar, wind, wave and geothermal economy will be HUGE.

Mark T. says:

Section 299A of the 300+ page amendment from Waxman requires that any home being sold will have to have an energy compliance home appraisal. If your home doesn’t have high efficiency windows, doors, insulation, appliances, etc, etc, etc, then your house will be worth less than it is today.

If you don’t bring it up to Waxman’s requirements, then it is likely that the person that wants to buy your home won’t be able to get one of the new low income energy efficient home loans to purchase it. All the energy credits applied to loans for energy efficiency will not apply to your house thereby making your it less likely to sell.

You will be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars buying new air conditioners, new water heaters, new insulated windows and doors, new thermal insulation, new refrigerators, new ovens and stoves, etc, etc, etc. And, of course, you will have to replace every light bulb in the house with compact fluorescent bulbs.

But it isn’t a tax!

sea lawyer says:

Voting on legislation which effects 300 million people without actually reading it is for idiots like those in Congress and Jägermeister apparently. But at least we are achieving goals. How decisive of us.

Toxic Asshead says:

Face it. We got ‘change’. We’re changing from the greatest nation that ever existed into a 3rd world banana republic.

When BHO shows up for a speech in a General’s uniform with big aviator sunglasses on and announces the next elections are canceled, some of you still won’t believe.

Rick's Cafe says:

#28
LMAO – Thank God for the 2nd Ammendment

Sea Lawyer says:

#31, well then, from one self-important loser to another:

Prudent thinking is not setting crippling restrictions on the use of current technology with the hopes that something better will be invented before it matters.

Sea Lawyer says:

#33, oh I’m sorry, was there some incremental reduction in the number of typewriters produced before the computer happened, because we all hoped something better would come along? Did we decide that we should start phasing out the telegraph early, because we just knew that the telephone would be invented any year now? Your points are about as dumb as you apparently are.

Your insistent goings on about “things never stay the same,” while quite obvious, isn’t even addressing the point brought up about why we would institute a forced reduction on fuel necessary for the economic viability of aviation as it exists with today’s technology, with nothing more than a hope and prayer that by the time it will start causing serious hardship, we will have invented a new way to power commercial aircraft.

Mark T. says:

Jägermeister:

Yes, we have considered building aircraft that use hydrogen. It was called the Hindenburg.

There is no technology, current or even theorized, that will allow us to safely convert the world’s jet fleets to hydrogen. The aircraft would have to be completely scrapped. It would be cheaper to build an entire new fleet of aircraft (if the technology even existed, which it doesn’t).

But without giant leaps in technology or a repeal of the laws of physics to create a hydrogen jet aircraft fleet in time to meet the timeframe requirements of this cockamamie energy bill.

Maybe in fifty years, we might have a viable option for kerosene powered jet aircraft. The only even remotely viable option currently being pursued is biofuel, aka alcohol. And it is still in its infancy. Even so, we will be converting our food supply to fuel. Still, it will be more expense and corn prices with skyrocket.

I just wish the bureaucrats would listen to the engineers. The Dems think the laws of physics can be repealed with the stroke of a pen. Use the left side of your brain and be realistic.

But with the current timeline of reducing CO2 by 88% by 2020, it is impossible. You would have to cut flights by 88% (or tax them with carbon credits, which the the real gist of this legislation).

This bill is not about creating cleaner aircraft in 100 years time. It is about raising taxes over the next ten years.

Mark T. says:

Jägermeister:

“Did it use hydrogen for its engines?” – Nope, I know of no jet engine that runs on hydrogen. There are a couple of experimental prop planes that use hydrogen but, from what I can gather, they are basically powered gliders with speeds of less than 80 mph.

“It’s a matter of phasing them out. Not replace them overnight.” – Phase them out and replace them with what? There is no hydrogen jet technology. It takes Boeing five years to develop and certify new commercial aircraft and that is only with FAA approved and demonstrably proven technology. The 787 is already a couple of years late and all that it has that is really new is the carbon fiber fuselage construction. No “experimental” aircraft propulsion technology will be approved for commercial aircraft until after years of testing is performed. Only THEN can an aircraft be designed around the new “proven” propulsion system. It would take decades to get any new hydrogen powered aircraft into the commercial fleet.

“JFK held the “Man on the moon” speech on May 25, 1961. On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 landed on the moon. You’d be surprised what we can do.” – Rocket technology is simple compared to what you are proposing. Rockets are about pure unadulterated power, not economy or emissions. Power is simple. Power with zero emissions is a much tougher nut to crack.

Besides, the Apollo program sent 21 men into space. Only twelve walked on the Moon. The American jet fleet serves hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of passengers every single day. We are talking about civilians, not fighter pilots here. This comparison does not hold water.

Besides, if we wanted to go to the Moon today with these new draconian pollution requirements, WE COULD NOT DO IT! We would have to invent anti-gravity or the world’s biggest slingshot.

From what I gather, this bill does not fund any research into alternate aircraft fuels. It simply taxes the output of the jet engines exhaust. Simple as that. There is not Kennedy-esque space-race with hundreds of thousands of engineers on the task. This is Cap and Trade, not the space-race. C&T is simply a tax.

“The “free” lunch wasn’t free.” – This bill doesn’t serve lunch or even a bag of peanuts. This is a pipe dream.

MikeN says:

Forget the public, the people who voted for it didn’t even get 12 hours.

300 pages of bribes, err amendments, were added to the bill at 3AM before the vote. When asked where they could see the whole bill, the Dem leaders responded that the while bill doesn’t actually exist. The Repub leader staged a one-man filibuster by actually reading the amendments for about an hour. Wish he had kept going and just read the whole bill, or at least the approximation of it that they had on the floor, still being literally cut-and-pasted.