[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
Just to hammer this home in another way. If you increase the expense of doing business, businesses have three options, 1. go bankrupt (fewer jobs in this industry directly), 2. Pass on the cost to consumers (every other industry gets less capital from consumers…fewer jobs) 3. Leave the state (kind of like the first).
[/quote]

or 4.) Adapt

I mean, using your argument I can show that we should not have law enforcement at all because it increases the cost of business.

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
Just to hammer this home in another way. If you increase the expense of doing business, businesses have three options, 1. go bankrupt (fewer jobs in this industry directly), 2. Pass on the cost to consumers (every other industry gets less capital from consumers…fewer jobs) 3. Leave the state (kind of like the first).
[/quote]

or 4.) Adapt

I mean, using your argument I can show that we should not have law enforcement at all because it increases the cost of business.

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
Just to hammer this home in another way. If you increase the expense of doing business, businesses have three options, 1. go bankrupt (fewer jobs in this industry directly), 2. Pass on the cost to consumers (every other industry gets less capital from consumers…fewer jobs) 3. Leave the state (kind of like the first).
[/quote]

or 4.) Adapt

I mean, using your argument I can show that we should not have law enforcement at all because it increases the cost of business.

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
Just to hammer this home in another way. If you increase the expense of doing business, businesses have three options, 1. go bankrupt (fewer jobs in this industry directly), 2. Pass on the cost to consumers (every other industry gets less capital from consumers…fewer jobs) 3. Leave the state (kind of like the first).
[/quote]

or 4.) Adapt

I mean, using your argument I can show that we should not have law enforcement at all because it increases the cost of business.

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
Just to hammer this home in another way. If you increase the expense of doing business, businesses have three options, 1. go bankrupt (fewer jobs in this industry directly), 2. Pass on the cost to consumers (every other industry gets less capital from consumers…fewer jobs) 3. Leave the state (kind of like the first).
[/quote]

or 4.) Adapt

I mean, using your argument I can show that we should not have law enforcement at all because it increases the cost of business.

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
California has the cleanest air in 40 years with way more people living here. The affect this bill has on GHG’s is less than negligible.

This green industry is a fantasy (see ethanol). Every time we take money from the profitable and give it to the unprofitable, we are all worse off. I am all for green energy, but it can not come at the expense of jobs. I am all for clean air and water, but CO2 is no pollutant…[/quote]

California has cleaner air thanks to the passage of the Clean Air Act, which people like you opposed using the same reasons as you use against carbon regulations (loss of jobs, etc)

Significant majority of scientist agree that human emissions of CO2 have significant affect of climate change. If they are right, what do you think unemployment is going to be in California when vast majority of food producing fields turn into deserts?

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
California has the cleanest air in 40 years with way more people living here. The affect this bill has on GHG’s is less than negligible.

This green industry is a fantasy (see ethanol). Every time we take money from the profitable and give it to the unprofitable, we are all worse off. I am all for green energy, but it can not come at the expense of jobs. I am all for clean air and water, but CO2 is no pollutant…[/quote]

California has cleaner air thanks to the passage of the Clean Air Act, which people like you opposed using the same reasons as you use against carbon regulations (loss of jobs, etc)

Significant majority of scientist agree that human emissions of CO2 have significant affect of climate change. If they are right, what do you think unemployment is going to be in California when vast majority of food producing fields turn into deserts?

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
California has the cleanest air in 40 years with way more people living here. The affect this bill has on GHG’s is less than negligible.

This green industry is a fantasy (see ethanol). Every time we take money from the profitable and give it to the unprofitable, we are all worse off. I am all for green energy, but it can not come at the expense of jobs. I am all for clean air and water, but CO2 is no pollutant…[/quote]

California has cleaner air thanks to the passage of the Clean Air Act, which people like you opposed using the same reasons as you use against carbon regulations (loss of jobs, etc)

Significant majority of scientist agree that human emissions of CO2 have significant affect of climate change. If they are right, what do you think unemployment is going to be in California when vast majority of food producing fields turn into deserts?

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
California has the cleanest air in 40 years with way more people living here. The affect this bill has on GHG’s is less than negligible.

This green industry is a fantasy (see ethanol). Every time we take money from the profitable and give it to the unprofitable, we are all worse off. I am all for green energy, but it can not come at the expense of jobs. I am all for clean air and water, but CO2 is no pollutant…[/quote]

California has cleaner air thanks to the passage of the Clean Air Act, which people like you opposed using the same reasons as you use against carbon regulations (loss of jobs, etc)

Significant majority of scientist agree that human emissions of CO2 have significant affect of climate change. If they are right, what do you think unemployment is going to be in California when vast majority of food producing fields turn into deserts?

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
California has the cleanest air in 40 years with way more people living here. The affect this bill has on GHG’s is less than negligible.

This green industry is a fantasy (see ethanol). Every time we take money from the profitable and give it to the unprofitable, we are all worse off. I am all for green energy, but it can not come at the expense of jobs. I am all for clean air and water, but CO2 is no pollutant…[/quote]

California has cleaner air thanks to the passage of the Clean Air Act, which people like you opposed using the same reasons as you use against carbon regulations (loss of jobs, etc)

Significant majority of scientist agree that human emissions of CO2 have significant affect of climate change. If they are right, what do you think unemployment is going to be in California when vast majority of food producing fields turn into deserts?

[air_ogi]

jstoesz,

It is your and Prof’s responsibility to back up the claims that carbon emissions controls significantly add to unemployment.

I presented Germany as a case study. Even though Germany’s manufacturing based economy is significantly more energy intensive than California’s, cap and trade had no noticeable impact on unemployment rate.

And I would argue that ability to release carbon for free into atmosphere (public domain) is a subsidy to polluting industries that should be removed.

[air_ogi]

jstoesz,

It is your and Prof’s responsibility to back up the claims that carbon emissions controls significantly add to unemployment.

I presented Germany as a case study. Even though Germany’s manufacturing based economy is significantly more energy intensive than California’s, cap and trade had no noticeable impact on unemployment rate.

And I would argue that ability to release carbon for free into atmosphere (public domain) is a subsidy to polluting industries that should be removed.

[air_ogi]

jstoesz,

It is your and Prof’s responsibility to back up the claims that carbon emissions controls significantly add to unemployment.

I presented Germany as a case study. Even though Germany’s manufacturing based economy is significantly more energy intensive than California’s, cap and trade had no noticeable impact on unemployment rate.

And I would argue that ability to release carbon for free into atmosphere (public domain) is a subsidy to polluting industries that should be removed.

[air_ogi]

jstoesz,

It is your and Prof’s responsibility to back up the claims that carbon emissions controls significantly add to unemployment.

I presented Germany as a case study. Even though Germany’s manufacturing based economy is significantly more energy intensive than California’s, cap and trade had no noticeable impact on unemployment rate.

And I would argue that ability to release carbon for free into atmosphere (public domain) is a subsidy to polluting industries that should be removed.

[air_ogi]

jstoesz,

It is your and Prof’s responsibility to back up the claims that carbon emissions controls significantly add to unemployment.

I presented Germany as a case study. Even though Germany’s manufacturing based economy is significantly more energy intensive than California’s, cap and trade had no noticeable impact on unemployment rate.

And I would argue that ability to release carbon for free into atmosphere (public domain) is a subsidy to polluting industries that should be removed.

[Author]

Posts