400+ say no, not one can explain why.
What do 400 have against this?
"According to the plan, the United States will reduce carbon emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, nearly twice the existing target—without imposing new restrictions on power plants or vehicles."
"It will drive up the cost of energy in this country and cost American Jobs."
"It is a fantastic deal for the Chinese though and great for Obama’s Legacy."
These two statements are contradictory, Richard.
"Here is a link to THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE and it says it all."
It really doesn't say it all -- except for getting most all the facts wrong. It doesn't even mention the climate science that even the Chinese can't deny any longer. (Except for the mention of conspiracy huckster John Coleman, who starting as a local weather anchor, at a TV station in Peoria Illinois, then following the TV ratings for his career -- a self-proclaimed 'meteorologist' -- finally founding the Weather Channel.) Hint: Coleman's degree is in journalism. The Weather Channel itself disavows Coleman's cultist denialist beliefs, and the American Meteorological Society affirms the theory of global warming.
As well, it's actually hilarious that besides Coleman, most of the citations listed on the Heartland article cited, are from those worthies from *within* the "Heartland Institute" itself! Such self-referencing is a sure sign of academic poverty, posturing, and desperation.
Think tanks, such as the Heartland Institute, are political creatures -- they engage in advocacy. They are not, nor are they intended to be, honest brokers of science fact.
Bea, all China has said it would do is try to do something. No firm numbers and no way to verify if they meet them. So while we cut jobs and raise costs here in the US, China can go ahead as it does now, with no penalty if they do not live up to the agreement. That's why 400 + voted no.
400+ say no, not one can
400+ say no, not one can explain why.
What do 400 have against this?
"According to the plan, the United States will reduce carbon emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, nearly twice the existing target—without imposing new restrictions on power plants or vehicles."
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/11/obama-just-announced-his…
Bea, The four hundred plus
Bea,
The four hundred plus votes know it’s bad for the Country.
It will drive up the cost of energy in this country and cost American Jobs.
It is a fantastic deal for the Chinese though and great for Obama’s Legacy.
Remember Solyndra, another of Obama’s brilliant ideas? He gave them a 527 Million dollar loan and they went bankrupt. Easy come easy go.
Here is a link to THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE and it says it all.
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2014/11/12/heartland-institute-comm…
"It will drive up the cost of
"It will drive up the cost of energy in this country and cost American Jobs."
"It is a fantastic deal for the Chinese though and great for Obama’s Legacy."
These two statements are contradictory, Richard.
"Here is a link to THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE and it says it all."
It really doesn't say it all -- except for getting most all the facts wrong. It doesn't even mention the climate science that even the Chinese can't deny any longer. (Except for the mention of conspiracy huckster John Coleman, who starting as a local weather anchor, at a TV station in Peoria Illinois, then following the TV ratings for his career -- a self-proclaimed 'meteorologist' -- finally founding the Weather Channel.) Hint: Coleman's degree is in journalism. The Weather Channel itself disavows Coleman's cultist denialist beliefs, and the American Meteorological Society affirms the theory of global warming.
As well, it's actually hilarious that besides Coleman, most of the citations listed on the Heartland article cited, are from those worthies from *within* the "Heartland Institute" itself! Such self-referencing is a sure sign of academic poverty, posturing, and desperation.
Think tanks, such as the Heartland Institute, are political creatures -- they engage in advocacy. They are not, nor are they intended to be, honest brokers of science fact.
Caveat emptor.
Bea, all China has said it
Bea, all China has said it would do is try to do something. No firm numbers and no way to verify if they meet them. So while we cut jobs and raise costs here in the US, China can go ahead as it does now, with no penalty if they do not live up to the agreement. That's why 400 + voted no.