Comments on: Democrats Want $6.7 Billion To Fight Global Warming

By: johnnygizmo

johnnygizmo — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:58:02 +0000

I must say that I side with Glenda on this one…although the title of the article is a bit misleading. Quite a bit of money seems to be going to incentives for alternative energy. If you add up the numbers provided you still come up short over 2.5 billion. Where is “that” money going?! Of the totals – seems only 150 million is earmarked toward additional climate change research. I say tax the wealthy with a non-resident surcharge for 2nd and 3rd homes. I live in the northeast where a very large number of “week-enders” keep their vacations homes a toasty 65 degrees all winter even when they aren’t there!

By: Mac Dyer

Mac Dyer — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:23:15 +0000

Clearly Glenda is not a scientist. Rather than spending time disputing things many of us don’t really need to understand, I would suggest we all spend time learning about what each of us, our government, and the companies we work for, and the companies that make the stuff we purchase can and need to do to address our fossil-fuel based climate problems.

By: Glenda Rutherford

Glenda Rutherford — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:01:16 +0000

$6.7 billion??? Hogwash. I love it. Another commission. How many bloody useless commissions do we need in this country? And “incentive programs”, “education” …..will”raise awareness” too? I have no problem with legitimate research into ways to conserve water, energy and the like. I do have a problem with going at this from the angle that man is to blame for global warming. I do not dispute that global warming may be occurring; I do dispute the pseudo-science that proclaims man the villain in the piece. Of course it makes sense to do what we can to conserve, recycle and ensure that our resources are safe. We do NOT need $6.7 billion so that the loons in Congress can feel good.
Egad.