I am glad to own PBR as this oil company won't be as exposed to this Bullsh.it bill. It will never pass the Senate - no way in hell.
I avoided buying...
CHK, CVX, BP, XOM
Also, have you seen that PBR is the only one green today? That's a sign people are getting into PBR from the other oil companies.
<sigh>...another one that just doesn't get it...
Regardless of what happens, your little oil plays will do just fine.
It's called oil depletion a.k.a. peak oil.
One would think that people would get it after the US oil production peaked in the early 70s
You are losing your time arguing with this brainwashed poor soul.
I guess it was the same story back in the 1500s trying to explain to a flat-earther that the earth was actually round.
jscat or whatever, go back to under the rock where you came from.
< Ice that melts in Greenland/Antarctica is not already in your supposed "cup".>
You see the problem with you enviornmentalist whackos is you can't get your sorry straight. All you can do is spout off about the climate being man's fault.
here is a story in April 2005, validating your belief, "The first comprehensive survey of glaciers on the Antarctic peninsula has shown that the rivers of ice are shrinking, mostly because of warming of the local climate."
The glaciers of Antarica are shrinking and it's all man's fault, right?
Now there is this story from the LA Times, ONE MONTH LATER, http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/20/science/sci-icecap20, " The vast East Antarctic Ice Sheet -- a 2-mile-thick wasteland larger than Australia, drier than the Sahara and as cold as a Martian spring -- increased in mass every year from 1992 to 2003 because of additional annual snowfall, an analysis of satellite radar measurements showed.
"It is an effect that has been predicted as a likely result of climate change," said David Vaughan, an independent expert on the ice sheets at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, England.
In a region known for the lowest temperatures recorded on Earth, it normally is too cold for snow to form across the 2.7 million square miles of the ice sheet. Any additional annual snowfall in East Antarctica, therefore, is almost certainly attributable to warmer temperatures, four experts on Antarctica said.
"As the atmosphere warms, it should hold more moisture," said climatologist Joseph R. McConnell at the Desert Research Institute in Reno, who helped conduct the study. "In East Antarctica, that means there should be more snowfall."
Got that? In East Antarctica (but nowhere else) rising temperatures means more ice not less.
And in Italy, you have to make my bed. That's the rules. If we were in Germany, you would have to make mine, but we are in Italy so...
Dude, this is a local effect. You have to look at the big picture. Of course I too can take any example out of context to prove my point.
Obtuse people like you are te reason the Western world, and especially the US will soon go the Roman Empire way.
The chinese are coming, and the are quietly grabbing all the commodities they will need.
They are also heavily subsidizing their green industries so that they could build a sustainable infrastucture in time. Tey get it.
Despite all his flaws you could consider yourself lucky to have a man and a team with some forward-looking vision in power at the white house
Hi Doc,I am reading this debate about "global warming" in several boards.Yes you are right; they (the gov)are playing us.What is increasing the ozone hole is a weakness of the magnetic field; because the magnetico poles are reversing themselves. Yes, this happening long time ago(north pole become south pole) and is happening again now. No this is not the end of the world: this is just "global warming" and there is nothing we can do about it. Why they are nothing telling this to the people? I don't know. Do you?
Maybe because we.can.do.something about it don't ya think. At least to minimize the worst effect
Always funny to see GW deniers claiming that scientists, of all people, have an interest in spreading propaganda.
For a much more plausible explanation do as somebody once said "follow the money".
Who has a vested interest of denying global warming and it's effect.
Hint: It starts with fossil and ends with industry.
It's actually very simple at the core: Dump enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that are not re-absorbed quickly enough, and you end up wit a "better" greenhouse. Greenhouse effect and gases causing it are actually the reason why the earth is warm enough so that life exists on it. The problem is that by dumping carbon that has been trapped for eons, we are actually helping to speed up a natural process that would otherwise have taken milloins of years to happen, instead of about 150 years or so.
See even my 5 year-old kid get it
The government is doing it for the same old reasons: money and power.
The cap and trade is basically an exchange between those who produce plants (which remove CO2) and those who burn fossil fuels (which put CO2 in the atmosphere). So if you want to pollute, all you have to do is buy carbon credits and can have at it.
I hope you see how such a system could be abused. A regulator could give you less/more favorable reports on CO2 production/emission on the basis of political favoritism. And of course, there is Goldman Sachs buried knee deep in this #$%$ wanting to make money off every trade between carbon producers and consumers.
The whole reason this cap and trade scheme was cooked up was to give the government more power. Instead of just taxing carbon producers, cap and trade gives a payoff to the tree planting Enviro whackos and the ultimate welfare queens, the farmers.
And ironically, cap and trade does not even work to lower CO2 emissions, "The major cap-and-trade bill now working its way through Congress is not without precedent. The European Union has had a cap-and- trade regime in place for years. It just hasn't worked so far.
Begun in 2005, the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme has raised energy prices with "uncertain" effects on greenhouse gas emissions, according to numerous studies.
Even green groups have been critical. The Natural Resources Defense Council, for example, has called ETS "an example of what not to do."
The truth is that demand for electricity generation in the U.S. like virtually everything is going down. So the concept that we are spilling more and more carbon in the air year after year is not true.
Furthermore, wind is cost effective versus newer nat. gas and coal plants. Solar is getting better but is not there cost wise yet. IMO electricity production from carbon sources has nowhere to go but down with or without government intervention.
I personally think the American people would respond favorably to a gasoline tax especially after 9-11. Every day, the U.S. is shipping off nearly a billion dollars to foreign oil producers, many of whom are hardly our friends.
If oil were taxed more severely, in the short run consumers might feel the pinch but in the long run, they would get the money back as their dollars buy more.
Unfortunately, nothing seems to get done in Washington unless someone gets bribed. So you have this I'll support cap and trade if you back me on health care etc.
It makes no sense to punish utilities producing electricity via domestic coal and natural gas when you can lower carbon emissions by going after foreign oil.
Yep agree with some of what you say.
But sorry, the carbon emisions are going up, not down. It's true that they might have been going down in the US recently, due to the economic situation, but worldwide they are going up, year after year, 25% more in 2008 than in 1990, which is the baseline level of the Kyoto treaty.
The bottom line is that latest science tells us that we have to reduce greenhouses gases we put out and fast, and that the free market by itself will not be capable of having this done quickly enough, hence the need for`"incentives".
Now I do not care what the incentive is, cap-ad-trade, carbon tax etc... I personally think that a progressive carbon tax is the best solution (i.e 1% the first year, 2% the second year etc...)
We need a better model to price energy, especially energy produced by using fossil fuels, fairly. That means internalizing the enrvironmental cost, which is discounted right now.
Will it raise energy prices? Yes, Will it cause a bit of inflation? you bet, but long-term we will be much better off.
PS: Despite all this, I am long PBR. Oil use is not going away anytime soon, but we do have to decrease our dependence on it.