Activists scale Mount Rushmore, unfur...

Activists scale Mount Rushmore, unfurl global warming banner

There are 31 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Jul 8, 2009, titled Activists scale Mount Rushmore, unfurl global warming banner. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

Environmentalists using park service rock anchors scaled Mount Rushmore on Wednesday and unfurled a banner along President Abraham Lincoln's face challenging America's leaders to stop global warming.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Owl Gore

Monroe, LA

#21 Jul 9, 2009
Climate-Bill Breaks Bode Ill for Deficit
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1242048209238...

The Obama administration said Monday that it expected even wider deficits this year and next than previously forecast [...]

Beginning in 2012, the White House budget had counted on the sale of greenhouse-gas emissions permits to bring in $77 billion to $79 billion a year through 2019. Of the $624 billion in revenue, the White House allocated $504 billion to a $800-per-family tax cut for households with incomes below $150,000, in part to offset the impact of the cap-and-trade system on electricity rates. An additional $15 billion a year was dedicated to developing and deploying renewable-energy efforts to replace the fossil fuels being hit by the pollution trading system.

...

"At least half the revenue that the administration is expecting is just not going to materialize," said Daniel J. Weiss, director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank closely allied with the Obama White House.

...

Just how much money the administration might have to work with will become clearer when House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) unveils his full climate-change bill this week. He hopes to have a vote on the bill in his committee by Memorial Day.

Congressional aides and lobbyists familiar with the bill say as much as 75% of the emissions credits will be given away free in the first few years of the plan. Many of those free credits will go to coal-fired utilities that would struggle to cover the cost of permits for all the carbon they emit.

...

Seeking to bolster public support for climate legislation, the Obama administration is consulting pollsters who advocate avoiding phrases such as "cap-and-trade" and "global warming," [using phrases such as "clean energy dividend" instead].

Read more at online.wsj.com ...

----------

Here’s an example of why cap and trade doesn’t really make sense.

In order to ‘make a market’ there has to be a “mis-distribution” of permits. The companies that the gov’t considers that don’t pollute as much as others, have to get ‘extra’“emission permits” to sell and the companies that the gov’t considers pollute too much, have to receive ‘less’“emission premits” than they actually need, so there is a need to ‘trade’ with the other companies.

If this isn’t the case then no ‘market’ and hence ‘no trade’ would occur.**IOW, if each company was issued the exact number of permits needed to pollute then there would be no need to ‘trade’.**

So we end up with an example like this (using local companies):

Toledo Edison (just for examples-sake) emits 1 million ton of C02 and/or greenhouse gases a month. They get ‘emission permits’ that allow them to pollute 2 mil. ton a month - again, if not, nothing to trade.

BP emits 3 million ton of ghg’s per month, but they only get emission permits to emit 2 million ton a month, thereby ‘creating a need’ to trade.

Toledo Edison sells their extra permit to BP - and hence Edison “benefits” by being “less polluting” and BP is ‘punished’ by being made to buy permission.**But the end result is still a total of 4 million ton of ghg’s being emitted **- 1 mil tons ghg from Edison and 3 mil tons from BP.

The result is a ‘tax’ on BP and that will be handled in the same manner that all companies that have ever existed, handles a tax - pass it on to their customers. The other result is a ‘subsidy’ to Edison and like any other subsidy that has ever existed, it will decrease any incentive to expand.

Both sides will cost the consumers and the workforce and have NO effect on ghg emissions. IOW, from a socialist view ,“Mission Accomplished”.
Chebama

Avon, MN

#22 Jul 9, 2009
Labratt wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one blowing hot air all the time. Greenpeace is going to take teir place as the good guys in all this, and you fools will look pretty stupid, I mean more stupid than you look now.
How did greenpeace get to Rushmore?

Since: Jul 08

Brooklyn Park

#23 Jul 9, 2009
Chebama wrote:
<quoted text>
How did greenpeace get to Rushmore?
Car pool? They probably picked up trash on the way up, and back down too. It's what they do.
Arrogant American

Duluth, MN

#24 Jul 9, 2009
Ronald Reagan belongs on Mount Rushmore.

Since: Aug 08

Saint Paul, MN

#25 Jul 10, 2009
Labratt wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you put words in my mouth, are you defensive? Nowhere did I say tourists deface mountains. Try actually reading posts, and using your head once.
My apologies for interpreting "I am quite sure that Greenpeace did less damage than the average tourist does during their stay at Mount Rushmore" to mean that you believe that the tourists climb the mountain daily. Maybe you could explain in what way you think tourists damage Mount Rushmore more so than climbing on it to drape a banner over it?

Since: Aug 08

Saint Paul, MN

#26 Jul 10, 2009
Labratt wrote:
<quoted text>
Car pool? They probably picked up trash on the way up, and back down too. It's what they do.
Do you suppose that if Greenpeace really believed in saving the planet that they would be traveling by horse or mule instead of fossil fuel burning vehicles?
The Big Bopper

Saint Paul, MN

#27 Jul 10, 2009
It must have worked because WE DON'T HAVE GLOBAL WARMING. (course we've never had it, but let them have their moment).

Since: Jul 08

Brooklyn Park

#28 Jul 10, 2009
joetraveller wrote:
<quoted text> My apologies for interpreting "I am quite sure that Greenpeace did less damage than the average tourist does during their stay at Mount Rushmore" to mean that you believe that the tourists climb the mountain daily. Maybe you could explain in what way you think tourists damage Mount Rushmore more so than climbing on it to drape a banner over it?
I have been to Mount Rushmore many times, along with climbing Crazy Horse twice, and I love the Black Hills. I am an average tourist. I wasted gas getting there with less than a full auto, I probably shaved and brushed my teeth without stopping the water flow while at the motel, I may have even littered a little. I know that Greenpeace people really "walk the walk" on these conservation efforts, and therefore did less damage. I know it is a small difference, but I'm pretty sure that they car pooled to get there too. I am not too worried about the monument, it one very solid piece of rock. Thank you for you nice response.

Since: Jul 08

Brooklyn Park

#29 Jul 10, 2009
joetraveller wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you suppose that if Greenpeace really believed in saving the planet that they would be traveling by horse or mule instead of fossil fuel burning vehicles?
Nope.
DFL4LIFE

Minneapolis, MN

#30 Jul 10, 2009
Labratt wrote:
I am quite sure that Greenpeace did less damage than the average tourist does during their stay at Mount Rushmore. Just because climate change doesn't concern the selfish occupants of our planet, who are only concerned about the few years that directly affect them, conserving resources and preventing destruction are legitimate efforts. I too cringed when I first heard the story, but have since calmed down.
Well said. A good way to stop the environmental damage @ Rushmore would be to just dynamite the whole d*mn thing, people wouldn't have a reason to consume scarce resources and cause pollution in getting there. Besides, the monument honors a bunch of racists and fascists, namely repigliKKKans.
Hello

United States

#31 Jul 10, 2009
DFL4LIFE wrote:
<quoted text>Well said. A good way to stop the environmental damage @ Rushmore would be to just dynamite the whole d*mn thing, people wouldn't have a reason to consume scarce resources and cause pollution in getting there. Besides, the monument honors a bunch of racists and fascists, namely repigliKKKans.
You are a dumb-a-$$

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rushmore Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Friendship comes at a price for the new Seward ... (Oct '15) Oct '15 Phineas 6
News Exhibit celebrates Tuskegee airmen (Jul '14) Jul '14 Richies Cool Man ... 2
Worthington community meetings (Mar '14) Mar '14 AndySeales 1
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Minnesota ... (Oct '10) Jan '14 DutchQ 11
Election Who do you support for State House in Minnesota... (Oct '10) Oct '10 Nathan 2
News Literary events for June 6-13 (Jun '10) Jun '10 Patti Jirovec 1
CenturyTel is now CenturyLink, Same service & f... (Feb '10) Feb '10 CenturyLink 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rushmore Mortgages