Comments on: The Weekly Carboholic: ACCCE hired Bonner, but didn’t notify Congress of forgeries when they were discovered http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/05/the-weekly-carboholic-accce-hired-bonner/ Think. It ain't illegal yet... Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:03:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Lex http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/05/the-weekly-carboholic-accce-hired-bonner/comment-page-1/#comment-69771 Lex Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:22:09 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10697#comment-69771 The complex set of variables is, imo, the most difficult issue facing predictions about what climate change will/can/might do...and it works both ways. The people saying that it's a hoax don't deal with the variables; those most concerned with the issue regularly gloss over those same variables. Granted, trying to present the variables to the public will make most eyes glaze over. (This is one of the reasons why i value your environmental writing so much, Brian, you're one of the few i've read who honestly deals with the variables.) I think that CfC needs to be evaluated wholly as an economic stimulus at this point, because the rest appears to have been mostly window dressing...though it does appear that a significant amount of fuel may be saved over the long term because of it. As an economic stimulus, it seems to have done a better job than most of the other plans. The complex set of variables is, imo, the most difficult issue facing predictions about what climate change will/can/might do…and it works both ways. The people saying that it’s a hoax don’t deal with the variables; those most concerned with the issue regularly gloss over those same variables. Granted, trying to present the variables to the public will make most eyes glaze over. (This is one of the reasons why i value your environmental writing so much, Brian, you’re one of the few i’ve read who honestly deals with the variables.)

I think that CfC needs to be evaluated wholly as an economic stimulus at this point, because the rest appears to have been mostly window dressing…though it does appear that a significant amount of fuel may be saved over the long term because of it. As an economic stimulus, it seems to have done a better job than most of the other plans.

]]> By: Brian Angliss http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/05/the-weekly-carboholic-accce-hired-bonner/comment-page-1/#comment-69728 Brian Angliss Thu, 06 Aug 2009 04:43:55 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10697#comment-69728 From what I recall of the discussion of C4C in Congress, boosting Ford and GM actually was the purpose, while getting gas guzzlers (I guess "cash for guzzlers" doesn't sound as good, even though it's more accurate) off the road was important, but still secondary. From what I recall of the discussion of C4C in Congress, boosting Ford and GM actually was the purpose, while getting gas guzzlers (I guess “cash for guzzlers” doesn’t sound as good, even though it’s more accurate) off the road was important, but still secondary.

]]> By: jeff watson http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/05/the-weekly-carboholic-accce-hired-bonner/comment-page-1/#comment-69727 jeff watson Thu, 06 Aug 2009 04:37:55 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10697#comment-69727 Cash for clunkers might not do much for the environment, but it did make Ford stock go from 5.10 a share to 8.39 a share in 3 weeks. Since I own a big block of Ford, that program has made me the winner as I've covered my nut for the year. This is proof of the law of unintended consequences. Jeff Cash for clunkers might not do much for the environment, but it did make Ford stock go from 5.10 a share to 8.39 a share in 3 weeks. Since I own a big block of Ford, that program has made me the winner as I’ve covered my nut for the year. This is proof of the law of unintended consequences.

Jeff

]]>