<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_26_1237223</id>
	<title>US House May Pass "Cap &amp; Trade" Bill</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1246023900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jamie found this roundup on the <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009\_06/018779.php">status of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill</a>, which is about to be voted on by the US House of Representatives. (The article notes that if the majority Democrats can't see the 218 votes needed for passage, they will probably put off the vote.) The AP has put together a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/25/the-climate-bill-explaine\_n\_221233.html">FAQ</a> that says, "[The bill, if passed,] fundamentally will change how we use, produce and consume energy, ending the country's love affair with big gas-guzzling cars and its insatiable appetite for cheap electricity. This bill will put smaller, more efficient cars on the road, swap smokestacks for windmills and solar panels, and transform the appliances you can buy for your home." The odds-makers are giving the bill a marginal chance of passing in the House, with tougher going expected in the Senate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>jamie found this roundup on the status of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill , which is about to be voted on by the US House of Representatives .
( The article notes that if the majority Democrats ca n't see the 218 votes needed for passage , they will probably put off the vote .
) The AP has put together a FAQ that says , " [ The bill , if passed , ] fundamentally will change how we use , produce and consume energy , ending the country 's love affair with big gas-guzzling cars and its insatiable appetite for cheap electricity .
This bill will put smaller , more efficient cars on the road , swap smokestacks for windmills and solar panels , and transform the appliances you can buy for your home .
" The odds-makers are giving the bill a marginal chance of passing in the House , with tougher going expected in the Senate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jamie found this roundup on the status of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, which is about to be voted on by the US House of Representatives.
(The article notes that if the majority Democrats can't see the 218 votes needed for passage, they will probably put off the vote.
) The AP has put together a FAQ that says, "[The bill, if passed,] fundamentally will change how we use, produce and consume energy, ending the country's love affair with big gas-guzzling cars and its insatiable appetite for cheap electricity.
This bill will put smaller, more efficient cars on the road, swap smokestacks for windmills and solar panels, and transform the appliances you can buy for your home.
" The odds-makers are giving the bill a marginal chance of passing in the House, with tougher going expected in the Senate.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483485</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246034220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>He told the truth. Taxes will go up for 100\% of Americans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He told the truth .
Taxes will go up for 100 \ % of Americans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He told the truth.
Taxes will go up for 100\% of Americans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481713</id>
	<title>I'm sorry - troll alert</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246028820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I apologize right now for this troll comment.

Hey Democrats - suck my turbocharged tail pipe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I apologize right now for this troll comment .
Hey Democrats - suck my turbocharged tail pipe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I apologize right now for this troll comment.
Hey Democrats - suck my turbocharged tail pipe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482027</id>
	<title>Cap and Tax</title>
	<author>lgb</author>
	<datestamp>1246029900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will be the largest tax increase in United States history.  The House Dems are rushing this bill through without even reading the bill.


<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html" title="wsj.com" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html</a> [wsj.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be the largest tax increase in United States history .
The House Dems are rushing this bill through without even reading the bill .
http : //online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html [ wsj.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be the largest tax increase in United States history.
The House Dems are rushing this bill through without even reading the bill.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html [wsj.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484649</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>geobeck</author>
	<datestamp>1246038360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I think he meant to say that taxes would not go up 95\% for Americans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think he meant to say that taxes would not go up 95 \ % for Americans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think he meant to say that taxes would not go up 95\% for Americans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28496179</id>
	<title>The U.S. has Taken Step 1, with Many to Come</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1246130220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In short, the vote on this issue passed in the House of Representatives.  The next step is the vote in the Senate, were some bizarre amendments that will be added on at that point.  This is the President's bill, so it would be a good guess that he will sign it.  But sometimes it's a good idea to stand back and ask, "what is the long term goal?"  Basically, the U.S. has to wean itself from the incinerating of carbon based products for energy.  The U.S. is actually coming to understand that this will not be a short term goal.  Also, the citizens of the U.S. are becoming aware of the complexities in which energy usage is an integral part of their daily lives.  Investors are starting to comprehend the increasing costs of carbon based energy solutions and are evaluating their respective portfolios.  Researchers analyzing the actual mechanics are finding out that conversion to "Renewable Sources" is starting to be a little bit more complex with respect to maintaining energy levels, and increasing energy demands.  The costs of conversion to solar are steadily going down, currently the ROI, "Return On Investment" is about 240 months.  With an average life of 240 months, Solar is a "Break Even" solution.  In order for Solar, and Wind to proceed, their respective ROI's have to be about 25\% of "Break Even Point", or the general public can't afford it.  Why? because the costs are not trivial to the average home owner that also has to raise a family.  Any cost that has the word, "thousands" after it is not an easy number to accept.  There are some emerging examples that have the ROI at about 120 months.  It appears that a combination of Wind and Sun will add a better solution to the "energy needs mix."  But it is painfully obvious that there is no one solution, but a combination of several solutions for all people involved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In short , the vote on this issue passed in the House of Representatives .
The next step is the vote in the Senate , were some bizarre amendments that will be added on at that point .
This is the President 's bill , so it would be a good guess that he will sign it .
But sometimes it 's a good idea to stand back and ask , " what is the long term goal ?
" Basically , the U.S. has to wean itself from the incinerating of carbon based products for energy .
The U.S. is actually coming to understand that this will not be a short term goal .
Also , the citizens of the U.S. are becoming aware of the complexities in which energy usage is an integral part of their daily lives .
Investors are starting to comprehend the increasing costs of carbon based energy solutions and are evaluating their respective portfolios .
Researchers analyzing the actual mechanics are finding out that conversion to " Renewable Sources " is starting to be a little bit more complex with respect to maintaining energy levels , and increasing energy demands .
The costs of conversion to solar are steadily going down , currently the ROI , " Return On Investment " is about 240 months .
With an average life of 240 months , Solar is a " Break Even " solution .
In order for Solar , and Wind to proceed , their respective ROI 's have to be about 25 \ % of " Break Even Point " , or the general public ca n't afford it .
Why ? because the costs are not trivial to the average home owner that also has to raise a family .
Any cost that has the word , " thousands " after it is not an easy number to accept .
There are some emerging examples that have the ROI at about 120 months .
It appears that a combination of Wind and Sun will add a better solution to the " energy needs mix .
" But it is painfully obvious that there is no one solution , but a combination of several solutions for all people involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In short, the vote on this issue passed in the House of Representatives.
The next step is the vote in the Senate, were some bizarre amendments that will be added on at that point.
This is the President's bill, so it would be a good guess that he will sign it.
But sometimes it's a good idea to stand back and ask, "what is the long term goal?
"  Basically, the U.S. has to wean itself from the incinerating of carbon based products for energy.
The U.S. is actually coming to understand that this will not be a short term goal.
Also, the citizens of the U.S. are becoming aware of the complexities in which energy usage is an integral part of their daily lives.
Investors are starting to comprehend the increasing costs of carbon based energy solutions and are evaluating their respective portfolios.
Researchers analyzing the actual mechanics are finding out that conversion to "Renewable Sources" is starting to be a little bit more complex with respect to maintaining energy levels, and increasing energy demands.
The costs of conversion to solar are steadily going down, currently the ROI, "Return On Investment" is about 240 months.
With an average life of 240 months, Solar is a "Break Even" solution.
In order for Solar, and Wind to proceed, their respective ROI's have to be about 25\% of "Break Even Point", or the general public can't afford it.
Why? because the costs are not trivial to the average home owner that also has to raise a family.
Any cost that has the word, "thousands" after it is not an easy number to accept.
There are some emerging examples that have the ROI at about 120 months.
It appears that a combination of Wind and Sun will add a better solution to the "energy needs mix.
"  But it is painfully obvious that there is no one solution, but a combination of several solutions for all people involved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482267</id>
	<title>Re:Another bad move</title>
	<author>tonyreadsnews</author>
	<datestamp>1246030620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What business person wants lower profit, and by extension, lower carbon emissions?</p></div><p>That is the system we currently have today, which doesn't work.</p><p>
Now, if someone builds a new power plant (for example) today, they have to take into account this new market. If they make choices that reduce their overall pollution index for the new plant:<br>
1. They pay less taxes<br>
2. May be able to make extra money by selling the difference between their pollution index and the allowed pollution index.</p><p>
Now if you are an older plant with higher emissions, the maintenance cost will go up, which motivates to either refurbish or build a more efficient one. Or, if it is able to produce goods at such a high profit, they can buy permits from the previous company.</p><p>
This is all about incentives to make choices that are better environmentally, and since corporations only maximize profit, that's how you motivate them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What business person wants lower profit , and by extension , lower carbon emissions ? That is the system we currently have today , which does n't work .
Now , if someone builds a new power plant ( for example ) today , they have to take into account this new market .
If they make choices that reduce their overall pollution index for the new plant : 1 .
They pay less taxes 2 .
May be able to make extra money by selling the difference between their pollution index and the allowed pollution index .
Now if you are an older plant with higher emissions , the maintenance cost will go up , which motivates to either refurbish or build a more efficient one .
Or , if it is able to produce goods at such a high profit , they can buy permits from the previous company .
This is all about incentives to make choices that are better environmentally , and since corporations only maximize profit , that 's how you motivate them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What business person wants lower profit, and by extension, lower carbon emissions?That is the system we currently have today, which doesn't work.
Now, if someone builds a new power plant (for example) today, they have to take into account this new market.
If they make choices that reduce their overall pollution index for the new plant:
1.
They pay less taxes
2.
May be able to make extra money by selling the difference between their pollution index and the allowed pollution index.
Now if you are an older plant with higher emissions, the maintenance cost will go up, which motivates to either refurbish or build a more efficient one.
Or, if it is able to produce goods at such a high profit, they can buy permits from the previous company.
This is all about incentives to make choices that are better environmentally, and since corporations only maximize profit, that's how you motivate them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485459</id>
	<title>More like Cap and Kill</title>
	<author>JohnnyGTO</author>
	<datestamp>1246041420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All this will d0 is kill off the remaining industry in the US and create far more pollution for the world. Do you think for an instant China is going to due this, or India, Mexico?
<br> <br>
One quick example. Do you know were all that CAT-V cable scrap goes when you trade it's copper in for cash? China! Why? Because they will burn off that poisonous jacket with no regard for employee or environment. I know, I made $800 last year with one truck load and asked how they were going to strip the jacket. It was more profitable to just sell it overseas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All this will d0 is kill off the remaining industry in the US and create far more pollution for the world .
Do you think for an instant China is going to due this , or India , Mexico ?
One quick example .
Do you know were all that CAT-V cable scrap goes when you trade it 's copper in for cash ?
China ! Why ?
Because they will burn off that poisonous jacket with no regard for employee or environment .
I know , I made $ 800 last year with one truck load and asked how they were going to strip the jacket .
It was more profitable to just sell it overseas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this will d0 is kill off the remaining industry in the US and create far more pollution for the world.
Do you think for an instant China is going to due this, or India, Mexico?
One quick example.
Do you know were all that CAT-V cable scrap goes when you trade it's copper in for cash?
China! Why?
Because they will burn off that poisonous jacket with no regard for employee or environment.
I know, I made $800 last year with one truck load and asked how they were going to strip the jacket.
It was more profitable to just sell it overseas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28487535</id>
	<title>Re:Tax &amp; Kill</title>
	<author>Player 03</author>
	<datestamp>1246007340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All of this for reducing Carbon Dioxide - which is not proven to be a pollutant, and for reducing global warming - even when there is no proof that human activities are impacting climate.</p></div><p>There is still some debate, but the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_opinion\_on\_climate\_change" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">scientific majority</a> [wikipedia.org] accepts that climate change is at least partially caused by people, and the debate has moved on to how we can stop changing the climate.<br>
"Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions."
<br> <br>
That isn't to say that this particular bill is the answer. It might help in the long term, but this is probably not the time to propose it, judging by the number of people attacking it for economic reasons.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All of this for reducing Carbon Dioxide - which is not proven to be a pollutant , and for reducing global warming - even when there is no proof that human activities are impacting climate.There is still some debate , but the scientific majority [ wikipedia.org ] accepts that climate change is at least partially caused by people , and the debate has moved on to how we can stop changing the climate .
" Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion .
A few organisations hold non-committal positions .
" That is n't to say that this particular bill is the answer .
It might help in the long term , but this is probably not the time to propose it , judging by the number of people attacking it for economic reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of this for reducing Carbon Dioxide - which is not proven to be a pollutant, and for reducing global warming - even when there is no proof that human activities are impacting climate.There is still some debate, but the scientific majority [wikipedia.org] accepts that climate change is at least partially caused by people, and the debate has moved on to how we can stop changing the climate.
"Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.
A few organisations hold non-committal positions.
"
 
That isn't to say that this particular bill is the answer.
It might help in the long term, but this is probably not the time to propose it, judging by the number of people attacking it for economic reasons.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481757</id>
	<title>Re:So they want me to drive a hybrid.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246029000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, Al Gore could profit a ton from this because he has interest in a company that buys and sells these so-called carbon credits. How convenient...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Al Gore could profit a ton from this because he has interest in a company that buys and sells these so-called carbon credits .
How convenient.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Al Gore could profit a ton from this because he has interest in a company that buys and sells these so-called carbon credits.
How convenient...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483677</id>
	<title>Re:Tax &amp; Kill</title>
	<author>SilverEyes</author>
	<datestamp>1246034820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Smart Fortwo couldn't even fit a one week load of groceries for the average American family.</p></div><p>
Maybe the average American family should work on eating less.  You know, this may help solve even more problems than climate change!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Smart Fortwo could n't even fit a one week load of groceries for the average American family .
Maybe the average American family should work on eating less .
You know , this may help solve even more problems than climate change !
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Smart Fortwo couldn't even fit a one week load of groceries for the average American family.
Maybe the average American family should work on eating less.
You know, this may help solve even more problems than climate change!
:P

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28488861</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>jbdigriz</author>
	<datestamp>1246013640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Just like the market in sulphur emissions that GHW Bush helped create back in the day, that took acid rain from a big problem to a minor one."</p><p>Did it really, now? Or was it the cheap (yeah, all those corpses were cheap next to $2.00/gal gas) oil? Or did it happen at all? The reduction to a minor problem, that is. In realilty, not politically. I wouldn't mind seeing some figures.</p><p>However, for the sake of argument, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Notice however, that we are no closer to production fusion reactors or even fast-breeder fission to charge up all those "green" electric and "non-polluting" hydrogen cars with.</p><p>So how about we have a market on radionuclide emssions from coal-fired or even oil-burning power plants? Yeah, I can't see any politicians touching that one with a ten foot pole, either. But yes, logically, while you are correct in theory, at least in the limited context of reducing any given pollutant, you are overlooking  1) avarice and greed mixed with politics stacking the deck, as happened with the prototypical marketization of externalities, wetlands mitigation, and 2) the fact that this whole approach is a bandaid solution to begin with, rife with unintended and unwelcome consequences, not the least of which is further erosion of seemingly unrelated freedoms, economic repression, and stfling of true innovation. It's squeezing the little guy completely out of the picture. And you ignore him at your peril.</p><p>You really want to end pollution and environmental disaster, get Congress to stop creating and subsidizing monopolies with measures such as this. Slash spending and entitlements. There is no more money anyway. Repudiate debts, or they will be repudiated for you. Abolish the Fed, repeal the income tax and a bunch of others, and hang the bankers and insurance companies, or at least stop using the U.S. taxpayer as  a neverending sink for their obligations, which they weasel out of anyway. Let *real" markets work. It's never really been tried before.  The "Robber Baron" era, often cited as unbridled capitalism, was not free markets by any means, and could not have happened without corrupt legislatures waiving liabilities, lavishing grants and subsidies to privilieged elites to start with.. But I digress.</p><p>I'm not holding my breath, of course, but don't delude yourself either that cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, etc. will do a damned thing about climate change, except determine who gets air-conditioning and who gets to sweat to pay for it.</p><p>I'm sorry. I'm just not in a very optimistc mood today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Just like the market in sulphur emissions that GHW Bush helped create back in the day , that took acid rain from a big problem to a minor one .
" Did it really , now ?
Or was it the cheap ( yeah , all those corpses were cheap next to $ 2.00/gal gas ) oil ?
Or did it happen at all ?
The reduction to a minor problem , that is .
In realilty , not politically .
I would n't mind seeing some figures.However , for the sake of argument , I 'll give you the benefit of the doubt .
Notice however , that we are no closer to production fusion reactors or even fast-breeder fission to charge up all those " green " electric and " non-polluting " hydrogen cars with.So how about we have a market on radionuclide emssions from coal-fired or even oil-burning power plants ?
Yeah , I ca n't see any politicians touching that one with a ten foot pole , either .
But yes , logically , while you are correct in theory , at least in the limited context of reducing any given pollutant , you are overlooking 1 ) avarice and greed mixed with politics stacking the deck , as happened with the prototypical marketization of externalities , wetlands mitigation , and 2 ) the fact that this whole approach is a bandaid solution to begin with , rife with unintended and unwelcome consequences , not the least of which is further erosion of seemingly unrelated freedoms , economic repression , and stfling of true innovation .
It 's squeezing the little guy completely out of the picture .
And you ignore him at your peril.You really want to end pollution and environmental disaster , get Congress to stop creating and subsidizing monopolies with measures such as this .
Slash spending and entitlements .
There is no more money anyway .
Repudiate debts , or they will be repudiated for you .
Abolish the Fed , repeal the income tax and a bunch of others , and hang the bankers and insurance companies , or at least stop using the U.S. taxpayer as a neverending sink for their obligations , which they weasel out of anyway .
Let * real " markets work .
It 's never really been tried before .
The " Robber Baron " era , often cited as unbridled capitalism , was not free markets by any means , and could not have happened without corrupt legislatures waiving liabilities , lavishing grants and subsidies to privilieged elites to start with.. But I digress.I 'm not holding my breath , of course , but do n't delude yourself either that cap-and-trade , carbon taxes , etc .
will do a damned thing about climate change , except determine who gets air-conditioning and who gets to sweat to pay for it.I 'm sorry .
I 'm just not in a very optimistc mood today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Just like the market in sulphur emissions that GHW Bush helped create back in the day, that took acid rain from a big problem to a minor one.
"Did it really, now?
Or was it the cheap (yeah, all those corpses were cheap next to $2.00/gal gas) oil?
Or did it happen at all?
The reduction to a minor problem, that is.
In realilty, not politically.
I wouldn't mind seeing some figures.However, for the sake of argument, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Notice however, that we are no closer to production fusion reactors or even fast-breeder fission to charge up all those "green" electric and "non-polluting" hydrogen cars with.So how about we have a market on radionuclide emssions from coal-fired or even oil-burning power plants?
Yeah, I can't see any politicians touching that one with a ten foot pole, either.
But yes, logically, while you are correct in theory, at least in the limited context of reducing any given pollutant, you are overlooking  1) avarice and greed mixed with politics stacking the deck, as happened with the prototypical marketization of externalities, wetlands mitigation, and 2) the fact that this whole approach is a bandaid solution to begin with, rife with unintended and unwelcome consequences, not the least of which is further erosion of seemingly unrelated freedoms, economic repression, and stfling of true innovation.
It's squeezing the little guy completely out of the picture.
And you ignore him at your peril.You really want to end pollution and environmental disaster, get Congress to stop creating and subsidizing monopolies with measures such as this.
Slash spending and entitlements.
There is no more money anyway.
Repudiate debts, or they will be repudiated for you.
Abolish the Fed, repeal the income tax and a bunch of others, and hang the bankers and insurance companies, or at least stop using the U.S. taxpayer as  a neverending sink for their obligations, which they weasel out of anyway.
Let *real" markets work.
It's never really been tried before.
The "Robber Baron" era, often cited as unbridled capitalism, was not free markets by any means, and could not have happened without corrupt legislatures waiving liabilities, lavishing grants and subsidies to privilieged elites to start with.. But I digress.I'm not holding my breath, of course, but don't delude yourself either that cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, etc.
will do a damned thing about climate change, except determine who gets air-conditioning and who gets to sweat to pay for it.I'm sorry.
I'm just not in a very optimistc mood today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486337</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246045320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You would have an excellent point, except that the $1400 is a cost per year, so it's actually assuming people spend about $70/month on electricity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would have an excellent point , except that the $ 1400 is a cost per year , so it 's actually assuming people spend about $ 70/month on electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would have an excellent point, except that the $1400 is a cost per year, so it's actually assuming people spend about $70/month on electricity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28489081</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246014780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>He said that we have to bail out the automakers and not let them file bankruptcy for the good of the US, he only saved the CEOs and investors, then let them file for bankruptcy anyway.</i> </p><p>One CEO got fired, a power previously not known to lie with the President or the Administration.  However he also saved the Unions, giving them a huge chunk of the 'new' companies and saving them from taking too much of a hit for their part (a large, but not exclusive) in dragging those companies down.  Even got preference over bondholders that legally should have had more claim to any proceeds.  Law?  Precedent?  Silly people, move on!  This is all part of the "Change"!</p><p> <i>He promised that there wouldn't be any new taxes on the middle or lower class, but most of the bills he's pushing amount to direct taxes on everyone. Cap and Trade=Fuel tax, National healthcare=tax hike for any employed American with health insurance, Raising capital gains taxes=tax hike on anyone with a 401k or IRA account.</i> </p><p>And again, the current version of the healthcare bill EXCLUDES union health care benefits from the taxation mentioned (and also excludes members of the legislature from having to participate in this wonderful new system they desire for 'the rest of us'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He said that we have to bail out the automakers and not let them file bankruptcy for the good of the US , he only saved the CEOs and investors , then let them file for bankruptcy anyway .
One CEO got fired , a power previously not known to lie with the President or the Administration .
However he also saved the Unions , giving them a huge chunk of the 'new ' companies and saving them from taking too much of a hit for their part ( a large , but not exclusive ) in dragging those companies down .
Even got preference over bondholders that legally should have had more claim to any proceeds .
Law ? Precedent ?
Silly people , move on !
This is all part of the " Change " !
He promised that there would n't be any new taxes on the middle or lower class , but most of the bills he 's pushing amount to direct taxes on everyone .
Cap and Trade = Fuel tax , National healthcare = tax hike for any employed American with health insurance , Raising capital gains taxes = tax hike on anyone with a 401k or IRA account .
And again , the current version of the healthcare bill EXCLUDES union health care benefits from the taxation mentioned ( and also excludes members of the legislature from having to participate in this wonderful new system they desire for 'the rest of us' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> He said that we have to bail out the automakers and not let them file bankruptcy for the good of the US, he only saved the CEOs and investors, then let them file for bankruptcy anyway.
One CEO got fired, a power previously not known to lie with the President or the Administration.
However he also saved the Unions, giving them a huge chunk of the 'new' companies and saving them from taking too much of a hit for their part (a large, but not exclusive) in dragging those companies down.
Even got preference over bondholders that legally should have had more claim to any proceeds.
Law?  Precedent?
Silly people, move on!
This is all part of the "Change"!
He promised that there wouldn't be any new taxes on the middle or lower class, but most of the bills he's pushing amount to direct taxes on everyone.
Cap and Trade=Fuel tax, National healthcare=tax hike for any employed American with health insurance, Raising capital gains taxes=tax hike on anyone with a 401k or IRA account.
And again, the current version of the healthcare bill EXCLUDES union health care benefits from the taxation mentioned (and also excludes members of the legislature from having to participate in this wonderful new system they desire for 'the rest of us'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28489209</id>
	<title>FRAUD!</title>
	<author>rhook</author>
	<datestamp>1246015680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This bill will create the single largest tax increase in US history. Expect to pay 3x what you do now for electricity if this bill passes. Let your representatives know that you oppose this bill.

<a href="http://capwiz.com/freedomworks/issues/alert/?alertid=13618876&amp;type=ML" title="capwiz.com" rel="nofollow">http://capwiz.com/freedomworks/issues/alert/?alertid=13618876&amp;type=ML</a> [capwiz.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This bill will create the single largest tax increase in US history .
Expect to pay 3x what you do now for electricity if this bill passes .
Let your representatives know that you oppose this bill .
http : //capwiz.com/freedomworks/issues/alert/ ? alertid = 13618876&amp;type = ML [ capwiz.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bill will create the single largest tax increase in US history.
Expect to pay 3x what you do now for electricity if this bill passes.
Let your representatives know that you oppose this bill.
http://capwiz.com/freedomworks/issues/alert/?alertid=13618876&amp;type=ML [capwiz.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482617</id>
	<title>Re:So long they hired a speed reader</title>
	<author>Foochee</author>
	<datestamp>1246031580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congress should take a lesson from grade school: Read the whole bill, then give an oral report in front of the class.</p><p>You know when the time comes to give their reports, you're going to hear so many, "Umm... Mrs Speaker-Of-The-House....umm.. my dog ate my homework.."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congress should take a lesson from grade school : Read the whole bill , then give an oral report in front of the class.You know when the time comes to give their reports , you 're going to hear so many , " Umm... Mrs Speaker-Of-The-House....umm.. my dog ate my homework.. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congress should take a lesson from grade school: Read the whole bill, then give an oral report in front of the class.You know when the time comes to give their reports, you're going to hear so many, "Umm... Mrs Speaker-Of-The-House....umm.. my dog ate my homework.."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482079</id>
	<title>Re:Horrible Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246030020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>American politics are about popularity.</p><p>So far everything obama has done, has had abysmal approval ratings.  Nobody wanted stimulus, more bailouts, the outright takeover of the auto industry, or a monumental tax grab in the name of 'saving the children'.</p><p>Yet Obama's approval rating keeps going up.</p><p>It's absurd and has caused me to completely lose any faith I had in the "american spirit and ingenuity" which is supposed to save the world of tomorrow.</p><p>Face it, america, you are stupid, lethargic, greedy, spoiled, and in every way an empire in decline.</p><p>The modern nobility and ruling class are now taking what they see as theirs with both hands, with only a laughable veneer of social responsibility cloaking it all.</p><p>Don't forget there's another 10 trillion for the health care entitlements (corporate giveaways) coming down the pipe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>American politics are about popularity.So far everything obama has done , has had abysmal approval ratings .
Nobody wanted stimulus , more bailouts , the outright takeover of the auto industry , or a monumental tax grab in the name of 'saving the children'.Yet Obama 's approval rating keeps going up.It 's absurd and has caused me to completely lose any faith I had in the " american spirit and ingenuity " which is supposed to save the world of tomorrow.Face it , america , you are stupid , lethargic , greedy , spoiled , and in every way an empire in decline.The modern nobility and ruling class are now taking what they see as theirs with both hands , with only a laughable veneer of social responsibility cloaking it all.Do n't forget there 's another 10 trillion for the health care entitlements ( corporate giveaways ) coming down the pipe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American politics are about popularity.So far everything obama has done, has had abysmal approval ratings.
Nobody wanted stimulus, more bailouts, the outright takeover of the auto industry, or a monumental tax grab in the name of 'saving the children'.Yet Obama's approval rating keeps going up.It's absurd and has caused me to completely lose any faith I had in the "american spirit and ingenuity" which is supposed to save the world of tomorrow.Face it, america, you are stupid, lethargic, greedy, spoiled, and in every way an empire in decline.The modern nobility and ruling class are now taking what they see as theirs with both hands, with only a laughable veneer of social responsibility cloaking it all.Don't forget there's another 10 trillion for the health care entitlements (corporate giveaways) coming down the pipe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482301</id>
	<title>This has happened in the EU since 2005.</title>
	<author>Sri.Theo</author>
	<datestamp>1246030680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EU emission trading scheme is pretty much identical to this and its been in action since 2005. Our economy hasn't exactly collapsed (well, not due to the ETS anyway).</p><p>And it won't exactly be putting you on an uneven footing, it will be far less then the standards EU countries are enforcing upon themselves, Canada and Australia are attempting to introducing similar schemes and are at a similar legislative stage to the US. So its more moving in line with the entire Western world, because we have a \_responsibilty\_ to clean up our own mess, its not fair to create a problem then say its not our responsibility.</p><p>Equally those complaining about rising energy costs are missing the point, that's what the "cap" part of cap and trade is supposed to do, the "trade" part alleviates that by allowing permits to be gathered by those who really need to pollute.</p><p>Externalities are a known problem with free markets, its in the individuals interests to push as much of their obligations on to everyone else. In this case pollution and the global problems that causes. It's societies role to make sure people don't do that.</p><p>Responsibility is an integral part of liberty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU emission trading scheme is pretty much identical to this and its been in action since 2005 .
Our economy has n't exactly collapsed ( well , not due to the ETS anyway ) .And it wo n't exactly be putting you on an uneven footing , it will be far less then the standards EU countries are enforcing upon themselves , Canada and Australia are attempting to introducing similar schemes and are at a similar legislative stage to the US .
So its more moving in line with the entire Western world , because we have a \ _responsibilty \ _ to clean up our own mess , its not fair to create a problem then say its not our responsibility.Equally those complaining about rising energy costs are missing the point , that 's what the " cap " part of cap and trade is supposed to do , the " trade " part alleviates that by allowing permits to be gathered by those who really need to pollute.Externalities are a known problem with free markets , its in the individuals interests to push as much of their obligations on to everyone else .
In this case pollution and the global problems that causes .
It 's societies role to make sure people do n't do that.Responsibility is an integral part of liberty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU emission trading scheme is pretty much identical to this and its been in action since 2005.
Our economy hasn't exactly collapsed (well, not due to the ETS anyway).And it won't exactly be putting you on an uneven footing, it will be far less then the standards EU countries are enforcing upon themselves, Canada and Australia are attempting to introducing similar schemes and are at a similar legislative stage to the US.
So its more moving in line with the entire Western world, because we have a \_responsibilty\_ to clean up our own mess, its not fair to create a problem then say its not our responsibility.Equally those complaining about rising energy costs are missing the point, that's what the "cap" part of cap and trade is supposed to do, the "trade" part alleviates that by allowing permits to be gathered by those who really need to pollute.Externalities are a known problem with free markets, its in the individuals interests to push as much of their obligations on to everyone else.
In this case pollution and the global problems that causes.
It's societies role to make sure people don't do that.Responsibility is an integral part of liberty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481557</id>
	<title>What a Great Plan</title>
	<author>Clipless</author>
	<datestamp>1246028160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For instance, it will be very tough for coal plants to reduce emissions at the outset of the program because the technology to capture and store carbon dioxide is not yet commercially available. It probably is 10 to 20 years away. So they will be buying offsets and buying allowances from other entities that will have an easier time</p></div><p>Lets write laws now because the technology might be there in the future!<br>This is brilliant, I can't find any flaws in this logic at all!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For instance , it will be very tough for coal plants to reduce emissions at the outset of the program because the technology to capture and store carbon dioxide is not yet commercially available .
It probably is 10 to 20 years away .
So they will be buying offsets and buying allowances from other entities that will have an easier timeLets write laws now because the technology might be there in the future ! This is brilliant , I ca n't find any flaws in this logic at all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For instance, it will be very tough for coal plants to reduce emissions at the outset of the program because the technology to capture and store carbon dioxide is not yet commercially available.
It probably is 10 to 20 years away.
So they will be buying offsets and buying allowances from other entities that will have an easier timeLets write laws now because the technology might be there in the future!This is brilliant, I can't find any flaws in this logic at all!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>goldspider</author>
	<datestamp>1246029300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This can't be true.  Obama promised that taxes would not go up for 95\% of Americans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This ca n't be true .
Obama promised that taxes would not go up for 95 \ % of Americans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This can't be true.
Obama promised that taxes would not go up for 95\% of Americans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486103</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1246044060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm no Obama supporter and he does tend to talk out of 360 degrees of his mouth, but he promised to close Gitmo, he didn't say how long it would take. How about we let them fellers in there live with you, you'd be okay with that right? It's for the good of the nation, son, so ante up.</p><p>The CEO of Chrysler got whacked as did the CEO of GM, you may have missed it in the news since you apparently do not pay attention. Ford hasn't taken any taxpayer money yet (but they probably will before its all over). Also, the bond holders got it between the eyes. Them are also called 'investors'. How about the stock holders, you think they are in the money right now?</p><p>Yep, he lied his ass off about taxes. Anyone with a brain knew that, which leaves out most of the dazzled press corps who seem to wet themselves whenever He looks at them.</p><p>Bush didn't raise your taxes and as a result, our massive federal deficit even without the 'stimulus' Mr. Wonderful and the Dems insisted on passing so when a recovery comes they can crow about how they made it happen.</p><p>Yep, life's a bitch here in the U.S. with no hope to look forward too. Alas, woe is us, we have no hope...sniff...wimper. Egads, stop being  such a post-modern weenie...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no Obama supporter and he does tend to talk out of 360 degrees of his mouth , but he promised to close Gitmo , he did n't say how long it would take .
How about we let them fellers in there live with you , you 'd be okay with that right ?
It 's for the good of the nation , son , so ante up.The CEO of Chrysler got whacked as did the CEO of GM , you may have missed it in the news since you apparently do not pay attention .
Ford has n't taken any taxpayer money yet ( but they probably will before its all over ) .
Also , the bond holders got it between the eyes .
Them are also called 'investors' .
How about the stock holders , you think they are in the money right now ? Yep , he lied his ass off about taxes .
Anyone with a brain knew that , which leaves out most of the dazzled press corps who seem to wet themselves whenever He looks at them.Bush did n't raise your taxes and as a result , our massive federal deficit even without the 'stimulus ' Mr. Wonderful and the Dems insisted on passing so when a recovery comes they can crow about how they made it happen.Yep , life 's a bitch here in the U.S. with no hope to look forward too .
Alas , woe is us , we have no hope...sniff...wimper .
Egads , stop being such a post-modern weenie.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no Obama supporter and he does tend to talk out of 360 degrees of his mouth, but he promised to close Gitmo, he didn't say how long it would take.
How about we let them fellers in there live with you, you'd be okay with that right?
It's for the good of the nation, son, so ante up.The CEO of Chrysler got whacked as did the CEO of GM, you may have missed it in the news since you apparently do not pay attention.
Ford hasn't taken any taxpayer money yet (but they probably will before its all over).
Also, the bond holders got it between the eyes.
Them are also called 'investors'.
How about the stock holders, you think they are in the money right now?Yep, he lied his ass off about taxes.
Anyone with a brain knew that, which leaves out most of the dazzled press corps who seem to wet themselves whenever He looks at them.Bush didn't raise your taxes and as a result, our massive federal deficit even without the 'stimulus' Mr. Wonderful and the Dems insisted on passing so when a recovery comes they can crow about how they made it happen.Yep, life's a bitch here in the U.S. with no hope to look forward too.
Alas, woe is us, we have no hope...sniff...wimper.
Egads, stop being  such a post-modern weenie...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483035</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>MeisterVT</author>
	<datestamp>1246032780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, hold on to your wallet, change is coming...</p></div><p>Don't you mean "Hang on to your wallet, your change is leaving"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , hold on to your wallet , change is coming...Do n't you mean " Hang on to your wallet , your change is leaving " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, hold on to your wallet, change is coming...Don't you mean "Hang on to your wallet, your change is leaving"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482099</id>
	<title>Re:Horrible Idea</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1246030140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Virtually every person I know who voted for Obama has said they regret it.  The best part is, we told them he would do this crap, yet they refused to listen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Virtually every person I know who voted for Obama has said they regret it .
The best part is , we told them he would do this crap , yet they refused to listen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virtually every person I know who voted for Obama has said they regret it.
The best part is, we told them he would do this crap, yet they refused to listen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28491091</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246033800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since I will never remember my login anyway, here is my post via Anonymous Coward. It seems there are many here that understand. Too bad we will never be in the majority. The populace that wants everything given to them is in charge. So here are the wasted words for the rest of us.</p><p>Renewable energy was spawned in the Carter years, during the first (the real) Energy Crisis. Government mandated what temperature buildings could maintain. Nixon decreed that Christmas lights were not cool to display. Things like fuel economy, energy efficiency and general prudence entered American vocabulary for the first time. And we listened. But, after all these years, 30 or more, renewables are less than 0.6\% of the energy picture. Read that again! Less than 0.6\%!</p><p>Does anyone know why? It is because it is cheaper to burn a barrel of oil. As soon as the 100 mile per gallon fuel injector becomes reality, as soon as the efficient solar cell becomes reality, as soon as enough wind generators are built, then the percentage will increase. But not until. Government has come to our rescue. They will artificially increase the price of fossil fuels until it becomes cheaper to do something besides burn a barrel of oil. The only problem is that they will sink America in the process. By making you terrible Americans suffer for your greed and excess, we will put every other country on the face of the earth ahead of America. And if there is another here that believes any other country is better for the world than our America, speak up.</p><p>Pelosi and her goons will be the planet-saving hippies. Only problem is that the rest of us take it in the shorts. Oh, and it is not Cap and Trade, it is Tax and Trade. This is another of Al Gore's vanguards. He has been wrong before, it seems he enjoys it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since I will never remember my login anyway , here is my post via Anonymous Coward .
It seems there are many here that understand .
Too bad we will never be in the majority .
The populace that wants everything given to them is in charge .
So here are the wasted words for the rest of us.Renewable energy was spawned in the Carter years , during the first ( the real ) Energy Crisis .
Government mandated what temperature buildings could maintain .
Nixon decreed that Christmas lights were not cool to display .
Things like fuel economy , energy efficiency and general prudence entered American vocabulary for the first time .
And we listened .
But , after all these years , 30 or more , renewables are less than 0.6 \ % of the energy picture .
Read that again !
Less than 0.6 \ % ! Does anyone know why ?
It is because it is cheaper to burn a barrel of oil .
As soon as the 100 mile per gallon fuel injector becomes reality , as soon as the efficient solar cell becomes reality , as soon as enough wind generators are built , then the percentage will increase .
But not until .
Government has come to our rescue .
They will artificially increase the price of fossil fuels until it becomes cheaper to do something besides burn a barrel of oil .
The only problem is that they will sink America in the process .
By making you terrible Americans suffer for your greed and excess , we will put every other country on the face of the earth ahead of America .
And if there is another here that believes any other country is better for the world than our America , speak up.Pelosi and her goons will be the planet-saving hippies .
Only problem is that the rest of us take it in the shorts .
Oh , and it is not Cap and Trade , it is Tax and Trade .
This is another of Al Gore 's vanguards .
He has been wrong before , it seems he enjoys it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since I will never remember my login anyway, here is my post via Anonymous Coward.
It seems there are many here that understand.
Too bad we will never be in the majority.
The populace that wants everything given to them is in charge.
So here are the wasted words for the rest of us.Renewable energy was spawned in the Carter years, during the first (the real) Energy Crisis.
Government mandated what temperature buildings could maintain.
Nixon decreed that Christmas lights were not cool to display.
Things like fuel economy, energy efficiency and general prudence entered American vocabulary for the first time.
And we listened.
But, after all these years, 30 or more, renewables are less than 0.6\% of the energy picture.
Read that again!
Less than 0.6\%!Does anyone know why?
It is because it is cheaper to burn a barrel of oil.
As soon as the 100 mile per gallon fuel injector becomes reality, as soon as the efficient solar cell becomes reality, as soon as enough wind generators are built, then the percentage will increase.
But not until.
Government has come to our rescue.
They will artificially increase the price of fossil fuels until it becomes cheaper to do something besides burn a barrel of oil.
The only problem is that they will sink America in the process.
By making you terrible Americans suffer for your greed and excess, we will put every other country on the face of the earth ahead of America.
And if there is another here that believes any other country is better for the world than our America, speak up.Pelosi and her goons will be the planet-saving hippies.
Only problem is that the rest of us take it in the shorts.
Oh, and it is not Cap and Trade, it is Tax and Trade.
This is another of Al Gore's vanguards.
He has been wrong before, it seems he enjoys it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485811</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246042800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But they're not. The taxes are on the energy companies. Just because the will end up charging you, the end customer, a lot more doesn't matter - you aren't being taxed at all. It is Evil Energy being greedy.</p><p>That is the line they use, anyways. You and I know better - it is an indirect tax on the entire nation.</p><p>I hate this administration even more then the last one. I thought the last group of people were big on tax and spend... This is even worse!</p><p>Is there a capitalist country left in the world? Anywhere?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But they 're not .
The taxes are on the energy companies .
Just because the will end up charging you , the end customer , a lot more does n't matter - you are n't being taxed at all .
It is Evil Energy being greedy.That is the line they use , anyways .
You and I know better - it is an indirect tax on the entire nation.I hate this administration even more then the last one .
I thought the last group of people were big on tax and spend... This is even worse ! Is there a capitalist country left in the world ?
Anywhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they're not.
The taxes are on the energy companies.
Just because the will end up charging you, the end customer, a lot more doesn't matter - you aren't being taxed at all.
It is Evil Energy being greedy.That is the line they use, anyways.
You and I know better - it is an indirect tax on the entire nation.I hate this administration even more then the last one.
I thought the last group of people were big on tax and spend... This is even worse!Is there a capitalist country left in the world?
Anywhere?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483577</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1246034460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; 5-15\% [marshall.org], or an average of $700-1400 per family per year.</p><p>Families spend $10,000 per year on electricity?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; 5-15 \ % [ marshall.org ] , or an average of $ 700-1400 per family per year.Families spend $ 10,000 per year on electricity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; 5-15\% [marshall.org], or an average of $700-1400 per family per year.Families spend $10,000 per year on electricity?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482573</id>
	<title>Re:Peak Oil necessitates energy conservation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246031400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This may be true but wouldn't you rather have the gov't pump money into scientific research, like those bacteria they keep talking about that can supposedly replace oil, than squeezing people until they decide they can't afford to use said energy.</p><p>The US can sit here and talk about how green and environmentaly friendly we are but it doesn't mean jack when all the manufacturing/refining has gone overseas, it's just been relocated not fixed.</p><p>On a side note this seems to be one of the many measures I'm sure to come that are planned to recover all the money we have blown with these assanine stimulus packages. If the environment was so important why not spend all that money retrofitting exisiting power plants, manufacturers, refiners, etc or planting trees tennesse valley authority style.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This may be true but would n't you rather have the gov't pump money into scientific research , like those bacteria they keep talking about that can supposedly replace oil , than squeezing people until they decide they ca n't afford to use said energy.The US can sit here and talk about how green and environmentaly friendly we are but it does n't mean jack when all the manufacturing/refining has gone overseas , it 's just been relocated not fixed.On a side note this seems to be one of the many measures I 'm sure to come that are planned to recover all the money we have blown with these assanine stimulus packages .
If the environment was so important why not spend all that money retrofitting exisiting power plants , manufacturers , refiners , etc or planting trees tennesse valley authority style .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may be true but wouldn't you rather have the gov't pump money into scientific research, like those bacteria they keep talking about that can supposedly replace oil, than squeezing people until they decide they can't afford to use said energy.The US can sit here and talk about how green and environmentaly friendly we are but it doesn't mean jack when all the manufacturing/refining has gone overseas, it's just been relocated not fixed.On a side note this seems to be one of the many measures I'm sure to come that are planned to recover all the money we have blown with these assanine stimulus packages.
If the environment was so important why not spend all that money retrofitting exisiting power plants, manufacturers, refiners, etc or planting trees tennesse valley authority style.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483045</id>
	<title>Good idea, but need to go further</title>
	<author>cthulhuology</author>
	<datestamp>1246032840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I know the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. community hates anything that will make their power hungry habits more expensive, but quite frankly this sort of bill is great news for us.  The United States has done a horrible job at implementing sane growth policies.  We've out sprawled, out consumed, while neglecting design lessons learned during times when energy was more expensive.  During the middle ages, cities were dense because energy was expensive.  Development took place along natural trade routes, such as water ways, because it was too expensive energy wise to move things over land.  Society developed in conjunction with energy that could largely be sustained, and when it didn't and over farmed, deforested, and depleted their water supply society collapsed.<br> <br>
For the past 100 years or so, we've been living high on the hog from new sources of energy we learned to exploit, with very little view to the long term consequences.  Since we have the ability to anticipate problems, it falls to those social institutions best suited to direct the course of our society's development to prevent its eventual collapse.  By paying a higher price now, we can defer the collapse of our civilization by several centuries.  For those of us with kids, ardent transhumanists, or just a little more altruistic than selfish, this is a desirable goal.<br> <br>
Does this mean that society will have to change?  Yes, but society has been changing faster and faster as technology advances.  So rather than burning ancient marine life, we'll charge our hyper-sexy full electric cars with waste heat from the sun.  Booo hooo.  Will suburban shopping malls disappear?  One can only hope! <br> <br>  The society of our future looks much more like the society of the 18th century, only with clean water, medicine, computers, plenty of food, and increasingly high levels of affluence globally.  Most of us will return  to living in small towns and villages, and the mega-cities will grow upwards (like Edinburgh did) not outwards. Most of us will live in walking distance of everything we need, including parks, wildlife, and recreation areas.<br> <br>
Also with having to make everything energy efficient, changes in technology mean huge work for all of us engineers.  Huge money making opportunites will arise when the Feds start taxing waste.  Construction will boom, durable goods spending will flourish, and any geek with half a brain will figure out how to "green" some old clunky tech and make a buck.<br> <br>
So quit your bitching... our green future is bright and profitable.  Maybe with the higher energy costs, our server farms won't require air-conditioning to operate, and could just be shoved in a closet.  Higher commuting costs mean telecommuting becomes even more attractive.  As someone who has telecommuted for the past 6 years, let me tell you that's a very good thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I know the / .
community hates anything that will make their power hungry habits more expensive , but quite frankly this sort of bill is great news for us .
The United States has done a horrible job at implementing sane growth policies .
We 've out sprawled , out consumed , while neglecting design lessons learned during times when energy was more expensive .
During the middle ages , cities were dense because energy was expensive .
Development took place along natural trade routes , such as water ways , because it was too expensive energy wise to move things over land .
Society developed in conjunction with energy that could largely be sustained , and when it did n't and over farmed , deforested , and depleted their water supply society collapsed .
For the past 100 years or so , we 've been living high on the hog from new sources of energy we learned to exploit , with very little view to the long term consequences .
Since we have the ability to anticipate problems , it falls to those social institutions best suited to direct the course of our society 's development to prevent its eventual collapse .
By paying a higher price now , we can defer the collapse of our civilization by several centuries .
For those of us with kids , ardent transhumanists , or just a little more altruistic than selfish , this is a desirable goal .
Does this mean that society will have to change ?
Yes , but society has been changing faster and faster as technology advances .
So rather than burning ancient marine life , we 'll charge our hyper-sexy full electric cars with waste heat from the sun .
Booo hooo .
Will suburban shopping malls disappear ?
One can only hope !
The society of our future looks much more like the society of the 18th century , only with clean water , medicine , computers , plenty of food , and increasingly high levels of affluence globally .
Most of us will return to living in small towns and villages , and the mega-cities will grow upwards ( like Edinburgh did ) not outwards .
Most of us will live in walking distance of everything we need , including parks , wildlife , and recreation areas .
Also with having to make everything energy efficient , changes in technology mean huge work for all of us engineers .
Huge money making opportunites will arise when the Feds start taxing waste .
Construction will boom , durable goods spending will flourish , and any geek with half a brain will figure out how to " green " some old clunky tech and make a buck .
So quit your bitching... our green future is bright and profitable .
Maybe with the higher energy costs , our server farms wo n't require air-conditioning to operate , and could just be shoved in a closet .
Higher commuting costs mean telecommuting becomes even more attractive .
As someone who has telecommuted for the past 6 years , let me tell you that 's a very good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I know the /.
community hates anything that will make their power hungry habits more expensive, but quite frankly this sort of bill is great news for us.
The United States has done a horrible job at implementing sane growth policies.
We've out sprawled, out consumed, while neglecting design lessons learned during times when energy was more expensive.
During the middle ages, cities were dense because energy was expensive.
Development took place along natural trade routes, such as water ways, because it was too expensive energy wise to move things over land.
Society developed in conjunction with energy that could largely be sustained, and when it didn't and over farmed, deforested, and depleted their water supply society collapsed.
For the past 100 years or so, we've been living high on the hog from new sources of energy we learned to exploit, with very little view to the long term consequences.
Since we have the ability to anticipate problems, it falls to those social institutions best suited to direct the course of our society's development to prevent its eventual collapse.
By paying a higher price now, we can defer the collapse of our civilization by several centuries.
For those of us with kids, ardent transhumanists, or just a little more altruistic than selfish, this is a desirable goal.
Does this mean that society will have to change?
Yes, but society has been changing faster and faster as technology advances.
So rather than burning ancient marine life, we'll charge our hyper-sexy full electric cars with waste heat from the sun.
Booo hooo.
Will suburban shopping malls disappear?
One can only hope!
The society of our future looks much more like the society of the 18th century, only with clean water, medicine, computers, plenty of food, and increasingly high levels of affluence globally.
Most of us will return  to living in small towns and villages, and the mega-cities will grow upwards (like Edinburgh did) not outwards.
Most of us will live in walking distance of everything we need, including parks, wildlife, and recreation areas.
Also with having to make everything energy efficient, changes in technology mean huge work for all of us engineers.
Huge money making opportunites will arise when the Feds start taxing waste.
Construction will boom, durable goods spending will flourish, and any geek with half a brain will figure out how to "green" some old clunky tech and make a buck.
So quit your bitching... our green future is bright and profitable.
Maybe with the higher energy costs, our server farms won't require air-conditioning to operate, and could just be shoved in a closet.
Higher commuting costs mean telecommuting becomes even more attractive.
As someone who has telecommuted for the past 6 years, let me tell you that's a very good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481451</id>
	<title>"insatiable appetite for cheap electricity."</title>
	<author>bugeaterr</author>
	<datestamp>1246027920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem of too much cheap electricity is about to be solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem of too much cheap electricity is about to be solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem of too much cheap electricity is about to be solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481409</id>
	<title>Good intentions</title>
	<author>brian0918</author>
	<datestamp>1246027740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, if only good intentions could justify the violation of individual rights, then they would have an argument.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , if only good intentions could justify the violation of individual rights , then they would have an argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, if only good intentions could justify the violation of individual rights, then they would have an argument.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486057</id>
	<title>Politicized science pays off...for politicians</title>
	<author>DrVomact</author>
	<datestamp>1246043940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For years, peoples with money (mainly the government) have been paying for climate science that is intended to make us believe that we are all going to die unless <em>something</em> is done. Now they have moved into position to bring in the harvest: money and power. Huge new personal and corporate tax increases, the creation of yet more bogus financial instruments, and entire new bureaucracies will now benefit our elite masters.
</p><p>
Haven't they missed a small detail however? Our banking and economic systems are already on the verge of collapse. These new measures should supply the killing stroke. Or is that an <em>intended</em> consequence? The very rich and powerful are usually on higher ground than the rest of us, so they stay dry no matter how high the water rises. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For years , peoples with money ( mainly the government ) have been paying for climate science that is intended to make us believe that we are all going to die unless something is done .
Now they have moved into position to bring in the harvest : money and power .
Huge new personal and corporate tax increases , the creation of yet more bogus financial instruments , and entire new bureaucracies will now benefit our elite masters .
Have n't they missed a small detail however ?
Our banking and economic systems are already on the verge of collapse .
These new measures should supply the killing stroke .
Or is that an intended consequence ?
The very rich and powerful are usually on higher ground than the rest of us , so they stay dry no matter how high the water rises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For years, peoples with money (mainly the government) have been paying for climate science that is intended to make us believe that we are all going to die unless something is done.
Now they have moved into position to bring in the harvest: money and power.
Huge new personal and corporate tax increases, the creation of yet more bogus financial instruments, and entire new bureaucracies will now benefit our elite masters.
Haven't they missed a small detail however?
Our banking and economic systems are already on the verge of collapse.
These new measures should supply the killing stroke.
Or is that an intended consequence?
The very rich and powerful are usually on higher ground than the rest of us, so they stay dry no matter how high the water rises. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481887</id>
	<title>Horrible Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246029420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a horrible, poorly-thought out idea this stupid bill represents.

Getting to a cleaner method of energy production?  YES.

Doing it this way?  NO.

Obama voters -- sorry yet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a horrible , poorly-thought out idea this stupid bill represents .
Getting to a cleaner method of energy production ?
YES . Doing it this way ?
NO . Obama voters -- sorry yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a horrible, poorly-thought out idea this stupid bill represents.
Getting to a cleaner method of energy production?
YES.

Doing it this way?
NO.

Obama voters -- sorry yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482899</id>
	<title>Re:"insatiable appetite for cheap electricity."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246032300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it's the rest of the world that is paying for the pollution of the USA, Canada, Qatar, Australia, UAE, and other high emission countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's the rest of the world that is paying for the pollution of the USA , Canada , Qatar , Australia , UAE , and other high emission countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's the rest of the world that is paying for the pollution of the USA, Canada, Qatar, Australia, UAE, and other high emission countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481509</id>
	<title>Huzzah for my no emissions power plant!</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1246028040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure it doesn't actually produce any energy, but it doesn't produce any CO2 either!</p><p>Now to sit back, get my pollution permits, resell them and profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure it does n't actually produce any energy , but it does n't produce any CO2 either ! Now to sit back , get my pollution permits , resell them and profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure it doesn't actually produce any energy, but it doesn't produce any CO2 either!Now to sit back, get my pollution permits, resell them and profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483769</id>
	<title>Public Good? Public Grant.</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1246035180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First: the fundamental problem: We live in a global economy. This will absolutely increase the cost of domestically produced carbon-intensive goods relative to foreign produced carbon intensive goods from countries that are not affected by the program (unless we implement an import tariff to match the internal effective tax).</p><p>That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, but it is a fact which must be weighed when considering the program.</p><p>I still like the idea, though I would want the allotment (see below) to be high enough that it would be more of a gentle nudge than a baseball bat.</p><p>That's the problem, and my take, on the general concept. As for this specific embodiment, it is going to be a gigantic corruption engine, passing money from the biggest polluters to the most unscrupulous politicians, regulators, and lobbyists. But it can be solved, if you like the gentle nudge idea (or even if you like the baseball bat idea).</p><p><i>The first step in a cap-and-trade program sets a limit on the amount of gases that can be released into the atmosphere. That is the cap. Companies with facilities that are covered by the cap will then receive permits for their share of the pollution, an annual pollution allowance. This bill initially would give the bulk of the permits away for free to help ease costs, but they still would have value because there would be a limited supply.</i></p><p>So, what portion of those initial free credits do I get? Who decides how much each company gets? Is it based on industry? Revenue? Profit? Market cap? Campaign contributions?</p><p>My guess is that this is going to be another gigantic paean to incumbents and the big shaft for startups.</p><p>Here's my proposal:</p><p>Every U.S. voting citizen gets an equal share, to do with as they please, apportioned annually. Corps don't get any -- they have to buy them from citizens. Give yours to your employer, sell it, sit on it, whatever. After all, this is a public good that is up for sale, right? What possible fair system could be established for the government picking which corps to give them to?</p><p>To keep the prices reasonable at first, start with massive over-subscription. Allot 1,000,000x what we're producing now. That should solve the problems of the initial market not existing. Then just lower the rate by 10x per year until we get to the desired level. But don't just hand these things out to the biggest incumbents and screw new business.</p><p>Note that this approach would achieve exactly the objective:</p><p>People who want to "be green" can sit on their credits, and forgo the money.</p><p>People who consume less carbon-intensive products would pay less of the "passed on" cost from companies that have to buy lots of credits.</p><p>People who are willing to pay for carbon intensive goods can, and the glorious free market hands that money to people who make sacrifices to reduce carbon consumption.</p><p>Adjusting the annual allotment naturally adjusts the price.</p><p>No single person, whether CEO, laborer, politician, lobbyist, or EPA regulator, gets any disproportionate share of the public good.</p><p>Companies that cut carbon emissions can put their products on the market at a lower price.</p><p>The solution as proposed only achieves the last piece, and that only in an extraordinarily corruption-sensitive way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First : the fundamental problem : We live in a global economy .
This will absolutely increase the cost of domestically produced carbon-intensive goods relative to foreign produced carbon intensive goods from countries that are not affected by the program ( unless we implement an import tariff to match the internal effective tax ) .That does n't mean it 's a bad idea , but it is a fact which must be weighed when considering the program.I still like the idea , though I would want the allotment ( see below ) to be high enough that it would be more of a gentle nudge than a baseball bat.That 's the problem , and my take , on the general concept .
As for this specific embodiment , it is going to be a gigantic corruption engine , passing money from the biggest polluters to the most unscrupulous politicians , regulators , and lobbyists .
But it can be solved , if you like the gentle nudge idea ( or even if you like the baseball bat idea ) .The first step in a cap-and-trade program sets a limit on the amount of gases that can be released into the atmosphere .
That is the cap .
Companies with facilities that are covered by the cap will then receive permits for their share of the pollution , an annual pollution allowance .
This bill initially would give the bulk of the permits away for free to help ease costs , but they still would have value because there would be a limited supply.So , what portion of those initial free credits do I get ?
Who decides how much each company gets ?
Is it based on industry ?
Revenue ? Profit ?
Market cap ?
Campaign contributions ? My guess is that this is going to be another gigantic paean to incumbents and the big shaft for startups.Here 's my proposal : Every U.S. voting citizen gets an equal share , to do with as they please , apportioned annually .
Corps do n't get any -- they have to buy them from citizens .
Give yours to your employer , sell it , sit on it , whatever .
After all , this is a public good that is up for sale , right ?
What possible fair system could be established for the government picking which corps to give them to ? To keep the prices reasonable at first , start with massive over-subscription .
Allot 1,000,000x what we 're producing now .
That should solve the problems of the initial market not existing .
Then just lower the rate by 10x per year until we get to the desired level .
But do n't just hand these things out to the biggest incumbents and screw new business.Note that this approach would achieve exactly the objective : People who want to " be green " can sit on their credits , and forgo the money.People who consume less carbon-intensive products would pay less of the " passed on " cost from companies that have to buy lots of credits.People who are willing to pay for carbon intensive goods can , and the glorious free market hands that money to people who make sacrifices to reduce carbon consumption.Adjusting the annual allotment naturally adjusts the price.No single person , whether CEO , laborer , politician , lobbyist , or EPA regulator , gets any disproportionate share of the public good.Companies that cut carbon emissions can put their products on the market at a lower price.The solution as proposed only achieves the last piece , and that only in an extraordinarily corruption-sensitive way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First: the fundamental problem: We live in a global economy.
This will absolutely increase the cost of domestically produced carbon-intensive goods relative to foreign produced carbon intensive goods from countries that are not affected by the program (unless we implement an import tariff to match the internal effective tax).That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, but it is a fact which must be weighed when considering the program.I still like the idea, though I would want the allotment (see below) to be high enough that it would be more of a gentle nudge than a baseball bat.That's the problem, and my take, on the general concept.
As for this specific embodiment, it is going to be a gigantic corruption engine, passing money from the biggest polluters to the most unscrupulous politicians, regulators, and lobbyists.
But it can be solved, if you like the gentle nudge idea (or even if you like the baseball bat idea).The first step in a cap-and-trade program sets a limit on the amount of gases that can be released into the atmosphere.
That is the cap.
Companies with facilities that are covered by the cap will then receive permits for their share of the pollution, an annual pollution allowance.
This bill initially would give the bulk of the permits away for free to help ease costs, but they still would have value because there would be a limited supply.So, what portion of those initial free credits do I get?
Who decides how much each company gets?
Is it based on industry?
Revenue? Profit?
Market cap?
Campaign contributions?My guess is that this is going to be another gigantic paean to incumbents and the big shaft for startups.Here's my proposal:Every U.S. voting citizen gets an equal share, to do with as they please, apportioned annually.
Corps don't get any -- they have to buy them from citizens.
Give yours to your employer, sell it, sit on it, whatever.
After all, this is a public good that is up for sale, right?
What possible fair system could be established for the government picking which corps to give them to?To keep the prices reasonable at first, start with massive over-subscription.
Allot 1,000,000x what we're producing now.
That should solve the problems of the initial market not existing.
Then just lower the rate by 10x per year until we get to the desired level.
But don't just hand these things out to the biggest incumbents and screw new business.Note that this approach would achieve exactly the objective:People who want to "be green" can sit on their credits, and forgo the money.People who consume less carbon-intensive products would pay less of the "passed on" cost from companies that have to buy lots of credits.People who are willing to pay for carbon intensive goods can, and the glorious free market hands that money to people who make sacrifices to reduce carbon consumption.Adjusting the annual allotment naturally adjusts the price.No single person, whether CEO, laborer, politician, lobbyist, or EPA regulator, gets any disproportionate share of the public good.Companies that cut carbon emissions can put their products on the market at a lower price.The solution as proposed only achieves the last piece, and that only in an extraordinarily corruption-sensitive way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481723</id>
	<title>nothing will come of it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246028880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of California's mandate to only sell zero-emission cars by 2005.<br>This bill has no teeth for 10 years. It is full of exceptions for the biggest polluters until then. The politicians are demanding science come up with a solution within that time. When the deadline comes it will be repealed unless a scientific miracle happens.<br>But it does make the US look good. That is what Kyoto was about for the countries that did sign on. NONE OF THE SIGNERS FOLLOWED THROUGH ON THEIR PROMISES.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of California 's mandate to only sell zero-emission cars by 2005.This bill has no teeth for 10 years .
It is full of exceptions for the biggest polluters until then .
The politicians are demanding science come up with a solution within that time .
When the deadline comes it will be repealed unless a scientific miracle happens.But it does make the US look good .
That is what Kyoto was about for the countries that did sign on .
NONE OF THE SIGNERS FOLLOWED THROUGH ON THEIR PROMISES .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of California's mandate to only sell zero-emission cars by 2005.This bill has no teeth for 10 years.
It is full of exceptions for the biggest polluters until then.
The politicians are demanding science come up with a solution within that time.
When the deadline comes it will be repealed unless a scientific miracle happens.But it does make the US look good.
That is what Kyoto was about for the countries that did sign on.
NONE OF THE SIGNERS FOLLOWED THROUGH ON THEIR PROMISES.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246028340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right.  This bill should really be called "A Tax Increase For All Americans."  The estimated tax revenue the government expects to extract from the population from the passage of  this bill is huge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
This bill should really be called " A Tax Increase For All Americans .
" The estimated tax revenue the government expects to extract from the population from the passage of this bill is huge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
This bill should really be called "A Tax Increase For All Americans.
"  The estimated tax revenue the government expects to extract from the population from the passage of  this bill is huge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484645</id>
	<title>You're Missing the Point</title>
	<author>RManning</author>
	<datestamp>1246038360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think so many people here are missing the point of this type of legislation. There is an real cost to polluting. It causes all kinds of problems: human health issues, natural disasters caused by global warming, etc. Currently companies produce stuff and don't pay for those costs they've handed the world - we all do through our increased health care costs, taxes to pay for hurricane relief, etc. A company that produces no pollution does not add costs that we all have to pay for.</p><p>Unfortunately you can't realistically look at the pollution one company produces, charge them for it, and pay directly for the damage it's caused. So, we make up a unnatural market to bring those costs into the actual cost of doing business.</p><p>It may not be the greatest thing ever, but it's not crazy to do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think so many people here are missing the point of this type of legislation .
There is an real cost to polluting .
It causes all kinds of problems : human health issues , natural disasters caused by global warming , etc .
Currently companies produce stuff and do n't pay for those costs they 've handed the world - we all do through our increased health care costs , taxes to pay for hurricane relief , etc .
A company that produces no pollution does not add costs that we all have to pay for.Unfortunately you ca n't realistically look at the pollution one company produces , charge them for it , and pay directly for the damage it 's caused .
So , we make up a unnatural market to bring those costs into the actual cost of doing business.It may not be the greatest thing ever , but it 's not crazy to do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think so many people here are missing the point of this type of legislation.
There is an real cost to polluting.
It causes all kinds of problems: human health issues, natural disasters caused by global warming, etc.
Currently companies produce stuff and don't pay for those costs they've handed the world - we all do through our increased health care costs, taxes to pay for hurricane relief, etc.
A company that produces no pollution does not add costs that we all have to pay for.Unfortunately you can't realistically look at the pollution one company produces, charge them for it, and pay directly for the damage it's caused.
So, we make up a unnatural market to bring those costs into the actual cost of doing business.It may not be the greatest thing ever, but it's not crazy to do this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484453</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>vandon</author>
	<datestamp>1246037820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He also promised that there would be change:</p><p>He still supports not investigating the warrant-less wiretapping.</p><p>Despite having a majority in congress, Gitmo still isn't closed.</p><p>After promising all non-emergency bills would be posted to be read on the gov website, only 2 have been before he signed them and then only for 1 day in a non-searchable format.</p><p>He said that we have to bail out the automakers and not let them file bankruptcy for the good of the US, he only saved the CEOs and investors, then let them file for bankruptcy anyway.</p><p>He promised that there wouldn't be any new taxes on the middle or lower class, but most of the bills he's pushing amount to direct taxes on everyone. Cap and Trade=Fuel tax, National healthcare=tax hike for any employed American with health insurance, Raising capital gains taxes=tax hike on anyone with a 401k or IRA account.</p><p>The only thing that's changed in the whitehouse is that people stopped believing Bush's lies.<br>&lt;sarcasm&gt;At least we still have "hope"&lt;/sarcasm&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He also promised that there would be change : He still supports not investigating the warrant-less wiretapping.Despite having a majority in congress , Gitmo still is n't closed.After promising all non-emergency bills would be posted to be read on the gov website , only 2 have been before he signed them and then only for 1 day in a non-searchable format.He said that we have to bail out the automakers and not let them file bankruptcy for the good of the US , he only saved the CEOs and investors , then let them file for bankruptcy anyway.He promised that there would n't be any new taxes on the middle or lower class , but most of the bills he 's pushing amount to direct taxes on everyone .
Cap and Trade = Fuel tax , National healthcare = tax hike for any employed American with health insurance , Raising capital gains taxes = tax hike on anyone with a 401k or IRA account.The only thing that 's changed in the whitehouse is that people stopped believing Bush 's lies.At least we still have " hope "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He also promised that there would be change:He still supports not investigating the warrant-less wiretapping.Despite having a majority in congress, Gitmo still isn't closed.After promising all non-emergency bills would be posted to be read on the gov website, only 2 have been before he signed them and then only for 1 day in a non-searchable format.He said that we have to bail out the automakers and not let them file bankruptcy for the good of the US, he only saved the CEOs and investors, then let them file for bankruptcy anyway.He promised that there wouldn't be any new taxes on the middle or lower class, but most of the bills he's pushing amount to direct taxes on everyone.
Cap and Trade=Fuel tax, National healthcare=tax hike for any employed American with health insurance, Raising capital gains taxes=tax hike on anyone with a 401k or IRA account.The only thing that's changed in the whitehouse is that people stopped believing Bush's lies.At least we still have "hope"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482655</id>
	<title>C &amp; T=higer taxes=forced labor=LESS FREEDOM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246031640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cap and trade will result in much, much higher costs for fuel, electricity and natural gas.  Add this the to the current Obama budget debacle (disaster).  The economy is self correcting and this is solidified  by the fact that, despite Obama absolutely destroying consumer confidence, the economic downturn is bottoming out without spending much stimulus (porkulous) money.  Furthermore expanding government spending at an alarming rate will result in more taxes, further reducing the value of the dollar, hurting markets and will cause inflation to steadily creep up.  This administration has had a dismal start and has surpassed the previous four terms as far as cronyism, corruption, bad fiscal policy and with a desire to gut the constitution.</p><p>Some critics of the previous two terms claim the constitution took a beating.  You have not seen anything yet.</p><p>Cap and trade = higher costs for just about everything and more taxes.<br>More cost/taxes = YOU and I have to work more to make up for the increase.<br>Having to work more = forced labor and less time to do with as we please.<br>Not spending as much time as we please = loss of freedom.</p><p>"CHAINS WE CAN BELIEVE IN"</p><p>But there is HOPE for CHANGE in 2012.  I hope it is not too late.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cap and trade will result in much , much higher costs for fuel , electricity and natural gas .
Add this the to the current Obama budget debacle ( disaster ) .
The economy is self correcting and this is solidified by the fact that , despite Obama absolutely destroying consumer confidence , the economic downturn is bottoming out without spending much stimulus ( porkulous ) money .
Furthermore expanding government spending at an alarming rate will result in more taxes , further reducing the value of the dollar , hurting markets and will cause inflation to steadily creep up .
This administration has had a dismal start and has surpassed the previous four terms as far as cronyism , corruption , bad fiscal policy and with a desire to gut the constitution.Some critics of the previous two terms claim the constitution took a beating .
You have not seen anything yet.Cap and trade = higher costs for just about everything and more taxes.More cost/taxes = YOU and I have to work more to make up for the increase.Having to work more = forced labor and less time to do with as we please.Not spending as much time as we please = loss of freedom .
" CHAINS WE CAN BELIEVE IN " But there is HOPE for CHANGE in 2012 .
I hope it is not too late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cap and trade will result in much, much higher costs for fuel, electricity and natural gas.
Add this the to the current Obama budget debacle (disaster).
The economy is self correcting and this is solidified  by the fact that, despite Obama absolutely destroying consumer confidence, the economic downturn is bottoming out without spending much stimulus (porkulous) money.
Furthermore expanding government spending at an alarming rate will result in more taxes, further reducing the value of the dollar, hurting markets and will cause inflation to steadily creep up.
This administration has had a dismal start and has surpassed the previous four terms as far as cronyism, corruption, bad fiscal policy and with a desire to gut the constitution.Some critics of the previous two terms claim the constitution took a beating.
You have not seen anything yet.Cap and trade = higher costs for just about everything and more taxes.More cost/taxes = YOU and I have to work more to make up for the increase.Having to work more = forced labor and less time to do with as we please.Not spending as much time as we please = loss of freedom.
"CHAINS WE CAN BELIEVE IN"But there is HOPE for CHANGE in 2012.
I hope it is not too late.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482431</id>
	<title>Re:Good intentions</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1246031040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which part of "today's level of consumption is not sustainable" is confusing you? Something has to give and it really shouldn't be the closed biosphere we depend on for life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which part of " today 's level of consumption is not sustainable " is confusing you ?
Something has to give and it really should n't be the closed biosphere we depend on for life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which part of "today's level of consumption is not sustainable" is confusing you?
Something has to give and it really shouldn't be the closed biosphere we depend on for life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486535</id>
	<title>Not making the news</title>
	<author>strikeleader</author>
	<datestamp>1246046340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't wait to pay through the nose for gas for my car. I will then have to quit my job because I can't afford to drive back and forth, then I can rely on the government to take care of me with your tax dollars.<br> <br>
I just love the fact that our government thinks that they are all powerful and can change what happens naturally on our planet.
If they think that by taxing our means of living will save the planet they are just delusional. While everything under the sun is costing us more and more other countries (China) will take that opportunity to do as they please with carbon emissions sell us their products which are less expensive than ours, drive our economy in to the dirt, creating mass joblessness and splitting our society in to classes of have money for energy and no money for energy.<br> <br>
Have you ever noticed that those talking loudest about being "green" have the biggest cars, personal planes and very large houses. They want you to change so they may continue their extravagant way of life.<br>
If you support this bill then you deserve what you get.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait to pay through the nose for gas for my car .
I will then have to quit my job because I ca n't afford to drive back and forth , then I can rely on the government to take care of me with your tax dollars .
I just love the fact that our government thinks that they are all powerful and can change what happens naturally on our planet .
If they think that by taxing our means of living will save the planet they are just delusional .
While everything under the sun is costing us more and more other countries ( China ) will take that opportunity to do as they please with carbon emissions sell us their products which are less expensive than ours , drive our economy in to the dirt , creating mass joblessness and splitting our society in to classes of have money for energy and no money for energy .
Have you ever noticed that those talking loudest about being " green " have the biggest cars , personal planes and very large houses .
They want you to change so they may continue their extravagant way of life .
If you support this bill then you deserve what you get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait to pay through the nose for gas for my car.
I will then have to quit my job because I can't afford to drive back and forth, then I can rely on the government to take care of me with your tax dollars.
I just love the fact that our government thinks that they are all powerful and can change what happens naturally on our planet.
If they think that by taxing our means of living will save the planet they are just delusional.
While everything under the sun is costing us more and more other countries (China) will take that opportunity to do as they please with carbon emissions sell us their products which are less expensive than ours, drive our economy in to the dirt, creating mass joblessness and splitting our society in to classes of have money for energy and no money for energy.
Have you ever noticed that those talking loudest about being "green" have the biggest cars, personal planes and very large houses.
They want you to change so they may continue their extravagant way of life.
If you support this bill then you deserve what you get.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483017</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246032720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"expect to see your retail electric bills go up by 5-15\%, or an average of $700-1400 per family per year.<br>x * 0.15 = $1400<br>$1400/0.15 = 9333.33- / 12 = $777.77-</p><p>WHO SPENDS $800 a month on electricity already? If you're electric bill is already $10k it sounds like a small increase!</p><p>Know what you're talking about. And as a hint, we already pay taxes on this kind of crap, see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>this is just taxing the companies while they exist, instead of having them pay their employees and the citizens having to pay to clean it up while the business gets off scott free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" expect to see your retail electric bills go up by 5-15 \ % , or an average of $ 700-1400 per family per year.x * 0.15 = $ 1400 $ 1400/0.15 = 9333.33- / 12 = $ 777.77-WHO SPENDS $ 800 a month on electricity already ?
If you 're electric bill is already $ 10k it sounds like a small increase ! Know what you 're talking about .
And as a hint , we already pay taxes on this kind of crap , see http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund [ wikipedia.org ] this is just taxing the companies while they exist , instead of having them pay their employees and the citizens having to pay to clean it up while the business gets off scott free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"expect to see your retail electric bills go up by 5-15\%, or an average of $700-1400 per family per year.x * 0.15 = $1400$1400/0.15 = 9333.33- / 12 = $777.77-WHO SPENDS $800 a month on electricity already?
If you're electric bill is already $10k it sounds like a small increase!Know what you're talking about.
And as a hint, we already pay taxes on this kind of crap, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund [wikipedia.org]this is just taxing the companies while they exist, instead of having them pay their employees and the citizens having to pay to clean it up while the business gets off scott free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486809</id>
	<title>TROLL TROLL TROLL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246047660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whenever Slashdot moderation disagree with the viewpoint presented, they stamp it as TROLL like good leftist marxist-socialists should in case the dissenting view presented smashes their reality to pieces.</p><p>Heres to you Slashcomrades-</p><p>Human Induced Global Warming is a scam, this legislation is simply a "Tax and Raid" scheme to create an automatic transfer of american prosperity into a black hole of benefactors and will ensure the continued decline of the US economy, its simple mathematics.<br>There is more evidence for God than for human induced Global Warming given evidence to the contrary recorded in earths geologic historical record. If you as a scientist, engineer or simply a rational individual who uses reason, logic and empirical evidence as your benchmark of truth ignore this reasoning, you are a fucking tool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever Slashdot moderation disagree with the viewpoint presented , they stamp it as TROLL like good leftist marxist-socialists should in case the dissenting view presented smashes their reality to pieces.Heres to you Slashcomrades-Human Induced Global Warming is a scam , this legislation is simply a " Tax and Raid " scheme to create an automatic transfer of american prosperity into a black hole of benefactors and will ensure the continued decline of the US economy , its simple mathematics.There is more evidence for God than for human induced Global Warming given evidence to the contrary recorded in earths geologic historical record .
If you as a scientist , engineer or simply a rational individual who uses reason , logic and empirical evidence as your benchmark of truth ignore this reasoning , you are a fucking tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever Slashdot moderation disagree with the viewpoint presented, they stamp it as TROLL like good leftist marxist-socialists should in case the dissenting view presented smashes their reality to pieces.Heres to you Slashcomrades-Human Induced Global Warming is a scam, this legislation is simply a "Tax and Raid" scheme to create an automatic transfer of american prosperity into a black hole of benefactors and will ensure the continued decline of the US economy, its simple mathematics.There is more evidence for God than for human induced Global Warming given evidence to the contrary recorded in earths geologic historical record.
If you as a scientist, engineer or simply a rational individual who uses reason, logic and empirical evidence as your benchmark of truth ignore this reasoning, you are a fucking tool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28489769</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246019820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He said that we have to bail out the automakers and not let them file bankruptcy for the good of the US, he only saved the CEOs and investors, then let them file for bankruptcy anyway.</p></div><p>Actually, he didn't even save the investors.  Look at the situation in Indiana with the state retirement fund.  The preferred bond holders were moved down the line in getting their money back</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He said that we have to bail out the automakers and not let them file bankruptcy for the good of the US , he only saved the CEOs and investors , then let them file for bankruptcy anyway.Actually , he did n't even save the investors .
Look at the situation in Indiana with the state retirement fund .
The preferred bond holders were moved down the line in getting their money back</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He said that we have to bail out the automakers and not let them file bankruptcy for the good of the US, he only saved the CEOs and investors, then let them file for bankruptcy anyway.Actually, he didn't even save the investors.
Look at the situation in Indiana with the state retirement fund.
The preferred bond holders were moved down the line in getting their money back
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482043</id>
	<title>Re:Horrible Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246029960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah.  Sorry you're stupid enough to watch Fox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Sorry you 're stupid enough to watch Fox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Sorry you're stupid enough to watch Fox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483289</id>
	<title>Yet more jobs to be shipped south of the border</title>
	<author>codepunk</author>
	<datestamp>1246033500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get ready to see even more jobs being shipped south of the border if this is implemented. Simple economics<br>really, cheaper labor and now we add yet another reason not to produce anything in the US by increasing<br>energy prices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get ready to see even more jobs being shipped south of the border if this is implemented .
Simple economicsreally , cheaper labor and now we add yet another reason not to produce anything in the US by increasingenergy prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get ready to see even more jobs being shipped south of the border if this is implemented.
Simple economicsreally, cheaper labor and now we add yet another reason not to produce anything in the US by increasingenergy prices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486545</id>
	<title>And then some...</title>
	<author>sgt\_doom</author>
	<datestamp>1246046340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And perhaps even scarier, Pres. Obama's appointment of Diana Farrell to the Deputy Director post of the National Economic Council.  Who is Diana Farrell?  She comes from the position as a director at the McKinsey Global Institute (research affiliate of McKensey and Company, which earns most of their money from their offshoring practice), where she authored that phony "study" on the advantages of offshoring all jobs (the study started off with the ASSUMPTION that offshoring of jobs is profitable, and ended up the the RESULT that the offshoring of jobs is profitable!!!!).  She also edited the pile of garbage titled: <b>OFFSHORING</b>.</p><p>I thought Geithner, Summers and Locke were bad enough (when Locke - Secy. of Commerce - was governor of the state of Washington - he offshored state jobs in 49 of 51 state agencies).</p><p>Interesting aside:  the cap &amp; trade is supposed to be a semi-stealth way of reviving the process of securitization of securitization (transforming of debt into securities - using those securities as collateral for more securities, and again and again and again....) - which will continue and expand the economic meltdown we are presently experiencing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And perhaps even scarier , Pres .
Obama 's appointment of Diana Farrell to the Deputy Director post of the National Economic Council .
Who is Diana Farrell ?
She comes from the position as a director at the McKinsey Global Institute ( research affiliate of McKensey and Company , which earns most of their money from their offshoring practice ) , where she authored that phony " study " on the advantages of offshoring all jobs ( the study started off with the ASSUMPTION that offshoring of jobs is profitable , and ended up the the RESULT that the offshoring of jobs is profitable ! ! ! ! ) .
She also edited the pile of garbage titled : OFFSHORING.I thought Geithner , Summers and Locke were bad enough ( when Locke - Secy .
of Commerce - was governor of the state of Washington - he offshored state jobs in 49 of 51 state agencies ) .Interesting aside : the cap &amp; trade is supposed to be a semi-stealth way of reviving the process of securitization of securitization ( transforming of debt into securities - using those securities as collateral for more securities , and again and again and again.... ) - which will continue and expand the economic meltdown we are presently experiencing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And perhaps even scarier, Pres.
Obama's appointment of Diana Farrell to the Deputy Director post of the National Economic Council.
Who is Diana Farrell?
She comes from the position as a director at the McKinsey Global Institute (research affiliate of McKensey and Company, which earns most of their money from their offshoring practice), where she authored that phony "study" on the advantages of offshoring all jobs (the study started off with the ASSUMPTION that offshoring of jobs is profitable, and ended up the the RESULT that the offshoring of jobs is profitable!!!!).
She also edited the pile of garbage titled: OFFSHORING.I thought Geithner, Summers and Locke were bad enough (when Locke - Secy.
of Commerce - was governor of the state of Washington - he offshored state jobs in 49 of 51 state agencies).Interesting aside:  the cap &amp; trade is supposed to be a semi-stealth way of reviving the process of securitization of securitization (transforming of debt into securities - using those securities as collateral for more securities, and again and again and again....) - which will continue and expand the economic meltdown we are presently experiencing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482053</id>
	<title>Balancing equations.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246029960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its about time polluters and persons leading dangerous lifestyles were charged for their wanton waste for which the rest of us and the world community has been directly paying for thru decreased health, happiness, and resource access.</p><p>Americans are learning that they havn't the right to use up every last drop of oil and atmosphere just to power McMansions and air condition football stadiums.  With a slight imagination I think we can all dream of a few more lofty goals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its about time polluters and persons leading dangerous lifestyles were charged for their wanton waste for which the rest of us and the world community has been directly paying for thru decreased health , happiness , and resource access.Americans are learning that they hav n't the right to use up every last drop of oil and atmosphere just to power McMansions and air condition football stadiums .
With a slight imagination I think we can all dream of a few more lofty goals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its about time polluters and persons leading dangerous lifestyles were charged for their wanton waste for which the rest of us and the world community has been directly paying for thru decreased health, happiness, and resource access.Americans are learning that they havn't the right to use up every last drop of oil and atmosphere just to power McMansions and air condition football stadiums.
With a slight imagination I think we can all dream of a few more lofty goals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485035</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1246039800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Why should I build my factory in the USA and go through the regulations when it just became more profitable to build it overseas?</i> <br> <br>Because if you build it in Europe, things like this are already in place.  If you build it in China, then the US and EU should tax incoming products according to their environmental impact.  So if you want to place your factory in a place where no one can afford your widget, fine.  But when you try to sell those to the countries with the market, then you have to pay back what you would have saved anyway.  Or at least, that's how it should work...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should I build my factory in the USA and go through the regulations when it just became more profitable to build it overseas ?
Because if you build it in Europe , things like this are already in place .
If you build it in China , then the US and EU should tax incoming products according to their environmental impact .
So if you want to place your factory in a place where no one can afford your widget , fine .
But when you try to sell those to the countries with the market , then you have to pay back what you would have saved anyway .
Or at least , that 's how it should work.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should I build my factory in the USA and go through the regulations when it just became more profitable to build it overseas?
Because if you build it in Europe, things like this are already in place.
If you build it in China, then the US and EU should tax incoming products according to their environmental impact.
So if you want to place your factory in a place where no one can afford your widget, fine.
But when you try to sell those to the countries with the market, then you have to pay back what you would have saved anyway.
Or at least, that's how it should work...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482131</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest tax in US history</title>
	<author>syphax</author>
	<datestamp>1246030260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am shocked, <em>shocked</em> that the WSJ opinion page would not have kind words for cap and trade.</p><p>Nice linkage to Che.  You might want to catch up on the climatology research a bit.</p><p>Yeah, 2008 was really cool, <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/" title="nasa.gov">being hotter than any year before 2000 save (super-hot) 1998</a> [nasa.gov]</p><p>Check out the <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig4.gif" title="nasa.gov">solar irradiance graph</a> [nasa.gov] in that article.  Wanna bet what'll happen when that sucker turns the corner and heads back up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am shocked , shocked that the WSJ opinion page would not have kind words for cap and trade.Nice linkage to Che .
You might want to catch up on the climatology research a bit.Yeah , 2008 was really cool , being hotter than any year before 2000 save ( super-hot ) 1998 [ nasa.gov ] Check out the solar irradiance graph [ nasa.gov ] in that article .
Wan na bet what 'll happen when that sucker turns the corner and heads back up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am shocked, shocked that the WSJ opinion page would not have kind words for cap and trade.Nice linkage to Che.
You might want to catch up on the climatology research a bit.Yeah, 2008 was really cool, being hotter than any year before 2000 save (super-hot) 1998 [nasa.gov]Check out the solar irradiance graph [nasa.gov] in that article.
Wanna bet what'll happen when that sucker turns the corner and heads back up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486529</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246046280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, he still hasn't lied. None of the taxes you pay will increase - you're just going to be paying a new one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>That's the sort of lie we Brits are used to - don't worry, a few weeks to get used to it and you'll be able to sit down without wincing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , he still has n't lied .
None of the taxes you pay will increase - you 're just going to be paying a new one : PThat 's the sort of lie we Brits are used to - do n't worry , a few weeks to get used to it and you 'll be able to sit down without wincing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, he still hasn't lied.
None of the taxes you pay will increase - you're just going to be paying a new one :PThat's the sort of lie we Brits are used to - don't worry, a few weeks to get used to it and you'll be able to sit down without wincing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482073</id>
	<title>Re:Another bad move</title>
	<author>Delwin</author>
	<datestamp>1246030020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have this half right.  It creates a profit center around <i>lack</i> of carbon.  So the less carbon you put put compared to the amount of carbon you could be putting out the more profit (since you sell your extra carbon allowances).</p><p>The theory is that the amount you spend to reduce carbon emissions is now offset (and you will even make a profit from it) through the carbon markets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have this half right .
It creates a profit center around lack of carbon .
So the less carbon you put put compared to the amount of carbon you could be putting out the more profit ( since you sell your extra carbon allowances ) .The theory is that the amount you spend to reduce carbon emissions is now offset ( and you will even make a profit from it ) through the carbon markets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have this half right.
It creates a profit center around lack of carbon.
So the less carbon you put put compared to the amount of carbon you could be putting out the more profit (since you sell your extra carbon allowances).The theory is that the amount you spend to reduce carbon emissions is now offset (and you will even make a profit from it) through the carbon markets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481697</id>
	<title>The good part</title>
	<author>Bearded Frog</author>
	<datestamp>1246028760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only good that could come from this bill is a national revolution. Hopefully that becomes the case if it passes. Hopefully it just doesn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only good that could come from this bill is a national revolution .
Hopefully that becomes the case if it passes .
Hopefully it just does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only good that could come from this bill is a national revolution.
Hopefully that becomes the case if it passes.
Hopefully it just doesn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482697</id>
	<title>Re:Peak Oil necessitates energy conservation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246031760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we're already passed Peak Oil.<br>[...]<br>So when oil production starts winding down</p></div><p>So are we or arent we?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>it's what is IMO a fact</p></div><p>Your "opinion" is a "fact."  One can argue thats the whole problem with the enviro-alarmists.  Their opinions are fact in their own minds, and we must all suffer their consequences.</p><p>Paranoid troll indeed.  (Yes I appreciate the irony in posting as AC, in all my years I never cared to sign up for an account)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we 're already passed Peak Oil. [ .. .
] So when oil production starts winding downSo are we or arent we ? it 's what is IMO a factYour " opinion " is a " fact .
" One can argue thats the whole problem with the enviro-alarmists .
Their opinions are fact in their own minds , and we must all suffer their consequences.Paranoid troll indeed .
( Yes I appreciate the irony in posting as AC , in all my years I never cared to sign up for an account )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we're already passed Peak Oil.[...
]So when oil production starts winding downSo are we or arent we?it's what is IMO a factYour "opinion" is a "fact.
"  One can argue thats the whole problem with the enviro-alarmists.
Their opinions are fact in their own minds, and we must all suffer their consequences.Paranoid troll indeed.
(Yes I appreciate the irony in posting as AC, in all my years I never cared to sign up for an account)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482089</id>
	<title>Let us Pray</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1246030080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lord, protect me from those who would do me good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lord , protect me from those who would do me good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lord, protect me from those who would do me good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484103</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>Chizinksyahoo.com</author>
	<datestamp>1246036500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.powertochoose.org/\_content/\_compare/showoffers.aspx" title="powertochoose.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.powertochoose.org/\_content/\_compare/showoffers.aspx</a> [powertochoose.org] <br>

Cheapest 100\% clean electricity I found is $0.111 / KWHr.<br>

Cheapest "Dirty" electricity I found is $0.102 / KWHr.<br>

How is 11.1 THREE TIMES as expensive as 10.2?</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.powertochoose.org/ \ _content/ \ _compare/showoffers.aspx [ powertochoose.org ] Cheapest 100 \ % clean electricity I found is $ 0.111 / KWHr .
Cheapest " Dirty " electricity I found is $ 0.102 / KWHr .
How is 11.1 THREE TIMES as expensive as 10.2 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.powertochoose.org/\_content/\_compare/showoffers.aspx [powertochoose.org] 

Cheapest 100\% clean electricity I found is $0.111 / KWHr.
Cheapest "Dirty" electricity I found is $0.102 / KWHr.
How is 11.1 THREE TIMES as expensive as 10.2?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482941</id>
	<title>Its a legislative process, not a silver bullet</title>
	<author>Bob\_Who</author>
	<datestamp>1246032420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are valid arguments on all sides of this issue, whether you are inclined to be a "red team" fan or "blue team" fan, or you're on the fence or in the closet in purple.  But remember, no one has a crystal ball, and even if there is only ONE correct legislative approach, the likelihood is we'll find it in hindsight.  Meanwhile, here on earth, the congress and the senate must articulate law.  Its just a guess, the chances of it being the perfect policy is like winning super lotto.  Its not dogma, or holy scripture, its a game plan, and we can expect that its going to take a lot of adjustment.  That being said, perhaps we should stop bickering about the obvious shortcomings we can find in ANY idea, no matter what it is, and instead attempt to get as much mileage as possible from our cooperation.  We can sit around and piss and moan about the evil "other" ideologues that we hate and like to kick and spit at, or we can get a clue, stop wasting time and focus on accomplishing SOMETHING.  The fact is that we need to take action and we need to agree on a beginning.  Lets try to approach this with fairness and flexibility because reality will interfere with our results, no matter how well we define our policy.  I believe we can actually get more done if we cooperate, and remain willing to confront stale legislation and ineffective policy without clobbering each other.  No matter how much I disagree with "the other team" I am certain that we will all benefit from a new energy policy.  Lets be realistic, and begin as best that we can, and then remain willing to tweak and adjust and renegotiate as needed over time.  Instead of making law a stone carving, lets be nimble and quick and build in a lot of wiggle room so that everyone's concerns can be considered as the policy evolves, and nobody gets railroaded by a policy that is too rigid to adapt to reality and becomes an absurdity.  Our laws feel like a last will and testament, when they should be like a football offensive game plan.  No matter what we agree to do, we'll need to make adjustments along the way.  Lets find some moderation and common ground and stop bickering in circles.  Not everything needs to be a competition with winners and losers.  We need to live by the golden rule in this process or else we're going to be heading into a civil war again.  Human nature is a bitch, and we gotta try to muzzle it once in a while.  Statesmen need to be leaders, and not just cheerleaders, and lets stop with all of the unnecessary roughness and other personal fouls. Koom by ya</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are valid arguments on all sides of this issue , whether you are inclined to be a " red team " fan or " blue team " fan , or you 're on the fence or in the closet in purple .
But remember , no one has a crystal ball , and even if there is only ONE correct legislative approach , the likelihood is we 'll find it in hindsight .
Meanwhile , here on earth , the congress and the senate must articulate law .
Its just a guess , the chances of it being the perfect policy is like winning super lotto .
Its not dogma , or holy scripture , its a game plan , and we can expect that its going to take a lot of adjustment .
That being said , perhaps we should stop bickering about the obvious shortcomings we can find in ANY idea , no matter what it is , and instead attempt to get as much mileage as possible from our cooperation .
We can sit around and piss and moan about the evil " other " ideologues that we hate and like to kick and spit at , or we can get a clue , stop wasting time and focus on accomplishing SOMETHING .
The fact is that we need to take action and we need to agree on a beginning .
Lets try to approach this with fairness and flexibility because reality will interfere with our results , no matter how well we define our policy .
I believe we can actually get more done if we cooperate , and remain willing to confront stale legislation and ineffective policy without clobbering each other .
No matter how much I disagree with " the other team " I am certain that we will all benefit from a new energy policy .
Lets be realistic , and begin as best that we can , and then remain willing to tweak and adjust and renegotiate as needed over time .
Instead of making law a stone carving , lets be nimble and quick and build in a lot of wiggle room so that everyone 's concerns can be considered as the policy evolves , and nobody gets railroaded by a policy that is too rigid to adapt to reality and becomes an absurdity .
Our laws feel like a last will and testament , when they should be like a football offensive game plan .
No matter what we agree to do , we 'll need to make adjustments along the way .
Lets find some moderation and common ground and stop bickering in circles .
Not everything needs to be a competition with winners and losers .
We need to live by the golden rule in this process or else we 're going to be heading into a civil war again .
Human nature is a bitch , and we got ta try to muzzle it once in a while .
Statesmen need to be leaders , and not just cheerleaders , and lets stop with all of the unnecessary roughness and other personal fouls .
Koom by ya</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are valid arguments on all sides of this issue, whether you are inclined to be a "red team" fan or "blue team" fan, or you're on the fence or in the closet in purple.
But remember, no one has a crystal ball, and even if there is only ONE correct legislative approach, the likelihood is we'll find it in hindsight.
Meanwhile, here on earth, the congress and the senate must articulate law.
Its just a guess, the chances of it being the perfect policy is like winning super lotto.
Its not dogma, or holy scripture, its a game plan, and we can expect that its going to take a lot of adjustment.
That being said, perhaps we should stop bickering about the obvious shortcomings we can find in ANY idea, no matter what it is, and instead attempt to get as much mileage as possible from our cooperation.
We can sit around and piss and moan about the evil "other" ideologues that we hate and like to kick and spit at, or we can get a clue, stop wasting time and focus on accomplishing SOMETHING.
The fact is that we need to take action and we need to agree on a beginning.
Lets try to approach this with fairness and flexibility because reality will interfere with our results, no matter how well we define our policy.
I believe we can actually get more done if we cooperate, and remain willing to confront stale legislation and ineffective policy without clobbering each other.
No matter how much I disagree with "the other team" I am certain that we will all benefit from a new energy policy.
Lets be realistic, and begin as best that we can, and then remain willing to tweak and adjust and renegotiate as needed over time.
Instead of making law a stone carving, lets be nimble and quick and build in a lot of wiggle room so that everyone's concerns can be considered as the policy evolves, and nobody gets railroaded by a policy that is too rigid to adapt to reality and becomes an absurdity.
Our laws feel like a last will and testament, when they should be like a football offensive game plan.
No matter what we agree to do, we'll need to make adjustments along the way.
Lets find some moderation and common ground and stop bickering in circles.
Not everything needs to be a competition with winners and losers.
We need to live by the golden rule in this process or else we're going to be heading into a civil war again.
Human nature is a bitch, and we gotta try to muzzle it once in a while.
Statesmen need to be leaders, and not just cheerleaders, and lets stop with all of the unnecessary roughness and other personal fouls.
Koom by ya</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482221</id>
	<title>Re:Horrible Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246030500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah - like the GOP had a better plan at all... oh, did they even have one???.
<br>
<br>
At least the conversation is started - really started this time.  Its up to you now, to call your representative, and let them know:: NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.  It has nothing to do with Obama, spineless democrats or corrupt idiots of the GOP.  It has to do with you, me and the rest of this public.  So Call. Participate.  Stop blaming our gov'mt.  Its on your's and mine shoulders pal, not theirs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah - like the GOP had a better plan at all... oh , did they even have one ? ? ? .
At least the conversation is started - really started this time .
Its up to you now , to call your representative , and let them know : : NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION .
It has nothing to do with Obama , spineless democrats or corrupt idiots of the GOP .
It has to do with you , me and the rest of this public .
So Call .
Participate. Stop blaming our gov'mt .
Its on your 's and mine shoulders pal , not theirs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah - like the GOP had a better plan at all... oh, did they even have one???.
At least the conversation is started - really started this time.
Its up to you now, to call your representative, and let them know:: NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
It has nothing to do with Obama, spineless democrats or corrupt idiots of the GOP.
It has to do with you, me and the rest of this public.
So Call.
Participate.  Stop blaming our gov'mt.
Its on your's and mine shoulders pal, not theirs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485823</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>Zancarius</author>
	<datestamp>1246042860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a lesson in it all: Never trust a politician to tell you the truth no matter how sweet his pep talks.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a lesson in it all : Never trust a politician to tell you the truth no matter how sweet his pep talks .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a lesson in it all: Never trust a politician to tell you the truth no matter how sweet his pep talks.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482321</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246030740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Obama promised that taxes would not go up for 95\% of Americans.</i></p><p>Congratulations.  You are no longer an American, but a Citizen Of The World (tm).</p><p>Here's you new tax bill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama promised that taxes would not go up for 95 \ % of Americans.Congratulations .
You are no longer an American , but a Citizen Of The World ( tm ) .Here 's you new tax bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama promised that taxes would not go up for 95\% of Americans.Congratulations.
You are no longer an American, but a Citizen Of The World (tm).Here's you new tax bill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485769</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246042620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Opponents of this bill hate capitalism, pure and simple."</p><p>Not true.  I only hate this bill because its creating an artificial market. The cap and trade system ONLY works if its a global market, this is.  This bill is creating a market where American companies have to pay for a commodity while their competitors in China and India do not.  It instantly places U.S. companies at an even greater disadvantage than they already are.  They already have massive problems due to labor rates, currency manipulations, health insurance costs, OSHA, workmen's comp, payroll taxes, etc., this is just one more straw on the camel's back.</p><p>When the EU instituted cap and trade many factories that were CO2 expensive just moved off shore to Africa and China and polluted even more once they left the EU.  Cap and trade was often a net loss for the environment.  Cap and trade only works if the entire world is under the same market, and they aren't.  China has already eclipsed the U.S. in pollution and coal burning and its rate of growth in pollution will more than offset any reduction in the U.S.  Cap and trade will just accelerate pollution in China as more U.S. manufacturing migrates there to escape rising energy costs in the U.S. due to this.</p><p>My opposition to cap and trade would be instantly solved if this bill included tariffs on imports from countries that don't institute cap and trade.  Chances of that are about zero because every big multinational does all their manufacturing in China now and wont let their lobbyists, let Congress slap tarifs on their goods when they come in to the U.S.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Opponents of this bill hate capitalism , pure and simple .
" Not true .
I only hate this bill because its creating an artificial market .
The cap and trade system ONLY works if its a global market , this is .
This bill is creating a market where American companies have to pay for a commodity while their competitors in China and India do not .
It instantly places U.S. companies at an even greater disadvantage than they already are .
They already have massive problems due to labor rates , currency manipulations , health insurance costs , OSHA , workmen 's comp , payroll taxes , etc. , this is just one more straw on the camel 's back.When the EU instituted cap and trade many factories that were CO2 expensive just moved off shore to Africa and China and polluted even more once they left the EU .
Cap and trade was often a net loss for the environment .
Cap and trade only works if the entire world is under the same market , and they are n't .
China has already eclipsed the U.S. in pollution and coal burning and its rate of growth in pollution will more than offset any reduction in the U.S. Cap and trade will just accelerate pollution in China as more U.S. manufacturing migrates there to escape rising energy costs in the U.S. due to this.My opposition to cap and trade would be instantly solved if this bill included tariffs on imports from countries that do n't institute cap and trade .
Chances of that are about zero because every big multinational does all their manufacturing in China now and wont let their lobbyists , let Congress slap tarifs on their goods when they come in to the U.S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Opponents of this bill hate capitalism, pure and simple.
"Not true.
I only hate this bill because its creating an artificial market.
The cap and trade system ONLY works if its a global market, this is.
This bill is creating a market where American companies have to pay for a commodity while their competitors in China and India do not.
It instantly places U.S. companies at an even greater disadvantage than they already are.
They already have massive problems due to labor rates, currency manipulations, health insurance costs, OSHA, workmen's comp, payroll taxes, etc., this is just one more straw on the camel's back.When the EU instituted cap and trade many factories that were CO2 expensive just moved off shore to Africa and China and polluted even more once they left the EU.
Cap and trade was often a net loss for the environment.
Cap and trade only works if the entire world is under the same market, and they aren't.
China has already eclipsed the U.S. in pollution and coal burning and its rate of growth in pollution will more than offset any reduction in the U.S.  Cap and trade will just accelerate pollution in China as more U.S. manufacturing migrates there to escape rising energy costs in the U.S. due to this.My opposition to cap and trade would be instantly solved if this bill included tariffs on imports from countries that don't institute cap and trade.
Chances of that are about zero because every big multinational does all their manufacturing in China now and wont let their lobbyists, let Congress slap tarifs on their goods when they come in to the U.S.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484031</id>
	<title>Re:Peak Oil necessitates energy conservation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246036200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>densest: beats ethanol by 10\%<br>easiest to transport: equivalent to ethanol<br>most reliable: doesn't this counter your whole argument?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>densest : beats ethanol by 10 \ % easiest to transport : equivalent to ethanolmost reliable : does n't this counter your whole argument ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>densest: beats ethanol by 10\%easiest to transport: equivalent to ethanolmost reliable: doesn't this counter your whole argument?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28490279</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>jbdigriz</author>
	<datestamp>1246024680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and after all that  "tort reform", too.</p><p>Didn't want the Republicans to feel left out in all the flamage of politicians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and after all that " tort reform " , too.Did n't want the Republicans to feel left out in all the flamage of politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and after all that  "tort reform", too.Didn't want the Republicans to feel left out in all the flamage of politicians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481461</id>
	<title>Tax &amp; Tax</title>
	<author>georgenh16</author>
	<datestamp>1246027920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Recession... great time for new taxes.<ul>
<li>Is global warming actually happening?</li><li>Is it a disaster of epic proportions?</li><li>Is it man-made?</li><li>Can we stop it?</li><li>Is this the right way to stop it?</li></ul><p>
Only if "Yes" answers all of those should we be doing this, especially now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recession... great time for new taxes .
Is global warming actually happening ? Is it a disaster of epic proportions ? Is it man-made ? Can we stop it ? Is this the right way to stop it ?
Only if " Yes " answers all of those should we be doing this , especially now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recession... great time for new taxes.
Is global warming actually happening?Is it a disaster of epic proportions?Is it man-made?Can we stop it?Is this the right way to stop it?
Only if "Yes" answers all of those should we be doing this, especially now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486205</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>Glock27</author>
	<datestamp>1246044540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget that 0bama broke one of his many promises when he reneged on taking public campaign donations.
<p>.</p><p>
Between outspending McCain over two to one, and having a completely complicit fifth column, er I mean mainstream media, he was a shoe-in.
</p><p>.</p><p>
Looks like we'll be paying for the consequences for decades. America may never recover.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that 0bama broke one of his many promises when he reneged on taking public campaign donations .
. Between outspending McCain over two to one , and having a completely complicit fifth column , er I mean mainstream media , he was a shoe-in .
. Looks like we 'll be paying for the consequences for decades .
America may never recover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that 0bama broke one of his many promises when he reneged on taking public campaign donations.
.
Between outspending McCain over two to one, and having a completely complicit fifth column, er I mean mainstream media, he was a shoe-in.
.
Looks like we'll be paying for the consequences for decades.
America may never recover.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484285</id>
	<title>Re:Another bad move</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1246037160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, you're exactly 100\% backwards on this. Under cap &amp; trade (which has been used for water pollutants with great success) there's a market for having extra pollution credits, which means that lowering pollution either lowers your cost or increases your profit by giving you credits to sell. The only big risk is if all polluters massively cut their pollution simultaneously and thus all have now-worthless credits for sale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , you 're exactly 100 \ % backwards on this .
Under cap &amp; trade ( which has been used for water pollutants with great success ) there 's a market for having extra pollution credits , which means that lowering pollution either lowers your cost or increases your profit by giving you credits to sell .
The only big risk is if all polluters massively cut their pollution simultaneously and thus all have now-worthless credits for sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, you're exactly 100\% backwards on this.
Under cap &amp; trade (which has been used for water pollutants with great success) there's a market for having extra pollution credits, which means that lowering pollution either lowers your cost or increases your profit by giving you credits to sell.
The only big risk is if all polluters massively cut their pollution simultaneously and thus all have now-worthless credits for sale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28489053</id>
	<title>Impeach obama &amp; all democrats!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246014660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reports today are that when contacted, the representatives 1) had not even read the bill that had been created by the idiot moron democrats;  2) had not read the amendments the idiot moron waxman added the night before the first vote on June 26, 2009;  3) that they would vote for approval anyway.  A few of them were going to wait to see if it had passed and then vote NO, so they had a 'fall-back' position in case of public back-lash!</p><p>THAT IS INCREDIBLY IRRESPONSIBLE!!!!   TYPICAL IDIOT MORON DEMOCRAT THINKING!!!!</p><p>IMPEACH ALL DEMOCRATS!!!  REPEAL ALL BILLS PASSED INTO LAW SINCE THE INAGURATION!!!   STOP PRINTING MONEY AND DE-VALUING THE DOLLAR!!!   DEPORT THE ILLEGAL ALIENS AND NO AMNESTY FOR THEM!!!!!</p><p>The democrats are the greedyist, sneakyist, rottenist people on the face of the earth!!!!   They are taking away our rights and priviledges while taxing us to death!!!!  Our taxation is second only to the U.K.!!!!</p><p>Conservative ways prove that conservative methods work best - no matter the situation!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reports today are that when contacted , the representatives 1 ) had not even read the bill that had been created by the idiot moron democrats ; 2 ) had not read the amendments the idiot moron waxman added the night before the first vote on June 26 , 2009 ; 3 ) that they would vote for approval anyway .
A few of them were going to wait to see if it had passed and then vote NO , so they had a 'fall-back ' position in case of public back-lash ! THAT IS INCREDIBLY IRRESPONSIBLE ! ! ! !
TYPICAL IDIOT MORON DEMOCRAT THINKING ! ! !
! IMPEACH ALL DEMOCRATS ! ! !
REPEAL ALL BILLS PASSED INTO LAW SINCE THE INAGURATION ! ! !
STOP PRINTING MONEY AND DE-VALUING THE DOLLAR ! ! !
DEPORT THE ILLEGAL ALIENS AND NO AMNESTY FOR THEM ! ! ! !
! The democrats are the greedyist , sneakyist , rottenist people on the face of the earth ! ! ! !
They are taking away our rights and priviledges while taxing us to death ! ! ! !
Our taxation is second only to the U.K. ! ! !
! Conservative ways prove that conservative methods work best - no matter the situation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reports today are that when contacted, the representatives 1) had not even read the bill that had been created by the idiot moron democrats;  2) had not read the amendments the idiot moron waxman added the night before the first vote on June 26, 2009;  3) that they would vote for approval anyway.
A few of them were going to wait to see if it had passed and then vote NO, so they had a 'fall-back' position in case of public back-lash!THAT IS INCREDIBLY IRRESPONSIBLE!!!!
TYPICAL IDIOT MORON DEMOCRAT THINKING!!!
!IMPEACH ALL DEMOCRATS!!!
REPEAL ALL BILLS PASSED INTO LAW SINCE THE INAGURATION!!!
STOP PRINTING MONEY AND DE-VALUING THE DOLLAR!!!
DEPORT THE ILLEGAL ALIENS AND NO AMNESTY FOR THEM!!!!
!The democrats are the greedyist, sneakyist, rottenist people on the face of the earth!!!!
They are taking away our rights and priviledges while taxing us to death!!!!
Our taxation is second only to the U.K.!!!
!Conservative ways prove that conservative methods work best - no matter the situation!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486689</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246047000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This can't be true. Obama promised that taxes would not go up for 95\% of Americans.</p></div><p>Well, there are many ways to achieve the desired effect.</p><p>For example, Obama could say that he meant absolute values there, not percentage; and then, if the income of 95\% of Americans goes down, and taxes go up, then they still pay the same number in $$$, right?</p><p>So there. ~</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This ca n't be true .
Obama promised that taxes would not go up for 95 \ % of Americans.Well , there are many ways to achieve the desired effect.For example , Obama could say that he meant absolute values there , not percentage ; and then , if the income of 95 \ % of Americans goes down , and taxes go up , then they still pay the same number in $ $ $ , right ? So there .
~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This can't be true.
Obama promised that taxes would not go up for 95\% of Americans.Well, there are many ways to achieve the desired effect.For example, Obama could say that he meant absolute values there, not percentage; and then, if the income of 95\% of Americans goes down, and taxes go up, then they still pay the same number in $$$, right?So there.
~
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28487451</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1246006980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just like the market in sulphur emissions that GHW Bush helped create back in the day, that took acid rain from a big problem to a minor one.</p></div><p>Which was done to address negative externalities which were occurring on a regional and national basis. The regulation of point-source local pollutants has been successful largely because other private interests in the surrounding areas were suffering obvious and provable damages from the externalities. Thus it was private interests, availing themselves of the courts, in many cases who successfully shut down onerous point source polluters. The government merely facilitated the redress of these damages.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Opponents of this bill hate capitalism, pure and simple. They hate markets and they hate property rights.</p></div><p>That is not true. They are simply against paying what amounts to an additional tax without appreciable public benefits.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Creating property rights in the atmospheric commons for the purpose of capturing externalities has been the preferred approach to pollution abatement amongst proponents of free markets for decades.</p></div><p>That is true, but here is the big <b>difference</b>: the atmosphere extends over national borders and property rights are not recognized beyond those borders except by treaties which, as Kyoto has demonstrated, are often not worth the paper that they are printed upon. The emissions that the bill is seeking to control are a global problem and the solutions that worked for point source regional pollutants such as lead, sulfur, PCBs and other local pollutants will not work for gases which remain in the atmosphere for centuries and transcend national borders.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Now that that dream is becoming a reality the anti-capitalist oligarchs of existing industries, which have built their businesses around dumping in the commons, are up in arms about it.</p></div><p>Vested interests always oppose change, that is nothing new, but at least this time they do have a point. If we cut back and pay higher prices for energy then the Chinese and the Indians will be happy to pick up the slack. This means that not only will emissions of global greenhouse gases not be reduced, but the growth of oil hungry economies in India and China will be fueled by extra oil freed up by self-imposed austerity in the United States. We should not forget that one of the main reasons why people in the United States enjoyed lower prices for gasoline in the 1980s and 1990s was the self-imposed European gasoline taxes which made more gasoline available to Americans at cheaper prices.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But don't kid yourself for a moment: cap and trade is a market-based solution to the problem.</p></div><p>Market-inspired is perhaps a more accurate description, but make no mistake that the government is still behind the scheme and the bucket will have tons of leaks. If manufacturers and others cannot emit in the United States then there are any number of developing countries, India and China prominent among them, who would be happy to allow them to burn as much coal as they like as long as they locate the factory in their country. The people who will be most hurt by this <b>tax</b>, and that is what it is really...a tax, will be the American consumers while the Chinese, Indians, and Russians laugh all the way to the bank.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But if you hate cap and trade, you hate capitalism.</p></div><p>Again, that is simplistic. If we are going to do something, then lets do something which actually improves the situation instead of wasting time and resources on "solutions" which will basically achieve nothing of consequence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like the market in sulphur emissions that GHW Bush helped create back in the day , that took acid rain from a big problem to a minor one.Which was done to address negative externalities which were occurring on a regional and national basis .
The regulation of point-source local pollutants has been successful largely because other private interests in the surrounding areas were suffering obvious and provable damages from the externalities .
Thus it was private interests , availing themselves of the courts , in many cases who successfully shut down onerous point source polluters .
The government merely facilitated the redress of these damages.Opponents of this bill hate capitalism , pure and simple .
They hate markets and they hate property rights.That is not true .
They are simply against paying what amounts to an additional tax without appreciable public benefits.Creating property rights in the atmospheric commons for the purpose of capturing externalities has been the preferred approach to pollution abatement amongst proponents of free markets for decades.That is true , but here is the big difference : the atmosphere extends over national borders and property rights are not recognized beyond those borders except by treaties which , as Kyoto has demonstrated , are often not worth the paper that they are printed upon .
The emissions that the bill is seeking to control are a global problem and the solutions that worked for point source regional pollutants such as lead , sulfur , PCBs and other local pollutants will not work for gases which remain in the atmosphere for centuries and transcend national borders.Now that that dream is becoming a reality the anti-capitalist oligarchs of existing industries , which have built their businesses around dumping in the commons , are up in arms about it.Vested interests always oppose change , that is nothing new , but at least this time they do have a point .
If we cut back and pay higher prices for energy then the Chinese and the Indians will be happy to pick up the slack .
This means that not only will emissions of global greenhouse gases not be reduced , but the growth of oil hungry economies in India and China will be fueled by extra oil freed up by self-imposed austerity in the United States .
We should not forget that one of the main reasons why people in the United States enjoyed lower prices for gasoline in the 1980s and 1990s was the self-imposed European gasoline taxes which made more gasoline available to Americans at cheaper prices.But do n't kid yourself for a moment : cap and trade is a market-based solution to the problem.Market-inspired is perhaps a more accurate description , but make no mistake that the government is still behind the scheme and the bucket will have tons of leaks .
If manufacturers and others can not emit in the United States then there are any number of developing countries , India and China prominent among them , who would be happy to allow them to burn as much coal as they like as long as they locate the factory in their country .
The people who will be most hurt by this tax , and that is what it is really...a tax , will be the American consumers while the Chinese , Indians , and Russians laugh all the way to the bank.But if you hate cap and trade , you hate capitalism.Again , that is simplistic .
If we are going to do something , then lets do something which actually improves the situation instead of wasting time and resources on " solutions " which will basically achieve nothing of consequence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like the market in sulphur emissions that GHW Bush helped create back in the day, that took acid rain from a big problem to a minor one.Which was done to address negative externalities which were occurring on a regional and national basis.
The regulation of point-source local pollutants has been successful largely because other private interests in the surrounding areas were suffering obvious and provable damages from the externalities.
Thus it was private interests, availing themselves of the courts, in many cases who successfully shut down onerous point source polluters.
The government merely facilitated the redress of these damages.Opponents of this bill hate capitalism, pure and simple.
They hate markets and they hate property rights.That is not true.
They are simply against paying what amounts to an additional tax without appreciable public benefits.Creating property rights in the atmospheric commons for the purpose of capturing externalities has been the preferred approach to pollution abatement amongst proponents of free markets for decades.That is true, but here is the big difference: the atmosphere extends over national borders and property rights are not recognized beyond those borders except by treaties which, as Kyoto has demonstrated, are often not worth the paper that they are printed upon.
The emissions that the bill is seeking to control are a global problem and the solutions that worked for point source regional pollutants such as lead, sulfur, PCBs and other local pollutants will not work for gases which remain in the atmosphere for centuries and transcend national borders.Now that that dream is becoming a reality the anti-capitalist oligarchs of existing industries, which have built their businesses around dumping in the commons, are up in arms about it.Vested interests always oppose change, that is nothing new, but at least this time they do have a point.
If we cut back and pay higher prices for energy then the Chinese and the Indians will be happy to pick up the slack.
This means that not only will emissions of global greenhouse gases not be reduced, but the growth of oil hungry economies in India and China will be fueled by extra oil freed up by self-imposed austerity in the United States.
We should not forget that one of the main reasons why people in the United States enjoyed lower prices for gasoline in the 1980s and 1990s was the self-imposed European gasoline taxes which made more gasoline available to Americans at cheaper prices.But don't kid yourself for a moment: cap and trade is a market-based solution to the problem.Market-inspired is perhaps a more accurate description, but make no mistake that the government is still behind the scheme and the bucket will have tons of leaks.
If manufacturers and others cannot emit in the United States then there are any number of developing countries, India and China prominent among them, who would be happy to allow them to burn as much coal as they like as long as they locate the factory in their country.
The people who will be most hurt by this tax, and that is what it is really...a tax, will be the American consumers while the Chinese, Indians, and Russians laugh all the way to the bank.But if you hate cap and trade, you hate capitalism.Again, that is simplistic.
If we are going to do something, then lets do something which actually improves the situation instead of wasting time and resources on "solutions" which will basically achieve nothing of consequence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483939</id>
	<title>People are being deliberately ignorant about his</title>
	<author>Bruha</author>
	<datestamp>1246035780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China is now the worlds largest producer of wind power.  They get it, they understand that oil prices will continue to rise as the economies of China and India and other developing countries expand.  They have seen first rate what the cost of 4 dollar gas was and they're doing something about it.</p><p>If we do not do the same, and change the way we do things here, we are doomed to a long slow and painful decline.  Imagine how our economy could benefit when the cost of power is minimal to the cost of producing goods because we took the time to invest and suffered just a little bit to get ourselves there.</p><p>What I'm seeing here is the same scare tactics the health care groups are using towards Univ health care.  There's no free lunch folks, if you want to live in squalor in 40 years when we are trying to retire, continue on this path of consumption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China is now the worlds largest producer of wind power .
They get it , they understand that oil prices will continue to rise as the economies of China and India and other developing countries expand .
They have seen first rate what the cost of 4 dollar gas was and they 're doing something about it.If we do not do the same , and change the way we do things here , we are doomed to a long slow and painful decline .
Imagine how our economy could benefit when the cost of power is minimal to the cost of producing goods because we took the time to invest and suffered just a little bit to get ourselves there.What I 'm seeing here is the same scare tactics the health care groups are using towards Univ health care .
There 's no free lunch folks , if you want to live in squalor in 40 years when we are trying to retire , continue on this path of consumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China is now the worlds largest producer of wind power.
They get it, they understand that oil prices will continue to rise as the economies of China and India and other developing countries expand.
They have seen first rate what the cost of 4 dollar gas was and they're doing something about it.If we do not do the same, and change the way we do things here, we are doomed to a long slow and painful decline.
Imagine how our economy could benefit when the cost of power is minimal to the cost of producing goods because we took the time to invest and suffered just a little bit to get ourselves there.What I'm seeing here is the same scare tactics the health care groups are using towards Univ health care.
There's no free lunch folks, if you want to live in squalor in 40 years when we are trying to retire, continue on this path of consumption.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28490637</id>
	<title>Re:Stupidity at it's worst</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246028340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This is just a far left energy tax because they hate coal and oil."</p><p>That's as stupid as "they hate us for our freedom".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This is just a far left energy tax because they hate coal and oil .
" That 's as stupid as " they hate us for our freedom " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This is just a far left energy tax because they hate coal and oil.
"That's as stupid as "they hate us for our freedom".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481439</id>
	<title>Has the Associated Press sunk so low?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246027860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>swap smokestacks for windmills and solar panels</p></div><p>What kind of poetic nonfactual drivel is this? Is the Associated Press a news organisation for reporters, or a bunch of people describing their hopes and dreams?</p><p>The bill will NOT "swap smokestacks for windmills and solar panels". It is nonfactual.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>swap smokestacks for windmills and solar panelsWhat kind of poetic nonfactual drivel is this ?
Is the Associated Press a news organisation for reporters , or a bunch of people describing their hopes and dreams ? The bill will NOT " swap smokestacks for windmills and solar panels " .
It is nonfactual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>swap smokestacks for windmills and solar panelsWhat kind of poetic nonfactual drivel is this?
Is the Associated Press a news organisation for reporters, or a bunch of people describing their hopes and dreams?The bill will NOT "swap smokestacks for windmills and solar panels".
It is nonfactual.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484215</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1246036920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Create asymmetry between US industry and global industry for future growth. Why should I build my factory in the USA and go through the regulations when it just became more profitable to build it overseas?</i> </p><p>
You shouldn't, which is why we desperately need to drive a stake through the heart of 'free trade'.</p><p>
Free trade is what <b>already</b> killed the American car industry. Yes, the crappy cars and poor management didn't help, but what really killed it was competing with <b>Japanese subsided</b> cars. (Of course, the Europeans feel the same way about <b>our</b> car companies.)</p><p>
As long as different governments have different impacts on their industries, and said industry can lobby their governments for different amounts of help, we need to be able to <b>tax</b> incoming products different, which means, at minimum, getting out of the WTO, which was always more about 'Letting American-owned companies sell cheap Chinese goods to Portugal' than actually helping American workers or consumers in any way.</p><p>
I'm not saying we should revert to 'protectionism', we should not stop foreign companies from, in general, competing in the US, as long as they let us compete there. But the various treaties we have totally forbidding any sort of tariffs on incoming good, while at the same time allowing governments to subsidies and/or tax their own industries however they want, obviously results in abuse. Sometimes the competition is unfair. Hell, sometimes it is fair but it's an area so important to us we <b>don't</b> want to let others compete.</p><p>
And coal <b>should</b> be more expensive than natural gas. Coal energy is literally the most damaging and dangerous energy we have.</p><p>
The danger, luckily, is mostly contained to poor people, who don't count. We lose an average of more people to coal mining accidents a year than all people ever to nuclear accidents. And even more miners die of lung diseases. It releases more radioactivity than Three Mile Island, and let's not forget about all that lethal coal slurry that is building up in waste pools everywhere.</p><p>
Granted, I'm not sure that a total and instant disruption to energy prices is a good idea, but that doesn't change the fact that coal. is. very. bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Create asymmetry between US industry and global industry for future growth .
Why should I build my factory in the USA and go through the regulations when it just became more profitable to build it overseas ?
You should n't , which is why we desperately need to drive a stake through the heart of 'free trade' .
Free trade is what already killed the American car industry .
Yes , the crappy cars and poor management did n't help , but what really killed it was competing with Japanese subsided cars .
( Of course , the Europeans feel the same way about our car companies .
) As long as different governments have different impacts on their industries , and said industry can lobby their governments for different amounts of help , we need to be able to tax incoming products different , which means , at minimum , getting out of the WTO , which was always more about 'Letting American-owned companies sell cheap Chinese goods to Portugal ' than actually helping American workers or consumers in any way .
I 'm not saying we should revert to 'protectionism ' , we should not stop foreign companies from , in general , competing in the US , as long as they let us compete there .
But the various treaties we have totally forbidding any sort of tariffs on incoming good , while at the same time allowing governments to subsidies and/or tax their own industries however they want , obviously results in abuse .
Sometimes the competition is unfair .
Hell , sometimes it is fair but it 's an area so important to us we do n't want to let others compete .
And coal should be more expensive than natural gas .
Coal energy is literally the most damaging and dangerous energy we have .
The danger , luckily , is mostly contained to poor people , who do n't count .
We lose an average of more people to coal mining accidents a year than all people ever to nuclear accidents .
And even more miners die of lung diseases .
It releases more radioactivity than Three Mile Island , and let 's not forget about all that lethal coal slurry that is building up in waste pools everywhere .
Granted , I 'm not sure that a total and instant disruption to energy prices is a good idea , but that does n't change the fact that coal .
is. very .
bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Create asymmetry between US industry and global industry for future growth.
Why should I build my factory in the USA and go through the regulations when it just became more profitable to build it overseas?
You shouldn't, which is why we desperately need to drive a stake through the heart of 'free trade'.
Free trade is what already killed the American car industry.
Yes, the crappy cars and poor management didn't help, but what really killed it was competing with Japanese subsided cars.
(Of course, the Europeans feel the same way about our car companies.
)
As long as different governments have different impacts on their industries, and said industry can lobby their governments for different amounts of help, we need to be able to tax incoming products different, which means, at minimum, getting out of the WTO, which was always more about 'Letting American-owned companies sell cheap Chinese goods to Portugal' than actually helping American workers or consumers in any way.
I'm not saying we should revert to 'protectionism', we should not stop foreign companies from, in general, competing in the US, as long as they let us compete there.
But the various treaties we have totally forbidding any sort of tariffs on incoming good, while at the same time allowing governments to subsidies and/or tax their own industries however they want, obviously results in abuse.
Sometimes the competition is unfair.
Hell, sometimes it is fair but it's an area so important to us we don't want to let others compete.
And coal should be more expensive than natural gas.
Coal energy is literally the most damaging and dangerous energy we have.
The danger, luckily, is mostly contained to poor people, who don't count.
We lose an average of more people to coal mining accidents a year than all people ever to nuclear accidents.
And even more miners die of lung diseases.
It releases more radioactivity than Three Mile Island, and let's not forget about all that lethal coal slurry that is building up in waste pools everywhere.
Granted, I'm not sure that a total and instant disruption to energy prices is a good idea, but that doesn't change the fact that coal.
is. very.
bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481641</id>
	<title>Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246028520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"ending the country's love affair with big gas-guzzling cars and its insatiable appetite for cheap electricity"</p><p>This won't happen.</p><p>What will happen is special interests will line their pockets with misappropriated (stolen) money while you lose some of your freedom of choice.</p><p>The world will not be cleaner, nor a better place.  People will be poorer.  Those who currently totter on the poverty line will fall well beneath it.  A poor people are a dirty people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ending the country 's love affair with big gas-guzzling cars and its insatiable appetite for cheap electricity " This wo n't happen.What will happen is special interests will line their pockets with misappropriated ( stolen ) money while you lose some of your freedom of choice.The world will not be cleaner , nor a better place .
People will be poorer .
Those who currently totter on the poverty line will fall well beneath it .
A poor people are a dirty people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"ending the country's love affair with big gas-guzzling cars and its insatiable appetite for cheap electricity"This won't happen.What will happen is special interests will line their pockets with misappropriated (stolen) money while you lose some of your freedom of choice.The world will not be cleaner, nor a better place.
People will be poorer.
Those who currently totter on the poverty line will fall well beneath it.
A poor people are a dirty people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485809</id>
	<title>Re:Public Good? Public Grant.</title>
	<author>SilverEyes</author>
	<datestamp>1246042800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with the other poster, <i>this</i> is a pretty insightful and fresh concept for discussion, good job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with the other poster , this is a pretty insightful and fresh concept for discussion , good job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with the other poster, this is a pretty insightful and fresh concept for discussion, good job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482149</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246030260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Raise your hand^Wwooly hoof if you're surprised.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Raise your hand ^ Wwooly hoof if you 're surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Raise your hand^Wwooly hoof if you're surprised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481679</id>
	<title>So long they hired a speed reader</title>
	<author>hansamurai</author>
	<datestamp>1246028700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This bill is so huge, Congress jokingly hired a speed reader to read through the bill after Republicans asked for it to be read aloud (giant waste of time to do in session).  But honestly, if our Congressmen and women won't even read the bills they pass why the hell are they signing their names on them in the first place?  There's undoubtedly so much pork in this bill it will cause problems above and beyond the things its addressing in the first place.</p><p><a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/speed\_reader\_brings\_levity\_to.html" title="washingtonpost.com">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/speed\_reader\_brings\_levity\_to.html</a> [washingtonpost.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This bill is so huge , Congress jokingly hired a speed reader to read through the bill after Republicans asked for it to be read aloud ( giant waste of time to do in session ) .
But honestly , if our Congressmen and women wo n't even read the bills they pass why the hell are they signing their names on them in the first place ?
There 's undoubtedly so much pork in this bill it will cause problems above and beyond the things its addressing in the first place.http : //voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/speed \ _reader \ _brings \ _levity \ _to.html [ washingtonpost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bill is so huge, Congress jokingly hired a speed reader to read through the bill after Republicans asked for it to be read aloud (giant waste of time to do in session).
But honestly, if our Congressmen and women won't even read the bills they pass why the hell are they signing their names on them in the first place?
There's undoubtedly so much pork in this bill it will cause problems above and beyond the things its addressing in the first place.http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/speed\_reader\_brings\_levity\_to.html [washingtonpost.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246030560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Put a cap on the emissions that industry can output, then create a market where companies can trade the right to pollute</i></p><p>Exactly.  Not a tax:  a market.  Just like the market in sulphur emissions that GHW Bush helped create back in the day, that took acid rain from a big problem to a minor one.</p><p>Opponents of this bill hate capitalism, pure and simple.  They hate markets and they hate property rights.  Creating property rights in the atmospheric commons for the purpose of capturing externalities has been the preferred approach to pollution abatement amongst proponents of free markets for decades.  Now that that dream is becoming a reality the anti-capitalist oligarchs of existing industries, which have built their businesses around dumping in the commons, are up in arms about it.</p><p>But don't kid yourself for a moment:  cap and trade is a market-based solution to the problem.  You are free to disagree that dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a legitimate problem.  That is certainly open to debate, and I might even be on your side.  But if you hate cap and trade, you hate capitalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Put a cap on the emissions that industry can output , then create a market where companies can trade the right to polluteExactly .
Not a tax : a market .
Just like the market in sulphur emissions that GHW Bush helped create back in the day , that took acid rain from a big problem to a minor one.Opponents of this bill hate capitalism , pure and simple .
They hate markets and they hate property rights .
Creating property rights in the atmospheric commons for the purpose of capturing externalities has been the preferred approach to pollution abatement amongst proponents of free markets for decades .
Now that that dream is becoming a reality the anti-capitalist oligarchs of existing industries , which have built their businesses around dumping in the commons , are up in arms about it.But do n't kid yourself for a moment : cap and trade is a market-based solution to the problem .
You are free to disagree that dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a legitimate problem .
That is certainly open to debate , and I might even be on your side .
But if you hate cap and trade , you hate capitalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put a cap on the emissions that industry can output, then create a market where companies can trade the right to polluteExactly.
Not a tax:  a market.
Just like the market in sulphur emissions that GHW Bush helped create back in the day, that took acid rain from a big problem to a minor one.Opponents of this bill hate capitalism, pure and simple.
They hate markets and they hate property rights.
Creating property rights in the atmospheric commons for the purpose of capturing externalities has been the preferred approach to pollution abatement amongst proponents of free markets for decades.
Now that that dream is becoming a reality the anti-capitalist oligarchs of existing industries, which have built their businesses around dumping in the commons, are up in arms about it.But don't kid yourself for a moment:  cap and trade is a market-based solution to the problem.
You are free to disagree that dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a legitimate problem.
That is certainly open to debate, and I might even be on your side.
But if you hate cap and trade, you hate capitalism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486943</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246048380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The market value of carbon credits and other coming-to-an-industry-near-you indulgences is zero. Nobody wants them. The market has valued them at zero, which is why they don't exist in free markets. </p><p>The government is now going to create a 'market' for these non-products by pointing guns at everyone and saying "OK children, start playing, or ELSE". That is capitalism by only a very perverse definition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The market value of carbon credits and other coming-to-an-industry-near-you indulgences is zero .
Nobody wants them .
The market has valued them at zero , which is why they do n't exist in free markets .
The government is now going to create a 'market ' for these non-products by pointing guns at everyone and saying " OK children , start playing , or ELSE " .
That is capitalism by only a very perverse definition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The market value of carbon credits and other coming-to-an-industry-near-you indulgences is zero.
Nobody wants them.
The market has valued them at zero, which is why they don't exist in free markets.
The government is now going to create a 'market' for these non-products by pointing guns at everyone and saying "OK children, start playing, or ELSE".
That is capitalism by only a very perverse definition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482641</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246031640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eh, sorry, but Americans elect candidates based on the quality of their lies. Obama's were better than McCain's, and his delivery was smoother.</p><p>Between your documented instance and the fact that the dumbest politicans are the ones who tell the explicit truth regardless of blowback, if you want to spread the blame, look no further than a public that isn't willing to be honest with itself and its expectations.</p><p>Chuck</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , sorry , but Americans elect candidates based on the quality of their lies .
Obama 's were better than McCain 's , and his delivery was smoother.Between your documented instance and the fact that the dumbest politicans are the ones who tell the explicit truth regardless of blowback , if you want to spread the blame , look no further than a public that is n't willing to be honest with itself and its expectations.Chuck</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, sorry, but Americans elect candidates based on the quality of their lies.
Obama's were better than McCain's, and his delivery was smoother.Between your documented instance and the fact that the dumbest politicans are the ones who tell the explicit truth regardless of blowback, if you want to spread the blame, look no further than a public that isn't willing to be honest with itself and its expectations.Chuck</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28488103</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = NWO</title>
	<author>myspace-cn</author>
	<datestamp>1246009920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not really fair.</p><p>You've forgotten about corporate media's roll in elimination of the good candidates. Paul and Kucinich.</p><p>Then you've forgotten about electronic vote tabulation devices.</p><p>An uninformed public leads to fascism.</p><p>We're uninformed, and we now live in a fascist country because of it.</p><p>You want to blame.</p><p>Start with everyone who broke their oath of office.<br>Start with corporate media.<br>Start with electronic voting machine legislation.</p><p>Cap &amp; Trade = NWO</p><p>It's a scam to kill us off</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not really fair.You 've forgotten about corporate media 's roll in elimination of the good candidates .
Paul and Kucinich.Then you 've forgotten about electronic vote tabulation devices.An uninformed public leads to fascism.We 're uninformed , and we now live in a fascist country because of it.You want to blame.Start with everyone who broke their oath of office.Start with corporate media.Start with electronic voting machine legislation.Cap &amp; Trade = NWOIt 's a scam to kill us off</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not really fair.You've forgotten about corporate media's roll in elimination of the good candidates.
Paul and Kucinich.Then you've forgotten about electronic vote tabulation devices.An uninformed public leads to fascism.We're uninformed, and we now live in a fascist country because of it.You want to blame.Start with everyone who broke their oath of office.Start with corporate media.Start with electronic voting machine legislation.Cap &amp; Trade = NWOIt's a scam to kill us off</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28487395</id>
	<title>Re:Tax &amp; Kill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246006800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cap &amp; Trade won't swap smokestacks for windmills.</p> </div><p>Citation needed.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It wont push people into smaller cars.</p></div><p>Doesn't have to.  It is possible to make sizable efficient cars.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>even when there is no proof that human activities are impacting climate.</p></div><p>Wrong.  Just plain wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cap &amp; Trade wo n't swap smokestacks for windmills .
Citation needed.It wont push people into smaller cars.Does n't have to .
It is possible to make sizable efficient cars.even when there is no proof that human activities are impacting climate.Wrong .
Just plain wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cap &amp; Trade won't swap smokestacks for windmills.
Citation needed.It wont push people into smaller cars.Doesn't have to.
It is possible to make sizable efficient cars.even when there is no proof that human activities are impacting climate.Wrong.
Just plain wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481535</id>
	<title>So they want me to drive a hybrid.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246028100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So Al Gore can fly a jet. This isn't about polluting less it's about YOU polluting less so some rich asshole can pollute more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Al Gore can fly a jet .
This is n't about polluting less it 's about YOU polluting less so some rich asshole can pollute more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Al Gore can fly a jet.
This isn't about polluting less it's about YOU polluting less so some rich asshole can pollute more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485049</id>
	<title>Re:Peak Oil necessitates energy conservation</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1246039860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, put me in the liberal/hippy/environmentalist camp for sure.  You're preaching to the choir when it comes to peak oil and climate etc..</p><p>However, take a look at how effective Europe's cap and trade has been in actually reducing pollution.</p><p>I have no issue making energy cost more.  However, cap and trade does not lower pollution when combined with 'offsets'.  That is my problem with this bill:  it just won't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , put me in the liberal/hippy/environmentalist camp for sure .
You 're preaching to the choir when it comes to peak oil and climate etc..However , take a look at how effective Europe 's cap and trade has been in actually reducing pollution.I have no issue making energy cost more .
However , cap and trade does not lower pollution when combined with 'offsets' .
That is my problem with this bill : it just wo n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, put me in the liberal/hippy/environmentalist camp for sure.
You're preaching to the choir when it comes to peak oil and climate etc..However, take a look at how effective Europe's cap and trade has been in actually reducing pollution.I have no issue making energy cost more.
However, cap and trade does not lower pollution when combined with 'offsets'.
That is my problem with this bill:  it just won't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28489369</id>
	<title>He wasn't lying</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1246016640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cap and trade will not increase my taxes, it will increase the prices of energy I buy.</p><p>Obama is and was playing to his base, who share two attributes--they don't like big corporations and they have a poor grasp of macroeconomics.</p><p>You and I know that there is no practical difference in my first sentence--either way I'm paying more money. But there are a lot of people who think we can raise taxes on big companies and the money will just come from "somewhere" to pay them. The rest of us know that higher corporate taxes are passed right on to the consumer as higher prices.</p><p>Of course things can be just as bad on the other side, where some people seem to think that all of climate science is a conspiracy led by Al Gore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cap and trade will not increase my taxes , it will increase the prices of energy I buy.Obama is and was playing to his base , who share two attributes--they do n't like big corporations and they have a poor grasp of macroeconomics.You and I know that there is no practical difference in my first sentence--either way I 'm paying more money .
But there are a lot of people who think we can raise taxes on big companies and the money will just come from " somewhere " to pay them .
The rest of us know that higher corporate taxes are passed right on to the consumer as higher prices.Of course things can be just as bad on the other side , where some people seem to think that all of climate science is a conspiracy led by Al Gore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cap and trade will not increase my taxes, it will increase the prices of energy I buy.Obama is and was playing to his base, who share two attributes--they don't like big corporations and they have a poor grasp of macroeconomics.You and I know that there is no practical difference in my first sentence--either way I'm paying more money.
But there are a lot of people who think we can raise taxes on big companies and the money will just come from "somewhere" to pay them.
The rest of us know that higher corporate taxes are passed right on to the consumer as higher prices.Of course things can be just as bad on the other side, where some people seem to think that all of climate science is a conspiracy led by Al Gore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481775</id>
	<title>Free beer and guarenteed weight loss to follow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246029060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While they are promising stuff that will never happen, I want my flying car and monkeyman!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While they are promising stuff that will never happen , I want my flying car and monkeyman !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While they are promising stuff that will never happen, I want my flying car and monkeyman!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483569</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246034460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This can't be true. Obama promised that taxes would not go up for 95\% of Americans.</p></div></blockquote><p>And isn't it nice to know that we're all together in that remaining 5\%</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This ca n't be true .
Obama promised that taxes would not go up for 95 \ % of Americans.And is n't it nice to know that we 're all together in that remaining 5 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This can't be true.
Obama promised that taxes would not go up for 95\% of Americans.And isn't it nice to know that we're all together in that remaining 5\%
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483555</id>
	<title>The Return Republican Control of Congress Act</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1246034400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will decimate manifacturing in this country (yes, there is still a lot of it). Jobs will be shipped overseas.</p><p>Good job Congress.</p><p>You better hope temperatures actually increase. Otherwise, people will be wondering why jobs were destroyed for no good reason.</p><p>Expect a huge increase in global warming skepticism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will decimate manifacturing in this country ( yes , there is still a lot of it ) .
Jobs will be shipped overseas.Good job Congress.You better hope temperatures actually increase .
Otherwise , people will be wondering why jobs were destroyed for no good reason.Expect a huge increase in global warming skepticism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will decimate manifacturing in this country (yes, there is still a lot of it).
Jobs will be shipped overseas.Good job Congress.You better hope temperatures actually increase.
Otherwise, people will be wondering why jobs were destroyed for no good reason.Expect a huge increase in global warming skepticism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484015</id>
	<title>Rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246036140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does it not scare anyone that the government is 'voting' away our ability to exist? It's a fact of existence that without expending energy--cheap energy, we can't exist. What this in effect says is that we must limit how much energy we use and expend. By doing so we're limiting how much we can live. The concept of the public good is a fraud and this bill is just another attempt at putting that fraud over on people. At least the Australians are coming to their senses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it not scare anyone that the government is 'voting ' away our ability to exist ?
It 's a fact of existence that without expending energy--cheap energy , we ca n't exist .
What this in effect says is that we must limit how much energy we use and expend .
By doing so we 're limiting how much we can live .
The concept of the public good is a fraud and this bill is just another attempt at putting that fraud over on people .
At least the Australians are coming to their senses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it not scare anyone that the government is 'voting' away our ability to exist?
It's a fact of existence that without expending energy--cheap energy, we can't exist.
What this in effect says is that we must limit how much energy we use and expend.
By doing so we're limiting how much we can live.
The concept of the public good is a fraud and this bill is just another attempt at putting that fraud over on people.
At least the Australians are coming to their senses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486621</id>
	<title>This is the answer duh...</title>
	<author>ddubbleya</author>
	<datestamp>1246046700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It will never happen but... <a href="http://www.thevenusproject.com/" title="thevenusproject.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thevenusproject.com/</a> [thevenusproject.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will never happen but... http : //www.thevenusproject.com/ [ thevenusproject.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will never happen but... http://www.thevenusproject.com/ [thevenusproject.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483637</id>
	<title>Re:Peak Oil necessitates energy conservation</title>
	<author>Itchyeyes</author>
	<datestamp>1246034700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The complaints against this bill have nothing to do with the spirit of it and everything to do with the structure of it.  Taxes, any taxes, have distortionary economic effects.  Some of these effects can be good, such as discouraging the use of carbon emitting fuels.  Others are bad, such as making goods and services more expensive for consumers.  Ideally, the government would enact a carbon tax and offset the tax by reducing personal income and corporate taxes proportionally.  This leads to a marginal cost increase on burning fossil fuels without increasing the overall cost of goods and services to consumers and businesses.</p><p>But this is not what's happening.  Instead of viewing this as an opportunity to enact beneficial legislation, our congressmen have instead opted to see it as an opportunity to increase government revenue.  The pitfalls to the proposed system are numerous.  As previously mentioned the first drawback is that consumers and businesses will immediately see prices on nearly all products go up.  There has been discussion of granting permits to selected firms for free at the beginning.  This is a fools bargain.  See <a href="http://www.american.com/archive/2009/june/the-cap-and-trade-giveaway" title="american.com">here</a> [american.com] for a detailed explanation why, but the net effect of such legislation is to essentially pass the proceeds from a carbon tax directly to the firms granted the permits.  Not to mention that it opens up the entire system to immense potential for corruption, as permits will very likely be traded as political favors to campaign contributors, and it puts the government in the position of essentially selecting which companies to grant a massive competitive advantage to.</p><p>Yes carbon emissions and dwindling fossil fuels are serious problems, and we as a nation need to take steps to mitigate their effects.  But this bill is quite possibly the worst was to do so.  It incorporates nearly every unnecessary drawback to such legislation.  It's a poorly written bill from top to bottom that accomplishes as little as possible.  And it will pass, because the average American is too blinded by the promise of such a law to notice how absolutely terrible the details of it are, and any congressman who wants to be reelected would be a fool to vote against it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The complaints against this bill have nothing to do with the spirit of it and everything to do with the structure of it .
Taxes , any taxes , have distortionary economic effects .
Some of these effects can be good , such as discouraging the use of carbon emitting fuels .
Others are bad , such as making goods and services more expensive for consumers .
Ideally , the government would enact a carbon tax and offset the tax by reducing personal income and corporate taxes proportionally .
This leads to a marginal cost increase on burning fossil fuels without increasing the overall cost of goods and services to consumers and businesses.But this is not what 's happening .
Instead of viewing this as an opportunity to enact beneficial legislation , our congressmen have instead opted to see it as an opportunity to increase government revenue .
The pitfalls to the proposed system are numerous .
As previously mentioned the first drawback is that consumers and businesses will immediately see prices on nearly all products go up .
There has been discussion of granting permits to selected firms for free at the beginning .
This is a fools bargain .
See here [ american.com ] for a detailed explanation why , but the net effect of such legislation is to essentially pass the proceeds from a carbon tax directly to the firms granted the permits .
Not to mention that it opens up the entire system to immense potential for corruption , as permits will very likely be traded as political favors to campaign contributors , and it puts the government in the position of essentially selecting which companies to grant a massive competitive advantage to.Yes carbon emissions and dwindling fossil fuels are serious problems , and we as a nation need to take steps to mitigate their effects .
But this bill is quite possibly the worst was to do so .
It incorporates nearly every unnecessary drawback to such legislation .
It 's a poorly written bill from top to bottom that accomplishes as little as possible .
And it will pass , because the average American is too blinded by the promise of such a law to notice how absolutely terrible the details of it are , and any congressman who wants to be reelected would be a fool to vote against it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The complaints against this bill have nothing to do with the spirit of it and everything to do with the structure of it.
Taxes, any taxes, have distortionary economic effects.
Some of these effects can be good, such as discouraging the use of carbon emitting fuels.
Others are bad, such as making goods and services more expensive for consumers.
Ideally, the government would enact a carbon tax and offset the tax by reducing personal income and corporate taxes proportionally.
This leads to a marginal cost increase on burning fossil fuels without increasing the overall cost of goods and services to consumers and businesses.But this is not what's happening.
Instead of viewing this as an opportunity to enact beneficial legislation, our congressmen have instead opted to see it as an opportunity to increase government revenue.
The pitfalls to the proposed system are numerous.
As previously mentioned the first drawback is that consumers and businesses will immediately see prices on nearly all products go up.
There has been discussion of granting permits to selected firms for free at the beginning.
This is a fools bargain.
See here [american.com] for a detailed explanation why, but the net effect of such legislation is to essentially pass the proceeds from a carbon tax directly to the firms granted the permits.
Not to mention that it opens up the entire system to immense potential for corruption, as permits will very likely be traded as political favors to campaign contributors, and it puts the government in the position of essentially selecting which companies to grant a massive competitive advantage to.Yes carbon emissions and dwindling fossil fuels are serious problems, and we as a nation need to take steps to mitigate their effects.
But this bill is quite possibly the worst was to do so.
It incorporates nearly every unnecessary drawback to such legislation.
It's a poorly written bill from top to bottom that accomplishes as little as possible.
And it will pass, because the average American is too blinded by the promise of such a law to notice how absolutely terrible the details of it are, and any congressman who wants to be reelected would be a fool to vote against it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879</id>
	<title>Peak Oil necessitates energy conservation</title>
	<author>javacowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1246029360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So far all I've read in this thread are posters decrying this as a massive tax grab.   That's a limited perspective, to say the least.</p><p>Yeah, mod me down as a paranoid troll, but we're already passed Peak Oil.</p><p>For those who don't understand what Peak Oil is:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak\_oil" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak\_oil</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Basically, it's what is IMO a fact, that oil production/extraction will peak at a certain level (X number of barrels per day) and then begin an inexorable decline.  Whether or not this output is replaced by alternative energy remains to be seen.</p><p>Nonetheless, most people don't understand how much energy we get from oil.  Oil is the densest, easiest to transport, and most reliable energy source available.   Once it's gone, alternatives will fall short of those standards:</p><p><a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3084" title="theoildrum.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3084</a> [theoildrum.com]</p><p>The total oil production volume amounted to a cubic mile (not a type) of oil per year.   To equal this, it would take 104 coal fired plants running for 50 years, 52 nuclear plants running for 50 years, 32, 800 wind turbines running for 50 years.... you get the picture.</p><p>So when oil production starts winding down, we'll be hard-pressed to replace that output.   The only way we can aspire to coming close to equaling that output is through energy consumption and more efficient use of energy.   So far, the government's record on this is pathetic, and the private sector has had, at best, limited results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So far all I 've read in this thread are posters decrying this as a massive tax grab .
That 's a limited perspective , to say the least.Yeah , mod me down as a paranoid troll , but we 're already passed Peak Oil.For those who do n't understand what Peak Oil is : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak \ _oil [ wikipedia.org ] Basically , it 's what is IMO a fact , that oil production/extraction will peak at a certain level ( X number of barrels per day ) and then begin an inexorable decline .
Whether or not this output is replaced by alternative energy remains to be seen.Nonetheless , most people do n't understand how much energy we get from oil .
Oil is the densest , easiest to transport , and most reliable energy source available .
Once it 's gone , alternatives will fall short of those standards : http : //www.theoildrum.com/node/3084 [ theoildrum.com ] The total oil production volume amounted to a cubic mile ( not a type ) of oil per year .
To equal this , it would take 104 coal fired plants running for 50 years , 52 nuclear plants running for 50 years , 32 , 800 wind turbines running for 50 years.... you get the picture.So when oil production starts winding down , we 'll be hard-pressed to replace that output .
The only way we can aspire to coming close to equaling that output is through energy consumption and more efficient use of energy .
So far , the government 's record on this is pathetic , and the private sector has had , at best , limited results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far all I've read in this thread are posters decrying this as a massive tax grab.
That's a limited perspective, to say the least.Yeah, mod me down as a paranoid troll, but we're already passed Peak Oil.For those who don't understand what Peak Oil is:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak\_oil [wikipedia.org]Basically, it's what is IMO a fact, that oil production/extraction will peak at a certain level (X number of barrels per day) and then begin an inexorable decline.
Whether or not this output is replaced by alternative energy remains to be seen.Nonetheless, most people don't understand how much energy we get from oil.
Oil is the densest, easiest to transport, and most reliable energy source available.
Once it's gone, alternatives will fall short of those standards:http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3084 [theoildrum.com]The total oil production volume amounted to a cubic mile (not a type) of oil per year.
To equal this, it would take 104 coal fired plants running for 50 years, 52 nuclear plants running for 50 years, 32, 800 wind turbines running for 50 years.... you get the picture.So when oil production starts winding down, we'll be hard-pressed to replace that output.
The only way we can aspire to coming close to equaling that output is through energy consumption and more efficient use of energy.
So far, the government's record on this is pathetic, and the private sector has had, at best, limited results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481865</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246029360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're right.  This bill should really be called "A Tax Increase For All Americans."  The estimated tax revenue the government expects to extract from the population from the passage of  this bill is huge.</p></div><p>NO NO NO!  We have nothing to worry about!!</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>"I can make a firm pledge.  Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes...you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."</i><br>--Barack Obama<br>Dover NH, Sept 12, 2008</p></div><p>See, the leader has spoken.  There will be no tax increase for those of us making under $250,000/yr</p><p>(If I need a sarc tag, you need to go to another site)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
This bill should really be called " A Tax Increase For All Americans .
" The estimated tax revenue the government expects to extract from the population from the passage of this bill is huge.NO NO NO !
We have nothing to worry about ! !
" I can make a firm pledge .
Under my plan , no family making less than $ 250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase .
Not your income tax , not your payroll tax , not your capital gains taxes , not any of your taxes...you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime .
" --Barack ObamaDover NH , Sept 12 , 2008See , the leader has spoken .
There will be no tax increase for those of us making under $ 250,000/yr ( If I need a sarc tag , you need to go to another site )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
This bill should really be called "A Tax Increase For All Americans.
"  The estimated tax revenue the government expects to extract from the population from the passage of  this bill is huge.NO NO NO!
We have nothing to worry about!!
"I can make a firm pledge.
Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.
Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes...you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.
"--Barack ObamaDover NH, Sept 12, 2008See, the leader has spoken.
There will be no tax increase for those of us making under $250,000/yr(If I need a sarc tag, you need to go to another site)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28489763</id>
	<title>Re:The sky is not falling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246019760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either there really are way more libertarian/conservative people on slashdot or they have all the mod points. I think this is the first post I saw that wasn't about how we were all going to die if this bill passes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either there really are way more libertarian/conservative people on slashdot or they have all the mod points .
I think this is the first post I saw that was n't about how we were all going to die if this bill passes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either there really are way more libertarian/conservative people on slashdot or they have all the mod points.
I think this is the first post I saw that wasn't about how we were all going to die if this bill passes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28490167</id>
	<title>Re:Tax &amp; Tax</title>
	<author>An Onerous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1246023540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>* Is global warming actually happening?</p><p>If you say otherwise, you're pitting yourself against the majority even of climate skeptics.</p><p>* Is it a disaster of epic proportions?</p><p>The answer is, we don't know.  How safe do you feel placing your money on, "Nah, everything will be peachy!"</p><p>* Is it man-made?</p><p>Yes.  The simple answer is, yes.  We know that the Earth is warming, we know that it started warming when we started burning fossil fuel with abandon, we know that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from said fossil fuel, we know that CO2 traps heat.  What more evidence are you looking for?</p><p>* Can we stop it?</p><p>The simple answer: no.  No matter what we do, a certain amount of heating is unavoidable.  But your question lacks a certain subtlety; either the Earth warms, or it doesn't.  In reality, the Earth could warm 2 or 3 degrees (difficult to deal with), or it could warm 7 degrees (absolute disaster for all living things bigger than a cockroach).  We need to do as much as we can to minimize the amount of warming, and adapt to the rest.</p><p>* Is this the right way to stop it?</p><p>No.  Cap-and-trade is not a "way to stop it".  It's more akin to an admission that we don't know the right way.  So instead, we're going to add a broad rule to the marketplace, one that makes CO2 visible to market decisions, and let the market find a way.  Unless you think that the risks of CO2 buildup is zero, and that therefore the externalities posed by CO2 pollution are also zero, this is the plan to throw your support behind.</p><p>Do you have another alternative?  Or are you going to demand that we do nothing until the "perfect" plan comes along?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Is global warming actually happening ? If you say otherwise , you 're pitting yourself against the majority even of climate skeptics .
* Is it a disaster of epic proportions ? The answer is , we do n't know .
How safe do you feel placing your money on , " Nah , everything will be peachy !
" * Is it man-made ? Yes .
The simple answer is , yes .
We know that the Earth is warming , we know that it started warming when we started burning fossil fuel with abandon , we know that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from said fossil fuel , we know that CO2 traps heat .
What more evidence are you looking for ?
* Can we stop it ? The simple answer : no .
No matter what we do , a certain amount of heating is unavoidable .
But your question lacks a certain subtlety ; either the Earth warms , or it does n't .
In reality , the Earth could warm 2 or 3 degrees ( difficult to deal with ) , or it could warm 7 degrees ( absolute disaster for all living things bigger than a cockroach ) .
We need to do as much as we can to minimize the amount of warming , and adapt to the rest .
* Is this the right way to stop it ? No .
Cap-and-trade is not a " way to stop it " .
It 's more akin to an admission that we do n't know the right way .
So instead , we 're going to add a broad rule to the marketplace , one that makes CO2 visible to market decisions , and let the market find a way .
Unless you think that the risks of CO2 buildup is zero , and that therefore the externalities posed by CO2 pollution are also zero , this is the plan to throw your support behind.Do you have another alternative ?
Or are you going to demand that we do nothing until the " perfect " plan comes along ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Is global warming actually happening?If you say otherwise, you're pitting yourself against the majority even of climate skeptics.
* Is it a disaster of epic proportions?The answer is, we don't know.
How safe do you feel placing your money on, "Nah, everything will be peachy!
"* Is it man-made?Yes.
The simple answer is, yes.
We know that the Earth is warming, we know that it started warming when we started burning fossil fuel with abandon, we know that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from said fossil fuel, we know that CO2 traps heat.
What more evidence are you looking for?
* Can we stop it?The simple answer: no.
No matter what we do, a certain amount of heating is unavoidable.
But your question lacks a certain subtlety; either the Earth warms, or it doesn't.
In reality, the Earth could warm 2 or 3 degrees (difficult to deal with), or it could warm 7 degrees (absolute disaster for all living things bigger than a cockroach).
We need to do as much as we can to minimize the amount of warming, and adapt to the rest.
* Is this the right way to stop it?No.
Cap-and-trade is not a "way to stop it".
It's more akin to an admission that we don't know the right way.
So instead, we're going to add a broad rule to the marketplace, one that makes CO2 visible to market decisions, and let the market find a way.
Unless you think that the risks of CO2 buildup is zero, and that therefore the externalities posed by CO2 pollution are also zero, this is the plan to throw your support behind.Do you have another alternative?
Or are you going to demand that we do nothing until the "perfect" plan comes along?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483225</id>
	<title>Re:Tax &amp; Tax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246033320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Recession... great time for new taxes.</p></div><p>Taxes is the only the stimulus package money came from...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recession... great time for new taxes.Taxes is the only the stimulus package money came from.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recession... great time for new taxes.Taxes is the only the stimulus package money came from...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28488385</id>
	<title>Everybody is missing the point, it seems.</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1246010940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The entire reason for this bill is - fundamentally - there is no reason not to pollute. Turns out that this is a bit of a tragedy of the commons. I could put however much crap I want in the air, without anybody bothering me. <i> <b>There is currently no cost for polluting</b> </i> that any individual business sees - we all share the costs.</p><p>What this bill does is create a cost out of thin air that (hopefully) measures - and imposes - the costs to society of polluting. Then the ability to pollute is scarce, just as it is in the atmosphere. In other words, capitalism at its finest. In the interests of reducing costs, businesses will cut emissions, be more careful about energy use, and so on.</p><p>There should be a longer discussion about the specific way to do this, absolutely. But it should and must be done.</p><p>Look; if you think that fundamentally the government shouldn't ever actually do anything, I know you don't think this will work and you can't be helped. I wish there were less people like you - you will eventually destroy the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire reason for this bill is - fundamentally - there is no reason not to pollute .
Turns out that this is a bit of a tragedy of the commons .
I could put however much crap I want in the air , without anybody bothering me .
There is currently no cost for polluting that any individual business sees - we all share the costs.What this bill does is create a cost out of thin air that ( hopefully ) measures - and imposes - the costs to society of polluting .
Then the ability to pollute is scarce , just as it is in the atmosphere .
In other words , capitalism at its finest .
In the interests of reducing costs , businesses will cut emissions , be more careful about energy use , and so on.There should be a longer discussion about the specific way to do this , absolutely .
But it should and must be done.Look ; if you think that fundamentally the government should n't ever actually do anything , I know you do n't think this will work and you ca n't be helped .
I wish there were less people like you - you will eventually destroy the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire reason for this bill is - fundamentally - there is no reason not to pollute.
Turns out that this is a bit of a tragedy of the commons.
I could put however much crap I want in the air, without anybody bothering me.
There is currently no cost for polluting  that any individual business sees - we all share the costs.What this bill does is create a cost out of thin air that (hopefully) measures - and imposes - the costs to society of polluting.
Then the ability to pollute is scarce, just as it is in the atmosphere.
In other words, capitalism at its finest.
In the interests of reducing costs, businesses will cut emissions, be more careful about energy use, and so on.There should be a longer discussion about the specific way to do this, absolutely.
But it should and must be done.Look; if you think that fundamentally the government shouldn't ever actually do anything, I know you don't think this will work and you can't be helped.
I wish there were less people like you - you will eventually destroy the country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482151</id>
	<title>Steve Balmer liked the idea ...</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1246030320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
When asked about the possibility of "Cap and Trade Bill", he said "Sure - this way, Bill won't come back and take my job away from me like all the whiners are chanting. So, what do you think we can get in trade for Gates?"
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When asked about the possibility of " Cap and Trade Bill " , he said " Sure - this way , Bill wo n't come back and take my job away from me like all the whiners are chanting .
So , what do you think we can get in trade for Gates ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
When asked about the possibility of "Cap and Trade Bill", he said "Sure - this way, Bill won't come back and take my job away from me like all the whiners are chanting.
So, what do you think we can get in trade for Gates?
"
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486599</id>
	<title>Chicken Littles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246046520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, articles like this just prove that when Slashdot's libertarian streak runs rampant, nothing of value emerges from the thread. Why am I shocked to hear "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" instead of any rational debate about the law's merits and shortcomings?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , articles like this just prove that when Slashdot 's libertarian streak runs rampant , nothing of value emerges from the thread .
Why am I shocked to hear " the sky is falling , the sky is falling " instead of any rational debate about the law 's merits and shortcomings ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, articles like this just prove that when Slashdot's libertarian streak runs rampant, nothing of value emerges from the thread.
Why am I shocked to hear "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" instead of any rational debate about the law's merits and shortcomings?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483311</id>
	<title>Re:Cap and Tax - we are so screwed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246033620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As in, bring back a Republican majority in Congress and Democrat President who will fight them."</p><p>Problem is the timing and implementation.  By the time the impact of this is felt, 2010 elections are over AT LEAST.  They may even stave this off until after 2012.</p><p>They're causing the lost generation/decade, not avoiding it.  Add to that while the downturn was certainly caused by the Republicans, a large amount of the stimulus still remains unsent, so government seems to be doing squat on getting the economy back on its feet except the initial reactions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As in , bring back a Republican majority in Congress and Democrat President who will fight them .
" Problem is the timing and implementation .
By the time the impact of this is felt , 2010 elections are over AT LEAST .
They may even stave this off until after 2012.They 're causing the lost generation/decade , not avoiding it .
Add to that while the downturn was certainly caused by the Republicans , a large amount of the stimulus still remains unsent , so government seems to be doing squat on getting the economy back on its feet except the initial reactions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As in, bring back a Republican majority in Congress and Democrat President who will fight them.
"Problem is the timing and implementation.
By the time the impact of this is felt, 2010 elections are over AT LEAST.
They may even stave this off until after 2012.They're causing the lost generation/decade, not avoiding it.
Add to that while the downturn was certainly caused by the Republicans, a large amount of the stimulus still remains unsent, so government seems to be doing squat on getting the economy back on its feet except the initial reactions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482693</id>
	<title>Economic suicide</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246031760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A proposed amendment to the Cap and Trade Tax sought to provide a safety valve in case it goes horribly awry and trashes the economy.  It stipulated that if gasoline reached $5 a gallon or unemployment hit 15\%, the tax would go away.  Sponsors of the bill basically argued that destroying the economy was not a bug but a feature, and rejected this.</p><p>If you think the current recession is bad, it's going to get a <i>lot</i> worse if this tax becomes law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A proposed amendment to the Cap and Trade Tax sought to provide a safety valve in case it goes horribly awry and trashes the economy .
It stipulated that if gasoline reached $ 5 a gallon or unemployment hit 15 \ % , the tax would go away .
Sponsors of the bill basically argued that destroying the economy was not a bug but a feature , and rejected this.If you think the current recession is bad , it 's going to get a lot worse if this tax becomes law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A proposed amendment to the Cap and Trade Tax sought to provide a safety valve in case it goes horribly awry and trashes the economy.
It stipulated that if gasoline reached $5 a gallon or unemployment hit 15\%, the tax would go away.
Sponsors of the bill basically argued that destroying the economy was not a bug but a feature, and rejected this.If you think the current recession is bad, it's going to get a lot worse if this tax becomes law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485187</id>
	<title>The sky is not falling</title>
	<author>Explodicle</author>
	<datestamp>1246040400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm seeing a lot of comments here along the lines of "Dear god, we're going to be living out of cardboard boxes! This bill will devastate the economy! How could all these moron politicians not understand us armchair economists?"<br>
<br>
I'd like to invite you folks to RTFA from the Huffington Post. (Emphasis mine)<blockquote><div><p>Q: How quickly will we notice these changes?
<br>
A: Some will occur more quickly than others. For instance, measures to boost energy efficiency in buildings and appliances are the low-hanging fruit that does not require major infrastructure changes or new technologies. <b> <i>Other changes are decades off</i> </b> and probably will come when the cap gets more stringent and permits get more expensive. For instance, the country can build more wind and more solar panels, but currently it lacks the transmission lines to move the energy they generate to population centers. As for cars: While more efficient models are a near-term reality, it will take a while to change out the fleet. Some people will continue driving 10-year-old gas guzzlers.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm seeing a lot of comments here along the lines of " Dear god , we 're going to be living out of cardboard boxes !
This bill will devastate the economy !
How could all these moron politicians not understand us armchair economists ?
" I 'd like to invite you folks to RTFA from the Huffington Post .
( Emphasis mine ) Q : How quickly will we notice these changes ?
A : Some will occur more quickly than others .
For instance , measures to boost energy efficiency in buildings and appliances are the low-hanging fruit that does not require major infrastructure changes or new technologies .
Other changes are decades off and probably will come when the cap gets more stringent and permits get more expensive .
For instance , the country can build more wind and more solar panels , but currently it lacks the transmission lines to move the energy they generate to population centers .
As for cars : While more efficient models are a near-term reality , it will take a while to change out the fleet .
Some people will continue driving 10-year-old gas guzzlers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm seeing a lot of comments here along the lines of "Dear god, we're going to be living out of cardboard boxes!
This bill will devastate the economy!
How could all these moron politicians not understand us armchair economists?
"

I'd like to invite you folks to RTFA from the Huffington Post.
(Emphasis mine)Q: How quickly will we notice these changes?
A: Some will occur more quickly than others.
For instance, measures to boost energy efficiency in buildings and appliances are the low-hanging fruit that does not require major infrastructure changes or new technologies.
Other changes are decades off  and probably will come when the cap gets more stringent and permits get more expensive.
For instance, the country can build more wind and more solar panels, but currently it lacks the transmission lines to move the energy they generate to population centers.
As for cars: While more efficient models are a near-term reality, it will take a while to change out the fleet.
Some people will continue driving 10-year-old gas guzzlers.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483257</id>
	<title>Re:Huzzah for my no emissions power plant!</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1246033440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have a point actually, under the Commodity Futures Modernization Act it expressly states that such an activity is not illegal and it cannot be regulated by the SEC. Shame no one bothered to patch that one up after Enron melted down and then credit default swap fiasco and the burst of the housing bubble and well, who knows what the future holds?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have a point actually , under the Commodity Futures Modernization Act it expressly states that such an activity is not illegal and it can not be regulated by the SEC .
Shame no one bothered to patch that one up after Enron melted down and then credit default swap fiasco and the burst of the housing bubble and well , who knows what the future holds ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have a point actually, under the Commodity Futures Modernization Act it expressly states that such an activity is not illegal and it cannot be regulated by the SEC.
Shame no one bothered to patch that one up after Enron melted down and then credit default swap fiasco and the burst of the housing bubble and well, who knows what the future holds?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482011</id>
	<title>Re:"insatiable appetite for cheap electricity."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246029900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Energy is so "cheap" because they suppliers and users of the energy do not have to pay for its entire cost including,
</p><ul>
<li>destruction of environment during extraction, including large areas of land destroyed or damaged due to spillage and strip mining</li><li>destruction of environment after usage including smog and greenhouse gases</li><li>massive military and human costs required in wars and other "police actions" necessary to provide consistent access to "cheap" energy</li></ul><p>Concerning most electrical production in the US, we do not pay for recovery of land strip mined for the coal we use for most electrical production. We do not consider the health effects of millions of tons of particulate matter dumped into the atmosphere. We do not consider the long term costs of global climate change in the US or worldwide.
</p><p>Current "cheap" energy is unsustainable and is actually expensive. The costs are just not paid by the immediate user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Energy is so " cheap " because they suppliers and users of the energy do not have to pay for its entire cost including , destruction of environment during extraction , including large areas of land destroyed or damaged due to spillage and strip miningdestruction of environment after usage including smog and greenhouse gasesmassive military and human costs required in wars and other " police actions " necessary to provide consistent access to " cheap " energyConcerning most electrical production in the US , we do not pay for recovery of land strip mined for the coal we use for most electrical production .
We do not consider the health effects of millions of tons of particulate matter dumped into the atmosphere .
We do not consider the long term costs of global climate change in the US or worldwide .
Current " cheap " energy is unsustainable and is actually expensive .
The costs are just not paid by the immediate user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Energy is so "cheap" because they suppliers and users of the energy do not have to pay for its entire cost including,

destruction of environment during extraction, including large areas of land destroyed or damaged due to spillage and strip miningdestruction of environment after usage including smog and greenhouse gasesmassive military and human costs required in wars and other "police actions" necessary to provide consistent access to "cheap" energyConcerning most electrical production in the US, we do not pay for recovery of land strip mined for the coal we use for most electrical production.
We do not consider the health effects of millions of tons of particulate matter dumped into the atmosphere.
We do not consider the long term costs of global climate change in the US or worldwide.
Current "cheap" energy is unsustainable and is actually expensive.
The costs are just not paid by the immediate user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482447</id>
	<title>Re:Peak Oil necessitates energy conservation</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1246031100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And when that point is reached the price of oil will increase causing other sources of energy to be more cost effective. There has been a constant banging on this idea of limited resources. There was once talk similar to the Peak Oil idea about coal. William Stanley Jevons (one of the pre-eminent economists of the 19th century <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William\_Stanley\_Jevons" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William\_Stanley\_Jevons</a> [wikipedia.org]) argued that coal would run out and that there was no possible substitute for it. There were other people around the same time making similar predictions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And when that point is reached the price of oil will increase causing other sources of energy to be more cost effective .
There has been a constant banging on this idea of limited resources .
There was once talk similar to the Peak Oil idea about coal .
William Stanley Jevons ( one of the pre-eminent economists of the 19th century http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William \ _Stanley \ _Jevons [ wikipedia.org ] ) argued that coal would run out and that there was no possible substitute for it .
There were other people around the same time making similar predictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when that point is reached the price of oil will increase causing other sources of energy to be more cost effective.
There has been a constant banging on this idea of limited resources.
There was once talk similar to the Peak Oil idea about coal.
William Stanley Jevons (one of the pre-eminent economists of the 19th century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William\_Stanley\_Jevons [wikipedia.org]) argued that coal would run out and that there was no possible substitute for it.
There were other people around the same time making similar predictions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28491077</id>
	<title>tfb</title>
	<author>visible.frylock</author>
	<datestamp>1246033680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jesus fucking christ, thomas.loc.gov sucks.</p><p>Here it is at govtrack (I should have known to go there in the first place):<br><a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454" title="govtrack.us" rel="nofollow">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454</a> [govtrack.us]</p><p>The pdf comes in at 1092 pages. I'd post the TOC, but even that is 6 pages long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jesus fucking christ , thomas.loc.gov sucks.Here it is at govtrack ( I should have known to go there in the first place ) : http : //www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd ? bill = h111-2454 [ govtrack.us ] The pdf comes in at 1092 pages .
I 'd post the TOC , but even that is 6 pages long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jesus fucking christ, thomas.loc.gov sucks.Here it is at govtrack (I should have known to go there in the first place):http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454 [govtrack.us]The pdf comes in at 1092 pages.
I'd post the TOC, but even that is 6 pages long.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483099</id>
	<title>Ah, so that's the American's answer to Green Dam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246033020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US has just one-upped China in this race to stupidity by passing "Cap and Trade"!</p><p>What's next? Will the Chinese out-stupid America by NOT knowing how to tie their shoes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US has just one-upped China in this race to stupidity by passing " Cap and Trade " ! What 's next ?
Will the Chinese out-stupid America by NOT knowing how to tie their shoes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US has just one-upped China in this race to stupidity by passing "Cap and Trade"!What's next?
Will the Chinese out-stupid America by NOT knowing how to tie their shoes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484351</id>
	<title>Re:Peak Oil necessitates energy conservation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246037400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's only the half of it.</p><ul> <li>Most of the people with the largest oil reserves are almost certainly lying about how large their reserves are (for example: the reserves in Saudi Arabia in 1988 were reported as more than 60\% larger than those in 1987, with no significant discoveries, and have remained the same ever since in spite of the  billions of barrels produced).</li><li>About 50\% of the world's oil comes from a handful of oil fields discovered more than 50 years ago. No comparable field has been discovered in the last forty years.</li><li>Oil production has peaked in every country which publishes reliable production figures.</li><li>The Canadian oil sands require so much natural gas to turn them into oil that they barely break even in energy output.</li><li> <em>There is evidence that coal reserves are significantly less than reported</em> which means that coal is also about to become scarce.</li></ul><p>Get used to using less energy.  Global warming is not the problem: resource exhaustion is. But measures such as cap and trade for carbon dioxide emissions will conserve energy as well as reduce emissions. My big concern about it is that with billions of dollars changing hands there is immense opportunity for corruption and other types of white collar crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's only the half of it .
Most of the people with the largest oil reserves are almost certainly lying about how large their reserves are ( for example : the reserves in Saudi Arabia in 1988 were reported as more than 60 \ % larger than those in 1987 , with no significant discoveries , and have remained the same ever since in spite of the billions of barrels produced ) .About 50 \ % of the world 's oil comes from a handful of oil fields discovered more than 50 years ago .
No comparable field has been discovered in the last forty years.Oil production has peaked in every country which publishes reliable production figures.The Canadian oil sands require so much natural gas to turn them into oil that they barely break even in energy output .
There is evidence that coal reserves are significantly less than reported which means that coal is also about to become scarce.Get used to using less energy .
Global warming is not the problem : resource exhaustion is .
But measures such as cap and trade for carbon dioxide emissions will conserve energy as well as reduce emissions .
My big concern about it is that with billions of dollars changing hands there is immense opportunity for corruption and other types of white collar crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's only the half of it.
Most of the people with the largest oil reserves are almost certainly lying about how large their reserves are (for example: the reserves in Saudi Arabia in 1988 were reported as more than 60\% larger than those in 1987, with no significant discoveries, and have remained the same ever since in spite of the  billions of barrels produced).About 50\% of the world's oil comes from a handful of oil fields discovered more than 50 years ago.
No comparable field has been discovered in the last forty years.Oil production has peaked in every country which publishes reliable production figures.The Canadian oil sands require so much natural gas to turn them into oil that they barely break even in energy output.
There is evidence that coal reserves are significantly less than reported which means that coal is also about to become scarce.Get used to using less energy.
Global warming is not the problem: resource exhaustion is.
But measures such as cap and trade for carbon dioxide emissions will conserve energy as well as reduce emissions.
My big concern about it is that with billions of dollars changing hands there is immense opportunity for corruption and other types of white collar crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485719</id>
	<title>Re:Cap and Tax - we are so screwed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246042440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you want to know what is the problem with Ethanol, Bio-diesel, and any other form crop produced fuel. IF you took every farmer (3\% of the production force of the USA) and had them produce nothing but RAW Ethanol producing materials (I.E. Corn, Sugar beets, anything high starch/sugar base) for the use of producing Ethanol, We will not have enough Ethanol produced to even replace 50\% of petroleum based fuel. Alternative with farmers producing for Fuel that means less food is being produced. believe it or not, a vast percentage of the food produced for the USA is produced in the USA. The less food we produce the more that has to be imported. the more imported the more food prices will go up. every food product that uses corn (which is just about everything) will become more expensive. The people who hurt from this is not the wealthy but the poor. There is only so much prices can raise before the lower class begins to starve. The same goes for Bio-Diesel except with organic oil instead of starch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you want to know what is the problem with Ethanol , Bio-diesel , and any other form crop produced fuel .
IF you took every farmer ( 3 \ % of the production force of the USA ) and had them produce nothing but RAW Ethanol producing materials ( I.E .
Corn , Sugar beets , anything high starch/sugar base ) for the use of producing Ethanol , We will not have enough Ethanol produced to even replace 50 \ % of petroleum based fuel .
Alternative with farmers producing for Fuel that means less food is being produced .
believe it or not , a vast percentage of the food produced for the USA is produced in the USA .
The less food we produce the more that has to be imported .
the more imported the more food prices will go up .
every food product that uses corn ( which is just about everything ) will become more expensive .
The people who hurt from this is not the wealthy but the poor .
There is only so much prices can raise before the lower class begins to starve .
The same goes for Bio-Diesel except with organic oil instead of starch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you want to know what is the problem with Ethanol, Bio-diesel, and any other form crop produced fuel.
IF you took every farmer (3\% of the production force of the USA) and had them produce nothing but RAW Ethanol producing materials (I.E.
Corn, Sugar beets, anything high starch/sugar base) for the use of producing Ethanol, We will not have enough Ethanol produced to even replace 50\% of petroleum based fuel.
Alternative with farmers producing for Fuel that means less food is being produced.
believe it or not, a vast percentage of the food produced for the USA is produced in the USA.
The less food we produce the more that has to be imported.
the more imported the more food prices will go up.
every food product that uses corn (which is just about everything) will become more expensive.
The people who hurt from this is not the wealthy but the poor.
There is only so much prices can raise before the lower class begins to starve.
The same goes for Bio-Diesel except with organic oil instead of starch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481495</id>
	<title>Another bad move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246027980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the market side of things, it creates a market and industry based on pollution - carbon as a profit center is a bad, bad, idea.  What business person wants lower profit, and by extension, lower carbon emissions?  Under what extraordinary circumstances do you foresee greed taking a second seat to reason and logic?</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the market side of things , it creates a market and industry based on pollution - carbon as a profit center is a bad , bad , idea .
What business person wants lower profit , and by extension , lower carbon emissions ?
Under what extraordinary circumstances do you foresee greed taking a second seat to reason and logic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the market side of things, it creates a market and industry based on pollution - carbon as a profit center is a bad, bad, idea.
What business person wants lower profit, and by extension, lower carbon emissions?
Under what extraordinary circumstances do you foresee greed taking a second seat to reason and logic?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481759</id>
	<title>Re:So they want me to drive a hybrid.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246029000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone loves Al Gore. So why doesn't Al Gore drive a hybrid?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone loves Al Gore .
So why does n't Al Gore drive a hybrid ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone loves Al Gore.
So why doesn't Al Gore drive a hybrid?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481755</id>
	<title>Tax &amp; Kill</title>
	<author>jim9000</author>
	<datestamp>1246029000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cap &amp; Trade won't swap smokestacks for windmills. Instead, it will just push energy costs through the roof and push most manufacturing jobs that are left overseas where there are no pollution controls at all. For anyone who is left here, all of these costs will be pushed right on to the consumer, as no business can afford to absorb this massive tax increase, nor should they be expected to absorb it even if they could.
<br> <br>
It won't push people into smaller cars. Americans spend too much time in our cars to drive around in a micro car. Not all of us live in big cities with public transportation and easy access to stores. The Smart Fortwo couldn't even fit a one week load of groceries for the average American family. We have states that are larger than entire countries in other parts of the world - what works for them doesn't work for us.
<br> <br>All of this for reducing Carbon Dioxide - which is not proven to be a pollutant, and for reducing global warming - even when there is no proof that human activities are impacting climate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cap &amp; Trade wo n't swap smokestacks for windmills .
Instead , it will just push energy costs through the roof and push most manufacturing jobs that are left overseas where there are no pollution controls at all .
For anyone who is left here , all of these costs will be pushed right on to the consumer , as no business can afford to absorb this massive tax increase , nor should they be expected to absorb it even if they could .
It wo n't push people into smaller cars .
Americans spend too much time in our cars to drive around in a micro car .
Not all of us live in big cities with public transportation and easy access to stores .
The Smart Fortwo could n't even fit a one week load of groceries for the average American family .
We have states that are larger than entire countries in other parts of the world - what works for them does n't work for us .
All of this for reducing Carbon Dioxide - which is not proven to be a pollutant , and for reducing global warming - even when there is no proof that human activities are impacting climate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cap &amp; Trade won't swap smokestacks for windmills.
Instead, it will just push energy costs through the roof and push most manufacturing jobs that are left overseas where there are no pollution controls at all.
For anyone who is left here, all of these costs will be pushed right on to the consumer, as no business can afford to absorb this massive tax increase, nor should they be expected to absorb it even if they could.
It won't push people into smaller cars.
Americans spend too much time in our cars to drive around in a micro car.
Not all of us live in big cities with public transportation and easy access to stores.
The Smart Fortwo couldn't even fit a one week load of groceries for the average American family.
We have states that are larger than entire countries in other parts of the world - what works for them doesn't work for us.
All of this for reducing Carbon Dioxide - which is not proven to be a pollutant, and for reducing global warming - even when there is no proof that human activities are impacting climate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483675</id>
	<title>Re:"insatiable appetite for cheap electricity."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246034820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;We do not consider the health effects of millions of tons of particulate matter dumped into the atmosphere.<br>We have, look at cars in the 60s vs cars today. We have been very effective in cleaning them up with reasonable cost.</p><p>As for cap and trade it has little to do with environment as it only effects the US and no other country. China and India still can emit as they wish. It is also going to have a negative impact on the economy, higher input cost for all products. If the US government and the greenies were really interested in clean energy they would be working on a lowering the cost and timeframe it takes to approve new fusion reactor designs and site plans. The reason we do not see more investment is this proven technology is the high upfront cost and political uncertainty is not worth the economic risk.</p><p>There are solutions to the strawman issues like waste storage, run it through a breeder reactor. The backers of Cap and Trade do not want to create a true level playing field for energy generation to compete, which means their motives are not about the environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; We do not consider the health effects of millions of tons of particulate matter dumped into the atmosphere.We have , look at cars in the 60s vs cars today .
We have been very effective in cleaning them up with reasonable cost.As for cap and trade it has little to do with environment as it only effects the US and no other country .
China and India still can emit as they wish .
It is also going to have a negative impact on the economy , higher input cost for all products .
If the US government and the greenies were really interested in clean energy they would be working on a lowering the cost and timeframe it takes to approve new fusion reactor designs and site plans .
The reason we do not see more investment is this proven technology is the high upfront cost and political uncertainty is not worth the economic risk.There are solutions to the strawman issues like waste storage , run it through a breeder reactor .
The backers of Cap and Trade do not want to create a true level playing field for energy generation to compete , which means their motives are not about the environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;We do not consider the health effects of millions of tons of particulate matter dumped into the atmosphere.We have, look at cars in the 60s vs cars today.
We have been very effective in cleaning them up with reasonable cost.As for cap and trade it has little to do with environment as it only effects the US and no other country.
China and India still can emit as they wish.
It is also going to have a negative impact on the economy, higher input cost for all products.
If the US government and the greenies were really interested in clean energy they would be working on a lowering the cost and timeframe it takes to approve new fusion reactor designs and site plans.
The reason we do not see more investment is this proven technology is the high upfront cost and political uncertainty is not worth the economic risk.There are solutions to the strawman issues like waste storage, run it through a breeder reactor.
The backers of Cap and Trade do not want to create a true level playing field for energy generation to compete, which means their motives are not about the environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482665</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest tax in US history</title>
	<author>Greg\_D</author>
	<datestamp>1246031700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Between this and the health care bill fiasco, I have to wonder whether Obama hates being President and wants to cut his own balls off in protest.</p><p>Cap and trade is a SCAM.  That's why Al Gore has been pushing it so hard, because he wants his cut of the market.  A simple question: why is the current administration hellbent on taking the profit motive out of healthcare, but wants in turn to add it to what amounts to energy taxation?  Why would you not directly tax carbon emissions directly if you were REALLY concerned about the environment?  And worse still, they could have taken the money from the carbon tax and USED it to implement single payer healthcare.</p><p>Instead, we get a bunch of wishy washy idiots from big cities trying to dictate to people who actually PRODUCE things, and a President who has stated that his health care plan is good enough for everyone else, just not good enough for his own daughters.</p><p>I knew I'd see the day when the Democrats were even nuttier than the Republicans, but I didn't expect it to happen so soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Between this and the health care bill fiasco , I have to wonder whether Obama hates being President and wants to cut his own balls off in protest.Cap and trade is a SCAM .
That 's why Al Gore has been pushing it so hard , because he wants his cut of the market .
A simple question : why is the current administration hellbent on taking the profit motive out of healthcare , but wants in turn to add it to what amounts to energy taxation ?
Why would you not directly tax carbon emissions directly if you were REALLY concerned about the environment ?
And worse still , they could have taken the money from the carbon tax and USED it to implement single payer healthcare.Instead , we get a bunch of wishy washy idiots from big cities trying to dictate to people who actually PRODUCE things , and a President who has stated that his health care plan is good enough for everyone else , just not good enough for his own daughters.I knew I 'd see the day when the Democrats were even nuttier than the Republicans , but I did n't expect it to happen so soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Between this and the health care bill fiasco, I have to wonder whether Obama hates being President and wants to cut his own balls off in protest.Cap and trade is a SCAM.
That's why Al Gore has been pushing it so hard, because he wants his cut of the market.
A simple question: why is the current administration hellbent on taking the profit motive out of healthcare, but wants in turn to add it to what amounts to energy taxation?
Why would you not directly tax carbon emissions directly if you were REALLY concerned about the environment?
And worse still, they could have taken the money from the carbon tax and USED it to implement single payer healthcare.Instead, we get a bunch of wishy washy idiots from big cities trying to dictate to people who actually PRODUCE things, and a President who has stated that his health care plan is good enough for everyone else, just not good enough for his own daughters.I knew I'd see the day when the Democrats were even nuttier than the Republicans, but I didn't expect it to happen so soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481661</id>
	<title>Re:Tax &amp; Tax</title>
	<author>bugeaterr</author>
	<datestamp>1246028640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 2008 Americans voted "Yes (we can!)" to all of the above.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 2008 Americans voted " Yes ( we can !
) " to all of the above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 2008 Americans voted "Yes (we can!
)" to all of the above.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481699</id>
	<title>The biggest tax in US history</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1246028760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html" title="wsj.com" rel="nofollow">Wall Street Journal</a> [wsj.com], at least, the "Cap &amp; Trade" law will constitute the biggest <strong>tax</strong> in US history...

</p><p>The sad part is, even after the human-caused "global warming" proves  to be either grossly overstated or completely bogus, the tax will stay on for decades &mdash; just like all other taxes have...

</p><p>Global warming advocates don't bother with proofs, burdening the skeptics (branded "deniers") with that instead. They only adjust their PR-campaigning, such as switching to the term "climate change", when the actual weather changes from hotter to <em>colder</em> such as over the past two years. Indeed, as Che Guevarra repeats from millions of their T-shirts:</p><blockquote><div><p> <strong>To send men to the firing squad, judicial <em>proof is unnecessary</em>. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail.</strong></p></div> </blockquote><p>("Flamebait" my capitalist behind.)

</p><p>But, hey, if the true goal is <em>destruction of Capitalism</em>, one should not bother with too much honesty &mdash; it only slows down the fall of the hated civilization.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Wall Street Journal [ wsj.com ] , at least , the " Cap &amp; Trade " law will constitute the biggest tax in US history.. . The sad part is , even after the human-caused " global warming " proves to be either grossly overstated or completely bogus , the tax will stay on for decades    just like all other taxes have.. . Global warming advocates do n't bother with proofs , burdening the skeptics ( branded " deniers " ) with that instead .
They only adjust their PR-campaigning , such as switching to the term " climate change " , when the actual weather changes from hotter to colder such as over the past two years .
Indeed , as Che Guevarra repeats from millions of their T-shirts : To send men to the firing squad , judicial proof is unnecessary .
These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail .
( " Flamebait " my capitalist behind .
) But , hey , if the true goal is destruction of Capitalism , one should not bother with too much honesty    it only slows down the fall of the hated civilization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Wall Street Journal [wsj.com], at least, the "Cap &amp; Trade" law will constitute the biggest tax in US history...

The sad part is, even after the human-caused "global warming" proves  to be either grossly overstated or completely bogus, the tax will stay on for decades — just like all other taxes have...

Global warming advocates don't bother with proofs, burdening the skeptics (branded "deniers") with that instead.
They only adjust their PR-campaigning, such as switching to the term "climate change", when the actual weather changes from hotter to colder such as over the past two years.
Indeed, as Che Guevarra repeats from millions of their T-shirts: To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary.
These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail.
("Flamebait" my capitalist behind.
)

But, hey, if the true goal is destruction of Capitalism, one should not bother with too much honesty — it only slows down the fall of the hated civilization.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481615</id>
	<title>Re:Good intentions</title>
	<author>RegularFry</author>
	<datestamp>1246028400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If individual rights were fairly balanced with responsibility, then you would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If individual rights were fairly balanced with responsibility , then you would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If individual rights were fairly balanced with responsibility, then you would.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481685</id>
	<title>Re:Good intentions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246028760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's an individual right to pollute now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an individual right to pollute now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an individual right to pollute now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482947</id>
	<title>politics as usual</title>
	<author>shystershep</author>
	<datestamp>1246032480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They told me that if I voted for McCain, science would continue to be subverted in favor of religion and political expediency.  And they were right!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They told me that if I voted for McCain , science would continue to be subverted in favor of religion and political expediency .
And they were right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They told me that if I voted for McCain, science would continue to be subverted in favor of religion and political expediency.
And they were right!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481545</id>
	<title>Cap and Tax - we are so screwed.</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1246028160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets see, to get votes from Democrats in heavily affected states Pelosi will force upon us even more years and billions towards Ethanol.  It is a 1200 page bill I doubt you will find if a small minority has read it all, let alone understands it.  It will embed taxes while vilifying energy producers - the common theme of Washington - raising the cost of EVERYTHING.</p><p>The CBO report was hacked to make it look acceptable, real numbers by other groups put the cost from 1800 to 3000 per family.</p><p>I guess they have to rush to get their damage done in the two years they will have complete control.  Honestly, once these timebombs start going off its going to flip the house and senate back.  Maybe then we can have a real President and real Congress - ones so busy fighting each other that we get some protection from both.</p><p>As in, bring back a Republican majority in Congress and Democrat President who will fight them.  Not this shit we have now where the President lets Congress run the ball and then claims credit for the touch down with the press dutifully cheering on the side lines with their pom poms.</p><p>Tax reform will never happen while government lives up the hidden power of embedded taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets see , to get votes from Democrats in heavily affected states Pelosi will force upon us even more years and billions towards Ethanol .
It is a 1200 page bill I doubt you will find if a small minority has read it all , let alone understands it .
It will embed taxes while vilifying energy producers - the common theme of Washington - raising the cost of EVERYTHING.The CBO report was hacked to make it look acceptable , real numbers by other groups put the cost from 1800 to 3000 per family.I guess they have to rush to get their damage done in the two years they will have complete control .
Honestly , once these timebombs start going off its going to flip the house and senate back .
Maybe then we can have a real President and real Congress - ones so busy fighting each other that we get some protection from both.As in , bring back a Republican majority in Congress and Democrat President who will fight them .
Not this shit we have now where the President lets Congress run the ball and then claims credit for the touch down with the press dutifully cheering on the side lines with their pom poms.Tax reform will never happen while government lives up the hidden power of embedded taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets see, to get votes from Democrats in heavily affected states Pelosi will force upon us even more years and billions towards Ethanol.
It is a 1200 page bill I doubt you will find if a small minority has read it all, let alone understands it.
It will embed taxes while vilifying energy producers - the common theme of Washington - raising the cost of EVERYTHING.The CBO report was hacked to make it look acceptable, real numbers by other groups put the cost from 1800 to 3000 per family.I guess they have to rush to get their damage done in the two years they will have complete control.
Honestly, once these timebombs start going off its going to flip the house and senate back.
Maybe then we can have a real President and real Congress - ones so busy fighting each other that we get some protection from both.As in, bring back a Republican majority in Congress and Democrat President who will fight them.
Not this shit we have now where the President lets Congress run the ball and then claims credit for the touch down with the press dutifully cheering on the side lines with their pom poms.Tax reform will never happen while government lives up the hidden power of embedded taxes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484321</id>
	<title>Re:Tax &amp; Tax</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1246037280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 2008, some Americans voted "Yes (we can!)" to all of the above.</p><p>There, fixed that for you.</p><p>In fact it it was only 9.5 million more Americans out of what 303 million that tipped the scales for all of the above. And I would say that a majority of them were actually voting against warrant-less wiretaps which didn't go away, the war in Iraq which is outside a few name changes will be following the Bush plan too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 2008 , some Americans voted " Yes ( we can !
) " to all of the above.There , fixed that for you.In fact it it was only 9.5 million more Americans out of what 303 million that tipped the scales for all of the above .
And I would say that a majority of them were actually voting against warrant-less wiretaps which did n't go away , the war in Iraq which is outside a few name changes will be following the Bush plan too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 2008, some Americans voted "Yes (we can!
)" to all of the above.There, fixed that for you.In fact it it was only 9.5 million more Americans out of what 303 million that tipped the scales for all of the above.
And I would say that a majority of them were actually voting against warrant-less wiretaps which didn't go away, the war in Iraq which is outside a few name changes will be following the Bush plan too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481555</id>
	<title>National Energy Tax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246028160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not call it what it is?  A tax increase for the entire nation based on how much energy you use.

The EPA finally released a censored study last night that pointed out how much the EPA has been ignoring the real science of the matter. The EPA's 'endangerment' study was completely politicized.

One of the e-mails from a superior to the employee who had worked at the EPA for 35 years and wanted the study released:
"The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision... I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

Look it up, you'll be disgusted as I am after hearing how many times people have said "The science is settled" to try and pass this extra tax.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not call it what it is ?
A tax increase for the entire nation based on how much energy you use .
The EPA finally released a censored study last night that pointed out how much the EPA has been ignoring the real science of the matter .
The EPA 's 'endangerment ' study was completely politicized .
One of the e-mails from a superior to the employee who had worked at the EPA for 35 years and wanted the study released : " The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round .
The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment , and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision... I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process , and that would be a very negative impact on our office .
" Look it up , you 'll be disgusted as I am after hearing how many times people have said " The science is settled " to try and pass this extra tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not call it what it is?
A tax increase for the entire nation based on how much energy you use.
The EPA finally released a censored study last night that pointed out how much the EPA has been ignoring the real science of the matter.
The EPA's 'endangerment' study was completely politicized.
One of the e-mails from a superior to the employee who had worked at the EPA for 35 years and wanted the study released:
"The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round.
The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision... I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.
"

Look it up, you'll be disgusted as I am after hearing how many times people have said "The science is settled" to try and pass this extra tax.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28495495</id>
	<title>Excellent article in Rolling Stone Magazine!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246123920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excellent article in Rolling Stone Magazine! MOD PARENT UP!

<br> <br>By some measures, the U.S. government is the most corrupt in the world. For example, the U.S. government has invaded or bombed 25 countries since the end of the 2nd world war, all for profit. In Iraq, the U.S. government wanted control over the oil, and didn't care how many people it killed. In Afghanistan, they want to build an oil pipeline.

<br> <br>The U.S. government has a higher percentage of its people in prison than any country ever in the history of the world, over 6 times higher than in Europe, for example.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent article in Rolling Stone Magazine !
MOD PARENT UP !
By some measures , the U.S. government is the most corrupt in the world .
For example , the U.S. government has invaded or bombed 25 countries since the end of the 2nd world war , all for profit .
In Iraq , the U.S. government wanted control over the oil , and did n't care how many people it killed .
In Afghanistan , they want to build an oil pipeline .
The U.S. government has a higher percentage of its people in prison than any country ever in the history of the world , over 6 times higher than in Europe , for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent article in Rolling Stone Magazine!
MOD PARENT UP!
By some measures, the U.S. government is the most corrupt in the world.
For example, the U.S. government has invaded or bombed 25 countries since the end of the 2nd world war, all for profit.
In Iraq, the U.S. government wanted control over the oil, and didn't care how many people it killed.
In Afghanistan, they want to build an oil pipeline.
The U.S. government has a higher percentage of its people in prison than any country ever in the history of the world, over 6 times higher than in Europe, for example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482483</id>
	<title>This will shift the use of coal downward for sure</title>
	<author>stomv</author>
	<datestamp>1246031160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>some of the increase will be in natural gas usage, but that will drive the price of natural gas upward too.  The cost of installing and maintaining solar or wind won't increase.  Though it's true there may be more demand for solar and wind infrastructure (cells, turbines), but even in spite of that one-time cost I suspect that the end result is that <i>relative to the cost of generating electricity from coal and natural gas</i>, renewable energy will get <b>cheaper</b>.</p><p>End result:<br>1a.  Higher electricity prices for us.<br>1b.  Less electricity consumption by us.<br>2.  Less carbon emission and air pollution for us.</p><p>I'll take that trade.  Before anyone objects to (1b), yes there is demand elasticity in electricity consumption.  Anybody who's had a dad tell him or her to turn the damn lights off when you leave the room knows that.  Anybody who's installed a more efficient light bulb, refrigerator, air conditioner, or swamp cooler knows that too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>some of the increase will be in natural gas usage , but that will drive the price of natural gas upward too .
The cost of installing and maintaining solar or wind wo n't increase .
Though it 's true there may be more demand for solar and wind infrastructure ( cells , turbines ) , but even in spite of that one-time cost I suspect that the end result is that relative to the cost of generating electricity from coal and natural gas , renewable energy will get cheaper.End result : 1a .
Higher electricity prices for us.1b .
Less electricity consumption by us.2 .
Less carbon emission and air pollution for us.I 'll take that trade .
Before anyone objects to ( 1b ) , yes there is demand elasticity in electricity consumption .
Anybody who 's had a dad tell him or her to turn the damn lights off when you leave the room knows that .
Anybody who 's installed a more efficient light bulb , refrigerator , air conditioner , or swamp cooler knows that too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some of the increase will be in natural gas usage, but that will drive the price of natural gas upward too.
The cost of installing and maintaining solar or wind won't increase.
Though it's true there may be more demand for solar and wind infrastructure (cells, turbines), but even in spite of that one-time cost I suspect that the end result is that relative to the cost of generating electricity from coal and natural gas, renewable energy will get cheaper.End result:1a.
Higher electricity prices for us.1b.
Less electricity consumption by us.2.
Less carbon emission and air pollution for us.I'll take that trade.
Before anyone objects to (1b), yes there is demand elasticity in electricity consumption.
Anybody who's had a dad tell him or her to turn the damn lights off when you leave the room knows that.
Anybody who's installed a more efficient light bulb, refrigerator, air conditioner, or swamp cooler knows that too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385</id>
	<title>Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246027680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And energy rationing, by this name or any other, spells death for the economy.  They might as well call it the "starve and freeze" bill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And energy rationing , by this name or any other , spells death for the economy .
They might as well call it the " starve and freeze " bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And energy rationing, by this name or any other, spells death for the economy.
They might as well call it the "starve and freeze" bill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28488587</id>
	<title>Alternative Energy Fallicies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246012080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact is few alternative energies, with the exception of nuclear, have the energy density found in fossil fuels. Therefore they cannot power the world.<br>Lets suppose for the moment that wind power is enough to power the world. This would present new environmental problems of its own. Why? Because you are taking energy out of the weather systems, and disrupting weather patterns utilizing a massive wind energy harvesting system. Think how much energy is produced by burning fossil fuels... As a result, wind energy will drastically increase global warming not solve it.</p><p>Once Dams was the proposed solution to the U.S.'s energy crunch. Unfortunately, it devastated fish populations, and change the environment dramatically. Now, we are removing the dams we once made to reverse the effects.</p><p>The use of ethanol on a national scale would collapse the water tables, and use up most land that currently goes towards other farm goods. In essence, the ethanol program would starve, and ruin peoples water supply.</p><p>There is a lot of hype and Kool-Aid being floated about by people who think they know everything, and the beliefs are being re-enforced by like minded individuals. But a lie is a lie, no matter how often you repeat it, it still remains fundamentally untrue...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is few alternative energies , with the exception of nuclear , have the energy density found in fossil fuels .
Therefore they can not power the world.Lets suppose for the moment that wind power is enough to power the world .
This would present new environmental problems of its own .
Why ? Because you are taking energy out of the weather systems , and disrupting weather patterns utilizing a massive wind energy harvesting system .
Think how much energy is produced by burning fossil fuels... As a result , wind energy will drastically increase global warming not solve it.Once Dams was the proposed solution to the U.S. 's energy crunch .
Unfortunately , it devastated fish populations , and change the environment dramatically .
Now , we are removing the dams we once made to reverse the effects.The use of ethanol on a national scale would collapse the water tables , and use up most land that currently goes towards other farm goods .
In essence , the ethanol program would starve , and ruin peoples water supply.There is a lot of hype and Kool-Aid being floated about by people who think they know everything , and the beliefs are being re-enforced by like minded individuals .
But a lie is a lie , no matter how often you repeat it , it still remains fundamentally untrue.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact is few alternative energies, with the exception of nuclear, have the energy density found in fossil fuels.
Therefore they cannot power the world.Lets suppose for the moment that wind power is enough to power the world.
This would present new environmental problems of its own.
Why? Because you are taking energy out of the weather systems, and disrupting weather patterns utilizing a massive wind energy harvesting system.
Think how much energy is produced by burning fossil fuels... As a result, wind energy will drastically increase global warming not solve it.Once Dams was the proposed solution to the U.S.'s energy crunch.
Unfortunately, it devastated fish populations, and change the environment dramatically.
Now, we are removing the dams we once made to reverse the effects.The use of ethanol on a national scale would collapse the water tables, and use up most land that currently goes towards other farm goods.
In essence, the ethanol program would starve, and ruin peoples water supply.There is a lot of hype and Kool-Aid being floated about by people who think they know everything, and the beliefs are being re-enforced by like minded individuals.
But a lie is a lie, no matter how often you repeat it, it still remains fundamentally untrue...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483575</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246034460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not the roll of the Federal Government to limit CO2. The Constitution has no Environmental protections and the 10th amendment says basically If it is not in here you can not do it.</p><p>That said I still do not think Global Warming is caused by us. Check this link http://www.thepiratescove.us/2009/06/22/agw-today-sun-spots-and-settled-science/<br>for a nice little cart of temp V CO2 and temp V sun activity... correlates nice for the sun but CO2 does not fit the "model" So before you tax me further into oblivion at least use science to backup your claims that MAN IS THE PROBLEM.<br>I will not go quietly into the night, I will not go down without a fight. My non-representing representatives are about to loose their job. Remember Obama can not protect them and keep their job but I can vote the dumb asses out. I do not care if you have a D or an R after your name if you are an incumbent.... get your resume up to date.... we are coming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not the roll of the Federal Government to limit CO2 .
The Constitution has no Environmental protections and the 10th amendment says basically If it is not in here you can not do it.That said I still do not think Global Warming is caused by us .
Check this link http : //www.thepiratescove.us/2009/06/22/agw-today-sun-spots-and-settled-science/for a nice little cart of temp V CO2 and temp V sun activity... correlates nice for the sun but CO2 does not fit the " model " So before you tax me further into oblivion at least use science to backup your claims that MAN IS THE PROBLEM.I will not go quietly into the night , I will not go down without a fight .
My non-representing representatives are about to loose their job .
Remember Obama can not protect them and keep their job but I can vote the dumb asses out .
I do not care if you have a D or an R after your name if you are an incumbent.... get your resume up to date.... we are coming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not the roll of the Federal Government to limit CO2.
The Constitution has no Environmental protections and the 10th amendment says basically If it is not in here you can not do it.That said I still do not think Global Warming is caused by us.
Check this link http://www.thepiratescove.us/2009/06/22/agw-today-sun-spots-and-settled-science/for a nice little cart of temp V CO2 and temp V sun activity... correlates nice for the sun but CO2 does not fit the "model" So before you tax me further into oblivion at least use science to backup your claims that MAN IS THE PROBLEM.I will not go quietly into the night, I will not go down without a fight.
My non-representing representatives are about to loose their job.
Remember Obama can not protect them and keep their job but I can vote the dumb asses out.
I do not care if you have a D or an R after your name if you are an incumbent.... get your resume up to date.... we are coming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482595</id>
	<title>Re:Peak Oil necessitates energy conservation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246031460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bah! Peak oil whatever, there is more known proven oil sources in the ground than at any time in human history.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah !
Peak oil whatever , there is more known proven oil sources in the ground than at any time in human history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah!
Peak oil whatever, there is more known proven oil sources in the ground than at any time in human history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486123</id>
	<title>Re:Tax &amp; Tax</title>
	<author>nyvalbanat</author>
	<datestamp>1246044240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>You missed a few questions:<br>&lt;ul&gt;<br>&lt;li&gt; Is the current resource consumption, especially that of energy, sustainable?&lt;/li&gt;<br>&lt;li&gt; Does the money currently paid for energy support any counterproductive organizations and regimes?&lt;/li&gt;<br>&lt;li&gt; Is the US too dependent on one particular type of energy so that variations in its price create massive ripple effects across the economy and essentially represent a single point of failure for the whole economy?&lt;/li&gt;<br>&lt;/ul&gt;<br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>You missed a few questions : Is the current resource consumption , especially that of energy , sustainable ?
Does the money currently paid for energy support any counterproductive organizations and regimes ?
Is the US too dependent on one particular type of energy so that variations in its price create massive ripple effects across the economy and essentially represent a single point of failure for the whole economy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You missed a few questions: Is the current resource consumption, especially that of energy, sustainable?
Does the money currently paid for energy support any counterproductive organizations and regimes?
Is the US too dependent on one particular type of energy so that variations in its price create massive ripple effects across the economy and essentially represent a single point of failure for the whole economy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482511</id>
	<title>Please sign the petition project</title>
	<author>bencoder</author>
	<datestamp>1246031220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Real scientists, if you have not yet done so, please sign the <a href="http://www.petitionproject.org/" title="petitionproject.org">Global Warming Petition Project</a> [petitionproject.org]. It's not a web based petition so you'll have to actually sign it and send it in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Real scientists , if you have not yet done so , please sign the Global Warming Petition Project [ petitionproject.org ] .
It 's not a web based petition so you 'll have to actually sign it and send it in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real scientists, if you have not yet done so, please sign the Global Warming Petition Project [petitionproject.org].
It's not a web based petition so you'll have to actually sign it and send it in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28491395</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246037280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you think Obama is going to pay for the increased spending to the tune of almost 10 trillion dollars over the next 10 years?</p><p>His agenda is to tax &amp; spend Americans until the entire country is bankrupt!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you think Obama is going to pay for the increased spending to the tune of almost 10 trillion dollars over the next 10 years ? His agenda is to tax &amp; spend Americans until the entire country is bankrupt ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you think Obama is going to pay for the increased spending to the tune of almost 10 trillion dollars over the next 10 years?His agenda is to tax &amp; spend Americans until the entire country is bankrupt!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484079</id>
	<title>YES!</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1246036380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is WAY overdue, which is also why it stings so much. Have a guess why this will hit America harder than Europe? Has nothing to do with the fact that Europeans started acting decades ago while the Americans preferred to stick their heads in the sand? There's loads of people decrying this, but what is your alternative? Wait until it will hurt even more? Because you do realise that the longer you wait the harsher it will be when you finally do it, right ? You also realise that you can't go on forever burning Oil and Coal, right ?</p><p>Other than some people who have never heard the word "externalities" and still seriously think that free market economics can magically undo physical reality, people should see that relying on limited and polluting energy sources is a bad idea, and that it will be a lot smoother to start cutting down your use of it sooner rather than waiting for the market to crash. Sure, market forces will "fix it", but it will be in the "oil just quadrupled in cost every week, 10 weeks in a row" kind of way rather than the smooth transition you can get with a sensible cap and trade system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is WAY overdue , which is also why it stings so much .
Have a guess why this will hit America harder than Europe ?
Has nothing to do with the fact that Europeans started acting decades ago while the Americans preferred to stick their heads in the sand ?
There 's loads of people decrying this , but what is your alternative ?
Wait until it will hurt even more ?
Because you do realise that the longer you wait the harsher it will be when you finally do it , right ?
You also realise that you ca n't go on forever burning Oil and Coal , right ? Other than some people who have never heard the word " externalities " and still seriously think that free market economics can magically undo physical reality , people should see that relying on limited and polluting energy sources is a bad idea , and that it will be a lot smoother to start cutting down your use of it sooner rather than waiting for the market to crash .
Sure , market forces will " fix it " , but it will be in the " oil just quadrupled in cost every week , 10 weeks in a row " kind of way rather than the smooth transition you can get with a sensible cap and trade system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is WAY overdue, which is also why it stings so much.
Have a guess why this will hit America harder than Europe?
Has nothing to do with the fact that Europeans started acting decades ago while the Americans preferred to stick their heads in the sand?
There's loads of people decrying this, but what is your alternative?
Wait until it will hurt even more?
Because you do realise that the longer you wait the harsher it will be when you finally do it, right ?
You also realise that you can't go on forever burning Oil and Coal, right ?Other than some people who have never heard the word "externalities" and still seriously think that free market economics can magically undo physical reality, people should see that relying on limited and polluting energy sources is a bad idea, and that it will be a lot smoother to start cutting down your use of it sooner rather than waiting for the market to crash.
Sure, market forces will "fix it", but it will be in the "oil just quadrupled in cost every week, 10 weeks in a row" kind of way rather than the smooth transition you can get with a sensible cap and trade system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28487317</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246049760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're assuming all the credits are going to be fairly auctioned off.  The bill is, what? 1200 pages?  Want to bet there's tons of handouts of credits to politically connected companies?  Dollars to donuts this is going to be an enormous hidden redistribution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're assuming all the credits are going to be fairly auctioned off .
The bill is , what ?
1200 pages ?
Want to bet there 's tons of handouts of credits to politically connected companies ?
Dollars to donuts this is going to be an enormous hidden redistribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're assuming all the credits are going to be fairly auctioned off.
The bill is, what?
1200 pages?
Want to bet there's tons of handouts of credits to politically connected companies?
Dollars to donuts this is going to be an enormous hidden redistribution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484733</id>
	<title>Where are the mod point when you need em?</title>
	<author>SeePage87</author>
	<datestamp>1246038660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is dead on, and I've been saying it for years.  Too often people hear there's potentially a problem and think "We have to solve it!"  What they don't do is ask any of the above questions.  I've seen worse ideas than cap and trade, but as an economist (by degree and profession) I can tell you that it doesn't work how they suggest it will.</p><p>The Government really doesn't need to do anything to solve the global warming problem.  Innovation is obviously the only real solution, and every energy company and tons of private equity funds are investing billions of dollars to create green technologies and green energy sources.  They do this because they know if they can create something that is economically viable, they'll make more money than God.  They also know that, besides as a potential goldmine, it also acts as a preventative measure in case bills like this do pass.  Game theory suggests that all we really need is a credible threat that something like this <i>might</i> pass to spur innovation, we don't really need to force them to act right.  And as an added bonus, it's much cheaper and more effective than passing this type of legislation, since their research budgets aren't crippled by bad policy.  Why punish those who are already playing by the rules?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is dead on , and I 've been saying it for years .
Too often people hear there 's potentially a problem and think " We have to solve it !
" What they do n't do is ask any of the above questions .
I 've seen worse ideas than cap and trade , but as an economist ( by degree and profession ) I can tell you that it does n't work how they suggest it will.The Government really does n't need to do anything to solve the global warming problem .
Innovation is obviously the only real solution , and every energy company and tons of private equity funds are investing billions of dollars to create green technologies and green energy sources .
They do this because they know if they can create something that is economically viable , they 'll make more money than God .
They also know that , besides as a potential goldmine , it also acts as a preventative measure in case bills like this do pass .
Game theory suggests that all we really need is a credible threat that something like this might pass to spur innovation , we do n't really need to force them to act right .
And as an added bonus , it 's much cheaper and more effective than passing this type of legislation , since their research budgets are n't crippled by bad policy .
Why punish those who are already playing by the rules ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is dead on, and I've been saying it for years.
Too often people hear there's potentially a problem and think "We have to solve it!
"  What they don't do is ask any of the above questions.
I've seen worse ideas than cap and trade, but as an economist (by degree and profession) I can tell you that it doesn't work how they suggest it will.The Government really doesn't need to do anything to solve the global warming problem.
Innovation is obviously the only real solution, and every energy company and tons of private equity funds are investing billions of dollars to create green technologies and green energy sources.
They do this because they know if they can create something that is economically viable, they'll make more money than God.
They also know that, besides as a potential goldmine, it also acts as a preventative measure in case bills like this do pass.
Game theory suggests that all we really need is a credible threat that something like this might pass to spur innovation, we don't really need to force them to act right.
And as an added bonus, it's much cheaper and more effective than passing this type of legislation, since their research budgets aren't crippled by bad policy.
Why punish those who are already playing by the rules?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483141</id>
	<title>Re:Peak Oil necessitates energy conservation</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1246033080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>didn't the oil drum predict that Peak Oil would happen in 2009 a few years ago? Hasn't Peak Oil been predicted several times already?</p><p>reminds me of some Koreans in NYC in 1992 predicting the end of the world and the coming of the beast and the anti-christ. it was supposed to happen in October 1992. I joined the army in the summer of that year and forgot about it until December when i went home for Christmas break. By that time they changed their signs to predict the end a little further into the future</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>did n't the oil drum predict that Peak Oil would happen in 2009 a few years ago ?
Has n't Peak Oil been predicted several times already ? reminds me of some Koreans in NYC in 1992 predicting the end of the world and the coming of the beast and the anti-christ .
it was supposed to happen in October 1992 .
I joined the army in the summer of that year and forgot about it until December when i went home for Christmas break .
By that time they changed their signs to predict the end a little further into the future</tokentext>
<sentencetext>didn't the oil drum predict that Peak Oil would happen in 2009 a few years ago?
Hasn't Peak Oil been predicted several times already?reminds me of some Koreans in NYC in 1992 predicting the end of the world and the coming of the beast and the anti-christ.
it was supposed to happen in October 1992.
I joined the army in the summer of that year and forgot about it until December when i went home for Christmas break.
By that time they changed their signs to predict the end a little further into the future</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484643</id>
	<title>I'm all for saving the planet</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1246038360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and reducing pollution and carbon emissions, but not to the point that it bankrupts people and puts a heavy tax on everything.</p><p>There is supposed to be a VAT or value added tax to thinks that need carbon fossil fuel to produce of at least 50\%, how will the average American be able to afford food and the basics of living like clothes, TV sets, computers, fuel for their car to get to work, etc?</p><p>We might all end up living like the Amish to avoid the extra taxes. Low tech, horse power, muscle power, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and reducing pollution and carbon emissions , but not to the point that it bankrupts people and puts a heavy tax on everything.There is supposed to be a VAT or value added tax to thinks that need carbon fossil fuel to produce of at least 50 \ % , how will the average American be able to afford food and the basics of living like clothes , TV sets , computers , fuel for their car to get to work , etc ? We might all end up living like the Amish to avoid the extra taxes .
Low tech , horse power , muscle power , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and reducing pollution and carbon emissions, but not to the point that it bankrupts people and puts a heavy tax on everything.There is supposed to be a VAT or value added tax to thinks that need carbon fossil fuel to produce of at least 50\%, how will the average American be able to afford food and the basics of living like clothes, TV sets, computers, fuel for their car to get to work, etc?We might all end up living like the Amish to avoid the extra taxes.
Low tech, horse power, muscle power, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485001</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1246039680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly right.  Couldn't have said it better myself.  This post by itself makes me your fan.</p><p>Sadly, I've been in debates with (fellow!) libertarians trying to explain to them that "defining clear rights in a scarce resource (i.e. use of the atmosphere as a waste dump)" really is a market solution and something we should support in general, though not necessarily any *particular* manifestation of such a scheme.</p><p>But apparently, because it's not "their view" of what markets "should" look like (i.e. with the inalienable right to cheap oil at the expense of coastal dwellers), they don't consider it a market.</p><p>And yes, you are absolutely right about this being about dinosaur industries trying to preserve their commons-dumping privileges rather than supporting a genuine, free enterprise economy with well-defined rights in scarce resources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly right .
Could n't have said it better myself .
This post by itself makes me your fan.Sadly , I 've been in debates with ( fellow !
) libertarians trying to explain to them that " defining clear rights in a scarce resource ( i.e .
use of the atmosphere as a waste dump ) " really is a market solution and something we should support in general , though not necessarily any * particular * manifestation of such a scheme.But apparently , because it 's not " their view " of what markets " should " look like ( i.e .
with the inalienable right to cheap oil at the expense of coastal dwellers ) , they do n't consider it a market.And yes , you are absolutely right about this being about dinosaur industries trying to preserve their commons-dumping privileges rather than supporting a genuine , free enterprise economy with well-defined rights in scarce resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly right.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
This post by itself makes me your fan.Sadly, I've been in debates with (fellow!
) libertarians trying to explain to them that "defining clear rights in a scarce resource (i.e.
use of the atmosphere as a waste dump)" really is a market solution and something we should support in general, though not necessarily any *particular* manifestation of such a scheme.But apparently, because it's not "their view" of what markets "should" look like (i.e.
with the inalienable right to cheap oil at the expense of coastal dwellers), they don't consider it a market.And yes, you are absolutely right about this being about dinosaur industries trying to preserve their commons-dumping privileges rather than supporting a genuine, free enterprise economy with well-defined rights in scarce resources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483107</id>
	<title>This sucks.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1246033020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately I live in an area where much of our power is generated by petroleum, of all things, so I'm almost certainly screwed. Even with the entire house equipped with CFLs, and careful usage of electricity I still spend nearly twice what friends in some other states spend on electricity. There are things I'd like to do to lower my electricity bill, but I don't have the money to spend without very careful planning.</p><p>And it's not just this garbage we need to contend with. Bear in mind that state and federal government is looking to suck us dry in many other ways. I'm facing the prospect of my city raising property tax by a substantial amount this summer. Taxes are already high here but the city is incapable of managing its finances. But then I'm convinced government sees citizens as an endless source of income.</p><p>Without a doubt, the prospect of all this is very concerning. It would certainly put a strain on my finances. Perhaps it will make me eligible for some kind of government bailout.</p><p>The irony is that temperatures in this area have been colder than normal for a few years now, and so far the difference has been quite pronounced this year. It's been a good 10 degrees below normal since the end of winter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately I live in an area where much of our power is generated by petroleum , of all things , so I 'm almost certainly screwed .
Even with the entire house equipped with CFLs , and careful usage of electricity I still spend nearly twice what friends in some other states spend on electricity .
There are things I 'd like to do to lower my electricity bill , but I do n't have the money to spend without very careful planning.And it 's not just this garbage we need to contend with .
Bear in mind that state and federal government is looking to suck us dry in many other ways .
I 'm facing the prospect of my city raising property tax by a substantial amount this summer .
Taxes are already high here but the city is incapable of managing its finances .
But then I 'm convinced government sees citizens as an endless source of income.Without a doubt , the prospect of all this is very concerning .
It would certainly put a strain on my finances .
Perhaps it will make me eligible for some kind of government bailout.The irony is that temperatures in this area have been colder than normal for a few years now , and so far the difference has been quite pronounced this year .
It 's been a good 10 degrees below normal since the end of winter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately I live in an area where much of our power is generated by petroleum, of all things, so I'm almost certainly screwed.
Even with the entire house equipped with CFLs, and careful usage of electricity I still spend nearly twice what friends in some other states spend on electricity.
There are things I'd like to do to lower my electricity bill, but I don't have the money to spend without very careful planning.And it's not just this garbage we need to contend with.
Bear in mind that state and federal government is looking to suck us dry in many other ways.
I'm facing the prospect of my city raising property tax by a substantial amount this summer.
Taxes are already high here but the city is incapable of managing its finances.
But then I'm convinced government sees citizens as an endless source of income.Without a doubt, the prospect of all this is very concerning.
It would certainly put a strain on my finances.
Perhaps it will make me eligible for some kind of government bailout.The irony is that temperatures in this area have been colder than normal for a few years now, and so far the difference has been quite pronounced this year.
It's been a good 10 degrees below normal since the end of winter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485017</id>
	<title>Forgot to mention one thing.</title>
	<author>reidiq</author>
	<datestamp>1246039740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will also make Al Gore a billionaire.

They brought him in to the senate floor to scare everyone into voting for this bill. Isn't there something called conflict of interest?

I mean, this guy is lobbying to make himself richer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will also make Al Gore a billionaire .
They brought him in to the senate floor to scare everyone into voting for this bill .
Is n't there something called conflict of interest ?
I mean , this guy is lobbying to make himself richer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will also make Al Gore a billionaire.
They brought him in to the senate floor to scare everyone into voting for this bill.
Isn't there something called conflict of interest?
I mean, this guy is lobbying to make himself richer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483015</id>
	<title>50c a day</title>
	<author>airfabio</author>
	<datestamp>1246032720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am glad that after all these years, the tradition of posters on slashdot not reading the article continues.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br>Even if global warming is completely bogus, I for one will gladly pay 50c a day if it means:</p><p>Fewer people dieing from black lung disease.<br>Cleaner air.<br>Not having to invade countries for their natural resources.<br>Funding for new technology based solutions to our energy supply.</p><p>And finally, for those that claim cap and trades is the end of capitalism, pricing of public goods is one of the corner stones of capitalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am glad that after all these years , the tradition of posters on slashdot not reading the article continues .
: - ) Even if global warming is completely bogus , I for one will gladly pay 50c a day if it means : Fewer people dieing from black lung disease.Cleaner air.Not having to invade countries for their natural resources.Funding for new technology based solutions to our energy supply.And finally , for those that claim cap and trades is the end of capitalism , pricing of public goods is one of the corner stones of capitalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am glad that after all these years, the tradition of posters on slashdot not reading the article continues.
:-)Even if global warming is completely bogus, I for one will gladly pay 50c a day if it means:Fewer people dieing from black lung disease.Cleaner air.Not having to invade countries for their natural resources.Funding for new technology based solutions to our energy supply.And finally, for those that claim cap and trades is the end of capitalism, pricing of public goods is one of the corner stones of capitalism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765</id>
	<title>Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>Orne</author>
	<datestamp>1246029000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Put a cap on the emissions that industry can output, then create a market where companies can trade the right to pollute.  Cap and Trade.</p><p>The big question is, what is this <i> <b>Change</b> </i> going to do to the US economy?</p><ol><li>Create asymmetry between US industry and global industry for future growth.  Why should I build my factory in the USA and go through the regulations when it just became more profitable to build it overseas?</li><li>Existing price structures are scrambled.  Estimates from the power industry say that once you add in the costs of Cap-and-trade, this will make Coal more expensive than Natural Gas fuel, completely flipping the fuel makeups of almost all electricity production markets.  Since Coal is used as fuel for <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1\_1.html" title="doe.gov">about half of the energy production</a> [doe.gov] in the US, this will be disasterous to the wholesale markets.  Since corporations always pass costs down to consumers, expect to see your retail electric bills go up by <a href="http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/636.pdf" title="marshall.org">5-15\%</a> [marshall.org], or an average of $700-1400 per family per year.</li><li>Who exactly is benefitting here?  Estimates are that about <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/capandtrade101.html" title="americanprogress.org">$50 to $300 billion</a> [americanprogress.org] is getting ready to change hands, with the government running the auction for the "rights" to pollute.  It essentially puts extra costs on industry that uses polluting fuels, and the claims are that some of the money will become subsidies to cleaner/greener energy producers.  Since zero-emission technology is currently 3x as expensive as fossil based technologies, there will not be any savings to the public, hense the comparisons to a "tax" for the public.</li></ol><p>While all of cap-and-trade appears very poorly thought out, Pres. Obama actually fully <a href="http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-admits-cap-trade-will-cause.html" title="blogspot.com">intended this to happen</a> [blogspot.com], as interviewed almost a year ago.  So, hold on to your wallet, change is coming...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Put a cap on the emissions that industry can output , then create a market where companies can trade the right to pollute .
Cap and Trade.The big question is , what is this Change going to do to the US economy ? Create asymmetry between US industry and global industry for future growth .
Why should I build my factory in the USA and go through the regulations when it just became more profitable to build it overseas ? Existing price structures are scrambled .
Estimates from the power industry say that once you add in the costs of Cap-and-trade , this will make Coal more expensive than Natural Gas fuel , completely flipping the fuel makeups of almost all electricity production markets .
Since Coal is used as fuel for about half of the energy production [ doe.gov ] in the US , this will be disasterous to the wholesale markets .
Since corporations always pass costs down to consumers , expect to see your retail electric bills go up by 5-15 \ % [ marshall.org ] , or an average of $ 700-1400 per family per year.Who exactly is benefitting here ?
Estimates are that about $ 50 to $ 300 billion [ americanprogress.org ] is getting ready to change hands , with the government running the auction for the " rights " to pollute .
It essentially puts extra costs on industry that uses polluting fuels , and the claims are that some of the money will become subsidies to cleaner/greener energy producers .
Since zero-emission technology is currently 3x as expensive as fossil based technologies , there will not be any savings to the public , hense the comparisons to a " tax " for the public.While all of cap-and-trade appears very poorly thought out , Pres .
Obama actually fully intended this to happen [ blogspot.com ] , as interviewed almost a year ago .
So , hold on to your wallet , change is coming.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put a cap on the emissions that industry can output, then create a market where companies can trade the right to pollute.
Cap and Trade.The big question is, what is this  Change  going to do to the US economy?Create asymmetry between US industry and global industry for future growth.
Why should I build my factory in the USA and go through the regulations when it just became more profitable to build it overseas?Existing price structures are scrambled.
Estimates from the power industry say that once you add in the costs of Cap-and-trade, this will make Coal more expensive than Natural Gas fuel, completely flipping the fuel makeups of almost all electricity production markets.
Since Coal is used as fuel for about half of the energy production [doe.gov] in the US, this will be disasterous to the wholesale markets.
Since corporations always pass costs down to consumers, expect to see your retail electric bills go up by 5-15\% [marshall.org], or an average of $700-1400 per family per year.Who exactly is benefitting here?
Estimates are that about $50 to $300 billion [americanprogress.org] is getting ready to change hands, with the government running the auction for the "rights" to pollute.
It essentially puts extra costs on industry that uses polluting fuels, and the claims are that some of the money will become subsidies to cleaner/greener energy producers.
Since zero-emission technology is currently 3x as expensive as fossil based technologies, there will not be any savings to the public, hense the comparisons to a "tax" for the public.While all of cap-and-trade appears very poorly thought out, Pres.
Obama actually fully intended this to happen [blogspot.com], as interviewed almost a year ago.
So, hold on to your wallet, change is coming...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485489</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1246041540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Opponents of this bill hate capitalism, pure and simple. They hate markets and they hate property rights. </i></p><p>Not really.  The track record of carbon caps in Europe is that they create tremendous corruption and are ineffective.  This bill already has "regulatory capture" by industries that lobbied enough to get "free emissions", while others will have to purchase them from those specific politically-connected industries.</p><p>If you really want effective reduction in an externality that is difficult to measure (and the hundreds of millions of point emissions of CO2 are tough to measure), a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigouvian\_tax" title="wikipedia.org">Pigouvian Tax</a> [wikipedia.org] on the fuel based on its carbon emissions is the best way to balance CO2 reduction with a low chance for corruption.</p><p>Economically, a non-corrupt cap &amp; trade system is fairly equivalent to a Pigouvian Tax.  However there has been no such thing as a non-corrupt CO2 cap &amp; trade system.</p><p>Many economists, including those who are very pro-capitalist (such as Gary Becker, Paul Volcker, Alan Greenspan, and Greg Mankiw), have created the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou\_Club" title="wikipedia.org">Pigou Club</a> [wikipedia.org] to support the concept of Pigouvian externality taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opponents of this bill hate capitalism , pure and simple .
They hate markets and they hate property rights .
Not really .
The track record of carbon caps in Europe is that they create tremendous corruption and are ineffective .
This bill already has " regulatory capture " by industries that lobbied enough to get " free emissions " , while others will have to purchase them from those specific politically-connected industries.If you really want effective reduction in an externality that is difficult to measure ( and the hundreds of millions of point emissions of CO2 are tough to measure ) , a Pigouvian Tax [ wikipedia.org ] on the fuel based on its carbon emissions is the best way to balance CO2 reduction with a low chance for corruption.Economically , a non-corrupt cap &amp; trade system is fairly equivalent to a Pigouvian Tax .
However there has been no such thing as a non-corrupt CO2 cap &amp; trade system.Many economists , including those who are very pro-capitalist ( such as Gary Becker , Paul Volcker , Alan Greenspan , and Greg Mankiw ) , have created the Pigou Club [ wikipedia.org ] to support the concept of Pigouvian externality taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opponents of this bill hate capitalism, pure and simple.
They hate markets and they hate property rights.
Not really.
The track record of carbon caps in Europe is that they create tremendous corruption and are ineffective.
This bill already has "regulatory capture" by industries that lobbied enough to get "free emissions", while others will have to purchase them from those specific politically-connected industries.If you really want effective reduction in an externality that is difficult to measure (and the hundreds of millions of point emissions of CO2 are tough to measure), a Pigouvian Tax [wikipedia.org] on the fuel based on its carbon emissions is the best way to balance CO2 reduction with a low chance for corruption.Economically, a non-corrupt cap &amp; trade system is fairly equivalent to a Pigouvian Tax.
However there has been no such thing as a non-corrupt CO2 cap &amp; trade system.Many economists, including those who are very pro-capitalist (such as Gary Becker, Paul Volcker, Alan Greenspan, and Greg Mankiw), have created the Pigou Club [wikipedia.org] to support the concept of Pigouvian externality taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481843</id>
	<title>Re:Good intentions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246029240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your right to low cost energy does not encompass polluting our shared air.  Fuck off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your right to low cost energy does not encompass polluting our shared air .
Fuck off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your right to low cost energy does not encompass polluting our shared air.
Fuck off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482477</id>
	<title>A capitalistic solution</title>
	<author>pehrs</author>
	<datestamp>1246031160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cap and Tax is a very good idea. The major issue with emissions is that it's a tragedy of the commons game on a global scale. And there are really only two ways to try to handle the problem if you want to see a real change in the emissions, as there are strong economic reasons to increase them:</p><p>1: You create specific laws, limiting specific types of emissions. Typical example is a maximum emission limit on cars or making SUV's illegal.</p><p>2: You place a tax on emissions themselves, then let the market sort out where it makes most economic sense to limit the emissions. If your car emits 3 times as much as other cars you get to pay for it, but the government doesn't tell you you can't own the car.</p><p>For some reason there seems to be a strong resistance against letting the market sort out where to save the money. I guess it's because it's more visible than having the car producers spend more money engineering how the car works. And just spewing out the waste is always going to be more expensive than limiting it to sane levels or even taking care of it.</p><p>I wonder how many here consider it a good idea to dump As, Pb and Hg in the local rivers to enhance the industrial productivity... After all, not having to take care of heavy metals is one of the large advantages the Chinese industry (traditionally) has over the American. And it saves them billions each year...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cap and Tax is a very good idea .
The major issue with emissions is that it 's a tragedy of the commons game on a global scale .
And there are really only two ways to try to handle the problem if you want to see a real change in the emissions , as there are strong economic reasons to increase them : 1 : You create specific laws , limiting specific types of emissions .
Typical example is a maximum emission limit on cars or making SUV 's illegal.2 : You place a tax on emissions themselves , then let the market sort out where it makes most economic sense to limit the emissions .
If your car emits 3 times as much as other cars you get to pay for it , but the government does n't tell you you ca n't own the car.For some reason there seems to be a strong resistance against letting the market sort out where to save the money .
I guess it 's because it 's more visible than having the car producers spend more money engineering how the car works .
And just spewing out the waste is always going to be more expensive than limiting it to sane levels or even taking care of it.I wonder how many here consider it a good idea to dump As , Pb and Hg in the local rivers to enhance the industrial productivity... After all , not having to take care of heavy metals is one of the large advantages the Chinese industry ( traditionally ) has over the American .
And it saves them billions each year.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cap and Tax is a very good idea.
The major issue with emissions is that it's a tragedy of the commons game on a global scale.
And there are really only two ways to try to handle the problem if you want to see a real change in the emissions, as there are strong economic reasons to increase them:1: You create specific laws, limiting specific types of emissions.
Typical example is a maximum emission limit on cars or making SUV's illegal.2: You place a tax on emissions themselves, then let the market sort out where it makes most economic sense to limit the emissions.
If your car emits 3 times as much as other cars you get to pay for it, but the government doesn't tell you you can't own the car.For some reason there seems to be a strong resistance against letting the market sort out where to save the money.
I guess it's because it's more visible than having the car producers spend more money engineering how the car works.
And just spewing out the waste is always going to be more expensive than limiting it to sane levels or even taking care of it.I wonder how many here consider it a good idea to dump As, Pb and Hg in the local rivers to enhance the industrial productivity... After all, not having to take care of heavy metals is one of the large advantages the Chinese industry (traditionally) has over the American.
And it saves them billions each year...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485647</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>spirality</author>
	<datestamp>1246042200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what you're saying is that hope and change have quickly become hype and chicanery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you 're saying is that hope and change have quickly become hype and chicanery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you're saying is that hope and change have quickly become hype and chicanery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482155</id>
	<title>Re:Peak Oil necessitates energy conservation</title>
	<author>Delwin</author>
	<datestamp>1246030320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cap and trade doesn't target oil very much - what it really targets is coal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cap and trade does n't target oil very much - what it really targets is coal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cap and trade doesn't target oil very much - what it really targets is coal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481671</id>
	<title>SCAM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246028700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human Induced Global Warming is a scam, this legislation is simply a "Tax and Raid" scheme to create an automatic transfer of american prosperity into a black hole of benefactors and will ensure the continued decline of the US economy, its simple mathematics.</p><p>There is more evidence for God than for human induced Global Warming given evidence to the contrary recorded in earths geologic historical record. If you as a scientist, engineer or simply a rational individual who uses reason, logic and empirical evidence as your benchmark of truth ignore this reasoning, you are a fucking tool.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Human Induced Global Warming is a scam , this legislation is simply a " Tax and Raid " scheme to create an automatic transfer of american prosperity into a black hole of benefactors and will ensure the continued decline of the US economy , its simple mathematics.There is more evidence for God than for human induced Global Warming given evidence to the contrary recorded in earths geologic historical record .
If you as a scientist , engineer or simply a rational individual who uses reason , logic and empirical evidence as your benchmark of truth ignore this reasoning , you are a fucking tool .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human Induced Global Warming is a scam, this legislation is simply a "Tax and Raid" scheme to create an automatic transfer of american prosperity into a black hole of benefactors and will ensure the continued decline of the US economy, its simple mathematics.There is more evidence for God than for human induced Global Warming given evidence to the contrary recorded in earths geologic historical record.
If you as a scientist, engineer or simply a rational individual who uses reason, logic and empirical evidence as your benchmark of truth ignore this reasoning, you are a fucking tool.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483989</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1246035960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>There will be no tax increase for those of us making under $250,000/yr</i> <br> <br>And so he will not increase taxes.  That he taxes corporations and they pass along costs to people doesn't make it a lie.  It makes him a politician.  The taxes on the people making less than $250,000 will not change.  Period.  But if those evil corporations don't cut energy use, and instead choose to charge people more for products, that's their fault.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There will be no tax increase for those of us making under $ 250,000/yr And so he will not increase taxes .
That he taxes corporations and they pass along costs to people does n't make it a lie .
It makes him a politician .
The taxes on the people making less than $ 250,000 will not change .
Period. But if those evil corporations do n't cut energy use , and instead choose to charge people more for products , that 's their fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will be no tax increase for those of us making under $250,000/yr  And so he will not increase taxes.
That he taxes corporations and they pass along costs to people doesn't make it a lie.
It makes him a politician.
The taxes on the people making less than $250,000 will not change.
Period.  But if those evil corporations don't cut energy use, and instead choose to charge people more for products, that's their fault.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484539</id>
	<title>Stupidity at it's worst</title>
	<author>BCW2</author>
	<datestamp>1246038060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If anyone thinks that crap and trap will have a 1 degree effect on global temperature over the next 20 years they are fools. This is just a far left energy tax because they hate coal and oil.<br>Raising eveyones utility bills 40\%+over the next 5 years will turn the recession into a depression. Have fun y'all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone thinks that crap and trap will have a 1 degree effect on global temperature over the next 20 years they are fools .
This is just a far left energy tax because they hate coal and oil.Raising eveyones utility bills 40 \ % + over the next 5 years will turn the recession into a depression .
Have fun y'all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone thinks that crap and trap will have a 1 degree effect on global temperature over the next 20 years they are fools.
This is just a far left energy tax because they hate coal and oil.Raising eveyones utility bills 40\%+over the next 5 years will turn the recession into a depression.
Have fun y'all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483975</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1246035960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't agree more...  How is "capping" emissions, and "trading" the rights to them any different than having OPEC "Capping" the production of oil, and having markets setup to "Trade" in barrels of oil?  I have yet to find a single republican that hates this bill explain to me how this is really any different, except that this is the US government, instead of a bunch of governments in countries that are hostile to us!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't agree more... How is " capping " emissions , and " trading " the rights to them any different than having OPEC " Capping " the production of oil , and having markets setup to " Trade " in barrels of oil ?
I have yet to find a single republican that hates this bill explain to me how this is really any different , except that this is the US government , instead of a bunch of governments in countries that are hostile to us !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't agree more...  How is "capping" emissions, and "trading" the rights to them any different than having OPEC "Capping" the production of oil, and having markets setup to "Trade" in barrels of oil?
I have yet to find a single republican that hates this bill explain to me how this is really any different, except that this is the US government, instead of a bunch of governments in countries that are hostile to us!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28487821</id>
	<title>Cap this, Congress.</title>
	<author>jbdigriz</author>
	<datestamp>1246008540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://osu.orst.edu/dept/ncs/photos/minis/bubblessm.jpg" title="orst.edu" rel="nofollow">http://osu.orst.edu/dept/ncs/photos/minis/bubblessm.jpg</a> [orst.edu]<br>(from <a href="http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2004/May04/mariana.htm" title="oregonstate.edu" rel="nofollow">http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2004/May04/mariana.htm</a> [oregonstate.edu])</p><p>"They found carbon dioxide spewing from rocks under such enormous subsea pressure that it emerged as a bubbling liquid in one site named "champagne vent." And they had to back their equipment away from one ongoing eruption at a site named "Brimstone Pit" when the belching sulfur, acid, boiling water and rocks became too intense."</p><p>Anyone have any figures on how many millions of tons of C02 per hour are released by volcanoes? Some of the ones around Guam have apparently been erupting contnously for years. It doesn't all get dissolved, either.</p><p>I predict that cap-and-trade, if it happens, will work about like wetlands mitigation. In other words, a totally rigged dog-and-pony show further entrenching the incumbent "stakeholders" at the table of "governance". It will have to, just to pass. Them and a whole new layer of bureaucrats, snitches, and telephone sanitizers.</p><p>Just one more nail in the coffin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //osu.orst.edu/dept/ncs/photos/minis/bubblessm.jpg [ orst.edu ] ( from http : //oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2004/May04/mariana.htm [ oregonstate.edu ] ) " They found carbon dioxide spewing from rocks under such enormous subsea pressure that it emerged as a bubbling liquid in one site named " champagne vent .
" And they had to back their equipment away from one ongoing eruption at a site named " Brimstone Pit " when the belching sulfur , acid , boiling water and rocks became too intense .
" Anyone have any figures on how many millions of tons of C02 per hour are released by volcanoes ?
Some of the ones around Guam have apparently been erupting contnously for years .
It does n't all get dissolved , either.I predict that cap-and-trade , if it happens , will work about like wetlands mitigation .
In other words , a totally rigged dog-and-pony show further entrenching the incumbent " stakeholders " at the table of " governance " .
It will have to , just to pass .
Them and a whole new layer of bureaucrats , snitches , and telephone sanitizers.Just one more nail in the coffin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://osu.orst.edu/dept/ncs/photos/minis/bubblessm.jpg [orst.edu](from http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2004/May04/mariana.htm [oregonstate.edu])"They found carbon dioxide spewing from rocks under such enormous subsea pressure that it emerged as a bubbling liquid in one site named "champagne vent.
" And they had to back their equipment away from one ongoing eruption at a site named "Brimstone Pit" when the belching sulfur, acid, boiling water and rocks became too intense.
"Anyone have any figures on how many millions of tons of C02 per hour are released by volcanoes?
Some of the ones around Guam have apparently been erupting contnously for years.
It doesn't all get dissolved, either.I predict that cap-and-trade, if it happens, will work about like wetlands mitigation.
In other words, a totally rigged dog-and-pony show further entrenching the incumbent "stakeholders" at the table of "governance".
It will have to, just to pass.
Them and a whole new layer of bureaucrats, snitches, and telephone sanitizers.Just one more nail in the coffin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482401</id>
	<title>Re:Creating Chaos for Profit</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1246030980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Who exactly is benefitting here? </i></p><p>Government owning the rights to pollute doesn't mean they stand to benefit the most.</p><p>The Investment Banking cohorts JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are the **huge** winners. How?<br>1. They take a cut of every transaction.  The more valuable the credits, the more they earn.  So the value of the business is guaranteed to increase every year.<br>2. They arbitrage the market.  There is a spread that develops between an asking and a selling price in any given market.  you can place bets on the spread among other neat ways to make money.<br>3. They game the market.  Recent economic history is full of deregulated energy schemes that had huge artificial spreads between demand, supply and price.</p><p>Rolling Stone has a nice article on Goldman Sachs absolutely worth your time.  If you read it, please realize it is exactly that bad.  <a href="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document\_id=16763183&amp;access\_key=key-aq99m8654zlwmm5muht&amp;page=1&amp;version=1&amp;viewMode=" title="scribd.com">http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document\_id=16763183&amp;access\_key=key-aq99m8654zlwmm5muht&amp;page=1&amp;version=1&amp;viewMode=</a> [scribd.com]</p><p><i>It essentially puts extra costs on industry that uses polluting fuels,</i><br>Right.  The idea is to have the worst polluters 'taxed.'  That tax defrays the public health costs of pollution. For example, if there were 10,000 less instances of cancer that kills people, there would be meaningful savings in medical expenditures.  Now, that is not to say this scheme will not blow up in a mushroom cloud of corruption.  Because it is.  GS and JPM are behind it 100\%.  That's a clue that it's bad to the core.</p><p>If I followed the logic as laid out in most of the replies, then most regulations with a public health savings angle should be abolished.  We should go back to the 1940's and have cars that kill people instead of absorbing impact, cigarettes for everyone and smoked everywhere just to name two.</p><p>How about expressing your dissatisfaction by getting involved in the political process instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who exactly is benefitting here ?
Government owning the rights to pollute does n't mean they stand to benefit the most.The Investment Banking cohorts JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are the * * huge * * winners .
How ? 1. They take a cut of every transaction .
The more valuable the credits , the more they earn .
So the value of the business is guaranteed to increase every year.2 .
They arbitrage the market .
There is a spread that develops between an asking and a selling price in any given market .
you can place bets on the spread among other neat ways to make money.3 .
They game the market .
Recent economic history is full of deregulated energy schemes that had huge artificial spreads between demand , supply and price.Rolling Stone has a nice article on Goldman Sachs absolutely worth your time .
If you read it , please realize it is exactly that bad .
http : //d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf ? document \ _id = 16763183&amp;access \ _key = key-aq99m8654zlwmm5muht&amp;page = 1&amp;version = 1&amp;viewMode = [ scribd.com ] It essentially puts extra costs on industry that uses polluting fuels,Right .
The idea is to have the worst polluters 'taxed .
' That tax defrays the public health costs of pollution .
For example , if there were 10,000 less instances of cancer that kills people , there would be meaningful savings in medical expenditures .
Now , that is not to say this scheme will not blow up in a mushroom cloud of corruption .
Because it is .
GS and JPM are behind it 100 \ % .
That 's a clue that it 's bad to the core.If I followed the logic as laid out in most of the replies , then most regulations with a public health savings angle should be abolished .
We should go back to the 1940 's and have cars that kill people instead of absorbing impact , cigarettes for everyone and smoked everywhere just to name two.How about expressing your dissatisfaction by getting involved in the political process instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who exactly is benefitting here?
Government owning the rights to pollute doesn't mean they stand to benefit the most.The Investment Banking cohorts JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are the **huge** winners.
How?1. They take a cut of every transaction.
The more valuable the credits, the more they earn.
So the value of the business is guaranteed to increase every year.2.
They arbitrage the market.
There is a spread that develops between an asking and a selling price in any given market.
you can place bets on the spread among other neat ways to make money.3.
They game the market.
Recent economic history is full of deregulated energy schemes that had huge artificial spreads between demand, supply and price.Rolling Stone has a nice article on Goldman Sachs absolutely worth your time.
If you read it, please realize it is exactly that bad.
http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document\_id=16763183&amp;access\_key=key-aq99m8654zlwmm5muht&amp;page=1&amp;version=1&amp;viewMode= [scribd.com]It essentially puts extra costs on industry that uses polluting fuels,Right.
The idea is to have the worst polluters 'taxed.
'  That tax defrays the public health costs of pollution.
For example, if there were 10,000 less instances of cancer that kills people, there would be meaningful savings in medical expenditures.
Now, that is not to say this scheme will not blow up in a mushroom cloud of corruption.
Because it is.
GS and JPM are behind it 100\%.
That's a clue that it's bad to the core.If I followed the logic as laid out in most of the replies, then most regulations with a public health savings angle should be abolished.
We should go back to the 1940's and have cars that kill people instead of absorbing impact, cigarettes for everyone and smoked everywhere just to name two.How about expressing your dissatisfaction by getting involved in the political process instead?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28501521</id>
	<title>Apparently it is not capitalism, but fraud.</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1246130820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quoting from your comment: <i>"Opponents of this bill hate capitalism, pure and simple."</i> Many people think there is another problem. The system is being created to accomplish fraud, not capitalism.

<br> <br>Someone posted a link in another Slashdot story to a Rolling Stone article in the issue on the newsstands now: <a href="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document\_id=16763183&amp;access\_key=key-aq99m8654zlwmm5muht&amp;page=1&amp;version=1&amp;viewMode=" title="scribd.com">The Great American Bubble Machine</a> [scribd.com], that discusses hidden purposes behind the present design of cap and trade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quoting from your comment : " Opponents of this bill hate capitalism , pure and simple .
" Many people think there is another problem .
The system is being created to accomplish fraud , not capitalism .
Someone posted a link in another Slashdot story to a Rolling Stone article in the issue on the newsstands now : The Great American Bubble Machine [ scribd.com ] , that discusses hidden purposes behind the present design of cap and trade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quoting from your comment: "Opponents of this bill hate capitalism, pure and simple.
" Many people think there is another problem.
The system is being created to accomplish fraud, not capitalism.
Someone posted a link in another Slashdot story to a Rolling Stone article in the issue on the newsstands now: The Great American Bubble Machine [scribd.com], that discusses hidden purposes behind the present design of cap and trade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486575</id>
	<title>Re:Cap &amp; Trade = Energy Rationing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246046460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you didn't really believe that did you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you did n't really believe that did you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you didn't really believe that did you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483817</id>
	<title>Limitless energy</title>
	<author>Jeremi</author>
	<datestamp>1246035360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps we can find a way to harness the power of Americans whining about their as-yet-imaginary future energy bills?  That would give us a wealth of power for decades.</p><p>Seriously guys, nad up.  You all sound like Neville Chamberlain whining about how difficult and expensive fighting the Germans is going to be, and how they'll probably go away by themselves if we just continue to ignore them for another couple of years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps we can find a way to harness the power of Americans whining about their as-yet-imaginary future energy bills ?
That would give us a wealth of power for decades.Seriously guys , nad up .
You all sound like Neville Chamberlain whining about how difficult and expensive fighting the Germans is going to be , and how they 'll probably go away by themselves if we just continue to ignore them for another couple of years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps we can find a way to harness the power of Americans whining about their as-yet-imaginary future energy bills?
That would give us a wealth of power for decades.Seriously guys, nad up.
You all sound like Neville Chamberlain whining about how difficult and expensive fighting the Germans is going to be, and how they'll probably go away by themselves if we just continue to ignore them for another couple of years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28501521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28488103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28490167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28490279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28488861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28489769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28491395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28495495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28490637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28487317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28487395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28489369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28487451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28489081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28487535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28489763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1237223_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481723
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485017
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482043
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483675
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482941
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482261
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28501521
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483575
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28488861
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485489
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28487451
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28487317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483017
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28490279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482401
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28495495
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482617
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482027
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28487535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28487395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28490637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481599
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481853
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483485
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483569
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486689
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484453
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485647
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485823
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486545
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486103
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28489081
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28489769
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28491395
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485811
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482321
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486575
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484649
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481865
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483989
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28489369
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482641
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28488103
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486205
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486529
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28491077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28490167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28486123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481661
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28484321
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483257
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28489763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28483769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28485809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28487821
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28481713
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1237223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1237223.28482693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
