[jquinones8812_854]

[b]Do you deny that global warming has increased the level of the oceans and will continue to do so?
[/b]No
[b] Do you deny that global warming increases the severity of hurricanes? [/b]
Yes.  Well, more accurately, there is no data to prove this.  Actually, the last two years have been the mildest hurricane seasons in the last 50 years.  And long term data has yet to prove any statistical difference.  I am NOT saying it isn’t possible; I am saying the data is not there to back up your statement.

[b]In any case, it doesn’t make sense to be making as many RV’s as before.  If that means 10,000 lose their jobs, so be it.  Why employ people making something that, when the cost of pollution is factored in, few people want?  Those unemployed workers can find other useful work easily enough.[/b]
Look, I don’t think we should be in the business of shoring up businesses that are no longer viable.  That said, your callousness is a little harsh.  First, many, if not most, of the workers at the RV plants are ironically Amish; and for them to find new work is not as easy, since they usually can’t move to new places.  It isn’t as simple as you make it.  Maybe it has to happen, but the repercussions are great.

[b]Perhaps higher electric bills will finally make hospitals consolidate their magnets for more cost effective health care.  If a town gets rid of half of its magnets, that represents a 50% savings in MRI electricity consumption. [/b]
Again, you have more faith than I do.  Likely what will happen is that this cost will be transferred to the insurer; or in the case of obama, to the government.  I don’t see people giving up their MRIs.

And no, I don’t want any exemptions for anyone.  Exemptions are lobbyist heaven.

[font=”arial, helvetica, sans-serif”][size=”-1″][b]”Thorough duct sealing costs several hundred dollars but can cut heating and cooling costs in many homes by [u]20%[/u][/b]

Again, 50% is way over optimistic.  I have done a lot of research on this, because I built a house recently, and threw in as many green technologies as I reasonably could.  Even with all that, my cost savings is just around 60%.  Getting to 50% in a old house is not realistic IMHO.
[/size][/font]
[b]The US is a close number two polluter, and our per capita pollution is way above other countries, so we can do quite a bit to stopping pollution.  As I said, we would ideally impose pollution taxes in the context of a worldwide agreement wherein all countries impose such taxes. [/b]
Not going to happen in the near term.  The third world argues that the global warming crisis is largely of the western world’s making, and so they should clean it up before asking them for help.  They do have a point, although the problem is that if the world goes to hell, the third world is going to, no matter who was initially responsible.

But the bigger problems is that at the rate China and India are going, the US will account for less than 10% of global emissions by 2030; China will account for 20%, India around 13%.  Even cutting the US proportion by half is unlikely to reduce warming or any warming side effects.\

The only solution to this is new technologies.  If we can come up with new technologies that the third world can adopt, then they can be clean and develop at the same time.  And that, I would argue, is the biggest flaw in your plan.  There actually is a disincentive to produce new techonologies, because of the tax that will burden them; any new technology is going to have significant pollutants in production, and so your tax actually would inhibit new technologies.