When regulations are passsed to prevent global warming, what types of businesses are hurt and helped?

Answer 1

The thing that bothers me the most about all the wild flailing around involved in alleged Global Warming is that millions of people are going to be hurt and some will even starve to death as a result of this THEORY.

The truth is that right now nobody really knows of there is any human involvement in global climate change (that is the technically correct term) or that we can in any way change it. Theories abound in science and are often disproved once the politics are taken out and scientists are allowed to do what they do best without the interference of special interest groups.

Every time you force a regulation on an industry it causes something to cost more. In many cases it is worthwhile for the benefit. However, what we are doing is forcing regulations on the entire world to prevent a theoretical event. That means things all over the world are going to cost a little more. For most of us that doesn't matter. However, for millions who are already on the edge of starvation, it is going to make matters worse and kill people. I cannot justify spending a dime to prevent a theoretical condition if it is going to kill people. You can have that on your conscience but I refuse to be party to it.

Get it straight people. Human involvement in alleged Global Warming is not a fact and no matter how many times you claim otherwise, it isn't going to change the truth. The only thing that is going to change it from theory to knowledge is real science. Nothing else. If you find out later that it isn't true or that it is not something we can coontrol, how are you going to feel about the ones you made to suffer for your blind belief that an unproven, untested theory is god's own word?

Answer 2

Usually, all business are eventually hurt by global warming regulations that clamp down on the market. Businesses that try to comply with these regulations, or make plans to do so are hurt less. They could also possible be helped, if a regulation was passed and company A already complies with it, but its competitor, company B does not and has to make changes, company A can proceed doing what it does while company B has to reorganize. This can cause company A to pull ahead in the market.

Answer 3

It will be those "types" of businesses that choose to stay in the USA where those laws are passed, instead of fleeing to China or India or some other Third World dump that wants to catch up with the USA's affluence and doesn't want to pass such regulations. I don't care if your business is organic carrot farming or making solar collectors out of molten glass and plastic, the costs of those regulations are going to be passed on to everyone in the USA.

Answer 4

Bob G, it's not just about the lack of evidence showing human involvement. It's about the bundles of evidence showing the exact same cycles without human involvement, over the past 400,000 years.

Answer 5

There is not a lot of point in typing anything else on this that hasn't been covered by Flyboy's post of Ann Coulters comments. I'm saving that one for future use.

Answer 6

products that produce aersols into the air will have to change, their emissions will have to be put into check.

For example, the US stopped producing aerosol cans that released CFCs into the atmosphere a while ago, but 3rd world countries have never stopped because they don't have the resources.

Answer 7

Let Them Eat Tofu!
By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.

Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."

Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.

There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.

They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton -- with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)

Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us.

There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.

Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter -- luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.

Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants -- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.

Because of the industrialization of agriculture -- using massive amounts of fossil fuel -- only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?

"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us -- not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess -- are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.

Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.

But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas -- 299 million of you are going to have to go.

Proving that the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.

If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.

"Global warming" is the liberal's stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.

It seems not to have occurred to the jet set that when California is as poor as Mexico, they might have trouble finding a maid. Without trucking, packaging, manufacturing, shipping and refrigeration in their Bel-Air fantasy world, they'll be chasing the rear-end of an animal every time their stomachs growl and killing small animals for pelts to keep their genitals warm.

Ann Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and author of Godless: The Church of Liberalism .