GOP rage against the EPA.

You cant equate Prohibition with enviromental regulation. I couldnt give a rats ass if you wanted to shoot heroin so long as you didnt hurt anybody else because you choose to poison yourself. If you decide to dump motoroil into a local lake you made it everybodies business that lives near that lake.

Love Canal was caused by a few people deciding to profit at the expense of many people. When there is no accountability the worst of us will victimize the rest. Its the same since time immemorial. There are rules that must be enforced for the good of the many.. it begins in the home and applies in any society... what do you propose? Anarchy?... survival of the fittest?

 

The EPA pushed the electric company's to reduce their levels to 70 parts per million almost a year ago.
And they did, but now this month they want to change it on them and they want 60 ppm. The thing
is there is no technology to do that yet.

You see the EPA seen them pay the high cost to comply, which is not what they really wanted so they
moved the goalpost on them to an impossible task. why? because the EPA wants to shut them down.

If the EPA gets their way, we will be left in the dark, just as the left is right now.


...

 

Agreed. If you seek a position of authority and swear under oath to discharge the defense of the people. You should die for accepting bribes or premeditated failure of duty that results the death of those you have sworn to protect.. this should go for The President all the way down to your local beat cop.

 

How would the EPA benefit from that?.. or anybody benefit from that...

 

Because they care more about the planet then they do humans. Ask yourself this
what would they gain taking water away from a whole community, for a fish that
they could bread more of in a controlled plant, so we don't lose them???


...

 

Yes, but we don't necessarily need an EPA to accomplish that goal because pollution is often very localized, meaning those who are significantly impacted by it are (a) choosing to live there and (b) capable of filing a civil suit against the polluter. The enforcement of property rights through the civil system is a very effective way to counteract pollution and to keep it localized.

 

It's not even a theory, it's a hypothesis, and will likely never make it past that stage.

 

No, they want to implement a "cap and trade" scheme for human CO2 emissions because of the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions act as a "radiative forcing" which serves to amplify "positive feedback mechanisms" in the global climate. This hypothesis maintains that's CO2's role as a radiative forcing has caused the Earth to warm over the past century, and will continue to do so unabated for the foreseeable future. Incidentally, CO2 is emitted every time you breath or burn hydrocarbons (gasoline) in oxygen.

Of course, this hypothesis has more holes in it than a doughnut shop, and the researchers behind it have been caught red-handed fudging data and making outlandish and unsupportable claims about the future state of the climate, so, if I were you, I would discard it as nothing more than self-serving junk science.

 

Because human CO2 emissions have not been proven to significantly impact global climate.

 

Not if you own the lake. That's what I mean when I say that environmental problems are actually tragedies of the commons. So-called negative externalities should be internalized as much as possible through the civil court system: if you violate someone's property rights, you're liable for damage.

But a priori one-size-fits-all restrictions that are not based on proof of harm don't help. For instance, let's say the EPA decides that a factory is only allowed to dump x amount of some pollutant into the atmosphere. Well, that standard might be too lenient for a factory next to a city. But the very same standard might be to strict for a factory next to a desert with no nearby inhabitants. The latter factory is being penalized for a victimless crime just as much as a heroin user, while the former factory is being allowed to violate others' property rights with the protection of the government "regulators."

That's why you can't deal with it through arbitrary standards. You can only deal with it case-by-case on the basis that someone violated someone else's rights.

Who holds the bureaucracy accountable? The voters? Even if that were true (which it has never been), who holds the voters accountable?

I propose a voluntary society based on private property and mutual exchange. There would be a rule: the rule of No Aggression, no violation of rights of person or property. But there would not be "rules" in the sense of arbitrary lists of controls thought up by bureaucrats.

 

Based on the scientific method you are right, but it's been blown up to be more than a theory into a fact.

 

Anyone who is against the EPA is unamerican and a tyrant.

 

Okay.......

 

CO2 is the real greenhouse gas. Yes, of course it is naturally produced at a certain level and the environment can naturally handle that level. However, automobiles and factories create excessive CO2 output.

Carbon monoxide is also a problem. Whenever you hear on the weather report that the air quality is code red or code orange this is usually in reference to carbon monoxide levels. Smog, essentially. It's bad for breathing but has nothing to do with global warming.

Of course I do.

Take Venus as an example. Mercury should be the hottest planet in our solar system, however, it's not! Venus has the hottest surface by far (temperatures reaching 460 degrees) due to the greenhouse effect created by its incredibly thick atmosphere. Looks like about 96.5% of its atmosphere is made of CO2. So yes, CO2 can definitely serve as a greenhouse gas.

Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

 

I'm so sick of hearing about Venus when it comes to global warming. The only reason Venus isn't a second earth is becuase the Sun is too bright. When the sun first lit and began the process of fusion, it was much dimmer than it is today, and venus was an ocean world, just like Earth. As time went by and the fusion process began to kick into gear and the sun brightened, it began to boil away the Oceans on Venus, and the WATER VAPOR increased in the atmosphere to the point of no return where a self sustaining evaporative loop continued to raise the temperature, boil more ocean and release more water vapor into the atmosphere.

As the temperature continued to rise, soon the rocks and soil itself began to release the carbon dioxide trapped within them, eventually the water vapor evaporated into space, leaving behind a thick blanket of CO2 choking atmosphere.

WATER VAPOR is what set off the chain reaction on Venus, NOT CO2.. the CO2 was released later on AFTER the water vapor had already heated the planet to extremes.

This is all common knowledge to Astronomers both professional and amateur alike, but that doesn't stop the environmental left from actually trying to convince people that the Earth could become venus if man didn't stop with the CO2 production.

That is an outright alarmist LIE and REAL planetary science can debunk it in a minute.

 

Some environmental problems are not localized. This is really the crux of the issue. The hole in the ozone layer, for example, which has essentially been resolved thanks to action by the international community.

 

The difference with the Ozone Layer was we could SEE the hole grow with our own eyes. We could actually test and see that CFC's in the upper atmosphere destroy ozone. We knew it and very few people questioned the science because it was right there for all to see in the latest satellite imagery. Some will deny it to this day, but no one really questioned that CFC's destroyed ozone.

All I see is a bunch of science that establishes the earth is warming, a few credible theories that suggest man made CO2 is contributing, and a WHOLE LOT of a snake oil being peddled as "solutions" to the problem when there isn't a single thread of scientific evidence that says if Western Civilization alone ceases to produce CO2 industrially(becuase Asia sure as hell isn't going to stop) that it will do anything other than cripple the economy of our entire Western Civilization.

Do you have any respect and love for the common traditions of our shared Western Civilization or do you hate and want to see it replaced with an Asian model?

Answer me this.. why is does environmentalism always push anti-capitalist technocracy as the answer to our problems? Why are so many environmentalists also socialists?

 

I never said that "Earth could become Venus" as that is highly unlikely.

The previous poster was merely asking if CO2 was a greenhouse gas in the first place. The cause of the presence of CO2 within the Venusian atmosphere has nothing to do with whether or not the CO2 currently is causes a warming effect. The article I cited specifically states that its thick atmosphere creates a greenhouse effect contributing to overall high temperatures (which do not change with day or night cycles).

So again, I am not saying that Venus mirrors Earth or is representative of its future. I am merely saying that CO2 within the Venusian atmosphere has created a greenhouse effect and thus serves as a "greenhouse gas."


Source: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1970/1970_Rasool_DeBergh.pdf

 

Accusing me of hating western civlization or being an anti-capitalist is quite a stretch considering I was merely giving evidence that CO2 can serve as a greenhouse gas.

If the point of a political forum if not to inform policy-making but rather fuel emotionally-based viewpoints, then what is the point of this or any other political discussion?

 

I didn't "accuse" you. If I had stated "You just want to destroy Western Civilizaton.." that would be an accusation.

I did not say that, I asked a question about your beliefs for you to clarify them in more detail. Not to accuse.

 

Does the human lung emit hydrocarbons?

 

Some fat blabbering idiot with a TV show or radio show has it in for them and the morans blindly follow, goose stepping right along.

 

Like corps didn't hurt people everywhere? Air pollution, ground pollution, water pollutions. You old enough to remember them days? Toxins disbursed anywhere that is cheap.
The EPA was put in place so we could breathe, grow crops, drink clean water. Now you want to go back to where the great lakes become a dumping ground for every toxin known to corps?
That is what most of us can't understand.

 

So, the pending regulation by the EPA on coal burning power plants, which may shut down one fifth of the nations grid, doesn't concern anyone?

"The cost of energy will necessarily skyrocket"

Change you can believe in.

 

I agree, but that is not a typical example. In instances such as that, there is a legitimate role for national and international governments to play, but their role in addressing these matters should be limited to such instances where it is clearly established what is happening and limited exclusively to that problem. When we give the government broadly construed powers to implement one-sized fits all "solutions" to perceived environmental problems, it results in overreach and inefficiency. We need common sense solutions, not fear-based, preventative policy that serves to stifle economic development and human liberty.