The Problem with AGW…

That reminds me of the old joke where the guy's wife claims to have 'saved' money by purchasing some unneeded item at a discount.

The EPA IS SOCIALISM...It takes other people's money (our tax dollars) and (in this case) SPENDS it doing useless, double-talk, studies that serve to ensure that more money is needed for the EPA. It is a 'black-hole' into which we toss our $$$.

 

EPA regs prevent thousands of deaths every year. So I guess living people are "unneeded items" in your politics.

Please explain why preventing death is "useless".

 

Nothing wrong with socialism - Australia was founded on socialist principles........

 

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/...ke-bay-create-many-jobs-keystone-xl-pipeline/
^EPA rules requiring a 25% reduction in pollution in the Chesapeake Bay has so far created 40 thousand jobs

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/08/385329/epa-mercury-rules/
^EPA mercury reducing regulations save 50-130billion yearly

http://www.ogj.com/index/article-di...n-its-new-regulations-on-toxic-emissions.html
^EPA regulations limiting benzene content in gasoline will save 5 billion a year by 2030.

http://www.apple-pie.org/ttp/default.asp?articleid=42
^EPA regulations limiting emissions from engines used for recreational non-road purposes saves a net of 3 billion dollars each year. Through lowered health care costs and higher mpg efficiency.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/10/nation/la-na-cement-epa-20100810
^EPA regulations reducing mercury emissions and other major pollutants from power plants (excluding Nox and So2) save 10 billion a year; due to lower health care costs.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/15/local/me-ships15
^--EPA Regulations limiting ship and train emissions such as Nitrogen and soot save 300 lives and a net of 300 million dollars a year.

http://mainstreetalliance.org/wordp...of-CAA-literature-review-final-10-04-2010.pdf
^The Clean air act amendments of 1990 saved the country a net of 510 billion dollars over 20 years (or around 25 billion a year).
The act used regulations to reduce 5 pollutants by 41%
^The stratospheric Ozone protection act saved the country a net of 510 billion over 20 years (or around 25 billion a year).
The act reduced emissions of CFC's.
^Major new regulations starting in 1992-2002 are estimated to have saved the economy a total of 50 billion dollars in ten years. (or 15 billion a year).
1^Environmental regulations lead to the creation 1.3million jobs over ten years.
^Costs of regulations were exaggerated estimates for
Acid and rain cap and trade said that the costs would be between 2-4 billion when in reality it was 800 million, or 60-120% less.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpres...5ea39929f1ac1c42852574ba005c95ec!OpenDocument
^--EPA regulations limiting Hydrocarbons and NOx emissions from lawn mowers, and personal watercraft save 300 lives and 80 million dollars a year.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpres...c045295ced7dcf6885257758005b74bb!OpenDocument
^EPA regulations reducing SO2 and NOx emissions in 2010 from power plants estimated to save thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars a year.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...s-workers-hostage-to-stop-pollution-controls/
^EPA regulations requiring energy companies to reduce poisons pollution such as arsenic, mercury and lead would create over 350,000 jobs over a period of 5 years.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...uire-sunsetting-of-all-federal-regulations-2/
^New EPA regulations under Obama have a 4-1 to 22-1 benefit cost ration.
^Two new air quality rules made by the EPA will create 1.5 million jobs over the course of 5 years.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/22/276416/power-companies-air-toxics-rule/
^New EPA standards that reduce Mercury emissions by 91% and SO2 emissions by 55% will save 17,000 lives a year prevent 12,000 heart attacks and 120,000 asthma attacks each year and will provide 140 billion in health benefits. These new regulations and the Clean Air transport rule will create 1.4 million jobs over the next 5 years

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011...candidates-on-the-epa-threaten-iowa-families/
^In total EPA regulations save over 160,000 lives each year.

I realize reality and facts are irrelevant to republicans but there they are

 

Hmmm, something we agree on

 

Poor Debater posted:

"If you believe things without evidence, you are beyond reason period."


Taxcutter says:

Fraudulent EPA claims are not credible evidence, except to "true believers."

 

And your evidence for fraud is?

As usual, nothing. No evidence at all.

 

Which 'regs' prevent death? How many deaths have those 'regs' prevented?

Please explain how you come to the conclusion that the EPA is preventing any deaths at all.

 

Define 'socialist principles'

 

I came to the conclusion by reading the report. Which you clearly didn't.

That's 23,000 deaths in one year, avoided by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. It would be hard to find a law that does more to save lives than this one.

 

Not only do EPA regs save lives but they save trillions of dollars yearly

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/...ke-bay-create-many-jobs-keystone-xl-pipeline/
^EPA rules requiring a 25% reduction in pollution in the Chesapeake Bay has so far created 40 thousand jobs

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/08/385329/epa-mercury-rules/
^EPA mercury reducing regulations save 50-130billion yearly

http://www.ogj.com/index/article-di...n-its-new-regulations-on-toxic-emissions.html
^EPA regulations limiting benzene content in gasoline will save 5 billion a year by 2030.

http://www.apple-pie.org/ttp/default.asp?articleid=42
^EPA regulations limiting emissions from engines used for recreational non-road purposes saves a net of 3 billion dollars each year. Through lowered health care costs and higher mpg efficiency.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/10/nation/la-na-cement-epa-20100810
^EPA regulations reducing mercury emissions and other major pollutants from power plants (excluding Nox and So2) save 10 billion a year; due to lower health care costs.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/15/local/me-ships15
^--EPA Regulations limiting ship and train emissions such as Nitrogen and soot save 300 lives and a net of 300 million dollars a year.

http://mainstreetalliance.org/wordp...of-CAA-literature-review-final-10-04-2010.pdf
^The Clean air act amendments of 1990 saved the country a net of 510 billion dollars over 20 years (or around 25 billion a year).
The act used regulations to reduce 5 pollutants by 41%
^The stratospheric Ozone protection act saved the country a net of 510 billion over 20 years (or around 25 billion a year).
The act reduced emissions of CFC's.
^Major new regulations starting in 1992-2002 are estimated to have saved the economy a total of 50 billion dollars in ten years. (or 15 billion a year).
1^Environmental regulations lead to the creation 1.3million jobs over ten years.
^Costs of regulations were exaggerated estimates for
Acid and rain cap and trade said that the costs would be between 2-4 billion when in reality it was 800 million, or 60-120% less.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpres...5ea39929f1ac1c42852574ba005c95ec!OpenDocument
^--EPA regulations limiting Hydrocarbons and NOx emissions from lawn mowers, and personal watercraft save 300 lives and 80 million dollars a year.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpres...c045295ced7dcf6885257758005b74bb!OpenDocument
^EPA regulations reducing SO2 and NOx emissions in 2010 from power plants estimated to save thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars a year.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...s-workers-hostage-to-stop-pollution-controls/
^EPA regulations requiring energy companies to reduce poisons pollution such as arsenic, mercury and lead would create over 350,000 jobs over a period of 5 years.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...uire-sunsetting-of-all-federal-regulations-2/
^New EPA regulations under Obama have a 4-1 to 22-1 benefit cost ration.
^Two new air quality rules made by the EPA will create 1.5 million jobs over the course of 5 years.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/22/276416/power-companies-air-toxics-rule/
^New EPA standards that reduce Mercury emissions by 91% and SO2 emissions by 55% will save 17,000 lives a year prevent 12,000 heart attacks and 120,000 asthma attacks each year and will provide 140 billion in health benefits. These new regulations and the Clean Air transport rule will create 1.4 million jobs over the next 5 years

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011...candidates-on-the-epa-threaten-iowa-families/
^In total EPA regulations save over 160,000 lives each year.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/02/1012933/-EPA-regulations-create-jobs,-save-lives?via=blog_1
^New EPA regulations would save 12,000 lives a year and create a net of jobs. Also since the economy has a low capita utilization rate, high unemployment, large corporate profits/idle money and is at the zero bound investments that occur due to new EPA regulations are simulative given that the without the new regulations the money paying for the investments would be sitting idle and going to waste.

----Lead

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.0800408
^Regulations banning and limiting lead in paint, toys, gasoline and other materials save provide net savings of 181-269 billion. Each dollar invested in lead paint hazard control/keeping lead out of products produces more than 17 dollars in return.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-lehner/new-smog-standards_b_923369.html
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/lets_save_thousands_of_lives_-.html
^Proposed EPA smog/ozone standards would save a net of 17 billion dollars yearly
^It could also save 12,000 people a year reduce asthma attacks by 58,000, and reduce hospital visits by 21,000.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/12/317257/gop-epa-job-killers/
^The clean air act has prevented 230,000 deaths, 3.2 million lost school days and 13 million lost work days each year. The benefits of the act are 30 times higher than the costs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14921740
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/14/318759/low-carbon-businesses-double-profits/
^Business that took measures to reduce Carbon emissions performed better in the stock markets, also 60% of actions to reduce Carbon emissions were paid back in 3 or less years.
^Companies that emit less Carbon and who took more measures to reduce Carbon emissions returned double of what other companies returned.

 

If thinkprogress.org is OK, how about some Glenn Beck?

 

Think Progress actually has evidence for what they say. Glenn Beck is all conspiracy theories. So if you think you can defend Beck, I say, go ahead. This should be fun.

 

Those are government-created jobs

The article extols the virtues of 'Constellation Energy' that 'succeeded in retrofitting its facilities to reduce pollution" claiming it created jobs. This company 'Constellation Energy' is set for an acquisition by Exelon which is a Chicago-based company with ties to the Obama administration. This has 'crony capitalism' written all over it.

Yeah and I am going to be a millionaire by 2030.

No one I know is against reasonable regulation.

If the EPA is so concerned about Mercury they should consider a ban on all ocean fishing. Fish concentrate natural Mercury in their bodies. Also, the EPA should ban Sushi because most raw fish contain worms.

That's all I have time for now...but it is obvious that the EPA is mostly hype and promotes crony capitalism creating a sham-market for EEI. No one I know is for polluting the environment and we are not adverse to reasonable regulation but, the environmental movement with its over-regulation and back-room dealing is causing our energy prices to escalate outside typical market forces. This is a recipe for disaster.

 

If you added up all the claimed benefits of the EPA that have been claimed in this and another thread, the population of the US should be considerably greater (think of all those people who allegedly haven’t died over the last forty years), the GDP should be much higher (all those costs avoided), and there should be no unemployment whatsoever (all those alleged jobs caused by EPA regs).

You have to be pretty innocent of the real world (or a screeching partisan) to believe that malarkey.

One of the complaints about the EPA is that they force the private sector to collect and report information of arcane information that is not normally widely used. Since nobody normally bothers with this information, it is not apparent to most people that the EPA is making their “lives saved, costs avoided, jobs created” data up.

 

I think we should declare enviornmentalism a religion then we could get rid of the EPA under the 'Establishment Clause.'

 

Ironically, denialist arguments often rely on conspiracy theories and blogs which require a heck of a lot more faith than empirical, peer-reviewed science

 

very true.

also, I find that quite a few of the deniaists on here also regard evolution as a crackpot theory ... regarding ID or some other equally dubious "theory" as preferrable.

In the main, I find that denialists are anti science on some level (there are some exceptions), and the perspective that they have puts a greater emphasis on faith rather than fact and evidence.

 

it does remind me of the President saying he's saved or created jobs...no one can prove that someone would have died but didn't. It's impossible.

 

Injest posted:
"...no one can prove that someone would have died but didn't. It's impossible."

Taxcutter says:
...and that is why AGW is political and not scientific.

 

Please post the mathematical equations and charts that prove your assertion, if you can't then you are just a lying partisan hack.

 

Just add up all the claims. See if they pass the scale test.

 

Skeptics are routinely called 'denialist' and shut out of the peer-review process for fear that questioning the GW religion will stop the flow of our tax dollars to them (GW proponents) and will take away the ability of liberal-socialist politicians to wield the 'hammer' of environmental power over The People.

 

Yes, nor do they pass the 'smell' test. Consider that the field of study USED to be called 'Global Warming' but, since cooling trends have been identified NOW they call it 'Climate Change' and, on this Forum alone, these terms are interchangeable by the GW 'faithful' depending on whether it is warm or cool.

 

Skeptical scientists (there are a handful, still) are a welcome part of the scientific process. they are excluded from nothing. If they cannot pass muster in peer review then their science is lacking.