The 'Lefts' answer to Global Warming

[goinbroke2]

And in case you missed it;

 

[b]Algorian Logic

 

A reasoning technique that entails reaching a conclusion about a subject in which one has no expertise and subsequently finding or creating factoids to support the supposition without using critical thinking skills or research to discern the obvious implausibility of the facts or the conclusion. [/b]

[sprinter]

Atmospheric density. Mars' air is thin; there's a lot of CO2 relative to other gases, but not enough to reduce heat loss. .

 

 

But the concentration of of CO2 in air is only 0.0314% compared to Mars's atmosphere of 95%. The atmospheric pressure difference of Mars to the Earth is 0.59%. I'm sure there is someone out there that has enough time on their hands they could actually figure the number of moles of CO2 in a cubic meter using the standard temperature/pressure of each planet's atmosphere. Then we could compare apples to apples. Or you could find it on the internet here: http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/Propagation/mars/MarsPub_sec4.pdf

Looking at table 4-2 will tell you there is a greater density of CO2 molecules per volume on Mars. Twenty five times as much. So with respect to the global warming crowd's theory that CO2 is causing all the heating, Mars should be a tropical paradise.

Edited March 7, 2011 by sprinter

[akirby]

But the concentration of of CO2 in air is only 0.0314% compared to Mars's atmosphere of 95%. The atmospheric pressure difference of Mars to the Earth is 0.59%. I'm sure there is someone out there that has enough time on their hands they could actually figure the number of moles of CO2 in a cubic meter using the standard temperature/pressure of each planet's atmosphere. Then we could compare apples to apples. Or you could find it on the internet here: http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/Propagation/mars/MarsPub_sec4.pdf

Looking at table 4-2 will tell you there is a greater density of CO2 molecules per volume on Mars. Twenty five times as much. So with respect to the global warming crowd's theory that CO2 is causing all the heating, Mars should be a tropical paradise.

All of that is really irrelevant. The point is Earth's warming is said to be caused by changes in the atmospheric gases that have occurred over the last several years. None of those changes have taken place on Mars yet both Earth and Mars are seeing the same type of warming over the last several years. The only thing Earth and Mars have in common relative to global warming is the Sun.

 

The difference is that if it's the Sun then nobody can make money off of it or perpetuate their hidden agendas. The last thing they want is the truth.

[goinbroke2]

DING DING DING DING!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

 

Yes you heard it right, AKIRBY has figured out the financial deception that has been foisted on the gullible masses in an attempt to make certain people rich by being the middlemen in transferring wealth from rich nations to poor nations!

 

By using carbon credits etc, people like Al "I'm-a-lying-piece-of-shit-who-still-resents-that-election Gore has manipulated millions from people and stands to make millions more from his carbon credit scam in which people give money to his "carbon credit warehouse" for him to "transfer" carbon credits around the globe. As long as the global cooling...global warming...climate change scam is running, he is making money of people who "feel good" about themselves and think they are doing something for society or the planet etc.

 

WAY TO GO AKIRBY!!

And for correctly guessing the answer to the question nobody wanted answered for fear of collapsing the climate scam......you win A BRAND NEW CAR!!!

 

Yes AKIRBY, you have won a brand new car, all you have to do to collect this new car is sign on the dotted line that climate change is real and al gore is your hero. Page two is the disclaimer about dying wildlife due to CO2 (or any other gas, in case we come up with a new villian) and page three is that you won't sue when you find out the car is a tata nano with the engine replaced by a wind turbine, solar energy charger and a 1.5v electric motor.

Yes AKIRBY, you'll be driving in style and all your friends will be impressed as you drive by in your new tata!

 

Congradulation on your win and don't repeat this to anyone!

 

 

:hyper:

[sprinter]

All of that is really irrelevant. The point is Earth's warming is said to be caused by changes in the atmospheric gases that have occurred over the last several years. None of those changes have taken place on Mars yet both Earth and Mars are seeing the same type of warming over the last several years. The only thing Earth and Mars have in common relative to global warming is the Sun.

 

The difference is that if it's the Sun then nobody can make money off of it or perpetuate their hidden agendas. The last thing they want is the truth.

 

Yes it is the SUN!!!!. But those 'gases' that you mentioned above happen to be CO2 that the 'global warming crowd' are crying about. That is the relevance. With their 'warming calculations' I'm sure Mars would be almost as warm as the Sun, but in reality, it's not even close. The small percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere causing global warming is bull $hit. But it's all part of a global scheme to make money by taxing the people.

[akirby]

Yes it is the SUN!!!!. But those 'gases' that you mentioned above happen to be CO2 that the 'global warming crowd' are crying about. That is the relevance. With their 'warming calculations' I'm sure Mars would be almost as warm as the Sun, but in reality, it's not even close. The small percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere causing global warming is bull $hit. But it's all part of a global scheme to make money by taxing the people.

The problem with that theory is there are other factors on Mars that we don't have on Earth that could counter the effect of the high CO2 concentration - further away from the sun, atmospheric density, etc. Critics can always claim these differences as an explanation whether they're sound or not.

 

However, if you take all of those out of the equation and just look at differences over the last few years that is induspitable - or at least harder to dispute.

[sprinter]

Time to cash-in on a more plentiful gas; Nitrogen. I think we have heard this all before.

 

http://www.nbc29.com/Global/story.asp?S=14199622

[blksn8k2]

I happen to work for a company that supplies steam generating equipment to electric utility companies. I have watched the number of employees at my company reduced by over 25% over the past two years and that can be directly attributed to fear mongering by people like Al Gore. I can guarantee you that the quality of their lives has not improved. :shades:

[Savetheplanet]

DING DING DING DING!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

 

Yes you heard it right, AKIRBY has figured out the financial deception that has been foisted on the gullible masses in an attempt to make certain people rich by being the middlemen in transferring wealth from rich nations to poor nations!

 

By using carbon credits etc, people like Al "I'm-a-lying-piece-of-shit-who-still-resents-that-election Gore has manipulated millions from people and stands to make millions more from his carbon credit scam in which people give money to his "carbon credit warehouse" for him to "transfer" carbon credits around the globe. As long as the global cooling...global warming...climate change scam is running, he is making money of people who "feel good" about themselves and think they are doing something for society or the planet etc.

 

WAY TO GO AKIRBY!!

And for correctly guessing the answer to the question nobody wanted answered for fear of collapsing the climate scam......you win A BRAND NEW CAR!!!

 

Yes AKIRBY, you have won a brand new car, all you have to do to collect this new car is sign on the dotted line that climate change is real and al gore is your hero. Page two is the disclaimer about dying wildlife due to CO2 (or any other gas, in case we come up with a new villian) and page three is that you won't sue when you find out the car is a tata nano with the engine replaced by a wind turbine, solar energy charger and a 1.5v electric motor.

Yes AKIRBY, you'll be driving in style and all your friends will be impressed as you drive by in your new tata!

 

Congradulation on your win and don't repeat this to anyone!

 

 

:hyper:

Wow you are a regular Sherlock Holmes, can't slide anything past you!

 

Al Gore is our leader, we do everything he says so that someday us enviro nazis will be rich! Please don't tell anyone else that we fabricated the whole ACC thing and we really could care less about the planet. I mean, how else will those guys at The Academy of Sciences, NASA, NOAA, The Royal society, American meteorological society etc. rake in all that cash if you keep revealing our Al Gore led conspiracy on BON?

[goinbroke2]

At least you didn't deny it.

 

So, seriously, who are you? Mark? Retro? c,mon, fess up...you only seem to "magically" appear after certain people post.

 

 

really....

 

 

Who are you?

 

 

Now I have a new plot to uncover...

 

Where is my ip address locator.......

[goinbroke2]

And, to give the benefit of doubt, I don't think all are left wing environazi's or complete whack jobs. I believe there are some who truly believe in helping the planet and have joined up or volunteered to help where they can. Unfortunately they have drank the koolaid of those a bit deeper into it who do have monetary reasons for perpetrating this crap.

 

I like fords, if all I ever did was go on ford fan-boy sites and denied any other company ever made a good vehicle, then I would be a bit out there. If I then recieved money from ford for going on sites and the more sites I went to and the more people I converted to fords I was paid...then yes I would be a "ford nazi". I would convince people who like all cars that they were lucky because ford is the only one who builds a good car. Some, through cognitive disonance, would agree that fords are best. Others would be berated and brow beat to not even mention anything but ford on a site I was on.

At THAT point, you have to use common sense and regardless if I have a PHD in auto sales or whatever, realise that there might be other good cars out there.

And, if I called for a tax for all non ford vehicles, which would make even more people buy fords, directly putting cash in my pocket....

 

Everybody that likes fords aren't whack jobs. But if they are following my mantra as stated above...then yes, they are by association whack jobs.

He who doesn't deny it might as well have agreed to it.

 

Nobody wants to harm the earth.

Nobody "knowingly" does what they fully understand will cause a problem.

The left want to portray "evil rich corporations" as ones who would do anything to anybody or anything to squeeze another nickle of profit. But the truth is (with exceptions) most companies large and small are run by people who understand consequences.

 

Destroying the West's way of life and wealth won't save the planet. If anything, it will make it worse because non-western countries (like china) will go all out and they will NOT care about the planet. (note chart above)

 

 

PS, your a loser.

[Imawhosure]

SIGH, it is almost always the younger people who buy into this crisis routine about the planet. I could show many old crisis that these guys tried to pull off that failed; but I am sure they mostly have been already pointed out.

 

It never ceases to amaze me that whatever the crisis they put forward is, the solution is always a tax, lol. It really is about the money you know, and anyone who says it is not has either resided on another planet until now, or is so gullible, no amount of education degrees could ever make them credible in many peoples eyes.

 

America is unique. It was a unique experience set up to be as different from Europe as possible. This is what our founding fathers created. Is it politically acceptable to say IT WORKED!!

 

Now, we begin to move towards the European way, and we are in decline. See any correlation there guys?

 

Europe; along with all the other nations are aware that they can't defeat us, so they have to have a crisis that we must comply to. Enter global cooling/warming/climate change. And yet, they can't even make that remotely believable with not only scientific evidence; but the wink-wink, nod-nod by excluding huge contributors to the problem like China. If it was that bad, they would demand it, would they not?

 

They know, and most of us know, that it is just a way to slow us down, or very possibly drag us backwards.

 

No matter who you are who believes this stuff, know that shifting production from us to China does not solve the problem of the globe, assuming there is a problem at all. And to be taken seriously, then convince everyone who would gladly take our jobs and way of life while adopting it as their own, to comply. Come back then and point some fingers if you would like.

 

Till then, most of us who find deficit spending the number 1 problem in this country, find the compliance of global warming changes at the number 2, 3, 4, or 5th place to continue our standard of living.

 

If the last election was any view into the future, you better get these other nations to comply before you come to us, or your chances are as small as having an ice making machine in hell.

[RangerM]

I dislike the CFLs too. The bright white light is ok for the office but I don't like it at home. I have dimmers on several of my light fixtures and the CFLs don't dim. It is nice to know that there are alternatives made in the USA.

Funny--and not so funny--article.

 

Let There Be Light - The dim bulbs in Congress have condemned me to pee in the dark.

 

During a Senate hearing last week, Rand Paul complained about the federal energy standards that will force conventional incandescent light bulbs off the market during the next few years. "I can't buy the old light bulbs," the Kentucky Republican said. "That restricts my choice."

 

The response from an Energy Department official nicely illustrated the paternalistic, know-it-all attitude Paul was criticizing. "I'm pro-choice on bulbs," insisted Kathleen Hogan, the deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency. "My view is, what you want is lighting." And the government, in its infinite wisdom, will tell you what kind of lighting is best for you.

 

By this logic, the government could ban cars without meaningfully restricting consumer choice, because what you want is transportation, and you can always ride a bike or take a bus. The fact that you have implicitly rejected the tradeoffs entailed by those other options does not matter.

 

And so it is with light bulbs. The energy efficiency standards that have doomed the most popular varieties, set forth in a law signed by President George W. Bush in 2007, will begin to take effect in January, making conventional 100-watt bulbs illegal. By 2014 all traditional bulbs (except for a few specialized uses) will be abolished, to be replaced by more efficient alternatives, mainly compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs).

 

Kathleen Hogan is right: What I want is lighting, and CFLs are not very good at providing it. Unlike incandescent bulbs, CFLs do not go on when you flip a switch; they think about going on and then, after mulling the idea for a few minutes, achieve their maximum brightness when you are done with whatever you were planning to do—which is especially annoying in the bathroom.

 

CFLs do not work well with dimmers, which we have throughout our house, and sometimes they emit an unbearable whine. And did I mention that they cost up to six times as much as their incandescent competitors?

 

CFLs "cost more than traditional incandescent bulbs," USA Today concedes, "but they last longer." Not in our house, the one we lived in before this one, or the one before that.

 

One reason our CFLs don't last as long as advertised may be that we turn them on and off. According to a 2009 report in The Telegraph, "The lifespan of energy-saving light bulbs can be reduced by up to 85 per cent if they are switched off and on too often."

 

If you try to avoid this problem by leaving the lights on, you undermine the main selling point of CFLs, which is that they save electricity by producing more light for the same amount of energy. "A household that upgrades 15 inefficient incandescent light bulbs," Hogan enthuses, "could save about $50 per year."

 

That calculation takes into account the higher price of CFLs, but I suspect it assumes they last longer than they really do. In any event, I would gladly pay 14 cents a day for the luxury of lights that go on when I turn them on. But the government won't let me.

 

I am not a fuddy-duddy clinging to "the incandescent light bulb that has its origins in Thomas Alva Edison's laboratory"—as Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) put it when he introduced a bill to repeal the bulb ban—simply because it's familiar. I will be happy to use CFLs if and when their manufacturers get the kinks out, or LED bulbs when they become affordable. But I am not the only one who thinks we're not there yet, judging from the Energy Department's estimate that more than 80 percent of residential light sockets were still occupied by incandescent bulbs last year.

 

By forcing this transition, the government is ignoring the preferences that most Americans have clearly expressed in the marketplace. Which explains why I cheered when I heard Paul declare: "You busybodies always want to do something to tell us how to live our lives better. Keep it to yourselves."

[Mark B. Morrow]

Nobody wants to harm the earth.

Nobody "knowingly" does what they fully understand will cause a problem.

 

The left want to portray "evil rich corporations" as ones who would do anything to anybody or anything to squeeze another nickle of profit. But the truth is (with exceptions) most companies large and small are run by people who understand consequences.

 

 

Yeah That NEVER happens.

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11076/1132703-455.stm

 

 

A Greene County man was charged today with wreaking environmental catastrophe by illegally dumping vast quantities of wastewater from 2003 to 2009 in a half-dozen counties.

 

Robert A. Shipman, 49, of New Freeport, turned himself in at the Pennsylvania State Police barracks in Waynesburg and was arraigned on 98 charges.

 

"This was a calculated and long-running scheme to personally profit by illegally dumping wastewater, regardless of the potential for environmental damage," acting state Attorney General Bill Ryan said in a statement.

 

 

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11076/1132703-455.stm#ixzz1GtxTtE2c

 

Corporations NEVER put profit above safety or the compliance with law.

 

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/02/19/10-Worst-Corporate-Polluters/

[Trimdingman]

Fish are returning to urban rivers. Great Lakes beaches are now safe for swimming. This proves that the environment is improving; not deterioriating. Let's now focus on improving the economy by doing whatever it takes to attract business and stem the exodus of corporations out of the country. The left is all for government spending on social programs; but dead set against doing what needs to be done to get the money to pay for them. Badmouthing and driving away tax-paying, job creating businesses is not the way to do it.

[goinbroke2]

Yeah That NEVER happens.

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11076/1132703-455.stm

 

 

A Greene County man was charged today with wreaking environmental catastrophe by illegally dumping vast quantities of wastewater from 2003 to 2009 in a half-dozen counties.

 

Robert A. Shipman, 49, of New Freeport, turned himself in at the Pennsylvania State Police barracks in Waynesburg and was arraigned on 98 charges.

 

"This was a calculated and long-running scheme to personally profit by illegally dumping wastewater, regardless of the potential for environmental damage," acting state Attorney General Bill Ryan said in a statement.

 

 

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11076/1132703-455.stm#ixzz1GtxTtE2c

 

Corporations NEVER put profit above safety or the compliance with law.

 

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/02/19/10-Worst-Corporate-Polluters/

 

Good grief charlie Brown...yup, ya found one. If you look hard enough you'll find somebody knowingly hacked a baby to death with a machete too. Perhaps when I said "NOBODY" I should of clarified for those of you who like to pick apart each sentence and then deem the whole paragraph wrong because they found an issue with one word. Whatever.

How about I say "NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND" would want to pollute?

How about "WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PEOPLE WHO WILLINGLY BREAK THE LAW FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT" would want to pollute?

 

Seriously Mark, this is a new leftwing low, even for you.

 

Go ahead, throw the baby out with the bathwater, I expect no less from the left.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Good grief charlie Brown...yup, ya found one. If you look hard enough you'll find somebody knowingly hacked a baby to death with a machete too. Perhaps when I said "NOBODY" I should of clarified for those of you who like to pick apart each sentence and then deem the whole paragraph wrong because they found an issue with one word. Whatever.

How about I say "NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND" would want to pollute?

How about "WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PEOPLE WHO WILLINGLY BREAK THE LAW FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT" would want to pollute?

 

Seriously Mark, this is a new leftwing low, even for you.

 

Go ahead, throw the baby out with the bathwater, I expect no less from the left.

 

 

Obviously, i was poking fun at your hyperbole. The fact remains that if we didn't have and enforce strong laws against this kind of pollution, many more would do it since it is much cheaper, and more profitable to dump waste out in the sticks than it is to properly dispose of it. The first example comes from my local paper.

 

The point of regulations and laws it to discourage such acts by imposing a stiff enough penalty that outweighs the savings from ignoring the rules.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Fish are returning to urban rivers. Great Lakes beaches are now safe for swimming. This proves that the environment is improving; not deterioriating. Let's now focus on improving the economy by doing whatever it takes to attract business and stem the exodus of corporations out of the country. The left is all for government spending on social programs; but dead set against doing what needs to be done to get the money to pay for them. Badmouthing and driving away tax-paying, job creating businesses is not the way to do it.

 

 

The improvement in the environment PROVES that the laws passed starting in the 1970s with the EPA act are working. Business can coexist with a clean environment. We are not going to compete with China by out polluting them.

[grbeck]

Beware of lists that use rather loose (and that's being charitable) definitions of what constitutes "pollution."

 

For example, we get this for Ford:

 

Ford set out to be a leader in greening the auto industry, becoming the first U.S. carmaker to offer a hybrid S.U.V., with its 2004 Escape. The company also recently announced a more fuel-efficient car engine. But the automaker had the second-worst fleetwide gas-mileage rating in both 2006 and 2007, according to the E.P.A. (emphasis added) And in 2006, Ford withdrew its guarantee that it would manufacture a quarter of a million hybrid vehicles annually by 2010, opting instead to explore alternative energy sources. Ford recently created the world's largest living-grass rooftop on its Dearborn plant, but the lawn crowns a factory that produces one of the least fuel-efficient vehicles on the market, the F-150.(emphasis added) Ford cleaned up its 500-acre Superfund site in Upper Ringwood, New Jersey, in 1994, but the E.P.A. relisted it in 2006—the only time the agency has relisted a site—when tests found that paint sludge still contaminated the area.

 

Except, of course that emissions from all vehicles within a specific regulatory class are capped by the Clean Air Act. Fuel economy is irrelevant - a Lincoln Town Car or Mercedes S-Class cannot, by law, emit more pollution than a Ford Fiesta, even though both use more gasoline.

 

A modern F-150 under operation emits very little pollution - less than a 1970 LTD emitted while it was sitting still, with the engine not running (from gasoline vapors). So color me skeptical on this one...

[Mark B. Morrow]

Beware of lists that use rather loose (and that's being charitable) definitions of what constitutes "pollution."

 

For example, we get this for Ford:

 

Ford set out to be a leader in greening the auto industry, becoming the first U.S. carmaker to offer a hybrid S.U.V., with its 2004 Escape. The company also recently announced a more fuel-efficient car engine. But the automaker had the second-worst fleetwide gas-mileage rating in both 2006 and 2007, according to the E.P.A. (emphasis added) And in 2006, Ford withdrew its guarantee that it would manufacture a quarter of a million hybrid vehicles annually by 2010, opting instead to explore alternative energy sources. Ford recently created the world's largest living-grass rooftop on its Dearborn plant, but the lawn crowns a factory that produces one of the least fuel-efficient vehicles on the market, the F-150.(emphasis added) Ford cleaned up its 500-acre Superfund site in Upper Ringwood, New Jersey, in 1994, but the E.P.A. relisted it in 2006—the only time the agency has relisted a site—when tests found that paint sludge still contaminated the area.

 

Except, of course that emissions from all vehicles within a specific regulatory class are capped by the Clean Air Act. Fuel economy is irrelevant - a Lincoln Town Car or Mercedes S-Class cannot, by law, emit more pollution than a Ford Fiesta, even though both use more gasoline.

 

A modern F-150 under operation emits very little pollution - less than a 1970 LTD emitted while it was sitting still, with the engine not running (from gasoline vapors). So color me skeptical on this one...

 

 

I agree with you on that part of the list. The references to pollution from illegal dumping are on point. I'm sure I can find better references to corporate greed taking precedence over the environment and compliance with law.

[grbeck]

I agree with you on that part of the list. The references to pollution from illegal dumping are on point. I'm sure I can find better references to corporate greed taking precedence over the environment and compliance with law.

 

I have no problem with environmental regulations. But lists such as this undermine the credibility of those who compile them...if you want to experience real automotive pollution stand on the showfield of the annual fall Antique Automobile Club of America (AACA) Hershey meet when all of the vintage vehicles start up and idle as they wait to leave. Better bring a mask...

 

We've made considerable progress on cleaning up our air, lakes and rivers. I agree with you that a modern industrial society needs environmental regulations to protect air and water. But environmentalists ignore the progress that we have made, and keep ratcheting up the gloom-and-doom, and expanding the definition of what constitutes pollution, probably because it makes for better fund-raising efforts. They also leave out key facts.

 

My favorite was a Clean Air Action press release a few years ago decrying the fact that more Pennsylvania counties violated the federal ozone standards. So air quality was getting worse in the Keystone State, correct? No...the standards were getting progressively tighter, so a few counties fell out of compliance. But ALL counties were expected to be in compliance within 3-5 years. Those last two facts were conveniently left out of the press release.

 

And blaming everything on corporations is too easy. There is a scenic overlook on a mountain near my hometown (Shippensburg) that provides a stunning view of the Cumberland Valley. But, the last time I was there, garbage had been tossed over the rim, and was all over the place just a few feet below me. I don't believe that Walmart, the Ford Motor Company or General Electric put it there...

Edited March 18, 2011 by grbeck

[Mark B. Morrow]

I have no problem with environmental regulations. But lists such as this undermine the credibility of those who compile them...if you want to experience real automotive pollution stand on the showfield of the annual fall Antique Automobile Club of America (AACA) Hershey meet when all of the vintage vehicles start up and idle as they wait to leave. Better bring a mask...

 

We've made considerable progress on cleaning up our air, lakes and rivers. I agree with you that a modern industrial society needs environmental regulations to protect air and water. But environmentalists ignore the progress that we have made, and keep ratcheting up the gloom-and-doom, and expanding the definition of what constitutes pollution, probably because it makes for better fund-raising efforts. They also leave out key facts.

 

My favorite was a Clean Air Action press release a few years ago decrying the fact that more Pennsylvania counties violated the federal ozone standards. So air quality was getting worse in the Keystone State, correct? No...the standards were getting progressively tighter, so a few counties fell out of compliance. But ALL counties were expected to be in compliance within 3-5 years. Those last two facts were conveniently left out of the press release.

 

And blaming everything on corporations is too easy. There is a scenic overlook on a mountain near my hometown (Shippensburg) that provides a stunning view of the Cumberland Valley. But, the last time I was there, garbage had been tossed over the rim, and was all over the place just a few feet below me. I don't believe that Walmart, the Ford Motor Company or General Electric put it there...

 

 

I do absolutely agree with you that not all regulations are well thought out or are efficient. I haven't been to Hershey in years but waiting in traffic to get in to Carlisle is probably similar. I do love the smell of old car exhaust.

 

Corps aren't to blame for everything, but they are major sources in some cases. Some corporate waste is far more dangerous than what individuals toss away. It is easier and more efficient to regulate a verifyable source of pollution than it is to chase everyone who dumps garbage out of the car window. It is a shame that some people are such assholes that they think it's OK to throw their junk around instead of properly disposing of it.

[Trimdingman]

The improvement in the environment PROVES that the laws passed starting in the 1970s with the EPA act are working. Business can coexist with a clean environment. We are not going to compete with China by out polluting them.

 

We have created a Utopia here. The problem is that we no longer have the resources to maintain it. Our resources are all leaving for China. The environment can stand a small hit to get our books balanced. Why would anyone leave a "Democratic Utopia" for Communist China? What we have is just an illusion, created on a credit card. It is not real. Our actual standard of living is the Ghetto. That is where we would all be if not for the credit card. That is where we really are.

[goinbroke2]

Mark, I think Grbeck and I as well as you agree in principal to what each one of us is saying. Regulation is required. Pollution is bad. The issue is exactly like Grbeck pointed out, the environazi's keep moving the goal line, not to "make the planet better" but to continually find new ways to penalize anyone who is not "with them" in hating the west.

 

Look, I can feel great that I (for example) bike to work and heat my home with butterfly farts. But if everyone around me is driving 1970 lincolns and have homes with no insulation.....should I really have given up my $80,000 a year job so I could bike to work to the $20,000 a year job? Yes I feel morally superior, but am I actually doing anything for the planet? there are certainly less drastic things I could of done besides quiting my job and wearing 5 sweaters living in a cold house.

 

We are in highly insulated homes and are driving low polluting vehicles, tell them to look at countries in asia and south america who spew far more than us and are not even considering changing pollution laws!

[RangerM]

Mark, I think Grbeck and I as well as you agree in principal to what each one of us is saying. Regulation is required. Pollution is bad. The issue is exactly like Grbeck pointed out, the environazi's keep moving the goal line, not to "make the planet better" but to continually find new ways to penalize anyone who is not "with them" in hating the west.

 

Look, I can feel great that I (for example) bike to work and heat my home with butterfly farts. But if everyone around me is driving 1970 lincolns and have homes with no insulation.....should I really have given up my $80,000 a year job so I could bike to work to the $20,000 a year job? Yes I feel morally superior, but am I actually doing anything for the planet? there are certainly less drastic things I could of done besides quiting my job and wearing 5 sweaters living in a cold house.

 

We are in highly insulated homes and are driving low polluting vehicles, tell them to look at countries in asia and south america who spew far more than us and are not even considering changing pollution laws!

Eventually, the goal line will catch up with those who can't afford to keep up.

 

If you can't afford to own a house that meets their standards, you will rent from someone who can afford to own an apartment building that will. That is, if the apartment owner will be able to stay in business trying to operate under the rules set for him.

 

If you can't afford to own a car that meets their standards, you will ride a bus/train that probably wouldn't, but you'd still be out of your car.

 

If you're rich enough, you'll always be free to choose.