THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Dave Head on 20 Jul 2010 17:53 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:11:59 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 20, 6:22�am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:41:05 +0000 (UTC), Brent >> >> <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >And yes, it is toxins deliberately dumped into the lake to get rid of >> >it. Recent article on it: >> >http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/BP-Gets-Pass-From-Obama-Adm... >> >> >They are dumping SOLID waste into the lake. >> >> I don't have time for an entire reponse right now, but as for this: >> >> 1) I read the article and it is still unclear that they are dumping >> anything, but that it might be something that just escapes from them. >> >> 2) The writer does not identify the pollutants. >> >> 3) The writer is a known conspiracy theorist, according to Wikipedia, >> and has been at it for at least a decade. >> >> 4) There's no information that proves that the EPA is either acting on >> political ideology nor that the levels of pollution they allow really >> are harmful, or excessively harmful. >> >> 5) And again, if you're saying they can't release ANYTHING, then >> you're saying that they can't operate in this country, because it is >> not possible to do what they do and not release things. >> >> Dave Head > >"..... but that it might be something that just escapes from them." > >if you generate it - then it's your responsibility guy. If you can >conduct your business without "escapes' then you are still liable and >ultimately will be told to stop doing what causes the "escapes". Some processes simply can't be prevented from emitting. If you don't permit it, it'll just go someplace else, and all the workers go on welfare. And if you allow that, you make yourself into another envirowacko. >This is 1960 style reasoning where many polluters evaded >responsibility by saying they had "no choice' even when they did. And on, and on, and on. Yeah, there's the magic solution to everything, even when the engineers living in the real world that have to do something about it haven't figured out how yet. >The law soon said - you are responsible - period... yep the nasty EPA >did that. Did what? Appears they are "resonable" and you're the wild-eyed envirowacko that would shut down all the industry under the guise that there's no such thing as "clean enough."
From: Larry G on 20 Jul 2010 18:07 On Jul 20, 5:53 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:11:59 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > > > > > > <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Jul 20, 6:22 am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:41:05 +0000 (UTC), Brent > > >> <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >And yes, it is toxins deliberately dumped into the lake to get rid of > >> >it. Recent article on it: > >> >http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/BP-Gets-Pass-From-Obama-Adm.... > > >> >They are dumping SOLID waste into the lake. > > >> I don't have time for an entire reponse right now, but as for this: > > >> 1) I read the article and it is still unclear that they are dumping > >> anything, but that it might be something that just escapes from them. > > >> 2) The writer does not identify the pollutants. > > >> 3) The writer is a known conspiracy theorist, according to Wikipedia, > >> and has been at it for at least a decade. > > >> 4) There's no information that proves that the EPA is either acting on > >> political ideology nor that the levels of pollution they allow really > >> are harmful, or excessively harmful. > > >> 5) And again, if you're saying they can't release ANYTHING, then > >> you're saying that they can't operate in this country, because it is > >> not possible to do what they do and not release things. > > >> Dave Head > > >"..... but that it might be something that just escapes from them." > > >if you generate it - then it's your responsibility guy. If you can > >conduct your business without "escapes' then you are still liable and > >ultimately will be told to stop doing what causes the "escapes". > > Some processes simply can't be prevented from emitting. If you don't > permit it, it'll just go someplace else, and all the workers go on > welfare. And if you allow that, you make yourself into another > envirowacko. you're correct. Which processes - is not decided by the polluter though. > > >This is 1960 style reasoning where many polluters evaded > >responsibility by saying they had "no choice' even when they did. > > And on, and on, and on. Yeah, there's the magic solution to > everything, even when the engineers living in the real world that have > to do something about it haven't figured out how yet. some pollution is too deadly and is banned... but you're right - not always worldwide other pollution does not have to be released to start with. it can be retained, reprocessed and sequestered. Nukes are an example. > > >The law soon said - you are responsible - period... yep the nasty EPA > >did that. > > Did what? Appears they are "resonable" and you're the wild-eyed > envirowacko that would shut down all the industry under the guise that > there's no such thing as "clean enough." I'd say that you need an agency like the EPA to make the tradeoffs between what is necessary for society and for business and what is safe enough.. or pollutable enough for society. I don't see any other way other than have an entity like the EPA that represents the interests of all citizens and balances the trade-offs. The people who pollute don't decide because they have an inherent conflict of interests and we know from experience that polluters seldom have the same view about how much is acceptable as those who are impacted by pollution. I just don't see any other choice other than having an EPA-like agency to be the pollution CZAR.
From: Matthew Russotto on 20 Jul 2010 20:20 In article <eng736lmtddihk017igpa2i7viilb6kl4a(a)4ax.com>, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: > >Consumption taxes get all those louts that are avoiding it now - >criminals, those hiding money overseas (just more criminals), rich >people just slowly spending down a pile without earning anything, Hey, that was taxed when they made it; what's with the double-taxation? -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on 20 Jul 2010 20:26 In article <61bee29a-3f9a-4e45-b006-3ca8d9bf379d(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >they have modern appliances guy. In fact, they use tankless water >heaters rather than the water heaters that we do that use more than >twice as much energy to keep water continuously hot rather that heated >when used. Tankless water heaters are not clearly an energy saving device. >no "consuming energy" is not a sin but consuming more than most other >people in the world Most people in the world are living at a subsistence level. I refuse to accept guilt because I am not. >while complaining about the consequences of such >prolifigate use and denying the impacts that result is pretty >hypocritical. Even if you don't "believe" in GW, do you "believe" in >mountain-top removal and mercury contamination of many rivers at such >levels that we warn pregnant women and kids not to eat the fish? What's the matter with mountain-top removal? Do rocks have rights? Mercury is another matter, but just because I object to mercury pollution does not mean I have to buy the environmentalist line. >Is it a "sin" to use way more than you really need? (as opposed to it >being a "sin" to use _any_ ? What I _need_, as in to survive, is very little. It is no sin to exceed that. I refuse to stop using my computers, dishwasher, water heater, refrigerator, automobile, or air conditioner, and I further refuse to feel guilty about any of those things. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on 20 Jul 2010 20:28
In article <9ac355fd-db8e-406d-a489-d8e4c5763eaf(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >How much energy should you use? You should use no more than the >average amount of industrialized countries average per capita use - >about 1/2 what you use now. Why? What makes that a magic number? >you should pay for the true cost of Nuke Power - which will include >the actual insurance costs associated with that power - as opposed to >those costs being subsidized. Insurance costs aren't true costs at all. Insurance costs are what some actuary speculates future costs will be. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. |