THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Larry G on 19 Jul 2010 07:10 On Jul 19, 5:19 am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 03:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Brent > > <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On 2010-07-18, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > > >>>You have no right to pollute your neighbor's property. Expect to pay > >>>damages if you go ahead and do it anyway. > > >> Is that an absolutist position or a, "You can do it for a price" > >> position? I mean, you can't build a refinery that doesn't smell. > > >I am for private property. Obviously you're not, at least when it comes > >to certain things. > > I like private property too, but anything can be taken to an extreme. > Some things cannot be done this way, and you would make them > impossible to do, yet they must be done. > > >> You > >> can always smell a refinery, and that is pollution. So, can you build > >> no refineries in the USA with your approach? > > >I already described a way. It would simply require buying enough land. > > So, "The solution to pollution is dilution", eh? Just get it so you > can't smell it at the property edge and everything is OK? I don't > think so. You either have to accept that something emits, or shut it > down. > > >> How is that different > >> from the oppressive EPA that is out to harm America with their > >> envirowacko requirements that help chase all our jobs overseas? > > >I've already explained that. I'm not going to go in circles with you any > >more because you didn't understand it. > > You don't care any more about American jobs than the envirowackos, I > think. > > > > > > >>>Note, I am discussing CO2 or > >>>any other typical component of the atmosphere. > > >> Did you mean to say you are NOT discussing CO2 or any other typical > >> component of the atmosphere? > > >Yes, not, a typo. > > >>>However, as I stated > >>>earlier, if it is just combustion it better be practically zero. > > >> Now, wait a minute. Any particular modern car emits "practically" > >> zero. > > >Exactly. > >> Yet, the envirowackos want to make it emit even less. This was > >> a true statement 20 years ago. Where's the limit? Is it arbitrary in > >> your mind, or are there measurable criteria you'd like to use, such as > >> the supposed amount of damage to health, and how do you measure that? > >> In dollars? Can you quantify in dollars someone's death, assuming > >> that you can show it at all? > > >Evironwackos are going after CO2 now. Remember, their goal is not the > >environment, it's political control, it's telling people how to live. > >When technology beats them they find new angles of attack. CO2 and H2O > >is basically all that comes out of tailpipes these days. So they had CO2 > >politically classified as pollution. > > Makes sense. > > >>>Most of > >>>the pollution that the EPA allows is simply willful and there's no > >>>reason for it. > > >> If it's expensive to implement, which is almost always a true > >> statement, then there is a reason for it, which is its expense. The > >> American people are not made of money. Make this stuff expensive at > >> every nook and cranny of everyone's life and you bankrupt America, > >> which is what is going on anyway. Mostly I think it is the income > >> taxes, but environmental extremism can't be ignored either. > > >Of course it is more expensive to deal with waste than simply dumping it > >into the great lakes. There is no excuse for poisoning one of the > >world's largest sources of fresh water. I don't care how much it costs > >to deal with the waste properly, > > Of course you don't. You don't care how many million people are > thrown out of work, how the country sinks further into serfdom. You > just have some industry to hate. > > >the great lakes water is worth more. > > No its not. > > >I'll wager the government has rather stiff penalties for boaters who > >dump something into the lake water, yet connected corporations can just > >dump toxins by the ton. > > Yeah, yeah, yeah... > > >>>> Why don't you sue 'em? Don't you have a couple-3 people around > >>>> Chicago that would join a class action suit? > > >>>Being below EPA limits absolves them of blame. THat's part of the point > >>>of the EPA's existing. > > >> Uh, no it doesn't, not if you can prove harm. Can you prove harm? > > >Doesn't matter if harm can be proven when it is UNDER EPA limits. One > >would have to prove harm _AND_ that the company knew it caused harm. > > They don't have to know it caused harm. Look at the asbsetos > industry. Nobody knew about that. Yet Monsanto got screwed anyway. > Did they get sued all the way out of business? I think so. > > >The > >company can just intentionally remain ignorant and stay under EPA limits > >and it will not have to pay a dime. > > Monsanto. > > > > >>>It is my belief that if someone figured out a zero point energy device > >>>that was very cheap and safer than gasoline it would be opposed by > >> Of course, OTOH, wind power ISN'T free, it costs more than coal fired > >> power, by a lot. What do you think about requiring clean power? Yours > >> seems to be a fairly absolutist stance, and would shut down coal fired > >> power overnight. > > >No, it wouldn't. There really isn't any reason all that stuff has to be > >spewed into the air. > > There absolutely is. There's just no other way. Stuff burns, you > have millions of cubic feet of hot gasses you have to get rid of > immediately. There's no technology other than to release it into the > air. > > > Many of the gases and solids are likely valuable > >for other industrial uses and could be sold. > > If they could sell 'em, they would. They're businesses, remember? > > >Sulfur dioxide has a number > >of uses, > > Too common to make it valuable enough to be worth the price of > collecting it. > > >although probably not enough to cover how much that would be > >produced. > > Yep. > > >regardless, I have trouble with the 'right to pollute' that a > >special few get to excerise through the political process. > > Did YOU ever want to do anything significant? If so, your own ideas > would keep you from doing pretty much anything but telling fortunes. > Everything involves generating pollution somehow. > > >Also, electric generation from coal is pretty ancient technology that > >should either operate a lot better or go away. > > Its cheap. That's what people want. Wanna go thru summer in Georgia > without air conditioning? 30 cents a KwH would do that for millions > of people. That's probably what you'd get if you tried to suddenly > convert everything over to something else. We have WAY more natural > gas than we need, but not the production facilities to flow that much. > THe idiot envirowackos keep the real solution, nuclear, from being > implemented. Wind and solar would probably exceed 30 cents per KwH if > you constructed the storage necessary to make them a baseload > operation. > > >If electricity wasn't a > >government granted monopoly system perhaps the free market would have > >put coal generation out of business by now for the same reason Ford no > >longer makes the model T. > > Nope. Its still the cheapest thing around. Whatever is cheap is going > to rule the marketplace. > > >That's another part of my view you ignore. The free market would also > >exist. This would mean the people who have break throughs could knock > >these current companies out through competition. > > Not if they can't beat 3 1/2 cents per KwH. That's what all the > coal-fired electricity in Indianapolis costs, or recently did. If > they had a price increase, I haven't heard of it. My mostly > coal-fired electricity, with some nuclear mixed in, is 8 1/2 cents per > KwH, still way cheap compared to most anything else. > > >> With a stance like that, we don't need the > >> envirowackos to ruin America, you'd do it for them, if I read you > >> right. I mean, it is IMPOSSIBLE to generate all our power today > >> without pollution. The coal fired plants pollute, and there's nothing > >> you can do about it except turn them off. > > >Absolutely incorrect. Also they can pollute their own property as they > >desire, just don't foul other people's property. > > Like I said, overnight shutdown of most industry. > > >It is possible to generate all of the electricity the US needs as people > >thought it would be in the 1950s... with nukes. Completely contained > >on company property. > > Sure it is, but there's the envirowackos. " >>However, as I stated >>earlier, if it is just combustion it better be practically zero. > Now, wait a minute. Any particular modern car emits "practically" > zero. Exactly. " WHO defines what "practically ZERO" is? is it the polluter?
From: Larry G on 19 Jul 2010 07:20 On Jul 19, 5:19 am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 03:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Brent > > <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On 2010-07-18, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > > >>>You have no right to pollute your neighbor's property. Expect to pay > >>>damages if you go ahead and do it anyway. > > >> Is that an absolutist position or a, "You can do it for a price" > >> position? I mean, you can't build a refinery that doesn't smell. > > >I am for private property. Obviously you're not, at least when it comes > >to certain things. > > I like private property too, but anything can be taken to an extreme. > Some things cannot be done this way, and you would make them > impossible to do, yet they must be done. > > >> You > >> can always smell a refinery, and that is pollution. So, can you build > >> no refineries in the USA with your approach? > > >I already described a way. It would simply require buying enough land. > > So, "The solution to pollution is dilution", eh? Just get it so you > can't smell it at the property edge and everything is OK? I don't > think so. You either have to accept that something emits, or shut it > down. > > >> How is that different > >> from the oppressive EPA that is out to harm America with their > >> envirowacko requirements that help chase all our jobs overseas? > > >I've already explained that. I'm not going to go in circles with you any > >more because you didn't understand it. > > You don't care any more about American jobs than the envirowackos, I > think. > > > > > > >>>Note, I am discussing CO2 or > >>>any other typical component of the atmosphere. > > >> Did you mean to say you are NOT discussing CO2 or any other typical > >> component of the atmosphere? > > >Yes, not, a typo. > > >>>However, as I stated > >>>earlier, if it is just combustion it better be practically zero. > > >> Now, wait a minute. Any particular modern car emits "practically" > >> zero. > > >Exactly. > >> Yet, the envirowackos want to make it emit even less. This was > >> a true statement 20 years ago. Where's the limit? Is it arbitrary in > >> your mind, or are there measurable criteria you'd like to use, such as > >> the supposed amount of damage to health, and how do you measure that? > >> In dollars? Can you quantify in dollars someone's death, assuming > >> that you can show it at all? > > >Evironwackos are going after CO2 now. Remember, their goal is not the > >environment, it's political control, it's telling people how to live. > >When technology beats them they find new angles of attack. CO2 and H2O > >is basically all that comes out of tailpipes these days. So they had CO2 > >politically classified as pollution. > > Makes sense. > > >>>Most of > >>>the pollution that the EPA allows is simply willful and there's no > >>>reason for it. > > >> If it's expensive to implement, which is almost always a true > >> statement, then there is a reason for it, which is its expense. The > >> American people are not made of money. Make this stuff expensive at > >> every nook and cranny of everyone's life and you bankrupt America, > >> which is what is going on anyway. Mostly I think it is the income > >> taxes, but environmental extremism can't be ignored either. > > >Of course it is more expensive to deal with waste than simply dumping it > >into the great lakes. There is no excuse for poisoning one of the > >world's largest sources of fresh water. I don't care how much it costs > >to deal with the waste properly, > > Of course you don't. You don't care how many million people are > thrown out of work, how the country sinks further into serfdom. You > just have some industry to hate. > > >the great lakes water is worth more. > > No its not. > > >I'll wager the government has rather stiff penalties for boaters who > >dump something into the lake water, yet connected corporations can just > >dump toxins by the ton. > > Yeah, yeah, yeah... > > >>>> Why don't you sue 'em? Don't you have a couple-3 people around > >>>> Chicago that would join a class action suit? > > >>>Being below EPA limits absolves them of blame. THat's part of the point > >>>of the EPA's existing. > > >> Uh, no it doesn't, not if you can prove harm. Can you prove harm? > > >Doesn't matter if harm can be proven when it is UNDER EPA limits. One > >would have to prove harm _AND_ that the company knew it caused harm. > > They don't have to know it caused harm. Look at the asbsetos > industry. Nobody knew about that. Yet Monsanto got screwed anyway. > Did they get sued all the way out of business? I think so. > > >The > >company can just intentionally remain ignorant and stay under EPA limits > >and it will not have to pay a dime. > > Monsanto. > > > > >>>It is my belief that if someone figured out a zero point energy device > >>>that was very cheap and safer than gasoline it would be opposed by > >> Of course, OTOH, wind power ISN'T free, it costs more than coal fired > >> power, by a lot. What do you think about requiring clean power? Yours > >> seems to be a fairly absolutist stance, and would shut down coal fired > >> power overnight. > > >No, it wouldn't. There really isn't any reason all that stuff has to be > >spewed into the air. > > There absolutely is. There's just no other way. Stuff burns, you > have millions of cubic feet of hot gasses you have to get rid of > immediately. There's no technology other than to release it into the > air. > > > Many of the gases and solids are likely valuable > >for other industrial uses and could be sold. > > If they could sell 'em, they would. They're businesses, remember? > > >Sulfur dioxide has a number > >of uses, > > Too common to make it valuable enough to be worth the price of > collecting it. > > >although probably not enough to cover how much that would be > >produced. > > Yep. > > >regardless, I have trouble with the 'right to pollute' that a > >special few get to excerise through the political process. > > Did YOU ever want to do anything significant? If so, your own ideas > would keep you from doing pretty much anything but telling fortunes. > Everything involves generating pollution somehow. > > >Also, electric generation from coal is pretty ancient technology that > >should either operate a lot better or go away. > > Its cheap. That's what people want. Wanna go thru summer in Georgia > without air conditioning? 30 cents a KwH would do that for millions > of people. That's probably what you'd get if you tried to suddenly > convert everything over to something else. We have WAY more natural > gas than we need, but not the production facilities to flow that much. > THe idiot envirowackos keep the real solution, nuclear, from being > implemented. Wind and solar would probably exceed 30 cents per KwH if > you constructed the storage necessary to make them a baseload > operation. > > >If electricity wasn't a > >government granted monopoly system perhaps the free market would have > >put coal generation out of business by now for the same reason Ford no > >longer makes the model T. > > Nope. Its still the cheapest thing around. Whatever is cheap is going > to rule the marketplace. > > >That's another part of my view you ignore. The free market would also > >exist. This would mean the people who have break throughs could knock > >these current companies out through competition. > > Not if they can't beat 3 1/2 cents per KwH. That's what all the > coal-fired electricity in Indianapolis costs, or recently did. If > they had a price increase, I haven't heard of it. My mostly > coal-fired electricity, with some nuclear mixed in, is 8 1/2 cents per > KwH, still way cheap compared to most anything else. > > >> With a stance like that, we don't need the > >> envirowackos to ruin America, you'd do it for them, if I read you > >> right. I mean, it is IMPOSSIBLE to generate all our power today > >> without pollution. The coal fired plants pollute, and there's nothing > >> you can do about it except turn them off. > > >Absolutely incorrect. Also they can pollute their own property as they > >desire, just don't foul other people's property. > > Like I said, overnight shutdown of most industry. > > >It is possible to generate all of the electricity the US needs as people > >thought it would be in the 1950s... with nukes. Completely contained > >on company property. > > Sure it is, but there's the envirowackos. " Like I said, overnight shutdown of most industry. >It is possible to generate all of the electricity the US needs as people >thought it would be in the 1950s... with nukes. Completely contained >on company property. Sure it is, but there's the envirowackos. " NOPE. not unless you call Insurance Companies "envirowackos" ... because if the "govt" did not provide subsidized disaster insurance for the NUKES .. they would not be economically feasible. The initial capital costs of NUKES are so high that even the largest electric companies have trouble finding sufficient investor capital at acceptable interest rates unless the "govt" helps. Now. unless you missed this part in class - the "govt" is a political entity that represents all Americans - including those who are called "enviro" wackos but the most interesting thing is that those who oppose the whackos and claim that they are harming "capitalism" ... apparently do not have a problem with the NUKES being subsidized by taxpayers. So if the NUKES need subsidies to operate ... then what would be wrong with giving subsidies ALSO to wind and solar ?
From: Brent on 19 Jul 2010 09:33 On 2010-07-19, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 10:55�pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2010-07-18, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Jul 18, 12:50�pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy- >> >> In America you have to break a law before you are found guilty and have >> >> your rights taken away..... �Fascists simply take away the rights and >> >> regulate so as to prevent any chance of breaking a law..... �Fascists >> >> and Socialists micromanage people and unconstitutionally take our rights >> >> to force their ideology onto "We The People" >> >> > yep... when I rank the countries of the world for their "fascist" >> > qualities .. we rank near the top, eh? >> >> Economically, very much so. Just look at health insurance and health >> care in general for a recent example. The government will dictate how >> business is done. Private ownership technically still exists. > > and we ranks tops in the world on this? Probably in many metrics.
From: Brent on 19 Jul 2010 09:43 On 2010-07-19, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > the question is do you have a "RIGHT" to pollute? I already answered this. > Do you have to get permission to do it and the requirement is that you > buy "enough" land OR the permit says that no matter how much land you > buy that pollution will still leave your property and therefore it > cannot or it will be restricted to certain levels. > do you have an unfettered "right" to pollute as much or at any level > that YOU deem appropriate or do those that are impacted by the > pollution decide It's is simply amazing that you can ask a loaded question such as that when to any reader with half a clue could tell I am arguing for NO RIGHT TO POLLUTE THE PROPERTY OF OTHERS. > - via a govt and a govt agency (EPA) that represents > them? If you think the EPA represents you, you're an idiot. The EPA is a political body which grants permission to pollute other people's property. It secures a system where by those with political influence can pollute while those without cannot. It's a patch over the previous system which was those with political influence could pollute at will and others could do so until someone sued them and won.
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 19 Jul 2010 11:04
>> On 2010-07-18, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >> >>>> You have no right to pollute your neighbor's property. Expect to pay >>>> damages if you go ahead and do it anyway. >> >>> Is that an absolutist position or a, "You can do it for a price" >>> position? I mean, you can't build a refinery that doesn't smell. >> >> I am for private property. Obviously you're not, at least when it comes >> to certain things. > > Corporatist apologists think that whatever corporations do with their > property is fine and that everyone else should suffer the consequences. > >>> You >>> can always smell a refinery, and that is pollution. So, can you build >>> no refineries in the USA with your approach? >> >> I already described a way. It would simply require buying enough land. >> >>> How is that different >>> from the oppressive EPA that is out to harm America with their >>> envirowacko requirements that help chase all our jobs overseas? >> >> I've already explained that. I'm not going to go in circles with you any >> more because you didn't understand it. >> >>>> Note, I am discussing CO2 or >>>> any other typical component of the atmosphere. >> >>> Did you mean to say you are NOT discussing CO2 or any other typical >>> component of the atmosphere? >> >> Yes, not, a typo. >> >>>> However, as I stated >>>> earlier, if it is just combustion it better be practically zero. >> >>> Now, wait a minute. Any particular modern car emits "practically" >>> zero. >> >> Exactly. >> >>> Yet, the envirowackos want to make it emit even less. This was >>> a true statement 20 years ago. Where's the limit? Is it arbitrary in >>> your mind, or are there measurable criteria you'd like to use, such as >>> the supposed amount of damage to health, and how do you measure that? >>> In dollars? Can you quantify in dollars someone's death, assuming >>> that you can show it at all? They do quantify your life into dollars and they do it every day, they do it with your "Workers Compensation" when you are killed on the Job, or when you are sick and on Medicaid and they refuse to pay for the procedure that would extend your life. Both are failures and don't come close to fulfill their Socialist utopian ideals. |