Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another innocent soul got brain washed by big brother.
They all believe all the good things we have is because of government. Without government, we will be living in a sh1t hole. Ohh.. please.
Pollution is a by products of industrial revolution. The same problem we faced 40 years ago is facing by other industrialize countries like China and India. One you move pass that stage, pollution will decrease. Technology help too, as it is seeing in China and India.
All government agencies are bad. They are central planning. How do they know what is good and bad. If they label your property as wet land, good luck getting it over turn. It will never happen, UNLESS you have more resource them the government. The government only have UNLIMITED RESOURCE, so if you happen to have unlimited +1, you will win.
And you accuse me of being brainwashed.
The fact is we have direct evidence all around us of what happens when pollution is unregulated or poorly regulated, either in our history or across the Pacific in China.
The fact is the only reason we and other modern countries have "moved past" the pollution stage is because of environment regulation. For example, Britain was the first to modernize and had horrible pollution problems all the way to the 1950s when a "fog" killed thousands of people in London. The US had bad pollution problems well into the 1970s. Government regulation is how you move past that stage and that only occurs when the people get so angry about dying by the tens of thousands that they demand it.
With that said before the EPA 1000s died of air pollution every year in certain cities like Pittsburgh and St. Louis and thousands more used to die due to air pollution related causes. Something like 40,000 people a year still die of air pollution.
Those estimates are questionable as noted by the EPA themselves. They arrive at them using a linear dose assessment where every particle of pollution is treated as equally as dangerous regardless of the quantity and individual is exposed too.
Suppose we do a study and throw 10 people off a 20 foot cliff and 5 die. From there we can extrapolate across an entire population, for every 200 feet a population is too fall 5 people are going to die. If 20 people fall off a 10 foot cliff 5 still die, if 200 people fall off a 1 foot cliff 5 still die, if millions fall off a crack in the sidewalk 5 still die.
Those estimates are questionable as noted by the EPA themselves. They arrive at them using a linear dose assessment where every particle of pollution is treated as equally as dangerous regardless of the quantity and individual is exposed too.
Suppose we do a study and throw 10 people off a 20 foot cliff and 5 die. From there we can extrapolate across an entire population, for every 200 feet a population is too fall 5 people are going to die. If 20 people fall off a 10 foot cliff 5 still die, if 200 people fall off a 1 foot cliff 5 still die, if millions fall off a crack in the sidewalk 5 still die.
I agree for the modern estimates, though in absence of a more direct way of measuring it they still serve as a good centerpoint for estimates.
Though for the historical estimates it is pretty clear that the steel mills in Pittsburgh prior to rules about smokestacks were concentrating soot pollution and killing people by the thousands.
It is impossible because it is not true. Most freezing deaths involve homelessness and many of the rest involve power outages in storms. LIHEAP does a pretty good job of ensuring that the poor and elderly have heat during the winter.
The funny thing is probably the biggest damage the EPA has done is the upcoming CO2 caps and we hear comments like we've heard in this thread about Republicans forcefully arguing against it yet we didn't hear them whining back in 2010 when 'ole Nancy was asked about it...
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that Congress, not the Obama administration, needs to address global warming.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that Congress, not the Obama administration, needs to address global warming.
Asked if she wants the Obama administration to address climate change through regulations if Congress fails to pass a bill this year, Pelosi responded, "It has to be done by statute."
The funny thing is probably the biggest damage the EPA has done is the upcoming CO2 caps and we hear comments like we've heard in this thread about Republicans forcefully arguing against it yet we didn't hear them whining back in 2010 when 'ole Nancy was asked about it...
I don't think that is a Democrat/Republican struggle as it is a Executive(administrative power)/Congressional struggle.
With that said the Cap and trade bill was the biggest scam I have ever heard of. I am surprised so many environmentalists fell for it since it is basically only a way for Wall street to siphon money off the energy industry that they have no business taking.
Basically it is using environmentalism as an excuse to give the financial sector an even bigger stake in the economy which they do not need, and which would harm America.
Though for the historical estimates it is pretty clear that the steel mills in Pittsburgh prior to rules about smokestacks were concentrating soot pollution and killing people by the thousands.
I certainly wouldn't want to see a return to the seventies but that isn't what is being argued about. For example the new mercury regulations will reduce depostion rates here in the US 1% to 10% resulting in the average IQ increasing 2/1000 of one point. The first figures are from a pro environmental organization based on EPA studies and the IQ estimate comes from the EPA itself.
I certainly wouldn't want to see a return to the seventies but that isn't what is being argued about. For example the new mercury regulations will reduce depostion rates here in the US 1% to 10% resulting in the average IQ increasing 2/1000 of one point. The first figures are from a pro environmental organization based on EPA studies and the IQ estimate comes from the EPA itself.
I think for a lot of people returning to the 1970s is what it is about.
With that said mercury is a global problem which needs to be solved by treaty the US acting alone cannot do much on that front.
She'll be a policy consultant earning millions in a few years. The carbon footprint of her future mansion and lifestyle will dwarf the average family by a factor of 100. She will fly in private jets and drive a gas guzzler. Her electric bill will exceed the per capita income of 3 billion humans.
She will justify her excess by chanting the liberal bedtime prayer: "It's for the children. It's for the children. It's for the children...."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
