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.
I'm not sure what you mean there Einstein, I think we need practical and reasonable regulation of these industries.
So, what you're really suggesting is that EPA should revisit its processes and improve them, rather than presenting an idea that EPA is unnecessary. Right?
Practical and reasonable. Mercury standards that will reduce depostion rates in the US 1 to 10% are not practical and reasonable. CO2 emission standards that effectively prevent a new coal plant from being built are not practical and reasonable. Mandating a refinery reduce emissions and then not letting them do it in the most cost effective way is not practical and reasonable. Mandating expensive ethanol be used in fuel that is slowly destroying my car and every small engine I have is not practical and reasonable.
Practical and reasonable. Mercury standards that will reduce depostion rates in the US 1 to 10% are not practical and reasonable. CO2 emission standards that effectively prevent a new coal plant from being built are not practical and reasonable. Mandating a refinery reduce emissions and then not letting them do it in the most cost effective way is not practical reasonable. Mandating expensive ethanol be used in fuel that is slowly destroying my car and every small engine I have is not practical and reasonable.
So my assumption is that you're not against EPA itself, just the regulations themselves that they could be defined more practically.
Now, who and how do we define what is practical versus not? New coal plants aren't being built for a variety of reasons. Industrialists don't value the environment (unless it is their backyard). Natural gas plants replacing coal plants isn't because of them being cleaner either.
Do you think the process is an issue, or the need to regulate?
Without really understanding the process, I can't call it. Even though he Attempted to explain it in laymen's terms.
However, I continue to get the sense that they don't want ANY regulations whatsoever. I don't see how anyone doesn't find that viewpoint objectionable.
Without really understanding the process, I can't call it. Even though he Attempted to explain it in laymen's terms.
However, I continue to get the sense that they don't want ANY regulations whatsoever. I don't see how anyone can find that viewpoint objectionable.
Ultimately, that is exactly what they want, but can't be open about it because they get caught in their own mess. So, they seek refuge within vague claims.
Einstein I'm all for natural gas if it can compete but the cheap price now is because of the supply driven by the new resources and compounded by relatively warm winter lasr year. It was last year in the Fall it became competitive with coal:
NG is certainly going to remain relatively cheap as long as the supply keeps pace with demand but don't expect it to stay as cheap as it is now especially when the environmentalists start to get their hooks into it.
What about recent studies that suggest that the extraction and burning of natural gas has a bigger impact on climate change than coal does?
They're alarming. Studies in places like the Marcellus Shale and Colorado have shown that the greenhouse emissions from natural gas are much, much worse than originally thought. Unfortunately, there isn't yet a comprehensive empirical analysis of the full carbon footprint of gas. So the Sierra Club—along with almost every other environmental group—is calling for a full study that documents those emissions and the extent to which they can be controlled or avoided altogether.
Einstein I'm all for natural gas if it can compete but the cheap price now is because of the supply driven by the new resources and compounded by relatively warm winter lasr year. It was last year in the Fall it became competitive with coal:
NG is certainly going to remain relatively cheap as long as the supply keeps pace with demand but don't expect it to stay as cheap as it is now especially when the environmentalists start to get their hooks into it.
Regardless of what will be, or should be, the choices businesses make are based entirely on profits, and appeasing shareholders. If there are two power plants running at 40% capacity each, it makes sense to shut down one. And if there is a need to replace, you look for the cheapest possible way to do it. This is fundamental to their basic, and only premise: Profit.
If you referring to me I'll be happy to provide references for anything you feel is vague claim. I don't make **** up especially when I'm stating facts and you should know that by now.
why do you think there would be no regulation without an EPA?
State and local guv can police their own environments much better than a central bureaucracy in far a way Washington.
One issue with that is if a state's negligence effects a nearby state. I believe this has happened many times in the past.
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.
