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 work for a company that is developing technology to burn clean energy at a low cost. You know, energy that powers the computer you're working on? We are a company owned by a deeply religious man who wants to provide affordable energy to the poor, in this country and others, as well as make a profit for his investors.
At every turn, we are stymied by the EPA. The costs are enormous, the testing is outrageous, and in many cases both are completely irrelevant to the technology. But the bureaucrats have the power to line their pockets, and will do so.
The result is that the energy is NOT coming to the public any time soon. A technology that would cut cost and emissions drastically. You can thank the lefty tree-huggers for that fact.
How do you keep the part of the EPA that helps fight pollution while also encouraging new environmentally green technology ?
Nothing is 100% safe however if you want modern conveniences and what modern society provides you need energy. What I can tell you is this. If you got rid of every environmental regulation that exists protecting the groundwater in these wells would be a priority. The reason for that is pretty simple, it's within their best economic interests.
I do remember watching a video on fracking a few years ago . I do understand we need energy but Americans consume too much . I would gladly lower my consumption of energy if it meant helping fight pollution of our land, air, and water.
You realize that the amount of forested area in the US has remain unchanged for the last century and has actually increased slightly? I realize that is not the world wide trend but I'm not sure how you are supposed to control what happens in other third world countries especially when they are using that land for growing food.
As far as pollutants go the six most common air pollutants as an aggregate have been reduced by something like 65% since the 80's. You can only do so much that is practical. The analogy I like to use here is we can build cars that 100% survivable in a crash but that doesn't make much sense if no one can afford to buy the car. It's the same thing with environmental policy, it needs to be practical.
It is good to know things are on the right course. I just want to make sure they stay that way.
From what i've read Republicans in general think the whole global warming issue is all a hoax perpetrated by lying scientists who just want to keep their jobs and a government that just wants an excuse to levy more taxes.
Environmentalists are also viewed with disdain and called various derogatory names, a government in total republican control will put environmental concerns at the bottom of a very long list.
How many people have died from fracking vs. those that have died from fighting to use Arabian oil? The sooner the US can become completely energy independent the safer this country will become.
But wouldn't it be even better to begin using alternative forms of energy that do not pollute the environment and get us off of Arabian oil as well?
You just made the point to get rid of the EPA perfectly. Thank you.
The EPA regulates interstate pollution controls, so that pollution created in one state doesn't affect another state, and so that products created in one place (either in one state or out of our country) don't pollute in another state or in our country. It's the reason cars are cleaner now than they ever were, and why most cities no longer have bad smog days from automotive pollution. EPA requirements for power plant pollution affect neighboring states in a positive fashion and are why modern power plants are cleaner than they ever were. Dismantling the EPA will get rid of those types of regulations and possibly cause a return to days like this:
is that what you want? Because it sure sounds like it.
I really just hope that they do not relax too many rules and create more pollution .
There is a practical limit to what can be done and the law of diminishing returns rears it's ugly head. The benefits need to outweigh the consequences of regulations.
The mercury rules implemented a few years back that closed many aging coal plants will reduce mercury deposition rates in the US 1 to 10 percent resulting in the average IQ increasing an estimated 2/1000 of one point.
Mercury emissions are a global issue, EPA studies suggest that most of the mercury emissions from US coal fired plants are not deposited inside the US. Their emissions are already low prior to this rule and account for less than 1% of the global pool. The affects of these rules are negligible both inside and outside the US.
The primary sources of mercury emissions are from Asia in particular China and third world gold mining operations. The extent of emissions from gold mining is hard to pin down but some estimates suggest they easily exceed global emissions from coal. If you really wanted to do something about mercury you start by banning ornamental gold jewelry that serves no purpose other than looking good.
One last thing to note here, if these rules have increased the cost of electricity driving more manufacturing overseas you could in fact increase deposition rates in the US.
From what i've read Republicans in general think the whole global warming issue is all a hoax perpetrated by lying scientists who just want to keep their jobs and a government that just wants an excuse to levy more taxes.
Environmentalists are also viewed with disdain and called various derogatory names, a government in total republican control will put environmental concerns at the bottom of a very long list.
Can you tell me what the exact proper temperature of the earth should be? Thank you in advance.
The EPA regulates interstate pollution controls, so that pollution created in one state doesn't affect another state, and so that products created in one place (either in one state or out of our country) don't pollute in another state or in our country. It's the reason cars are cleaner now than they ever were, and why most cities no longer have bad smog days from automotive pollution. EPA requirements for power plant pollution affect neighboring states in a positive fashion and are why modern power plants are cleaner than they ever were. Dismantling the EPA will get rid of those types of regulations and possibly cause a return to days like this:
I have the perfect solution for this. States like PA that export power to states like Maryland can simply pull the plug. Four fifths of the power your state is consuming is from out of state and is mostly generated by coal and natural gas, these are sources of pollution you are complaining about. This will reduce both the pollution in Pennsylvania and Maryland, sounds like a win to me for both states.
In addition to pulling the plug since Maryland will now be left on their own to generate their power we could implement an environmental impact fee on any natural gas or coal being exported to Maryland. Clearly the residents of Pennsylvania should be compensated for environmental damage being caused by Maryland's consumption.
That's what happens when everything you read is from far-left Democrats who's closest contact with Republicans is what someone even further on the left wrote about them.
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.
