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.
Kiss the EPA goodbye. Republicans are anti science. They don't believe in climate change. The green light to large polluters now. They are free to pollute our air and water without consequences. Everybody knows Republicans are shills to big business.
I'd love you to cite some facts to back that up! Republicans are NOT anti science, and also what Republican said they don't believe in climate change? That's never been the debate, the debate is whether WE are the ones doing it or whether it's just the planets cycle. As a nation we aren't even REMOTELY emitting the emissions we did even 20 years ago. Having used coal and gasoline as long as we have is WHY we've gotten so good at the efficient and emissions aspect of it, nothing is going to stop the movement to shake our dependence on it because that means $$$ for the consumers, but we can't kill jobs, rely heavily on the middle east for marked up fuel when we could have jobs and development here. In all the years this debate has been going neither side has PROVEN their right. Evidence on both sides, but that's it.
In all the years this debate has been going neither side has PROVEN their right. Evidence on both sides, but that's it.
To the extent that science ever "proves" anything, I believe the science community has made a decision that humans are the main cause of the almost 1 degree rise in global temperatures over the last century. It is simply that many people, who are not scientists, don't want to believe it because of the implications and they find some naysayers. But there are always doubters in any discussion so just because there is a few naysayers does not mean much. The key here is the consensus among reputable science bodies is that AGW is real.
Pretty much the way it is in the SF Bay Area... there is a bounty paid for each brick chimney removed...
They had floated a plan to require demo at time of sale but it didn't get very far...
Each stove claimed to be sole source of heat must now be registered with the air district.
I'm still confused here, does this just pertain to fireplace chimneys or any chimney?
For example suppose I have a natural gas boiler/furnace and I naturally vent the flue gases above the house through my structurally sound chimney. Can I get a government grant to tear down the chimney requiring me to install a motorized power vent to vent the gases at ground level?
Just so I understand correctly they have banned naturally aspirated chimney's in favor of power venting the flue gases which requires additional power consumption and/or ventless that vents the gases into the home?
If that is what is occurring in your community in the name of being green to put it bluntly that is just stupidity at it's finest.
The efficiency of a fuel source is typically based on the BTU input and BTU output avaiable in the fuel. For example standard electric is 100% because 100% of the potential BTU's is turned into heat. Ventless gas is also 100% efficient. Anything that vents gases to the outside loses some heat to those flue gases. They might be 85% efficient or whatever.
I wish I had the lexicon to talk with you more about it, but they're basically boxes with fake logs and a pilot light underneath (like an oven) and an electrical switch to ignite the pilot. Outside the home I think there is a vent.. definitely something metal with "hot" written on it.
I'm still confused here, does this just pertain to fireplace chimneys or any chimney?
For example suppose I have a natural gas boiler/furnace and I naturally vent the flue gases above the house through my structurally sound chimney. Can I get a government grant to tear down the chimney requiring me to install a motorized power vent to vent the gases at ground level?
Ahh, that's too bad, I would hate to live in a place where you couldn't burn wood for heat. We live in the woods, we always have plenty of wood to burn.
How do you keep the part of the EPA that helps fight pollution while also encouraging new environmentally green technology ?
Part of the issue, it seems to me, is the snail's pace of movement inside the federal government.
Take the Keystone Pipeline application.
It turns out the Federal Government spent more time studying the Keystone Pipeline proposal than it took to actually build the Transcontinental Railroad back in the 1860s.
The point isn't about whether the Keystone Pipeline was good or bad - but rather how long it takes to study the issue.
If the answer is "no", the government should just say "no" quickly and be done with it. There was no reason to drag it out so long.
Location: In a rural place where people can't bother me ;)
516 posts, read 430,306 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle
How do we protect the environment with a Republican Clean Sweep ?
Continue to make excellent choices in your day to day life regarding protecting the environment around you. You cannot police the world, but make good choices in your day to day personal life.
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.
