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.
Clean air requirements are only an attack on dirty energy sources. Like any that are burning coal or heavy oil anywhere on the planet. Because the energy produced does not include the externalized cost of degraded air it is cheaper than a non polluting alternative.
If we took a portion of our wasteful military spending and changed our electric supply to clean nuclear fission with full fuel breeding and recycle we would soon have a productive advantage over the competition strapped with sick workers and high priced coal. I suggest we look to the future because we have already messed up the past.
*chuckle* the problem is you don't read or understand half of the evidence you post. No one is evading anything, sometimes we just have to wait for you to catch up. The problem with your Watts link is that they don't differentiate between the different forms of mercury, which if you read through the comments section the author acknowledgdes. You really need to read the comments and not just glance at articles and post them. But no big deal since you are overall correct in your argument of this new law being stupid. As to the whole mercury and EPA debate: the current law is sufficient enough to safeguard against mercury's toxicity.
I am aware of that issue of the article, I noted such and said it does not change the point I made. If you look at the charts, natural mercury is only a portion of it. Take them away and you still end up with a support for my point. That is, we produce very little compared to the rest of the world. Now when you are considering the EPA's goals, the regulations they are imposing will do very little to meet their goals. All the claims they make that such regulations will achieve are unfounded and extremely weak.
I answered to the poster to each of his points, he continued to evade by trying to focus on that one specific error on my part. That is evasive and devious discussion. My point stands.
The reason the decrease is so minuscule is because there is so many sources outside the US, primarily China. You could remove all mercury emissions in the US and as a practical matter you'll have accomplished nothing. Matter of fact you could increase emissions as more manufacturing jobs move overseas as the cost for power here increases.
The question also comes up concerning the standards we already have concerning emissions. I would assume that other countries do not have the same level as we do? If they do not, then would not the EPA's focus actually increase pollution through the increased production in other countries?
I can only conclude we need One World Government so all countries will have the same emissions standards and associated costs before the greedsters damage the atmosphere beyond recovery. Profit is a good thing but not when it is obtained by passing on some of the cost, pollution control, to people that do not benefit. Emitters make the profit but anyone breathing the dirty air pays the cost. Lots of owners of heavy emitters like this system. The rest of us do not.
I can only conclude we need One World Government so all countries will have the same emissions standards and associated costs before the greedsters damage the atmosphere beyond recovery. Profit is a good thing but not when it is obtained by passing on some of the cost, pollution control, to people that do not benefit. Emitters make the profit but anyone breathing the dirty air pays the cost. Lots of owners of heavy emitters like this system. The rest of us do not.
*****************************
Yeah, let's not worry about this kind of stuff. What could possibly go wrong? It's not like the world is runnng out of people to kill with toxins. The World's 10 Worst Cities | Popular Science
I used to live in beautiful Atlanta, Georgia. (See pic below.) There were actually days there where they said on the news, "It would be better if you didn't go outside today."
Pffftt. Who believes that enviromental blah blah blah crap anyways. I'm going for a run. PEACE, Y'all!
So it is extremes for you? Either we handicap our economy or we disregard everything entirely?
No, it is not extremes for me, but that is all you can see and comprehend. In my world, you don't handicap the economy by implementing common sense laws, to protect the resources WE ALL need. That is missing in China, isn't it?
Quote:
You don't see the problem with EPA's target of coal production considering the insignificant level of contribution the US makes and the fact that there is no valid evidence of the severity of the claims they make concerning people and the environments health concerning it?
There may be laws that are unnecessary but stop playing stupid games against EPA. We don't have to follow China's footsteps.
Quote:
Oh, I am sorry... I am discussing this rationally, you were looking to pigeon hole the discussion into your neat little world view. Carry on.
As best as you're capable of. I will give you that.
coal and gas for now.
going green will not
happen overnight.
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.
