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.
Disgusting that you'd defend such tyrannical attitude within the ranks of this government.
Do you ever question anything that comes from this Administration? Anything at all? Unbelievable. Hopefully one day you look back at yourself and ask "What the hell was I thinking???"
Kind of validates the "noble" argument of old doesn't it? That some people are meant to be ruled, can not be trusted with freedom of thought or action and are only capable of being servants to those who are superior to them.
Not saying I agree with that belief, but so many people in their blind acceptance and submission to the declaration of others make it difficult to counter.
Nomander, you are correct in your statement. I always question as to why they do what they do because personally I dont feel as though it is enough. I dont neccessarilly look at it as playing puppet I look at it as at least something, as minimal as it may be, is going to happen. Anything is better than nothing. I personally feel that we focus and waste more money for nonsense in this country and others when we should be focusing on issues such as these. WIthout an environment to live in there wont be any problems to solve. Lets fix the major problems first and then deal with the rest. I would not mind having a national debt if that debt was incurred trying to do things to better the earth, etc...instead...well, I wont get into that.
I disagree with "anything is better than nothing" as often acting with ignorance can worsen things and that is exactly the problem with agencies like the EPA and many of their regulations.
For instance, take their new proposed standard for ethanol fuels. The claim is it is cleaner and so, as you mention "anything is better than nothing", but that lack of detailed evaluation into the issue creates problems.
For one, ethanol causes grain prices to increase (during the 10% blend regulations, the price of grain went from around a $1.60 to about 7.00 per bushel) This in return caused food prices to rise creating economic hardship for many (specifically poorer countries who heavily rely on the grain). It is all connected, so there are consequences to such. Add in the fact that more of this grain is required in order to serve this source and you end up using more land for a crop that has a tendency to be extremely hard on the soil as farmers opt for the money making product.
Also, ethanol is terrible on engines as it attracts water creating a much faster erosion of components in vehicles (plastic and metals). Not only that, but it burns hotter than gasoline which increases stress and wear on the engines greatly lowering their lifetime (their is a reason we didn't use it heavily in the infrastructure). Add on top to the fact that it is less efficient than that of what it replaces and you get less miles to the gallon using it (you end up using more fuel than gasoline alone).
All of this lessens the lifetime of the engines it powers, increases the use of it due to its inefficiency and creates economic hardships with food costs and land use.
Now contrast that with the goal of using it. How much does this reduce? How much does this achieve? Is the result of its use cleaner when you account for bigger picture (the replacement of parts and engines which pollute to make them, the increased use of fuel)? Were these issues accounted for in their evaluation? When you evaluate the EPA's claims, you find they do not properly account for these things and their actions are simply justified by their "intent" of doing good.
That is the problem and why the "anything is better than nothing" is a bad approach because in the example, their solution is worse than doing nothing at all. That is not to say that we should advocate doing nothing at all, but if we are to be proper about this, we need to evaluate things in their entirety and accurately, for if we do not, we do more harm than we do good.
Note the EPA has a long history of actions which have caused major hardships in society in both endangering it (read about DDT) and that of actually harming the environment more with their "good intentions" and that of a view of "anything is better than nothing".
if you want my vote you will need to do one thing. YOU need to promise to demand the resignation of every single EPA employee. Then require them all to include a resume for your team to review.
That resume should include a paper on why they think CO2 is NOT a polutant, and why they believe crucifying oil and gas companies is bad policy. ONLY if the paper is satisfactory on these (and a few other) points should the EPA employee's resignation be rejected.
Good example Nomander. I see your point because I have the ability to put flex fuel in my car but the amount of gas stations that carry it I would have to drive out of my way to fill up with it. Plus, the higher the ethanol rate the worse gas mileage you get. You may be saving more at the pump because its cheaper, yet you have to fill up more often so it really makes no sense to fill up with it.
Im following you now. I just like to see some motivation to help the environment and thats the point I was trying to make. Unfortuanatly, the major things that couldbe done as well as having a positive impact on the environment probably never will.
I'll bet you that the coal and oil industry will do just fine. They appreciate your concern, I'm sure.
I would have to think that you failed to hear Obama talk about destroying the coal industry through regulations which would drive electricity rates through the roof. Did you miss that one? It appears that you certainly did miss out on Obama talking about coal and oil. Surely you failed to hear him talk about the price of electricity necessarily skyrocketing with his plan for Cap and Trade. Oh yeah, he couldn't even get Cap and Trade when his Congress was controlled by his party. I guess some of those people must have heard him.
I'm just curious as to how the EPA is going to destroy America. Of course, you wouldn't put an emotional, over-sensationalizing title! Conservatives are logical people.
Get out and talk to today's farmers about EPA regulations and other regulations coming from this administration and maybe you can see the end coming. I would have to think that you didn't know that Ms. Jackson and her bunch were thinking about "breaking" cattle raising when they decided that cow farts were so dangerous. I bet you didn't know that horses and other hay eating animals would soon have followed. Many people who feed cattle were thinking about selling off their herds because of that bit of foolish EPA talk.
No disrespect to anyones point of view but honestly if protecting or saving the environment caused electricity rates to go through the roof and gas $10 a gallon, well thats the price we have to pay. Thats the consequence for not caring sooner. So in my eyes we should have to deal with it. People will still buy cigarettes if they were $20 a pack, and people will still buy gas and electricity if it sky rocketed. I agree with Nomander that we need to look at exactly what is being done and the use on ethanol was a good point to be made. As far as the grain prices increasing and such, again, I feel this would be the consequence for not caring sooner. However, he is correct in saying that the use of ethanol does not substantiate the replacement of gasoline with it. What is being done and the impact in which it will make on the environment from cradle to grave is what should matter. Not doing one thing that is going to have a minimal impact and then in the end not really make a difference. A bunch of wasted time, research, a money that could have been left alone or put into a research project that could actually have a positive impact on the environment.
Good example Nomander. I see your point because I have the ability to put flex fuel in my car but the amount of gas stations that carry it I would have to drive out of my way to fill up with it. Plus, the higher the ethanol rate the worse gas mileage you get. You may be saving more at the pump because its cheaper, yet you have to fill up more often so it really makes no sense to fill up with it.
Im following you now. I just like to see some motivation to help the environment and thats the point I was trying to make. Unfortuanatly, the major things that couldbe done as well as having a positive impact on the environment probably never will.
You would be surprised at how many people are portrayed as "evil polluters and earth haters" who actually do far more for the benefit of the environment than those that libel and slander them. Politics heavily infest the issue, as well as ulterior motives that have no concern for the banner to which they wave.
As I said, these agencies serve themselves, not the environment and the only way we can help to insure that they do serve the environment is by requiring them to validate each and every move they make.
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.
