Bush administration loses global warming case

HATEFACE · Post by **HATEFACE** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:20 pm

Gee y'all, I heard on teh tee vee box that this "oil" was a "finite resource." what do y'all make o that?

Zakharra · Post by **Zakharra** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:51 pm

Because they always had not only the right but the requirement to do so. CAA wasn't meant to apply just to compounds that made you green within a minute of breathing them, but to those which had a notable environmental impact. *snip*
To clarify, the net consequence of it may be more EPA regulation - but they always had this authority in the first place. The actual legal content was limiting the EPA's discretionary authority.

Which can mean heating fuels and wood heat. Who is to say that in a decade, that anything that puts out CO2 emissions has to be regulated by the EPA. It's a governmental agency, do you expect it's reach to not expand?

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:05 am

You're not concerned about 'black' prisons, Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, the Patriot Act, wiretapping, and so on...

but you are concerned about the EPA?

Zakharra · Post by **Zakharra** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:19 am

Most of those things you mentioned have little to no effect on my life. The EPA thing will have more effect since I have to drive for a living, and my home is heated by burning wood.

AlmightyTDawg · Post by **AlmightyTDawg** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:25 am

Unfortunately, you're treading out of turf I know on the CAA - you'd have to go talk to an environmental engineer or lawyer on the other implications of policy. The beauty of this kind of work is I only learn what I need to so that I can answer the questions posed to me.

I suspect from related reading that the way the regulations work is on the same basis. A finding that CO2 needs to be regulated does not necessarily shut down all sources of CO2. The determination of what the danger is corresponds with projections about how to mitigate or reverse the danger.

So I guess if the scientific evidence confirms that all CO2 emissions short of breathing will kill the environment, I guess that would mean all forms should be shut down. But in that extreme, it only makes sense. I think more appropriate would be "we need to reduce by X percent by Y date." Typically, regulations and implementations tend to be structured with phase-in times (some realistic, others not).

But the fundamental question of the endangerment finding is "will it hurt us?" If the scientific evidence points to "yes" then we should act. The extent to which we act should basically be guided by "how much will it hurt us," so I don't really see anything wrong with it. At least I don't want the basic question of "will it hurt us" short-circuited because of uninformed policy decisions.

kmj2587 · Post by **kmj2587** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:41 am

Zakharra wrote:Most of those things you mentioned have little to no effect on my life. The EPA thing will have more effect since I have to drive for a living, and my home is heated by burning wood.

Heated by burning wood? You may need the EPA most of all!

"Besides producing smoke, wood...fires give off nitrogen oxides, SO2, carbon monoxide, and carcinogens. This can lead to acute respiratory infection and chronic bronchitis" - Caring for the Future: Making Sure the Next Decades Provide a Life Worth Living: Report of the Independant Commision on Population and the Quality of Life. New York: Oxford University Press. 1996.
The carcinogens in question would be benzene and benzo-b-pyrene.

Seems a little more worrying than the EPA just trying to do their job, doesn't it?

Zakharra · Post by **Zakharra** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:05 am

kmj2587 wrote:
Zakharra wrote:Most of those things you mentioned have little to no effect on my life. The EPA thing will have more effect since I have to drive for a living, and my home is heated by burning wood.
Heated by burning wood? You may need the EPA most of all!

"Besides producing smoke, wood...fires give off nitrogen oxides, SO2, carbon monoxide, and carcinogens. This can lead to acute respiratory infection and chronic bronchitis" - Caring for the Future: Making Sure the Next Decades Provide a Life Worth Living: Report of the Independant Commision on Population and the Quality of Life. New York: Oxford University Press. 1996.
The carcinogens in question would be benzene and benzo-b-pyrene.

Seems a little more worrying than the EPA just trying to do their job, doesn't it?

Uh-huh... It's the only way to heat the house and is a hell of alot cheaper than propane or electricity. The benefits outweight any cost at this time.

White Warlock · Post by **White Warlock** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:14 am

You could always just freeze to death. At least you'll save a lot on gas and won't have to get to work on time anymore, right?

NickD · Post by **NickD** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:57 am

Zakharra wrote: Uh-huh... It's the only way to heat the house and is a hell of alot cheaper than propane or electricity. The benefits outweight any cost at this time.

You could try a wood pellet fire. Wood pellets are made from wood by-product waste, give off as much heat by using less and costs about the same as wood...

Zakharra · Post by **Zakharra** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:27 pm

You'd have to talk to Arri about that. A pellet stove isn't cheap and other than the time to get it, fuel costs for the chainsaw and tractor, wood is cheap.

sgould72 · Post by **sgould72** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:31 pm

Most of those things you mentioned have little to no effect on my life.

For someone so concerned that the government will constantly extend its reach, you ought to be extremely concerned about "those things". The moral arguments against torture and secret prisons are only part of the story. The other, more selfish issues include the simple concern that "if the government can do that to them, what is to stop it from someday doing that to me." It is very easy to sit back and say "the terrorists deserve it". But that leaves out a pretty significant step that, in our system of law, is supposed to take place. Proof of guilt through due process. If you are so goddamn sure some one is guilty of something, then haul your happy a$$ to court and prove it. If you make your case, then fine, throw them in the hole. But for the government to gain the ability to detain whoever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want, with no oversight, no accountability, and NO PROCESS opens up the potential for all kinds of abuse that large parts of our constitution were specifically written to prevent. Of course, GW and his apologists would rather wipe their butts with the constitution than expend the effort to understand not only what it says, but why.

Stormseeker · Post by **Stormseeker** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:09 pm

If i was still able to cut my own wood and split it that is what i would be using.

Here is the cost break down during the 3 coldest months.
Wood(doing it myself) $25-35
Propane $190-240
Electric $300-450
The propane price is for ventless heaters that mount on the wall. For the cost of propane furnace it cost about the same as electric.

Post by **ayergo** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:57 pm

Stormseeker wrote: Wood(doing it myself) $25-35
Propane $190-240
Electric $300-450

Burning hippies? Priceless.

Stormseeker · Post by **Stormseeker** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:09 pm

lol dont forget that with wood you get a good exercise out of the deal too.

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:35 pm

Pfft. Real Men(TM) are so buff that chopping would actually weakens them.