Bush administration loses global warming case
- HATEFACE
- Dr. Horrible
- Posts: 1068
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 3:17 am
- Location: A seething caldron of passive aggressive rage.
Gee y'all, I heard on teh tee vee box that this "oil" was a "finite resource." what do y'all make o that?
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” - Open Message to the Executive Branch.
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?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.
NWN1 PC: Yathtallar Faerylene
Aluve Inthara Despana, Beloved of Sheyreiza Tlabbar
NWN2 PC: Audra from Luskan.
Aluve Inthara Despana, Beloved of Sheyreiza Tlabbar
NWN2 PC: Audra from Luskan.
- AlmightyTDawg
- Githyanki
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 12:56 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.
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.
Turquoise bicycle shoe fins actualize radishes greenly!
Save the Charisma - Alter your reactions, even just a little, to at least one CHA-based check a day!
Quasi-retired due to law school
Past PC: Myrilis Te'fer
Save the Charisma - Alter your reactions, even just a little, to at least one CHA-based check a day!
Quasi-retired due to law school
Past PC: Myrilis Te'fer
Heated by burning wood? You may need the EPA most of all!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.
"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?
< Burt> kmj's a jerk, that's what the j stands for. Kyle's a Massive Jerk.
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.kmj2587 wrote:Heated by burning wood? You may need the EPA most of all!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.
"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?
NWN1 PC: Yathtallar Faerylene
Aluve Inthara Despana, Beloved of Sheyreiza Tlabbar
NWN2 PC: Audra from Luskan.
Aluve Inthara Despana, Beloved of Sheyreiza Tlabbar
NWN2 PC: Audra from Luskan.
- White Warlock
- Otyugh
- Posts: 920
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:44 am
- Location: Knu-Mythia
- Contact:
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 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.
Current PCs:
NWN1: Soppi Widenbottle, High Priestess of Yondalla.
NWN2: Gruuhilda, Tree Hugging Half-Orc
NWN1: Soppi Widenbottle, High Priestess of Yondalla.
NWN2: Gruuhilda, Tree Hugging Half-Orc
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.Most of those things you mentioned have little to no effect on my life.
Current PC - Glarin Goldseeker
-
- Orc Champion
- Posts: 460
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 8:53 pm
- Location: horseshoe bend, arkansas-usa
- Contact:
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.
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.
- ayergo
- Penguin AKA Vile Sea Tiger
- Posts: 3520
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 8:50 pm
- Location: Germany (But frequent world travels)
Burning hippies? Priceless.Stormseeker wrote: Wood(doing it myself) $25-35
Propane $190-240
Electric $300-450

There's a place I like to hide
A doorway that I run through in the night
Relax child, you were there
But only didn't realize and you were scared
It's a place where you will learn
To face your fears, retrace the years
And ride the whims of your mind
A doorway that I run through in the night
Relax child, you were there
But only didn't realize and you were scared
It's a place where you will learn
To face your fears, retrace the years
And ride the whims of your mind
-
- Orc Champion
- Posts: 460
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 8:53 pm
- Location: horseshoe bend, arkansas-usa
- Contact: