lawrocket 3 #1 February 11, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080208/ap_on_go_ot/epa_mercury_pollution;_ylt=AoB28rQU3dGXAkF6NZ44kQSs0NUE From the story... QuoteA federal appeals court said Friday the Bush administration ignored the law when it imposed less stringent requirements on power plants to reduce mercury pollution, which scientists fear could cause neurological problems in 60,000 newborns a year. A three-judge panel unanimously struck down a mercury-control plan imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency three years ago. It established an emissions trading process in which some plants could avoid installing the best mercury control technology available by buying pollution credits. Environmentalist and health experts argued that such a cap-and-trading mechanism would create "hot spots" of mercury contamination near some power plants. Seventeen states as well as environmental and health groups joined in a suit to block the regulation, saying it did not adequately protect public health. Hmmm. So offsetting means nothing more than polluting, but paying others not to. But in the case of mercury it doesn't work well because the pollution is concentrated in a certain area, as opposed to polluting the whole world, like with CO2. Plenty of people - left and right - argue in favor of offsets. Some of the logic good. But let us use this example to see how offsetting doesn't make what you do any less than what it is. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #2 February 13, 2008 Quote Hmmm. So offsetting means nothing more than polluting, but paying others not to. But in the case of mercury it doesn't work well because the pollution is concentrated in a certain area, as opposed to polluting the whole world, like with CO2. I once compared offseting with me eating junk food but paying someone else to go to gym instead of me - so our total weight would stay in "reasonable" range.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #3 February 13, 2008 >I once compared offseting with me eating junk food but paying >someone else to go to gym instead of me - so our total weight would stay >in "reasonable" range. If the objective were to keep you healthy, that would be a terrible plan. If the objective were to keep your combined weights below a certain number, it might still be a dumb strategy from a health perspective - but could well work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 February 13, 2008 QuoteQuote Hmmm. So offsetting means nothing more than polluting, but paying others not to. But in the case of mercury it doesn't work well because the pollution is concentrated in a certain area, as opposed to polluting the whole world, like with CO2. I once compared offseting with me eating junk food but paying someone else to go to gym instead of me - so our total weight would stay in "reasonable" range. Or, just pointing to North Korea and saying, "They are all thin, so it's okay for me to be fat. It balances out." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #5 February 13, 2008 Quote If the objective were to keep you healthy, that would be a terrible plan. If the objective were to keep your combined weights below a certain number, it might still be a dumb strategy from a health perspective - but could well work. The point is that the strategy is dumb :)* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
