rushmc 23 #26 January 4, 2012 Quote>You and Wendy insuate that I want dirty air and water No need to insinuate anything. You support a ruling that results in dirtier air. Mr Twister at is again But that is ok We are all very familiar with it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #27 January 4, 2012 QuoteQuote>You and Wendy insuate that I want dirty air and water No need to insinuate anything. You support a ruling that results in dirtier air. Mr Twister at is again But that is ok We are all very familiar with it No "twist" needed, your own words say all that's needed to be said. You're just trying to weasel your way out of them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #28 January 4, 2012 Quote should we wait until there is a serious problem to try to fix it, or should we take what we hope are the best preventive measures? And to answer your question about what is there to fix, well, if coal-fired utilities put out the percentages listed of the pollutants listed, it sounds like it might be a good idea to try to address those pollutants via the coal-fired utilities. Wendy raises a valid concern. Wendy is merely asking where rush would draw the line. This is a matter where there are no right or wrong answers, necessarily. But it is also yet another example of how “science” has become an adjunct for “policy.” Neither side is particularly honest or adept about using science to guide policy. Rather, both sides use policy to tailor the science. The EPA is in the business of regulating the environment. And they are serious about fear. Back when I was a younger guy, acid rain was a big problem. I recall growing up in the LA area and hearing Dr. George Fischbeck warning of a first stage smog alert or even a second stage smog alert. Those became increasingly rare as I aged, and I agree that it did some good things for the air. Most people in the US have seen the benefits, as Wendy herself mentioned. Other things happened, such as mileage standards that led to more aerodynamic vehicle designs and the introduction of fuel injection systems in vehicles. California moved to different fuel blends for different seasons. Add to that other factors such as the elimination of lead and banning of asbestos. The benefits do come with a cost. Sulfur emissions standards do share some of the blame for the decline of American steel and manufacturing (The Rust Belt). The asbestos remediation issue provides a massive increase in cost for a number of fairly simple home improvement matters, as does lead remediation. Bill pointed out scientific studies that show that coal plant emissions can be linked to deaths each year. That’s a fine thing and I see no reason to take issue with the science. On the other hand, we also know that coal fired power plants save lives each year (for example, the East Coast is in a cold spell and coal-fired power plants supply electricity for heat, along with other fossil fuels like fuel oil that operates boilers. They also supply power for cooling – heat waves can kill thousands even WITH power. How many more people would have died in Chicago in 1995 had there been less power? Power outages did occur in that heat wave). I’m sure that a study that simulated what would happen if coal-fired plants were taken off line in the US today there would be a pretty significant increase in mortality. I understand that the rule would target more than 30 power plants to be shut down. There is a cost to that, as well. And not just a cost in jobs but likely a cost in lives. This is where balance comes in. And where interests come in. I could easily argue that the advent of alternating current has increased human life expectancy. Yet even though tens of thousands of people have been killed and maimed by AC power electrocution since I was a kid, saving in excess of 1,000 lives per year by limiting the amperage of the electrical grid to survivable levels would likely cause far more troubles and deaths than it would save. The point is that there are two sides of the argument and reasonable minds can differ. I don’t view this as a matter of favoring the deaths of people in order to keep coal. Nor do I view it as killing coal means killing people. I view it as a matter of making choices and whomever is in charge gets to make them. I DO think that no matter what side a person is on, there can be science that supports that person’s position. It’s the same argument as “plastic bags are worse for the environment than paper bags.” Depending on the metric, yes. On other metrics, plastic bags are better for the environment than paper bags. If a person views clean waterways as important then paper bags are a better fit because paper bags decompose while plastic ones don’t. The trade off is that paper bags decompose, forming greenhouse gases and leachates that escape into the environment while plastic bags just stay stable. Against petroleum? Then you’d ban plastic bags because they are made of petroleum. On the other hand you may favor plastic bags because of the increased weight of paper bags requiring vastly more petroleum energy to transport. Or one may look at the amount of energy needed to produce paper bags instead of the minimal amount for plastic bags. Or the caustic agents needed to process wood pulp for plastic bags. Or the large amount of water needed for paper bags versus plastic. It’s all a mater of subjective choice that is based on a person’s person values and prejudices. There is valid science showing negative effects of plastic bags. There is valid science showing the negative effects of paper bags. No science will likely sway an opinion because opinions on “better” or “best” are not objective. We’ll put more weight on that with which we agree and less weight on that with which we disagree. It’s the way we are. Nothing wrong with it. It’s simply the general failure of the vast majority of people to recognize what it really is. Wendy asks whether we should wait until there is a “serious” problem. What is serious? I think that’s a valid point of discussion and reasonable minds can differ on what is a “serious” problem. “what we hope are the best preventive measures.” Again – “best preventative measures” is a matter of opinion. How do we look at “best?” Is it, “that which stops the most deaths?” Or, “that which provides the highest marginal decrease in death per dollar cost?” Or, “that which provides the least disruption to the economy?” What is the primary goal? We can all agree what is to be done if we wanted no more airborne mercury from coal-fired power plant stacks. Or if we want the most bang for the buck. It’s which of these options we individually find most important. Glad to see a post from you here, Wendy. I've missed you. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #29 January 4, 2012 Quote>You and Wendy insuate that I want dirty air and water No need to insinuate anything. You support a ruling that results in dirtier air. Nice specious logic, since the EPA rule hadn't gone into effect yet.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #30 January 4, 2012 You're just trying to weasel your way out of them. From the expert"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #31 January 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteHave I ever mentioned how much I love the negative correlation between an environmental science background and opposition to the EPA? It's so cute, I just wanna put it in my pocket. Blues, Dave Got something to contribute to the conversation, or was the slam on rush the only thing you had? It wasn't a slam on Rush so much as the entirely common practice by many Speaker's Corner contributors of using volume as a substitute for content. As for my thoughts, the correlation goes both ways, so my degree in environmental quality precludes substantive discussion on the matter here. Plus, the partisan nature of the denizens here would likely brand my thoughts as biased anyhow. Suffice it to say I'm in favor of increased controls on SO2/NOx emissions, especially from the energy sector, most notably coal-fired utitlites. Their arguments are almost always of the "but it's too hard" variety...an excuse I quit buying in junior high, and their recent "Clean Coal" ad campaign makes my skin itch, like it's been too long since my last shower. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #32 January 4, 2012 Quote>You and Wendy insuate that I want dirty air and water No need to insinuate anything. You support a ruling that results in dirtier air. Bill: We usually get better than that from you. We all know that it is not that simple. You are pro-broken femurs. You are simply anti-paralysis or death in certain circumstances. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #33 January 4, 2012 Quote Clean Coal I love my coal mining customers. I really do. But the whole Clean Coal thing is hilarious.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 January 4, 2012 QuoteQuote>You and Wendy insuate that I want dirty air and water No need to insinuate anything. You support a ruling that results in dirtier air. Nice specious logic, since the EPA rule hadn't gone into effect yet. a ruling that delays implementation of rules that reduces added pollution is by simple deduction a ruling that results in dirtier air. Now Rush's word was dirty, which again gets back to Wendy's (and my) question to him - at what level of pollution is the air dirty? Was it ok in the 80s? Or was that too dirty, and the current level is A-OK? Or did those rules overreach and we can afford to dirty it up a bit to hit a new equilibrium matching the 90s? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #35 January 4, 2012 Quotea ruling that delays implementation of rules that reduces added pollution is by simple deduction a ruling that results in dirtier air. Feel free to explain how keeping the status quo will 'result in dirtier air' than... the status quo.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #36 January 4, 2012 >Nice specious logic, since the EPA rule hadn't gone into effect yet. Correct. It WILL result in dirtier air once the rules fail to go into effect (compared to had the rules gone into effect.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #37 January 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote>You and Wendy insuate that I want dirty air and water No need to insinuate anything. You support a ruling that results in dirtier air. Nice specious logic, since the EPA rule hadn't gone into effect yet. a ruling that delays implementation of rules that reduces added pollution is by simple deduction a ruling that results in dirtier air. Now Rush's word was dirty, which again gets back to Wendy's (and my) question to him - at what level of pollution is the air dirty? Was it ok in the 80s? Or was that too dirty, and the current level is A-OK? Or did those rules overreach and we can afford to dirty it up a bit to hit a new equilibrium matching the 90s? Lawrockets post earlier was right on the money But I will turn your question back around When is the air clean enough? What cost to reach that goal is aceptable to you? The attitude that people who question this stuff just want more money at the cost of humanity is a tactic I no longer pay attention to It is a lame attempt to shut others up The air quailty today is much better thatn years ago Work was needed But where does it end? To what end? That is why I say that to many, this polution bs is just a tool to force an enviro wako agenda on the rest of us"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 January 4, 2012 Quote>Nice specious logic, since the EPA rule hadn't gone into effect yet. Correct. It WILL result in dirtier air once the rules fail to go into effect (compared to had the rules gone into effect.) So please explain how keeping the status quo will 'resulting in dirtier air' than...the status quo.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #39 January 4, 2012 Quote>Nice specious logic, since the EPA rule hadn't gone into effect yet. Correct. It WILL result in dirtier air once the rules fail to go into effect (compared to had the rules gone into effect.) So what we have today is not aceptable to you Why? The air is cleaner than is was 30 years ago How far is far enough IYO?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #40 January 4, 2012 QuoteQuote>Nice specious logic, since the EPA rule hadn't gone into effect yet. Correct. It WILL result in dirtier air once the rules fail to go into effect (compared to had the rules gone into effect.) So please explain how keeping the status quo will 'resulting in dirtier air' than...the status quo. It is the lefts polical correct why to try and make others STFU dont work on some of us and they cant stand it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #41 January 4, 2012 >The air quailty today is much better thatn years ago >Work was needed Agreed. And we had people like you fighting desperately to keep that work from happening. Car companies, power companies and mining companies all claimed that environmental laws would result in catastrophic collapse of the power grid, lost jobs, sub-Pinto sized cars for everyone etc etc. None of that happened. Instead we got cleaner air and _more_ jobs manufacturing catalytic converters, fuel injectors, scubbers and cleaner power plants. So when the same old tired claims of "but . .. but . . . it will RUIN AMERICA!" appear again, fewer and fewer people heed them. It's the boy who cried wolf writ large. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #42 January 4, 2012 >So please explain how keeping the status quo will 'resulting in dirtier air' than...the status quo. It won't, since that's not what happened. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #43 January 4, 2012 Quote>The air quailty today is much better thatn years ago >Work was needed Agreed. And we had people like you fighting desperately to keep that work from happening. Car companies, power companies and mining companies all claimed that environmental laws would result in catastrophic collapse of the power grid, lost jobs, sub-Pinto sized cars for everyone etc etc. None of that happened. Instead we got cleaner air and _more_ jobs manufacturing catalytic converters, fuel injectors, scubbers and cleaner power plants. So when the same old tired claims of "but . .. but . . . it will RUIN AMERICA!" appear again, fewer and fewer people heed them. It's the boy who cried wolf writ large. Nope, not people like me I support common sense efforts And as Lawrocket said, it could be argued that affordable electricity saved more lives than it ever claimed through polution (which is far less than the alarmists claims) But I will ask you again How far is far enough?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #44 January 4, 2012 >So what we have today is not aceptable to you >Why? Because 20,000 people a year are dying through no fault of their own. >The air is cleaner than is was 30 years ago Yep, and we preserved jobs, the power grid and SUV's. >How far is far enough IYO? 20,000 is too many. Zero is ideal. How close can we get without seriously damaging the economy? We can certainly implement these new regulations; companies have been preparing for them for years. (Of course, the courts just screwed them royally.) Is zero emissions possible? No. How about emissions that do not kill anyone? We have that now with nuclear, hydro and natural gas; the only people natural gas have killed have been due to explosions and other accidents, not due to breathing deadly substances. We can reach the same level with coal if we care to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #45 January 4, 2012 QuoteQuote>Nice specious logic, since the EPA rule hadn't gone into effect yet. Correct. It WILL result in dirtier air once the rules fail to go into effect (compared to had the rules gone into effect.) So please explain how keeping the status quo will 'resulting in dirtier air' than...the status quo. so that was a dizzying cycle of strawmanshipmansship a lost "opportunity" or lost "entitlement" (used as a term to describe a potential gain) is an oxymoron. But similar in philosophy to claiming that not getting a raise is a "pay cut". So one can see how the dizzying intellect of gov-speak makes the argument 'seem' usable even though it's a pile of dung. Counting our eggs is a silly game before they get gathered. It's such an entitlement (used as a term of when the gov' "owes" me something) mindset. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #46 January 4, 2012 Quote>The air quailty today is much better thatn years ago >Work was needed Agreed. And we had people like you fighting desperately to keep that work from happening. Car companies, power companies and mining companies all claimed that environmental laws would result in catastrophic collapse of the power grid, lost jobs, sub-Pinto sized cars for everyone etc etc. None of that happened. Instead we got cleaner air and _more_ jobs manufacturing catalytic converters, fuel injectors, scubbers and cleaner power plants. So when the same old tired claims of "but . .. but . . . it will RUIN AMERICA!" appear again, fewer and fewer people heed them. It's the boy who cried wolf writ large. So, the energy industry then is like warmists now?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #47 January 4, 2012 Quote>Zero is ideal. is there a natural level that would align with a pre-industrial society? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 January 4, 2012 Quote>So please explain how keeping the status quo will 'resulting in dirtier air' than...the status quo. It won't, since that's not what happened. Then you admit that the 'dirtier air' point was bogus? It's a start.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #49 January 4, 2012 Another out of thin air number Just cause you post we are supposed to beleive it huhhttp://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/epa_s-clean-air-act-final.pdf Start at page 8 regarding your death claims Now do you want to talk about zero skydiving deaths? How about auto deaths? Wrong prescribed drug deaths? Bad medicine deaths? All to zero is obtainable Is the cost worth it to you? "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #50 January 4, 2012 Quote>So what we have today is not aceptable to you >Why? Because 20,000 people a year are dying through no fault of their own. Got a cite for that? PROVEN to be from power plant emissions and not just suspected?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
