Obama Announces New Climate Plan

[Lapey]

You guys are dreamers. Certainly you cannot be talking about industries.
People may do things on their own but industires? I don’t think so.

I’m always nice…challenging maybe…frustrating maybe…stubburn and heels dug in maybe…
but always nice:angel1:

I disagree here, how is your statements above nice, or fair? Industry is run by people; like me. You do not know me, yet you dismiss my care for the environment like you know I am garbage. This is where the conversation breaks down. Its time for you to recognize your attitude towards business and industry may be your whole problem.

entergy.com/environment/carbon_footprint.aspx

Go to our web site to get a sense for who we are before you dismiss us as dreamers.

 

[qui_est_ce]

[snip]

The simple statement you made here shows your ignorance of industry and once again illustrates the agenda, to harm or end industry.

[snip}

What regulation forces ranchers to no-till legumes into the soil to enrich it? None. Yet ranchers do it.

Industries typically do what they do or don’t do based on economic concerns. But that’s not always their motivation, or sole motivation. I know plenty of industries that keep their process and yards meticulous because it presents a better appearance, when there’s no particular economic reason to do it. I do know an aluminum smelter who put sophisticated particulate catchers on his stacks just because it looked better, notwithstanding that no regulator required him to do it. Of course, it probably improved his community relations, but direct economic benefit would be hard to find in that. Well, I’ll admit, he can sell the aluminum oxide particulates to industries that produce abrasives and (guess what?) toothpaste.

One thing one notices about modern industries is how so many of them find ways of using every waste product instead of discarding it into the environment or disposing of it in some other way. State of the art food processing facilities and ethanol plants are like that.

That’s economically based, to be sure; profit motivated. Still, one does have to recognize that sometimes economic motivations prompt measures that are ahead of regulatory requirements. In some industries, I think regulators are followers, not leaders.

I could think of nothing to add.

I’d like to know exactly what is “industry” in Michael Mayo’s dictionary.
[/quote]

 

[lynnvinc]

There is a huge difference between turning off lights and installing a cap n trade system that will increase energy costs immensely and enrich the Govt and the wealthy). destroying to coal industry and killing untold millions in third world countries as the price of food and fuel skyrockets

Not at all.

The whole idea behind any such gov policy (I much prefer Fee&Dividend to Cap&Trade) is to inspire people to turn off lights not in use and the many other things they can do to reduce their GHGs by 20%, 30%, 50%, 60%+.

In the end people will be pleasantly surprised that even with higher fossil fuel prices (which will be going up even without gov fees) that they are saving bundles of money.

They will then graciously thank the gov for inspiring them to go on the track of becoming more energy/resource efficient/conservative and getting on alt energy when feasible.

And I will thank God for graciously answering my prayers.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I disagree here, how is your statements above nice, or fair? Industry is run by people; like me. You do not know me, yet you dismiss my care for the environment like you know I am garbage. This is where the conversation breaks down. Its time for you to recognize your attitude towards business and industry may be your whole problem.

entergy.com/environment/carbon_footprint.aspx

Go to our web site to get a sense for who we are before you dismiss us as dreamers.

I especially like:
“We believe that actions such as reducing greenhouse gases is needed now to address the physical risks to our service area, our customers and Entergy’s facilities. The physical hazards expected to occur with climate change will require us to adapt to help reduce the predicted impacts.”

They seem to be among the majority view on AGW.

But how about:

“Fines or penalties imposed for environmental non-compliance are disclosed in Entergy’s SEC Form 10-K. Information on Entergy’s 2011 spills reported to the National Response Center can be reviewed online.”

entergy.com/environment/compliance.aspx

But they seem to be trying as industry leaders.
mjbradley.com/sites/default/files/Summary_Slide_Deck_2013.pdf

Do you know anything more about this?
switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/cpaine/minimizing_the_risk_of_hydroge.html

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I could think of nothing to add.

I’d like to know exactly what is “industry” in Michael Mayo’s dictionary.

For starters:

peri.umass.edu/toxicair_current/

peri.umass.edu/toxicwaterindex/

and look who is #18 at
peri.umass.edu/greenhouse100/

 

[Lapey]

I especially like:
“We believe that actions such as reducing greenhouse gases is needed now to address the physical risks to our service area, our customers and Entergy’s facilities. The physical hazards expected to occur with climate change will require us to adapt to help reduce the predicted impacts.”

They seem to be among the majority view on AGW.

To be honest here, our CEO is/was a left wing nut. Past and present CEO that is. What can I say, I’m surrounded by them!

But how about:

“Fines or penalties imposed for environmental non-compliance are disclosed in Entergy’s SEC Form 10-K. Information on Entergy’s 2011 spills reported to the National Response Center can be reviewed online.”

This is an extreme low for a company the size we are with as many oil filled devices in so many remote locations. These fines can come from a pole falling with a transformer on it which spills mineral oil in a ditch and not reported to the proper regulatory bodies within the allotted time frame. We are awarded every year for leadership in many categories only one of which is environmental stewardship.

entergy.com/environment/compliance.aspx

But they seem to be trying as industry leaders.
mjbradley.com/sites/default/files/Summary_Slide_Deck_2013.pdf

Do you know anything more about this?
switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/cpaine/minimizing_the_risk_of_hydroge.html

 

[Lapey]

Do you know anything more about this?
switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/cpaine/minimizing_the_risk_of_hydroge.html

I know that I am not in nuclear and I am no expert in nuclear power generation. I do know that Entergy is one of the largest, if not the largest operator of NPPs in the world and we have an incredible track record in doing so.

Indian Point has been a target of many political attempts to shut it down, I’m sure this is one of them. Vermont Yankee has just been shut down ending employment for some 750 employees in the Vermont area. The reasons were not founded on solid evidence of danger, but scare tactics which put too much pressure on elected officials to renew it’s operation license.

This is the exact point I made some time back, we are trying to scare people into closing plants with untrue possibilities.

Coal = too dirty must stop
water/hydro = too damaging to the eco system of the you name it minnow = must stop
natural gas = hydraulic fracking making drinking water flammable = not politically popular to attack right now, just wait, we’ll get 'em
petco - dirty and CO2 = must stop
nuclear = oh my gosh, your kids will be incinerated = must stop
wood chip = smoke cough, cough, = must stop

I don’t know what will be next, solar and wind are not viable options to all of these others. What are your plans to electrify the world and power our industry and transportation?

The whole argument is not realistic.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I don’t know what will be next, solar and wind are not viable options to all of these others. What are your plans to electrify the world and power our industry and transportation?

The whole argument is not realistic.

I agree and I have this “conversation” with my wife who is worse than I am yet loves to use enrgy.
I think coal is the way to go but we have to keep working on better ways to obtain it and deal with the waste products.

 

[Lapey]

and look who is #18 at
peri.umass.edu/greenhouse100/

18
Entergy Corp
34,534,104
0.51%
power plants, petroleum and natural gas systems

Hey, that’s pretty good!!! Thanks for sharing. Entergy Corporation is responsible for .51% of the total CO2 emissions for the Nation for the year 2011.

Lets think about this, that is one half of one percent of the total emissions of a gas that is naturally found and produced by every breathing animal and used by every green plant on the planet and therefore necessary for the eco system. That makes me quite proud!

Do you even look at what these numbers mean? Or, do you just see that Entergy is the 18th largest polluter so they are evil.

 

[Lapey]

I agree and I have this “conversation” with my wife who is worse than I am yet loves to use enrgy.
I think coal is the way to go but we have to keep working on better ways to obtain it and deal with the waste products.

Problem is, coal is no longer an option. President Obama through the EPA has outlawed any new coal fired plants, and furthermore has mandated the mothballing of existing plants as they reach their life expectancy.

Coal will die unless drastic EPA changes are made.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not at all.

The whole idea behind any such gov policy (I much prefer Fee&Dividend to Cap&Trade) is to inspire people to turn off lights not in use and the many other things they can do to reduce their GHGs by 20%, 30%, 50%, 60%+.

In the end people will be pleasantly surprised that even with higher fossil fuel prices (which will be going up even without gov fees) that they are saving bundles of money.

They will then graciously thank the gov for inspiring them to go on the track of becoming more energy/resource efficient/conservative and getting on alt energy when feasible.

And I will thank God for graciously answering my prayers.

I don’t believe turning off the lights when leaving a room will result in that much energy saving. The big energy users are heat and cooling, with appliances coming in second. If I can’t pay my electric bill because it goes up too much, do you honestly think my ability to heat and cool my home, refrigerate my food and wash and dry clothes are not going to be adversely affected?

How do you really think people are going to be pleasantly surprised when their utility bills “skyrocket” as Obama has promised they will, particularly if they become unaffordable to a given individual? That’s so counter intuitive as to go over the edge of preposterous.

You might, while Obama is cooking all this up, pray for the people who are going to suffer because of it, because people surely will. No need to pray for the main beneficiaries; Gore, Soros, Buffett, Gates, who have invested billions in uneconomical “alternative energies”. Obama is taking care of them.

“Fee and dividend” is as dead as a hammer, and it will remain so. It’s just another 'tax" on one segment of society to redistribute income to another segment, and all for the sake of a disputed ideology. I think most people are going to learn, with obamacare, what that means to most.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Problem is, coal is no longer an option. President Obama through the EPA has outlawed any new coal fired plants, and furthermore has mandated the mothballing of existing plants as they reach their life expectancy.

Coal will die unless drastic EPA changes are made.

Lots of peoples’ jobs will die with it. Some already have. I can still see the anguished look on Democrat Joe Manchin’s face on TV when he said Obama “betrayed” the people of West Virginia.

Betrayed is as good a word for what Obama is doing to this country as any I can imagine.

 

[Lapey]

Not at all.

The whole idea behind any such gov policy (I much prefer Fee&Dividend to Cap&Trade) is to inspire people to turn off lights not in use and the many other things they can do to reduce their GHGs by 20%, 30%, 50%, 60%+.

**In the end people will be pleasantly surprised that even with higher fossil fuel prices (which will be going up even without gov fees) that they are saving bundles of money. **

They will then graciously thank the gov for inspiring them to go on the track of becoming more energy/resource efficient/conservative and getting on alt energy when feasible.

And I will thank God for graciously answering my prayers.

I have resisted responding to yu anymore. You do not respond to anything I post, you do not understand logic much less use it and this particular post is just illogical.

How on earth do you see people saving money and therefore graciously thanking the govn’t for forcing them to disconnect from the grid because they can’t afford it…oh, that’s how. Yea they will save loads of money not buying the electricity they used to be able to have in their lives. What about the factories and industrial users of power? Oh yea, we’re shutting down those polluters too…more money saved! Hey you are right.

I am simply amazed, simply amazed.

 

[qui_est_ce]

18
Entergy Corp
34,534,104
0.51%
power plants, petroleum and natural gas systems

Hey, that’s pretty good!!! Thanks for sharing. Entergy Corporation is responsible for .51% of the total CO2 emissions for the Nation for the year 2011.

Lets think about this, that is one half of one percent of the total emissions of a gas that is naturally found and produced by every breathing animal and used by every green plant on the planet and therefore necessary for the eco system. That makes me quite proud!

Do you even look at what these numbers mean? Or, do you just see that Entergy is the 18th largest polluter so they are evil.

It seems to me that some people will just not be happy until energy plants to shut down.

CO2 is now a pollutant. It used to be classified as a naturally occurring gas. What’s next, the humans? Aren’t we big emitters of co2. What about plants and animals?

In the end, what are we living for??

 

[Michael_Mayo]

18
Entergy Corp
34,534,104
0.51%
power plants, petroleum and natural gas systems

Hey, that’s pretty good!!! Thanks for sharing. Entergy Corporation is responsible for .51% of the total CO2 emissions for the Nation for the year 2011.

Lets think about this, that is one half of one percent of the total emissions of a gas that is naturally found and produced by every breathing animal and used by every green plant on the planet and therefore necessary for the eco system. That makes me quite proud!

Do you even look at what these numbers mean? Or, do you just see that Entergy is the 18th largest polluter so they are evil.

No. I agree with you if you will let me.
I am actually impressed. Pollution is inevitable; management of it is the challenge.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

It seems to me that some people will just not be happy until energy plants to shut down.

CO2 is now a pollutant. It used to be classified as a naturally occurring gas. What’s next, the humans? Aren’t we big emitters of co2. What about plants and animals?

In the end, what are we living for??

Plants take in CO2 and give us Oxygen. That is why we need them.
A pollutant is alike a weed. The wrong thing in the wrong place in the wrong amount.

What are we living for? Not a what, but Who.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

One thing one notices about modern industries is how so many of them find ways of using every waste product instead of discarding it into the environment or disposing of it in some other way. State of the art food processing facilities and ethanol plants are like that.

That’s economically based, to be sure; profit motivated. Still, one does have to recognize that sometimes economic motivations prompt measures that are ahead of regulatory requirements. In some industries, I think regulators are followers, not leaders.

Regulations came about after the realization of a problem. So yes, lagging behind from the get-go

 

[Ridgerunner]

Regulations came about after the realization of a problem. So yes, lagging behind from the get-go

it isn’t just that.

You might be surprised how often industries lead regulators. I was once in a highly regulated industry myself, and wrote two pretty significant regulations that they adopted.

A lot of the time, regulators opt for “state of the art” in formulating regs. But they’re not the ones who come up with “state of the art”. The regulated and the businesses that serve them do that. Generally speaking, if one stays up with “state of the art”, he will automatically meet or exceed regulatory requirements.

But sometimes regulators spin things out of their own heads that are unhelpful to the regulated or to the public, and sometimes for ideological reasons alone. I had some experience with those sorts of things as well. Still do to some degree.

 

[Lapey]

No. I agree with you if you will let me.
I am actually impressed. Pollution is inevitable; management of it is the challenge.

You missed my point again. We do have pollution issues; Entergy’s .51% of CO2 is not pollution.

GHG affect is in fact still a THEORY, its not fact; many scientists disagree or at worst don’t support this theory.

Propaganda has caused CO2 to become enemy number one against everything. Why do you think that is, because if the government controls everything that involves CO2, it controls everything that exists. Everything is carbon based; we can tax everything under the sun in the name of “good environmental stewardship”.

Come on sir, surely you can see some of what I have been saying is true. You have to be able to look outside of the propaganda.

 

[Lapey]

Plants take in CO2 and give us Oxygen. That is why we need them.
A pollutant is alike a weed. The wrong thing in the wrong place in the wrong amount.

What are we living for? Not a what, but Who.

Now you are just being condescending. Please be respectful.

Who says CO2 is a weed? By the way do weeds, which in fact are green plants although of an unwanted variety in a certain place, not take in CO2 and emit oxygen? Aren’t they helpful to the environment too? If so your analogy is agreeable, the CO2 is needed. Thanks!