Obama Announces New Climate Plan

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: I most assuredly can, and do. And so do my grown children and grandchildren, about twice weekly in warm weather, and all without the slightest ill effect. (Well, we do have to shoot a water moccasin now and then, but no one has been bitten yet.)
Click to expand...
Our only problem is the Beavers tend to get very territorial .
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Amen, brother.

I am glad you can enjoy the water and I envy you.

You might find this of interest:
cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm

and support your watershed efforts to have it stay that way.

I recall some saying I heard somewhere: You cannot make something clean without making something else dirty.

I just wonder if we really do have the human ingenuity as well as will to replace fossil fuels, to make and have what we want without contaminating the earth.

I was outside today sweeping up cigarette butts. Some peole do not care what they put in their lungs much less what they put in the air or on the ground.

There was a time when the tobacco industry denied any health risks from smoking. Many people became addicted. But now we all know the dangers (as well as costs) and still some people start smoking.

Daily air quaity reports:
airnow.gov/

As you can see, I get a little zealous about air and water, great and beautiful gifts from God.
Sorry if I come across too strongly.
Click to expand...
Interesting, but I already know my watershed. thanks just the same.

My watershed is protected by the ranchers who own the land; country people; Ozarkers, many of whose ancestors have been here for 200 years, and many of whom have some Indian blood in their family trees, and profound respect for the land.

And no, they don’t want the government (at any level) regulating their uses; primarily because they know better than the government does what’s harmful and what isn’t.

I realize some interloper might come in and do something harmful. But knowing the people here as I do, I know that interloper wouldn’t do it very long. 😉
 
estesbob said:
Our only problem is the Beavers tend to get very territorial .
Click to expand...
I’m personally not too fond of beavers. A few years ago, some of them undertook to dam a stream on my land. Cut down all the trees around that held the bank. Beavers might have remarkable instincts in some ways, but they apparently don’t know much about floods in the deep hollows of the Ozarks. Marvelously concentrated and powerful those floods are. I considered shooting the beavers, but not knowing whether they are protected or not, I let the next big flood wipe them out, which it did. Never saw them again.

There are undoubtedly places where they can have a beneficial effect on the environment and other wildlife, and survive as well, but the steep hollow streams of the Ozarks are not among those places.

Now, the minks and otters and wild trout seem to be able to deal with all that. I’m not sure how. Probably the minks and otters just climb up the adjacent hills until it’s over. I imagine the trout find shelving rock and bluff backwaters to go to when the water’s wild. Comes up in a hurry and goes down in a hurry. Interestingly, the last flood was crystal clear. No mud in it at all, which testifies to the ongoing care people are taking with the land in the watershed. I’ll have to say that “clearwater flood” was beautiful. It really was.
 
A good thing about any plan to reduce CO2, especially thru energy/resource efficiency/conservation and/or alt energy is that it will also help to reduce a plethora of other problems (plus save people money).

Just read this about how air pollution causes about 200,000 premature deaths in the U.S. each year:
My husband suffers from asthma and his uncle died from it. I know when we moved from the Chicagoland area (Aurora, IL) down to S. Texas near the border his condition improved a lot. There are still some air quality issues here, but it is a lot better.

So not only will we be saving lives from AGW, but also from local pollution, while saving a ton of money and helping the economy. It’s just too bad the prez had to come up with a plan when you would have thought people would do what was right for their health and their pocketbook and for the sake of others and for the sake of the Kingdom of God without any gov push.

Shame on ole Adam and Cain and their descendents for being such bad apples 🙂
 
Ridgerunner said:
I’m personally not too fond of beavers. A few years ago, some of them undertook to dam a stream on my land. Cut down all the trees around that held the bank. Beavers might have remarkable instincts in some ways, but they apparently don’t know much about floods in the deep hollows of the Ozarks. Marvelously concentrated and powerful those floods are. I considered shooting the beavers, but not knowing whether they are protected or not, I let the next big flood wipe them out, which it did. Never saw them again.

There are undoubtedly places where they can have a beneficial effect on the environment and other wildlife, and survive as well, but the steep hollow streams of the Ozarks are not among those places.

Now, the minks and otters and wild trout seem to be able to deal with all that. I’m not sure how. Probably the minks and otters just climb up the adjacent hills until it’s over. I imagine the trout find shelving rock and bluff backwaters to go to when the water’s wild. Comes up in a hurry and goes down in a hurry. Interestingly, the last flood was crystal clear. No mud in it at all, which testifies to the ongoing care people are taking with the land in the watershed. I’ll have to say that “clearwater flood” was beautiful. It really was.
Click to expand...
We have some in the stream behind our house. I suspect when their lake starts flooding the road thecounty will come out and trap them, relocate them and tear down their damns
 
Michael_Mayo said:
I am glad to see you do not want to waste time, Bob.
Do you then agree that we need to shift away from fossil fuels for better stewardship?
The sooner the better?
Click to expand...
Shift to what? Right now fossil fuels are the cleanest forms of energy that man kind has devised.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
So you deny climate change but still agree that we need to shift away from fossil fuels?
The sooner the better?
Click to expand...
The day the climate quits changing we are all in really big trouble - I am hardly a climate change denier. How does one ever come to believe that changing the amount of a trace gas can stop the climate from changing? It defies science and logic.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Atmospheric Environment

Good resource but pretty technical.
Thanks
Click to expand...
I’m not persuaded it’s a good resource in itself, since it jumps from asserted number of deaths presumed premature from all causes, combines it with some measures of air pollution of all sorts, then jumps to the conclusion that the pollution causes the premature deaths, without any connecting proposition whatever, let alone facts.

Are we to assume the higher relative rate of “premature deaths” in Chicago as compared to some Mormon community in Utah is solely due to greater air pollution in Chicago, ignoring all other causes, such as traffic accidents, drug and violence related deaths, AIDS and the like, which mostly affect younger people and exert a significant downward pull on the life expectancy in Chicago because of that? And what about comparative dietary influences, percentage of immigrants in the community, access to healthcare, and on and on?

It would not seem so to me. I’m not a supporter of air pollution, but this particular site doesn’t prove a cause-effect relationship.
 
The American Meteorological Society has this new report, finding that about half of the extreme weather events of 2012 can be linked to climate change:

“EXPLAINING EXTREME EVENTS OF 2012 FROM A CLIMATE PERSPECTIVE”
ametsoc.org/2012extremeeventsclimate.pdf

“…Approximately half the analyses found some evidence that anthropogenically caused climate change was a contributing factor to the extreme event examined…”
 
lynnvinc said:
For those who don’t like Obama’s plan, here is a great alternative that would be very helpful for the economy and !!! tax-neutral (the one proposed by the R Street Institute):

salon.com/2013/09/05/climate_change_is_tearing_gop_apart_partner/singleton/
Click to expand...
What a bogus article! It says Repubs support a carbon tax, but don’t name the Repubs who support it. It just says they probably will.

And it says Obama doesn’t favor a carbon tax. That’s what “cap and trade” is, and that’s what Obama proposed years ago but couldn’t even get Dems to support it.

Amazing the phony articles the radical environmentalists gin up from time to time!
 
lynnvinc said:
The American Meteorological Society has this new report, finding that about half of the extreme weather events of 2012 can be linked to climate change:

“EXPLAINING EXTREME EVENTS OF 2012 FROM A CLIMATE PERSPECTIVE”
ametsoc.org/2012extremeeventsclimate.pdf

“…Approximately half the analyses found some evidence that anthropogenically caused climate change was a contributing factor to the extreme event examined…”
Click to expand...
:rotfl::rotfl: Amazing that you would cite this society as your authority since you have repeatedly said Meteorologists don’t know what they’re talking about. You say that every time you are confronted with the fact that the majority of Meteorologists either don’t believe in MMGW at all or don’t think it’s harmful.

And the great majority of Meteorologists do not believe MMGW has anything at all to do with weather events.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Coal Ash: Hazardous to Human Health

psr.org/assets/pdfs/coal-ash-hazardous-to-human-health.pdf
Click to expand...
Of course it is, but that’s not a valid argument against the proper use of coal for power generation than the fact that natural gas (which some environmentalists want to substitute for coal) will kill you in seconds if a) you breathe much of it, or b) you’re in the middle of it and it catches fire, or c) it explodes, blowing you to bits.

There are statements about hazards in the article, but no proof. Just assertions.

What it does not mention is the fact that precautions really are taken with coal ash and that few incidents with it have occurred. In years past, before such precautions were taken, coal ash was used for roads, fill of all kinds, high school race tracks, and was used as fill for thousands and thousands of miles of railroad fill.

And only just now, when it’s not used for any of those things, it’s polluting ground water?

More scare tactics to make utility bills “skyrocket”. Obama promised that, and he has lots of supporters who write articles like this. After all, he has spent $100 billion in public funds to get it done, and there are a lot of pigs at that trough.
 
Ridgerunner said:
There are statements about hazards in the article, but no proof. Just assertions.

What it does not mention is the fact that precautions really are taken with coal ash and that few incidents with it have occurred. In years past, before such precautions were taken, coal ash was used for roads, fill of all kinds, high school race tracks, and was used as fill for thousands and thousands of miles of railroad fill.
Click to expand...
That would be 37% for “Beneficail uses” IF the stuff is bound or encapsulated.

“The potential for contaminants to leach from CCW products largely
depends on whether the waste is bound or encapsulated—as it would be in construction materials.”

see page 23 and on
fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40544.pdf

“Coal ash is of particular concern for low-income and minority communities. Over half of the coal plants in the country are in low income communities, and almost half of the EPA “high hazard” ash ponds in the Southeast are located in low-income areas. Minority populations are also at a disproportionate risk. For instance, the coal ash waste that devastated Roane County, TN after TVA’s Kingston coal ash pond failure is now being shipped to Perry County, AL – a largely minority community where arsenic contamination has risen to levels 80 times the safe drinking water standards.”

southeastcoalash.org/?page_id=56

southeastcoalash.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/epa-coal-combustion-waste-risk-assessment.pdf

health.state.tn.us/Downloads/coalashfactsheet.pdf

And this is from the Electric Power Research Institute. They have the audacity to compare coal ash to vitamins and minerals, “compound may lack the potency to cause toxic effects and may even be beneficial to health” and yet even they at least acknowledge:
“Potential exposure to the constituents in coal ash can occur through a number of different pathways.”

“negligible risks” No thanks.

ameren.com/Environment/Documents/EPRI-IsCoalAshToxic.pdf

Is there a site near you?
sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_waste

Also of interest:
scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-waste-hazardous-standard-regulation

kftc.org/issues/health-impacts-coal-ash-0
 
Um, I’m pretty sure that dealing with climate change is the Catholic thing to do. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were very vocal about climate change…

To say that you don’t believe in climate change… it worries me that Catholics are appearing crazier and crazier to everyone else even on things that people SHOULDN’T think we’re crazy for.

I’ve been taught that climate change is very real and we need to work towards a sustainable solution. If you want to blame anyone for the way I think, then blame the Catholic schools and Jesuit education that taught me.:rolleyes:
 
RandomRhino said:
Um, I’m pretty sure that dealing with climate change is the Catholic thing to do. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were very vocal about climate change…

To say that you don’t believe in climate change… it worries me that Catholics are appearing crazier and crazier to everyone else even on things that people SHOULDN’T think we’re crazy for.

I’ve been taught that climate change is very real and we need to work towards a sustainable solution. If you want to blame anyone for the way I think, then blame the Catholic schools and Jesuit education that taught me.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
They were vocal before it wss revealed to be a hoax Of course they never subscribed to the radical solutions pushed by so called environmentalists
 
RandomRhino said:
Um, I’m pretty sure that dealing with climate change is the Catholic thing to do. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were very vocal about climate change…

To say that you don’t believe in climate change… it worries me that Catholics are appearing crazier and crazier to everyone else even on things that people SHOULDN’T think we’re crazy for.

I’ve been taught that climate change is very real and we need to work towards a sustainable solution. If you want to blame anyone for the way I think, then blame the Catholic schools and Jesuit education that taught me.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

Ok. But is the world warming or cooling?

If it is, what is causing it? Man caused or simply natural cycles.

The studies and research are so fundamentally flawed due to politics that no one really knows. The major studies used flawed temperature measurements and faulty statistical analysis. Their authors can’t even duplicate their own research much less adhere to the accepted scientific principle of being able to publish it in sufficient detail that it can be duplicated by others.

And, if it is cooling or warming-- are the proposed cures in fact more devastating to people than the actual changes themselves?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top