Pages

Jump to bottom

7 comments

1 Achilles Tang  Mon, Jul 18, 2011 2:51:14pm

Another example of leaders who follow instead of leading. Romney knows exactly what AGW is about.

2 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Mon, Jul 18, 2011 3:37:44pm

Doesn’t harm our bodies? I’m sure the residents near Lake Nyos would disagree.

Of course he’s just submitting to the will of his base. He knows perfectly well that AGW will not only harm individuals but the entire biosphere. Which means he is willing to do what’s popular instead of right - not the kind of person I want as president.

3 lostlakehiker  Mon, Jul 18, 2011 3:49:51pm

Romney is factually correct. Water, of course, can also hurt your body, as the residents of Fukushima can testify. The EPA does not deem water a pollutant.

It’s all about how much. The CO2 levels we’re talking about cannot asphyxiate people.

The EPA wasn’t given the authority to regulate water.

If we want to regulate CO2, and it’s probably a good idea we do, then a law tailored to that end should be passed, rather than pushing the edge of the envelope with regard to what words mean and what regulatory authority was granted the EPA in the first place.

Such a law might better involve a tax on CO2 than outright bans, for which exceptions would have to be made. A legal system in which no one can manage without breaking laws, and can only plead for exemption on a case by case basis, is not a system, it’s just a mess.

4 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Mon, Jul 18, 2011 5:22:11pm

re: #3 lostlakehiker

That’s ridiculous. The EPA isn’t about regulating poisons/toxins that harm humans, it is about regulating pollutants. Pollutants are substances that harm ecosystems. What’s the distinction between a toxin and a pollutant? Pollutants can include things that would otherwise be good in different circumstances. For example fertilizer is good for plants, but if an excess of fertilizer makes its way into an aquatic ecosystem it could cause significant damage.

5 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Jul 18, 2011 5:27:19pm

re: #3 lostlakehiker

The EPA wasn’t given the authority to regulate water.


Comparing CO2 to water is stupid.

6 lostlakehiker  Mon, Jul 18, 2011 7:30:03pm

re: #5 Obdicut

Comparing CO2 to water is stupid.

The idea that any law, no matter its actual meaning, can usefully and therefore justly be reinterpreted to say anything that it would be convenient for it to have said, is stupid.

If the law under which the EPA operates were to be applied to CO2, to the letter, no coal fired power plant could operate today. This means that putting CO2 under the sway of that law will not be, and cannot be, done forthrightly. Instead, the release of CO2 will be allowed, to some extent, law notwithstanding. Who gets the exemptions, though, will be a political process, not a legal process.

The quantitative limits spelled out in the EPA’s regular notion of pollutant are tiny in the context of water, or CO2. The smallness of the numerical limits on allowable releases demonstrates that no chemical that exists naturally in massive quantities and that is bound up in ordinary operation of industrial civilization was intended to count as a “pollutant”.

The “end justifies the means” attitude toward how the EPA should treat CO2, if it prevails, will prevail more widely than in its application to CO2.

7 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Jul 18, 2011 7:43:44pm

re: #6 lostlakehiker

If the law under which the EPA operates were to be applied to CO2, to the letter, no coal fired power plant could operate today.

What law is this? What are you even talking about?


The quantitative limits spelled out in the EPA’s regular notion of pollutant are tiny in the context of water, or CO2. The smallness of the numerical limits on allowable releases demonstrates that no chemical that exists naturally in massive quantities and that is bound up in ordinary operation of industrial civilization was intended to count as a “pollutant”.

Where is this spelled out? The EPA has vastly different regulations for vastly different stuff.


The “end justifies the means” attitude toward how the EPA should treat CO2, if it prevails, will prevail more widely than in its application to CO2.

CO2 is a pollutant.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Train Songs Five
A hollow voice says Vaccinate the world!
3 days, 21 hours ago
Views: 309 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 6
Tweets: 0 •
Train Songs Four
A hollow voice says Vaccinate the world!
3 days, 21 hours ago
Views: 302 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Tweets: 0 •
Train Songs Three
A hollow voice says Vaccinate the world!
3 days, 22 hours ago
Views: 300 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Tweets: 0 •
Snarky Puppy - Trinity (Extended Version) Snarky Puppy never lets you down, they always come out bright and enthusiastically high on the sounds. Snarky Puppy - Trinity (Extended Version)From Snarky Puppy's new album, Empire Central (September 2022, GroundUP Music)Stream/Buy: orcd.co Written by Mark LettieriArranged by ...
Thanos
1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 646 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 2 •