White House looks to regulate cow flatulence as part of climate agenda!

It's not about being an Obama supporter or detractor.

It's not about being liberal or conservative.

It's about dealing with facts as rationally as we are able.

Libertygal ... you just tossed the "whole kitchen sink" in your response to me; it's too late to respond to a tirade.

You're merely tossing in other bits that have nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

The point of this thread, that Obama's new energy plan revolves around "cow flatulence" is spurious and that fact has been demonstrated.

We can argue right and left and up and down until the cows come home and blow us all to kingdom come.

Best,

Phage
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Ah. One of those "it's all a part of everything" rants. Got it.

BTW, I'm not an Obama supporter. Been a long time since I actually supported any politician.

edit on 3/29/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

No, it isn't a rant, but if it makes you feel better to call it that, go ahead.

I outlined how it was first brought out at the State of The Union. I outlined the rampant failure of Obama's other "green energy" actions. I outlined how much of it was done for reasons other than was put forth as the real reason, ie: cronyism. I outlined the cost of a startup, I outlined the rate of return. I outlined the damage that has been done to the farming industry already by an overbearing government with heavy regulations.

Prove anything I have said wrong. You can't, or you would have. No way to argue it, except to claim political exemption?

The Federal government needs to stay out of farming as much as they need to stay out of healthcare, but that won't happen.

Farming has been subsidized by the government since World War II. It's just getting worse, food prices are going up, and when farmers have to shell out more, guess who is going go pay for that too? The Federal Government. That means me and you. Then, we get new taxes on top of it!

You do realize this crap burning program has already been around a while, right? Been being done, and as I pointed out, the carbon credit exchange for farmers doing it has already been cancelled in one state. Think anyone lost out on that investment? Think any farmers suffered indebtedness for that? Remember Cap and Trade?

www2.mda.state.mn.us...
carboncredit.ndfu.org...

The goal of the Farmers Union Carbon Credit Program was to enhance the income of farmers and ranchers through economically successful and environmentally sound land
management practices that reduce or offset carbon emissions.

The program will continue to market the credits that are verified and registered for the 3,900 producers who have been in the program, but will not seek validation of new projects or credits after the 2010 vintage year. Under the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) protocols, farmers who voluntarily adopted land management practices that captured and stored carbon in the soil were able to sell credits to carbon-emitting members of the CCX. However, the lack of legislation to address the Supreme Court ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency should regulate carbon dioxide has limited the viability of the United States’ voluntary carbon market.

Oh. Chicago. Hmm. Just where I would expect
Minnesota and idaho Farmers to get their assistance from.

And sorry if you don't realize it, but it all does link back to one thing, the almighty dollar, and not in your and my pocket, but theirs.

m.nationalreview.com...

The CCX seemed to have a lock on success. Not only was a young Barack Obama aboard member of the Joyce Foundation that funded the fledgling CCX, but over the years it attracted such big name climate investors as
Goldman Sachs and Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the CCX’s highly anticipated looting of taxpayers and consumers – cap-and-trade imploded following its high water mark of the House passage of the Waxman-Markey bill. With ongoing economic recession, Climategate, and the tea party movement, what once seemed like a certainty became anything but.

It is a political issue when people stand to make money off of some of the nation's most propped up industry, farming, by polical lobbying and support. It really does pay who you know.

No! Not THAT CCX! Not THAT Obama! Really?! Gasp! Wow, he was a young whippersnapper then, huh?

And this is what you bring to the table?

Nothing. Literally nothing.

It's just cool, cause it's green 'n stuff, and for the world. Yar! So simples, really, nothing else going on here but burning crap for energy!

It's a lot deeper than burning crap, and anyone that can see past the end of their nose and put 2and 2 together gets it.

I don't undertsand if you are being intentionally ignorant of the full background of this, or, if people have been giving you more credit than you deserve. I tend to think it's the first, though.

And still, you are unwilling to admit to not only possible, but probable regulation in the near future? I think that is called willful blindness.

reply to post by Gryphon66

See the post below yours. Got anything but insults? I brought facts, links, and articles to the table. You?

Nada.

I didn't bring everything inuding the kitchen sink, I simply pointed out how it's all linked to one huge, fat, green failure.

Like it or not, it is all linked. All a part of the big picture. Nothing I have pointed out can be refuted, because they are facts, and DO relate to the discussion.

Now, your opinion may vary, that's fine. But, opinion is not the same as facts.

So sorry that bothers you, but, I would rather see you attacking that facts, and not the poster.

Unless, of course, you have nothing else?

Cow flatulence! Surely one should also include the inane flatulence that comes out of all politicians at both ends!!!

reply to post by Libertygal


Please point out anything in my post that is a personal comment about you that is insulting and you will have an apology IMMEDIATELY.

Your post brought "facts, links, etc." to the table that do not relate to the subject of the thread.

Your basic position is "government needs to stay out of everything." The "facts" you intersperse with your opinion prove nothing. Yet, you write in such a way that the only means to decode would be to take every comment you make and demonstrate how it a) does not relate to the subject of this thread or b) is obviously propagandized from heavily biased political blogs and/or c) is merely a statement parenthesized by your OPINION about something that is not the subject of this discussion.

ATS requires that we attempt to stay on topic, so alas, I must decline your invitation to a "cut and paste" squabble.

Finding other people on the internet who share your OPINION and quoting them does not prove your OPINION.

For example, Libertygal ... you like to use downstream sources from the Heritage Foundation.

Let's choose a different source, like say The Center for American Progress. Makes you cringe just to read it, eh?

And let's look specifically at President Obama's Clean Energy Progress: How the Top 10 Energy Priorities Fared During his First Term

Ready? Here we go:

In December 2008, during President-elect Obama’s transition, the Center for American Progress proposed the “Top 10 Energy and Environment Priorities for the Obama Administration and 111th Congress.” This progressive agenda was designed to protect public health from carbon and mercury air pollution, reduce oil consumption, and simultaneously boost the economic recovery. Four years later the administration accomplished nearly all of these goals despite the worst economy in nearly 80 years and strong opposition from Big Oil, coal, and other energy interests. Unfortunately, the priorities that required congressional action did not occur, though some progress was still made in each of these areas.

Contrary to your opinion-piece, LG ... President Obama's efforts have had AMAZING success on the clean energy front!

CLEANER CARS

On his seventh day in office, President Obama launched the development of the first improved fuel economy standards in 20 years. His administration, supported by 13 major auto companies, the United Auto Workers, the state of California, and environmentalists, promulgated rules to double automobile fuel economy by 2025 while slashing carbon pollution by 6 billion tons. The modern standards will save drivers $8,200 in lower gasoline purchases over the life of their 2025 vehicle, and will reduce oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels per day.

The White House also adopted the first ever efficiency and carbon pollution standards for commercial trucks, vans, and other heavy vehicles. According to the White House, the new standards will “save over 500 million barrels of oil and save vehicle owners and operators an estimated $50 billion in fuel costs.”

Thanks to these standards, the average fuel economy of cars and light duty trucks (SUVs, minivans) was 23.9 miles per gallon in 2012, the highest ever, according to a University of Michigan analysis.

INVESTMENTS IN CLEAN ENERGY AS PART OF THE ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed in February 2009, included $90 billion in grants, tax incentives, and loan guarantees to increase investments in clean energy. This was the largest clean-energy program in history. It included assistance for wind and solar electricity generation, advanced batteries, public transportation, advanced energy research, and many other clean energy projects.

Case in point: The Recovery Act, which financed weatherization to make nearly 900,000 homes of low-income families more energy efficient, saving an annual average of $400 per household in lower energy costs. The act also “supported 30 new advanced battery and electric vehicle component plants opening across the country so that, by 2015, the U.S. will be able to produce enough batteries and components to support one million hybrid and electric vehicles.”

ESTABLISH NATIONAL RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY PROGRAM

Thirty states and the District of Columbia have renewable (or alternative) electricity (or portfolio) standards that require utilities to generate a certain portion of their electricity from wind, solar, or other renewable energy sources. A renewable electricity standard was included in both the American Clean Energy and Security Act and the American Power Act in the 111th Congress.

Since neither bill became law, in 2011 President Obama proposed a clean-energy standard that would require utilities to generate 80 percent of their electricity from no- or low-carbon pollution sources by 2035. In 2012 Senate Energy Committee Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) introduced such a bill, but it was never voted on.

Despite these setbacks, however, the combination of renewable energy investments in the Recovery Act, concerted administration efforts to site solar projects on appropriate public lands, existing tax incentives, and state standards led to the doubling of renewable electricity generation under President Obama. Nationwide wind electricity doubled to 50 gigawatts, enough to power every home in Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Nevada, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

There are just a few of many of the Obama Administration's accomplishments. But wait, there's more ...

From the website of the National Association of Manufacturers ...

Let's look specifically at the article President's Energy Savings are Performance-Based Contracting Investment Initiative is a Success

WASHINGTON, D.C., 12/19/13 - President Obama’s Energy Savings and Performance-Based Contracting Investment Initiative to create $2 billion in energy savings is a success and should be expanded to five years and $5 billion, according to a report released today.

The report, which the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) drafted using data from companies involved in the initiative, found that more than $1.3 billion worth of projects will have been awarded by the end of 2013 with another $1 billion worth of projects in various stages of the development pipeline and expectations of an additional $200 million being awarded in early 2014.

“Performance-based contracts have been a win-win-win for manufacturers, the federal government and the American public,” said NAM Vice President of Energy and Resources Policy Ross Eisenberg. “The government has saved money and energy by upgrading its buildings; jobs have been created across the supply chain to manufacture and install these products and technologies; and by leveraging the power of the private sector, there have been no upfront costs to taxpayers. Manufacturers urge the President to capitalize on this success by issuing an aggressive new goal of $5 billion in performance-based contracts over the next five years.”

But let's go back to some of your sources and the misinformation being propagated there. Taken at large, your Heritage Foundation propaganda suggests that ALL of the Administration's investment in renewable energy companies have been wasted because they've failed, yes?

NO! Less than One Percent (1%) of the 1300 Companies in the renewable energy space that the Energy Department has funded have failed. Source Money magazine article

Wait ... what??? You mean the actual FACTS are being misrepresented by the Heritage Foundation and it's media mouthpieces?

Yes. It turns out that the energy investments are OVERWHELMINGLY successful but the right-wing media (and those who spead such propaganda) only want to show part of the story. (Source - Media Matters - Right Wing Trumpets IMAGINARY Energy Failures)

Using misdirection and misrepresentation of "the facts" to match your agenda is merely a political act.

I am not a fan of government by any means, however
closing all fast food companies( maybe just the burger places) would benefit everyone and not only help
resolve the air pollution issue discussed in the op, but take a huge strain off
our health care crisis

reply to post by Gryphon66




Sadly what you have pointed out about misrepresentation and lying by opinion pieces and posters on ATS happens in almost every single thread on here, the Left/Right divide has got so bad on here that you just cannot debate a simple news story or a policy or some kind of startling evidence that the planet is worse off because we are dumping crap all over it....

"No It's a lie, the planet loves our waste and oil and chemicals, the waste companies told me so"


It's actually embarrassing to be honest.

Reading through this thread and seeing Phage and SaturnFX, White Alice and others all trying to get through to the OP and others in complete denial is just an insane read.
But this thread absolutely highlights and lays bare the utter ignorance of those who would just allow companies to just do whatever they want, shows that there is so much misinfo, disinfo and propaganda out there too.

reply to post by Gryphon66


grayphon66....you are going to find a lot of "misinformation and outright lies" by the "conservative right", here on ATS...the best of any type of admittance will be in the phrase "they both are equally to blame"....having said that....I'm glad you are pointing out some of these things, they need to be said.

reply to post by jimmyx

the best of any type of admittance will be in the phrase "they both are equally to blame"

Hmmm... So the fact that some of us have legitimately and quite passionately sworn off the partisan garbage to focus on Politicians as more a Caste of society that needs to change (or go) makes a larger problem? As someone who makes a regular point of noting it takes both parties to make a real SNAFU, I'm curious what you mean?

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by jimmyx

 

the best of any type of admittance will be in the phrase "they both are equally to blame"

Hmmm... So the fact that some of us have legitimately and quite passionately sworn off the partisan garbage to focus on Politicians as more a Caste of society that needs to change (or go) makes a larger problem? As someone who makes a regular point of noting it takes both parties to make a real SNAFU, I'm curious what you mean?

it simply means I have lost interest in fighting it on ATS. I'm convinced that whatever benefits big business and the wealthy, will prevail in America. they have amassed so much power and thus influence, that America is well on it's way to becoming a Plutocracy...en.wikipedia.org... the last 50 to 60 years, the rhetoric has been concillatory, while the actions and the affects of those actions, have slowly eroded the living conditions and the chances for a better life, for the poor and the middle class. 76% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck...money.cnn.com... i'm afraid it's going to get worse.

reply to post by Libertygal

Yep. Beijing looks like a great place to live. Face masks when you go outside, and you worry about your daughter? And you wish your city was this "clean"? Are we talking about the same Beijing, here?

This image is from February 2014. With no end in sight, people living in what scientists are calling "similar to a nuclear winter", and this is a great place to live? Where their very government warns them to not go outside? Where the air quality is so bad, they have to close schools? Where crops are failing due to lack of sun. Materialistic much? Just, wow.

I just can't get past that statement. Not even a little bit.

Just reading through this thread - trying to catch up

Maybe it will help if you look up humor, sarcasm, oh! Also irony! :-)

Then reread Phage's posts

Hope this helps you get past that statement

:-)

Agriculture: In June, in partnership with the dairy industry, the USDA, EPA and DOE will jointly release a “Biogas Roadmap” outlining voluntary strategies to accelerate adoption of methane digesters and other cost-effective technologies to reduce U.S. dairy sector greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

the above is the part of the "white house plan" suggested by Obama that ties in with the original OP.....ooooo!!!.....scary, liberal plan....how the OP can get...."WHITE HOUSE LOOKS TO REGULATE COW FLUTULANCE AS PART OF CLIMATE AGENDA" out of this voluntary plan is beyond me.

reply to post by jimmyx


Fair enough.. Thanks for the direct reply. That certainly covers my curiosity.

reply to post by Phage


Am all for methane producers etc.

I just think that the WHouse could limit much more traitorously destructive gasses by putting a cork in an obvious place.

However, blathering about methane and idiocies about global warming helps create more chaos, destroy more jobs and set factions of the society against each other . . . as ordered by his bosses. The Destroyer In Chief is doing quite well at his assigned duties. This is just more evidence of same, imho.

I fail to see how trumped up nonsense is going to do anything lastingly good.

Constructive deeds are best built on truth.

Cows and all the rest of the global warming as human caused blather is beyond absurd, to me.

Major sun and other long range cycles are, to me, much more logical sources of whatever warming may be occurring.

Haven't noticed but I suspect the great Phage mind has a different perspective?

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

ManBehindTheMask
What if the regulation includes putting more crap into the already horrendous feeding habits of large scale beefing operations?

We pump our animals with all sorts of stuff to produce more meat, antibodies etc etc etc....

We know all this stuff were putting in our farm raised food stuffs is KILLING people, causing all sorts of ailments....

I agree completely. That's why I, as a consumer, choose NOT to eat that crap.

this is why i buy and butcher my own meat..........

A very good choice! As consumers, if we continue to pay for the crap they sell and continue to put it into our bodies, it's really our fault. We support what they're doing.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAY regulations! that could NEVER go wrong right? Right?

As I said before, regulations are neither good nor bad. It's not a black and white situation.

blupblup
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

Sadly what you have pointed out about misrepresentation and lying by opinion pieces and posters on ATS happens in almost every single thread on here, the Left/Right divide has got so bad on here that you just cannot debate a simple news story or a policy or some kind of startling evidence that the planet is worse off because we are dumping crap all over it....

"No It's a lie, the planet loves our waste and oil and chemicals, the waste companies told me so"


It's actually embarrassing to be honest.

Reading through this thread and seeing Phage and SaturnFX, White Alice and others all trying to get through to the OP and others in complete denial is just an insane read.
But this thread absolutely highlights and lays bare the utter ignorance of those who would just allow companies to just do whatever they want, shows that there is so much misinfo, disinfo and propaganda out there too.

Exactly, very telling. Ironically so, dividing, buying into anything because it favors own belief. Questioning everything, but accept nothing is really dead here!

On title topic, it's pure sensationalism, embarrassing waste of time really.

Gryphon66
For example, Libertygal ... you like to use downstream sources from the Heritage Foundation.

Let's choose a different source, like say The Center for American Progress. Makes you cringe just to read it, eh?

And let's look specifically at President Obama's Clean Energy Progress: How the Top 10 Energy Priorities Fared During his First Term

Ready? Here we go:

In December 2008, during President-elect Obama’s transition, the Center for American Progress proposed the “Top 10 Energy and Environment Priorities for the Obama Administration and 111th Congress.” This progressive agenda was designed to protect public health from carbon and mercury air pollution, reduce oil consumption, and simultaneously boost the economic recovery. Four years later the administration accomplished nearly all of these goals despite the worst economy in nearly 80 years and strong opposition from Big Oil, coal, and other energy interests. Unfortunately, the priorities that required congressional action did not occur, though some progress was still made in each of these areas.

Contrary to your opinion-piece, LG ... President Obama's efforts have had AMAZING success on the clean energy front!

CLEANER CARS

On his seventh day in office, President Obama launched the development of the first improved fuel economy standards in 20 years. His administration, supported by 13 major auto companies, the United Auto Workers, the state of California, and environmentalists, promulgated rules to double automobile fuel economy by 2025 while slashing carbon pollution by 6 billion tons. The modern standards will save drivers $8,200 in lower gasoline purchases over the life of their 2025 vehicle, and will reduce oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels per day.

The White House also adopted the first ever efficiency and carbon pollution standards for commercial trucks, vans, and other heavy vehicles. According to the White House, the new standards will “save over 500 million barrels of oil and save vehicle owners and operators an estimated $50 billion in fuel costs.”

Thanks to these standards, the average fuel economy of cars and light duty trucks (SUVs, minivans) was 23.9 miles per gallon in 2012, the highest ever, according to a University of Michigan analysis.

INVESTMENTS IN CLEAN ENERGY AS PART OF THE ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed in February 2009, included $90 billion in grants, tax incentives, and loan guarantees to increase investments in clean energy. This was the largest clean-energy program in history. It included assistance for wind and solar electricity generation, advanced batteries, public transportation, advanced energy research, and many other clean energy projects.

Case in point: The Recovery Act, which financed weatherization to make nearly 900,000 homes of low-income families more energy efficient, saving an annual average of $400 per household in lower energy costs. The act also “supported 30 new advanced battery and electric vehicle component plants opening across the country so that, by 2015, the U.S. will be able to produce enough batteries and components to support one million hybrid and electric vehicles.”

ESTABLISH NATIONAL RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY PROGRAM

Thirty states and the District of Columbia have renewable (or alternative) electricity (or portfolio) standards that require utilities to generate a certain portion of their electricity from wind, solar, or other renewable energy sources. A renewable electricity standard was included in both the American Clean Energy and Security Act and the American Power Act in the 111th Congress.

Since neither bill became law, in 2011 President Obama proposed a clean-energy standard that would require utilities to generate 80 percent of their electricity from no- or low-carbon pollution sources by 2035. In 2012 Senate Energy Committee Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) introduced such a bill, but it was never voted on.

Despite these setbacks, however, the combination of renewable energy investments in the Recovery Act, concerted administration efforts to site solar projects on appropriate public lands, existing tax incentives, and state standards led to the doubling of renewable electricity generation under President Obama. Nationwide wind electricity doubled to 50 gigawatts, enough to power every home in Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Nevada, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

There are just a few of many of the Obama Administration's accomplishments. But wait, there's more ...

From the website of the National Association of Manufacturers ...

Let's look specifically at the article President's Energy Savings are Performance-Based Contracting Investment Initiative is a Success

WASHINGTON, D.C., 12/19/13 - President Obama’s Energy Savings and Performance-Based Contracting Investment Initiative to create $2 billion in energy savings is a success and should be expanded to five years and $5 billion, according to a report released today.

The report, which the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) drafted using data from companies involved in the initiative, found that more than $1.3 billion worth of projects will have been awarded by the end of 2013 with another $1 billion worth of projects in various stages of the development pipeline and expectations of an additional $200 million being awarded in early 2014.

“Performance-based contracts have been a win-win-win for manufacturers, the federal government and the American public,” said NAM Vice President of Energy and Resources Policy Ross Eisenberg. “The government has saved money and energy by upgrading its buildings; jobs have been created across the supply chain to manufacture and install these products and technologies; and by leveraging the power of the private sector, there have been no upfront costs to taxpayers. Manufacturers urge the President to capitalize on this success by issuing an aggressive new goal of $5 billion in performance-based contracts over the next five years.”

But let's go back to some of your sources and the misinformation being propagated there. Taken at large, your Heritage Foundation propaganda suggests that ALL of the Administration's investment in renewable energy companies have been wasted because they've failed, yes?

NO! Less than One Percent (1%) of the 1300 Companies in the renewable energy space that the Energy Department has funded have failed. Source Money magazine article

Wait ... what??? You mean the actual FACTS are being misrepresented by the Heritage Foundation and it's media mouthpieces?

Yes. It turns out that the energy investments are OVERWHELMINGLY successful but the right-wing media (and those who spead such propaganda) only want to show part of the story. (Source - Media Matters - Right Wing Trumpets IMAGINARY Energy Failures)

Using misdirection and misrepresentation of "the facts" to match your agenda is merely a political act.

great post!

Libertygal is going to have to go back to 1794 to lick her wounds lol

We are going electric, in fact Obama's REGULATION has made it possible to get solar installed on top of my house for NO COST to me, THEN on top of it, I get my billed to be reduced at least 15% AND the company that fronts the equipment gets to pocket the remaining profit.

It is so evil and big government bald eagles are crying as I type. I mean what kind of communist supports regulation that allows for me to pay less on my electricity bill, and allows for a private company to sell the surplus solar energy for a profit???

Welcome to Russsia lol

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Yep. Beijing looks like a great place to live. Face masks when you go outside, and you worry about your daughter? And you wish your city was this "clean"? Are we talking about the same Beijing, here?

This image is from February 2014. With no end in sight, people living in what scientists are calling "similar to a nuclear winter", and this is a great place to live? Where their very government warns them to not go outside? Where the air quality is so bad, they have to close schools? Where crops are failing due to lack of sun. Materialistic much? Just, wow.

I just can't get past that statement. Not even a little bit.

Just reading through this thread - trying to catch up

Maybe it will help if you look up humor, sarcasm, oh! Also irony! :-)

Then reread Phage's posts

Hope this helps you get past that statement

:-)

edit on 3/30/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)

I know what I expect to read next;

Chinese people enjoy the "clouds" that are created by things other than the Earth. They don't have to go out and exercise, they don't get sunburned and they loose weight because crops fail.

I think they should carbon tax every pound of beef sold and put all those billions into Al Gore's carbon tax fund....