It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 




When fascism comes to America it wil be wrapped in the gleeful cheers of we must give up the little freedoms we have left, under the false delusion it's to 'save the planet'.

Freedoms like #ting in our own nest.
Got it.




posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by neo96
 


Because the simple fact it is cheaper to do business in other countries than it is here.
I see. I guess that's strictly because of pollution regulation. Nothing to do with other production costs, like labor.


'Pollution' regulation is nothing more than the same dogma Americans have been hearing for over 100 years
Right, pollution is good for business so it's good for America. Gee. Bejing looks like a nice place to live. Doesn't it?


Righton Phage!

Production costs (labor) can be over ten times cheaper. I doubt regulation spikes prices 10 times like American labor does.

The fact of the matter is, reducing pollution is a big business and it ensures that research/development and future production will have new and improved products (that are tailored to new regulations) to sell in the future.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by neo96
 




When fascism comes to America it wil be wrapped in the gleeful cheers of we must give up the little freedoms we have left, under the false delusion it's to 'save the planet'.

Freedoms like #ting in our own nest.
Got it.


I wish it was $hit, then people like Neo96 would SEE it and it would register that it is there. Anything else is a bit to abstract I'm affraid...



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by neo96
 




When fascism comes to America it wil be wrapped in the gleeful cheers of we must give up the little freedoms we have left, under the false delusion it's to 'save the planet'.

Freedoms like #ting in our own nest.
Got it.


No.

Freedoms like the 'state' taking away your home to save some fish or bird or the property was declared a wildlife habitat or 'wetland'.

Freedoms like growing your own food in a garden.

Freedoms like digging a well for your own water.

As to snipping in our own nest ?

The increased costs for water, and sewage Americans will have to pay to 'save the planet'.

Or water, and electricity will be cut off at the source because your using too much.


edit on 29-3-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   

neo96

Phage
reply to post by neo96
 




When fascism comes to America it wil be wrapped in the gleeful cheers of we must give up the little freedoms we have left, under the false delusion it's to 'save the planet'.

Freedoms like #ting in our own nest.
Got it.


No.

Freedoms like the 'state' taking away your home to save some fish or bird or the property was declared a wildlife habitat or 'wetland'.

Freedoms like growing your own food in a garden.

Freedoms like digging a well for your own water.

As to snipping in our own nest ?

The increased costs for water, and sewage Americans will have to pay to 'save the planet'.

Or water, and electricity will be cut off at the source because your using too much.


edit on 29-3-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


How often does the state take away someones property to protect the environment?

Let's see how pervasive that problem is...



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 




The increased costs for water, and sewage Americans will have to pay to 'save the planet'.

Or water, and electricity will be cut off at the source because your using too much.

Yes. Because, of course, resources are unlimited and can continue to support a growing population indefinitely.
Because the only thing that has changed in hundreds of years is the political atmosphere.

Bejing looks like a nice place to live. Doesn't it?

Anyway, back on topic. The White House is not looking to regulate cow flatulence.

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



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Maybe if they regulated the destruction of the Amazon forest then we would believe that they are serious about the environment. But no, there's probably no profit to be done from it.

It's simple, follow the money. They want to regulate something?
Well it's obviously because they calculated that it would be profitable.

I'm not against not polluting, quite the contrary...but maybe we should point out oil corporations for lobbying around the world so that we are forced to continue to burn fuel that weakens every living creature on the face of the earth all the while we have dozens of other ways to harvest cleaner energy sources.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by theMediator
 




Maybe if they regulated the destruction of the Amazon forest then we would believe that they are serious about the environment.

That would be nice. But Washington can't do much about regulating that.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge
 





How often does the state take away someones property to protect the environment?


Happens all the time in California.

Never heard of 'eminent domain' ?



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Yes. Because, of course, resources are unlimited and can continue to support a growing population indefinitely.


Apparently the power of the US government is unlimited, and gets to do whatever the hell it wants to.

And that is making 'resources' more scarce by the day.




Bejing looks like a nice place to live. Doesn't it?


I read it the first time you said, and the second, and the third. and the fourth.

Is there a GD point to the repetition there ?



Anyway, back on topic. The White House is not looking to regulate cow flatulence.


Yeah it is.

The 'all of the above approach'.


edit on 29-3-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Is there a GD point to the repetition there ?
Yes. The point is that pollution regulation works and China will soon have to deal with it seriously as its cities become unlivable.



Yeah it is.
Evidence?

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



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

neo96
reply to post by Phage
 






Bejing looks like a nice place to live. Doesn't it?


I read it the first time you said, and the second, and the third. and the fourth.

Is there a GD point to the repetition there ?



Maybe if you would stop ignoring it, he would stop repeating it.
Do you think the lack of regulation regarding pollution in Bejing is a good thing? Do you think there is no pollution problem in Bejing?



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
There are millions of meals cooked on wood or charcoal burning fires everyday. Shifting the pollution to places like China/India and their no caring or non regulated pollution factories will do nothing except put more American people out of work and send companies far far away from the stupidity of our regulations.. Tax us, regulate us, EPA us, OSHA us, EEOC us, building permit us, infinitude in ways to get you to bend over and smile and pay while you do. Much good and much bad just depends on which end of the stick you find yourself..

Nigeria is the world’s sixth-largest oil exporter, with vast reserves of natural gas as well. Yet 80m of its people lack access to electricity.

Pakistan, where energy shortages in a rapidly growing nation of 180m have led to civil unrest – as well as rampant destruction of forests..... mostly to provide firewood for cooking and heating.

Germany is building 10 new coal plants over the next two years.... China is building two a month is the last thing I heard about their energy needs....

The inhabitants of poor countries are always being touted as vulnerable to the future climate changes that our greenhouse gas emissions will cause. Why then, do they simultaneously promote the green imperialism that helps lock in the poverty that makes these countries so vulnerable? No infrastructure and certainly no money above subsistence type economies stifle Economic growth..... Economic growth requires energy consumption and leads to more and more of it – most of which historically must be provided by fossil fuels. The last time I looked there were a reported 1.2 billion people in this world without electricity.. All this myopic American or 1st world country thinking if carried out in a grand plan is to keep all the 3rd world countries in poverty IMO.. Again all part of agenda 21

Remember the millions of buffalo that were killed to deprive the plains Indians of a way of surviving on their own... Who would have thought they were actually saving the planet... Indians certainly didn't IMO...

I read last week they are selling clean air by the bottle in China (no kidding).. Think it was on Drudge Report web sight?

No one wants to live in a trash dump or next to a place putting out harmful smelly vapors and I can not find fault for wanting to keep certain businesses from killing us all.. However many of our governmental EPA decisions appear to have been made by the absolute bottom of the class.. or special Ed for the mentally handicapped. Nuclear industry comes to mind...

If the pill works and does cut 25% of methane and does not kill the cows or those who eat cows or drink milk then fine. If the pills can be made for .25 cents and the government mandates cause the price to go to $25 (typical bureaucratic B.S.) per pill then not so good.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 




If the pill works and does cut 25% of methane and does not kill the cows or those who eat cows or drink milk then fine. If the pills can be made for .25 cents and the government mandates cause the price to go to $25 (typical bureaucratic B.S.) per pill then not so good.

What pill? I think you're confused. This is a methane digester.
jaystile.files.wordpress.com...
edit on 3/29/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


If they want to regulate cow flatulence that is great. I would rather they control the flatulence coming out of this mouth



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Yes. The point is that pollution regulation works an


No it doesn't and China is the biggest reason it doesn't.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 





Maybe if you would stop ignoring it, he would stop repeating it.


Sorry not a dog. I don't jump when people say so, and I sure the hell don't roll over for them.




Do you think the lack of regulation regarding pollution in Bejing is a good thing?


What China does is their own GD business.

Telling other countries what to do I leave for the neocons.

The people who support 'climate regulation' created China.

Because Americans apparently too bloody good to 'breathe' dirty air.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 





Shifting the pollution to places like China/India and their no caring or non regulated pollution factories will do nothing except put more American people out of work and send companies far far away from the stupidity of our regulations.. Tax us, regulate us, EPA us, OSHA us, EEOC us, building permit us, infinitude in ways to get you to bend over and smile and pay while you do. Much good and much bad just depends on which end of the stick you find yourself..


They simply REFUSE to acknowledge that.

I wonder why guess it doesn't fit the false narrative the global warming crowd tries to spin.
edit on 29-3-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

neo96

The people who support 'climate regulation' created China.

Because Americans apparently too bloody good to 'breathe' dirty air.

So, you're saying Americans don't deserve to have good air quality? Are you for effing real, or just utterly stupid? How do you justify the health effects of horrid air quality? La Oroya, Peru. Explain why that level of pollution should be left unchecked stateside.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Now you are just giving silly excuses because you don't have a good counter point. FACT: Beijing has a horrible, dangerous pollution problem. FACT: the Beijing government has not considered regulating this pollution a priority over economic growth, until just recently. Looks like they are finally learning from countries like America, that regulations DO help.

www.chinadaily.com.cn...



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join