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.

 

Obama to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
www.bbc.co.uk...

The Obama administration has said it will regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants amid opposition from industry and Republicans in Congress.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it would regulate emissions from fossil fuel power plants by 2011 and petroleum refineries by 2012.


In other news:

31,487 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs, have rejected the IPCC's claims of global warming.

Including Edward Teller.

Last time I checked, only the Congress was empowered to make law.

Of course, we live in a fascist kleptocracy, not a constitutional republic.


edit on 23-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


THANK GOD!!!!

I was just saying my ol' lady the other day, I says, hun, I really don't think we pay enough for our electric bill .. she was contemplative and she says, you're right.. we should be paying almost twice as much! I wish the President would hurry up and solve this absurd debacle and get this billing right! I sincerely hope that we can pass this measure and get more revenue flowing into the Government and the shareholders of power plants, and maybe even save the world along the way. Until then I'm just going to send an extra $50 to my power company along with a sympathetic note telling them i'll look under my couch cushions for more change to send next month since they obviously are not charging me enough.

Thank God for Government!



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


funny stuff their puck.
In other news look at the bright shiny diamond that the soon to be queen of whales is wearing.
just sickening



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


That's funny, because I was thinking the exact same thing.

I have too much money.

I was hoping some men in black uniforms with machine guns could come and take it from me.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Nothing brings down the thread credence more like easily debunked denier propaganda used in an opening post.


The petition is a joke
Jokers Add Fake Names To Warming Petition

Proper peer-rewieved studies show that there is a 97-98% consensus among actual climate scientists. Another study coming with the same conclusion and figure is here .

Regulating emissions and promoting alternative electricity is a good thing. Way to go Obama!

edit on 25/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


The petition is no joke.

What is a joke is a bunch of socialist climate scientists, who are entirely funded by the State and who got caught flat out lying in a series of leaked emails, telling us that unless we give the State all of our money we are going to die in a hell on earth.

That my friend, is a joke.



edit on 25-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


How exactly is this bill giving money to the State? This is what it does:


The new rules are expected to limit the amount of carbon dioxide a plant can emit per each megawatt hour of electricity produced.


Where is the money-giving part? If the plant meets the CO2/MW/h ratio, it wont pay nothing. If it does not, it is harming others by its emissions, and that must be stopped or at least discouraged even if you are a libertarian, harming others is not allowed.



The petition is no joke.


Of course, and Geri Halliwell signed there is a leading climate expert..



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


If people are being harmed by CO2 emissions, then they can sue the emitters in civil court for damages.

No regulatory body is required.

Of course, we all know that NO ONE is being harmed by CO2 emissions, which means it is impossible to sue anyone for emitting CO2 and win any damages.

Only criminal fascists at the EPA who want to lord over our lives and return us to the stone age think we are being harmed by CO2. The climate scientists who support the global warming fraud are few in number and ideologically driven in conviction. They have the sole agenda of expanding State power over our lives, no matter the cost - because their paychecks and research grants only increase when they can claim a climate crisis is occurring.

Only an idiot would believe a scientist who screams the earth is heating up when that same scientist stands to make a fortune in research grants and pay from a manufactured crisis.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I"m being harmed by the allegations of CO2 emmisions.
I have trouble breathing due to the bull-spanky being spread around here.

Gimme money, I'm half black and used to have a garden!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I know how this works been happening for years. They fine the Company if they don`t meet the regulations and it`s good till next inspection. Been going on for years like that already in the Ohio Valley with the Steel Mills and Power Plants. And sometimes it`s much cheaper to pay the EPA fine then fix the problem.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




If people are being harmed by CO2 emissions, then they can sue the emitters in civil court for damages. No regulatory body is required.


Too bad nature does not play along with your lawyer mumbo-jumbo constructs and slyly separated the cause and effect for a few generations. How does your simplistic philosophy cope with that? I am not going to argue over the validity of AGW here, since we have plenty of threads about that elsewhere, but suppose AGW is true - would you be still be OK with doing nothing, since we cant sue the emitters for damage in a civil court, at least not now?



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Connman
 


Of course.

Rich companies can afford the fine.

Their smaller competitors can not.

All

ALL

ALLLLLL government regulation serves the singular purpose of cartelizing industry and restricting competition.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




Rich companies can afford the fine. Their smaller competitors can not.


I agree, that is a problem, but with easy solution - set fine as a percentage of profit (or income in case of personal fines) not as fixed amount.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

If people are being harmed by CO2 emissions, then they can sue the emitters in civil court for damages.

No regulatory body is required.




Sometimes I can't tell whether you're being genuine, or just an elaborate troll.

Is that honestly the society you want? Any time someone does something bad, sue them for monetary damages?

Someone drives drunk and kills your 4 year old daughter? Sue him for money.

Eat at a restaurant that does not have proper food-safety regulations and get Salmonella? Sue them for money.

Company emits too much harmful gasses into the atmosphere damaging the environment? Sue them for money.



Don't you realize that not everything can be measured in dollars and cents? What price can you put on our environment? What price can you put on life?

When the vegetation starts to die off because the bees are gone, when we can no longer eat seafood because the water is filled with mercury, when we have to walk around the streets with respirators because of all the air pollution... at least we will have all that delicious money that we sued for, right?






posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


Suing a man for money is the same as enslaving him to work for you.

So far, a more just punishment for violating someone's rights has yet to be found.

If a man is accused of damaging someone's property, then he should be afforded a proper trial. Of course, liberals don't believe in due process - as this thread clearly demonstrates.


edit on 25-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




If a man is accused of damaging someone's property, then he should be afforded a proper trial.


So are you saying that unless the whole atmosphere is privatized (becoming someones property), damaging it should be perfectly OK? And who should that be?




top topics



 
3

log in

join