The End Of The World

[Old Rocks]

The first part ... meh ... when we run out it will suck if all we have is "solar" and "wind" power since every vehicle will have to go electric and all oils will have to be synthetic.

Second part ... well at least you're slowly getting it.

Sarcasm, right? You couldn't possibly be serious, could you?

Concentrating solar, geothermal, wave and ocean current....the list goes on don't get stuck in a rut on power sources, fuel cell....

There is a simple law of physics which you want to ignore. Energy is never created or destroyed, it merely changes form. You are still taking energy from the planet and converting it into energy we use, no matter how it's done, it WILL have just as much an impact. Solar ... do you think that the radiation just came through the atmosphere and vanished? It plays an important role in the ecosystems and is just as important to the planet. Wind ... so we will absorb all the power from the wind, essentially killing it, creating a stagnant atmosphere and making it no longer possible for most species of plants to pollinate correctly. Geothermal ... earths natural heat source ... seems you REALLY want that ice age huh? At least with oil or nuclear we are not taking energy directly from nature, we are taking it from concentrated sources. Every species impacts the environment negatively in some way or another, there are just too many humans do our impact is too much. We can't change the impact without changing our population, period.

Well Kitten, you are just to have to convince a lot of people that they should die for the good of the rest. Good luck.

 

[KittenKoder]

Sarcasm, right? You couldn't possibly be serious, could you?

Concentrating solar, geothermal, wave and ocean current....the list goes on don't get stuck in a rut on power sources, fuel cell....

There is a simple law of physics which you want to ignore. Energy is never created or destroyed, it merely changes form. You are still taking energy from the planet and converting it into energy we use, no matter how it's done, it WILL have just as much an impact. Solar ... do you think that the radiation just came through the atmosphere and vanished? It plays an important role in the ecosystems and is just as important to the planet. Wind ... so we will absorb all the power from the wind, essentially killing it, creating a stagnant atmosphere and making it no longer possible for most species of plants to pollinate correctly. Geothermal ... earths natural heat source ... seems you REALLY want that ice age huh? At least with oil or nuclear we are not taking energy directly from nature, we are taking it from concentrated sources. Every species impacts the environment negatively in some way or another, there are just too many humans do our impact is too much. We can't change the impact without changing our population, period.

Well Kitten, you are just to have to convince a lot of people that they should die for the good of the rest. Good luck.

*grins* Now you see why worrying about all this is just ... pointless. It hurts the ways of life for what? Something that can't be avoided no matter how much you preach, unless you are willing to actually grow a spine and take care of our excess population. But even then, we can slow our growth now and still see no change for at least a few hundred years before the population actually drops low enough. Your scientists are counting on this though, they know people will never allow this possibility to enter their minds, it's just too horrible to think about, huh? Having to let people die in order to save the world for real, so they feed on the fears to endorse specific companies like all of Gores companies, resting easy in the knowledge that there will be no benefit so they can continue to collect more money from people to endorse more products.

It's a hoax, a con job that has been going on too long. You rant and rave about the oil companies doing it while supporting and obeying other companies who are doing the same thing.

 

[Iriemon]

They are trying to preserve species that are going naturally extinct in most cases now, which just upsets the natural order of things.

That depends upon how you define the natural order.

As for the EPA laws, no, they haven't had an effect, the water has more crap in it now than ever, one could argue it's worse. The air quality is worse now as well. To top it off they are creating more things to use as fear factors, with no other purpose than to endorse specific products and services which many are being funded by taxes or forced purchases now.

Your contention that environmental laws have had no impact is, IMO, either very misinformed or is based on a anti-regulation bias that supersedes your ability to look at the facts objectively.

It's been since the mid-70s that I've read about Lake Erie catching on fire.

No, all I have seen the scientists for environmentalism and legislation do is endorse (usually by force or bully) specific products and services from companies that would normally fail since they have no real use or purpose.

Maybe they do. But to therefore assert that environmental laws have had no impact on pollution levels is not a logical conclusion.

Lead kills. Removing lead from gasoline has provided no change in the atmostphere? Is that really your position? That unleaded gas is just a "bullying" product? We should be able to remove emissions controls from cars, filler up with leaded, and have 200 million cars spewing lead into the atmosphere?

It makes no difference?

I mean, that is the most radical position I have ever seen.

 

[KittenKoder]

That depends upon how you define the natural order.



Your contention that environmental laws have had no impact is, IMO, either very misinformed or is based on a anti-regulation bias that supersedes your ability to look at the facts objectively.

It's been since the mid-70s that I've read about Lake Erie catching on fire.

No, all I have seen the scientists for environmentalism and legislation do is endorse (usually by force or bully) specific products and services from companies that would normally fail since they have no real use or purpose.

Maybe they do. But to therefore assert that environmental laws have had no impact on pollution levels is not a logical conclusion.

Lead kills. Removing lead from gasoline has provided no change in the atmostphere? Is that really your position? That unleaded gas is just a "bullying" product? We should be able to remove emissions controls from cars, filler up with leaded, and have 200 million cars spewing lead into the atmosphere?

It makes no difference?

I mean, that is the most radical position I have ever seen.

Here's the thing, not all of it was from environmentalists ... most of the laws were just common sense changes often spurred by medical science and had nothing to do with the environment, lead was one such case. It's medical science that found that out and pushed to have it taken from all products used by humans. Still, nothing from the environmental scientists except product endorsements, low flow, light bulbs, recycling, "alternative energy", etc.. Not one of these has done anything to help and one actually harms the environment even more.

 

[Iriemon]

No, all I have seen the scientists for environmentalism and legislation do is endorse (usually by force or bully) specific products and services from companies that would normally fail since they have no real use or purpose.

Maybe they do. But to therefore assert that environmental laws have had no impact on pollution levels is not a logical conclusion.

Lead kills. Removing lead from gasoline has provided no change in the atmostphere? Is that really your position? That unleaded gas is just a "bullying" product? We should be able to remove emissions controls from cars, filler up with leaded, and have 200 million cars spewing lead into the atmosphere?

It makes no difference?

I mean, that is the most radical position I have ever seen.

Here's the thing, not all of it was from environmentalists ... most of the laws were just common sense changes often spurred by medical science and had nothing to do with the environment, lead was one such case. It's medical science that found that out and pushed to have it taken from all products used by humans. Still, nothing from the environmental scientists except product endorsements, low flow, light bulbs, recycling, "alternative energy", etc.. Not one of these has done anything to help and one actually harms the environment even more.

Who cares where the cleaner technology came from?

It is because of environmental laws and regulation that pollutions have been reduced.

Lake Erie before those useless EPA regs went into effect:

 

[KittenKoder]

*yawn* Same chances still exit, just in different ways now.

 

[editec]

Hundreds of thousands of people a year DO die of air pollution.

Millions doe die every year from famine.

We are fishing down the food chain in the oceans.

None of those things aren't coming to pass, just as predicted.

 

[Iriemon]

*yawn* Same chances still exit, just in different ways now.

The river isn't going to catch on fire if its not filled with oil slicks.

I'm no tree hugger, but I've never come across someone who actually thinks all pollutions regulations should be eliminated and thinks they've done no good. I'm really amazed that you could come to this conclusion.

You should spend a little time in China and see how it makes a difference.

 

[Iriemon]

Hundreds of thousands of people a year DO die of air pollution.

Millions doe die every year from famine.

We are fishing down the food chain in the oceans.

None of those things aren't coming to pass, just as predicted.

Population has about doubled in the world since 1970 too.

 

[KittenKoder]

*yawn* Same chances still exit, just in different ways now.

I'm no tree hugger, but I've never come across someone who actually thinks all pollutions regulations should be eliminated and thinks they've done no good. I'm really amazed that you could come to this conclusion.

You should spend a little time in China and see how it makes a difference.

You missed how I had shown there is a difference between common sense and "environmental regulations". Common sense is common sense, logic. The environmentalist regulations now are not based on common sense, they are based on who is funding them.

 

[Iriemon]

*yawn* Same chances still exit, just in different ways now.

I'm no tree hugger, but I've never come across someone who actually thinks all pollutions regulations should be eliminated and thinks they've done no good. I'm really amazed that you could come to this conclusion.

You should spend a little time in China and see how it makes a difference.

You missed how I had shown there is a difference between common sense and "environmental regulations". Common sense is common sense, logic. The environmentalist regulations now are not based on common sense, they are based on who is funding them.

So EPA laws prohibiting lead in gasoline are not common sense and therefore we should rip out our catalytic converters. Got it.

We have a very different view of "common sense."

 

[KittenKoder]

I'm no tree hugger, but I've never come across someone who actually thinks all pollutions regulations should be eliminated and thinks they've done no good. I'm really amazed that you could come to this conclusion.

You should spend a little time in China and see how it makes a difference.

You missed how I had shown there is a difference between common sense and "environmental regulations". Common sense is common sense, logic. The environmentalist regulations now are not based on common sense, they are based on who is funding them.

So EPA laws prohibiting lead in gasoline are not common sense and therefore we should rip out our catalytic converters. Got it.

We have a very different view of "common sense."

You have reading comprehension problems, I never said it was a bad idea to take lead out of products used frequently, I said it was a common sense law supported by the medical community, not the environuts.

 

[Iriemon]

You missed how I had shown there is a difference between common sense and "environmental regulations". Common sense is common sense, logic. The environmentalist regulations now are not based on common sense, they are based on who is funding them.

So EPA laws prohibiting lead in gasoline are not common sense and therefore we should rip out our catalytic converters. Got it.

We have a very different view of "common sense."

You have reading comprehension problems, I never said it was a bad idea to take lead out of products used frequently, I said it was a common sense law supported by the medical community, not the environuts.

It was the "environuts," the EPA, that enforced regs requiring lead to be removed from gasoline!

 

[KittenKoder]

So EPA laws prohibiting lead in gasoline are not common sense and therefore we should rip out our catalytic converters. Got it.

We have a very different view of "common sense."

You have reading comprehension problems, I never said it was a bad idea to take lead out of products used frequently, I said it was a common sense law supported by the medical community, not the environuts.

It was the "environuts," the EPA, that enforced regs requiring lead to be removed from gasoline!

No, the actual envirnuts didn't permeate the mainstream scientific community until later. Environmentalism was once about responsibility, but now it's about endorsement. Can't pin point the exact time the shift did occur, but it was after the common sense laws were passed. Look at the history, it use to be just stopping people fro using proven harmful chemicals which had hard evidence and did not endorse any other products, to now we have them making wild claims about dangers that are not proven or linked to humanity while endorsing specific products from certain companies who pay them. That's the difference.

 

[Iriemon]

You have reading comprehension problems, I never said it was a bad idea to take lead out of products used frequently, I said it was a common sense law supported by the medical community, not the environuts.

It was the "environuts," the EPA, that enforced regs requiring lead to be removed from gasoline!

No, the actual envirnuts didn't permeate the mainstream scientific community until later. Environmentalism was once about responsibility, but now it's about endorsement. Can't pin point the exact time the shift did occur, but it was after the common sense laws were passed. Look at the history, it use to be just stopping people fro using proven harmful chemicals which had hard evidence and did not endorse any other products, to now we have them making wild claims about dangers that are not proven or linked to humanity while endorsing specific products from certain companies who pay them. That's the difference.

No, they were considered environut then too by those who didn't what to replace lead in gas. Here's a history of lead in gas if you're interested.

Lead Poisoning: A Historical Perspective | EPA History | US EPA

 

[Burp]

Point - KittenKoder

Landrigan's reputation rests largely on his role as a highly credible evidence-based advocate for public health, specifically in his focus on reducing the level of children's exposure to lead and pesticides and for his participation in the World Health Organization's global campaign to eradicate smallpox. In the early 1970s, Landrigan took on ASARCO, a smelting company and one of the largest employers in El Paso, Texas. In testing the blood of children attending schools near ASARCO's El Paso smelting plant, Landrigan concluded that 60% of children living within one mile of the smelter had elevated blood lead levels and that even small amounts of lead exposure lowers a child’s IQ. In a later study (2002), Landrigan correlated childhood lead exposure and lifetime earning potential, concluding that current levels of lead exposure in the United States amount to an aggregate income loss of over $40 billion dollars a year.

Landrigan and his studies played a key role in the government mandate phasing out lead components from gasoline, beginning in 1975, and the federal ban on lead paint in 1978 – culminating in an 88% drop in lead levels in American children by 2005.

Philip J. Landrigan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[KittenKoder]

It was the "environuts," the EPA, that enforced regs requiring lead to be removed from gasoline!

No, the actual envirnuts didn't permeate the mainstream scientific community until later. Environmentalism was once about responsibility, but now it's about endorsement. Can't pin point the exact time the shift did occur, but it was after the common sense laws were passed. Look at the history, it use to be just stopping people fro using proven harmful chemicals which had hard evidence and did not endorse any other products, to now we have them making wild claims about dangers that are not proven or linked to humanity while endorsing specific products from certain companies who pay them. That's the difference.

No, they were considered environut then too by those who didn't what to replace lead in gas. Here's a history of lead in gas if you're interested.

Lead Poisoning: A Historical Perspective | EPA History | US EPA

You really see everything as being the same back then as today? Different people, different time.

 

[Iriemon]

No, the actual envirnuts didn't permeate the mainstream scientific community until later. Environmentalism was once about responsibility, but now it's about endorsement. Can't pin point the exact time the shift did occur, but it was after the common sense laws were passed. Look at the history, it use to be just stopping people fro using proven harmful chemicals which had hard evidence and did not endorse any other products, to now we have them making wild claims about dangers that are not proven or linked to humanity while endorsing specific products from certain companies who pay them. That's the difference.

No, they were considered environut then too by those who didn't what to replace lead in gas. Here's a history of lead in gas if you're interested.

Lead Poisoning: A Historical Perspective | EPA History | US EPA

You really see everything as being the same back then as today? Different people, different time.

That's fine, I didn't mean to start a debate about global warming.

I had thought you were indicating that no EPA regulations were beneficial, but I think we've clarified that you agree some are.