..uman health that must be regulated

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CEHI9G1&show_article=1

GOOD BYE JOB CREATION!!

12/7/2009 10:25:21 AM

ibt "how in the world could this possibly effect jerbs!!!! "

and ibt "double post lock suspend terminate declare internet bandwidth usage a threat to humanity"

[Edited on December 7, 2009 at 10:39 AM. Reason : 1]

12/7/2009 10:36:12 AM

Quote :

"EPA will declare greenhouse gases mercury..."

Quote :

"EPA will declare greenhouse gases arsenic..."

Quote :

"EPA will declare greenhouse gases lead..."

Quote :

"EPA will declare greenhouse gases dioxin..."

GOOD BYE JOB CREATION!!


And more like "hello comparative advantage in green energy"

12/7/2009 10:44:23 AM

Why does not the EPA and environmental groups stick to pollution concerns that are a lot more quantifiable and will make a much more immediate impact than global warming. I am sure there is a lot of crap in our rivers and chemicals in the air that are of much greater concern than global warming with which the exact magnitude of impact has a high degree of variability and error.

12/7/2009 10:49:52 AM

^they want the 'top of the pyramid' first. why start so low like that when you can regulate anything and everything under a massive umbrella. you could control whatever company you wanted

12/7/2009 10:52:47 AM

Quote :

"GOOD BYE JOB CREATION!!"

Ahhh yes, the sky is falling. Talk about climate alarmism right here. OMG changes to regulation = job loss.

Without getting into a debate about climate, which isn't why I'm in this thread, how can you make such a leap of logic?

12/7/2009 11:04:58 AM

You make it sound like we are in some perfect condition to start looking at permanent 10-20% unemployment and 30-40% underemployment.


and if you want to talk about climate change with me and get respect. lose about 75lbs fatty. you are the whole reason for global warming.

[Edited on December 7, 2009 at 11:08 AM. Reason : s]

12/7/2009 11:07:56 AM

Exaggeration much? Show me some statistics to back that up.

12/7/2009 11:09:40 AM

Water vapor!

12/7/2009 11:18:06 AM

k, I'm done. Best you can do is insult me personally.

Quote :

"and if you want to talk about climate change with me and get respect. lose about 75lbs fatty. you are the whole reason for global warming."

12/7/2009 11:22:00 AM

global warming rules. If we could go up by about 4-5 degrees I'd be real happy.

12/7/2009 11:26:15 AM

I'M GOING TO JUMP OUT THE NEAREST WINDOW.

12/7/2009 11:29:22 AM

these threads are so funny

12/7/2009 12:14:57 PM

Ya know, we already HAVE an EPA thread

enjoy: http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=558984

12/7/2009 1:35:54 PM

i like it. a gas that is all around us, that we EXHALE, is a "danger to human health." good stuff

12/7/2009 6:21:10 PM

I rarely respond to these threads, but I'm curious as to who actually has some experience dealing with these sorts of regulations in the corporate environment?

This actually creates jobs. These companies will need people to monitor the greenhouse emmissions and ensure that they are complying to federal regulations. That, in turn, creates jobs at the EPA to study and maintain the regulations. What it does is increase costs to the company, which is a different but fair argument. A lot of customers prefer to buy from companies who have green initiatives (to an extent). We get questions about it from our customers all the time.

Anyone familiar with ISO 14000?

^ Also, why do you think humans EXHALE CO2? Because our body doesn't want it and its a bi-product of "being alive."

[Edited on December 7, 2009 at 6:31 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2009 6:28:58 PM

it may create jobs as you describe, but what it will ultimately do is drive some companies here to simply ship their manufacturing jobs overseas. it's stunning that you can't fathom that

12/7/2009 6:30:26 PM

It will drive companies overseas if the cost becomes non-competitive. That isn't why companies are going overseas. Its because of the cheap labor markets. There are global initiatives that apply to many different countries with the exceptions of the US and China right now.

I don't think you are looking at this as objectively as you should be.

12/7/2009 6:34:17 PM

Quote :

"Also, why do you think humans EXHALE CO2? Because our body doesn't want it and its a bi-product of "being alive.""

Yes, but that doesn't make it a "threat to our health." Our body also excretes water. It's not a threat to human health.

Quote :

"It will drive companies overseas if the cost becomes non-competitive."

And what makes you think it won't? Hmmm, it's already cheap to send jobs overseas... Now let's add another cost. No-brainer

12/7/2009 6:37:12 PM

First-world countries have been losing the more low-tech manufacturing jobs for decades. You’re putting a bandaid on a bullet wound to try and save them, instead of trying to focus on where our strengths lie in promoting high-skilled labor. And this is a really intuitive concept when you consider that the 3rd world is getting richer, which means you can build a reliable manufacturing facility in a growing number of areas that will be both cheap and productive.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/manufacturing-around-the-world/


[Edited on December 7, 2009 at 6:40 PM. Reason : ]

12/7/2009 6:40:21 PM

I think the initiatives designed to "prevent" global warming are ridiculous and some of the environmental hippies have gone off the deep end as far as being concerned about their "CO2 footprint". Some bitch in another active thread in TSB was bitching about how dogs have a greater carbon footprint than SUV'x . Cut me a fucking break when greenies start talking about banning cows and slap a CO2 meter to my throat in order to charge me per CO2 release than i completely tune out.

12/7/2009 6:41:16 PM

Increased CO2 levels in the body is actually a threat to health. The entire point of respiration is to breath in Oxygen and breathe out CO2. If you drink enough water it will kill you because it changes your body pH to a point where your systems just shut down. In the context of this conversation, the amount of CO2 currently in the air is not a threat to human health directly. Indirectly, such as through global warming of what have you, is a different argument altogether.

What makes me think it won't? First hand experience. My company has turned green initiatives into higher profits. As the global regulations start to form, and these things will be required, certain customers will have to source from companies that meet these criteria (especially in the food / pharmaceutical industries). Granted, that may not apply to all companies but assuming that new regulations will suddenly send all these jobs overseas is a little too "Chicken Little" for me, especially when it is coming from people whom I presume to have no first hand knowledge.

12/7/2009 6:45:51 PM

An increase in water concentration in the body can also cause problems. Is it now a danger to human health?

Quote :

"My company has turned green initiatives into higher profits."

By all means, congrats on profiteering from scare-mongering. But it doesn't mean that every one will profit, nor does that mean that no company will be harmed by it.

12/7/2009 6:51:10 PM

Quote :

"I don't think you are looking at this as objectively as you should be."

Understatement of the year.

12/7/2009 6:54:30 PM

nice addition to the topic. btw, any time you want to address the points where I raped you in the other thread, feel free to join back in

12/7/2009 6:55:16 PM

We actually bought a landfill and are using the methane generated from it to power our steam boilers. ISO 14000 doesn't really cover CO2 to my knowledge. I think its just good engineering. I know there was a project in the chemical engineering department at NCSU to use CO2 as a catalyst in certain reactions, which could use a significant quantity of the gas. See, thats where science comes in and seperates itself from politics. Figure out a way to use the stuff for the benefit of the planet. Its not really scare-mongering but I admit I didn't give you enough information to make a reasonable conclusion.

Quote :

"But it doesn't mean that every one will profit, nor does that mean that no company will be harmed by it."

Agreed. My whole point was just to counter the statement that these regulations would only lose jobs, which is not true. It may create some, and it may force a company to move. Depends on the wording of the regulation and the industry.

12/7/2009 6:56:51 PM

Any time you want to address the points I made, other than saying "You're full of shit!" feel free to chime in.

12/7/2009 6:57:28 PM

^ you had no points. that's why you got raped. but, hey, feel free to bring them up

12/7/2009 7:01:12 PM

I could say you had no points either, but I'm not a dishonest asshole.

12/7/2009 7:04:33 PM

no, you're just someone who thinks science is a popularity contest.

12/7/2009 7:06:10 PM

And you’re just someone who thinks science is whatever the GOP says it is.

12/7/2009 7:07:32 PM

I apologize for derailing this thread. Carry on...

12/7/2009 7:07:51 PM

and you're someone who thinks science is whatever Al Gore says it is, moron

12/7/2009 7:09:03 PM

i’ve never watched, listened to, or read an analysis of climate change that was written, directed, or produced by Mr. Gore.

12/7/2009 7:14:37 PM

some of yall must have missed the whistleblowers finding out that theyve been making the whole global warming thing up. its been in the news.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

wall street journal, thats' the real thing, so dont pull the whole "omg you got this from rush limbaugh!" stuff to try to discredt it.

12/7/2009 7:40:20 PM

hackers = whistleblowers

[Edited on December 7, 2009 at 7:43 PM. Reason : /]

12/7/2009 7:43:32 PM

Quote :

"theyve been making the whole global warming thing up."

I think you need to read your article again.

12/7/2009 7:47:15 PM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=582936

12/7/2009 7:49:35 PM

Drive more fuel efficient cars, plant more trees, destroy all cows. Problem solved, right there.

/thread?

12/7/2009 8:18:33 PM

Quote :

"By all means, congrats on profiteering from scare-mongering. But it doesn't mean that every one will profit, nor does that mean that no company will be harmed by it."

Don't get me wrong I think there is nothing wrong with society progressing towards cleaner more green technologies. This should be a slow trend as it is good for the environment regardless if the long term proves AGW to be an issue or lack there of. The way the liberal agenda and international environmentalists though are trying to go about it though is completely wrong. They want to make sweeping abrupt changes without having any regards to the world/national economy. Just as those companies who would be harmed proving AGW is false have a fish in the pot; many companies also have a fish in the pot to profit with these environmental changes. Thus it is really hard to filter out the hype and chicken little screaming from the actual relevant data.

12/7/2009 8:35:39 PM

Quote :

"i’ve never watched, listened to, or read an analysis of climate change that was written, directed, or produced by Mr. Gorethe GOP."

12/7/2009 9:03:44 PM

Armabond1, are you a few cards short of a full deck? Life on this planet would not exist without CO2.

And all you idiots have placed your faith in computer models. Big time science there.

12/7/2009 10:10:29 PM

I think you need to re-read the conversation because you completely missed the point of what I was saying. I was simply countering general comments with specifics. If you are going to call someone out of context at least have the courtesy to read the entire exchange.

In any case, computer models can be a very good tool and usually are based on equations and factors derived from direct observation. They can offer good approximations. Computer models are used in engineering and process design all the time.

12/7/2009 10:20:33 PM

Didn't you know? Computer models are only wrong when they are used in weather/climo.

12/7/2009 11:17:42 PM

YOU SHOULDN'T BE USING COMPUTERS ANYWAYS!!! think of all those jobs lost because of computers! all those hard-working, number-crunchers. some of america's finest long-divisioners had their jobs sent overseas because of computers.


progress is so bad! i miss the good 'ol days, where i could go to work for 18 hours, inhale a mountain-worth of coal, and go home and sleep in my company owned cot. all in a days work.

asbestos? mold? lead? formaldehyde? green house gases? man up, ya pussies.

now get back to work.

[Edited on December 8, 2009 at 3:20 AM. Reason : ]

12/8/2009 3:14:19 AM

Water vapor!

12/8/2009 6:39:20 AM

Quote :

"progress is so bad! i miss the good 'ol days, where i could go to work for 18 hours, inhale a mountain-worth of coal, and go home and sleep in my company owned cot. all in a days work."

I think its been proven people work longer days now with all the advances in technology such that you are never more than a blackberry beep away or a mouse click from your Virtual LAN connection to work.

12/8/2009 7:32:48 AM

^^^^I care about computer models when they're used to tailor regulation and taxes that will destroy the American economy and standard of living.

Armabond1, I read exactly what you said. You were trying to paint CO2 in a bad light and failed.

The End

[Edited on December 8, 2009 at 8:29 AM. Reason : k]

12/8/2009 8:27:34 AM

I am more concerned about NOx in the air, mercury in the oceans, chemicals in the rivers then a theoritical climate shift promoted by human CO2 release. The human induced shift could easily be a mere 0.1 deg C over the last 100 years compared to the hell and brimstone spouted by many liberal environmentalists.

12/8/2009 8:33:11 AM

One of the original authors of 1970's Clean Air Act, Rep. John Dingell, has this to say about the EPA's (and Obama Admin's) power grab:

Quote :

"We are looking at the possibility of a glorious mess being visited upon this country. This is not what was intended by the Congress and by those of us who wrote the Clean Air Act. We are beginning to look at a wonderfully complex world, which has the potential for shutting down or slowing down virtually all industry and all economic activity and growth."

It doesn't help that the EPA is illegally trying to rewrite the law to suit it's purposes. Instead of following the law they want to handpick which industries and carbon emitters to regulate. I honestly don't see how this can stand up in court.

12/8/2009 10:20:34 AM