http://mnfmi.org/2009/04/17/epa-carbon-ruling-constitution-optional/ Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:51:48 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://mnfmi.org/2009/04/17/epa-carbon-ruling-constitution-optional/comment-page-1/#comment-3216 Pieter (Belgium) Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:32:03 +0000 http://mnfmi.org/?p=1742#comment-3216 The US seems not to be the only country bound to curb carbon emissions. In fact, quite some do already, and as far as I know, no lethal casualties in Denmark or Sweden yet. Can you really believe that all of the industrialized countries with similar targets are "killing their economies and a whole lot of people"? Doesn't that sound a bit silly, really? Plus: what else do we have the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change for, if not to scientifically and on a global basis tell us exactly which emission curbs will matter to keep temperatures on earth bearable? it's obviously not about just the US keeping 8 particles per million out of the atmosphere, but the cumulative effect of others' emissions, too. And then it's obviously a matter of collective egoism again: if every country thinks its contribution does not matter, then nothing will happen (in terms of climate policy of course, in terms of a climate going wild and loose, that's quite another story!). Or do you prefer to read the book of Genesis as your compelling science source? Is the ludicrous Bush era in this really not over yet for some of you? Haven't we had enough nonsense produced by the oil lobby that held the former administration hostage to half-truths and untenable denial of facts? The US seems not to be the only country bound to curb carbon emissions. In fact, quite some do already, and as far as I know, no lethal casualties in Denmark or Sweden yet. Can you really believe that all of the industrialized countries with similar targets are “killing their economies and a whole lot of people”? Doesn’t that sound a bit silly, really?
Plus: what else do we have the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change for, if not to scientifically and on a global basis tell us exactly which emission curbs will matter to keep temperatures on earth bearable? it’s obviously not about just the US keeping 8 particles per million out of the atmosphere, but the cumulative effect of others’ emissions, too. And then it’s obviously a matter of collective egoism again: if every country thinks its contribution does not matter, then nothing will happen (in terms of climate policy of course, in terms of a climate going wild and loose, that’s quite another story!). Or do you prefer to read the book of Genesis as your compelling science source?
Is the ludicrous Bush era in this really not over yet for some of you? Haven’t we had enough nonsense produced by the oil lobby that held the former administration hostage to half-truths and untenable denial of facts?

]]> http://mnfmi.org/2009/04/17/epa-carbon-ruling-constitution-optional/comment-page-1/#comment-197 Leo Pusateri Sat, 18 Apr 2009 03:06:38 +0000 http://mnfmi.org/?p=1742#comment-197 By their logic, we must all quit breathing. I say the environutters at the EPA go first. By their logic, we must all quit breathing. I say the environutters at the EPA go first.

]]> http://mnfmi.org/2009/04/17/epa-carbon-ruling-constitution-optional/comment-page-1/#comment-194 J. Ewing Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:49:37 +0000 http://mnfmi.org/?p=1742#comment-194 Seems to me that all we need is a good lawyer to sue the EPA to produce an "environmental impact assessment" on the proposed regulation. They're always demanding it of everybody else, and it seems to have the effect of stalling or completely stopping whatever some free citizen wants to do with their own property. In this case, I think we are entitled to know exactly how much the global temperature will come down, based on this implementation of whatever the rule is. The fact is that, if the US cuts its carbon emissions by 50% (thus killing the economy and a whole lot of people), we will have altered the composition of the atmosphere by something like 8 parts per million. Are they really going to say that matters? Seems to me that all we need is a good lawyer to sue the EPA to produce an “environmental impact assessment” on the proposed regulation. They’re always demanding it of everybody else, and it seems to have the effect of stalling or completely stopping whatever some free citizen wants to do with their own property. In this case, I think we are entitled to know exactly how much the global temperature will come down, based on this implementation of whatever the rule is. The fact is that, if the US cuts its carbon emissions by 50% (thus killing the economy and a whole lot of people), we will have altered the composition of the atmosphere by something like 8 parts per million. Are they really going to say that matters?

]]>