Give Feedback
HomeWorld AffairsPolitics & Opinions

Where has common sense gone in America?


This coal-fired power plant is one of some 600 across the United States that together provide half of the country's electricity — and much of its greenhouse gas emissions.


Where has common sense gone in America? Every day new science and empirical evidence appear that dispute the claims made by global warming alarmists and yet the assault continues on our common sense. Even in the face of a global cool down we are told to deny our senses, common sense included, and accept a fact not in evidence.

This Msnbc article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30264214 is proof positive that Obama administration polices have no basis in substantive fact but are in fact the antithesis of common sense.

WASHINGTON - Having received White House backing, the Environmental Protection Agency declared Friday that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are a significant threat to human health and thus will be listed as pollutants under the Clean Air Act — a policy the Bush administration rejected.

The article says:

Potential health impacts from warming, EPA scientists said in their recommendations include:
• longer and more severe heat waves;
• increased smog in some areas;
• dangerous flooding caused by stronger storms;
• And diseases, including malaria and dengue fever, related to flooding and warmer weather.

Maybe greenhouse gases are a threat, but the argument assumes that man is the primary cause of greenhouse gases, namely Carbon Dioxide (C02). “Your honor, the prosecution is assuming facts not in evidence”. The truth is volcanoes, decaying organic material and cow farts are producing more greenhouse gases daily than man.

On average a 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could release as much as 5.2 tons/year of emissions, particularly carbon dioxide. There are about 617 coal fired plants in the US. By contrast Mt St. Helens released about 24,200 tons of C02 daily at the peak of its last eruption. That’s one volcano, one eruption, and according to the USGS there are about 500 active volcanoes in the world, not counting the ones below the sea.

Mt St. Helens is a baby volcano by comparison to the likes of Toba, Krakatau and Yellowstone. When Toba erupted about 74,000 years ago it dumped ten thousand times the amount of C02 into the atmosphere as Mt. St. Helens (about 242 million tons). Yet somehow despite this our planet is not a raging inferno of global warming. This is where commons sense comes in.

Volcanoes have been erupting, organic material decaying and animals farting since long before man was here. The planet survived, the planet has not spiraled into runaway global warming and life goes on. So if the truth of the matter is not based on science what is the motive, what is the true agenda. One word answer for you here; Control. If these emissions were ad destructive as they claim we would certainly have to come up with a workable plan to mitigate volcanic activity.

The article went on to say:

The move could allow the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, but it's more likely that the Obama administration will use the action to prod Congress to pass regulations around a system to cap and then trade emissions so that they are gradually lowered.
The EPA last month sent its proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviewed and approved it. By law, the decision includes a public comment period before being finalized.

The EPA concluded that six greenhouse gases should be considered pollutants under the 1970 Clean Air Act, which is already used to curb emissions that cause acid rain, smog and soot.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs last month said "the president has made quite clear" that he prefers to have the climate issue addressed by Congress as part of a broad, mandatory limit on heat-trapping emissions.

Other critics have noted that the Clean Air Act regulates any stationary source — from a gas station to a power plant — that emits more than 250 tons of a pollutant a year. That would place thousands of smaller sources under onerous federal rules, those critics say.

Ah, there it is; more government regulation of businesses, more fees penalties, freedoms lost, and of course taxes. It’s always about control with the government, the power to tell you what to do and not to do. This is rarely possible without an imminent crisis looming large on the horizon. I’m sure its for our own good though.

The bottom line is this is a side door to the cap and trade legislation. The administration knows that it will be hard to convince people that paying double the amount for electricity is a good idea. So instead they slide it by us through the side door. I admire his determination but absolutely deplore his indifference to the proletariat, for shoving this unethical, quasi-socialist incrementalist, garbage down our throats.
This was originally published here

Subscribe to commentsExpand all commentsRSS Subscribe to comments
Comments (11)

myqute
Respond Report this content +1 

By myqute9 months ago

I know I commented in this before but just want to add more of my thoughts.

I was told that global warming is a farce (a response to one of my older blog entries) - because since the time of dinosaurs, our planet had been changing. Regardless of whether it's the truth or something to change environmentalists' mind about global warming, you can't refute that coal tar and methane pollute the air!

In fact all the methane pollution generated is more than the carbon monoxide generated from all vehicles and planes combined in the world.

Coal tar is found in barbeque charcoal and the toxic from it ends up on some of our own BBQ food.

And the methane levels alone in corporate-run farms are able to kill a third to half of these poor farm animals.

Waste, blood, animal excrements from corporate-run animal farms pollute rivers, kills fishes, etc.

What's in the numbers?, some people ask.

If it's just one person in the whole wide world, a nobody dying from air pollution, may be you won't be concerned. But if that one person is someone you love, ask that question again. Is it a matter of numbers? Do more need to die before people see the problem? What has stats shown you?

The EPA is doing a great job but is the US government listening?

P.S. To avoid any possible confusion: carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide is CO.

Last post by myqute: H1N1 Flu Vaccination Results Tracked in China

Anomaly
Respond Report this content +3 

By Anomaly9 months ago

Hmmmmm: An interesting and controversial subject. Two things that I dearly love. Let's look at some interesting facts that your basic High School biology student should be able to verify.

Fact- CO2 makes up less than one tenth of one percent of our atmospheric gases. (0.03% to be more precise)

Fact- plants breathe in CO2 and exhale oxygen.

Fact- Humans breathe in Oxygen and exhale CO2.

Fact- Carbon MONOXIDE (Or CO) is a deadly poison.

Question - How is something that is essential to the complete cycle of carbon based life forms hazardous to the continuation of that same life form as a species?

Question - How will we make this a greener planet by killing off everything that provides food for the plants?

Question - How will the plants survive with no food and how can we survive with no plants?

Question - Should we consider going after the real pollutants that are actually creating problems without destroying our own economy and ecology in the process?

Trick Question - How many people in Africa and other third world nations have died due to the banning of DDT and the resulting outbreak of Malaria and other diseases that had previously been defeated made their triumphant return with the onset of the mosquito problems that came about from the use of less effective methods which are every bit as hazardous ... even to the limited degree that any of them were.

Just the facts please? Maybe you could include some more information about how fish are polluting the environment with their emissions? I am curiously concerned about those Gar Emissions that you mention having caught many of them in my youth. (Okay, I know it was a typo ... at least I think it was ... but I could not resist)

Last post by Anomaly: A Governmental Conundrum

InvestaMania
Respond Report this content +1 

By InvestaMania9 months ago

dude, you are waaaay off. I still can't believe that people such as you will come up and say some retarded stuff like Bush did a few years ago.

I would recommend you do some real research, instead of just looking at some volcano numbers and the AVERAGE coal plant pollution

You're distorting the numbers buddy. First, yes there are natural sources that emit greenhouse gases, but we're going above the capacity that the earth can absorb with all our additions. You add other factors such AS DEFORESTATION and you'll see that the rate in which the gases are eliminated are much slower.

Plus buddy, you're using the average number for coal plant pollution. First, that leaves out outliers. Additionally, when you say 5.2M tons for coal plants per year vs. volcano numbers, you forget that volcanos, especially the big ones, do not erupt that often.

And, you have to add all the coal plants in the whole world. Gar emmisions, waste, etc, etc. That's the correct number you should use in calculating greenhouse emissions and whether that is a problem, not your biased number and cherry picking examples.

I'm sorry, but you need to get some common sense

Last post by InvestaMania: Dubai Debt Default

myqute
Respond Report this content +1 

By myqute9 months ago

YOU hit the sore spot FINELY!! Kudos to this effort Robehren!

Last post by myqute: H1N1 Flu Vaccination Results Tracked in China