[speechlesstx]

See, there the thing you right wingers don't get.... If you're not in favor of poluting, why not just stop poluting even if it doesn't cause global warming???

Still assuming we shouldn't stop polluting? How about we do it right though, instead of rushing headlong into disastrous regulations, this con game called "cap and trade" and ending all the unnecessary fear mongering and blatant dishonesty?

[excon]

Because carbon dioxide is DEMONSTRABLY not a pollutant, and the sole purpose of limiting its production is to control industry, not control of pollution.

Hello again, Elliot:

Here we were having a nice discussion and then you go all bonkers on me...

You say the garbage above with a straight face too, as though you really think you're pulling one off on us, huh?? Using your logic, one could say that WATER is not poison... But, if you drink too much of it, you'll DIE.

It's TRUE, is your warped way, CO2 isn't a polutant, in the truest sense of the word.. But too much of it the air WILL cause things to heat up, and WILL cause the ice caps to melt and WILL cause your home in Jersey to become waterlogged...

So, if people want to listen to you, I'm sure you'll give 'em what they want... But, be prepared for the TRUTH from me.

excon

[phlanx]

Salvo Elliot and Excon

Just to add Co2 emissions normally come as a byproduct of burning another product, which also emitts other gasses

Tell me, if you could have a car that has water coming out of the exhaust (tailpipe) or Co2 - which one would everyone prefer?

IS the rest of the argument really necessary? we all know the politicians lie to us regardless of nation, we all know the global science is not proven or disproven, and yet the answer is simple

Clean energy regardless of any other reason is the best way forward, it will devolop jobs, a whole industry, and provide clean breathable air, with an economy not dependent on foreign resource

Is it just me and excon that can see that point of view?

[excon]

Still assuming we shouldn't stop polluting? How about we do it right though, instead of rushing headlong into disastrous regulations, this con game called "cap and trade" and ending all the unnecessary fear mongering and blatant dishonesty?

Hello again, Steve:

YES, I think you believe that, not only you shouldn't STOP polluting, you believe the stuff you produce DOESN'T pollute... If you doubt me, please re-read the Wolvernine's post.

So, the FIRST step in reeling pollution back in, is RECOGNIZING what pollution is... Once we do that, we can all go to second grade... But, SOME of us are stuck in first..

The above, however, is not an endorsement for cap and trade. These, are TWO different issues. But, lets discuss fixing it, after you get that there is something to fix.

excon

[phlanx]

A good friend of mine, builds biomass power stations

They are designed to produce electricity for the grid by burning elephant grass

The elephant grass is grown local to the power station

This grass also supports wildlife and is helping to re-populate large areas of agricultural fallow land

So it is producing jobs, good wildlife, green electricity, and serving the local community

There are zero emmissions being produced by the station through filtration

All this is made possible by the government intervening and providing tax credits for green energy, and will do so until the technology and buildings can be profitable

So why should we build coal stations or other fossil fuel stations when we can produce power cleanly?

[speechlesstx]

YES, I think you believe that, not only you shouldn't STOP polluting, you believe the stuff you produce DOESN'T pollute... If you doubt me, please re-read the Wolvernine's post.

I'm not the Wolverine.

So, the FIRST step in reeling pollution back in, is RECOGNIZING what pollution is... Once we do that, we can all go to second grade... But, SOME of us are stuck in first..

It's certainly not me, it seems the "consensus" scientific community is stuck in first grade, they violate the very fundamentals of science in ignoring, downplaying and refusing to discuss conflicting research and observed phenomenon that contradicts their consensus.

The above, however, is not an endorsement for cap and trade. These, are TWO different issues. But, lets discuss fixing it, after you get that there is something to fix.

Still misrepresenting us but no surprise since you admit you don't actually read what we post. Since cap and trade is purported to be a solution to the problem you can't separate the two, and that's the same problem as with health care reform. You guys keep telling everyone we don't think there's a problem when we've acknowledged a problem many times. We just disagree on the extent of the problem and the proposed solutions.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

Here we were having a nice discussion and then you go all bonkers on me....

You say the garbage above with a straight face too, as though you really think you're pulling one off on us, huh??? Using your logic, one could say that WATER is not poison.... But, if you drink too much of it, you'll DIE.

It's TRUE, is your warped way, CO2 isn't a polutant, in the truest sense of the word.. But too much of it the air WILL cause things to heat up, and WILL cause the ice caps to melt and WILL cause your home in Jersey to become waterlogged...

So, if people want to listen to you, I'm sure you'll give 'em what they want... But, be prepared for the TRUTH from me.

excon

As you say, water isn't a pollutant, but too much of it will kill us. Nevertheless, I don't see Congress trying to legislate water out of existence to protect us and save the planet.

By your logic, we need to prevent rain from falling and get rid of all the oceans because too much water will kill us. That would be the equivalent of what Congress is trying to legislate. The legislation being put forth by Congress calls for the eventual ELIMINATION of CO2 production.

Fact is that we NEED CO2. We need it so that plants can convert it to O2. We need it to regulate the chemistry of our bodies so that our heart rates and resperaatory rates don't go through the roof and kill us. It is a natural byproduct of LIFE, and it is a necessary component for life.

Anything that is both a byproduct of life and a necessary component to life CANNOT be a pollutant.

Elliot

[tomder55]

Clean energy regardless of any other reason is the best way forward, it will devolop jobs, a whole industry, and provide clean breathable air, with an economy not dependent on foreign resource

Is it just me and excon that can see that point of view?

When the technology is available and a rational transition can take place then sign me up. Creating draconian legislation to force the issue will not work. The infrastructure to illuminate the home with the incandecent bulb did not become part of the infrastructure until there was a clear rational market reason for the switch from whale oil lanterns. But you could not have made regulations forcing the switch until the lightbulb was ready to assume it's place. If you had done so ,all you would've had was a whole bunch of darkened homes.

None of us oppose the future technology. What we don't want is economy killing regulations .

[ETWolverine]

Salvo Elliot and Excon

Just to add Co2 emissions normally come as a byproduct of burning another product, which also emitts other gasses

Tell me, if you could have a car that has water coming out of the exhaust (tailpipe) or Co2 - which one would everyone prefer?

From the point of view of POLLUTION, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between a car that emits CO2 and one that emits H2O. Neither one is a pollutant, and neither one is dangerous to the environment.

IS the rest of the argument really necessary? we all know the politicians lie to us regardless of nation, we all know the global science is not proven or disproven, and yet the answer is simple

Clean energy regardless of any other reason is the best way forward, it will devolop jobs, a whole industry, and provide clean breathable air, with an economy not dependent on foreign resource

Is it just me and excon that can see that point of view?

The rest of the argument IS necessary. You see, government is trying to use "global warming" as an excuse to grab more power, and has therefore named CO2 as a pollutant, when it clearly is not. By being able to regulate CO2 emmissions, they can control the energy industry, the auto industry, and any manufacturing industries that produce CO2 as a byproduct of their operations. It is about economic control by the government, not cleaning up the planet. Because CO2 isn't a polutant, there really isn't anything to clean up... it's just an excuse.

And THAT is the point we are trying to make.

You want to have sensible rules to keep the planet clean? Go for it. I'm right there with you.

But when you go way past "sensible" and start using "global warming" as an excuse to increase government control over the economy, then you are going to have a fight on your hands.

[ETWolverine]

A good friend of mine, builds biomass power stations

They are designed to produce electricity for the grid by burning elephant grass

The elephant grass is grown local to the power station

This grass also supports wildlife and is helping to re-populate large areas of agricultural fallow land

So it is producing jobs, good wildlife, green electricity, and serving the local community

There are zero emmissions being produced by the station through filtration

All this is made possible by the government intervening and providing tax credits for green energy, and will do so until the technology and buildings can be profitable

So why should we build coal stations or other fossil fuel stations when we can produce power cleanly?

As I have said before, I'm cool with alternative fuels... if only to gain energy independence. If burning elephant grass can produce enough electricity on an ongoing basis to supply our current and future needs and is economical, then go for it. (Though most of the feasability studies I have seen have shown that the cost of biomass production is too high for it to replace fossil fuels. If this is an exception to that rule, then go for it.)

But don't tell me that the reason that I need to switch, regardless of the economic costs and whether I will lose money from switching, is because of global warming or because CO2 is a pollutant. That boat don't float.

Elliot

[tomder55]

Though most of the feasability studies I have seen have shown that the cost of biomass production is too high for it to replace fossil fuels. If this is an exception to that rule, then go for it.)

President Bush would mention switch grass occasionally . You make a good point ;a similar point we have made about ethanol . In this case I don't think it is the efficiency as much as other factors like irrigation ;fertilizers... and what happpens in droughts . I do not believe that we are even remotely close to make a complete transition.

Note however that we do have a logical clean burning alternative that the greenies never want to discuss. Breeder reactors .

[ETWolverine]

President Bush would mention switch grass occasionally . You make a good point ;a simular point we have made about ethanol . In this case I don't think it is the efficiency as much as other factors like irrigation ;fertilizers ...and what happpens in droughts . I do not believe that we are even remotely close to make a complete transition.

Note however that we do have a logical clean burning alternative that the greenies never want to discuss. Breeder reactors .

I have heard that animal dung can be used as a fuel.

So why not just burn the bullsh!t that the Dems and Libs are shoveling? We could power the whole world...

Elliot

[phlanx]

Biomass is only working at the moment with tax credits, without them proppping up the industry then it wouldn't be economical at the moment

However, as a company with a biomass station you receive green tax credits and these can be traded to large companies with high c02 levels to help them reduce their overall figure

Don't forget, that the gas in your vehicle has processed oil, which produces emissions, the transportation of the oil and gas has produced emissions and finally you car produces more than just co2 emissions

I can appreciate the argument is not scientifically proven for global warming, but who cares! An argument has to be made, and intervention to occur to force industries and businesses to move twowards a cleaner system

So people who think they should concentrate on the argument of whether global warming is being caused or is natural if at all, what would your argument be to get people to leave their V8s behind and go for the hydrocell?

[excon]

President Bush would mention switch grass occasionally . You make a good point ;a simular point we have made about ethanol

Hello again, tom:

Of course, the ANSWER lies in hemp... It's production would allow corn to go back to being food. Hemp produces the highest biomass by far, of any other crop. That's why we used it for rope and made our sails out of it...

But, ain't nobody going to talk about that. See?? The drug war is costing us lots of energy dollars too... Silly drug war.

excon

[Catsmine]

Hello again, tom:

Of course, the ANSWER lies in hemp... It's production would allow corn to go back to being food. Hemp produces the highest biomass by far, of any other crop. That's why we used it for rope and made our sails out of it...

But, ain't nobody gonna talk about that. See??? The drug war is costing us lots of energy dollars too... Silly drug war.

excon

The funniest part is, hemp is a lousy intoxicant. It's close cousin marijuana is what they were trying to prohibit in the 30's and they just about eradicated hemp instead. Government efficiency at it's best.

[phlanx]

Hahha, excon, NICE, not to be putting your argument donw mate, but hemp does come in second place to elephant grass sorry :)

The only reason we know that is that hemp supplier in the UK has a biomass station and my friends company has tested it and seen the results

HOWEVER! Hemp is still an amazing product, you can power cars with it, hell, you can even build cars out of it, not too mention the other trillon products :)

And wildlife loves it!!

[tomder55]

What would your argument be to get people to leave their V8s behind and go for the hydrocell

Well for one thing hydrocells Brown's gas is largely a hoax . Maybe you think it takes no energy to separate H from O?
Maybe we should subsidize all those cold fusion plants and flux capacitors too .

[ETWolverine]

Biomass is only working at the moment with tax credits, without them proppping up the industry then it wouldn't be economical at the moment

Then that pretty much answers the question, doesn't it?

However, as a company with a biomass station you receive green tax credits and these can be traded to large companies with high c02 levels to help them reduce their overall figure

"Green Tax Credits". Al Gore's latest ponzi scheme.

You realize, don't you, that when you receive a "green tax credit", or what are being referred to in the USA as "Carbon Credits", you are essentially receiving government permission to pollute x amount.

Does that sound as counterproductive to you as it does to me, if your goal is to clean up the environment?

Don't forget, that the gas in your vehicle has processed oil, which produces emissions, the transportation of the oil and gas has produced emissions and finally you car produces more than just co2 emissions

I agree. And I agree that the more we can limit REAL pollution, the better.

But please don't tell me that something is a polutant when it isn't just to create regulation.

I can appreciate the argument is not scientifically proven for global warming, but who cares! An argument has to be made, and intervention to occur to force industries and businesses to move twowards a cleaner system

Sure... but not through regulation of something that isn't a pollutant. And the fact is that the vast majority of industries already have VERY LOW EMMISSIONS due to really good scrubber technology.

So people who think they should concentrate on the argument of whether global warming is being caused or is natural if at all, what would your argument be to get people to leave their V8s behind and go for the hydrocell?

My argument would be very simple... if hydrocell technology is cost effective, efficient and safe, people will buy it on their own. It won't need to be forced onto us through regulation. If you build the better moustrap, people will come knocking on your door. But if you build a crappy moustrap, nobody will want it until you perfect it.

That's true of ALL types of alternative fuel technology and green tech.

But if it hasn't been perfected, people won't want it, and the ONLY way to get people to use it will be via regulation.

Do you want to be forced by your government to use a product or service that hasn't been perfected, is less efficient and less effective than what you currently have, and may not be as safe?

So in short my argument is, stop trying to regulate green technology. Stop trying to regulate emissions out of existence. Instead, concentrate on perfecting the alternatives, and in doing so, you will create a market for those alternatives. The FREE MARKET will provide the change we want and need. We don't need to regulate it.

Elliot

[phlanx]

You know elliot, Some companies are the worst polluters in the world, these are gas and oil companies, but hey we can't make them green, but we can push the business as a whole towards minimizing carbon output, or is that just to a simple idea?

In addition, it creates a whole new industry for a service economy

I really think you have a bone for the word regulation, intervention is required to push companies to change

Human Beings at times need to be pushed in the direction that a democratic society wants to go in

[ETWolverine]

You know elliot, Some companies are the worst polluters in the world, these are gas and oil companies, but hey we can't make them green, but we can push the business as a whole towards minimizing carbon output, or is that just to a simple idea?

In addition, it creates a whole new industry for a service economy

I really think you have a bone for the word regulation, intervention is required to push companies to change

Human Beings at times need to be pushed in the direction that a democratic society wants to go in

I don't think that is true. People neither need nor like to be pushed in ANY direction.

The key is, instead, to give them a viable option that they would WANT to embrace rather than forcing something onto them that they don't want.

People don't have to be FORCED to buy fire extinguishers for their homes. They buy them because the fire extinguishers are a desirable safety product that is cheap and that works.

The switch from VHS to DVD didn't have to be legislated into existence. The DVD manufacturers built a better product, and people bought it.

There was no reason to force people to switch away from the horse an buggy to the automobile. The auto companies built a good product and people bought it.

Companies didn't have to be FORCED to automate their assembly lines as much as possible. They did it on their own because the technology had been perfected, was cheaper than the manpower costs, and did the job effectively. (In fact, government worked very hard to SLOW DOWN automation in industry in order to help the unions keep workers on the payroll.)

Build a better alternative fuel that sereves our needs and is affordable and safe. People will buy it. There will be no need to legislate it. There will be no need for government to intervene. Companies and individuals will buy the product if it is a good product.

Create the proper economic incentives... a good product at an appropriate price... and people will switch of their own accord.

Free market solutions to real problems.

And yes, I do have a bone to pick with "regulation"... as I have stated in prior posts. It is neither effective nor good for the economy. And I contend that many times it is a usurpation of power by the government.

Elliot