Bad News For The 'Hand-Wringers.'

[martybegan]

Then what's your answer? We know without regulation the status quo wouldn't be maintained either. It's easy to bash the system, but as PC showed in the OP, you can't argue with the results.

My answer is that environmentalist should stick to Particulates, SOx, NOx, heavy metals, etc. Contaminants we know have an effect, and also have effective methods of treatment to render them inert. We also need to keep people out of the game who's only goal is to eliminate a given industry, not to regulate it. Finally regulations need to be kept simple, and come from only one source. If multiple agencies have a say in something, one takes the lead, and all paperwork flows through them, instead of what we have now, where you have to keep a staff of lawyers onhand to keep all your permits in order.

I'm all for streamlining and efficiency. The problem I have with the OP is that the real agenda is to try and throw out the baby with the bath water.

One could say that the agenda of the far left environmental movement is the same. They see regulation as a path to prohibition. The idea goes from regulation as a curative response to regluation as a terminal treatment for a process/industry they do not like. I like to go back to the concept of PETA proposing meat slaughter regulations. The fact that PETA's goal is the end of meat consumption makes me suspicous about thier proposed regulations, as thier goal is to end the meat industry. Why would I not be sucpicous in the same way when hard core environmental people try to regulate industries like coal/oil or nuclear power generation, industries they would like to see eliminated?

 

[konradv]

My answer is that environmentalist should stick to Particulates, SOx, NOx, heavy metals, etc. Contaminants we know have an effect, and also have effective methods of treatment to render them inert. We also need to keep people out of the game who's only goal is to eliminate a given industry, not to regulate it. Finally regulations need to be kept simple, and come from only one source. If multiple agencies have a say in something, one takes the lead, and all paperwork flows through them, instead of what we have now, where you have to keep a staff of lawyers onhand to keep all your permits in order.

I'm all for streamlining and efficiency. The problem I have with the OP is that the real agenda is to try and throw out the baby with the bath water.

One could say that the agenda of the far left environmental movement is the same. They see regulation as a path to prohibition. The idea goes from regulation as a curative response to regluation as a terminal treatment for a process/industry they do not like. I like to go back to the concept of PETA proposing meat slaughter regulations. The fact that PETA's goal is the end of meat consumption makes me suspicous about thier proposed regulations, as thier goal is to end the meat industry. Why would I not be sucpicous in the same way when hard core environmental people try to regulate industries like coal/oil or nuclear power generation, industries they would like to see eliminated?

You've moved the goalposts. I'm talking regulation, but now you're asking me to defend banning. Nice try, but I'm not going to fall for being forced to defend the fringes, unless you intend to defend the worst polluters. Fair is fair!

 

[westwall]

Good post except for some of your numbers. Hitler gets credit for 6 million, Stalin credit for 50 to 60 million, Mao gets credit for 150 million, Pol Pot around 2 million. Altogether low end estimate socialists get credit for 208 million killed in the last century. Environmentalists havn't killed that many yet, but they're workin on it.

I won't argue the point to strenuously, but you should consider that the ban on DDT alone, by some estimates, has resulted in 500 million to 900 million unnecessary cases of malaria since the ban was enacted. In the third world, malaria is, if not a death sentence, a crippling dissability for life.

Then consider that life expectancies for entire nations in the third world. There are entire nations whose life expectancies are between 30 and 49 years (and there are quite a few of them) because they live in a squalor of poverty, darkness, and completely unacceptable sanitation as the result of being denied electricity in the name of preserving their "pristine" environments. I don't know about you, but I believe every one of those deaths can be laid at the feet of the people who are denying them the electrical power that would change their lives. Those numbers alone far exceed 208 million.

And how many do you think have starved in the past few decades because of the green's war on food as described above and demand that desperately needed food be used for biofuel?

Do you really believe the pile of corpses resulting from environmental regulations and interference that drastically shorten lives numbers less than 208 million? Less than 400 million? Less than three quarters of a billion?

I will only go with things that are proveable. Life expectancy rates are affected by many variables, disease being one of them. Nutrition and education are just as important if not more so. That being said, we KNOW that around 2 million people a year die from Malaria, thus multiplied times 30 and you have a death toll of 60 million that can be directly laid at the feet of environmentalists.

The biggest problem in the Third World nations (and I have extensive experience in the area) is the rampant corruption. That is far more responsible for the continuing dearth of education and squalid living conditions.

Your points on biofuels is however spot on.

 

[westwall]

Then what's your answer? We know without regulation the status quo wouldn't be maintained either. It's easy to bash the system, but as PC showed in the OP, you can't argue with the results.

Millions dying from malaria is the result of poorly thought out regulation.

There is a reason that liberals are known as the kings of unintended consequences. Do you have any idea how many corpses can be laid at the feet of environmentalism?

Millions of dead as a result of a ban on DDT.

Millions dead due to the blocking of hydroelectric facilities in third world countries.

Thousands dead and counting due to unreasonable taxation on energy.

Tens of thousands dead and counting due to CAFE standards.

Millions dead and counting due to environmentalist's war on food blocking insectisides, irradiated food, blocking farmers and ranchers from use of their land, fearmongering genetically engineered food, and now using desperately needed food to make inefficient, higly polluting biofuels.

The pile of corpses that lies at the feet of environmentalism is larger than the pile of dead that lie at the feet of lenin, stalin, hitler, polpot, and mao combined and the numbers keep climbing every day.

Regulation for the sake of regulation without rational justification is nothing more than tyrany.

What about the positive results? Sure you can cherry-pick your data, but once again that's intellectual dishonesty. In whose hands do we leave ourselves, a government that we can vote out at our whim or unelected corporate leaders with no accountability to anyone but their shareholders? I'll take the first option, thank you. I refuse to go through life wearing blinders.

I think you should do a simple cost/benefit analyisi and only those numbers that are verifiable are allowed. I'll start, environmental policies are directly responsible for the deaths of 60 million people since DDT was banned.

Your turn.

 

[westwall]

What about the positive results? Sure you can cherry-pick your data, but once again that's intellectual dishonesty.

Pointing out some families who have lost their homes due to wetlands acts, or a few farmers who can't plant the back 40 because some cat tails are growing in a drainage ditch is cherrypicking. Pointing out hundreds of millions dead directly due to poorly thought out, unjustified regulation is not cherry picking. You claiming that regulation is good while ignoring the mountain of stinking corpses that have resulted from your "good" regulation, on the other hand, is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

In whose hands do we leave ourselves, a government that we can vote out at our whim or unelected corporate leaders with no accountability to anyone but their shareholders? I'll take the first option, thank you. I refuse to go through life wearing blinders.

I have pointed out hundreds of millions of dead due to thoughtless government regulation. Can you show me anywhere near that number as the result of corporate wrongdoing? You might be able to show me some polluted communities and maybe even a polluted county. Can you show me entire national populations dying as the result of industry? One must wonder by what logic you would place more trust in organizations who are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions in the past 100 years than you would place in organizations who may be responsible for the deaths of a couple of tens of thousands since the inception of corporate industry.

You can't show me entire national populations dying either. That's just rhetoric and more evidence of your deep-seated intellectual dishonesty.

Ummmm, no, it's not. It is well documented, you just have to be willing to look.

WHO | 10 facts on malaria

 

[westwall]

Indisputable like AGW?!?!

Still waiting for you to provide some hard, observed evidence that provides unequivocal proof that the activities of man are responsible for the changing global climate. Till you, or someone can provide any such evidence, AGW, or ACC, or Manmade climate disruption is hardly indisputable. Till you can provide actual observed proof, you don't even have a theory. At best, you have a piss poor hypothesis.

I've got logic on my side. Even if you can't show the temp going up at all, considering the properties of GHGs and their rise since the Industrial Revolution, how can you expect anything but warming, if the trend continues?

No, you don't. Logic is on the side of the sceptics. That little problem you have of how do you explain all the times the planet has been warmer without mans influence.

 

[martybegan]

I'm all for streamlining and efficiency. The problem I have with the OP is that the real agenda is to try and throw out the baby with the bath water.

One could say that the agenda of the far left environmental movement is the same. They see regulation as a path to prohibition. The idea goes from regulation as a curative response to regluation as a terminal treatment for a process/industry they do not like. I like to go back to the concept of PETA proposing meat slaughter regulations. The fact that PETA's goal is the end of meat consumption makes me suspicous about thier proposed regulations, as thier goal is to end the meat industry. Why would I not be sucpicous in the same way when hard core environmental people try to regulate industries like coal/oil or nuclear power generation, industries they would like to see eliminated?

You've moved the goalposts. I'm talking regulation, but now you're asking me to defend banning. Nice try, but I'm not going to fall for being forced to defend the fringes, unless you intend to defend the worst polluters. Fair is fair!

You dont have to defend it at all. Your original response was about the founders of the environmental movement being the ones to force change, and on that I agree. My position is that we have gotten past that point, and now have some people, (not all) attempting to use regulation to ban things instead of to regulate them. My concern is that people, once they get the regulations they want, either started out as really trying to ban said items, or once they lose thier cause, migrate over the "ban it" side of the coin.

My other concern was regulation for regulations sake, or the loss of what you were trying to fix in a sea of paperwork,

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Almanac of Environmental Trends covers seven major indicators of environmental progress including (1) Air Quality, (2) Energy, (3) Climate Change, (4) Water Quality, (5) Toxic Chemicals, (6) Forests and Land, and (7) Biodiversity. Examples of progress include:

·In general the U.S. has improved water use efficiency by about 30 percent over the last 30 years.

·Wetlands are now increasing in the U.S. after having declined for more than two centuries before the 1990s.

·Forestlands in the U.S. have been expanding rapidly over the last 30 years, and the global rate of deforestation appears to be steadily declining.

·The total amount of toxic chemicals used in American industry is steadily declining--a measure of resource efficiency.

·Virtually the entire nation has achieved clean air standards for four of the six main pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act.

AEI - Papers


Maybe the sky isn't falling......

Shouldn't that be, "Thanks to the hand wringers"? You've GOT to keep up the pressure or we'll go back to the bad old days of burning rivers and zero visibiity downtown streets. Think it can't happen? Look at all the play Atlas Shrugged is getting. Basically a feel good book for the "I'll do what ever I want crowd"!!!

You miss the point...or I didn't express it well.

It's not the environmental movement that is responsible, it is the earth's very nature- no pun intended- that is responsible...the same thing we see in the Gulf's rebound.

It is mankind's conceit that allows folks to think we can dictate what happens to the earth...

Check this out....

1. [The Rainforest is] growing so fast there's a danger that within a few decades it might reach the southern borders of the United States, menacing our great-grandchildren with its evil leafy tendrils and its deadly population of jaguars, bullet ants, snakes, killer bees, and such like. You think we exaggerate? According to a January 2009 report in the New York Times-and what liberal could ignore the voice of Pravda?-"For every acre of rainforest cut down each year, more than 50 acres are growing." Do the math. Then be afraid. Very afraid. And start stockpiling the Agent Orange. From “365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy”

2. “The rainforest debate has raged publicly for decades, and more recently has been the subject of behind-the-scenes ferment among conservation scientists. It is the main topic of a Smithsonian symposium on Monday at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington.

About 135,000 square miles (350,000 square kilometers) of the original forested areas that were cut down by humans are growing back, according to Greg Asner of the Washington-based Carnegie Institution, a presenter at the symposium. That is only 1.7 percent of the original forest.

This regrowth is relatively quick, with the shady forest canopy closing in after just 15 years as trees grow taller and denser, offering habitat for creatures adapted to just this environment, such as birds with huge eyes able to see in the leafy gloom.

Using United Nations projections of population growth, Wright and Muller-Landau predicted in a 2006 journal article that "large areas of tropical forest cover will remain in 2030 and beyond, and thus that habitat loss will threaten extinction for a smaller proportion of tropical forest species than previously predicted."Tropical rainforests are regrowing. Now what? | Reuters

3. We think of tropical forests as porcelain-like, fragile and impossible to put back together if broken. Tijuca back’s up Dr Wright’s argument that it’s more accurate to view tropical rainforests as tough and resilient, able to absorb a huge amount of punishment and come back.Rainforests In Some Regions Are Re-growing Rapidly: Should We Worry Anymore About Deforestation? : TreeHugger

4. “There is far more forest here than there was 30 years ago,” said Ms. Ortega de Wing, 64, who remembers fields of mango trees and banana plants.
The idea has stirred outrage among environmentalists who believe that vigorous efforts to protect native rain forest should remain a top priority.

Dr. Wright and others say the overzealous protection of rain forests not only prevents poor local people from profiting from the rain forests on their land but also robs financing and attention from other approaches to fighting global warming, like eliminating coal plants.
New Jungles Prompt a Debate on Rain Forests - NYTimes.com


Get that?
The earth....it's "tough and resilient, able to absorb a huge amount of punishment and come back."

 

[The T]

The Almanac of Environmental Trends covers seven major indicators of environmental progress including (1) Air Quality, (2) Energy, (3) Climate Change, (4) Water Quality, (5) Toxic Chemicals, (6) Forests and Land, and (7) Biodiversity. Examples of progress include:

·In general the U.S. has improved water use efficiency by about 30 percent over the last 30 years.

·Wetlands are now increasing in the U.S. after having declined for more than two centuries before the 1990s.

·Forestlands in the U.S. have been expanding rapidly over the last 30 years, and the global rate of deforestation appears to be steadily declining.

·The total amount of toxic chemicals used in American industry is steadily declining--a measure of resource efficiency.

·Virtually the entire nation has achieved clean air standards for four of the six main pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act.

AEI - Papers


Maybe the sky isn't falling......

Shouldn't that be, "Thanks to the hand wringers"? You've GOT to keep up the pressure or we'll go back to the bad old days of burning rivers and zero visibiity downtown streets. Think it can't happen? Look at all the play Atlas Shrugged is getting. Basically a feel good book for the "I'll do what ever I want crowd"!!!

You miss the point...or I didn't express it well.

It's not the environmental movement that is responsible, it is the earth's very nature- no pun intended- that is responsible...the same thing we see in the Gulf's rebound.

It is mankind's conceit that allows folks to think we can dictate what happens to the earth...

Check this out....

1. [The Rainforest is] growing so fast there's a danger that within a few decades it might reach the southern borders of the United States, menacing our great-grandchildren with its evil leafy tendrils and its deadly population of jaguars, bullet ants, snakes, killer bees, and such like. You think we exaggerate? According to a January 2009 report in the New York Times-and what liberal could ignore the voice of Pravda?-"For every acre of rainforest cut down each year, more than 50 acres are growing." Do the math. Then be afraid. Very afraid. And start stockpiling the Agent Orange. From “365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy”

2. “The rainforest debate has raged publicly for decades, and more recently has been the subject of behind-the-scenes ferment among conservation scientists. It is the main topic of a Smithsonian symposium on Monday at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington.

About 135,000 square miles (350,000 square kilometers) of the original forested areas that were cut down by humans are growing back, according to Greg Asner of the Washington-based Carnegie Institution, a presenter at the symposium. That is only 1.7 percent of the original forest.

This regrowth is relatively quick, with the shady forest canopy closing in after just 15 years as trees grow taller and denser, offering habitat for creatures adapted to just this environment, such as birds with huge eyes able to see in the leafy gloom.

Using United Nations projections of population growth, Wright and Muller-Landau predicted in a 2006 journal article that "large areas of tropical forest cover will remain in 2030 and beyond, and thus that habitat loss will threaten extinction for a smaller proportion of tropical forest species than previously predicted."Tropical rainforests are regrowing. Now what? | Reuters

3. We think of tropical forests as porcelain-like, fragile and impossible to put back together if broken. Tijuca back’s up Dr Wright’s argument that it’s more accurate to view tropical rainforests as tough and resilient, able to absorb a huge amount of punishment and come back.Rainforests In Some Regions Are Re-growing Rapidly: Should We Worry Anymore About Deforestation? : TreeHugger

4. “There is far more forest here than there was 30 years ago,” said Ms. Ortega de Wing, 64, who remembers fields of mango trees and banana plants.
The idea has stirred outrage among environmentalists who believe that vigorous efforts to protect native rain forest should remain a top priority.

Dr. Wright and others say the overzealous protection of rain forests not only prevents poor local people from profiting from the rain forests on their land but also robs financing and attention from other approaches to fighting global warming, like eliminating coal plants.
New Jungles Prompt a Debate on Rain Forests - NYTimes.com


Get that?
The earth....it's "tough and resilient, able to absorb a huge amount of punishment and come back."

Speaking of the Gulf, and the fervor we were treated to a few days ago on the year one anneversary?

Resilience? You bet.

Microbe eating spilled oil in Gulf of Mexico<UK Telegraph Today

 

[konradv]

The Almanac of Environmental Trends covers seven major indicators of environmental progress including (1) Air Quality, (2) Energy, (3) Climate Change, (4) Water Quality, (5) Toxic Chemicals, (6) Forests and Land, and (7) Biodiversity. Examples of progress include:

·In general the U.S. has improved water use efficiency by about 30 percent over the last 30 years.

·Wetlands are now increasing in the U.S. after having declined for more than two centuries before the 1990s.

·Forestlands in the U.S. have been expanding rapidly over the last 30 years, and the global rate of deforestation appears to be steadily declining.

·The total amount of toxic chemicals used in American industry is steadily declining--a measure of resource efficiency.

·Virtually the entire nation has achieved clean air standards for four of the six main pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act.

AEI - Papers


Maybe the sky isn't falling......

Shouldn't that be, "Thanks to the hand wringers"? You've GOT to keep up the pressure or we'll go back to the bad old days of burning rivers and zero visibiity downtown streets. Think it can't happen? Look at all the play Atlas Shrugged is getting. Basically a feel good book for the "I'll do what ever I want crowd"!!!

You miss the point...or I didn't express it well.

It's not the environmental movement that is responsible, it is the earth's very nature- no pun intended- that is responsible...the same thing we see in the Gulf's rebound.

It is mankind's conceit that allows folks to think we can dictate what happens to the earth...

Check this out....

1. [The Rainforest is] growing so fast there's a danger that within a few decades it might reach the southern borders of the United States, menacing our great-grandchildren with its evil leafy tendrils and its deadly population of jaguars, bullet ants, snakes, killer bees, and such like. You think we exaggerate? According to a January 2009 report in the New York Times-and what liberal could ignore the voice of Pravda?-"For every acre of rainforest cut down each year, more than 50 acres are growing." Do the math. Then be afraid. Very afraid. And start stockpiling the Agent Orange. From “365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy”

2. “The rainforest debate has raged publicly for decades, and more recently has been the subject of behind-the-scenes ferment among conservation scientists. It is the main topic of a Smithsonian symposium on Monday at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington.

About 135,000 square miles (350,000 square kilometers) of the original forested areas that were cut down by humans are growing back, according to Greg Asner of the Washington-based Carnegie Institution, a presenter at the symposium. That is only 1.7 percent of the original forest.

This regrowth is relatively quick, with the shady forest canopy closing in after just 15 years as trees grow taller and denser, offering habitat for creatures adapted to just this environment, such as birds with huge eyes able to see in the leafy gloom.

Using United Nations projections of population growth, Wright and Muller-Landau predicted in a 2006 journal article that "large areas of tropical forest cover will remain in 2030 and beyond, and thus that habitat loss will threaten extinction for a smaller proportion of tropical forest species than previously predicted."Tropical rainforests are regrowing. Now what? | Reuters

3. We think of tropical forests as porcelain-like, fragile and impossible to put back together if broken. Tijuca back’s up Dr Wright’s argument that it’s more accurate to view tropical rainforests as tough and resilient, able to absorb a huge amount of punishment and come back.Rainforests In Some Regions Are Re-growing Rapidly: Should We Worry Anymore About Deforestation? : TreeHugger

4. “There is far more forest here than there was 30 years ago,” said Ms. Ortega de Wing, 64, who remembers fields of mango trees and banana plants.
The idea has stirred outrage among environmentalists who believe that vigorous efforts to protect native rain forest should remain a top priority.

Dr. Wright and others say the overzealous protection of rain forests not only prevents poor local people from profiting from the rain forests on their land but also robs financing and attention from other approaches to fighting global warming, like eliminating coal plants.
New Jungles Prompt a Debate on Rain Forests - NYTimes.com


Get that?
The earth....it's "tough and resilient, able to absorb a huge amount of punishment and come back."

Then I guess I'm conceited! Once again you've treated us to the successes of the environmental movement.

 

[JBeukema]

Hitler gets credit for 6 million

Why do you lie?

4 million of that was supposedly at one camp/complex

In 1990, the Zionists admitted that was a lie

The new plaques claim 1.5 million

Yet they kept the 6 million for the total number!

Jewish Math: 6Million - 2.5million = 6million!

How does that work, exactly?

If what Hitler did was so terrible, why do you have to lie and exaggerat5e in order to make it sound bad enough to make good propaganda?

I see no reason to bother with the rest of your post

 

[westwall]

Hitler gets credit for 6 million

Why do you lie?

4 million of that was supposedly at one camp/complex

In 1990, the Zionists admitted that was a lie

The new plaques claim 1.5 million

Yet they kept the 6 million for the total number!

Jewish Math: 6Million - 2.5million = 6million!

How does that work, exactly?

If what Hitler did was so terrible, why do you have to lie and exaggerat5e in order to make it sound bad enough to make good propaganda?

I see no reason to bother with the rest of your post

Never accuse someone of lying if you don't know it for sure. I was using the widely accepted number of deaths attributed to Hitler to avoid claims of "revisionist". One thing you neglect is the 1 million Jews (of all nationalities) that were murdered by the 3000 riflemen of the Einsatztgruppen, your number also does not include the Jews that died in the Ghetto's (such as the Warsaw Ghetto which was levelled by the 80cm railway gun Gustav) nor those that died in the country side.

The most comprehensive tally of Jews killed places the number at around 3 to 3.2 million, that doesn't include the Roma who were killed nor the mentaly and physicaly handicapped people (Germans) that were killed before the war started.

 

[Old Rocks]

Then what's your answer? We know without regulation the status quo wouldn't be maintained either. It's easy to bash the system, but as PC showed in the OP, you can't argue with the results.

Millions dying from malaria is the result of poorly thought out regulation.

There is a reason that liberals are known as the kings of unintended consequences. Do you have any idea how many corpses can be laid at the feet of environmentalism?

Millions of dead as a result of a ban on DDT.

Millions dead due to the blocking of hydroelectric facilities in third world countries.

Thousands dead and counting due to unreasonable taxation on energy.

Tens of thousands dead and counting due to CAFE standards.

Millions dead and counting due to environmentalist's war on food blocking insectisides, irradiated food, blocking farmers and ranchers from use of their land, fearmongering genetically engineered food, and now using desperately needed food to make inefficient, higly polluting biofuels.

The pile of corpses that lies at the feet of environmentalism is larger than the pile of dead that lie at the feet of lenin, stalin, hitler, polpot, and mao combined and the numbers keep climbing every day.

Regulation for the sake of regulation without rational justification is nothing more than tyrany.

Why don't you just post some of the fat ass's rants on here?

Like all non-thinking ditto heads, you cannot back any of your nonsense with real facts.

 

[Old Rocks]

My answer is that environmentalist should stick to Particulates, SOx, NOx, heavy metals, etc. Contaminants we know have an effect, and also have effective methods of treatment to render them inert. We also need to keep people out of the game who's only goal is to eliminate a given industry, not to regulate it. Finally regulations need to be kept simple, and come from only one source. If multiple agencies have a say in something, one takes the lead, and all paperwork flows through them, instead of what we have now, where you have to keep a staff of lawyers onhand to keep all your permits in order.

I'm all for streamlining and efficiency. The problem I have with the OP is that the real agenda is to try and throw out the baby with the bath water.

How about cleaning the water instead of saying it needs to be taxed due to global warming?

And you pay for the cleaning of the water how? Who builds and pays for municipal waste water treatment plants?

 

[Old Rocks]

If the hand wringers knew how to maintain status quo, it wouldn't be a problem, but like many people, they don't know when they have hit the "cool" line, and keep on going. Regulation goes from trying to create standards and procedures, and turns into a legal cover my ass game, where the paperwork takes precedence over the actual physical tasks.

Then what's your answer? We know without regulation the status quo wouldn't be maintained either. It's easy to bash the system, but as PC showed in the OP, you can't argue with the results.

My answer is that environmentalist should stick to Particulates, SOx, NOx, heavy metals, etc. Contaminants we know have an effect, and also have effective methods of treatment to render them inert. We also need to keep people out of the game who's only goal is to eliminate a given industry, not to regulate it. Finally regulations need to be kept simple, and come from only one source. If multiple agencies have a say in something, one takes the lead, and all paperwork flows through them, instead of what we have now, where you have to keep a staff of lawyers onhand to keep all your permits in order.

Really? What do you think of Joe Barton trying to de-regulate the very ones you point out to be dangerous? Had you been present when those things were regulated, you would have found reason to fight against those 'librul' ideas, also.

 

[JBeukema]

The most comprehensive tally of Jews killed places the number at around 3 to 3.2 million,

Once again: not 6 million

'6 million' is a Zionist lie that trivializes the deaths that actually occurred by saying they weren't enough to make Hitler the great evil they say he was and serves only to justify their own racial nationalism and attempts at ethnic cleansing today.

 

[wirebender]

Then I guess I'm conceited! Once again you've treated us to the successes of the environmental movement.

Your notions of success are interesting. You manage to prevent further cutting of the rain forest and in doing so keep the indigenous people mired in poverty. You deny them conveniences that you take for granted, dooming them to live in squalor for the entirety of their brutishly short lives. You call that success?

 

[skookerasbil]

Then what's your answer? We know without regulation the status quo wouldn't be maintained either. It's easy to bash the system, but as PC showed in the OP, you can't argue with the results.

Millions dying from malaria is the result of poorly thought out regulation.

There is a reason that liberals are known as the kings of unintended consequences. Do you have any idea how many corpses can be laid at the feet of environmentalism?

Millions of dead as a result of a ban on DDT.

Millions dead due to the blocking of hydroelectric facilities in third world countries.

Thousands dead and counting due to unreasonable taxation on energy.

Tens of thousands dead and counting due to CAFE standards.

Millions dead and counting due to environmentalist's war on food blocking insectisides, irradiated food, blocking farmers and ranchers from use of their land, fearmongering genetically engineered food, and now using desperately needed food to make inefficient, higly polluting biofuels.

The pile of corpses that lies at the feet of environmentalism is larger than the pile of dead that lie at the feet of lenin, stalin, hitler, polpot, and mao combined and the numbers keep climbing every day.

Regulation for the sake of regulation without rational justification is nothing more than tyrany.

Why don't you just post some of the fat ass's rants on here?

Like all non-thinking ditto heads, you cannot back any of your nonsense with real facts.

s0n.....Im amazed. How do you navigate life in a manner which just blindly rejects information? Its fascinating to me!!

Ive always contended that people with a far left view of the world dynamic have a distinct inability to comprehend that fact that there are necessary tradeoffs whenever ANY decision is made regarding public policy. These people just cant fathom this in terms of thought processing, thus, the often heard stereotype, LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER. These are the most closed minded people alive.........but I contend it is a neurological pathology fcukk up and not a conscious choice. The ban on DDT effectively killing millions is not even debatable.

As usual, once again, Wire pwns the meatheads..........and particularly Old Rocks who gets publically humiliated on substance in a daily basis. And make no mistake........these environmental types are not who they are by accident. By and large, these are people who were social fcukk ups in their formative years and needed a life preserver to somehow be able to fit in SOMEWHERE in life, thus, these people latch on to "causes" to provide them with some kind of social relevancy.

There are volumes of research on this..............Personality and Politics: Introduction to the Special Issue - Duncan - 2010 - Journal of Personality - Wiley Online Library


Think its an accident that Old Rocks has worked in a mill his whole adult life??

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[westwall]

The most comprehensive tally of Jews killed places the number at around 3 to 3.2 million,

Once again: not 6 million

'6 million' is a Zionist lie that trivializes the deaths that actually occurred by saying they weren't enough to make Hitler the great evil they say he was and serves only to justify their own racial nationalism and attempts at ethnic cleansing today.

I think once you pass the million mark it becomes irrelevent, don't you? But, compared to Stalin and Mao, both liberal hero's, Hitler was a piker that much is true.