EPA doing its job, no wonder so many panties in a wad!

[Intense]

...It is my understanding that if there is criticism of New Coal Technology, which I am referring to, it is over CO2 Emissions, which I personally do not consider a pollutant. If Clean Coal Technology and Construction is being obstructed for that reason, I find those responsible responsible for the consequences...

So what is your understanding of the nature of previously sequestered CO2 being emitted on large scale into our atmospere? We have geologic, historic and modern evidences of the environmental impact caused by substantively altering the composition of our planet's atmosphere upon existing ecosystems.

Pollution -

The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects
pollution - Google Search

undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e. physical systems or living organisms. Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat, or light. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

An undesirable change in the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of air, water, soil, or food that can adversely affect the health, survival, or activities of humans or other living organisms.
Florida DEP - TMDL Glossary of Terms

is a special case of habitat destruction; it is chemical destruction rather than the more obvious physical destruction. Pollution occurs in all habitats—land, sea, and fresh water—and in the atmosphere. ...
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/133385/conservation/272…

What living organism does not produce CO2?
How much CO2 is produced from the Oceans?
What happens when photosynthesis stops?
Do you know a safer refrigerant?

 

[kiwiman127]

It is immoral to pollute the Earth as God tell us that in the Bible. And it's immoral to pollute the Earth for the sake of money.
Anyone want to debate that?


All I want is you to quote the scriptures for where it tells us it is immoral to pollute the earth. Then we may have something to debate.

FYI: My understanding is that we are to take dominion over the earth and to be good stewards but it escapes me this polluting bit. What is that anyway?

Numbers 35:33-34 "You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it. You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the people of Israel.”

Jeremiah 2:7 "And I brought you into a plentiful land to enjoy its fruits and its good things. But when you came in, you defiled my land and made my heritage an abomination."

Isaiah 24: 4-6 "The earth mourns and withers; the world languishes and withers; the highest people of the earth languish. The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt; therefore the inhabitants of the earth are scorched, and few men are left"

Leviticus 18:24 "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. 26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: 27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled 28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you"

2 Peter 3:10

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Sound like to me that the Lord has plans to do away with this planet once Christ returns.

The bible does not promote enviromental policy.

Most of the verses quoted above refer to defiling the land with sin not mercury.

It's very clear that God sees man as a stewards of His Earth and we are to take care of God's Earth.

Leviticus 25:23-24 - The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land

 

[Chris]

EPA’s Regulation of Coal-Fired Power: Is a “Train Wreck” Coming?
Congressional Research Service report Aug. 8, 2011

from the Summary:

... The primary impacts of many of the rules will largely be on coal-fired plants more than 40 years old that have not, until now, installed state-of-the-art pollution controls. Many of these plants are inefficient and are being replaced by more efficient combined cycle natural gas plants, a development likely to be encouraged if the price of competing fuel—natural gas—continues to be low, almost regardless of EPA rules...

Now where have we heard this recently?!

So the "train wreck" for older, inefficient and was already "on the books" due to market factors, whether or not the EPA tightened and enforced its air quality regulations!

...Older, smaller, less efficient units already face a train wreck. In 2010, 48 of them with a combined capacity of 12 GW were retired, according to one source. Another source identifies 149 coal-fired units with a combined capacity of 19.7 GW whose retirement has been announced or implemented in the past few years. In recent weeks, as utilities weigh the cost of retrofitting and operating their older units, more retirements have been announced.
But this does not mean that the newer (post-1970) coal-fired facilities that have invested in
pollution controls over the years will be shuttered. Most of them already comply with many of the proposed rules, or if not, they can do so with modest modifications to their pollution control equipment. A train wreck for this group seems unlikely...

Source: Sue Tierney, “EPA Proposed Utility Air Toxics Rule –Managing Compliance in Reliable Ways,” Congressional Staff Briefing, May 9, 2011, p. 10. The chart is based on EIA Form 860 data. A similar chart produced by EIA itself can be found at http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=1830.​

The CRS report acknowledges the benefits of these new EPA rules and tightening of enforcement for existing rules. In one example, the clamp down on smog-causing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide would help prevent tens of thousands of cases of bronchitis and heart attacks, with the potential to save 30-40 thousand lives/year. That’s a quarter trillion dollars in health benefits, compared with 3 billion per year in costs by 2014.

“In most cases,” CRS concludes, “the benefits are larger.”

The extraction companies don't care about clean air and water.

That is why they want to kill the EPA and our fellow citizens.

 

[Chris]

WASHINGTON, DC, November 21, 2008 (ENS) - The top 50 most-polluting coal-burning power plants in the United States emitted 20 tons of toxic mercury into the air in 2007, finds a new report from the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project. Of the top 10 mercury emitting power plants, all but one reported an increase as compared to 2006.

Once released into the atmosphere, mercury settles in lakes and rivers, where it moves up the food chain to humans who eat contaminated fish. The Centers for Disease Control has found that six percent of American women have mercury in their blood at levels that would put a fetus at risk of neurological damage.

Mercury's harmful effects that may be passed from the mother to the fetus include brain damage, mental retardation, incoordination, blindness, seizures, and inability to speak, according to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances. Children poisoned by mercury may develop problems of their nervous and digestive systems, and kidney damage.

Mercury Emissions Up at Coal-Burning Power Plants

 

[daveman]

Really dumb statement to make to someone on the west coast. You see, we had an abundance of salmon, which we have nearly lost because of failing to make a way for the fish to get past the dams. Now we are working to rectify that situation. From blowing dams that are not that useful, to building new ways for the fish to get around the dams, to creating spawning beds for the salmon.

You realize you proved me right, don't you?

No...you probably don't.

No, olfraud doesn't understand most things.

Indeed he doesn't. Which is why he's an AGW cultist.

 

[daveman]

The extraction companies don't care about clean air and water.

That is why they want to kill the EPA and our fellow citizens.

That's right. Killing all their customers will mean more people will buy their product, thus maximizing profits.

I'd give you a moment to come to terms with how stupid your declaration is, but I don't think you're equipped.

 

[Trakar]

Personally, I'm proud to be a Republican, though "conservatives" are a huge problem in our party and have made a mockery of everything that being Republican once meant. Republicans were the original Progressive party and we can trace the roots of progressivism from Jefferson to Teddy Roosevelt to Lincoln and Eisenhower. Not many progressive republican leaders of the last half century, but that's mostly due to the liberal left's distortionist slanders corrupting the popular understanding of what true progressivism means and stands for.

(...) Eisenhower was a moderate conservative... His policies for Nuclear deterrent was a big factor in the start of the Cold war. Gimme a break... He was a conservative..(...)

First of all, true conservatism is isolationist and completely uninterested in either foriegn entanglements or adventurist overseas engagements. As to Eisenhower's progressive credentials:

“the military-industrial complex”
(tight and tough corporate regulation while minimizing the feedback influence between national security and corporate welfare)

"The Eisenhower model"
(interstate highway system)

He not only continued "New Deal" programs and policies, he actually expanded Social Security.

Eisenhower dispatched federal troops to enforce Supreme Court desegregation rulings. More than this he declared racial discrimination to be an issue of national security, He proposed the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 to Congress and then signed them into law, and these were the first substantive civil rights laws since 1875.

Eisenhower attempted to lay the framework for peace and friendly cooperation with Communist Russia after the death of Stalin, best exemplified in his "Chance for Peace" speech:

...The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which govern its conduct in world affairs.

First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be an enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.

Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.

Third: Every nation's right to a form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.

Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.

And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.

In the light of these principles the citizens of the United States defined the way they proposed to follow, through the aftermath of war, toward true peace.

This way was faithful to the spirit that inspired the United Nations: to prohibit strife, to relieve tensions, to banish fears. This way was to control and to reduce armaments. This way was to allow all nations to devote their energies and resources to the great and good tasks of healing the war's wounds, of clothing and feeding and housing the needy, of perfecting a just political life, of enjoying the fruits of their own toil.

(...)

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that come with this spring of 1953.

This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and lasting peace. ...

Dwight D. Eisenhower: The Chance for Peace

Eisenhower nominated 5 Supreme court justices, 2 of most especial note in their progressive alignment with Eisenhower's own considerations and ideals:

Earl Warren - (excerpted and paraphrased from Wiki bio) "...best known for the sweeping decisions of the Warren Court, which ended school segregation and transformed many areas of American law, especially regarding the rights of the accused, ending school prayer, and requiring "one-man-one vote" rules of apportionment. He made the Court a power center on a more even base with Congress and the presidency especially through four landmark decisions: Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona (1966)...
...among other things, the legal status of racial segregation, civil rights, separation of church and state, and police arrest procedure in the United States. In the years that followed, the Warren Court became recognized as a high point in the use of judicial power in the effort to effect social progress in the United States. Warren himself became widely regarded as one of the most influential Supreme Court justices in the history of the United States and perhaps the single most important jurist of the 20th century..."

William Joseph Brennan, Jr. (excerpted from wiki bio) - "...He was known for his outspoken progressive views, including opposition to the death penalty and support for abortion rights. He authored several landmark case opinions, including Baker v. Carr, establishing the "one person, one vote" principle, and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which required "actual malice" in a libel suit against those deemed "public figures". Due to his ability to shape a wide variety of opinions, and due to his ability to bargain for votes in many cases, he was considered to be among the Court's most influential members...."

Eisenhower founded People to People International in 1956, based on his belief that citizen interaction would promote cultural interaction and world peace.

And as probably the most clear-cut example where Eisenhower acknowledges his goal to "...give to our country a program of progressive policies drawn from our finest Republican traditions; to unite us wherever we have been divided; to strengthen freedom wherever among any group is has been weakened; to build a sure foundation for sound prosperity for all here at home and for a just and sure peace throughout our world..." in his acceptance speech for the Republican party presidential candidate nomination in 1952.
( Dwight D. Eisenhower: Address Accepting the Presidential Nomination at the Republican National Convention in Chicago )

These are but a few examples of the progressive ideals and practices Eisenhower promoted, advocated and supported.

Can you point out what Republican standard you agree with? I have not seen you show any form of republican beliefs or values on here... Please tell me what makes you Republican..

Probably best summed up by a few quotes from Teddy Roosevelt:

"Let the watchwords of all our people be the old familiar watchwords of honesty, decency, fair-dealing, and commonsense."... "We must treat each man on his worth and merits as a man. We must see that each is given a square deal, because he is entitled to no more and should receive no less.""The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
New York State Fair, Syracuse, September 7, 1903

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918

"Working women have the same need to protection that working men have; the ballot is as necessary for one class as to the other; we do not believe that with the two sexes there is identity of function; but we do believe there should be equality of right."
Speech, National Convention of the Progressive Party, Chicago, IL, August 6, 1912

City streets are unsatisfactory playgrounds for children because of the danger, because most good games are against the law, because they are too hot in summer, and because in crowded sections of the city they are apt to be schools of crime. Neither do small back yards nor ornamental grass plots meet the needs of any but the very small children. Older children who would play vigorous games must have places especially set aside for them; and, since play is a fundamental need, playgrounds should be provided for every child as much as schools. This means that they must be distributed over the cities in such a way as to be within walking distance of every boy and girl, as most children can not afford to pay carfare.
(To Cuno H. Rudolph, Washington Playground Association, February 16, 1907.) Presidential Addresses and State Papers VI, 1163

"Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the 'the game belongs to the people.' So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."
A Book-Lover's Holidays in the Open, 1916

"The object of government is the welfare of the people." "Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us."
"The New Nationalism" speech, Osawatomie, Kansas, August 31, 1910

"This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in."
Chicago, IL, June 17, 1912

 

[Trakar]

All of which require more energy to produce then steel does. Really, are you truly that ignorant?

Cite or reference?

 

[Trakar]

No, it's a "fundamental economic principle" of socialists, not regular thinking people.

The fact that you consider all economists to be socialists, is both irrelevent and beyond the scope of messageboard exchanges to properly address, but I would strongly recommend that you seek professional psychiatric assistance, before you harm yourself or those who care about you.

 

[bripat9643]

No, it's a "fundamental economic principle" of socialists, not regular thinking people.

The fact that you consider all economists to be socialists, is both irrelevent and beyond the scope of messageboard exchanges to properly address, but I would strongly recommend that you seek professional psychiatric assistance, before you harm yourself or those who care about you.

'The commons" is an example economists use to explain why private property is superior to common ownership. When grazing is owned "in common" then each farmer grazes his animals until the vegetation is eaten down to the ground.

"The commons" is an argument against your socialist schemes, not one in support of them.

 

[whitehall]

Now is not the time to create new federal regulations on energy producers. Go to China and nag them and leave the US alone for a couple of years while we straighten out the economy.

 

[Trakar]

Hydroelectric is not an enviro-nut approved source, because it interferes with turtles humping, and we can't have that.

Quite completely wrong. Hydro power has always been ecologically compatible. Of course, ecologists are concerned about insuring that there are environmental accommodations made for unique habitats and at risk populations, but this does not mean that anyone would rather have ten coal fired power plants in the place of one medium size dam.

In general, most intelligent and informed individuals realize that it is impractical to try and immediately end all fossil-fuel energy generation and fuel usage. But it is obvious that these particular carbon fuels and most importantly, their combustion products must be phased out over the coming few decades.

Sustainable Alternative Energy sources, from my perspective includes:

Nuclear, Hydro-electric, geothermal, wind, solar (thermal and PV), tidal, wave, biofuels, and a host of various combinations and varients of these. Virtually, the only sources to be removed are the previously sequestered fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas.

I've never heard of any of these groups, but given the nature of the internet it is always possible to find some fringe whackadoodle with a distorted perspective. As I demonstrated the main environmental activist groups, concur with the statements I have made.


http://www.fwee.org/hpar.html

I see nothing here that contradicts my statements

...The term clean is also used because production of electricity with hydropower does not pollute the air, contribute to acid rain or ozone depletion because of carbon dioxide emissions, or (like nuclear power) leave highly toxic waste that is difficult to dispose of.
...As the section Hydropower Facts graphically illustrates, hydropower accounts for 98% of renewable energy in the United States. Wind, solar and other sources account for the other 2%. And while there are many benefits to using hydropower as a renewable source of electricity, there are also environmental impacts.
...Examining these issues, however, needs to be done in a broad context for three reasons. First, no two hydroelectric projects are exactly alike, and many are very different. Thus, while issues can be examined in general terms, one should not draw conclusions that all or even most projects have similar environmental impacts.
...Nationally, for instance, only three percent of the nation's 80,000 dams are used to produce electricity. Most dams are used for purposes such as irrigation, flood control, and water treatment. Further, many dams support a combination of activities. For example, dams on the mainstem of the Columbia River are used for irrigation, flood control, transportation, recreation, and the production of electricity.

Sorry, I just don't see the angry mobs with pitchforks and torches you seemed to be portraying. They mention and discuss some issues of concern with regards to dams (mostly non-hydroelectric dams) but there is by no means no clear call to ban and eliminate all dams and hydroelectric structures, that I can see.

Environmental Impact of Hydroelectric Dams

Again this is a mention of some problems and issues that have occurred in foriegn dam projects (where there are not the same environmental impact concerns and efforts put into the design and construction of the projects). But I see no mention or suggestion that existing dams should be destroyed or that new, properly designed facilities should not be built.

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY | Joint Review Panel Submits Environmental Assessment Report For Proposed Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project

Again, this reference merely mentions that environmental impact studies have been completed and submitted, not that there is any serious problems or road-blocks in place moving forward to Dam construction

What are the Negative Effects of Building Large Hydroelectric Dams?

Again a listing of some positives and some negatives, but no real advocation either way.

I'm sure that there are looney left wingers running around who believe as you suggest, unfortunately, you don't seem to be able to link to one of them for confirmation. The point being, I haven't seen anything in any of these offered references that state, as your compatriot asserted: "Hydroelectric is not an enviro-nut approved source,..." And yet GreenPeace the lead "enviro-nut" group according to most of you is clear cut in their statements regarding hydroelectric power.

Climate solutions - Hydroelectic | Greenpeace International

 

[Trakar]

Sounds like you shouldn't murder or sin. But..we knew that didn't we? I'm not hearing anything about pollution, heh? Well unless you stretch its definiton perhaps.

The only stretching being done, is due to the distortions you are generating in attempting to deny the meanings of the words used.

Pollution - undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities.

There is not a passage in Christian scripture which speaks to all the Earth as being God's and our position as tenant care-takers which does not speak to issues of pollution.

 

[Trakar]

Wind Energy - Iowa Life Changing

Iowa ranks second nationally in current wind generation output with 3,675 megawatts installed with 2,534 turbines across the state. (AWEA, 2010).
Iowa leads the nation in wind generation as percentage of total power output at 17-20%. (Iowa Utilities Board, 2010)
Des Moines, Iowa-based MidAmerican Energy Company is second among all investor-owned utilities in ownership of wind energy farms with about 3,129 MW in production. (AWEA, 2010)
Iowa is a magnet for wind energy manufacturing companies, attracted by Iowa’s strong manufacturing base, excellent transportation infrastructure and skilled workforce. As of April 2010, nine international manufacturing companies have located in Iowa (IDED, 2010).

A single coal fired power plant can put out 4,000 megawatts.

Reference?
The largest US coal power station I see in the US is Plant Scherer in Forsyth GA, and it uses 4 880MW turbines for a total capacity (not average generated power) of 3,200MW.

 

[bripat9643]

Wind Energy - Iowa Life Changing

Iowa ranks second nationally in current wind generation output with 3,675 megawatts installed with 2,534 turbines across the state. (AWEA, 2010).
Iowa leads the nation in wind generation as percentage of total power output at 17-20%. (Iowa Utilities Board, 2010)
Des Moines, Iowa-based MidAmerican Energy Company is second among all investor-owned utilities in ownership of wind energy farms with about 3,129 MW in production. (AWEA, 2010)
Iowa is a magnet for wind energy manufacturing companies, attracted by Iowa’s strong manufacturing base, excellent transportation infrastructure and skilled workforce. As of April 2010, nine international manufacturing companies have located in Iowa (IDED, 2010).

A single coal fired power plant can put out 4,000 megawatts.

Reference?
The largest US coal power station I see in the US is Plant Scherer in Forsyth GA, and it uses 4 880MW turbines for a total capacity (not average generated power) of 3,200MW.

Average utilization of coal fired plants is over 90% as opposed to under 20% for wind powered generators. furthermore, such a plant can be built on a couple of acres as opposed to the hundreds of acres required by wind generation.

 

[Trakar]

Sound like to me that the Lord has plans to do away with this planet once Christ returns.

All of creation shall be unmade, but that is for God to do, not man.

The bible does not promote enviromental policy.

According to most scholars of scripture, this is an improper assertion.

The Bible and the Environment, by Professor Gordon Wenham

Christian Environmental Stewardship

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/environmentbible2.pdf

Catholic Social Thought, Economics, Energy, And Environmental Stewardship | The American Catholic

General Audience of Pope Benedict XVI, 26 August 2009
Most of the verses quoted above refer to defiling the land with sin not mercury.[/QUOTE]

 

[Intense]

Sound like to me that the Lord has plans to do away with this planet once Christ returns.

All of creation shall be unmade, but that is for God to do, not man.

The bible does not promote enviromental policy.

According to most scholars of scripture, this is an improper assertion.

The Bible and the Environment, by Professor Gordon Wenham

Christian Environmental Stewardship

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/environmentbible2.pdf

Catholic Social Thought, Economics, Energy, And Environmental Stewardship | The American Catholic

General Audience of Pope Benedict XVI, 26 August 2009
Most of the verses quoted above refer to defiling the land with sin not mercury.

[/QUOTE]


Genesis 1-28

King James Bible
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

American King James Version
And God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

American Standard Version
And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

 

[Trakar]

What living organism does not produce CO2?
How much CO2 is produced from the Oceans?
What happens when photosynthesis stops?
Do you know a safer refrigerant?

All nonsequitors to the topic of discussion, but:

The biologic production of CO2 is irrelevent as that is carbon already existent in the active carbon cycle of the biosphere. The CO2 that is causing problems is the sequestered CO2 that has long been isolated from the active carbon cycle, which we are now adding back into the cycle at rates it is incapable of removing from the environment.

Currently the oceans are Carbon sinks providing a net absorption of between 1/4 and 1/3 of all the sequestered carbon we are dumping into the atmosphere.

Photosynthesis is the process of using sunlight to generate plant sugars, in the process some CO2 is processed and some oxygen is released. Please demonstrate the relevence of including this process in this discussion.

CO2 is not a refrigerant. perhaps you are thinking of HFCs, HCFCs, CFCs, or halomethanes? Regardless, one of the oldest used is probably one of the environmentally safest, Ammonia (R717). It has been used commercially for more than 130 years and is economical, efficient and in small doses, environmentally friendly.

 

[Trakar]

The extraction companies don't care about clean air and water.

That is why they want to kill the EPA and our fellow citizens.

Well, they certainly don't seem to want to be held accountable for the direct consequences of their profit making activities.

 

[Trakar]

No, it's a "fundamental economic principle" of socialists, not regular thinking people.

The fact that you consider all economists to be socialists, is both irrelevent and beyond the scope of messageboard exchanges to properly address, but I would strongly recommend that you seek professional psychiatric assistance, before you harm yourself or those who care about you.

'The commons" is an example economists use to explain why private property is superior to common ownership. When grazing is owned "in common" then each farmer grazes his animals until the vegetation is eaten down to the ground.

"The commons" is an argument against your socialist schemes, not one in support of them.

"The Commons" are all resources that are commonly held right to by all people. Some lands are considered part of the commons, but the term is best applied to items like Air and Water. I provided excellent textbook discussions of the principles involved in economic considerations, your understanding is certainly closer to the mark than the reponses posted by the short-bus riders but definitely needs some refinement to truely achieve accuracy. I am not socialist, nor do I have socialist goals or ambitions, though I consider pure socialist systems to be no more wrong and incomplete than pure capitalist systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_(economics)

Business Economics | Introduction to Basic Economics

Economics focus: Commons sense | The Economist

Tragedy of the Commons: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty