daveman
Diamond Member
It's a good thing not everyone is as stupid as you are.
Thanks Barack 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close
- Thread starter bripat9643
- Start date
daveman
Diamond Member
It looks like my participation in this conversation isn't required. You're handling both sides.You keep arguing against things I haven't said.
Chicks think you're hot for that. No, really.
Retard.
Well, you basically did say the things I've said you've said... but now you're backing out on it because you realize you got yourself in a bind. You realized that mentioning people who still get sick despite the FDA regulations, under the guise that doing away with them would be no different then before the FDA was put in place(because you know, people still get sick!), is profoundly stupid.
I mean it's either that or you were just talking to talk, and didn't have a point. You were just arguing for the sake of arguing and didn't have a position. That's probably why you keep ******* deflecting instead of telling me what your point was.
You should stop listening to the voices in your head.
daveman
Diamond Member
Leftists lie. All the time, leftists lie.
We don't want mercury regulation ended, liar. It's fine at the levels it is now.
Look, I know you're a particularly stupid little person, but this move by the EPA has nothing to do with the public good. It's the leftist agenda being pushed, to close down scary icky nasty coal plants and promote green alternatives (that just happen to be owned by big Dem donors).
It's not "for the children!!" It's "for the Democratic Party!!"
daveman
Diamond Member
Class warfare is waged only by you morons who have no class.
daveman
Diamond Member
You want to shut them down right now?
Okay, with what are you going to replace the 49% of our electricity that comes from burning coal? Remember, it has to be available NOW, and available in sufficient capacity to replace that 49%.
Oh...you mean there isn't anything? Hmmm.
Well, looks like you're going to have to do without electricity altogether. Because industry can't do without it, or else the economy will grind to a complete stop. Hospitals can't do without it, or else people will die.
So it looks like you're holding the bag. Please go to your breaker box and kill the main.
It's for the children, don'tcha know.
Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
What an incredibly stupid comment.
There was no discharge that needed to be cleaned up. That was the point. The Obama administration once again is picking winners and losers via its regulations.
That is no invisible hand. It is clearly visible and it clearly backhanded the people of WV.
Look at the MTBE debacle (look it up if you don't know what it is).
Another case of the government meddling in the affairs of business.
The market destroys...not the government.
What is so funny is that you can't see the difference.
Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
Define dirty energy and what exactly do you mean by "pollutes" ?
Do you really believe that the regulations that turned on contminant levels that are insignificant (and shut down these plants) are going to offset what the Chinese are doing ?
The left always complains that the right pines for the good old days of the 40's/50's/60's when in reality you folks are interested in taking us back to the stoneage.
No one sent 1 job overseas.
We lost them to COMPETITION.
Ever played any sports?
Medicare is 30% fraud.
Social Security has been a Ponzi scheme since inception.
Why should Americans work in facorities when they can draw disability, worker's comp and strike for $40 an hour for a job unskilled labor does for $15 an hour?
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
This talking point was brought to you by the People's Democratic Committee for the Expansion of Public Idiocy.
newpolitics
vegan atheist indy
- Sep 27, 2008
- 2,931
- 262
- 48
The arrogance of your position is astounding: let economic human interests be granted the forefront of all endeavors so that even our future generations will be harmed by us having completely destroyed the natural environment in trying to get energy NOW! NOW! NOW!
If you are idiotic enough to believe that coal mining is not environmentally damaging enough to warrant a switch to a cleaner energy, then you must be a republican.
Last edited:
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
You may than Bill Clinton for much of that. He signed NAFTA, CAFTA into law and gave China most favored trade status with no compensation to us. All those Chinese election funds really had no effect.
What has Obama done to make the US a better place for business? He's making energy more expensive, driven drilling platforms to EGYPT and BRAZIL while destroying the gulf petroleum industry. He's harmed banks by forcing mortgage bailouts. He's protected unions at the expense of the taxpayer and legal investors in corporations that should have filed chapter 11. He's for creating onerous regulations that make the cost of business more expensive.
His desired goal to punish businesses with taxation changes have made this nation a very poor place for investment and growth.
So... who's fault is it that we are failing to compete well in a global market where capital has no patriotism NOR loyalty to a nation and will go to where the biggest profit can be made?
You're naive to believe such simplistic concepts and talking points from political handlers. Start looking at the CAUSES of why jobs leave, and quit stopping at "because they're evil capitalists". That is not sane and is intellectually lazy.
Jeez! Way to live the 'Everything is politics' bullshit.
Of course, let's ignore the doubling of electricity costs impact on the customers of FirstEnergy, shall we?
Ask yourself about the logistics of what happens when a business' utility costs double. I remember finding out a hotel I worked for payed over 2000 a month for electricity. They shut half the place down in winter because it was too damn expensive. So now consider that bill jumping to 4 grand a month. They're a budget hotel that can't afford to jack the rates up and pass on to the consumers. They already have a skeleton crew running it so costs are as low as they can go already. Operating the business would then LOSE them money. What would they do? Simple, shut down. Layoff the whole staff, and let the property sit till things change.That's one effect. And sure, it's a staff of say 15 people, all low paying jobs (save the GM), but now you've driven a bunch of working poor into destitution. Consider all the customers out there who are now facing this impact. Way to protect the poor man. How many jobs will be lost and families get hurt (and that doesn't include the residential customers who now have their effective income cut)? Where's your compassion for them?
Who said I was voting for him? I know I won't ******* vote for the ManChildian Candyass we currently have in the office who's more concerned at sending jobs to China than here. Are you better off now than when he took over (yes yes, I know... BOOOOOOOSH!!!!
) ? What the **** good has he done for this nation economically?Quit being a fucktard.
BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 58,745
- 17,652
- 2,250
The new environmental standards place limits on power plants' emissions of mercury, arsenic and other toxins into the air.
It added that the three plants have served mostly as peaking facilities, generating on average less than 1% of the electricity produced by FirstEnergy over the past three years.
FirstEnergy To Retire 3 Coal-Fired Plants, Adding To Closures - WSJ.com
It added that the three plants have served mostly as peaking facilities, generating on average less than 1% of the electricity produced by FirstEnergy over the past three years.
FirstEnergy To Retire 3 Coal-Fired Plants, Adding To Closures - WSJ.com
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #454
The Industrial Revolution: Killer Smog and Acid Rain
Professor Michael McElroy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Describing the evolution of humans in the world, McElroy traces our progression from our origins as hunters and gatherers to our organizational growth as we began to domesticate animals and plants, which allowed for the establishment of more sedentary communities. As large numbers of people began to live in the same location for extended amounts of times, local environmental issues began to become significant.
The most significant effect of humans on the environment began 250 years ago with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, which developed energy sources (like coal) not dependant on individual human or animal power and gave us the ability to use remarkable machines to work for us. The Industrial Revolution was not without its problems, however, creating a population flight from countryside to cities, the beginning of the major industrial cities, and especially the consequences of "dirty air."
In the mid-twentieth century, a few major events occurred that shocked people into attempting to clean up dirty air. In 1948, in the valley of Donora, Pennsylvania, pollutants from local coal plants combined with trapped air to produce a lethal cloud. Similarly, in 1952 in London, sooty coal smoke and fog combined to produce "killer smog," causing the deaths of thousands.
Various solutions were attempted. Industry adopted higher smokestacks, believing that the smoke would go somewhere else. In homes heated by coal, a case was made for using higher-quality coal with less particulate matter. Because of these efforts, visible manifestations of pollution were less apparent, but people were still breathing carbon monoxide and the problem remained.
Almost simultaneously, in northern Europe and in northeastern America, people began to focus on a new problem: acid rain. In Scandinavia, in Sweden and Norway, fish were dying. However, when acidity levels in the rain were measured, there were clear indications that coal burned somewhere other than in Sweden and Norway was the obvious source of the acid-causing materials. Pollution — no longer a local problem — was now something that had to be dealt with through international arrangements.
The issue of acid rain was addressed in a serious way in the United States in the 1980's. Problems still remain, however, and although we have reduced emissions have reduced the emission of sulfur compounds into the atmosphere by a variety of means, levels of acidity in the rain are not different from what they were before. Strategies to deal with the problem have been piecemeal: we didn't stop burning coal, we just used technology to try to minimize the damage.
State of the Global Environment: Public Policy
Professor Michael McElroy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Describing the evolution of humans in the world, McElroy traces our progression from our origins as hunters and gatherers to our organizational growth as we began to domesticate animals and plants, which allowed for the establishment of more sedentary communities. As large numbers of people began to live in the same location for extended amounts of times, local environmental issues began to become significant.
The most significant effect of humans on the environment began 250 years ago with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, which developed energy sources (like coal) not dependant on individual human or animal power and gave us the ability to use remarkable machines to work for us. The Industrial Revolution was not without its problems, however, creating a population flight from countryside to cities, the beginning of the major industrial cities, and especially the consequences of "dirty air."
In the mid-twentieth century, a few major events occurred that shocked people into attempting to clean up dirty air. In 1948, in the valley of Donora, Pennsylvania, pollutants from local coal plants combined with trapped air to produce a lethal cloud. Similarly, in 1952 in London, sooty coal smoke and fog combined to produce "killer smog," causing the deaths of thousands.
Various solutions were attempted. Industry adopted higher smokestacks, believing that the smoke would go somewhere else. In homes heated by coal, a case was made for using higher-quality coal with less particulate matter. Because of these efforts, visible manifestations of pollution were less apparent, but people were still breathing carbon monoxide and the problem remained.
Almost simultaneously, in northern Europe and in northeastern America, people began to focus on a new problem: acid rain. In Scandinavia, in Sweden and Norway, fish were dying. However, when acidity levels in the rain were measured, there were clear indications that coal burned somewhere other than in Sweden and Norway was the obvious source of the acid-causing materials. Pollution — no longer a local problem — was now something that had to be dealt with through international arrangements.
The issue of acid rain was addressed in a serious way in the United States in the 1980's. Problems still remain, however, and although we have reduced emissions have reduced the emission of sulfur compounds into the atmosphere by a variety of means, levels of acidity in the rain are not different from what they were before. Strategies to deal with the problem have been piecemeal: we didn't stop burning coal, we just used technology to try to minimize the damage.
State of the Global Environment: Public Policy
Both sides lie, moron. And you ought to know with some of the whoppers you and the rest of the wingnuts tell on here.
Mercury contamination is fine at the current levels? Where in the hell did you get that from? Is that why 40 states (including RED states) have issued mercury advisories? That Illinois has a recommended intake of one fish a week (and in some cases one meal per month) due to excessive mercury contamination?
Look, I know you're a particularly stupid little person, but this move by the EPA has everything to do with the public good. It's the rightist agenda that you're wanting to push which is profits before everything else.
Mercury contamination is not hard to reduce or control. We spend about one million dollars a year on controlling it (before you get your panties in a twist keep in mind we make about a million dollars a day). And for that we got our levels BELOW the EPA requirements.
Now I know this is hard for pea-brains to comprehend but it's not for the "Democrat party". There is no political advantage to forcing companies to spend money and be responsible to the environment. But someone has to make the RIGHT decision and the GOP sure wasn't doing it, were they?
Last edited:
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
My challenge to you.1. Mercury in the environment is seen as bad for it causes health problems
2. Half the mercury pollution in the atmosphere is attributed to nature, and this cannot be decreased.
3. AFAIK as I know the regulations already in place for Mercury in coal plants does a bang up job on reducing mercury.
4. There is little to no evidence further reductions in this level will have a significant advantage over what is currently been done.
5. Undue hardship on the facilities make them unprofitable, and in a cost saving move, their owners will shut them down rather than deal with fines and penalties.
6. The closing of the plants will harm local economies in a ripple effect through W VA.
7. The price of electricity will jump because of the closed plants and less product on the market, pushing prices higher since there is no current replacement for these facilities, peaking or not.
8. When did making people unemployed from good jobs and increasing the price of electricity become 'compassionate' for the sake of an unproven tightening of a regulation that direct causal links to disease have not been established?
9. CFLs have mercury in them that can be released if something goes wrong with the bulb or it breaks. This is a known toxic pollutant, and you want it in every light socket, while taking it out of every thermometer and coal plant...and warning about seafood. But CFL's are safe!
Do you get me now? Or do I have to go SLOWER STILL???
See what I mean here? This is what i'm talking about regarding the CFL's. You guys are always up in arms about CFL's which yes, can be dangerous when broken because of the mercury... but you're fine with the levels of mercury being ejected into the atmosphere and wish the EPA wouldn't be able to regulate any of that shit because it affects business.
Half of all mercury in the atmosphere comes from nature yes. But half of it comes from man. That doesn't ******* blow you away, that we pump as much mercury into the atmosphere as this gigantic ******* sphere we call Earth does? And that's just the mercury. That's not talking about the Benzene. That's not talking about the Formaldehyde, that's not talking about the Ozone. That's not talking about all the other astronomical quantities of pollutants we pump into our world for us to breathe, for our children to breathe, for our descendants to breathe.
And somehow, the EPA and environmentalists are a bad thing. We need to be able to pump MORE of that shit into the atmosphere. We need to be able to dump more of that shit into our lakes and rivers. We need to be able to ingest more of that stuff in our food.
All for business and the Almighty Bottom Line.
Prove DIRECT CAUSATION of these mercury vapors from burning coal and illness. Not chances, not threats. ACTUAL CAUSATION from a specific sources not this 'non point' fuzzy projections shit.
Secondly, show me a cost-benefit analysis that there is a SIGNIFICANT improvement to the quality of life and health for those people directly affected by these new regulations.
Come up with some real data from non-blog, non-activist BS sources, and I may consider what you have to say as being something other than diseased rants of an ill mind, Cowpie.
Oh, and as for the infamous 'bottom line', tell me how any business survives to do good for anyone else if they do not honor the EEEEEEEEVILLLLLL bottom line?
My challenge to you.1. Mercury in the environment is seen as bad for it causes health problems
2. Half the mercury pollution in the atmosphere is attributed to nature, and this cannot be decreased.
3. AFAIK as I know the regulations already in place for Mercury in coal plants does a bang up job on reducing mercury.
4. There is little to no evidence further reductions in this level will have a significant advantage over what is currently been done.
5. Undue hardship on the facilities make them unprofitable, and in a cost saving move, their owners will shut them down rather than deal with fines and penalties.
6. The closing of the plants will harm local economies in a ripple effect through W VA.
7. The price of electricity will jump because of the closed plants and less product on the market, pushing prices higher since there is no current replacement for these facilities, peaking or not.
8. When did making people unemployed from good jobs and increasing the price of electricity become 'compassionate' for the sake of an unproven tightening of a regulation that direct causal links to disease have not been established?
9. CFLs have mercury in them that can be released if something goes wrong with the bulb or it breaks. This is a known toxic pollutant, and you want it in every light socket, while taking it out of every thermometer and coal plant...and warning about seafood. But CFL's are safe!
Do you get me now? Or do I have to go SLOWER STILL???
See what I mean here? This is what i'm talking about regarding the CFL's. You guys are always up in arms about CFL's which yes, can be dangerous when broken because of the mercury... but you're fine with the levels of mercury being ejected into the atmosphere and wish the EPA wouldn't be able to regulate any of that shit because it affects business.
Half of all mercury in the atmosphere comes from nature yes. But half of it comes from man. That doesn't ******* blow you away, that we pump as much mercury into the atmosphere as this gigantic ******* sphere we call Earth does? And that's just the mercury. That's not talking about the Benzene. That's not talking about the Formaldehyde, that's not talking about the Ozone. That's not talking about all the other astronomical quantities of pollutants we pump into our world for us to breathe, for our children to breathe, for our descendants to breathe.
And somehow, the EPA and environmentalists are a bad thing. We need to be able to pump MORE of that shit into the atmosphere. We need to be able to dump more of that shit into our lakes and rivers. We need to be able to ingest more of that stuff in our food.
All for business and the Almighty Bottom Line.
Prove DIRECT CAUSATION of these mercury vapors from burning coal and illness. Not chances, not threats. ACTUAL CAUSATION from a specific sources not this 'non point' fuzzy projections shit.
Secondly, show me a cost-benefit analysis that there is a SIGNIFICANT improvement to the quality of life and health for those people directly affected by these new regulations.
Come up with some real data from non-blog, non-activist BS sources, and I may consider what you have to say as being something other than diseased rants of an ill mind, Cowpie.
Oh, and as for the infamous 'bottom line', tell me how any business survives to do good for anyone else if they do not honor the EEEEEEEEVILLLLLL bottom line?
Cowman, me or anyone else could give you 10 links showing the effects of mercury on humans and wildlife, how much power plants add to the environment and even added costs (which I provided in my above post) but you know what?
If you disagreed with it you would simply pooh-pooh the sources. So why bother?
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
I was thinking the same about your ignorance and elitist attitude.
Ahhh the classic "7th Generation" argument of the Ojibway nations. So how many people should die to make this 'sustainable'? 2 billion? 5 billion? Hmm? What's the 'sustainable' luddite population of this planet, oh great Malthusian?
I'm not saying that it isn't 'zero impact'. I will argue that 'zero impact' is a farce. Look at the forests of New England. Yes, we logged the shit out of that area, and the virgin timber of 200-400 year old trees is long gone, but so what? We now have 20% more forest up there than we did before it was first logged! NATURE is a very resilient thing, and it is always changing. There will never be a snapshot unchanging universe, and no level of environ-mental case-ism will stop it from happening.
Secondly, there is NOTHING that can replace Coal effectively save nuclear or hydro. Everything else is more expensive (and don't bother with your advocacy blogs, I've found real sources at the IEA that say otherwise ). If you're going to shut down a proven useful power source that has a minimal impact because of safeguards currently in places, any change needs to show it is bigger, better, faster, stronger, cheaper, safer before it should even be considered.
Your reasons, science and cost-benefit is garbage, you know it, so you're making emotional appeals to try and cover for your position's shortcomings.
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
Cowman, me or anyone else could give you 10 links showing the effects of mercury on humans and wildlife, how much power plants add to the environment and even added costs (which I provided in my above post) but you know what?
If you disagreed with it you would simply pooh-pooh the sources. So why bother?
Yep. Stop using coal because it puts off Mercury vapor... but let's make sure it's in every lightsocket in America! HOORAY! it's just different somehow.
Cowman, me or anyone else could give you 10 links showing the effects of mercury on humans and wildlife, how much power plants add to the environment and even added costs (which I provided in my above post) but you know what?
If you disagreed with it you would simply pooh-pooh the sources. So why bother?
Yep. Stop using coal because it puts off Mercury vapor... but let's make sure it's in every lightsocket in America! HOORAY! it's just different somehow.
You're a ******* moron. Just because you get your ass kicked on a subject you know nothing about you resort to bullshit childish posts.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
"Jack Smith prosecution team coordinating and strategizing with DC Circuit Court Judge James Boasberg and Judge Beryl Howell"- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 10
-
-
-
Couple Called 911 After ‘Disoriented’ Woman Knocked on Their Door. She Froze to Death While Waiting for Help to Arrive: Lawsuit- Started by LibertyWeeps
- Replies: 11
-
