Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
On this subject, yes.
|
I'd hate to bring up your credibility on a topic twice in one night, ace, but you kinda had it coming. What makes you think this is severely limiting, excessive, and unreasonable? Your gut?
Quote:
The reason it is a "gut" feeling is because I do not have objective information or data that supports the view I hold. Honesty, requires me to clearly state when I have a "gut" feeling compared to a view held based on hard evidence.
Did I really need to explain that? Have you ever had "gut" feelings? Is it something that only extremists have? Are you just being provocative? what?
|
Nothing of the sort, ace. To clarify, I don't give a shit about how your gut feelings work. I do have a gut. It has feelings too. I wanted you to elaborate on the EPA thing being punitive. What's the point of it being so? Why? What are the goals?
Quote:
|
Powering vehicles with natural gas would have a big environmental impact immediately at a very reasonable cost to society. Electric, battery powered vehicles depend on coal fired plants and require metals and materials we do not have in abundance. We have about a 300 year supply of natural gas even if we convert vehicles to natural gas.
|
Powering vehicles with natural gas could be done immediately at a very reasonable cost? What part of "fracking" and "lack of infrastructure" don't you understand? And did you know that they can use natural gas to fuel power stations?
Quote:
|
Again, I asked the questions - what does science say? Clearly you don't know, yet the basis of your thread suggests that you would and that conservatives would not.
|
Where are you getting this information?
Quote:
|
If science should drive the discussion, the discussion is broader than just the EPA administering new CO2 regulation - I repeat, we need to broadly address the issue through legislation not regulation. If based on that, you conclude that I am against science, so be it.
|
I'm not going to suggest you're against science. I would suggest, however, that you have a misconception about how regulations work. Regulatory bodies are meant to steer industry behaviour in such a way that ensures compliance with parameters deemed reasonable, essential, and/or desirable based on evidence or common practice. If you think this EPA issue isn't based on any credible information, practice, or reasonableness, then lets talk about that.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure that industry simply doesn't run amok. That's why there is regulation in other industries such as aviation and banking. Regulations avoid safety issues, public or environmental damage, and unethical practices. I know you're generally against regulation beyond the bare minimum, but that's not realistic in this day and age when we're working with some serious health and environmental issues, and at a time when alternatives are feasible (and desirable from the public's perspective).