Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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?
|
No. My broader views on this subject are based on various sources of information. I did not go into research with preconceived notions.
Quote:
|
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?
|
There are better more direct and effective ways to address CO2. Many environmentalist and liberals seem to resent industrialization and seem to believe industry exploits the environment and need to be punished for their behavior.
Quote:
|
Powering vehicles with natural gas could be done immediately at a very reasonable cost?
|
Relative compared to the alternatives.
Quote:
|
What part of "fracking" and "lack of infrastructure" don't you understand?
|
I am not an expert. There is no perfect solution. However, I do believe natural gas is our best available course of action if we want to make a significant reduction in CO2 emissions in the most cost effective way. Again, and as a conservative, I ask you and other liberals, what does science say about that?
Quote:
|
And did you know that they can use natural gas to fuel power stations?
|
Yes.
Quote:
|
Where are you getting this information?
|
What information? The charge was made that conservatives ignore science - it is clearly not true - and given the presentation in this thread one could easily assume that liberals and environmentalists have done their homework - that is the basis of my question.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I have no objection with society doing what we can to be good stewards of the planet, including the control of excessive CO2 emissions. Assuming we share that goal, it seems the issue is the means.
---------- Post added at 08:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mantus
Now if we go back to 1990 and apply the same GOP strategy as we are using today they'd be asking the EPA to pretend Acid Raid doesn't exist. From a scientific standpoint: is this a logical way to deal with a problem?
|
Again, I think you mis-characterize the bill and its intent. An administrator in the EPA, given the ability to regulate CO2 through regulation could impose regulations on how much you can exhale or impose costs upon you and others as individuals. That is too much power. It is power that would be used selectively. It is power that I think would have political implications more so than true environmental implications. For example, would a favorite industry, i.e., automotive industry, get favored treatment? Why? Again, we need to first have a national policy agreed upon with well defined parameters for regulators.