Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the EPA gets a major reform

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    The problem is that you have states like China, who are creating massive pollution deserts. And the fact that you have the First World telling emerging nations that they can't have air conditioning, cars, and other First World toys because the planet can't take it.
    And still, China and 174 other countries including most of those in the "third word" have ratified the Paris agreement

    http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9444.php

    175
    175 Parties have ratified of 197 Parties to the Convention

    On 4 November 2016, the Paris Agreement entered into force.
    More information
    But let's find an excuse to do the best we can not to participate with the vast majority of other countries to try to address the problem of global warming...
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • #62
      How many of these 175 countries will give money? Everyone wants the US to pay the bill.

      Pruitt
      Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

      Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

      by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
        How many of these 175 countries will give money? Everyone wants the US to pay the bill.

        Pruitt


        Here is the agreement

        http://unfccc.int/files/essential_ba..._agreement.pdf

        and a typical pat of it

        Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts an are encouraged to move over time toward economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.

        Support shall be provided to developing country Parties for the
        implementation of this Article in accordance with Article 9 1 an 11,
        recognizing that enhanced support for developing country Parties will allow for higher ambition in their actions.
        In other words, even though the agreement is not in any final form since there are ambiguities, the US still refuses to be part even of an attempt to negotiate the details. The agreement as I read it shows an intention for everybody contributing in one way or another to the cost of reducing emissions.. Obviously, if there were solutions for free there would not be a debate. The real question is if inaction is free as many people think or if it also comes at a cost for the future generations. And something else" notice that despite the US resistance, the other countries continue with their attempt to implement the agreement. It is not that everybody expects the US to foot the bill.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
          How many of these 175 countries will give money? Everyone wants the US to pay the bill.

          Pruitt
          Ohly about 150 of them are expecting massive payouts, and are probably still hoping to get them since the Democranks will do anything to undermine the US when a Republican is in the White house.

          BTW, the foreign aid situation is still very interesting. The shorter list would be who we are NOT giving cash to , even in Europe.

          https://www.foreignassistance.gov/explore

          Yup, that is the State Department.
          "Why is the Rum gone?"

          -Captain Jack

          Comment


          • #65
            from

            https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/12/polit...ess/index.html



            Former aide tells Congress of extravagant spending by EPA's Scott Pruitt

            ...Chmielewski is currently on unpaid leave from the agency after raising concerns about Pruitt's travel practices and uses of resources and funds.
            Among the allegations:
            • Pruitt declined to use State Department-approved overseas hotels that already had security in place, preferring more expensive hotels with higher security costs.
            • Pruitt requested aides to schedule official business in cities he wanted to visit.
            • Pruitt directed staffers booking his travel on Delta to maximize his personal frequent flyer miles.
            • Pruitt used the agency's scheduling director as a "personal real estate representative."
            • Pruitt wanted staff to find reasons for him to visit his home state of Oklahoma.
            • Pruitt spent more than the $5,000 allowed by law to decorate his office, including refinishing an antique desk, buying a standing desk and paying leases for art on loan from the Smithsonian.
            "We will respond to Members of Congress through the proper channel," the agency's spokesman, Jahan Wilcox, told CNN in a statement.
            The EPA has previously defended Pruitt's travel and security practices, and Pruitt argued in recent interviews his lease was ethically sound. EPA has also said Chmielewski is among "a group of disgruntled employees who have either been dismissed or reassigned."
            Chmielewski confirmed in a brief phone interview that the letter from Democratic members of Congress laying out his closed-door testimony is accurate. He has met with both Democratic and Republican members of Congress as part of inquiries into Pruitt.
            "This has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats. This is right and wrong. I will meet with whoever wants to meet with me," Chmielewski told CNN.

            One more story that concerned citizens need to monitor...
            Plus it is refreshing to see a thread about suspicions of corruption that does not mention Trump
            Last edited by pamak; 12 Apr 18, 17:34.
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by pamak View Post
              ...
              Plus it is refreshing to see a thread about suspicions of corruption that does not mention Trump
              And I bet you can't stand it, can you?
              Pity that the highest dollar amount your linked article mentions is $5k... so much for hard data on serious amounts of money.

              But since I started the thread, I guess I should thank you... if I had lost my mind I might even consider it.
              "Why is the Rum gone?"

              -Captain Jack

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                And I bet you can't stand it, can you?
                Pity that the highest dollar amount your linked article mentions is $5k... so much for hard data on serious amounts of money.

                But since I started the thread, I guess I should thank you... if I had lost my mind I might even consider it.
                Not really


                Pruitt spent more than the $5,000 allowed by law to decorate his office, including refinishing an antique desk, buying a standing desk and paying leases for art on loan from the Smithsonian.
                It does not say that $5,000 is the highest dollar amount
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #68
                  and if you want really specific big dollar amounts, just read the whole article. I just posted exerpts which did not include things like

                  Chmielewski told congressional investigators that he had personal knowledge -- through a conversation with Jackson -- that Pruitt was involved in the raises given to his agency attorney and the scheduling director.
                  Pruitt denied in a Fox News interview that he knew of the raises prior to a report by The Atlantic that uncovered the raises -- one for $57,000 and another for $28,000.
                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                    And I bet you can't stand it, can you?
                    Pity that the highest dollar amount your linked article mentions is $5k... so much for hard data on serious amounts of money.

                    But since I started the thread, I guess I should thank you... if I had lost my mind I might even consider it.

                    do you put a price on what is corruption? That's the major problem now days. Anything for a price, with most people. Including turning a blind eye. SHAME.
                    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                      do you put a price on what is corruption? That's the major problem now days. Anything for a price, with most people. Including turning a blind eye. SHAME.
                      Bold in red is my doing. Would seem everyone does anything "for a price".

                      Consider that the many whom claim to be "in service to their nation/community, etc.". i.e. Civil or Military, still expect to collect a paycheck and benefits, including pensions, from the Guv'mint; a.k.a. OPM via the taxpayers. I've yet to find the one whom does such out of their own pocket.

                      Try being realistic and honest ...
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                        (My bold) From a strictly scientific view so far as I can see, global warming - as well as global cooling and climate change in general - have always been part of a natural cycle on this planet.
                        Fossil records and geological evidence, in general, do appear to support this. ...
                        Something expressed often and many places here, such as this thread;
                        http://<a href="http://www.armchairg...ng a Hoax?</a>

                        Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                        ...The argument has never really been about that.
                        Actually, many of the Pro-ACC/AGW have sought to ignore or at least blur this obvious fact ~ part of the dialogue.

                        Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                        The argument, such as it is, revolves around the question of human activity contributing to, or influencing, climate change patterns.
                        Some folks don't seem to acknowledge that distinction and this can cause misunderstandings, IMO.
                        More to the point, the Pro-ACC/AGW crowd ignore the historical flux and natural variation, acting as if "Climate Change/Global Warming" is a relative new phenomena and one solely the result of human activity. Compounded by the concept that climate can/should be relatively stagnant and something that can be set to a rather narrow range of variation, like the thermostat of one's home HVAC/furnace.
                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                          Humans can and do alter "climate" through history. The Romans encouraged farming in North Africa and the loss of water caused made it dryer and warmer. The Sahara advanced towards the coast as a result. Cutting down the forest in Southeast Brazil took a lot of moisture out of the area and it dried up.
                          A point to consider/remember is that until the past century or two, human knowledge and science base had little understanding of environmental effects or idea how to mitigate or repair such. I'm not sure we still know or understand all that comes into play, such as how many parts of Earth's land went from forest covered to grassland/plains where herds of grazers roamed.

                          Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                          The Amazon basin was once changed by man. The soil was changed and some rivers diverted and catch basins created. The people also plated a lot of nut and fruit trees. ...
                          Documented some in the book;
                          '1491': Vanished Americans
                          https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/09/b...americans.html

                          1491
                          New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
                          https://www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/i...mber/1649/1491

                          Where it is pointed out that some of the Amazon rain-forest cleared and farmed in pre-Columbus times later reverted back to rain-forest when these native-Americans died off and dwindled due largely to disease.

                          Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                          ... The Southwest Plateau was desertified when Indians tried to farm the lands, build houses and grow maize. The loss of the Pinon trees caused soil erosion and there was nothing to hold water

                          The list goes on. The problem is more of stopping development in deserts and maybe try to replant some areas that have not blown away.

                          Pruitt
                          Many desert areas can be revived via irrigation and slow, proper land management, re-planting. Sort of like designed terra-forming.

                          What is also seldom considered is that along with increase of human activity such as industrialization, and use of carbon resources for fuel, causing rise in carbon dioxide(CO2) levels, we have also experienced a near comparable decline in Flora biomass that would have consumed that CO2.

                          A more practicable, less involved, less expensive and less disruptive "solution" to reducing current CO2 levels (if such should really be pursued) would be extensive replant and reforestation to increase current flora biomass levels.

                          (BTW, too soon to rep you again)
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                            Climate-gate was just the tip of the iceberg. Over the years climate scientists have lied to the public repeatedly. That doesn't mean that there is absolutely no validity to global warming but it does mean that the wrong people are doing the research.
                            Actually, it seems that in some cases they are doing the research they are being paid for, it's just that those grants and payments only go for those whom do research to prove the case for ACC/AGW, i.e. a priori results.
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                              EPA’s Pruitt: Agency will no long use junk ‘secret science’ to push climate change hoax



                              https://thenationalsentinel.com/2018...e-change-hoax/

                              Its about time, eh?

                              Oh, I can hear it already; "You should be shut down! The masses are asses and you ain't smart enough or have the right to know what the elite knows about what we are trying to force them to do!!!"

                              Guess again, comrades.
                              When EPA got started and in gear, back about late 1960s, USA had some serious air pollution and water pollution issues. Within a few decades, both had been largely corrected and cleaned, but like many Guv'mint agencies, once the initial mandate and reason for existence has been met, a new emerges in form of preservation of agency/jobs/funding.

                              Hence we now find compliance standards that are beyond even natural background levels, a near impossible to achieve movement of goal posts, but also a huge economic strain to try and comply. One quick "game change" was to jump on the ACC/AGW bandwagon and declare "greenhouse gas" Carbon Dioxide(CO2), essential for 99+% of life on this planet, a "pollutant".

                              Meanwhile, returning to OP and from the original linked article, QUOTE:
                              ...
                              In the past, that level of secrecy was employed by the EPA to hide suspicious methodologies used to conclude, mostly, that climate change is being driven by human activity. Though conservatives have pushed for a more open process, Democrats have fought to keep study methodologies hidden.

                              “If we use a third party to engage in scientific review or inquiry, and that’s the basis of rulemaking, you and every American citizen across the country deserve to know what’s the data, what’s the methodology that was used to reach that conclusion that was the underpinning of what — rules that were adopted by this agency,” Pruitt told The DC.
                              ...
                              To date, there isn’t a single study that has been published in its entirety proving human activity is causing the planet to warm or the climate to change.

                              Nevertheless, Democrats and Left-leaning environmentalists have used a flawed survey to claim that 97 percent of climate scientists have formed a “consensus” that human-caused warming is real.

                              But as James Taylor, president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation noted in 2013, “Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming.”

                              “After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-percent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics,” he continued.
                              ...
                              “At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism,” Taylor wrote.

                              Also, as reported by Investors Business Daily last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, frankly admitted that the overarching goal of the “global warming/climate change” hoax is to reorient the world’s economic model away from capitalism.

                              “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said, the paper reported.

                              https://thenationalsentinel.com/2018...e-change-hoax/
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                                Something expressed often and many places here, such as this thread;
                                http://<a href="http://www.armchairg...ng a Hoax?</a>



                                Actually, many of the Pro-ACC/AGW have sought to ignore or at least blur this obvious fact ~ part of the dialogue.



                                More to the point, the Pro-ACC/AGW crowd ignore the historical flux and natural variation, acting as if "Climate Change/Global Warming" is a relative new phenomena and one solely the result of human activity. Compounded by the concept that climate can/should be relatively stagnant and something that can be set to a rather narrow range of variation, like the thermostat of one's home HVAC/furnace.
                                This is pretty much what I was driving at (or alluding to).
                                IMO, ignorance (or disregard; or even dismissal) of the fact that cooling and warming cycles have always been a natural part of this planet's climate is a major hinge on the whole thing.
                                I believe it is this very same ignorance/disregard/dismissal that is instrumental to the more extreme views regarding human-caused climate change.

                                As I see it, there can of course be little doubt that human activity must have had, and must continue to be having, at least SOME influence on climate.
                                The big question is, how much? IMHO, that question is very difficult to address with real certainty; in some areas at least.
                                I guess the whole topic will continue to generate heated discussion.

                                In consideration of all the above, I would say that we (that is, humanity) DO need to take climatic/environmental factors seriously and make every reasonable effort to minimize potential impacts.
                                I guess there will always be differences of opinion on how much we need to do, and what, and where, and how the potential costs - where they exist - are to be managed.
                                Some of the answers will not be easy.
                                Last edited by panther3485; 13 Apr 18, 21:31.
                                "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X