Pages: 1

 

2007-12-04 13:27:24
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7029|132 and Bush

Here is the vote.
A U.S. Senate committee is scheduled for an historic vote on a global warming bill this week, perhaps as early as Wednesday. Environmental groups are planning a flurry of press conferences tomorrow to try to influence the vote.

    —

    On the Federal level, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Wednesday is expected to debate amendments to a bill proposed by Sens. Lieberman of Connecticut and Warner of Virginia that would create a “cap and trade” system designed to cut total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. These systems require industries to pay fees when they emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouses gases above a set limit, with the money going to reward cleaner businesses.
The timing is ironic.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-12-04 13:42:10
Locoloki
I got Mug 222 at Gritty's!!!!
+216|7068|Your moms bedroom
The US is far, far, behind other countries

guess whos not on the list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ky … ignatories

Last edited by Locoloki (2007-12-04 13:43:19)

2007-12-04 13:48:21
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6958|The lunar module

Kmarion wrote:

A U.S. Senate committee is scheduled for an historic vote on a global warming bill this week, perhaps as early as Wednesday.
Here is the vote.
Read the comments to the above Baltimore Sun article for a good lol. 'Hurr, commie pinko greenie fags, hurr'...
2007-12-04 13:49:11
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6970|Texas - Bigger than France
Dammit.  I hate not being number one.  Come on guys, we can do better.
2007-12-04 13:50:07
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7029|132 and Bush

Pug wrote:

Dammit.  I hate not being number one.  Come on guys, we can do better.
They have like 650 more coal mines in the works. No way we catch them.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-12-04 13:52:22
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7060|949

Haha its ~80° here.

It is another watered-down environmental bill that will get further watered-down as the debates continue.  It is comforting to know that legislators are taking the concept of global warming seriously, but I am not so sure an expanded pollution credit type of system will work.  All they are doing really is fomenting a market for carbon-pollution credits.  It would be nice if there was a concrete set of regulations much like a new Clean Air Act with achievable goals and limits on pollution instead of a system of credits to be bought and sold which has a historical evidence of being abused.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-12-04 13:57:20)

2007-12-04 13:54:59
Locoloki
I got Mug 222 at Gritty's!!!!
+216|7068|Your moms bedroom
China is also the land of a billion people

we should get lower when we start using the "clean coal" method of producing electricity

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/12/ … index.html

which according to this is going to take a lot of money and decades to complete (coal will probably be obsolete by than anyways)
2007-12-04 13:58:15
Havok
Nymphomaniac Treatment Specialist
+302|7103|Florida, United States

Kmarion wrote:

On the Federal level, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Wednesday is expected to debate amendments to a bill proposed by Sens. Lieberman of Connecticut and Warner of Virginia that would create a “cap and trade” system designed to cut total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. These systems require industries to pay fees when they emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouses gases above a set limit, with the money going to reward cleaner businesses.
Sounds like Obama's plan
2007-12-04 14:14:41
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7118|Tampa Bay Florida

Havok wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

On the Federal level, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Wednesday is expected to debate amendments to a bill proposed by Sens. Lieberman of Connecticut and Warner of Virginia that would create a “cap and trade” system designed to cut total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. These systems require industries to pay fees when they emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouses gases above a set limit, with the money going to reward cleaner businesses.
Sounds like Obama's plan
And it sounds good.  Real good.
2007-12-04 14:18:28
Locoloki
I got Mug 222 at Gritty's!!!!
+216|7068|Your moms bedroom
yeah, i would vote for Obama

great lakes are key seeings how i ship on them

also, anyone seen an "inconvenient truth" al gores move on global warming?
I was pretty skeptical to global warming until i watched it, i hope the UK doesnt mind getting snow sometime in the future!
2007-12-04 14:20:30
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7060|949

Locoloki wrote:

yeah, i would vote for Obama

great lakes are key seeings how i ship on them

also, anyone seen an "inconvenient truth" al gores move on global warming?
I was pretty skeptical to global warming until i watched it, i hope the UK doesnt mind getting snow sometime in the future!
I watched it for about 5 minutes.  I don't care what the message is, unless I am in a boardroom making coin, I will never watch a powerpoint presentation again.  Not to mention Al-dog has about as much charisma as a piece of particle board.
2007-12-04 14:28:36
Locoloki
I got Mug 222 at Gritty's!!!!
+216|7068|Your moms bedroom

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Locoloki wrote:

yeah, i would vote for Obama

great lakes are key seeings how i ship on them

also, anyone seen an "inconvenient truth" al gores move on global warming?
I was pretty skeptical to global warming until i watched it, i hope the UK doesnt mind getting snow sometime in the future!
I watched it for about 5 minutes.  I don't care what the message is, unless I am in a boardroom making coin, I will never watch a powerpoint presentation again.  Not to mention Al-dog has about as much charisma as a piece of particle board.
I watched it because i was so skeptical to the whole notion and the more i watched the more it made sense. Cold hard scientific data is not the best way to prove a point to most people but it worked for me

Last edited by Locoloki (2007-12-04 14:28:56)

2007-12-04 14:30:23
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6875|Chicago, IL

Locoloki wrote:

China is also the land of a billion people

we should get lower when we start using the "clean coal" method of producing electricity

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/12/ … index.html

which according to this is going to take a lot of money and decades to complete (coal will probably be obsolete by than anyways)
how about we start using the nuclear method of producing electricity?
2007-12-04 14:34:47
Locoloki
I got Mug 222 at Gritty's!!!!
+216|7068|Your moms bedroom

S.Lythberg wrote:

Locoloki wrote:

China is also the land of a billion people

we should get lower when we start using the "clean coal" method of producing electricity

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/12/ … index.html

which according to this is going to take a lot of money and decades to complete (coal will probably be obsolete by than anyways)
how about we start using the nuclear method of producing electricity?
Im all for it. I wouldnt care if it came to my town, but, a lot of other people dont like it, and there is always the radioactive waste that is left over

*on second thought, after some research, which seems incredible to me and seems bogus but i found it on several websites

It has long been claimed, and still is by many, that nuclear power emits no carbon dioxide, thereby making it a superior choice for future power with the threat of climate change. It is true that the process of generating heat and steam from nuclear materials does not produce carbon dioxide in itself, but to ignore all of the other processes used in nuclear power is either ignorant or disingenuous. It is rather like claiming that a pumped storage hydroelectric plant is a power creator; it is only if you ignore the fact that more electricity is used to pump the water up in the first place than is generated when it falls.

Large amounts of carbon dioxide are emitted during the building and decommissioning of the power plants, and during the mining, refining and enriching of the uranium. Since you can hardly have nuclear power without the plants or the uranium, that carbon dioxide is as much part of the emission from nuclear power as the direct releases from fossil fuels. (To be fair, this also applies to renewable sources since turbines and solar cells have to be constructed, transported and built, and then maintained. But the amount of carbon dioxide emitted is far less than nuclear.)

The other pollutant that is produced by nuclear is, of course, radioactive waste. The waste includes 1,000 tonnes of high- and low-level waste per year per plant, waste that includes parts that remain dangerous for hundreds or thousands of years. Uranium mill tailings can amount to much more. The problem of dealing with this waste has still not been solved.

are these websites put up by anti-nuc people, or pro-oil people i dont know, but a lot of them said the same crap
Im sure just as much co2 production is spent mining diamonds as uranium, but hey, what the hell do i know?

Last edited by Locoloki (2007-12-04 14:41:38)

2007-12-04 14:36:39
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|7073

Locoloki wrote:

The US is far, far, behind other countries

guess whos not on the list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ky … ignatories
I think we(U.S.) might reduce the c02 emission after its too late.
2007-12-04 14:38:58
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6875|Chicago, IL

Locoloki wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Locoloki wrote:

China is also the land of a billion people

we should get lower when we start using the "clean coal" method of producing electricity

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/12/ … index.html

which according to this is going to take a lot of money and decades to complete (coal will probably be obsolete by than anyways)
how about we start using the nuclear method of producing electricity?
Im all for it. I wouldnt care if it came to my town, but, a lot of other people dont like it, and there is always the radioactive waste that is left over
hippies and their phobias... Coal burning releases far more radiation than properly contained nuclear fission, and the waste can be easily collected, unlike the billions of tons of gases released in coal burning plants.

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm
2007-12-04 14:39:39
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7060|949

Locoloki wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Locoloki wrote:

yeah, i would vote for Obama

great lakes are key seeings how i ship on them

also, anyone seen an "inconvenient truth" al gores move on global warming?
I was pretty skeptical to global warming until i watched it, i hope the UK doesnt mind getting snow sometime in the future!
I watched it for about 5 minutes.  I don't care what the message is, unless I am in a boardroom making coin, I will never watch a powerpoint presentation again.  Not to mention Al-dog has about as much charisma as a piece of particle board.
I watched it because i was so skeptical to the whole notion and the more i watched the more it made sense. Cold hard scientific data is not the best way to prove a point to most people but it worked for me
I am skeptical of pretty much everything.  I just didn't need a movie to come to the conclusion I did.  Cold hard scientific data is the best way to prove a point such as global warming as far as I am concerned, as long as it is provided in the correct context.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-12-04 14:40:03)

2007-12-04 14:43:02
Locoloki
I got Mug 222 at Gritty's!!!!
+216|7068|Your moms bedroom
i edited my post

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard