Global Warming Cont...

[FishingBack]

I'm sure much of the large scale rain forrest loss is from companies that could be replanting. But I also think a pretty good bit of it is done by people who aren't really operating on a scale that affords replanting. That doesn't mean I think they should be doing it (the short-sightedness is obvious) but if my choice is cut down an old growth jungle tree or go hungry, I'm getting my ax. You stopping me from doing that is punishing me economically just like tightening pollution is punishing a coal plant.

You're still hurting an economy based on the same science. It's just farther away.

It could be managed without turning the forest into a cow pasture or failed corn field.

Are you familiar with the wetlands laws in the U.S.? It's all about mitigation.

You cut a tree? plant one or two. Planting trees is ridiculously easy and cheap.

[FishingBack]

This isn't one poor dude with an axe.

[inudesu]

It could be managed without turning the forest into a cow pasture or failed corn field.

Are you familiar with the wetlands laws in the U.S.? It's all about mitigation.

You cut a tree? plant one or two. Planting trees is ridiculously easy and cheap.

I'm agreeing with your principle. I just don't think the sustenance farmer with no education living in Ethiopia or Madagascar or Brazil is going to feel any different about you taking his money away than GE or Atmos does. And he can't afford to buy seedlings. He's going to say "if you've got to do something, then deal with your coal plants first, then come talk to me about my clear-cutting."

But I do agree we should be trying to educate people (as much for their own future in avoiding droughts, floods, etc. as for making us feel better about the dreaded carbon monster and his footprints).

[inudesu]

This isn't one poor dude with an axe.

It's a lot of poor dudes with axes.

[FishingBack]

I'm agreeing with your principle. I just don't think the substenance farmer with no education living in Ethiopia or Madagascar or Brazil is going to feel any different about you taking his money away than GE or Atmos does. And he can't afford to buy seedlings. He's going to say "if you've got to do something, then deal with your coal plants first, then come talk to me about my clear-cutting."

But I do agree we should be trying to educate people (as much for their own future in avoiding droughts, floods, etc. as for making us feel better about the dreaded carbon monster and his footprints).

One big tree is worth a lot of money.....a seedling is cheap.

I'm not a big proponent of coal plants...I'd rather go nuclear

At some point it's going to stop becoming a CO2 issue (which I'm not overly concerned about) and become an OXYGEN issue (which I'm sort of concerned about).

[saltydawg]

Communist.

It's in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution, if you are interested.

[Guisslapp]

It's in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution, if you are interested.

The Preamble of the Constitution. But it doesn't exactly say it is the duty of the government to promote the general welfare, and it definitely doesn't suggest the government should use the tax system to impose morality on the people. That is communist.

What the preamble essentially says is that "The People" for various reasons, including the interest of the "General Welfare" created a CONSTITUTION. And if you know anything about "The People" that created the constitution, you would know that they had no intention of creating a nanny state.

[Guisslapp]

And fascist, too, I should add.

[altadawg]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...obalstats.html

February 18, 2009
The combined global land and ocean surface average temperature for January 2009 was the seventh warmest since records began in 1880, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.....

[saltydawg]

The Preamble of the Constitution. But it doesn't exactly say it is the duty of the government to promote the general welfare, and it definitely doesn't suggest the government should use the tax system to impose morality on the people. That is communist.

What the preamble essentially says is that "The People" for various reasons, including the interest of the "General Welfare" created a CONSTITUTION. And if you know anything about "The People" that created the constitution, you would know that they had no intention of creating a nanny state.

Yeah, the current actions of the Federal Government is communist and fascist and you want to live in New Orleans circa 1824.

The Federal Government is using its power to tax to discourage people from smoking cigarettes. Does that constitute a "nanny State"? Where exactly does the government get its power to decide what it may or may not do?

[Guisslapp]

Yeah, the current actions of the Federal Government is communist and fascist and you want to live in New Orleans circa 1824.

The Federal Government is using its power to tax to discourage people from smoking cigarettes. Does that constitute a "nanny State"? Where exactly does the government get its power to decide what it may or may not do?

Yes, we already live in a quasi nanny state. The fact that I cannot buy beer on Sundays without driving hundreds of miles proves this point. Government gets it's power from it's overwhelming monopoly of force.

[saltydawg]

Yes, we already live in a quasi nanny state. The fact that I cannot buy beer on Sundays without driving hundreds of miles proves this point. Government gets it's power from it's overwhelming monopoly of force.

Your beef is with the State gov't. In Nevada you can buy beer 24/7.

[Guisslapp]

Your beef is with the State gov't. In Nevada you can buy beer 24/7.

City actually, but the nanny state occurs at all levels.

[saltydawg]

USG set to regulate CO2 emissions.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1235...oo_hs&ru=yahoo

President Barack Obama's climate czar said the Environmental Protection Agency will soon determine that carbon-dioxide emissions represent a danger to the public and propose new rules to regulate emissions of the greenhouse gas from a range of industries.
Carol Browner, special adviser to the president on climate change and energy, said in an interview Sunday that the EPA is looking at a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that requires the agency to determine whether carbon dioxide endangers public health or welfare. And the agency "will make an endangerment finding," she said.
"The next step is a notice of proposed rule making" for new regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions, said Ms. Browner, speaking on the sidelines of the National Governors Association meeting in Washington.
Officially recognizing that carbon dioxide is a danger to the public would require the government, under the Clean Air Act, to draw up regulations governing greenhouse-gas emissions from coal-fired power plants, refineries, chemical plants, cement firms, vehicles and any other emitting sectors.

[Guisslapp]

That ought to kick start the economy.