OT: Please send this link to everyone one your mailing list

Page 7 of 12  
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Of course you've determined that magical procedure that conclusively determines that someone died from pollution, and where that pollution came from. I'd hit USPTO and get that thing signed up now!

So, your solution to your objection to federal government is to have the states fight it out in an already overburdened legal system using magical systems of determination of cause and effect. Since states operate without a need for taxation, all of the legal wrangling and insurance premium paying would have no impact on people's pocketbooks. Why didn't you just say so? Now it makes perfect sense. ;)
You should just say - Government Sucks! - and leave it at that. You'd be more likely to influence people that way.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote:

Uh ... this is a moot issue. I cannot exactly specify this cause-and-effect relationship (that's why why have courts and juries to judge the merits of such claims). But no one else can come up with a complementary formula to use when setting regulatory guidelines. In either case, someone's judgment is needed. I'd prefer a set of courts and juries that are under public scrutiny than a bunch of career bureaucrats in the Federal government.

No more more magical than today's regulation schemes -likely far less magical

There is still a need for taxation - it just happens at the State level - a place where government goobers can be held to account much more easily.

I don't think that. I think that strong, central, government sucks and is very dangerous if history is any indication.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Using this scenario, each state would have to have a lawsuit against their neighbors that lay to the immediate west of them, the end result would be that all cars and heavy industry could only be on the east coast, where there would be no one to sue.
basilisk

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
basilisk wrote:

The upshot is likely to be "the pollution moved in interstate commerce, over which the Fed has sole jurisdiction, if no federal laws or regulations were violated then there are no grounds, case dismissed".

--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
basilisk wrote:

Which would be perfect ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Seems like scenarios like this is what led to the demise of the Confederation of States and the implementation of the Federal system via the Constitution. One of the biggest innovations in the Constitution was the allocation of regulating interstate and foreign commerce solely to the federal government. Prior to this, there were significant issues with states imposing tariffs upon one another.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, that's a perfect example of the need for international control.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Martin wrote:

You don't see a problem with Russia, France, and China dictating emission control policies to the US?
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Somebody has to - your government won't do much otherwise! Russia and France have both ratified the Kyoto agreement and shown themselves to be more responsible.
The point of my post was that pollution doesn't just drift across state boundaries, it affects other countries as well. Britain gets it from Ireland and Sweden gets it from Britain, for example. Doesn't take much brain-power to see that it is clearly an international problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Martin wrote:

You're funny. Kyoto has nothing to do with pollution, it was intended to reduce CO2 emissions, the biproduct of perfect combustion, in an attempt to destroy industrial nations under the guise of the hoax of global warming.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your definition of Kyoto is hilarious. CO2 is a pollutant. BTW, did you know that the cement industry around Houston makes more CO2 than all of the world's airlines put together?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not to pick nits, but it is a green-house gas. Fortunately, plant-life munches on that stuff a lot...as long as there is plant-life: crops, forests, which of course will be greatly reduced when the temperature of the planet rises...being through our fault or just a solar thing.
CO2 is also found in beer. Therefore, we should ban beer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, M&J's definition of Kyoto is hilarious. Totally tin-foil hat material. But unless the oil and coal barons are making huge profits, the neo-cons will run out of contributions TO RISE AGAIN!! *clicks heels*
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Martin wrote:

... snip

My definition of Kyoto is spot-on. If Kyoto were really concerned about reducing emissions, the heavy emitters from the emerging industrialized nations would have been included, not exempted.
Defining CO2 as a pollutant is interesting in that by doing so, every living thing is now a polluter, and therefore subject to regulation. The simple act of breathing releases this "pollutant". Further, by so defining CO2, the stage is set for regulating and limiting industrial output because even a system with perfect combustion (i.e, the output of perfect combustion is heat + CO2 + water vapor) will yield CO2 as a bi-product, therefore, no matter how efficient the industry, it's yield will be subject to regulation and limitation.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

That's true only if what you're burning is composed only of carbon, hydrogen, and possibly oxygen in a pure oxygen environment.
Burning pure hydrogen in a pure oxygen environment to produce only water vapor might be considered _more_ perfect. ;)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, coal is almost pure carbon, except the vanadium, sulfur, and the all-time pond-filling favourite ash. Clean coal, you know. Yup, really clean.
Hydrogen is the way to go. Hands down. As a transportable fuel that is. Easy to make with nuclear powerstations. (Btw, daughter # 2 is now learning how to fly a nuclear powerstation. Following in the footsteps of the oldest (28))
Electric cars are possibly a temporary stop-gap, but most battery technology is dirty.
We need electrified coast to coast wide-gauge trains. Obama want infrastructure for the future? Look no further. Nukes and Rails. There. All better.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Yuppers - we're in need of a breakthrough for short-haul transportation. Let's hope it comes reasonably soon.

Heh - you had me dreaming of taking the TGV from Des Moines to Detroit, then locals to Port Huron and Sarnia. It'd probably be a three-hour trip.
One of the Des Moines TV stations sent a reporter out to ask people on the street what infrastructure changes they thought would improve the Des Moines metro area. It knocked my socks off when three out of five people answered: "Monorail".
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One big impression, when I was still a puppy, was a trip on the monorail in Westfalen Germany. My dad, even though he was a pencil pusher (accountant) has a love for steam locomotives, and trains in general. He dragged me all over Europe to look at trains. Steam was his favourite and still plentiful back then. Him and I spent a whole day at the train station in Fulda. But I remember thinking, that that monorail was so smart. People farmed under it, no railroad crossings, it took the same path as a small river. Just a clever idea. I would imagine a tad costly, and no benefit for the big, long stretches. They would also not be suitable for freight. Monorails are cool for uneven terrain. You just lengthen and shorten the legs as needed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Lets see to produce hydrogen you pass electricity through a hydrogen rich material and break down the hydrogen bonds. To make electricity your burn hydrogen in an oxygen rich environment producing water ash.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Water ash is easy to sweep up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.