Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#7171
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<Ty5zb.44$rE3.32@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> Now you're going over the edge. Extreme environmentalists have written a
> check against science that has insufficient funds to cash. A true scientist
> would not entangle himself with left wing politics and recognize the
> limitations of the current state of science. There's a nexus between
> extreme environmentalism and anti-capitalist/anti-corporate politics. You
> can see it in the anti-corporate, anti-global trade demonstrations. You can
> see it in the Kyoto protocol. You can see it in the Green party platform.
>
> Lefties have been waving around the terms "moral" and "science" in a whole
> new way, redefined to fit their points of view and replace traditional
> definitions. The argument on global warming and what to do about it would
> be more productive if it only were just a scientific discussion.
Interesting syllogism.
Most climatologists, geologists, etc. agree with the general concept
of manmade global warming, though disagree on details, and this model
and its implications are an issue to leftists (among others).;
Leftists demonstrate against corporations.
Therefore, climatologists, geologists, etc. who find results that
support manmade global warming are politically motivated.
> Now you're going over the edge. Extreme environmentalists have written a
> check against science that has insufficient funds to cash. A true scientist
> would not entangle himself with left wing politics and recognize the
> limitations of the current state of science. There's a nexus between
> extreme environmentalism and anti-capitalist/anti-corporate politics. You
> can see it in the anti-corporate, anti-global trade demonstrations. You can
> see it in the Kyoto protocol. You can see it in the Green party platform.
>
> Lefties have been waving around the terms "moral" and "science" in a whole
> new way, redefined to fit their points of view and replace traditional
> definitions. The argument on global warming and what to do about it would
> be more productive if it only were just a scientific discussion.
Interesting syllogism.
Most climatologists, geologists, etc. agree with the general concept
of manmade global warming, though disagree on details, and this model
and its implications are an issue to leftists (among others).;
Leftists demonstrate against corporations.
Therefore, climatologists, geologists, etc. who find results that
support manmade global warming are politically motivated.
#7172
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FCD2E0E.9D4203@kinez.net>...
> z wrote:
> >
> > ...It all started with that
> > sonofabitch Galileo and his immoral socialist assertion that the sun
> > did not revolve around the earth, as the bible clearly states.
>
> Oh? And where would that be stated. As the cliché says: "Chapter and
> verse, please."
UnGodly one, knowest thou not thy Scripture?
In the heavens hath the Lord set a tabernacle for the sun, which is
like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, rejoicing as a giant in
running his course. His going forth is from the high heaven, and his
circuit unto the ends of it.
Psalms 19:4
The world also is established that it cannot be moved.
Psalms 93:7
The sun rises and sets and returns to his own place.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
And the sun stood still and the moon stayed, until the nation took
vengeance on their enemies.
Joshua 10:12
> z wrote:
> >
> > ...It all started with that
> > sonofabitch Galileo and his immoral socialist assertion that the sun
> > did not revolve around the earth, as the bible clearly states.
>
> Oh? And where would that be stated. As the cliché says: "Chapter and
> verse, please."
UnGodly one, knowest thou not thy Scripture?
In the heavens hath the Lord set a tabernacle for the sun, which is
like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, rejoicing as a giant in
running his course. His going forth is from the high heaven, and his
circuit unto the ends of it.
Psalms 19:4
The world also is established that it cannot be moved.
Psalms 93:7
The sun rises and sets and returns to his own place.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
And the sun stood still and the moon stayed, until the nation took
vengeance on their enemies.
Joshua 10:12
#7173
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FCD2E0E.9D4203@kinez.net>...
> z wrote:
> >
> > ...It all started with that
> > sonofabitch Galileo and his immoral socialist assertion that the sun
> > did not revolve around the earth, as the bible clearly states.
>
> Oh? And where would that be stated. As the cliché says: "Chapter and
> verse, please."
UnGodly one, knowest thou not thy Scripture?
In the heavens hath the Lord set a tabernacle for the sun, which is
like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, rejoicing as a giant in
running his course. His going forth is from the high heaven, and his
circuit unto the ends of it.
Psalms 19:4
The world also is established that it cannot be moved.
Psalms 93:7
The sun rises and sets and returns to his own place.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
And the sun stood still and the moon stayed, until the nation took
vengeance on their enemies.
Joshua 10:12
> z wrote:
> >
> > ...It all started with that
> > sonofabitch Galileo and his immoral socialist assertion that the sun
> > did not revolve around the earth, as the bible clearly states.
>
> Oh? And where would that be stated. As the cliché says: "Chapter and
> verse, please."
UnGodly one, knowest thou not thy Scripture?
In the heavens hath the Lord set a tabernacle for the sun, which is
like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, rejoicing as a giant in
running his course. His going forth is from the high heaven, and his
circuit unto the ends of it.
Psalms 19:4
The world also is established that it cannot be moved.
Psalms 93:7
The sun rises and sets and returns to his own place.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
And the sun stood still and the moon stayed, until the nation took
vengeance on their enemies.
Joshua 10:12
#7174
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FCD2E0E.9D4203@kinez.net>...
> z wrote:
> >
> > ...It all started with that
> > sonofabitch Galileo and his immoral socialist assertion that the sun
> > did not revolve around the earth, as the bible clearly states.
>
> Oh? And where would that be stated. As the cliché says: "Chapter and
> verse, please."
UnGodly one, knowest thou not thy Scripture?
In the heavens hath the Lord set a tabernacle for the sun, which is
like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, rejoicing as a giant in
running his course. His going forth is from the high heaven, and his
circuit unto the ends of it.
Psalms 19:4
The world also is established that it cannot be moved.
Psalms 93:7
The sun rises and sets and returns to his own place.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
And the sun stood still and the moon stayed, until the nation took
vengeance on their enemies.
Joshua 10:12
> z wrote:
> >
> > ...It all started with that
> > sonofabitch Galileo and his immoral socialist assertion that the sun
> > did not revolve around the earth, as the bible clearly states.
>
> Oh? And where would that be stated. As the cliché says: "Chapter and
> verse, please."
UnGodly one, knowest thou not thy Scripture?
In the heavens hath the Lord set a tabernacle for the sun, which is
like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, rejoicing as a giant in
running his course. His going forth is from the high heaven, and his
circuit unto the ends of it.
Psalms 19:4
The world also is established that it cannot be moved.
Psalms 93:7
The sun rises and sets and returns to his own place.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
And the sun stood still and the moon stayed, until the nation took
vengeance on their enemies.
Joshua 10:12
#7175
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote in message news:<3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>...
> z wrote:
>
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> > > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > >
> > > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
> > > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
> > >
> > > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
> > > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
> > > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
> > > factory? Which is better for the environment?
> > >
> > > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
> > > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
> > > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
> > > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
> > > possible.
> >
> > Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> > Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> > for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> > plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> > all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> > them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> > years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> > produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> > the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> > dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> > environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
> > cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> > plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> > clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
> > administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> > requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> > were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> > routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> > filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> > this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> > enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> > utilities raise their rates 10%.
>
> That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED the Clean Air Act
> amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean Air Act. ...
> The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine maintenance on plants as
> "new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law. Treating it this way
> subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the requirements of new plants.
Perhaps you should enlighten the folks at the GAO regarding your
little fairy tale.
'Since its inception in 1977, the New Source Review (NSR) Program—one
of the Clean Air Act's (CAA) key mechanisms for maintaining air
quality to protect public health—has prevented the emission of
millions of tons of harmful pollutants. It has done so by requiring
newly built industrial facilities, and existing industrial facilities
undergoing major modifications to equipment or operating procedures,
to install modern air pollution controls.1The Congress allowed
existing facilities to defer installation of such controls until a
major modification was made with the expectation that, over time, all
facilities would install such equipment, and this would lead to lower
overall emissions.'
<www.gao.gov/new.items/d0458.pdf>
>This
> had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to defer maintenance and not
> keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated in. But the effect of
> this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to expensive because of overzealous
> regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most polluting plants are left in
> operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported extensively on this, and
> specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were TOO CLEAN because they
> needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in memos.
>
> The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's easier for people to make
> silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the reason why they were
> written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing non-laws, or what is going on
> in general.
>
> ------
> "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried to replace older, less
> efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at its biggest coal-fired plant. The new
> blades were 15% more efficient than the old, meaning they could generate 15% more power using the
> same amount of energy--more power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New
> Source Review anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>
> Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting expenses. At the very same
> plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to meet new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense
> that won't generate a single new kilowatt of electricity.
>
> Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules as a sign of corporate
> greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at least 80% of the nation's utilities were
> violating its New Source Review guidelines, it didn't bother to ask whether something might be
> wrong with its policies. It simply filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>
> Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, the two main
> industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a tripling of coal usage. Future Clean
> Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%." -WSJ 11/26/02
> z wrote:
>
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> > > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > >
> > > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
> > > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
> > >
> > > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
> > > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
> > > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
> > > factory? Which is better for the environment?
> > >
> > > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
> > > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
> > > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
> > > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
> > > possible.
> >
> > Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> > Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> > for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> > plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> > all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> > them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> > years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> > produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> > the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> > dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> > environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
> > cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> > plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> > clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
> > administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> > requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> > were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> > routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> > filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> > this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> > enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> > utilities raise their rates 10%.
>
> That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED the Clean Air Act
> amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean Air Act. ...
> The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine maintenance on plants as
> "new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law. Treating it this way
> subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the requirements of new plants.
Perhaps you should enlighten the folks at the GAO regarding your
little fairy tale.
'Since its inception in 1977, the New Source Review (NSR) Program—one
of the Clean Air Act's (CAA) key mechanisms for maintaining air
quality to protect public health—has prevented the emission of
millions of tons of harmful pollutants. It has done so by requiring
newly built industrial facilities, and existing industrial facilities
undergoing major modifications to equipment or operating procedures,
to install modern air pollution controls.1The Congress allowed
existing facilities to defer installation of such controls until a
major modification was made with the expectation that, over time, all
facilities would install such equipment, and this would lead to lower
overall emissions.'
<www.gao.gov/new.items/d0458.pdf>
>This
> had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to defer maintenance and not
> keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated in. But the effect of
> this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to expensive because of overzealous
> regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most polluting plants are left in
> operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported extensively on this, and
> specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were TOO CLEAN because they
> needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in memos.
>
> The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's easier for people to make
> silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the reason why they were
> written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing non-laws, or what is going on
> in general.
>
> ------
> "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried to replace older, less
> efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at its biggest coal-fired plant. The new
> blades were 15% more efficient than the old, meaning they could generate 15% more power using the
> same amount of energy--more power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New
> Source Review anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>
> Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting expenses. At the very same
> plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to meet new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense
> that won't generate a single new kilowatt of electricity.
>
> Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules as a sign of corporate
> greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at least 80% of the nation's utilities were
> violating its New Source Review guidelines, it didn't bother to ask whether something might be
> wrong with its policies. It simply filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>
> Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, the two main
> industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a tripling of coal usage. Future Clean
> Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%." -WSJ 11/26/02
#7176
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote in message news:<3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>...
> z wrote:
>
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> > > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > >
> > > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
> > > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
> > >
> > > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
> > > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
> > > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
> > > factory? Which is better for the environment?
> > >
> > > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
> > > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
> > > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
> > > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
> > > possible.
> >
> > Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> > Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> > for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> > plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> > all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> > them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> > years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> > produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> > the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> > dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> > environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
> > cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> > plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> > clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
> > administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> > requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> > were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> > routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> > filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> > this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> > enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> > utilities raise their rates 10%.
>
> That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED the Clean Air Act
> amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean Air Act. ...
> The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine maintenance on plants as
> "new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law. Treating it this way
> subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the requirements of new plants.
Perhaps you should enlighten the folks at the GAO regarding your
little fairy tale.
'Since its inception in 1977, the New Source Review (NSR) Program—one
of the Clean Air Act's (CAA) key mechanisms for maintaining air
quality to protect public health—has prevented the emission of
millions of tons of harmful pollutants. It has done so by requiring
newly built industrial facilities, and existing industrial facilities
undergoing major modifications to equipment or operating procedures,
to install modern air pollution controls.1The Congress allowed
existing facilities to defer installation of such controls until a
major modification was made with the expectation that, over time, all
facilities would install such equipment, and this would lead to lower
overall emissions.'
<www.gao.gov/new.items/d0458.pdf>
>This
> had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to defer maintenance and not
> keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated in. But the effect of
> this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to expensive because of overzealous
> regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most polluting plants are left in
> operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported extensively on this, and
> specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were TOO CLEAN because they
> needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in memos.
>
> The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's easier for people to make
> silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the reason why they were
> written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing non-laws, or what is going on
> in general.
>
> ------
> "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried to replace older, less
> efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at its biggest coal-fired plant. The new
> blades were 15% more efficient than the old, meaning they could generate 15% more power using the
> same amount of energy--more power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New
> Source Review anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>
> Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting expenses. At the very same
> plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to meet new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense
> that won't generate a single new kilowatt of electricity.
>
> Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules as a sign of corporate
> greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at least 80% of the nation's utilities were
> violating its New Source Review guidelines, it didn't bother to ask whether something might be
> wrong with its policies. It simply filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>
> Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, the two main
> industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a tripling of coal usage. Future Clean
> Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%." -WSJ 11/26/02
> z wrote:
>
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> > > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > >
> > > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
> > > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
> > >
> > > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
> > > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
> > > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
> > > factory? Which is better for the environment?
> > >
> > > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
> > > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
> > > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
> > > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
> > > possible.
> >
> > Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> > Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> > for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> > plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> > all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> > them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> > years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> > produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> > the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> > dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> > environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
> > cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> > plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> > clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
> > administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> > requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> > were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> > routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> > filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> > this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> > enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> > utilities raise their rates 10%.
>
> That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED the Clean Air Act
> amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean Air Act. ...
> The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine maintenance on plants as
> "new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law. Treating it this way
> subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the requirements of new plants.
Perhaps you should enlighten the folks at the GAO regarding your
little fairy tale.
'Since its inception in 1977, the New Source Review (NSR) Program—one
of the Clean Air Act's (CAA) key mechanisms for maintaining air
quality to protect public health—has prevented the emission of
millions of tons of harmful pollutants. It has done so by requiring
newly built industrial facilities, and existing industrial facilities
undergoing major modifications to equipment or operating procedures,
to install modern air pollution controls.1The Congress allowed
existing facilities to defer installation of such controls until a
major modification was made with the expectation that, over time, all
facilities would install such equipment, and this would lead to lower
overall emissions.'
<www.gao.gov/new.items/d0458.pdf>
>This
> had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to defer maintenance and not
> keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated in. But the effect of
> this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to expensive because of overzealous
> regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most polluting plants are left in
> operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported extensively on this, and
> specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were TOO CLEAN because they
> needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in memos.
>
> The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's easier for people to make
> silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the reason why they were
> written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing non-laws, or what is going on
> in general.
>
> ------
> "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried to replace older, less
> efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at its biggest coal-fired plant. The new
> blades were 15% more efficient than the old, meaning they could generate 15% more power using the
> same amount of energy--more power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New
> Source Review anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>
> Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting expenses. At the very same
> plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to meet new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense
> that won't generate a single new kilowatt of electricity.
>
> Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules as a sign of corporate
> greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at least 80% of the nation's utilities were
> violating its New Source Review guidelines, it didn't bother to ask whether something might be
> wrong with its policies. It simply filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>
> Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, the two main
> industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a tripling of coal usage. Future Clean
> Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%." -WSJ 11/26/02
#7177
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote in message news:<3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>...
> z wrote:
>
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> > > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > >
> > > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
> > > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
> > >
> > > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
> > > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
> > > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
> > > factory? Which is better for the environment?
> > >
> > > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
> > > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
> > > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
> > > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
> > > possible.
> >
> > Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> > Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> > for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> > plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> > all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> > them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> > years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> > produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> > the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> > dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> > environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
> > cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> > plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> > clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
> > administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> > requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> > were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> > routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> > filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> > this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> > enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> > utilities raise their rates 10%.
>
> That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED the Clean Air Act
> amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean Air Act. ...
> The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine maintenance on plants as
> "new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law. Treating it this way
> subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the requirements of new plants.
Perhaps you should enlighten the folks at the GAO regarding your
little fairy tale.
'Since its inception in 1977, the New Source Review (NSR) Program—one
of the Clean Air Act's (CAA) key mechanisms for maintaining air
quality to protect public health—has prevented the emission of
millions of tons of harmful pollutants. It has done so by requiring
newly built industrial facilities, and existing industrial facilities
undergoing major modifications to equipment or operating procedures,
to install modern air pollution controls.1The Congress allowed
existing facilities to defer installation of such controls until a
major modification was made with the expectation that, over time, all
facilities would install such equipment, and this would lead to lower
overall emissions.'
<www.gao.gov/new.items/d0458.pdf>
>This
> had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to defer maintenance and not
> keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated in. But the effect of
> this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to expensive because of overzealous
> regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most polluting plants are left in
> operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported extensively on this, and
> specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were TOO CLEAN because they
> needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in memos.
>
> The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's easier for people to make
> silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the reason why they were
> written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing non-laws, or what is going on
> in general.
>
> ------
> "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried to replace older, less
> efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at its biggest coal-fired plant. The new
> blades were 15% more efficient than the old, meaning they could generate 15% more power using the
> same amount of energy--more power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New
> Source Review anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>
> Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting expenses. At the very same
> plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to meet new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense
> that won't generate a single new kilowatt of electricity.
>
> Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules as a sign of corporate
> greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at least 80% of the nation's utilities were
> violating its New Source Review guidelines, it didn't bother to ask whether something might be
> wrong with its policies. It simply filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>
> Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, the two main
> industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a tripling of coal usage. Future Clean
> Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%." -WSJ 11/26/02
> z wrote:
>
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> > > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > >
> > > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
> > > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
> > >
> > > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
> > > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
> > > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
> > > factory? Which is better for the environment?
> > >
> > > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
> > > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
> > > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
> > > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
> > > possible.
> >
> > Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> > Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> > for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> > plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> > all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> > them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> > years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> > produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> > the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> > dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> > environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
> > cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> > plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> > clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
> > administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> > requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> > were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> > routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> > filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> > this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> > enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> > utilities raise their rates 10%.
>
> That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED the Clean Air Act
> amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean Air Act. ...
> The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine maintenance on plants as
> "new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law. Treating it this way
> subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the requirements of new plants.
Perhaps you should enlighten the folks at the GAO regarding your
little fairy tale.
'Since its inception in 1977, the New Source Review (NSR) Program—one
of the Clean Air Act's (CAA) key mechanisms for maintaining air
quality to protect public health—has prevented the emission of
millions of tons of harmful pollutants. It has done so by requiring
newly built industrial facilities, and existing industrial facilities
undergoing major modifications to equipment or operating procedures,
to install modern air pollution controls.1The Congress allowed
existing facilities to defer installation of such controls until a
major modification was made with the expectation that, over time, all
facilities would install such equipment, and this would lead to lower
overall emissions.'
<www.gao.gov/new.items/d0458.pdf>
>This
> had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to defer maintenance and not
> keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated in. But the effect of
> this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to expensive because of overzealous
> regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most polluting plants are left in
> operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported extensively on this, and
> specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were TOO CLEAN because they
> needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in memos.
>
> The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's easier for people to make
> silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the reason why they were
> written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing non-laws, or what is going on
> in general.
>
> ------
> "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried to replace older, less
> efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at its biggest coal-fired plant. The new
> blades were 15% more efficient than the old, meaning they could generate 15% more power using the
> same amount of energy--more power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New
> Source Review anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>
> Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting expenses. At the very same
> plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to meet new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense
> that won't generate a single new kilowatt of electricity.
>
> Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules as a sign of corporate
> greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at least 80% of the nation's utilities were
> violating its New Source Review guidelines, it didn't bother to ask whether something might be
> wrong with its policies. It simply filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>
> Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, the two main
> industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a tripling of coal usage. Future Clean
> Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%." -WSJ 11/26/02
#7178
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<rP5zb.5650$_M.25172@attbi_s54>...
> In article <bqinim$him$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
> > exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
> > maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
> > Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
> > replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>
> > But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
> > precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
> > companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
> > Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.
>
> So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
> companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
> they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
> more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
> describe it, parker.
>
> 1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
> 2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
> 3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
> 4) New plant = best option for the environment.
>
> Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
> doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
> environment or politics?
Sigh. See, the problem is that the industry, and now with Bush
backing, want your scenarios 1 2 and 3 to all put out the same crap as
scenario 1. Which is not hardly 'better for the environment'.
see, if the owners modernizing the plants actually made them 'better
for the environment', they wouldn't be trying to evade having to meet
tests that would prove whether they are better for the environment,
would they?
> In article <bqinim$him$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
> > exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
> > maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
> > Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
> > replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>
> > But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
> > precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
> > companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
> > Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.
>
> So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
> companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
> they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
> more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
> describe it, parker.
>
> 1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
> 2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
> 3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
> 4) New plant = best option for the environment.
>
> Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
> doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
> environment or politics?
Sigh. See, the problem is that the industry, and now with Bush
backing, want your scenarios 1 2 and 3 to all put out the same crap as
scenario 1. Which is not hardly 'better for the environment'.
see, if the owners modernizing the plants actually made them 'better
for the environment', they wouldn't be trying to evade having to meet
tests that would prove whether they are better for the environment,
would they?
#7179
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<rP5zb.5650$_M.25172@attbi_s54>...
> In article <bqinim$him$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
> > exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
> > maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
> > Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
> > replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>
> > But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
> > precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
> > companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
> > Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.
>
> So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
> companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
> they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
> more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
> describe it, parker.
>
> 1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
> 2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
> 3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
> 4) New plant = best option for the environment.
>
> Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
> doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
> environment or politics?
Sigh. See, the problem is that the industry, and now with Bush
backing, want your scenarios 1 2 and 3 to all put out the same crap as
scenario 1. Which is not hardly 'better for the environment'.
see, if the owners modernizing the plants actually made them 'better
for the environment', they wouldn't be trying to evade having to meet
tests that would prove whether they are better for the environment,
would they?
> In article <bqinim$him$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
> > exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
> > maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
> > Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
> > replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>
> > But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
> > precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
> > companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
> > Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.
>
> So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
> companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
> they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
> more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
> describe it, parker.
>
> 1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
> 2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
> 3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
> 4) New plant = best option for the environment.
>
> Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
> doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
> environment or politics?
Sigh. See, the problem is that the industry, and now with Bush
backing, want your scenarios 1 2 and 3 to all put out the same crap as
scenario 1. Which is not hardly 'better for the environment'.
see, if the owners modernizing the plants actually made them 'better
for the environment', they wouldn't be trying to evade having to meet
tests that would prove whether they are better for the environment,
would they?
#7180
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<rP5zb.5650$_M.25172@attbi_s54>...
> In article <bqinim$him$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
> > exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
> > maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
> > Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
> > replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>
> > But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
> > precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
> > companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
> > Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.
>
> So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
> companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
> they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
> more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
> describe it, parker.
>
> 1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
> 2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
> 3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
> 4) New plant = best option for the environment.
>
> Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
> doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
> environment or politics?
Sigh. See, the problem is that the industry, and now with Bush
backing, want your scenarios 1 2 and 3 to all put out the same crap as
scenario 1. Which is not hardly 'better for the environment'.
see, if the owners modernizing the plants actually made them 'better
for the environment', they wouldn't be trying to evade having to meet
tests that would prove whether they are better for the environment,
would they?
> In article <bqinim$him$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
> > exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
> > maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
> > Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
> > replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>
> > But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
> > precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
> > companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
> > Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.
>
> So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
> companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
> they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
> more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
> describe it, parker.
>
> 1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
> 2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
> 3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
> 4) New plant = best option for the environment.
>
> Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
> doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
> environment or politics?
Sigh. See, the problem is that the industry, and now with Bush
backing, want your scenarios 1 2 and 3 to all put out the same crap as
scenario 1. Which is not hardly 'better for the environment'.
see, if the owners modernizing the plants actually made them 'better
for the environment', they wouldn't be trying to evade having to meet
tests that would prove whether they are better for the environment,
would they?