# The Kiss Law



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

There is no question that the climate is changing. The cause is still up for debate. But is that truly the important question? Or is the real question, &#8220;Do I want to live in a world where the air is full of things carbon dioxide, methane and God alone knows what else? Or even more important question, "Do I want to leave that kind of world to my children and grandchildren?"

Answer is, of course, no I do not! OK, so how do we write a law to get rid of the pollution? 

But before we get into a big debate as to what right the government has and what it can or cannot do, let me give you a bit of history. 

In 1879, a scientist named Bouchardat created a form of synthetic rubber. Science kind of tinkered with it until 1941, about 62 years, but then the natural rubber supply from Southeast Asia was cut off at the beginning of World War II. 

On December 19, 1941, Jersey Standard, Firestone, Goodrich, Goodyear, and United States Rubber Company signed a patent and information sharing agreement under the auspices of the RRC, Rubber Reserve Company. 

Firestone produced the program's first bale of synthetic rubber on April 26, 1942, just over four months, that was followed by Goodyear on May 18, United States Rubber Corporation on September 4, and Goodrich on November 27. In 1942, these four plants produced 2,241 tons of synthetic rubber. By 1945, the United States was producing about 920,000 tons per year of synthetic rubber, 

If you want to see how fast someone can get something done, you do not put a rope around their neck and try to drag them to the goal; you stand behind them with a pitch fork, the kind with the nice sharp, pointy tines, and keep sticking it to them. You will be amazed at how fast things can happen! 

Only131 days from &#8220;How do we do this?&#8221; to &#8220;We did it.&#8221;, *that is pretty fast!* The last thing this country needs another of what I call a &#8220;Swiss Cheese Law,&#8221; enough loop holes to make a Swiss Cheese jealous, enter the &#8220;Kiss Law&#8221;, keep it simple stupid. So if we passed a law that simply says &#8220;If you cannot make it without polluting, no matter where in the world you make it; you cannot sell it in this country.&#8221; Give the manufactures a time frame, say five years. 

In WW2 the rubber shortage was going to cost the tire companies a lot of money. Money was the pitch fork then, why not use the same pitch fork today? I think we all know what a driving force money can be; so why not use it to our advantage?

There would of course be an upheaval; there will be things we will have to live without, at least for a while, but I do not think it would be that long before some sharp businessperson came up with a solution or two.

Then for those that think they can get around the law, make the penalties Excruciatingly Painful, and hold all of the Board of Directors responsible too. The corporate shield was designed to protect the investor, not to allow a company to break the law. 

So what do you think, is a cleaner earth would be worth maybe doing without for a little while?


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

I am sorry that you are going to commit suicide since that is the only way to get away from all pollution.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

WOW! You have arrived late to the scene you are proposing. We already have seas and mountains of unproduced mineral, forests of un-harvested timber and thousands of acres of idle factories precisely because a lot of people think like you think.

You want to eliminate the automobile, I assume, and all other forms of transportation, since none are non-polluting. You also cannot produce food enough for 300 million people without polluting, so eating is out. Housing and other construction and maintenance would be a no-no and we would have to make an exception for the rocket program since we would need to send our feces into outer space, since septic systems, sewers and all other ways of getting rid of it pollute to some degree.

The great smoky mountains produce the mists that gave them their name because of the pine trees growing there, so I assume we will have to cover them with asphalt, and I can't imagine what you are going to do about the volcanos, which a single one of can produce more pollution than mankind has during the time since the beginning of the industrial revolution, but assuming you have a plan for that, and are truly intent on getting rid of the methane, we have one hell of a lot of swamps to fill in and large mammals to kill. And what about your own methane production? 

It's time to wake up. The cure for all those "temporary hardships" that would be caused by such silly laws would be a very quick revolution that would not only pollute pretty badly, but eliminate the possibility that anyone would refer to himself as an "environmentalist" for the next 100 years. 

Religious environmentalism is no different than any other radical and destructive form of worship that demands sacrifice by an entire population to sate the passions of a few. Your "law" has as much chance of passing as does a law deeming this a Muslim nation and casting out our constitution in favor of sharia law, which is no chance at all....Joe


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I dunno.

The EPA fined power plants for polluting air, verses installing cleaning processes. They gladly paid the fines and kept on polluting.

They raised the fines and the producers, kept polluting and paying. They finally had to threaten to shut them down, before the scrubbers and ammonia injectors were installed.

*Clean air and water, has nearly no financial gain, for businesses and much, much costs. *

That's why nearly no business wants to comply, (let alone do it on their own) without the EPA, putting a gun to their heads.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

joebill said:


> WOW! You have arrived late to the scene you are proposing. We already have seas and mountains of unproduced mineral, forests of un-harvested timber and thousands of acres of idle factories precisely because a lot of people think like you think.
> 
> You want to eliminate the automobile, I assume, and all other forms of transportation, since none are non-polluting. You also cannot produce food enough for 300 million people without polluting, so eating is out. Housing and other construction and maintenance would be a no-no and we would have to make an exception for the rocket program since we would need to send our feces into outer space, since septic systems, sewers and all other ways of getting rid of it pollute to some degree.
> 
> ...


Baloney.

The U.S. has *relatively* clean air and water, compared to 40 years ago, maybe even 100 years. We all live better lives because of it.

This you think this happened by magic, or being served a_ religious_ beat-down, by the EPA?

Volcanoes are what they are (silly comparison), but if we can make autmobiles zero emissions, why wouldn't we? We have increased gas mileage and considerably lowered auto emissions, but life has gone on.

Like the EPA or hate them, it hard to even imagine a world - today, with no pollution laws in place.

How nasty would our world be?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

You've bought into the lie that CO2 is an environmental pollutant. That is the clever association made by scaremongers to panic the populace in an attempt to legalize the greatest scam ever.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Oh, I don't know, Darren.

Have you ever assaulted a greenhouse, full of plants, with a canister of CO2 and watched the results ?

I don't think our gardens could handle that kind of stress.

























:whistlin:


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> I dunno.
> 
> The EPA fined power plants for polluting air, verses installing cleaning processes. They gladly paid the fines and kept on polluting.
> 
> ...


As I said make the fines for polluting [FONT=&quot]"excruciatingly painful"[/FONT] the fine should be at least twice the cost of cleaning up. 

I am not suggesting we give up cars, just force business to find ways to stop the pollution. There has been a great deal of research done on ways to stop pollution, probably more than was done on synthetic rubber in the course of 62 years. 
If the businesses of this country are motivated, ie see money to be made by stopping pollution and money to be lost by laying back and doing nothing, they will find a way. 
Heaver that air flight was first achieved in 1903 in 1969 we landed on the moon! Just 66 years! If we want it bad enough we can do it. 
High fines for polluting vs money to be made by solving the problem, business will find a way. 
The electric car is already on the road; a more efficient internal combustion motor and a scrubber for the exhaust is well with in the five year limit. We can do it; we just need to find the pitchfork.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Darren said:


> You've bought into the lie that CO2 is an environmental pollutant. That is the clever association made by scaremongers to panic the populace in an attempt to legalize the greatest scam ever.


I honestly don't know for sure, since I'm not a climatologist

Are you?

Certainly there are opinions and studies - _on both side_s, that are driven by politics, influence and money, as much as real science.

What else is new?



> Once again Kehoe was the industryâs principal
> witness. Two years earlier he had gone on record
> that there was no health risk from airborne lead and
> no need for an ambient air lead standard (11). The
> ...


http://www.unc.edu/courses/2007fall/envr/230/001/Needleman_2000.pdf

CO2 might be one of those things, if we wait until everything is 100% "proven", it might be too late. Might not.


Forerunner, has it figured out. 



.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I_don't_know said:


> As I said make the fines for polluting [FONT=&quot]"excruciatingly painful"[/FONT] the fine should be at least twice the cost of cleaning up.
> 
> I am not suggesting we give up cars, just force business to find ways to stop the pollution. There has been a great deal of research done on ways to stop pollution, probably more than was done on synthetic rubber in the course of 62 years.
> If the businesses of this country are motivated, ie see money to be made by stopping pollution and money to be lost by laying back and doing nothing, they will find a way.
> ...


You didn't say you wanted to reduce pollution, but ELIMINATE it. Can't be done, because even the earth pollutes itself. We have done a good job of improving air quality, and if we continue at a reasonable pace, it probably will continue to improve, although we will ( or possibly have) reach a point of diminishing returns.

The environmental movement, however, suffers great public scorn whenever it gets too carried away. Al Gore is a public joke today, and "Man made global warming" slips further and further into fablehood every year.

You can no longer just make up any chunk of BS that strikes your fancy and convince America that it is going down the tubes and we will all be dead or sterile in another 50 years. We have had too many years of that in a row, too many deadlines are decades in the past with no ill effects.

Complaining about corporate profits made by non-compliance to your standards is kinder funny. Al Gore is up a couple of hundred million in profits made off of his global warming scam and the profits are still coming in, and researchers all over the world have gotten rich by "discovering" the "facts" that they are hired to "discover".

Solar panel makers are rolling in dough, manufacturing panels that use more energy than they produce in their lifetime, and the government is tapping taxpayers for subsidies to make wind and solar manufacturers rich, so they, in turn, can donate to Obama and other libs. Many of those companies were formed for no other reason, and go bankrupt after they have done their part, as in Solindra.

if you are looking for a profit motive in pollution, there is at least as large of a profit and a stronger motive in NON pollution. The private sector only has so much money, but government can print all they want, and give it to those they choose as "winners".

Finally, the more laws you pass, the less attention anybody pays to them. Industry is already being diced up into smaller and smaller facilities and more remote areas. Metalworkers all over the country are now operating in two car garages with nary an inspection EVER, and ditto woodworkers and tons of other manufacturers. And Blacksmiths? Lord, coal being coked in alleys and on farms and burned by the ton monthly.

I have run small manufacturing businesses for nearly 40 years in the Southwest and never seen an inspector of any kind, and have at least a half dozen friends who have done the same. 

You are correct when you admire the capabilities of business to get things done when they want to and see a good reason, but in the case of laws like you are talking about, business would apply itself to creatively ignoring such laws. Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I can tell that your faith in the invincibility of government is far, far, beyond the reality, and government knows it, whether you do or not.....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I just need to touch on a further point. Something about your posts about pitchforks and forcing people to do things your way, presumably because you believe somehow that you have that right, kept niggling at a memory, and I finally pulled it to the surface.

I VERY STRONGLY suggest that you read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. It is a classic, and over the years, several surveys were conducted as to "which book changed your life". The number two book comes out to be "Atlas Shrugged in all of them, with the Bible in first place.

It is a work of fiction, but you can see it playing itself out today. The antagonists in the book all feel that they can force the producers of the world to do as they are told if they can find, sort of, "the right pitchfork". They demand results of an impossible nature, but are convinced they can be delivered if the alternative punishments are severe enough. 

I finally figured where I have read your theories before.....Within the pages of Atlas Shrugged, and to a lesser degree "State of fear" By Michael Cricton........which is another recommended read. I urge you to further your education with both, and I wish you well. You have a lot to learn....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

And finally, just for laughs and in a spirit of good clean fun, a short bit of prose about early synthetic rubber, published in "stars and stripes" during the second world war, circa my parents

"The sweet young thing and her boyfriend
were tripping the light fantastic
when she suddenly tore
for the bathroom door.
You just can't trust that wartime elastic......Joe


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> I dunno.
> 
> The EPA fined power plants for polluting air, verses installing cleaning processes. They gladly paid the fines and kept on polluting.
> 
> ...


When dirty air and water cost them at *least twice* what it would cost to clean it up...they will clean it up!! By the way do not forget to include court cost.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Darren said:


> You've bought into the lie that CO2 is an environmental pollutant. That is the clever association made by scaremongers to panic the populace in an attempt to legalize the greatest scam ever.


An extreme in any thing is no good. You need salt to live it is vital to life, but if all you have is salt you will die and die quickly. You need oxygen to live, but too much is called Oxygen toxicity, and it can kill.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

joebill said:


> WOW! You have arrived late to the scene you are proposing. We already have seas and mountains of unproduced mineral, forests of un-harvested timber and thousands of acres of idle factories precisely because a lot of people think like you think.
> 
> Go back and read the idea. you can do if you do not pollute. Put business in the corner and they will find the way.
> 
> ...


Go back and read the idea I said 
âIf you cannot make it without polluting, no matter where in the world you make it; you cannot *sell* it in this country.â


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Forerunner said:


> Oh, I don't know, Darren.
> 
> Have you ever assaulted a greenhouse, full of plants, with a canister of CO2 and watched the results ?
> 
> ...


Again please go back and read: *âDo I want to live in a world where the air is full of things carbon dioxide, methane and God alone knows what else, or even more important do I want to leave that kind of world to my children and grandchildren?â* If you think your plants are more important than your family, may God have mercy on you.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

.....and may God have mercy on anyone who hasn't thought through just what products and lifestyle they will be without in the aftermath of your utopia.

Granted, a life of harmony on this earth would be phenomenal, but living through the transition will be hell.

BTW...... healthy plants not only "clean up" excess CO2.....they also make for healthy people.

Use a little more forethought and a little less emotion and you'll go far. :thumb:


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

joebill said:


> You didn't say you wanted to reduce pollution, but ELIMINATE it. Can't be done, because even the earth pollutes itself. We have done a good job of improving air quality, and if we continue at a reasonable pace, it probably will continue to improve, although we will ( or possibly have) reach a point of diminishing returns.
> 
> The environmental movement, however, suffers great public scorn whenever it gets too carried away. Al Gore is a public joke today, and "Man made global warming" slips further and further into fablehood every year.
> 
> ...


I did say "[FONT=&quot]OK, so how do we write a law to get rid of the pollution?[/FONT]" Pollution is not natural, if I am walking along a sandy beach and find a stone, it is part of the nature of the beach. A cigarette butt is pollution! 

Regarding your last paragraph: I have absolutely NO faith in government. That is why I have repeatedly said, "We the People" must get rid of a "Government of the Business, by the Attorneys, for the Money" 

As for the "capabilities of business" they are capable of nothing but making money no more no less, no matter what damage they do to this planet or to the people on it.

A person on the other hand can invent and create and design; a person can find the way to make something without polluting. 

If we want a change "We the People" must take steps to effect the change, hence the right to vote.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Forerunner said:


> .....and may God have mercy on anyone who hasn't thought through just what products and lifestyle they will be without in the aftermath of your utopia.
> 
> Granted, a life of harmony on this earth would be phenomenal, but living through the transition will be hell.
> 
> ...


Granted, a life of harmony on this earth would be phenomenal, but living through the transition will be hell. We are the ones that created the problem; who else do you think should be forced to clean up the mess.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

NASA recently published a report based on newly derived satellite data that showed the CO2 in the atmosphere plays a far greater part in protecting life on earth by reflecting a large portion of the Sun's energy back into space than previously understood. In other words, CO2 was never a pollutant and it plays a significant part in protecting human life on earth.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And now many good things are happening in the dry areas of this planet, all for the Good Of Mankind.
*Global greening, the other 'greenhouse effect', is underway*
A New Greening is happening.











> Large stretches of arid land have become greener since the 1980s due to rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, which fertilizes plant growth, a new study shows.





> * The greening effect of increased CO2 is a global phenomenon.* It is even seen in areas that are getting drier due to reduced rainfall and warmer temperatures as a result of global climate change, the researchers noted.


http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/01/18669647-global-greening-the-other-greenhouse-effect-is-underway?lite

The more and more GReen is happening the more they can Absorb the so called excess CO2. Neat


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Get rid of all the CO2 because it is a pollution get rid of Oxygen because it is a pollution but you cant live with out it so get rid of humans also.


----------



## Wolfy-hound (May 5, 2013)

Carbon dioxide is what all animals breathe out when they use the oxygen for their bodies. It's a naturally occurring gas.

Methane is produced naturally by many/most animals and by natural sources.

If you're going to rant about pollutants, it would be best to look up really good examples of ones that are man-made and not a naturally occurring and needed part of the world, with or without humankind.

And I don't really know of any method to produce most of the goods needed in everyday life without creating some pollution, especially since you include naturally occurring things as "pollutants". Technically you could herd sheep(oops sorry sheep create not only methane but also manure and urine), clip their hair with hand clippers(wait, where'd you get those clippers? Steel is manufactured from iron ore which is mined and smelted before you can even work it...), spin it into yard, weave it by hand on a frame into cloth, then drape it into a garment since all of the cutting instruments like scissors or even knives fall under the same issues as your clippers. 

I'm also guessing you'll be living off wildly occurring nuts, berries and forage, since more planting and harvesting will produce some sort of pollution even if you're using horses or oxen(same issues as those sheep)...

What I'm getting at is that you're asking the impossible by going to the extremes. You cannot provide for a country by going 'back' to the most simple forms of living. Yes, we should try to limit and reduce pollution that is harmful and yes, we should try to protect the environment. But saying 'No goods that cause ANY pollution' is impossible.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Factor in that things that aren't manufactured here will just be imported from countries with little or no standards.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> The U.S. has *relatively* clean air and water, compared to 40 years ago, maybe even 100 years. We all live better lives because of it.


Yes and no. From the respect of soot (carbon particulate), that's certainly true. The environment has been cleaned-up a lot since the hey-day of the industrial revolution, at least with respect to obvious pollution that we used to see and smell. But that's not to say that the kinds or pollution that are left aren't even more dangerous than the obvious pollution problems of past decades. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not bad for you.

Years ago I participated in a roundtable discussion with other oil company chemists & engineers about the effects of new government mandates for oxygenated fuels. The political claim was that more complete combustion would result, making automobile exhaust less of a health hazard. But a good argument could be made that the exhaust could be more dangerous as a results of oxygenating, since increased organic oxides such as epoxies could result. Some epoxy compounds are severe cancer-causing agents.

Just because the air looks cleaner doesn't necessarily mean it's better for you.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

"As for the "capabilities of business" they are capable of nothing but making money no more no less, no matter what damage they do to this planet or to the people on it.

A person on the other hand can invent and create and design; a person can find the way to make something without polluting. 

If we want a change "We the People" must take steps to effect the change, hence the right to vote." Quote

You do not understand the first thing about people who create things. it's a flaw in the thinking of most of those who want to "force people to do the "right" thing" That "right" thing is almost always one's man's opinion, and not thought through at all, but an emotional ground for taking control of the work and efforts of others.

I have changed a couple of industries for all time, although they were, admittedly, small industries, my innovations turned them around and made them better for not only my customers, but also my competitors. I have created a product in a different line that has supported a family for 30 years, supported retailers for 30 years, pleased hundreds of thousands of retail customers for very nominal purchase prices......I tell you this not to brag, but to let you know that I am a creative person, and have proven it over and over again. I UNDERSTAND the creative process and those who engage in it, and I can tell you that the stupidest thing you can possibly do is hold a gun or "a pitchfork" to somebody's face or ass and expect them to obligingly create anything that has meaning.

That is why that virtue, creativity, dries up in societies where individuality is discouraged. You want your "answers"? you are perhaps one of the few who cares enough about exterminating the last grain of pollution in the nation to pretty much exterminate a society in the process, so go right ahead and invent and institute the processes yourself! Nobody is stopping you from building a car that runs off of wishes and poetry. I can tell by your "golly gee" that you are young enough to get all the education that you need to do that very thing, if it is even possible, which it is not.

If, however, you think that any form of automobile can be made sans pollution, you are simply so far from an adequate education that you may not have the required equipment to acquire one. Bluster and force against those who know what they are doing will not make your dreams come true. It's been tried since the dawn of time. OK, you have a dream.........So did Pol Pot. He favored your system of "motivation" and managed to grab some power, but he didn't fulfill his dream or make anybody's life any better.

"So now you are a con-artist, swamp land and volcanoes for sale!!!" quote

No, merely pointing out the scientific fact that one volcano can put out more pollution than mankind has since the industrial revolution, and methane is produced naturally in greater quantities than man produces it, therefore you railing against industry over things that are produced naturally in greater quantities demonstrates a certain lack of understanding, especially when you stated that you are going to wipe out pollution by dealing harshly with mankind. Mankind produces some of it, some of the rest is produced naturally, a good bit is not pollution at all, but mistakenly identified as such. The earth constantly produces natural oil spills into the sea, in countless locations, mostly undiscovered because they are "gosh....underwater"....!

You are certainly not too young to discover that to be an effective human being, one needs more than a pitchfork and a cause. You need some scientific understanding and a bit of knowledge about what does and does not motivate humans, especially creative humans, would be in order. There is more than a sufficient supply of loud, uninformed, strident young folks in the environmental movement today, so unless you are the very BEST at that, you may also want to change your vocation a bit. I think Al Gore might be able to use a new yard boy....Joe


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

China will be more than happy to go along with these stridently strict rules and regs...........

* * * * * * *

China is just about to announce their very excellent program for the extreme world over-population problem............
Yes it is the slow-kill of that wonderful weapon.. . . . ..Air Polution


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Forerunner said:


> Oh, I don't know, Darren.
> 
> Have you ever assaulted a greenhouse, full of plants, with a canister of CO2 and watched the results ?
> 
> *I don't think our gardens could handle that kind of stress.*


You are closer to the truth than perhaps you realized.

Plants can only absorb a certain amount of CO2 and they dismiss what they can't use. If you pump too much CO2 into a greenhouse it will stress and then kill the plants from acidification. Anyone who operates a commercial greenhouse knows this and is prudent with their use of CO2.

The oceans have taken up the excess CO2 that plants dismissed and have been absorbing HALF of the industrial CO2 that we've been pumping out into the atmosphere. Of course now the oceans are acidifying and warming up and that's killing marine life, corals, algaes, etc. 

All life on earth is completely dependent on the good health of the oceans. 

If the oceans die from acidification nobody will need to worry about pollution and greenhouse effect anymore because there won't be anybody left to worry about it. Dead oceans means dead planet going right back to the beginning and starting over again.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html



> *Oceans Found to Absorb Half of All Man-Made Carbon Dioxide*
> 
> _John Pickrell_
> _for National Geographic News_
> ...


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

The "experiments" that I've read about involving greenhouses and CO2 showed greatly enhanced plant growth via CO2 levels much higher than normally existent in the atmosphere that we breathe.

But whatever it takes to play devil's advocate, eh ?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Forerunner said:


> The "experiments" that I've read about involving greenhouses and CO2 showed greatly enhanced plant growth via CO2 levels much higher than normally existent in the atmosphere that we breathe.
> 
> But whatever it takes to play devil's advocate, eh ?


The self-regulating properties of the earth are understood. What is not understood is how far those self-regulating properties can be pushed, beyond which the earth can't self-regulate without huge consequences.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Forerunner said:


> The "experiments" that I've read about involving greenhouses and CO2 showed greatly enhanced plant growth via CO2 levels much higher than normally existent in the atmosphere that we breathe.


I haven't read about any experiments. However, I have worked in commercial greenhouses that use CO2 generators as well as some grow ops that push the envelope beyond plants limits to hasten plant growth to flowering stage. So I've seen with my own eyes what can happen to plants that are exposed to too high concentrations of CO2 for too lengthy a time. Acid burn on plants is ugly and kills flowers and seeds. Also, workers can't work in there without all over protective clothing, masks, breathing equipment and eye protection. I have little speckles of white scar tissue caused by burns from CO2 acidified resin and nectar all over my forearms because of absent-mindedly pushing my sleeves up when I was working. The pain and itch from CO2 acid burns is excruciating, it's worse than hives and takes a long time to heal. 



Forerunner said:


> But whatever it takes to play devil's advocate, eh ?


I don't understand that comment. Do you believe that high concentrations of CO2 are safe and that those who say it is not safe are playing devil's advocate?


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Paumon, just curious......do you own or make use of any products, the manufacturing of which might give off some form of known toxic pollutant, or the mining of which might encroach upon the property rights of those, downstream, who like their clean earth, as well ?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Forerunner said:


> Paumon, just curious......do you own or make use of any products, the manufacturing of which might give off some form of known toxic pollutant, or the mining of which might encroach upon the property rights of those, downstream, who like their clean earth, as well ?


Yes. Everybody does. 



> Originally Posted by *Forerunner*
> _But whatever it takes to play devil's advocate, eh ?_


Would you please clarify that comment. Do you believe that high concentrations of CO2 are safe and that those who say it is not safe are playing devil's advocate?


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Defending the notion that life on earth should stop for fear of a CO2 epidemic is playing devil's advocate.

.and......just because "everybody does"....does that make it right for you, and others, to make such use, and then have the gall to brow beat the rest of us for doing the same ?

Love the transparency.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Nevada said:


> The self-regulating properties of the earth are understood. What is not understood is how far those self-regulating properties can be pushed, beyond which the earth can't self-regulate without huge consequences.


Precisely! it is not understood.

And soooo, all those claiming to understand it and make dire and accurate descriptions and predictions are blowing smoke up one another's ankles.

Amongst the scientists alive before the first nuclear explosion, many thought it would destroy the universe. Afterwards, in my youth, many thought it was responsible for the drought of the 50's. Still others, a decade later, decided that we were in for global cooling that would make it impossible to grow crops, and then we were all supposed to return to the stone age during y2k.

Before that, the AIDS virus was supposed to go airborne and kill us all overnight, and then SARS, which turned out to be another popcorn fart. and don't for a minute forget the Soviet Union, that we could not possibly subdue or survive, and of course, space aliens. They are coming for us, you know.

Long, long before that, we appeased the gods by sacrificing virgins in the lake and beheaded firstborns to pacify either the earth or the gods thereof. My Grandmother thought it was "bad luck" to make a rocking chair rock when nobody sat in it.

We used to burn "witches", too. I guess that soon we will be burning those we imagine to be polluters, with the traditional feeling of accomplishment, of course. Or maybe not, if they convince us that they can make gold from lead.........Joe


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I can't help myself. I have to laugh at the global warming holdouts. Meanwhile it looks like the Earth is rapidly approaching a pole shift. We better crank up the CO2 production to protect us during that period when the Earth and us planetary dwellers aren't protected by a magnetic field.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Forerunner said:


> Defending the notion that life on earth should stop for fear of a CO2 epidemic is playing devil's advocate.
> 
> .and......just because "everybody does"....does that make it right for you, and others, to make such use, and then have the gall to brow beat the rest of us for doing the same ?
> 
> Love the transparency.


I wasn't aware that I was defending any notion that life on earth should stop because of CO2 epidemic. Where did I say that?

I wasn't aware that I was brow-beating anyone either. I thought I was being strictly informative with my posts, not offering up any kind of criticism, yeas, nays or otherwise. 

How do you get brow-beating devil's advocate out of either one of my 2 informative posts and why have you attacked me for it?

We have all poisoned ourselves and other living things on the earth, intentionally or not. I personally think it's too late to reverse that, the damage has been done, the scales have tipped and now nature is doing what it does naturally to bring back some balance for the future. Nature's balancing act might mean the inevitable demise of the majority or even all of mankind but that is okay by me, not something I'm worried about.

I think you have been obfuscating, on the defensive and being offensive in order to avoid giving an honest answer to my simple question. 

Do you think I am trying to put you on the spot?

*Do you believe that high concentrations of CO2 are safe for us and that those who say it is not safe are playing devil's advocate?*

It's not a hard question to answer so why are you having such difficulty with it?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> And now many good things are happening in the dry areas of this planet, all for the Good Of Mankind.
> *Global greening, the other 'greenhouse effect', is underway*
> A New Greening is happening.
> 
> ...


Hardly conclusive evidence.



> While this greening has long been noted in satellite imagery, its direct link to carbon dioxide (CO2) has been difficult to prove, explained study leader Randall Donohue, an environmental scientist at Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.
> "There are so many processes occurring simultaneously that affect plant behavior, it is very difficult to determine which process is responsible for any given change," he told NBC News in an email. Teasing out a CO2 fertilization effect amongst the other processes "hasn't been done before," he added.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Paumon said:


> *Do you believe that high concentrations of CO2 are safe for us and that those who say it is not safe are playing devil's advocate?*



What is a high concentration of CO2 ?

By whose standards ?

What is a truly dangerous level of CO2 ?

By whose standards ?

How do you know ?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Forerunner said:


> What is a high concentration of CO2 ?


Higher than historical levels would be considered high.



Forerunner said:


> What is a truly dangerous level of CO2 ?


We don't know.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Yes and no. From the respect of soot (carbon particulate), that's certainly true. The environment has been cleaned-up a lot since the hey-day of the industrial revolution, at least with respect to obvious pollution that we used to see and smell. But that's not to say that the kinds or pollution that are left aren't even more dangerous than the obvious pollution problems of past decades. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not bad for you.
> 
> Years ago I participated in a roundtable discussion with other oil company chemists & engineers about the effects of new government mandates for oxygenated fuels. The political claim was that more complete combustion would result, making automobile exhaust less of a health hazard. But a good argument could be made that the exhaust could be more dangerous as a results of oxygenating, since increased organic oxides such as epoxies could result. Some epoxy compounds are severe cancer-causing agents.
> 
> Just because the air looks cleaner doesn't necessarily mean it's better for you.


Wow.

All those _hundreds of billions of dollars_ spent on air cleanup for Industry, power plants and automobiles, (yes refineries too) and now we only_ think_ we have cleaner air, because we don't see as much soot.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> Wow.
> 
> All those _hundreds of billions of dollars_ spent on air cleanup for Industry, power plants and automobiles, (yes refineries too) and now we only_ think_ we have cleaner air, because we don't see as much soot.


It's not like I didn't try to tell them, but the political wind was blowing the wrong direction. I suspected economic interests all along. But politicians never want input from scientists anyway.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Higher than historical levels would be considered high.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know.


How much is the historical high? How low is the oxygen today from what it is during the 1700? As I seem to remember it was CO2 was a lot higher that it is today just before the last big ice age.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Forerunner said:


> What is a high concentration of CO2 ?
> 
> By whose standards ?
> 
> ...


 
More ambiguous obfuscation from you. 

I have already provided that information but you have completely ignored it and not answered a single one of my questions. 

If you can only ignore people's information and only reply to questions with evasive questions then why should anyone bother to respond to you or take any of your posts seriously? I'm not sure why you even bothered to respond to any posts in this topic since you don't appear to have contributed anything helpful or constructive to the topic and clearly haven't absorbed information provided.

Sorry I wasted your time and I will leave you alone now. I'm sure some other people got something informative out of my posts even if you couldn't. 

Bye bye. :hand:


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Paumon said:


> More ambiguous obfuscation from you.
> 
> I have already provided that information but you have completely ignored it and not answered a single one of my questions.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I learned, once again, that nobody has, or has ever had, any hard evidence that we have a problem. Thank you for that, and God Bless.....Joe


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

joebill said:


> Yeah, I learned, once again, that nobody has, or has ever had, any hard evidence that we have a problem.


More severe weather was predicted, and it has come to pass. There is also no argument that temperatures have risen.

If scientists are correct then there will be a price to pay. If nothing is done, are republicans prepared to take responsibility for being mistaken? Perhaps only the political price?

No, if things scientists predict come to pass then republicans will claim that they tried to stop climate change but democrats refused to cooperate. Wait and see...


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Nevada said:


> More severe weather was predicted, and it has come to pass. There is also no argument that temperatures have risen.
> 
> If scientists are correct then there will be a price to pay. *If nothing is done, are republicans prepared to take responsibility for being mistaken? Perhaps only the political price?*
> 
> *No, if things scientists predict come to pass then republicans will claim that they tried to stop climate change but democrats refused to cooperate.* Wait and see...


I've got a question for you Nevada. What do you think will be the reaction of people who live in other countries around the world where there's no such thing as republicans and democrats and nobody knows what they are or cares about them? Do you think those people will try to find some other political parties to use as scapegoats?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Paumon said:


> I've got a question for you Nevada. What do you think will be the reaction of people who live in other countries around the world where there's no such thing as republicans and democrats and nobody knows what they are or cares about them? Do you think those people will try to find some other political parties to use as scapegoats?


The day will come when climate change will become undeniable. Politics will be moot in most of the world, since emphasis will be on survival. It may be too little too late, but when climate change is undeniable no price will be too large to pay to reverse the trend.

I think it's safe to say that we can do a lot more now with a lot less resources then after the problem becomes worse.

I don't believe that anybody on the right has intentions to take responsibility for their inaction on this anyway. Since there is no accountability, why should they worry about what happens in the future?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Of course climate change is undeniable. The planet has obviously gone through extreme changes in the climate such as ice ages before man came along and dicovered fire.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Pretty niave to think that government is going to solve this problem. Government is the problem. They work for the largest polluters, not you. Any law they pass will be passed for the interests of those who own the government. Government cannot wave a magic 'law making' wand and make pollution disappear.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

joebill said:


> eliminate the possibility that anyone would refer to himself as an "environmentalist" for the next 100 years.


 What a great accomplishment in itself! It would almost be worth it!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I_don't_know said:


> &#8220;Do I want to live in a world where the air is full of things carbon dioxide, methane and God alone knows what else? Or even more important question, "Do I want to leave that kind of world to my children and grandchildren?"


Lemme see now, we need plants to generate oxygen or we all die. They need carbon dioxide or they all die. Prolly might want to keep some of that carbon dioxide around a while. As to methane.... you want to leave a "clean" atmosphere for your kids and grandkids, I suggest you quit eating and pooping. That process alone generates methane. 

To the environmentalists..... stop making babies! Its the only realistic solution to the pollution problem. Each and every human being on the planet uses/changes/alters the planets resources causing some amount of damage to the environment.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I'm not worried. After all, I survived what was to be the end of humanity several times, already. I recall standing in the museum of natural history (or industry?, I don't recall which) in Chicago in the mid 1960's and seeing the giant wall with a revolving meter on it that told me I was toast in under a decade if I didn't find a way to curb planet overpopulation. Now, the planet is still about 40% wilderness, most of the population could be housed in Texas in 4 bedroom homes, and food is plentiful.

I also read an article in Mother Earth News that categorically stated WHEN we could look forward to being finished on this planet if we did not get rid of all the septic tanks, automobiles, etc. If I recall correctly, the die-date was in the mid 1980's. It featured an interview with that world-class scientist, Robert Redford. That is the type that gets the most traction still, today.

I could recall several more death-deadlines I have survived if I had time, but work calls......Have a nice day, and I hope y'all make it to lunch time.....Joe


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Darntootin said:


> Pretty niave to think that government is going to solve this problem. Government is the problem. They work for the largest polluters, not you. Any law they pass will be passed for the interests of those who own the government. Government cannot wave a magic 'law making' wand and make pollution disappear.


History shows otherwise.

If it were not for the heavy-handed EPA, we would not have clean air, or clean water - at all.

As far as the big polluters "walking", please state who they are. 

One power company in WI alone, was fined $950,000 for violations, just last year, plus millions in upgrades.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012...fines-orders-upgrades-coal-fired-power-plants

Even everyone's favorite Villan, Monsanto, received a $2.5 million EPA fine, for one incident alone.
http://www.celsias.com/article/epa-fines-monsanto-selling-mislabeled-gm-cotton-fo/


----------



## defenestrate (Aug 23, 2005)

What did the EPA do about the Deepwater Horizon disaster/leak? The sprayed Corexit? the industries and lives that have been thrown into a shambles?

That's what I thought. :/


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

defenestrate said:


> What did the EPA do about the Deepwater Horizon disaster/leak? The sprayed Corexit? the industries and lives that have been thrown into a shambles?
> 
> That's what I thought. :/


What was the EPA supposed to do? From what I saw around GC nobody believes that there was a problem with Deepwater Horizon. Just a minor leak, BP knew what they were doing, and they are totally committed to any cleanup necessary. 

Has that changed?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes SOME regulations are fine. But in recent years the EPA has become so heavy handed it has hurt not this economy, but many companies as well and the high employment figure also can go directly into the OVER Powerful, heavy handed epa THUGS.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Nevada said:


> What was the EPA supposed to do? From what I saw around GC nobody believes that there was a problem with Deepwater Horizon. Just a minor leak, BP knew what they were doing, and they are totally committed to any cleanup necessary.
> 
> Has that changed?


This is true. Pages and pages of discussion that went on for days but about 90% of the conversants were all saying "There's no problem".


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> the high employment figure also can go directly into the OVER Powerful, heavy handed epa THUGS.


Really? Seriously? You believe that our current unemployment problems are the result of EPA regulations? The kindest thing I can say is that you simply don't understand what this recession is all about.

It's scary to think that there are people who really believe this stuff, and that they have a realistic shot at being in charge in Washington, DC.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Nevada said:


> It's scary to think that there are people who really believe this stuff, and that they have a realistic shot at being in charge in Washington, DC.



Truer words ne'er ha' been spoke. :drum:


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

And you believe that when the President promises to bankrupt anybody who opens a coal fired power plant it has no effect? People are backing way from in vestments in all sorts of ventures because of the power-grabbing EPA. Not to mention ventures that have already been closed ditto.

There is a completely abandoned town down the road from me that used to serve a smelter. It closed because of the EPA, but we still get the pollution, because the smelting is done in Mexico, with fewer restrictions, and the smoke still blows across our southern border, right back into the USA. All those jobs literally "went south" along with millions of others to escape the US EPA.

You think that mining and oil pumping on federal lands does not suffer because of EPA restrictions? 

Try buying a $100 paint job for your old truck from the old guy that used to do them in the neighborhood. He's out of business. Automotive paint is one of the things that is going to blow up the planet nowadays, so just the paint is more than the paint job used to be.

No industry is untouched by the EPA, and none benefit from it, except the industry of preying on the private sector. If you think that has no effect on jobs, you are living in an alternate universe.....Joe


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

defenestrate said:


> What did the EPA do about the Deepwater Horizon disaster/leak? The sprayed Corexit? the industries and lives that have been thrown into a shambles?
> 
> That's what I thought. :/


Corexit has been EPA approved for at least 20 years.

Considering what had happened, Is the Gulf and it's fisherman, really doing that bad?



> *While catches were off, though, prices were high. The Louisiana data shows fishermen actually made as much or more in 2011 than they had in previous years. *The total values of the blue crab and oyster harvests were higher than the six-year average.
> 
> 
> > Taken as a whole, the volume of seafood harvested last year in Louisiana for shrimp, crabs and oysters showed only modest drops from averages for 2003-2009, according to the AP analysis
> ...



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/24/gulf-fishermen-reel-from-seafood-troubles/


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

joebill said:


> I just need to touch on a further point. Something about your posts about pitchforks and forcing people to do things your way, presumably because you believe somehow that you have that right, kept niggling at a memory, and I finally pulled it to the surface.
> 
> I VERY STRONGLY suggest that you read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. It is a classic, and over the years, several surveys were conducted as to "which book changed your life". The number two book comes out to be "Atlas Shrugged in all of them, with the Bible in first place.
> 
> ...


If "We the People" do not have the right to set standers then to what purpose is gov.? Any business may go where ever they want; they just not sell there wheres here in the U.S.A. We have laws the disposal of sewage and trash, why not a law against the sale of some thing that creates filth.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

joebill said:


> And you believe that when the President promises to bankrupt anybody who opens a coal fired power plant it has no effect? People are backing way from in vestments in all sorts of ventures because of the power-grabbing EPA. Not to mention ventures that have already been closed ditto.
> 
> There is a completely abandoned town down the road from me that used to serve a smelter. It closed because of the EPA, but we still get the pollution, because the smelting is done in Mexico, with fewer restrictions, and the smoke still blows across our southern border, right back into the USA. All those jobs literally "went south" along with millions of others to escape the US EPA.
> 
> ...


China sends us more than containers loads of crap products. They also send us their pollution via the wind. If the EPA was required to do a benefit cost analysis of their proposed regulations and take into account the total effects, you'd see changes that would improve people's lives.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Darren said:


> China sends us more than containers loads of crap products. They also send us their pollution via the wind. If the EPA was required to do a benefit cost analysis of their proposed regulations and take into account the total effects, you'd see changes that would improve people's lives.




There is a lot of truth in that, but in this culture of corruption, they'd just pencil whip it....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I_don't_know said:


> If "We the People" do not have the right to set standers then to what purpose is gov.? Any business may go where ever they want; they just not sell there wheres here in the U.S.A. We have laws the disposal of sewage and trash, why not a law against the sale of some thing that creates filth.


First off, "we the people" are certainly not in agreement over what constitutes "filth", as you can see by reading almost anything in this forum. Second, according to our founding documents, we are not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. The fact that vast numbers of people in my youth wanted to oppress racial minorities did NOT make it constitutional, and so we finally got that out of the way. The fact that many of those minorities would like to oppress their former oppressors in turn, does not make THAT constitutional, either.

The fact that vast numbers of people NOW want to flay the back of business because of some screwed-up blind faith that Al Gore is the messiah and the earth-god is going to make us pay for urinating on the ground or raising hogs or using fire-starter on our charcoal does NOT make it constitutional or even advisable.

Our constitution is really a list of non-rights of our government. It also lists the purpose of government, in pretty good detail, and that list does not include the government choosing every product allowed on the shelf, and for a very good reason. As you can detect if you ever watch the news these days, no government is equal to the task. Every government consists of men, each of whom has his/her own opinions and prejudices. Such all-powerful governments inevitably turn into dictatorships, often thinly disguised as "governments of the workers" or some such tripe. You are speaking about a "planned economy" and much discussion of the concept was around when I was young.

The most comprehensive short work on this concept was a book called "the road to serfdom" written by a man named Hayek, who, rightly so, labeled it the shortest path to tyranny. Some folks think that tyranny would be a wonderful thing, until they find out that they would not be the most likely candidate for tyrant, and whoever was able to land the job would almost certainly not agree with them on most points

Soooo, that would be another book that I could recommend to supplement your education........Joe


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

joebill said:


> And you believe that when the President promises to bankrupt anybody who opens a coal fired power plant it has no effect? People are backing way from in vestments in all sorts of ventures because of the power-grabbing EPA. Not to mention ventures that have already been closed ditto.
> 
> There is a completely abandoned town down the road from me that used to serve a smelter. It closed because of the EPA, but we still get the pollution, because the smelting is done in Mexico, with fewer restrictions, and the smoke still blows across our southern border, right back into the USA. All those jobs literally "went south" along with millions of others to escape the US EPA.
> 
> ...


First the president does not design or build the plant you refereed to. If the company decides to break the law they deserve bankruptcy and more. 

You mentioned a town near you, but what of the [FONT=Verdana,Sans-Serif,Arial]Hanford Nuclear Reservation [/FONT]in the state of Washington, [FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]56 million gallons of toxic waste stored in old underground tanks, near the [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Columbia River? If a nuclear generator can dump it's was with no plan to clean up the mess; how about if the neighbors decide to use your yard as the local dump? What is a little trash compared to [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]56 million gallons of toxic waste? 

If a business knows they will be fined at least twice the cost of clean up (or cost of construction) + any and all court cost, they will do it right in the first place.[/FONT] And NO hideing behind the corporate shield, everyone on the board is liable. [/FONT]

As for the smelting going on in Mexico. If they cannot sell it, why would they smelt it? 

The purpose of the EPA is not to protect business; it is to protect the people from the greedy, self-serving, thoughtless, creatures that put their wallets before the lives of the people. 

As far as the investors go, when the new ideas start presenting themselves there will be plenty to invest in. 

If people could be depended on to treat each other in an honest and fair way we would kneed no government, but we cannot. 

Now for that paint job; you can use house paint, or are you just afraid of change? 


[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif][/FONT]


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

joebill said:


> First off, "we the people" are certainly not in agreement over what constitutes "filth", as you can see by reading almost anything in this forum. Second, according to our founding documents, we are not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. The fact that vast numbers of people in my youth wanted to oppress racial minorities did NOT make it constitutional, and so we finally got that out of the way. The fact that many of those minorities would like to oppress their former oppressors in turn, does not make THAT constitutional, either.
> 
> The fact that vast numbers of people NOW want to flay the back of business because of some screwed-up blind faith that Al Gore is the messiah and the earth-god is going to make us pay for urinating on the ground or raising hogs or using fire-starter on our charcoal does NOT make it constitutional or even advisable.
> 
> ...


We do still have the right to life I believe. And the law would place no limits on what people can sell, just where they sell it. 

If you think a person should be able to sell anything, then lets bring back the snake oil salesman, con-men selling swamp land and the Brooklyn Bridge. 

Perhaps you should read the first post.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Darren said:


> China sends us more than containers loads of crap products. They also send us their pollution via the wind. If the EPA was required to do a benefit cost analysis of their proposed regulations and take into account the total effects, you'd see changes that would improve people's lives.


Is anyone truly dumb enough to think that China will manufacture something, for which there is little market. The U.S.A. is the biggest consumer in the world so why not use our influence? If they want to sell it here they must clean up their act. So less pollution from their factories as well as our own. 

The need for new ideas will also benefit both investors and consumers.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

.....and just how do you plan to get the fat, lazy, apathetic American consumer to go along with your monumental plan to increase the price and decrease the availability of everything by tenfold ?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

The Handfors site is probably the best example of why government shouldn't be involved in environmental protection it is after all an government facility!


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I_don't_know said:


> Is anyone truly dumb enough to think that China will manufacture something, for which there is little market. The U.S.A. is the biggest consumer in the world so why not use our influence? If they want to sell it here they must clean up their act. So less pollution from their factories as well as our own.
> 
> The need for new ideas will also benefit both investors and consumers.


It's fine with me if you want to batter yourself bloody in one more attempt at creating a "worker's paradise" where none of the base behaviors of man play a part, everyone is happy living like a cave man and serving the "collective" rather than one's self. 

You have every right to espouse such a program, and probably a certain number of supporters, although most of them are willfully so ignorant of history and man's nature and aspirations that you will remain a bitter little cult as long as you survive.

The thing you seem to miss out on completely is that mankind, in general, does not want to be controlled to that extent. The "creativity" you would require for such a venture would be it's very first victim. Men work to make their lives and situations better and more free, not worse and more restricted. 

Believe it or not, and I'm pretty sure you'll not, such a burning desire to control one's neighbor's every action is not considered healthy in the general population. Sometimes a personality cult formed around a total whack job can sort of take over a nation in a fit of mass hysteria and convince it that nobody has any rights that oppose the cult. Those whack jobs soon, however, start acting like....well....whack jobs, and going further and further overboard. On a large scale, check out Hitler. On a smaller one, Reverend Jim Jones.

Lots of similar personalities would like to clean up the "filth" of pornography, or tagging, tattoos, homosexuality, alcohol, whatever their particular hangup is. New York Mayor believes he can improve the world by reducing the size of soda pop available ( by the way, THAT's full of co2, so I hope you are planning on banning it, and have a plan for dealing with my wife without killing her in the street).

We already have reasonable PLUS laws dealing with pollution, and many beyond the point of reasonable, by a fair margin, so claims that we want to dismantle all limits are childish. What we a DO want are limits on what unelected EPA administrators can do on a whim. They will not limit themselves, because many of them believe in the world you would love to see, and like you, have no sense, whatever, of the possible or even the practical. Free men, working freely for their own benefit, will always improve their output, but slaves understand that it all pays the same.

As I said, though, if you feel obligated to try and institute a brave new world with most of the inhabitants in chains, you'll not be the first or the last, and my take is that you will be ineffective enough not to be much of a worry to sane men, so have at it.....Joe


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Forerunner said:


> .....and just how do you plan to get the fat, lazy, apathetic American consumer to go along with your monumental plan to increase the price and decrease the availability of everything by tenfold ?


You are one of the fat, lazy, apathetic, so get off your bottom and do something. If you are not working on the solution then you are part of the problem.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

joebill said:


> It's fine with me if you want to batter yourself bloody in one more attempt at creating a "worker's paradise" where none of the base behaviors of man play a part, everyone is happy living like a cave man and serving the "collective" rather than one's self.
> 
> You have every right to espouse such a program, and probably a certain number of supporters, although most of them are willfully so ignorant of history and man's nature and aspirations that you will remain a bitter little cult as long as you survive.
> 
> ...


Read the first post. I have no intention of trying to change the world. I was simply asking for your input, and now I have it. Thanks for a good laugh.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

I_don't_know said:


> You are one of the fat, lazy, apathetic, so get off your bottom and do something. If you are not working on the solution then you are part of the problem.


You may be stretching beyond imagination, and into the realm of absurdity, here.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

coolrunnin said:


> The Handfors site is probably the best example of why government shouldn't be involved in environmental protection it is after all an government facility!


What would the private sector, do with 53 million gallons of highly radioactive waste?


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Laugh away! I'll still be producing my products as long as I live and making a reasonable living while you are busy plotting against reality the rest of your life. In the end, I will have served a purpose (already have) and you will have been a minor irritant to civilization. Welcome to the life of a chigger.....Joe


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

I_don't_know said:


> You are one of the fat, lazy, apathetic, so get off your bottom and do something. If you are not working on the solution then you are part of the problem.


What solution are you talking about the one in your mind or in real life? In real life your solution is called junk science. If you way were to happen it will be hard for anybody to do anything with out a big fine. Even selling lemonade causes pollution and by your own words a big fine will cure that. I am not for higher prices that go along with your solution. Any company will pass on the fines to their consumers.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

coolrunnin said:


> The Handfors site is probably the best example of why government shouldn't be involved in environmental protection it is after all an government facility!


The reason for the separation of church and state is because the church once controlled the world rulers, today here big business controls the gov. (No more government of the Business, by the Attorneys, for the Money.) 

The purpose of the Kiss law (If you cannot make it without polluting, you cannot sell it in the USA) will make business responsible to the too the tune of twice the cost of clean-up plus court cost. The purpose of the EPA is to find the ones causing the pollution and make them pay.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

joebill said:


> Laugh away! I'll still be producing my products as long as I live and making a reasonable living while you are busy plotting against reality the rest of your life. In the end, I will have served a purpose (already have) and you will have been a minor irritant to civilization. Welcome to the life of a chigger.....Joe


Live all your life in the same home and store the trash in each room until it is full, you can always add new rooms, right. But will your children be grateful when you leave them the house in your will? I think not! 

Do we have the right to keep on creating pollution just because we want (not need want) this that or the other thing? How self-centered can we be?


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Old Vet said:


> What solution are you talking about the one in your mind or in real life? In real life your solution is called junk science. If you way were to happen it will be hard for anybody to do anything with out a big fine. Even selling lemonade causes pollution and by your own words a big fine will cure that. I am not for higher prices that go along with your solution. Any company will pass on the fines to their consumers.


China is now one of the biggest polluters, we are one of the biggest markets; we cannot go in and force them to change but we can take a major part of there market away. Which will make them stop and think. I presented the idea of the kiss law to get your input, so how do we stop the pollution of the earth?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I_don't_know said:


> China is now one of the biggest polluters, we are one of the biggest markets; we cannot go in and force them to change but we can take a major part of there market away. Which will make them stop and think. I presented the idea of the kiss law to get your input, so how do we stop the pollution of the earth?


China will clean things up.

To be fair and Real, industrially, China has advanced in 50 years, what took the U.S.150 years. They are suffering severe "growing pains" and the inability /unwillingness, to properly deal with pollution, is one if those pains.

Count on global pressure, including economic, to get china their own version of the EPA.

They too, can then enjoy cleaner air and water, while they constantly complain, about how much it costs and that their freedoms are being taken away.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2006/Jun/171410.htm


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

I_don't_know said:


> China is now one of the biggest polluters, we are one of the biggest markets; we cannot go in and force them to change but we can take a major part of there market away. Which will make them stop and think. I presented the idea of the kiss law to get your input, so how do we stop the pollution of the earth?


Yep just cut all trade and see what will happen.If you think it is bad now just try to cut traide. Where would you get light bulbs. Where would you find most manufacturing things today?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Old Vet said:


> Yep just cut all trade and see what will happen.If you think it is bad now just try to cut traide. Where would you get light bulbs. Where would you find most manufacturing things today?


If we were to cut all foreign trade we might be short on a few items for a short period of time.... Then our own country would get back to work producing them for ourselves..... who knows, maybe even the unemployment rates would drop a bit in this country.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I_don't_know said:


> Live all your life in the same home and store the trash in each room until it is full, you can always add new rooms, right. But will your children be grateful when you leave them the house in your will? I think not!
> 
> Do we have the right to keep on creating pollution just because we want (not need want) this that or the other thing? How self-centered can we be?


Lets put this shoe on a different foot.... Can you name a single manufactured product, needed or wanted by our citizenry that does NOT create pollution? We can start by eliminating milk, meat, fruits, and vegetables from our diet. They all are going to create some form of pollution or environmental damage by their production. Now thats one of the lesser damaging areas of our life. How do you intend to provide housing, clothing and transportation without disrupting the natural environment one way or another?


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If we were to cut all foreign trade we might be short on a few items for a short period of time.... Then our own country would get back to work producing them for ourselves..... who knows, maybe even the unemployment rates would drop a bit in this country.


If we get rid of the EPA and OSHA. I worked in a lamp factory making Light Bulbs. It was closed by OSHA to much noise and the EPA because it used mercury and other hazardous materials. But it is a good idea but it will never happen.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> If we get rid of the EPA and OSHA.


Interesting that you would pick two agencies signed into law by Richard Nixon -- a republican. Republicans have really lost their way.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Old Vet said:


> Yep just cut all trade and see what will happen.If you think it is bad now just try to cut traide. Where would you get light bulbs. Where would you find most manufacturing things today?


Are you truly that self centered that you could not give up light bulbs until some entrepreneur in this country found a way to make them with out polluting? Five years is a long time when money is the motivator, and the first one with a solution is the winner. You would probably have your new light bulbs before the five year limit ran out!

Entrepreneurs get ahead because they look for opportunities, they are smart enough to figure out how to solve the problem, and they are bold enough to take the risk. Why not let the entrepreneurs of this country do what comes naturally and take the rest of the country up the latter of success with them.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Lets put this shoe on a different foot.... Can you name a single manufactured product, needed or wanted by our citizenry that does NOT create pollution? We can start by eliminating milk, meat, fruits, and vegetables from our diet. They all are going to create some form of pollution or environmental damage by their production. Now thats one of the lesser damaging areas of our life. How do you intend to provide housing, clothing and transportation without disrupting the natural environment one way or another?


You mention your grandpa at the bottom page; I would be willing to bet people were growing food without the over-use of bug sprays and such long before your grandpa was even a gleam in someones eye. 

Plants themselves use natural chemicals to repel bugs, so can we, and we will have a heather world do boot.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I_don't_know said:


> You mention your grandpa at the bottom page; I would be willing to bet people were growing food without the over-use of bug sprays and such long before your grandpa was even a gleam in someones eye.
> 
> Plants themselves use natural chemicals to repel bugs, so can we, and we will have a heather world do boot.


I am sure the first hunter gatherers would have given their eye teeth to get their hands on some arsenic in order to provide themselves with a better harvest. I know my grandpa made good use of whatever pesticides and herbicides he could find during his years of farming. So did his dad. Herbicides and pesticides have long been used by farmers to insure better harvests. A quick google search will reveal their usage by farmers at least dating back to the early roman empire.

I personally grew up with the phrase: "dont eat the white cabbage" because of the arsenic that was liberally applied so we would have cabbage instead of the worms getting all of it.

I also note that you didnt bother to address my initial comment/question.... What product on the market today can you name (needed or wanted) that is free of blame in the pollution, environmental equation?


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

I_don't_know said:


> Are you truly that self centered that you could not give up light bulbs until some entrepreneur in this country found a way to make them with out polluting? Five years is a long time when money is the motivator, and the first one with a solution is the winner. You would probably have your new light bulbs before the five year limit ran out!
> 
> Entrepreneurs get ahead because they look for opportunities, they are smart enough to figure out how to solve the problem, and they are bold enough to take the risk. Why not let the entrepreneurs of this country do what comes naturally and take the rest of the country up the latter of success with them.


I guess we could go back to kerosine lamps for a while but they pollute more than light bulbs or maybe candles but they pollute more than light bulbs or maybe we should go to bed at dark and forget everything else. It is not self centered just real life. But of course big fines will resole the problem but I do not like the rise in everything we use to pay those fines. But of course China will always supply those products to us with no fines.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Interesting that you would pick two agencies signed into law by Richard Nixon -- a republican. Republicans have really lost their way.


And corrupted them by democrats over the years.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

coolrunnin said:


> The Handfors site is probably the best example of why government shouldn't be involved in environmental protection it is after all an government facility!


Handfors is a prime example of why we should not allow the sale of anything that leaves pollution in its wake. 
âIf you cannot make it without polluting, no matter where in the world you make it; you cannot sell it in this country.â


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Old Vet said:


> I guess we could go back to kerosine lamps for a while but they pollute more than light bulbs or maybe candles but they pollute more than light bulbs or maybe we should go to bed at dark and forget everything else. It is not self centered just real life. But of course big fines will resole the problem but I do not like the rise in everything we use to pay those fines. But of course China will always supply those products to us with no fines.


 Entrepreneurs get ahead because they look for opportunities, they are smart enough to figure out how to solve the problem, and they are bold enough to take the risk. Why not let the entrepreneurs of this country do what comes naturally and take the rest of the country up the latter of success with them? 

[FONT=&quot]Please read: *âIf you cannot make it without polluting, no matter where in the world you make it; you cannot sell it in this country.â *[/FONT]
China's manufactures will loose the USA market. The loss of income will hurt just as much as a fine.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

I_don't_know said:


> Entrepreneurs get ahead because they look for opportunities, they are smart enough to figure out how to solve the problem, and they are bold enough to take the risk. Why not let the entrepreneurs of this country do what comes naturally and take the rest of the country up the latter of success with them?
> 
> [FONT=&quot]Please read: *âIf you cannot make it without polluting, no matter where in the world you make it; you cannot sell it in this country.â *[/FONT]
> China's manufactures will loose the USA market. The loss of income will hurt just as much as a fine.


Ok just get rid of all the polluters in the world and you will have your dream.What you are porposing can work if you do this but it will not be pretty.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Old Vet said:


> And corrupted them by democrats over the years.


Lol

No one takes responsibility for anything any more.



A number of scandals occurred at the Environmental Protection Agency during the Reagan Administration. Over twenty high-level EPA employees were removed from office during Reagan's first three years as president.[20] Additionally, several Agency officials resigned amidst a variety of charges, ranging from being unduly influenced by industry groups to rewarding or punishing employees based on their political beliefs.[21]Sewergate, the most prominent EPA scandal during this period, involved the targeted release of Superfund grants to enhance the election prospects of local officials aligned with the Republican Party.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Interesting that you would pick two agencies signed into law by Richard Nixon -- a republican. Republicans have really lost their way.


It was way past time, for the creation of the EPA, probably one of the best positive things Nixon did.

It just boggles my mind, that clean air and clean water, needs to be a partisan issue.

We are ignorant, IMO if we think we'd be much better off today, without 40 years, of the EPA.

We 'd probably all be dead, anyway.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Old Vet said:


> Ok just get rid of all the polluters in the world and you will have your dream.What you are porposing can work if you do this but it will not be pretty.


No one ever said it would be pretty; the question is is it worth it. Would you be willing to go through a major economic upheaval? 

Do you think the openings in the market place that would be caused by items no longer allowed to be sold in this country would encourage the development of new ideas?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I_don't_know said:


> No one ever said it would be pretty; the question is is it worth it. Would you be willing to go through a major economic upheaval?
> 
> Do you think the openings in the market place that would be caused by items no longer allowed to be sold in this country would encourage the development of new ideas?


It won't work like that.

You can't put pollution controls in place, without being able to pay for them. The EPA wants clean air and water, not to "put people out of business" and for the most part, they don't.

"Zero pollution" should be everybody's goal, but mandating it all at once, will make economic situations - globally, fail, which benefits no one.

Besides, our manufacturing is much cleaner than china, but not even near 100% pollution-free.


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

The absurdity of you clinging to your original premiss of nothing being able to be sold unless it is produced without pollution shows tunnel vision. Almost Everything produced today results in what you deem to be pollution. All manufacturing is based on energy and raw materials neither of which can be produced without pollution. What you are asking is to virtually go back to hunter gatherer stone age lifestyle. I imagine you would be quite happy to decide which 3% of the worlds population survives.


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

I would like for you to explain to me how you propose to manufacture anything without some pollution? "Are you ready to undergo major economic unheaval". You are totally naive if you think that is all it would be.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

I_don't_know said:


> No one ever said it would be pretty; the question is is it worth it. Would you be willing to go through a major economic upheaval?
> 
> Do you think the openings in the market place that would be caused by items no longer allowed to be sold in this country would encourage the development of new ideas?


And in the meantime lots of people will die. Maybe even you is it worth that? New ideas are great but they don't come out everyday. How long can you survive with out going to the store? And that is the idea of it you will have nothing to sell so all store will close down until you can produce anything with out adding to the pollution. That might take 10 years or a 200 years no body knows. Can you survive that long?


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Old Vet said:


> And in the meantime lots of people will die. Maybe even you is it worth that? New ideas are great but they don't come out everyday. How long can you survive with out going to the store? And that is the idea of it you will have nothing to sell so all store will close down until you can produce anything with out adding to the pollution. That might take 10 years or a 200 years no body knows. Can you survive that long?


If my dieing would stop the pollution of the world I would die gladly, but it wont, so lets not be silly. 

New ideas come out because the "need" is seen by a person that is willing to take the chance, and can find the people to back him. The promise that in five years all cell phones that are not made without polluting will not be sold in this country. I am sure someone out there will see the "need".


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I_don't_know said:


> If my dieing would stop the pollution of the world I would die gladly, but it wont, so lets not be silly.
> 
> New ideas come out because the "need" is seen by a person that is willing to take the chance, and can find the people to back him. The promise that in five years all cell phones that are not made without polluting will not be sold in this country. I am sure someone out there will see the "need".


Yep, they will see the "need" to buy off a few govt officials and get the guidelines changed to where they can meet them.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

I_don't_know said:


> If my dieing would stop the pollution of the world I would die gladly, but it wont, so lets not be silly.
> 
> New ideas come out because the "need" is seen by a person that is willing to take the chance, and can find the people to back him. The promise that in five years all cell phones that are not made without polluting will not be sold in this country. I am sure someone out there will see the "need".


Yep it may take 10 years or 100 years to find the answer but in the mean time are you going to survive? It is a good question not to be snuffed off. I doubt it when the stores closed for 10 years and you have food for a year that means that you must grow everything you need for the next 9 years just to survive. And do it with adding polution in the mix but you can't do that. Any thing causes pollution even growing things organically and forget about meat.All meat animals cause pollution just by living just like you do.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

MO_cows said:


> Yep, they will see the "need" to buy off a few govt officials and get the guidelines changed to where they can meet them.


Human corruption is not part of the law, and do you really think it is a valid reason to object?


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

I_don't_know said:


> Human corruption is not part of the law, and do you really think it is a valid reason to object?


Most of us are giving reasonable answers but you life in a world that is pure fantasy. If you were king or queen then maybe of you controil everything you may get to where you want to be but it is not a cinch. You would have to control everything no matter what and you will lose all the freedoms that you have today. Big brother is not the answer it is convincing everyday people. You say that great idea are their to porduce everything with out pollutions. How much does it cost and are you willing to pay the price. Lets see If you get rid of all the power plants and run things off of natural gas and get rid of all the cars you may make a difference in 10 years but in the process you will have to get rid of all the pollution finding natural gas and the by products. Just fining them more is not the answer all a company needs to do is file bankruptcy and cease to do business. This happens today.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Old Vet said:


> Most of us are giving reasonable answers but you life in a world that is pure fantasy. If you were king or queen then maybe of you controil everything you may get to where you want to be but it is not a cinch. You would have to control everything no matter what and you will lose all the freedoms that you have today. Big brother is not the answer it is convincing everyday people. You say that great idea are their to porduce everything with out pollutions. How much does it cost and are you willing to pay the price. Lets see If you get rid of all the power plants and run things off of natural gas and get rid of all the cars you may make a difference in 10 years but in the process you will have to get rid of all the pollution finding natural gas and the by products. Just fining them more is not the answer all a company needs to do is file bankruptcy and cease to do business. This happens today.


The law would read, *[FONT=&quot]âIf you cannot make it without polluting, no matter where in the world you make it; you cannot sell it in this country.â [/FONT]*

There is NO mention of my being queen. So stick to the question please. We the people are the ones in control. Or at least we should be.

The businesses will be the ones "paying" the decision to buy or not buy is yours. Part of the question was what would you be willing to give up? 

There is no mention of the closing of power plants, just cleaning them up. Industry has already started the clean -up this law would just help to speed things up. 

Cars, Anything in the process of manufacturing a new car that would cause pollution will be need to be cleaned up, but the cars on the road would be "grandfathered in". That would allow for a transition. 

The process for making the gas the cars use would need to be done with out polluting. Or perhaps companies will be formed that will transform your car to use some other fuel. 

I do not believe filing for bankruptcy can be used as a shield when violating the law. All executives will be held responsible.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I_don't_know said:


> The law would read, *[FONT=&quot]&#8220;If you cannot make it without polluting, no matter where in the world you make it; you cannot sell it in this country.&#8221; [/FONT]*
> 
> There is NO mention of my being queen. So stick to the question please. We the people are the ones in control. Or at least we should be.
> 
> ...


Ok, once again I keep seeing this "without polluting" business. I will vote for your kiss law when you tell me exactly what you ate yesterday, and how a single bite of it managed to get on your table without some level of "pollution" being involved.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

I_don't_know said:


> The law would read, *[FONT=&quot]âIf you cannot make it without polluting, no matter where in the world you make it; you cannot sell it in this country.â [/FONT]*
> 
> There is NO mention of my being queen. So stick to the question please. We the people are the ones in control. Or at least we should be.
> 
> ...


ound:ound:ound:ound:


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, once again I keep seeing this "without polluting" business. I will vote for your kiss law when you tell me exactly what you ate yesterday, and how a single bite of it managed to get on your table without some level of "pollution" being involved.


I had a tomato and lettuce salad. I made it from my garden and it was big enough to last me the day, three meals. Happy? See you at the poles.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

The electric car is already on the road; a more efficient internal combustion motor and a scrubber for the exhaust is well with in the five year limit. We can do it; we just need to find the pitchfork.[/QUOTE said:


> The electric car is a novelty item, it will go no futher than a local transportation mode due to its limited range.
> 
> Alchohol will eventually be driven into the annals of history as it will drive the cost of food so high no one will be able to afford its use. You either stop selling to alchohol plants or starve.
> 
> the exhaust scrubbers. Thats already been done. Its called a catalytic converter. That is its sole purpose to burn the toxic gases. IF you want better emissions, then people need to tune their vehicles on a regular basis. But folks don't do this, they are content to wait til something breaks or the computer tells them something is wrong.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

I_don't_know said:


> Go back and read the idea I said
> âIf you cannot make it without polluting, no matter where in the world you make it; you cannot *sell* it in this country.â


Lets see..... prohibition outlawed the sale of alchohol.... how did that work out??? LOL Go for it, cause all you'll do is create on heck of a underground blackmarket economy.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

I_don't_know said:


> Again please go back and read: *âDo I want to live in a world where the air is full of things carbon dioxide, methane and God alone knows what else, or even more important do I want to leave that kind of world to my children and grandchildren?â* If you think your plants are more important than your family, may God have mercy on you.


IF you don't have CO2, you don't have plants and then you do not have oxygen. Simple isn't it....


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I_don't_know said:


> I had a tomato and lettuce salad. I made it from my garden and it was big enough to last me the day, three meals. Happy? See you at the poles.


And for whatever reason you seem to think that there were no pollutants involved with your starvation diet? What did you do to prepare the soil for your garden this spring? Did you use any metal tools to turn the soil? Did you save seed from last years garden... or did you buy them from some company? Were they transported on our hiways at any point? Did you wash your veggies prior to eating them? If so did you wash them at the creek? or maybe you had water piped into your house. Most folks these days do that. Did you have any scraps left over? how were they disposed of? What about the knife you sliced the tomato with? Where did it come from? was it made of steel, or did you use a nice sharp rock? Oh, and its polls. I have a feeling there was plenty of "polluting" going on by the time you finished your "environmentally pure" feast yesterday, so I am in no rush to get to the polls.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

bruce2288 said:


> I would like for you to explain to me how you propose to manufacture anything without some pollution? "Are you ready to undergo major economic unheaval". You are totally naive if you think that is all it would be.


Inventors and businessmen working together will find the way when they see the money to be made. 

Do you truly think we should we dump the problem on the laps of our children?


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

I don't know. You are asking for a sci-fi solution, where a replicator creates something out of nothing, Do you have an understanding of physics.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

bruce2288 said:


> I don't know. You are asking for a sci-fi solution, where a replicator creates something out of nothing, Do you have an understanding of physics.


She forgets that everything is made by electricity. In her world if it is not thier when you get through with it it is not their. Everything you do cause pollution. It may be the electric grid only causes pollution at the power paints but every time you use it it causes more. I guess if they could come up with a way to get electricity from nothing it may work but until then the inventors will have to be working top speed to find what it is. Once that happens then it is all down hill.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I_don't_know said:


> Do you truly think we should we dump the problem on the laps of our children?


I think you have actually hit on the solution to the environmental problem.... that being children.... The only realistic method of controlling the amount of pollution on this planet is to control the number of children. People pollute. Fewer people = less pollution.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bruce2288 said:


> I don't know. You are asking for a sci-fi solution, where a replicator creates something out of nothing, Do you have an understanding of physics.


In my understanding of physics nothing is ever created nor destroyed.... they are simply changed. Sometimes energy is converted to mass, other times mass is converted to energy but overall, everything that was here in the beginning is still here. What many call pollution is merely the effect of changing various matter into other forms of matter. ALL of which is perfectly natural. A simple veggie salad, once consumed by a human body undergoes a number of changes.... thus causing some level of "pollution". I have come to believe that the only true constant is the fact that everything is always changing. I have learned over the years that most environmentalists do not seem to understand these very basic laws of physics.


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

This preface of this thread is extreme oversimplification of a complex topic in order to generate controversial discussion. The OP first needs to define the terms being used in this oversimple statement: *&#8220;If you cannot make it without polluting, no matter where in the world you make it; you cannot sell it in this country.&#8221; *

It sounds really nice if you are 5 and dreaming of puppies and rainbows. Let's be adults for a moment. We need to define the following terms simply to begin the debate:
"make"
"polluting"
"sell"
"country"

Let's look at these one by one:
"make" = to manufacture, easy right? So coal must be OK? Nobody makes coal! It is dug out of the earth and burned. No problem there. How about cow and pig manure? We don't make those, so they must not be pollutants?

"polluting" = nasty chemicals like the carbon dioxide mentioned in the OP, except that carbon dioxide is a natural component in air. In fact the natural composition of air is: This is composition of air in percent by volume, at sea level at 15Â°C and 101325 Pa.
Nitrogen -- N2 -- 78.084%
Oxygen -- O2 -- 20.9476%
Argon -- Ar -- 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide -- CO2 -- 0.0314%
Neon -- Ne -- 0.001818%
Methane -- CH4 -- 0.0002%
Air is nasty stuff. After spending 20 years in environmental compliance I can attest to how clean the earth is getting. Many of our water pollution laws now have limits below the natural background levels. We used to use river water for cooling, and under our NPDES permit the water we released was cleaner than the natural river water we used.

"sell" = exchange for compensation. No problem with that definition, but what about a government defense facility that isn't selling anything? What about an intermediate that consumed within the company? I know your answer, we use life cycle analysis to determine ALL of the inputs and outputs of any given product being sold in this country! All innovation just came to a screeching halt. No new product will ever be developed.

Finally, we come to the crux of my argument: "this country". Unfortunately, pollutants don't obey man made boundaries. So you just drove ALL manufacturing overseas (not that we haven't already done a great job of that) and the pollutants will still find their way here in the air or water. Oh, you say, but they can't sell it here if it caused pollution "over there". Yeah, I guess we can trust them to tell us the truth about their manufacturing processes. No way they would lie on a government form just to win a multi-million dollar contract. The flip side of your KISS rule is even more interesting. I can continue to make it here, and pollute the environment as long as I don't sell it here. So my cheap dirty product must be exported because I can't sell it in "this country". Too bad, so sad.

Look, I'm not trying to rain on your tree hugging parade. It's a beautiful concept, but the EPA has had the same agenda since 1970. That's 43 years of writing ever stricter rules, with ever higher costs of compliance, and ever lower returns on investment. Trust me, the EPA shares your dream. They too have no concept of a cost/benefit analysis. It's all or nothing and ---- the torpedoes. Has anyone ever noticed that there is no end point to the EPA's function. When is the environment "clean enough"? I can tell you this, when WE decide enough is enough, there will be thousands of bureaucrats looking for work. The US no longer has a pollution problem (partly because most manufacturing has been forced out of the country. I'm not naive enough to believe we can make the products we use without pollution), but the rest of the world has picked up our slack. They now want what we have and they will get it just the way we did. Displace the natives, steal the land, burn the forests, build the factories, and make the money. Our laws won't mean a thing to them.

Puppies and rainbows are so nice.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Home Harvest said:


> This preface of this thread is extreme oversimplification of a complex topic in order to generate controversial discussion. The OP first needs to define the terms being used in this oversimple statement: *âIf you cannot make it without polluting, no matter where in the world you make it; you cannot sell it in this country.â *
> 
> It sounds really nice if you are 5 and dreaming of puppies and rainbows. Let's be adults for a moment. We need to define the following terms simply to begin the debate:
> "make"
> ...


Puppies and rainbows are not the reason I made the post. The intelligent ideas and [FONT=&quot]discussion[/FONT] are a delight and a great distraction during some difficult times. So thank you for all your input. But here is a heads up: I am planing another post soon. So be prepared!


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

I_don't_know said:


> Puppies and rainbows are not the reason I made the post. The intelligent ideas and [FONT=&quot]discussion[/FONT] are a delight and a great distraction during some difficult times. So thank you for all your input. But here is a heads up: I am planing another post soon. So be prepared!


What are you dong to get rid if pollutants? Are going to have your electricity cut off and get rid of air condition and ruining water and electric lights or are you gong to do what other people do just complain because I don't do it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I_don't_know said:


> Puppies and rainbows are not the reason I made the post.


What have you got against puppies and rainbows, I think they are both pretty cool. Ok, so rainbows get a bad rap because they are often associated with nasty stuff like rain that erodes our mountains and washes them out to sea.... but puppies are just simply cute and cuddly.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

It is amusing if not hilarious how the environmental Luddites decry the degradation of the environment while cooling/heating their environments with that evil electricity, transporting themselves in doomsday internal combustion machines, spreading their particular madness using every environmentally destructive method at their disposal. Yeah hilarious, ironic or perhaps more to the point hypocritical.


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

Just goes to show that extreme ideas often lead to extreme results. Everything is good in moderation. Another way to say this (as taught by my old toxicology professor) "the dose makes the poison". 

Many things which are essential to life are poisons at high doses. Many poisons are natural elements.

The simple idea that we can eliminate all pollution is just as dangerous as the simple idea that all regulation should be eliminated and that our pollution can't hurt the earth. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and finding that balance is what this debate should be about.

I can't wait for the next chapter.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Old Vet said:


> What are you dong to get rid if pollutants? Are going to have your electricity cut off and get rid of air condition and ruining water and electric lights or are you gong to do what other people do just complain because I don't do it.


I will soon be living out of my truck; I am going to loose the house. Solar on the roof, one light light bulb, and one burner, wash up in gas station bath rooms. And try to start debates. We can do what ever we decide to do. As long as we are afraid to to take a chance, afraid of what may change, afraid to do anything at all our children are doomed to pay outrageous taxes to pay off our national debt, and breath the toxic air we leave for them.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

bjba said:


> It is amusing if not hilarious how the environmental Luddites decry the degradation of the environment while cooling/heating their environments with that evil electricity, transporting themselves in doomsday internal combustion machines, spreading their particular madness using every environmentally destructive method at their disposal. Yeah hilarious, ironic or perhaps more to the point hypocritical.


There are those of us that do not use AC even though we live in S. FL. and until we make a law that will force the changes we want we will need a car for transport. 

The question is what will you be willing to do with out until business can find a way to make it with out polluting?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I_don't_know said:


> I will soon be living out of my truck; I am going to loose the house. Solar on the roof, one light light bulb, and one burner, wash up in gas station bath rooms.


This is a terrible recession. I swear, I'll never forgive Bush for letting it happen.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

I_don't_know said:


> There are those of us that do not use AC even though we live in S. FL. and until we make a law that will force the changes we want we will need a car for transport.
> 
> The question is what will you be willing to do with out until business can find a way to make it with out polluting?


Yep complaining about what I do.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Home Harvest said:


> This preface of this thread is extreme oversimplification of a complex topic in order to generate controversial discussion. The OP first needs to define the terms being used in this oversimple statement: *âIf you cannot make it without polluting, no matter where in the world you make it; you cannot sell it in this country.â *
> 
> It sounds really nice if you are 5 and dreaming of puppies and rainbows. Let's be adults for a moment. We need to define the following terms simply to begin the debate:
> "make"
> ...


 1. Coal is not made true but it is used to make other things and if it cannot be used without polluting then you do not sell it in the USA. 



2. We already know how to recycle manure, though I cannot say the same for some of the âBSâ that gets dumped here LOL.


3. As for all the nasty chemicals you mentioned, yes they are all natural but are the ratios? Too much of anything is not good. 


4. The air may be cleaner but why spot there? They have found anti-depressants in the fish. http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/antidepressants_fish.html 


5. By the way can you define cleaner?


6. As for an intermediate, it is part of the manufacturing process, if it pollutes you cannot sell the final product here.


7. I said nothing of the life cycle analysis, only the manufacture of the item. Letâs take it one step at a time.


8. Innovation will bloom, as soon as business understands they cannot do it the old way, they will find a new way. New ways to recycle and manufacture almost everything.


9. No matter where they make it, if the manufacture of it causes pollution (by US standards because it is a US law) they will not have the USA as a market. If they have no market why would they make it? Even a businessman in China will try to find a way into an open market. Our advantage is we have already started to clean up, China is way behind, and if we have any doubts the door stays shut. 


10. The EPA attacked the problem from the wrong end. If you try to force a change people will fight it; Prohibition showed us that. Business will make the change with money as the motivator. 


11. âDisplace the natives, steal the land, burn the forests, build the factories, and make the money.â
Why bother if the market is less than half of what it was? They wonât sell it here!

Take a look at this picture do you really want to leave this to your kids? 
http://apnews.myway.com/image/20130...0610064513.html?date=20130614&docid=DA6TLLRG1

[FONT=&quot]Yes it is China, but will it continue if half the market is closed to them?[/FONT]


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

I_don't_know said:


> 1. Coal is not made true but it is used to make other things and if it cannot be used without polluting then you do not sell it in the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sounds like Obama at a fundraiser party.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> This is a terrible recession. I swear, I'll never forgive Bush for letting it happen.


Has nothing to do with the depression. The bank was set up with a direct payment plan. One year later they asked for an odd amount $99.05 more than mortgage payment. They never took another payment, in spite of the fact the money was in the bank. :huh:
A year later the bank went under, and was absorbed by another bank. Still no comment about payment. The house is my daughters so 4 years later when I became aware of the lack of payments I tried to tell the new bank. (I had been living on a boat.:bouncy: ) They told me No we were all paid up. They even gave me the account number of the account they were taking money from. It was not ours!! :flame:
It is now 5 years since a payment was made. We went through 2 more years of letters claiming the bank needed time to do more research. Then the day before Christmas, almost 7 yrs since the last payment, we got foreclosure papers from yet another bank. :hair
2 months ago we were informed we are again dealing with the previous bank. We are once again getting letters claiming they need more time to research the problem. 

gre:If the management of the banking industry would remove the uppermost extremity of their body from their rectal orifice we would all be better off. gre:


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

I_don't_know said:


> Has nothing to do with the depression. The bank was set up with a direct payment plan. One year later they asked for an odd amount $99.05 more than mortgage payment. They never took another payment, in spite of the fact the money was in the bank. :huh:
> A year later the bank went under, and was absorbed by another bank. Still no comment about payment. The house is my daughters so 4 years later when I became aware of the lack of payments I tried to tell the new bank. (I had been living on a boat.:bouncy: ) They told me No we were all paid up. They even gave me the account number of the account they were taking money from. It was not ours!! :flame:
> It is now 5 years since a payment was made. We went through 2 more years of letters claiming the bank needed time to do more research. Then the day before Christmas, almost 7 yrs since the last payment, we got foreclosure papers from yet another bank. :hair
> 2 months ago we were informed we are again dealing with the previous bank. We are once again getting letters claiming they need more time to research the problem.
> ...


Did you send any payments when they failed to take out the mortgage payments? If not, haven't you saved up the missing payments? I'm not clear on why you didn't make payments knowing that none were automatically made from the bank account. If the bank refused your payments via check, then it would have been an easy fix at that time. 

Regardless, all you have to do now is bring the mortgage current. They can't foreclose without serving you with the lawsuit and, in that lawsuit, will be the amount that is due and owing and lists all the missing payments.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

I_don't_know said:


> Has nothing to do with the depression. The bank was set up with a direct payment plan. One year later they asked for an odd amount $99.05 more than mortgage payment. They never took another payment, in spite of the fact the money was in the bank. :huh:
> A year later the bank went under, and was absorbed by another bank. Still no comment about payment. The house is my daughters so 4 years later when I became aware of the lack of payments I tried to tell the new bank. (I had been living on a boat.:bouncy: ) They told me No we were all paid up. They even gave me the account number of the account they were taking money from. It was not ours!! :flame:
> It is now 5 years since a payment was made. We went through 2 more years of letters claiming the bank needed time to do more research. Then the day before Christmas, almost 7 yrs since the last payment, we got foreclosure papers from yet another bank. :hair
> 2 months ago we were informed we are again dealing with the previous bank. We are once again getting letters claiming they need more time to research the problem.
> ...


What you describe is a lawsuit waiting to happen. This is so egregious you would have a free house, spending money, and your attorney would be laughing all the way to his/her bank.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

bjba said:


> What you describe is a lawsuit waiting to happen. This is so egregious you would have a free house, spending money, and your attorney would be laughing all the way to his/her bank.


I wish!! The attorneys are buried in cases and they claim the case is not worth taking. So I fight my own war. :kung:


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Something is not right then. Attorneys would love this case and it would be an hourly rate (this type of case would never be a percentage -- which by the way would end up being paid for by the mortgage holder; so them getting their money is a sure thing). This is what law firms call a 'slam dunk', so there would be no reason any attorney wouldn't jump on it. It's really an extremely easy case if all is as you said and takes one Motion to the court to end it. 

If you answer my questions in the previous post, I might be able to help to let you know what you might be able to do. You really do have many options available.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Check out some of TNHermit's problems with various lenders and his mortgage. It's taken him about 3 years with records in hand to show his lawyer what the problem is and about that long before the lawyer got it.

He's been truely messed with.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

At last, we get to the bottom of it.

You lost your house, piddled away the payments instead of setting them back, then had no way of bailing yourself out when the chickens came home to roost. Soon to be dwelling in a pickup and laying your waste on the property of others, so now the rest of the country is supposed to do the same.

Thanks for clearing that up. Excuse me for living in a house, driving a truck wherever I want, making a product and selling it for enough money to live on, instead of being a vagrant. Also, please excuse me for not feeling a twinge of guilt about it....Joe


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Karen said:


> Something is not right then. Attorneys would love this case and it would be an hourly rate (this type of case would never be a percentage -- which by the way would end up being paid for by the mortgage holder; so them getting their money is a sure thing). This is what law firms call a 'slam dunk', so there would be no reason any attorney wouldn't jump on it. It's really an extremely easy case if all is as you said and takes one Motion to the court to end it.
> 
> If you answer my questions in the previous post, I might be able to help to let you know what you might be able to do. You really do have many options available.


If you know of someone let me know!!!


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

joebill said:


> At last, we get to the bottom of it.
> 
> You lost your house, piddled away the payments instead of setting them back, then had no way of bailing yourself out when the chickens came home to roost. Soon to be dwelling in a pickup and laying your waste on the property of others, so now the rest of the country is supposed to do the same.
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up. Excuse me for living in a house, driving a truck wherever I want, making a product and selling it for enough money to live on, instead of being a vagrant. Also, please excuse me for not feeling a twinge of guilt about it....Joe


the house belongs to my Autistic daughter and she screwed up the payments. When I found out I tried set things right I got 2 years of excuses from a bank that had NO idea what was going on and still has its head up its...... I am still getting letters claiming "they need more time to do research" 2010 to 2013 and they still cannot figure out what they are doing.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

You said it was in foreclosure and you'd be homeless. It can't be in foreclosure if they don't know how much is owed or what the balance of the mortgage is. A lender just doesn't foreclose. There are federal and state laws governing foreclosure and series of events and documentation has to take place before the foreclosure. Here's how a foreclosure works (when I say "you" meaning your daughter if she is the only mortgage holder):
1. The lender *first* has to first send you a demand letter that lists the balance of the mortgage, a total number and amount of mortgage payments outstanding, and a date of when you have to bring all the arrearages current. You are given at least 30 days for this step. Since they don't know what's owed, this cannot of taken place yet.

2. If you fail to bring the arrears current and are unable to make an agreement for repayment by the due date of the demand letter, then the bank can file a foreclosure suit. This is usually occur about 30 days after the demand letter expires.

3. You are served with the lawsuit. You then are given at least 30 days to respond. This is when you need an attorney (if you plan to try to keep the house) because that suit has to be responded to in a legal manner that the ordinary person wouldn't know how or in what manner to legal respond.

4. You then will have a court date for a hearing for the foreclosure. That won't happen for at least 30 days after the Answer to the lawsuit is due. It could even be much longer than that, depending on how busy the court is and when it can be put on the docket when a judge is available.

5. At the hearing, a sale date will be set for the property. This is when the property will be sold on the courthouse steps or resorts back to the bank (depending on the mortgage due vs. it's value as the mortgage holder has a credit toward that sale equal to what is owed, plus attorney fees, court costs, etc.). You will then have to vacate the property by the sale date. Again about 30 days after the foreclosure.​So from the time of the demand letter, you have a bare minimum of 3 months (and more likely as much as 6 months or more) before you even have to vacate the property. So you're not on the immediate verge of being homeless. 

At this point you have 5 options. Don't just do nothing, rather decide on an option and work through it. Here are your options:
A. Sell the property and even contact the lender to see if they would consider a short sale under the circumstances. You might even make a couple of dollars off it and if not, you'd be out from under it and your credit would stay in tact.

B. You can be working to gather up the arrears and when the demand letter does come, pay off those arrears and keep the property and just go back to the normal payments. 

C. You can file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy which will enable you to keep the property and pay the arrears over a period of time; however, you would also need to make the current payments timely (this would also force the mortgage holder into an *immediate* accounting of the mortgage because the court would demand it. Or you could file a Chapter 7 and not keep the house but also not have any other judgments against you from the house.

D. If you don't want to keep the house and can't bring the payments current, contact the lender to see if they would do a Deed In Lieu of Forecloser. This would prevent you from having a Deficiency Judgment against you. In other words, it's an agreement between you and the lender where you sign over your interest in the property and they agree to take back the property and you owe no other costs or fees and agree on a date to vacate the property and to leave it in reasonable condition.

E. If you have no intentions of bring the mortgage current or either don't want or can't do a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure, you can just let the whole thing run it's course right through the sale of the property and live rent/mortgage free for the next 3-6 months (could even be a year or longer). Not necessarily the most honest thing to do, but if your desperate, let your conscience be your guide as far as what you feel you need to do.​Just remember that you will be incurring late fees, attorney fees, court costs, etc. the longer you remain in arrears. Depending on which state the property is in and also it's condition, you may end up with a Deficiency Judgment which means that whatever the difference is between what the property sells for and what you owe on the mortgage (plus late fees, court costs, atty. fees, etc.), you will still owe and a Judgment will be entered against you for that amount. For instance if you owe $50,000 and at the sale the house ends up only selling for $20,000, then you would owe $30,000 and have no property and a Judgment against you. Under a Judgment, they can garnish wages, seize bank accounts, your car, and any other property you have to settle some or all of the Judgment.

Remember, don't take my word for it. Only an attorney can advise you what to do and what is in your best interest. This is just an overview of some of what may be available to help you and how things generally progress through a foreclosure.


----------

