Phasing out coal is the most significant environmental change the US can make

Yes - "dirt" is pollution.

It is probably one of the main sources of pollution that fines are issued for in Australia. Ask any site manager of a construction site about it.

As a general rule of thumb, an activity causing an increase in turbidity of a waterway of over 10% above background levels would probably be enough to earn a penalty under most Australian environmental legislation.

And CO2 is a pollutant.

Do you understand now? Or do you need more explanation

 

Frankly, do you not see the stupidity of this so called great point? What does it matter the definition of CO2? Denier? Pathetically people are trying to attribute a name and definition to something totally irrelevant to the subject and are pretending it to be a valid issue. No matter what side of the debate you stand on, this is simply showing how far the debate has actually degraded to.

AND you have stupidly attempted to attribute a debate of definitions to what people believe about the REAL issue of climate change.

Missed the point? No, obviously you consider it so important, you also try to attribute science to the definition.

 

LOL, let us rid the world of dirt, the next big issue.

Could you supply a link to your statement of law which allows a penalty to be imposed on increased turbidity of water ways? Could you also link possibly the ways in which the legislation is measured?

Do you not understand how stupid this point is? You have bit hook, line and sinker onto something that is totally irrelevant, and are now beginning to flounder. Or can you simply not let it go?

 

So you accept that CO2 is a pollutant.

Do you now understand why is is reasonable for industry to pay a cost for the pollution they create. Australia is about to have a tax on carbon implemented. Would you prefer to see a different model? Say - legislation which imposes fines on industries that emit excesssive CO2. Just like is currently done for "dirt"? That could work too I suppose.

 

Section 32(1) of the Environmental Protection Policy (Water) (QLD)
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/SLS/1997/97SL136.pdf


Prohibition on build-up of sediment
32.(1) A person must not—
(a) release stormwater run off into a roadside gutter, stormwater
drain or a water that results in the build-up of sand, silt or mud in
the gutter, drain or water; or
(b) deposit sand, silt or mud—
(i) in a roadside gutter, stormwater drain or a water; or
(ii) in a place where it could reasonably be expected to move or
be washed into a roadside gutter, stormwater drain or water
and result in a build-up of sand, silt or mud in the gutter,
drain or water.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.


That is the general catch-all clause. For Environmentally Relevant Activities, there will be license conditions which specify actual limits on a site by site basis.

Yes, claiming CO2 is not a pollutant is a stupid point.

 

No. CO2 is non-toxic and you can have a room that is almost all CO2 and as long as there is enough concentration of oxygen to power your body then you will be just fine.

The Australian Government is pulling a scam on you to get more tax money. That is all.

 

If you are putting CO2 into a room and not releasing it to the atmosphere then there is no reason to pay anyone anything.

The issue here is the increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 which is impacting upon global climate. You weren't aware of this?

 

Yes I'm aware of it, but where we disagree is on the dire nature of it all. I don't believe it's a "crisis" or even an "emergency".

I think the "world ending narrative" of Global warming is being drummed up by snake oil salesmen and tax-greedy governments.

 

What you think doesn't really matter. You have already quite abley demonstrated to don't understand the subject at all

As for the "world ending narrative" - why do you feel it necessarry to start telling silly lies at this point? I don't recall any of the IPCC Assessment Reports ever mentioning the "world ending".

How about you try to learn a little bit before commenting in future?

 

Yes catch all indeed. However, not claiming dirt as a pollutant as you make it sound.

Let us try another tact here, can you tell me what relevance the debate of what pollution is, has to do with the issue of climate change?

Are you really that obtuse, as to think this is a valid point? Do you really think that intelligent people are considering even debating this issue? The last statement stands show.

 

You are talking politics - which is separate from the actual science.

Reasonable people will disagree about how we address the problem - but it is not reasonable to dismiss the science.

Attempts to dismiss the science almost always rely on - and whenever you see someone doing that they are inadvertently confirming that the science is solid since they are having to turn to deception to make their case;

Quoting out of context;

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning

Cherry Picking;

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

Strawman;

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

 

That is a factually incorrect statement;

"Exposure to CO2 can produce a variety of health effects. These may include headaches, dizziness, restlessness, a tingling or pins or needles feeling, difficulty breathing, sweating, tiredness, increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure, coma, asphyxia to convulsions and even frostbite if exposed to dry ice.

The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are:

* 250 - 350 ppm – background (normal) outdoor air level
* 350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
* 1,000 – 2,000 ppm - level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
* 2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.
* >5,000 ppm – Exposure may lead to serious oxygen deprivation resulting in permanent brain damage, coma and even death."

http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chemfs/fs/carbondioxide.htm

 

errr...no - that is exactly what it says.

That is an excellent question.

You may wish to ask this chap:

He seemed to think it is relevant. As do many other deniers who keep trotting that stupid line out. Moronic isn't it.

 

pointless.

The problem you do not seem to understand is that the issue you are debating has absolutely nothing to do with this.

DO YOU understand that industry will not be paying any cost for pollution created, you will be. Do you not understand that the carbon tax will do nothing to reduce emissions which treasury modelling actually shows. Do you not understand that not only will the Australian government be introducing a tax they are also increasing the fines that ARE imposed on industries for emitting excessive emissions( Fines that have been in place since HOWARD created emission laws, policed by the EPA)

Obviously, you have not been in the cross hairs of the EPA or you would have not been so liberal with your understanding of how relevant this point you try to persevere with.

 

The science is of no concern to me. The scientific theory itself(that man made global warming exists) is in and of itself harmless.

The problem isn't the science, it's the political/social/financial ramifications of powerful organzations around the planet who sit in a war room and literally say "This global warming thing could be a boon for us. All we have to do is convince enough suckers to part with their money to "save the environment" from "imminent disaster" and the best part is, it doesn't even have to be a specific disaster! It could be ANY disaster we can blame on "global warming" and frighten people into giving us money."

Diplomats in the IPCC, and all of the associated "environmentally conscious" Non-Government Organizations, and rent seeking "green industrialists" all have a vested financial interest in Global Warming Hysteria. There are entire economies built on this meme, and if it was ever truly found out that Global warming is anything other than a world ending disaster of some sort, then the income stream would dry up.

My problem is not the science, it's the politics that has corrupted the science for it's own gain.

 

err...no- it is not, learn to read. It is there to guard against contamination of the water ways. Nothing more. It actually has nothing to do with dirt but more to do with what is in the dirt. But I am sure you already know that, as you have read the entire link you posted, before you extracted that titbit.

And you keep biting. I have continued to attempt to show you how stupid it is, but you continue. Deniers? Maybe, but they seem to have you hot in the collar, as stated it is purely subjective, and you blindly pound it as being important.

 

What I am pointing out is your lack of understanding of the big picture.

Up until 200 years ago, human population had stopped growing in some areas, because they had stretched food production to the limit. A bad year's harvest meant many starved.

Enter low cost energy. Hand and animal labor is replaced by fossil fuel power, population grew. Transportation goes from horse drawn wagon to jet, trade increases, standard of living climbs. Population grows, but for the second time in history, it grows due to increased lifespan.

Population can still grow, given enough energy, it can grow a lot.

Much of worlds population is still in poverty, and want to join the rest of the world, but that requires energy. China and India are adding power plants.

We have reduced our CO2 production, per activity. American car makers introduced economy cars, not to comply with government regulation, but to market demand in the mid-60's, Japan was importing them in the early 70's.

Fluorescent lights have been around long before CCFL's, and before electronic ballast, we inductive ballasts.

We wring far more work per pound of coal, and gallon of gas. We have just added a lot more activities that use them.

We have had recessions kicked off by the high cost of energy. Stagflation started after the 73 oil embargo, and Jimmy Carter's malaise in the 79 energy crisis.

Now, you want to reduce CO2 production, and only see the rosy pictures promised, countered by the predicted horror of MMGW.

But, you ignore the very real impact on humanity, especially the poor.

What do you do to reduce CO2 production? You talk about the evil of CO2, but I have yet to hear the sky is falling crowd present reasonable replacement(s).

Do you support building 1000's of new nuclear power plants? Convert coal fire plants to natural gas?

Do you favor a carbon tax, and let the chips fall where they may?

What are you going to do about the rest of the world? The poor countries will have to put their aspirations of a better life on permanent hold. China and India are going to see the errors of their ways?

What about solar, water, wind, tidal, and other source of energy? Other than photo voltaic, the other sources of power have been available, and used, for thousands of years. Didn't get us very far.

So you can join the AL GORES of the world and attach the word pollutant to something to make it sound scary. A kid almost pranked his local government into outlawing dihydrogenmonoxide (water), because it was a major component of acid rain, and killed (by drowning) people every year. He know it was a joke, do you?

Or, you can find a viable solution that is so compelling, that China and India will buy rights to it from you.

 

Exactly right. We are currently paying the environmental cost while industry gets to emit CO2 pollution for free. It is only fair that industry start to pay some of the cost for CO2 pollution

No - I don't understand this. Please show us some references.

Heh! I've been in the "cross hairs", and I've been the one pulling the trigger more times than you have hot breakfasts! Just a tip - don't try to discuss environmental legislation with me. You are way out of your depth.

Now, what were these HOWARD created emission laws, policed by the EPA you are telling us about?

 

And you believe they will. How naive.

I will later as I have to go now.

Oh yes, I must be with all the understanding of laws you have shown in the past, I shiver in my boots

What another who does not know? Perhaps you should consult the Labor party on the 7% reductions of emissions (granted not real reductions) touted during the Howard government, But again, I will return to list the changes in emission laws which THE EPA was introduced to police for you, with your far greater understanding of environmental laws, I would have thought you knew all about them.

 

Yet without CO2 we would have no oxygen to breathe. Plants love it and produce a larger net amount of oxygen than they take in. Almost anything in a concentrated form in a closed environment can be deadly. Even oxygen.

The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more plants will thrive and the more oxygen will result.

 

The only problem with your hypothesis is the fact that man is deforesting the planet at an alarming rate. If you do not have the plants you do not get the exchange.

Not much exchange is happening in Texas and southern China this summer. The just can't seem to get enough rain.

The climate is a changin.

I really don't think much can be done at this stage. Except try to prepare.

Putting coal miners out of work is not a good answer.
Putting it in the hands of government isn't either. The governments answer to every problem is to throw money at it. We don't have any money. Washington has thrown it all away.

 

Deforestation is another 'Green myth' perpetrated by the MSM and swallowed whole by the brain-washed/un-washed.

Here...there is a lot of green there...yes? Who you gonna believe, the enviro-whackos or your own 'lyin' eyes?

No the local weather is changing...it's cyclical.

Use more fossil fuels, create more CO2. Plant a garden.

The government has already thrown a monkey wrench into energy...It needs to get out of it altogether.

 

So an obviously retouched photo is your scientific evidence? You are kidding, right?

 

Coal is nasty and dirty, It should well be phased out.

 

Please tell us about these "changes in emission laws which THE EPA was introduced to police"

We are waiting.