Thread: will Cap and trade help inspection

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I just pushed another active hot button, I see ...

If only these buttons were labeled ...

I said "hot button" - here comes Ron telling me I need his infrared camera to check for "hot buttons".

Jerry,

It's not my fault you consistently get it wrong when it comes to political thought.

BTW- Keep pushing them buttons.

Look for the one marked. "Get a clue"

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

BTW- Keep pushing them buttons.

Look for the one marked. "Get a clue"

Michael,

I can't, I've already boxed that one up and sent it to you - should be arriving any day now ... hopefully anyway ... maybe then you will have a clue and can then forward it on to your buddies.

It'll be in the box marked "Handle With Care -Learning Experience Inside".

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Michael,

I can't, I've already boxed that one up and sent it to you - should be arriving any day now ... hopefully anyway ... maybe then you will have a clue and can then forward it on to your buddies.

It'll be in the box marked "Handle With Care -Learning Experience Inside".

The man with no real answers and box full of ersatz wit speaks.

Thanks for playing.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Thanks for playing.

Thank YOU for playing.

Like throwing a line in and having the littlest fish in the pond go for it before the others do (because they know better).

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Thank YOU for playing.

Like throwing a line in and having the littlest fish in the pond go for it before the others do (because they know better).

You should be more careful where you toss your bait.

Why?

That's just a little ol' fishy.

Nothing to worry about, not unless you are in the pond with it, as you are ...

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Why?

That's just a little ol' fishy.

Nothing to worry about, not unless you are in the pond with it, as you are ...

You flatter yourself but most have come to expect that of you.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

You flatter yourself but most have come to expect that of you.

Nope, not flattering myself, simply pointing your position out.

For the sake of the rest of the members, you may continue with your charade of thinking you are the one, so be it, go for it, I will sit back and watch you sprain your arms congratulating yourself for doing and accomplishing nothing in all the posts above. (Or anyone who wants to chime in for you. )

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Nope, not flattering myself, simply pointing your position out.

For the sake of the rest of the members, you may continue with your charade of thinking you are the one, so be it, go for it, I will sit back and watch you sprain your arms congratulating yourself for doing and accomplishing nothing in all the posts above. (Or anyone who wants to chime in for you. )

Now Jerry, have you taken up lying as well.

Or is that just par for the course with Obamites?

Shame on you.

Now AlGoracle is calling anyone who doesn't buy into GWarming "Nazis"

What fine oratory from the man who could have been #43!!!!!

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Gore: Fighting global warming is like fighting Nazis; Update: ToL scrubs its story of Nazi references

Look over the descriptions of the following 2 houses and see if you can tell which belongs to “The one who calls himself an environmentalist.”

#1. A 20-room mansion(not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas, add on a pool(and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00
per month. In natural gas alone(which the last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern “snow belt,” either. It’s in the South.

#2. Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet(4 bedrooms) and is nestled on an arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the
ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling
system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected after then
irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE #1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist-AL GORE!

HOUSE #2. (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as “the Texas White House,” it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
- wolf2012 on Debbie Schussel

Hard to spot the christians? I hadn't noticed. They are usually the people who are apologizing for cheating on their wives, playing with little boys, stealing money from the church and old people. It's of course, NEVER THEIR FAULT. They were weak in their faith, satan made them do it, sexy MTV videos, blah, blah. It's Ok though, God has forgiven them and they'll do better next time. Makes one so warm and fuzzy all over, and full of crap.
I tend to be amazed when people don't recycle. It defies logic, or does it define selfishness? Our world will be pretty much the same as we are used to for us and probably our kids. Beyond that it is likely a very different place. We have been the predominant users of our world's resources in the past. Some seem to not realize the upcoming competition on that stage. China and India are moving up. They want part of the pie we have been chomping on. The fight for natural resources will be the next big conflict. Globalization will contract and we will start making car parts in Indy and Ohio again.

Originally Posted by Markus Keller

I tend to be amazed when people don't recycle. It defies logic...

Sounds oh so logical but are you sure?

Recycling waste uses double the energy consumption and causes twice the pollution from factories, trucks, byproducts etc.

Preparing the recyclable material uses more energy and creates as much waste and byproducts as using raw materials.
Lets take a look at a plastic pop bottle for example and start at the beginning of the recycle chain.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/...-won’t-work/

Moreover, it should be a red flag when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) admits cap and trade won’t work. At yesterday’s hearing before the Senate Environment Public Works Committee, EPA Administrator Jackson confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. Moreover, when presented with an EPA chart depicting that outcome, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he disagreed with EPA’s analysis.

“I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels,” Administrator Jackson said.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) presented the chart to both Jackson and Secretary Chu, which shows that meaningful emissions reductions cannot occur without aggressive action by China, India, and other developing countries. “I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain,” Sen. Inhofe said. “With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate.”

Getting China and India on board with a carbon reduction plan is highly unlikely. Even then, a multilateral approach does not guarantee a successful system or the ultimate goal of global temperature reduction. Take a look at Europe:

Cap-and-trade regimes have advantages, notably the ability to set a limit on emissions and to integrate with other countries. But they are complex and vulnerable to lobbying and special pleading, and they do not guarantee success.

The experience of the European Union is Exhibit A. Emissions targets were set too high. Too many pollution allowances were given away to industry. The value of a carbon credit plummeted. Companies made windfall profits by charging customers more for energy while selling allowances they didn’t need. And the Europeans have not had much success reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Disputes on the next round of reductions led to the creation of a two-tiered system to appease Eastern European countries fearful of the cost to their industries.”

Got this from Nolan's post.

YouTube - Scalise: 'We're Setting Up A Global Warming Gestapo!' (Full)


Best

Ron

Sorry ML but once again you are drawing a false conclusion based on limited information. Kind of like when you listen to your buddy Rush and think you actually know what's going on.
I've read a lot of articles about recycling. Many contend recycling uses more energy than it saves, some say it breaks about even, a few state it has a positive gain.
Recycling isn't the problem. How we handle recycling is really the issue. As long as we continue to collect recycling as a separate extraction chain, return will likely stay low.
I've thought for many years one of the best ways we could recycle construction debris is to have large dedicated cardboard and scrap lumber dumpsters in every HD, Lowes, Menards parking lot. The cardboard from a kitchen job can fill a regular van.
Waste not, want not. I recycle because I see benefit in not throwing good stuff that could be re-used into a landfill to rot.

Originally Posted by Markus Keller

Waste not, want not. I recycle because I see benefit in not throwing good stuff that could be re-used into a landfill to rot.

You Recycle because it makes you feel good.

I don't Recycle a dang thing... wast of my time. chuck in a big hole and when that one is full dig a new one.

Bottom line we have more stuff the we can ever use. the earth just keeps producing everything we need. its has never stop making OIL l And it never will stop making the stuff.

So stop thinking you did your part. you didn't .

Now this is not to say that we should not do the wright thing. no one wants dirty water or air. Lets just go about it in a correct way.

I Recycling work then let it stand on its own with any GOV. Support.

Best

Ron

Best

Ron

Last year I went by a jobsite. The union guys had thrown about 20+ 10' threaded rod into the dumpster. 2 months later I needed to break a couple stainless steel panels (also recycled). Ran into an HVAC guy who had a hydraulic break. Traded the rods for the break work.
Recycling doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. I see economic advantage in it. Pay to fill up a dumpster with cardboard etc., or put it in the truck and drop it at the recycling place across the street from HD when making a material run?

Thats not Rcycling.

Best

Ron

Originally Posted by Ron Bibler

You Recycle because it makes you feel good.

I don't Recycle a dang thing... wast of my time. chuck in a big hole and when that one is full dig a new one.

Bottom line we have more stuff the we can ever use. the earth just keeps producing everything we need. its has never stop making OIL l And it never will stop making the stuff.

So stop thinking you did your part. you didn't .

Now this is not to say that we should not do the wright thing. no one wants dirty water or air. Lets just go about it in a correct way.

I Recycling work then let it stand on its own with any GOV. Support.

Best

Ron

Best

Ron

RB: I see you are smoking crack already this morning. Give it a break.

Originally Posted by Markus Keller

Sorry ML but once again you are drawing a false conclusion based on limited information. Kind of like when you listen to your buddy Rush and think you actually know what's going on.

Excuse me but what makes your conclusion that recycling is cost effective is correct when other evidence says it is not?

You can't just use your "feel good" to decide which is right.

Most of the articles I read in support of recycling are done by environmentalist groups and of course we all know they aren't biased.

Hey, I recycle because my community requires it. Does it make sense to come once a week with a separate truck and driver to collect my used cardboard and glass?

Probably not.

BTW- I recycle my Aluminum cans separately because they actually have some value. We have collection bins at our church for Aluminum that goes to support missions work. It uses all volunteer labor so it works out very well.

Once again sorry ML, I don't know what you are reading sometimes. I never said, recycling is cost effective in any absolute manner. You have proven my point for me better than I could. Yes it is stupid that a separate truck comes at a different time to pick up recycling. That scenario is one often sited in articles that show recycling to have a negative net gain. On the flip side articles that show recycling to have a break even or positive net gain, site procedure where recycle is integrated into the normal extraction chain. Thereby NOT using additional resources. The recycling with your church would likely be a positive net gain scenario.
Want economic stimulus and jobs? Instead of giving money to the banks. The Feds could have bought new garbage trucks for Muni's. This would have created jobs for truck builders and suppliers; improved recycling extraction and reduced Muni fuel costs with newer better trucks.
So yes, big O could have done better with the money. Does that make you happy Ron?

Originally Posted by Markus Keller

Once again sorry ML, I don't know what you are reading sometimes. I never said, recycling is cost effective in any absolute manner.

I read this from you

I tend to be amazed when people don't recycle. It defies logic, or does it define selfishness?

Perhaps I have misunderstood you but you can explain it to me I'm sure. You seem to be a strong supporter of recycling. Why are the real costs so often ignored?

How does it defy logic if a group chooses not to recycle if costs more than not doing it. That sounds like preservation of capital to me.

The problem is I don't have a choice. The enviros have decided I must recycle and had enacted into law recycling mandates and made sure it gets paid for by me in my taxes and disposal fees.

Simply put, if the cost of buying new is less than the cost of recycling it makes no economic sense and is a waste of money that could be used for something else.

Aluminum is probably the only exception as it is easily reprocessed into useable products in the recycling chain.

The numbers just don't work for paper, plastic and glass.