EPA JUST A SNIFF AWAY IN ALASKA...NYT ARTICLE

[NateB]

That particular home owner is saving a LOT of money on his property taxes by not sheathing over the vapor barrier. If he does sheathe it the insulation envelope will not improve measurably, but his tax assessment and annual tax bill increase quite a bit. What we are looking at under local law is an occupied construction site, not a finished home. Construction sites can be occupied more or less indefinitely.

Thanks for explaining that. I always wondered why they never finish the outside of the house up there. The insides are nice, and finished. I thought it was because it was to cold outside, so they would do the work inside.

 

[jpowell1979]

Outdoor air pollution is a minimal health risk when everyone is indoors 99% of the time when it is -20 or colder. It's not like anyone is outside for extended times breathing the air when it gets very cold and we have bad air days.

All the long term PM studies are from large cities where industrial pollution was the primary pollution source year round. If living your whole life next to an ore smelting plant may reduce your life expectancy by 6 months I will take my chances with a few bad air days annually.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[jpowell1979]

Great article on the issue.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/30/epa-alaskans-sub-zero-temps-stop-burning-wood-keep-warm/

 

[rwhite]

Great article on the issue.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/30/epa-alaskans-sub-zero-temps-stop-burning-wood-keep-warm/

The problem with the article and the previous one for that matter is everything is the fault of the EPA. The EPA and any other department in the executive branch only has the authority and power granted by Congress. They don't have the authority to choose which laws are enforced. The work at the behest of Congress who are our representatives to implement the rules which elected officials have passed. Maybe the tables are turning and different laws may be changed or amended but the EPA won't be the ones to do it.

 

[jpowell1979]

Arguing that the same standards should apply to Los Angeles and rural Alaska is non starter.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[rwhite]

Arguing that the same standards should apply to Los Angeles and rural Alaska is non starter.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant. But EPA doesn't get to pick and choose. Congress passed the Clean Air Act and they are the only ones who can amend it. There are times government officials choose not to enforce a rule but it is usually pretty short lived until they are litigated and made to enforce it.

 

[jpowell1979]

Lol, of course the executive branch can pick and choose what laws to enforce. Pretty sure that we have laws prohibiting illegal aliens from entering the country.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[rwhite]

Lol, of course the executive branch can pick and choose what laws to enforce. Pretty sure that we have laws prohibiting illegal aliens from entering the country.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

We certainly do. But folks will litigate and force compliance with the Clean Air Act much quicker than border compliance.

 

[rwhite]

Lol, of course the executive branch can pick and choose what laws to enforce. Pretty sure that we have laws prohibiting illegal aliens from entering the country.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Your also mixing apples and oranges to the letter of the law. Pretty sure you couldn't find any language in an immigration law requiring seek out and deport. If they are caught they are deported they just may not be actively sought.
Completely different with Clean Air Act where Congress has stated thou shall and here are the penalties. There's not much room for discretion there.

 

[jpowell1979]

There are thousands of waivers and exemptions that have been granted by the EPA related to the Clean Air Act.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[rwhite]

There are thousands of waivers and exemptions that have been granted by the EPA related to the Clean Air Act.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

You bet. Now you just have to get your elected officials to petition for one. But until they do I'm betting the Act will be enforced to some degree.

 

[rwhite]

Not sure how long term exemptions work. I know we could get daily exemptions when I worked at the plywood mill. If the boilers went down for any reason we would violate air quality for several hours when we fired them back up. I know the fine was hefty enough for exceeding the exemption that we would dump 2x4s by the bunks into the boiler to get it up and running quicker.

 

[bholler]

Measurable temperatures fluctuate because of the big ball of fire in our solar system - not because of a trace gas of .05% in our atmosphere. Everything else people have brought up is insignificant next to the sun.

As I have said yes the heat is created by the sun but the makeup of our atmosphere is what dictates how much of that heat hits the earth and then how much of that heat is held in. If you don't understand that you do not have any grasp of the science at all. Yes co2 is naturally occurring and yes it is necessary for life and it is absorbed by plants. But that does not mean that in high levels it cant cause problems. Most major climate change events have coincided with a dramatic change in co2 levels this is confirmed by ice and soil samples. So yes you are right these swings can be totally natural but now we are releasing large quantities of co2 into the air and at the same time reducing the quantity of co2 absorbing plants on earth to filter that out.

 

[volunbeer]

As I have said yes the heat is created by the sun but the makeup of our atmosphere is what dictates how much of that heat hits the earth and then how much of that heat is held in. If you don't understand that you do not have any grasp of the science at all. Yes co2 is naturally occurring and yes it is necessary for life and it is absorbed by plants. But that does not mean that in high levels it cant cause problems. Most major climate change events have coincided with a dramatic change in co2 levels this is confirmed by ice and soil samples. So yes you are right these swings can be totally natural but now we are releasing large quantities of co2 into the air and at the same time reducing the quantity of co2 absorbing plants on earth to filter that out.

Solar radiation - not our atmosphere - has the most influence on temperatures. To boot, temperatures are not increasing despite what we hear over and over. It has been much warmer before and it has been much cooler before. Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 actually has many benefits to life on Earth, that does not mean I am advocating "polluting to cause it", but it is worth pointing out. Crops and vegetation do better with more CO2.

The idea that we are reducing the amount of CO2 absorbing plants on Earth is not true, but it is irrelevant compared to the carbon cycles of the oceans. CO2 is released and absorbed by the oceans at a rate that dwarfs the activities of man. In fact, difficult to tell if correct or not correct, it is generally accepted that the oceans absorb half of atmospheric CO2 per NOAA. They conveniently omit that the oceans also release far more CO2 than man. This is the real feedback loop I talked about earlier - the oceans regulate the levels of CO2, not man. You have to go to exponential numbers to realize how large the amount of CO2 in the oceans is compared to what we produce.

We release less CO2 now than we used to before the EPA and other nations EPA's cracked down on industrial emissions as well as vehicle emissions in the West. We are cleaner today and air quality (at least in the West) is far better than it was only 20 years ago.

To be clear - I am not against the EPA. They have done many good things. However, they have been hijacked by folks who are after something else. Can we do better? Certainly. But that was not my main point if you read what I wrote. We are spending larger sums of money on much smaller gains in the West when the real place to combat pollution and global warming (if you believe what they tell you over and over) is in the third world. I am using their own arguments!

They want to cut CO2 emissions so they mandate that "your local utiility" raise rates and spend tens of millions to reduce CO2 emissions by 50 tons....... when they could cut CO2 emissions at the coal plant in Laos by 2000 or more tons at half the expense installing the same equipment we mandated 30 years ago! It is basic logic. If their arguments are correct we should spend the money in the 3rd world because their air impacts us. Their CO2 "warms us" according to the basic premise.

The same crowd wanted us to use Ethanol for gasoline when it actually takes more energy to produce than it yields. It subsequently creates more CO2 (farming corn - rotting or burning stalks) and other pollutants (fertilizers in watershed is going to be the next big pollution problem in my opinion) than the hydrocarbons it replaces. On top of that, it is food and that creates stress in the developing world.

In reality, we spend more taxpayer money "studying the problem" in our Universities and even governmental agencies, than we do fighting it. Think about that..... If the "science is settled" as they repeatedly tell us then why do we spend more tax dollars studying it than fixing it? I have friends from school who work on the grants.

I understand science just fine and I will not insult you or pull out an internet ruler to see who has the longer sheepskins from overpriced institutions, but you are not seeing the engineering problem they have created for themselves If CO2 is only .05% (generally accepted to be .04% but I will round up) of the atmosphere how does it become more important than the sun? In fact, if you have bought the argument that the window (atmosphere) is more important than the energy source (sun) you would then have to admit that water vapor is a far, far, far, far more powerful "greenhouse gas" than CO2. That is another fact, but it is really hard to "tax" and control water vapor.

Either logic fails or there is something else going on....... I believe it is the latter. If it were not something else - why are we not spending our anti-pollution money where it would do the most good?

 

[bholler]

Solar radiation - not our atmosphere - has the most influence on temperatures.

Absolutely correct without the sun we would have no heat no live ect. But the same goes for our atmosphere. The sun is a relative constant what does change to change temperatures is our position with regard to the sun that makes the seasons. And changes in our atmosphere which makes global climate change. Or are you saying that during an ice age the sun randomly stops putting out as much heat? I dont think so. And yes the oceans process way more carbon than plants but that does not mean that reducing plant life (which we have done regardless of your claim) are irrelevant it still reduces the capacity to process co2. And the increased demand on the oceans is leading to a very slow increase in the ph of the oceans which in turn reduces the ability for the ocean to process co2.

I understand science just fine and I will not insult you or pull out an internet ruler to see who has the longer sheepskins from overpriced institutions, but you are not seeing the engineering problem they have created for themselves If CO2 is only .05% (generally accepted to be .04% but I will round up) of the atmosphere how does it become more important than the sun? In fact, if you have bought the argument that the window (atmosphere) is more important than the energy source (sun) you would then have to admit that water vapor is a far, far, far, far more powerful "greenhouse gas" than CO2. That is another fact, but it is really hard to "tax" and control water vapor.

When did I ever say that the atmosphere was more important that the sun? I simply said that it is a major factor in the amount of heat that ends up staying on earth. I really don't see how you cant see that the sun and our atmosphere in combination provide and store the heat our planet needs. But changes in our atmosphere (even small ones) can affect the amount of heat stored enough to have a major effect.

If our atmosphere has no effect on the temperature of our planet why isn't it warm in outer space? Why isn't the moon warm? Why is Venus warmer than mercury? Why is Jupiter's temp similar to ours?

 

[vinny11950]

This thread!

 

[rwhite]

This thread!

View attachment 191624

But it is entertaining!

 

[jatoxico]

This thread is wandering but it's cordial. I don't understand arguments based on conspiracy though. The EPA sets AQ standards that are associated with increased risk. A great deal of the data comes from studies conducted in under developed areas of the globe not just industrial/urban regions. AQ is calculated the same in AK and LA and if the PM2.5 is high, the risk is the same no matter where you breath the air. And if anything the folks that stand to benefit by dismissing the current theory of climate science like XOM, the energy companies and the auto industry are lobbying to roll back CO2 and other emission standards and working hard to counter climate change theory. I'm all for a healthy skepticism and not all the details of these risks are known but it seems to me the health of the environment and our own quality of life is improved by continuing to move towards cleaner and cleaner sources of energy.

 

[rwhite]

The one thing I disagree with in our endeavors for clean air and water is penalty vs reward. I'd surmise that if the mark was set and incentives offered for reaching it we would spend far less than enforcing penalties. Just going on the theory that a horse does better when you dangle a carrot in front of their nose rather that shove it in the other end. Either way it's getting the carrot.

 

[volunbeer]

Again gents - I respectfully ask the exact same question I have politely posed over and over in regards to the idea that climate change is caused by man's CO2 output.

If this is true as they tell us, why then are we not diverting resources to partnering with developing nations to make much larger and more effective cuts in CO2 emissions? If the science is settled (their words, not mine) why do we not divert some of the large taxpayer funding to action instead of "studying the problem?"

bholler - read about the Maunder minimum. The sun, nor solar radiation, are constant, nor is our orbit around the sun as you correctly pointed out. Even NASA (a global warming proponent) says the sun is heading into a period of minimal activity, which will result in cooler short-term temps.

The Earth is getting greener - look who the links are from:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tion-increased-significantly-past-decade.html

http://theconversation.com/despite-decades-of-deforestation-the-earth-is-getting-greener-38226

http://www.popsci.com/new-study-shows-earth-getting-greener

And again, if the greenhouse gas model is responsible for holding heat in the Earth's atmosphere causing it to be warmer (it has actually cooled in the last decade) then how will we address water vapor? If they tell us that water vapor in the atmosphere is a response to warming why then is CO2 not the same (an effect and not a cause?) Why do those who seek to control us target CO2 instead of the other trace gases? Why did they target the one trace gas that is a by-product of hydrocarbon combustion even though another trace gas (methane CH4) is a more effective greenhouse gas?

Again - I want cleaner air and cleaner water, but I also want the truth. Their own argument of pending catastrophe has not come true going back to the beginning of the subject. Their own estimates and predictions have not come true. They continue to fudge the numbers and we continue to pay for it all. I want to see the West spend the money to clean the air in the third world because it would be far more effective since their own argument dictates what happens in India impacts us in North America.

I have an open mind on the topic because I don't think the science is settled - I read a fair amount on the topic from both sides. We can't even accurately predict the weather in a micro-climate 30 days out because there are so many variables, yet they tell us we can predict a system 10000 times larger with far more variables we don't understand. I also have a good memory of the predictions that began in the late 80's picking up speed through the 90's until it became a government driven project in the new millennium. They were wrong across the board, but they are now able to levy visible and invisible taxes on us all in the name of this problem. Left unchecked and undisputed, they will most certainly seek to tax wood stoves as a source of CO2. That is the trend.

 

[jatoxico]

Again gents - I respectfully ask the exact same question I have politely posed over and over in regards to the idea that climate change is caused by man's CO2 output.

If this is true as they tell us, why then are we not diverting resources to partnering with developing nations to make much larger and more effective cuts in CO2 emissions? If the science is settled (their words, not mine) why do we not divert some of the large taxpayer funding to action instead of "studying the problem?"

Maybe if you gave some specific example I might understand you better but I am certain politics is an obstacle as it always seems to be. What climate scientists suggest and what the politicians act on are likely vastly different. In our case the reason we should regulate ourselves is because the US is the 2nd largest emitter of CO2. We might still be number one except for the changes we've made. We are trying to partner that's what the major global agreements are about. But if the entire world save China, the US and Russia went to zero emissions the out put would still be cut by less than half.

I also don't agree we are wasting time and money on studying the problem. To me it makes sense to study, then make recommendations, then implement then study some more to see if the recommendations are working so we can do the most cost effective job. Our understanding of anything rarely occurs in a straight line.

 

[begreen]

 

[volunbeer]

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=4410

This is a little dated. I believe we now have far more scrubbers than the requirement listed, but it is a good explanation of where the majority of pollution comes from (especially in the 3rd world) - coal power plants. Coal can provide relatively clean energy with the proper safeguards that we have installed. We have now reached a point where the vast majority of our coal power is much cleaner with 3rd generation scrubbers and filters. Europe is in the same position. Despite this, they continue to target coal energy production with ever higher standards when the majority of coal power plants in the 3rd world do not even have the basic scrubbing technology.

Furthermore - increased access to electricity would result in less biomass being burned for cooking and eventually leads to more irrigated agriculture making that area far more "green". It leads to cleaner water, healthier people, and less pollution in general. Economic prosperity is the best tonic for the environment at every level. More wealth = more environmental health. Wealth in a modern society begins with access to energy.

My point is that we are not spending our dollars appropriately. It is a simple cost-benefit analysis. Hypothetically, if ConEdison spends 100 million dollars (from rate payers) to reach a targeted goal to reduce CO2 emissions by 5% in two coal plants (let's assume a number of 50 tons) yet the same amount of money could be used to reduce CO2 emissions by 500 tons in 4 plants in the developing world where is the money better spent? If CO2 is the culprit for what they claim is global warming why are they not helping to reduce global emissions in the most effective manner? Hopefully that helps clear up my point. They claim it is an emergency yet they do not take the billions we are spending on the problem and spend them for the best effect. Why?

It's another argument, but I am a big fan of nuclear power generation - it is the best bang for the buck in electricity production - far cleaner if your goal is to reduce greenhouse gas, sulfur dioxide, and mercury. I am hopeful that thorium can replace plutonium and uranium as the nuclear fuel of choice (can't be weaponized - generally cleaner and thorium reactors can dispose of present nuclear wastes safely). With that said, most of the same proponents of global warming adamantly oppose nuclear energy although there have been some major defections in the movement recently as more people admit this.

 

[rwhite]

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=4410

This is a little dated. I believe we now have far more scrubbers than the requirement listed, but it is a good explanation of where the majority of pollution comes from (especially in the 3rd world) - coal power plants. Coal can provide relatively clean energy with the proper safeguards that we have installed. We have now reached a point where the vast majority of our coal power is much cleaner with 3rd generation scrubbers and filters. Europe is in the same position. Despite this, they continue to target coal energy production with ever higher standards when the majority of coal power plants in the 3rd world do not even have the basic scrubbing technology.

Furthermore - increased access to electricity would result in less biomass being burned for cooking and eventually leads to more irrigated agriculture making that area far more "green". It leads to cleaner water, healthier people, and less pollution in general. Economic prosperity is the best tonic for the environment at every level. More wealth = more environmental health. Wealth in a modern society begins with access to energy.

My point is that we are not spending our dollars appropriately. It is a simple cost-benefit analysis. Hypothetically, if ConEdison spends 100 million dollars (from rate payers) to reach a targeted goal to reduce CO2 emissions by 5% in two coal plants (let's assume a number of 50 tons) yet the same amount of money could be used to reduce CO2 emissions by 500 tons in 4 plants in the developing world where is the money better spent? If CO2 is the culprit for what they claim is global warming why are they not helping to reduce global emissions in the most effective manner? Hopefully that helps clear up my point. They claim it is an emergency yet they do not take the billions we are spending on the problem and spend them for the best effect. Why?

It's another argument, but I am a big fan of nuclear power generation - it is the best bang for the buck in electricity production - far cleaner if your goal is to reduce greenhouse gas, sulfur dioxide, and mercury. I am hopeful that thorium can replace plutonium and uranium as the nuclear fuel of choice (can't be weaponized - generally cleaner and thorium reactors can dispose of present nuclear wastes safely). With that said, most of the same proponents of global warming adamantly oppose nuclear energy although there have been some major defections in the movement recently as more people admit this.

It's the same reason that we clean up our own yard when we know there are far dirtier places that time would be better spent and make the city look better. We haven't fully grasped the "one world" concept yet. We want our micro climate better.

 

[Lloyd the redneck]

So what I have come up with is, live at the top of the hill. And don't make particulates