On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:07:52 -0500, John
wrote:
PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"Larry wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 17:45:30 -0600, Ignoramus18213
wrote:
On 2014-02-06, Larry wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:04:35 -0800, wrote:
SNIP
Burning
fossil fuels releases carbon into the environment, and energy too,
that was sequestered thousands or millions of years ago. Burning
vegetable matter and releasing CO2 at a rate slower than it absorbs as
it grows does not add to the net carbon in the air or the heat of the
planet. But unless burned in a proper power plant with scrubbers that
remove everything except CO2, vegetable matter burning can and does
contribute all sorts of particulates and other bad stuff to the air.
Who brainwashed you to think along this line? (Sorry, but that's the
way I see it.)
I'm thinking we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
If I only burn plants that growing now then I'm not adding to the
total carbon in the environment. But if I burn fossil fuels then I am
adding to the carbon in the environment. The environment being the
surface of the earth where everything lives. Or am I wrong. And if so
please point out where I'm making a misteak.
The steak is missing where you think putting pollution into the air
where is WAS on the ground is OK while taking it from under the ground
is not OK. It's the same to me. Cutting down a tree removes if from
taking CO2 from the air and producing oxygen. Then you want to burn
it, on top of that?
So, using a fuel (wood) which is four hundred times more polluting
than another (propane/natgas), while being -aware- of that difference,
seems downright irresponsible. That's where we differ. I don't see
folks who do this as having any kind of moral high ground at all.
Growing trees to compensate for our carbon footprint is fine with me,
but reducing the amount of our pollution seems to be the best bet yet.
I've been an environmentalist since 1969, but refuse to call myself
that any more, given the total ecoterrorist makeup of most enviros
nowadays. Crikey, what a mess.
The cut down tree will be replaced with another tree, which will
absorb carbon when growing.
It will take 15-100 years for the new tree to replace the CO2-sucking
capabilities of its predecessor. Yes, plant trees, but don't think
that a sapling is anything like its senior citizen tree when it comes
to cleaning air and producing oxygen.
Just yesterday you were saying it was better to just burn propane....
And the EPA wants to take the last ten-billionth of a percent of
something instead of stopping things which are putting out tens of
percents of those ghastly greenhouse gases. Go figure. Me? I take
the cuts where they matter most. Like swapping from coal to nuclear
power. INSTANT (what, 50%?) decrease in global greenhouse emissions
and a metric ****load less heat produced, too.
Pardon my tangent there. I was pointing out the silly things which
they're outlawed in industry for the past several decades while not
even addressing the things which would make real change happen in
lowering the overall national pollution.
Are you drunk? The above makes no sense whatsoever.....
With stoves, EPA is concerned not with carbon emissions, but with fine
particulate emissions (smoke), which are bad for your neighbors'
health. This fine particulates is what causes the polluted air horrors
in China.
Yes, I feel it's time to address the wood smoke pollution. Absolutely.
I had trouble breathing today on the trip to my mailbox. I was out of
breath and feeling green when I completed the 90 steps due to the leaf
burning and woodstoves combined with this inversion layer. Ick!
Of course...
--but the Surgeon General was wrong in putting warning lables on cigarettes
back in 1966, correct?
Once I understood what it was all about, it made complete sense to me
and I do not think that EPA is on a very wrong track. What it wants is
stove designs that burn better and emit less smoke.
Overall, the EPA is on an extremely bad track. It will continue to
Obviously, you have a chrystal ball...appreciate tell me who's going to win
next years world series, so that I can "bank on it"
do very little for the environment while running companies out of
business and
Name even a single company that was "run out of business by the EPA" and
whose market share wasn't immediately gobbled up by some other company that
takes the EPA regulations a little more seriously.
The last lead smelter in the US has been shut down. No more lead
smelted in the US.
John
Point..set and match.
John wins once again over ****Machinist
--
"Virtually all members of [radical] groups sincerely believe that
they are fighting the Establishment. In reality they are an indespensible ally
of the Establishment in fastening Socialism on all of us.
The naive radicals think that under Socialism the "people" will run everything.
Actually, it will be a clique of Insiders in total control, consolidating and
controlling all wealth. That is why these schoolboy Lenins and teenage Trotskys
are allowed to roam free and are practically never arrested or prosecuted.
They are protected. If the Establishment wanted the revolutionaries stopped,
how long do you think they would be tolerated?
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com