Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

The methane problem is much worse than you think.
The methane they worried about lie in the permafrost below the frozen surface.
Now that the permafrost is melting the methane is seeping out in yuge quantities!
Both flammable and poisonous!
Ah, who cares you gotta die of something right???
If rather it not be a republiPIG!!!!

Capt-jack Loc: Home

You should ask some of the people that the EPA stuck a red hot rod up there butts when they tried to build a house on their lot. Also fining bead baking Companys for releasing the smell of baking bread into the air forcing them to install a million dollars of filtering systems. We can also look at aspirin, made 80+ years ago, if invented today, we would need a prescription to buy it. This is common practice today by the FDA.
So, the belief is "you are too dumb to look out for yourself so you need big brother to do it for you.

Capt-jack Loc: Home

Geez, I wonder how the world survived back when Antarctica was ice-free and big ferns grow there along with huge animals. I guess you did not know that.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Is this report from nine years ago what you have in mind?

www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/45829669

December 30, 2011
NBC’s Jim Maceda reports.
"As Siberian permafrost melts, methane seeps out.
For thousands of years, permafrost has trapped Siberia's carbon-rich soil, a compost of Ice Age plant and animal remains.
But g****l w*****g is melting the permafrost and exposing the soil, causing highly flammable methane to seep out."


If this report was accurate, what it means is a good thing:

Russia has more oil and gas deposits which they can readily access, and there is now more agricultural land at their disposal with which they can feed their population.

That is the t***h!

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

I support any measures for pollution, Air, clean water and land.. its the article I posted that says even seeing cleaner air, with limited travel, cars, airplanes, etc it has no true impact on c*****e c****e..Or changing our CO2 levels..

So I ask again, with all the Regulating, Regulatory enactments why we don’t see any progress? None?? In fact supposed increases...??
The actions we take may be good but they don’t achieve anything so they’re really not all that good.

Read this please..


We Can’t Count on Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Prevent Dangerous C*****e C****e
Although reducing emissions remains essential, it is time to focus on additional responses

Last month, representatives of all countries gathered for their annual meeting to prevent c*****e c****e. Despite the motto “Time for Action,” the New York Times described it as “one of the worst outcomes in a quarter-century of climate negotiations.” Should we be surprised? Disappointed? Despairing? I believe that insufficient cuts in greenhouse gas emissions — which is the consistent outcome of nearly three-decades of such climate negotiations — is to be expected and will continue. Yet in the face of the most important contemporary environmental problem, we are relying too much on this single approach at the expense of others. In other words, we have put too many eggs in one basket. Fortunately there are other options.
Last week’s climate summit yielded little in the way of action. Photo via UNFCCC.
Last month’s climate summit yielded little in the way of action. Photo via UNFCCC.
Human-caused c*****e c****e poses serious risks for people and biodiversity. Understandably, the leading response to date has been to reduce (“mitigate”) the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that cause it. In this regard, there is some good news. Industrialized countries have reduced their emissions by more than 17% since the problem was first identified, despite their growing populations and economies (see emissions data from PBL). Globally, emissions per dollar of economic activity has fallen by 1/3 in that time. Advances in technologies and governance will likely continue these trends. And recent commitments by a few countries and US states to get to net zero emissions imply that policy-makers are finally dedicated to the task.
However, mitigation alone will not prevent dangerous c*****e c****e. To be clear, the connection between our greenhouse gas emissions with c*****e c****e is well-established, and the risks are grave.
To understand why emissions cuts will not be enough, let’s look at what has been done and what would be needed. Regarding the former, here are a few relevant facts:
All countries agreed in 1992 to an objective of “stabiliz[ing] greenhouse gas concentrations” in the UN Framework Convention on C*****e C****e. Since then, emissions have increased 57%
All countries in 2015 agreed to “reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible… and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter… so as to achieve [net zero emissions] in the second half of this century” in the Paris Agreement. Since then, emissions have increased by 4%.
Germany is often touted as the model country in terms of mitigation. Since the 2010 beginning of its g***n e****y revolution, its emissions have declined by only 2%.
Now let’s turn to what would be needed. Perhaps the best metric is emissions per dollar of economic activity, the so-called the “carbon intensity” of the economy, as this removes confounding changes in population and economic growth. The latest annual Low Carbon Economy Index from the consultancy firm PwC reports that the global economy decarbonizing at an average annual rate of 1.6% since 2000. Yet a 7.5% rate would need to be sustained for decades to have a good chance of staying within the 2 degrees Celsius target, which all countries agreed upon in the Paris Agreement. As a reference point, the highest national decarbonization rate over a decade was France, which reached 4.5% as it rapidly converted to nuclear power from 1979 to 1988.

https://legal-planet.org/2020/01/07/we-cant-count-on-cutting-greenhouse-gas-emissions-to-prevent-dangerous-c*****e-c****e/

Capt-jack Loc: Home

More scare tactics to get there New Green Deal up and running.
Everyday 3 volcanos a day erupted in the world releasing tons of CO2 and methane into the air, this has been going on for a few hundred million years. It's a wonder anything is alive, that's a joke.
Now if we had a school system that really taught our kids none of this BS would fly.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

If you believe our earth is some 5 billion years old and lived well before people emerged, then you also must believe in the fact that mother nature knows how to take care of her and has done so for thousands of years in its existence.

We complicate the issue by creating the need to take care of the polluting factors, if we were a little more responsible in our actions, we can make an impact...

We have had ice and warming all throughout the history of this earth and we will continue to do so. It’s the natural evolution of our beautiful Earth. Likewise other planets the sun the moon do impact what we feel and experience on earth. It’s all part of the universe and we need to let the universe decide what it is and when..We certainly cannot change universal impact of our earth...

American Vet

Your not well thought out opinion noted.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

It all goes back to our school system and the ideology of the teachers.

In the 60's, our NASA Astronauts went to the moon using 64Kbyte of memory and operating at 0.043MHz. In fact, with technology less equipped than a modern toaster!

Now, our children have I-phones, but are told, before selecting one of two bathrooms, they must first choose which of 72 g****rs applies to them.

American Vet

Since late last year, the Environmental Protection Agency has been rolling out new federal climate regulations that would have the same effects as the job-destroying cap-and-trade policy that Congress rejected last year.https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/epa-rules-bad-policy-bad-time-048783

The EPA’s Science Restrictions Go from Bad to Worse
New rules on what studies the agency can cite in making regulations would endanger the public’s health and safetyhttps://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-epas-science-restrictions-go-from-bad-to-worse/

In the Age of Obama, there are many viable candidates for the official title of Washington’s “Private Sector Enemy Number One.” You could make a strong case for the National Labor Relations Board, the Department of Homeland Security, the T***sportation Security Administration, and others, but my choice would be the Environmental Protection Agency. For over 20 years, I have gathered stories about ways in which the EPA has perpetrated misfeasance and malfeasance, misdeed, and mischief. Let me say that I mean no offense to the many employees of the EPA who conduct their professional lives with integrity and on the basis of sound science. My target is the hyper-politicized leadership of EPA and its henchmen who have misbehaved.https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/03/14/the-epa-the-worst-of-many-rogue-federal-agencies/#5fcb943321ad

Cuda2020

The power grab is not with the Obama, or the government, there isn't a power grab to making sure we have clean water, how ridiculous, the power grab is with companies freely polluting the water by dumping their waste. Geez try thinking.

American Vet

Instead of inane comments, try refuting the facts:

Since late last year, the Environmental Protection Agency has been rolling out new federal climate regulations that would have the same effects as the job-destroying cap-and-trade policy that Congress rejected last year.https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/epa-rules-bad-policy-bad-time-048783

The EPA’s Science Restrictions Go from Bad to Worse
New rules on what studies the agency can cite in making regulations would endanger the public’s health and safetyhttps://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-epas-science-restrictions-go-from-bad-to-worse/

In the Age of Obama, there are many viable candidates for the official title of Washington’s “Private Sector Enemy Number One.” You could make a strong case for the National Labor Relations Board, the Department of Homeland Security, the T***sportation Security Administration, and others, but my choice would be the Environmental Protection Agency. For over 20 years, I have gathered stories about ways in which the EPA has perpetrated misfeasance and malfeasance, misdeed, and mischief. Let me say that I mean no offense to the many employees of the EPA who conduct their professional lives with integrity and on the basis of sound science. My target is the hyper-politicized leadership of EPA and its henchmen who have misbehaved.https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/03/14/the-epa-the-worst-of-many-rogue-federal-agencies/#5fcb943321ad

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Obama's power grab was based on his personality. It had nothing to do with creating clean water, or in any way benefiting the citizenry of the United States. He was and is a control freak.

Comment from Arizona Department of Environmental Quality spokesperson.
Last Updated 3 February 2020

"An EPA spokesperson said the 1974 federal Safe Drinking Water Act “lays out the statutory roles and responsibilities for ensuring that our drinking water is safe, and the Trump Navigable Waters Protection Rule does not change that."

"Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the nonprofit environmental advocacy organization Center for Biological Diversity, reported the safety of drinking water wouldn’t ultimately be impacted by the Trump rule change because water utilities are required by law to meet certain standards."

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

perhaps you would revise your delight if you looked into the actual physical actions which releases these methane domes.. it does not provide agricultural land..

Methane blasts holes in Siberian tundra, prompting warnings

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

You're not into objective research, are you? You see the headline of a political hit piece as another rotten egg to throw at president Trump so, without a second thought, you post it.

The published "Full List" is simply a list of categories and the number of regs in each, it tells us nothing about the onerous regulations taking the hit.

This "analysis" is based on research by Harvard and Columbia Law Schools. One can only imagine the ideological biases that influenced the approach these law school academians took.

I took a closer look at the EPA regs in question. There is no evidence the lawyers at Obama's Alma Mater considered the enormous cost of these regs, the impact they have had on the poor, or the widespread job losses. Obviously, the Harvard and Columbia law professors are only interested in preserving Obama's legacy and are using this to attack president Trump.