One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Trump Administration Is Reversing Nearly 100 Environmental Rules
Page <<first <prev 5 of 14 next> last>>
May 14, 2020 17:40:04   #
Cuda2020
 
American Vet wrote:
Proof is required from ELWNJ - they are prone to 'fabricating'.


That would be the right and their alternative facts.

Reply
May 14, 2020 18:15:42   #
Auntie Dee
 
Milosia2 wrote:
They’re only protected waterways if they run through RepubliPIGs owned lands.
I don’t care if You want to drink water from Koch industries wells.
I don’t.
Trump said open the valves and let that poisonous crud k**l what it can.
What happened to the milk if human kindness?
Who can’t see trump is a madman?
I’ve written before about the Cuyahoga River. Cleaned up finally. Both fishable and swim able with no consequences.
That really was a master fete.
And now let’s just forget about it!
If you are ok with that then tell me what is your point to being an American?
Why don’t you move to Somalia where there are no rules, no laws, no churches, no red lights, no nothing, your kind of place.
They’re only protected waterways if they run throu... (show quote)


Quit being so melodramatic! You are overstating your case, the result is it turns people off to any points you are trying to make!

Reply
May 14, 2020 22:32:48   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
Please provide a link to those accurate and conclusive studies...

The beginning standard for verification of "C*****e C****e" is thirty years.

CO2 does not pollute.



Barracuda2020 wrote:
Funny how the earth has gotten amazingly more clearer and cleaner since this p******c, but hey, man has nothing to do with the increased rise in pollution or Co2.

Your incorrect the studies can be very accurate and conclusive.

Reply
 
 
May 15, 2020 04:56:09   #
Cuda2020
 
Zemirah wrote:
Please provide a link to those accurate and conclusive studies...

The beginning standard for verification of "C*****e C****e" is thirty years.

CO2 does not pollute.


No one on the left has argued over the changes the earth has undergone, that is not the argument, the argument is man's impact on the earth and atmosphere and the acceleration in g****l w*****g due to f****l f**l. There are too many studies that verify the facts, I won't waste my time with, been there done that way too many times only to have the right simply ignore the informatiom, as they do with anything they don't want to hear. I am quite content for you to live in your ignorance and deniability, but when you ignore the overwhelming proof and work at undoing the good that has been set in place, then we have a real problem. Just as Trump has done with his corrupt EPA to undermine the positive results, which he now Trump has the gall to take credit for, that was a direct result from the changes under Obama.
The POS.

As far as stating CO2 doesn't pollute that is an ignorant statement, neither is pure oxygen, but if that were all you breathed you wouldn't live very long. We need oxygen to live, yet there's always too much of a good thing. Pure oxygen can be deadly. Breathing oxygen at pressures of 0.5 bar or more (roughly two and a half times normal) for more than 16 hours can lead to irreversible lung damage and, eventually, death.

Too much Co2 will have deathly effects also.

Reply
May 15, 2020 05:08:28   #
Cuda2020
 
Capt-jack wrote:
It was GMC that shut down the EV 1, not Bush, and it was Obama that fired the CEO of GM.


They were part of it, GMC can't confiscate peoples cars, it was the government under Bush
The California Air Resources Board's reversal of the mandate after relentless pressure and suits from automobile manufacturers, continual pressure from the oil industry, orchestrated hype over a future hydrogen car, and finally the George W. Bush administration.

Some motives that may have pushed the auto and oil industries to k**l off the electric car. Wally Rippel offers, for example, that the oil companies were afraid of losing their monopoly on t***sportation fuel over the coming decades; while the auto companies feared short-term costs for EV development and long-term revenue loss because EVs require little maintenance and no tuneups. Others explained the k*****g differently. GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss argued it was lack of consumer interest due to the maximum range of 80–100 miles per charge, and the relatively high price

Reply
May 15, 2020 05:31:33   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
CO2 is not a pollutant 'To label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth God created.

Without CO2 there would be no life (food) on Earth. The 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has caused an average increase in worldwide plant growth of over 12 percent and of 18 percent for trees. There is not a single instance of CO2 being a pollutant. Ask any chemistry professor.

Having never met or even heard of anyone with any desire to breath pure oxygen, can't imagine why you elaborate on a non-issue.

Any "studies" attributing c*****e c****e to the activities of man are bogus, purely done for millions in grant research money by greedy professors seeking to enrich their university laboratories, and to further their own professional careers, and yes, I could name a few.



Barracuda2020 wrote:
No one on the left has argued over the changes the earth has undergone, that is not the argument, the argument is man's impact on the earth and atmosphere and the acceleration in g****l w*****g due to f****l f**l. There are too many studies that verify the facts, I won't waste my time with, been there done that way too many times only to have the right simply ignore the informatiom, as they do with anything they don't want to hear. I am quite content for you to live in your ignorance and deniability, but when you ignore the overwhelming proof and work at undoing the good that has been set in place, then we have a real problem. Just as Trump has done with his corrupt EPA to undermine the positive results, which he now Trump has the gall to take credit for, that was a direct result from the changes under Obama.
The POS.

As far as stating CO2 doesn't pollute that is an ignorant statement, neither is pure oxygen, but if that were all you breathed you wouldn't live very long. We need oxygen to live, yet there's always too much of a good thing. Pure oxygen can be deadly. Breathing oxygen at pressures of 0.5 bar or more (roughly two and a half times normal) for more than 16 hours can lead to irreversible lung damage and, eventually, death.

Too much Co2 will have deathly effects also.
No one on the left has argued over the changes the... (show quote)

Reply
May 15, 2020 06:13:30   #
American Vet
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
No one on the left has argued over the changes the earth has undergone, that is not the argument, the argument is man's impact on the earth and atmosphere and the acceleration in g****l w*****g due to f****l f**l. There are too many studies that verify the facts, I won't waste my time with, been there done that way too many times only to have the right simply ignore the informatiom, as they do with anything they don't want to hear. I am quite content for you to live in your ignorance and deniability, but when you ignore the overwhelming proof and work at undoing the good that has been set in place, then we have a real problem. Just as Trump has done with his corrupt EPA to undermine the positive results, which he now Trump has the gall to take credit for, that was a direct result from the changes under Obama.
The POS.

As far as stating CO2 doesn't pollute that is an ignorant statement, neither is pure oxygen, but if that were all you breathed you wouldn't live very long. We need oxygen to live, yet there's always too much of a good thing. Pure oxygen can be deadly. Breathing oxygen at pressures of 0.5 bar or more (roughly two and a half times normal) for more than 16 hours can lead to irreversible lung damage and, eventually, death.

Too much Co2 will have deathly effects also.
No one on the left has argued over the changes the... (show quote)


So which countries are the worst polluters?

Reply
 
 
May 15, 2020 09:14:38   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
lindajoy wrote:
He also signs bill “for”conservation as well, Just a couple as examples... without knowing what cuts were made or considered its hard to evaluate the intent of its impact for or against....;
TRUMP SIGNS BILL PROTECTING MILLIONS OF ACRES OF PUBLIC LANDS
March 12, 2019
President Donald Trump signed a bill that provides protections to over two million acres of lands across the United States. The massive package was well-received by environmental groups, hunting and angling groups, and lawmakers from both parties; before Trump signed, it had easily passed in both the House and the Senate.
The package touches nearly every state, designating 1.3 million new acres of wilderness lands across several western states; creating new national monuments in Mississippi and Kentucky; and protecting hundreds of miles of rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers program. In addition, the bill guarantees authorization for the popular Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that uses revenues from offshore oil and gas drilling to fund public lands and conservation efforts nationwide.

Another.::
PRESIDENT TRUMP SIGNS BILL TO CLEAN UP OCEAN PLASTICS
October 12, 2018
President Trump called out other nations, including China and Japan, for “making our oceans into their landfills” when he signed legislation last week to improve efforts to clean up plastic trash from the world’s oceans.
“As president, I will continue to do everything I can to stop other nations from making our oceans into their landfills,” Trump said at a White House signing ceremony. “That’s why I’m please—very pleased, I must say—to put my signature on this important legislation.”
The law, passed with bipartisan support, amends the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Debris Act and funds the program through 2022. The law fosters efforts to clean up plastic trash from the world’s oceans and encourages federal trade negotiators to prod “leaders of nations responsible for the majority of marine debris” to improve management of waste that ends up in the oceans.


Trump agreed with Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, that trade talks with the Philippines should include plastic waste. “We’re okay with that,” he said. “I understand. A lot comes from there.”
Trump also blamed other unnamed countries that “abuse the oceans” and whose trash floats to the West Coast of the United States,” creating, he said, “a very unfair situation.”
“It’s incredible. It’s incredible when you look at it,” Trump said. “People don’t realize it, but all the time we’re being inundated by debris from other countries.”
Comparatively, the beaches of the United States are among the world’s cleanest. Kamilo Beach in Hawaii, which faces the Pacific gyre, where ocean trash collects, is the exception. But most of the world’s plastic trash collects in coastal regions and on beaches in developing nations that lack adequate municipal waste collection systems.
Japan has had for years one of the world’s highest recycling rates and earlier this year, China stopped buying the world’s trash. The United States was one of the top sellers of recycled plastic to China.
The president’s full remarks are here, and the text of the Save Our Seas Act is here.


And then with all the reduction we’ve seen in people’s ability to fly, drive or work, we’ve enjoyed a bit of fresh air seeing places we haven’t seen in years. Yet this report suggests that even matters taken so far out and off course because we can’t do anything much really doesn’t change anything..how much BS is that???If what we have experienced thus far during this p******c situation still hasn’t changed anything does that mean mother nature simply works out her own regardless of what we’re doing or not doing?

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1062893583
He also signs bill “for”conservation as well, Just... (show quote)


You do remember how badly trump lies, right?
Prolly this time he’s telling the t***h.
Or in his upside down world this means total destruction of parks and recreation.

Reply
May 15, 2020 10:52:13   #
Capt-jack Loc: Home
 
kemmer wrote:
So you’re saying I have to prove there were no people on the planet 60 million years ago? Seriously?


LOL, you always ask me too.

Reply
May 15, 2020 10:57:18   #
son of witless
 
Milosia2 wrote:
You do remember how badly trump lies, right?
Prolly this time he’s telling the t***h.
Or in his upside down world this means total destruction of parks and recreation.


It is the Kommunists on your side who wish to keep the " parks and recreation " out of the reach of American citizens by blaming the C****-** Chinese Plague.

Reply
May 15, 2020 11:29:21   #
Capt-jack Loc: Home
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
They were part of it, GMC can't confiscate peoples cars, it was the government under Bush
The California Air Resources Board's reversal of the mandate after relentless pressure and suits from automobile manufacturers, continual pressure from the oil industry, orchestrated hype over a future hydrogen car, and finally the George W. Bush administration.

Some motives that may have pushed the auto and oil industries to k**l off the electric car. Wally Rippel offers, for example, that the oil companies were afraid of losing their monopoly on t***sportation fuel over the coming decades; while the auto companies feared short-term costs for EV development and long-term revenue loss because EVs require little maintenance and no tuneups. Others explained the k*****g differently. GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss argued it was lack of consumer interest due to the maximum range of 80–100 miles per charge, and the relatively high price
They were part of it, GMC can't confiscate peoples... (show quote)


Boy, you are lost, GM, selected a few people to use the cars. They had to sign a contract that the car had to go back to the GMC corp. GM had to right to recall the car at any time. Look it up.
You can also look back for a 60 Minutes program on the cars. It's all out there for the smart people to view.

Reply
 
 
May 16, 2020 21:44:03   #
Cuda2020
 
Zemirah wrote:
CO2 is not a pollutant 'To label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth God created.

Without CO2 there would be no life (food) on Earth. The 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has caused an average increase in worldwide plant growth of over 12 percent and of 18 percent for trees. There is not a single instance of CO2 being a pollutant. Ask any chemistry professor.

Having never met or even heard of anyone with any desire to breath pure oxygen, can't imagine why you elaborate on a non-issue.

Any "studies" attributing c*****e c****e to the activities of man are bogus, purely done for millions in grant research money by greedy professors seeking to enrich their university laboratories, and to further their own professional careers, and yes, I could name a few.
CO2 is not a pollutant 'To label CO2 as a "po... (show quote)


I never said it was a pollutant, do you actually read what I wrote at all, amazing how I even used an example of O2 and you still missed it.

Reply
May 16, 2020 21:53:29   #
Cuda2020
 
Capt-jack wrote:
Boy, you are lost, GM, selected a few people to use the cars. They had to sign a contract that the car had to go back to the GMC corp. GM had to right to recall the car at any time. Look it up.
You can also look back for a 60 Minutes program on the cars. It's all out there for the smart people to view.


The point Genius is that it was all political between the Bushes along with the auto industry working in conjunction with the oil companies to use MORE fuel. That's what it's all about. These A-holes in the auto industry who refused to go into more energy-efficient cars, lost their shirts and we the taxpayer had to bail them out, again... which we never should have, but since the president was in complete Kahootz with them, so of course we bailed them out, under Bush's bailout, they didn't have to pay it back.

Now we're going through the same thing underTrump with the corporations, and as long as the right-wing is in the white house the people will continue to get screwed, along with the environment and our future and the oil mongers wall street and corporations will control all of us, not us controlling them through our government, which we can have control of but the way things are now, we don't.

Reply
May 17, 2020 11:29:03   #
Capt-jack Loc: Home
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
They were part of it, GMC can't confiscate peoples cars, it was the government under Bush
The California Air Resources Board's reversal of the mandate after relentless pressure and suits from automobile manufacturers, continual pressure from the oil industry, orchestrated hype over a future hydrogen car, and finally the George W. Bush administration.

Some motives that may have pushed the auto and oil industries to k**l off the electric car. Wally Rippel offers, for example, that the oil companies were afraid of losing their monopoly on t***sportation fuel over the coming decades; while the auto companies feared short-term costs for EV development and long-term revenue loss because EVs require little maintenance and no tuneups. Others explained the k*****g differently. GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss argued it was lack of consumer interest due to the maximum range of 80–100 miles per charge, and the relatively high price
They were part of it, GMC can't confiscate peoples... (show quote)


GM did not confiscate any one's car. the cars were given out for testing under a contract that stated GM could recall them at any time, seems this is above your IQ to understand.

CO2 is a necessary gas, which you lefties seem to not understand, plants that feed you ass need it to grow.
Now since you failed science 101 you do not know that CO2 is heavy and sinks, if you know ant history you would also know that back in the 1800 people would lower a candle down into a well to see if it went out,
if it did they know it was full of CO2 and you would suffocate if you went down into it. Now see if you can follow this, for CO2 to act as a greenhouse gas it needs to be in the upper atmosphere to hold in heat! So
please explain to me how a heave gas can get in the upper atmosphere that is heavy. That should be easy for a wizard-like you.

Reply
May 17, 2020 12:58:05   #
Cuda2020
 
Capt-jack wrote:
GM did not confiscate any one's car. the cars were given out for testing under a contract that stated GM could recall them at any time, seems this is above your IQ to understand.

CO2 is a necessary gas, which you lefties seem to not understand, plants that feed you ass need it to grow.
Now since you failed science 101 you do not know that CO2 is heavy and sinks, if you know ant history you would also know that back in the 1800 people would lower a candle down into a well to see if it went out,
if it did they know it was full of CO2 and you would suffocate if you went down into it. Now see if you can follow this, for CO2 to act as a greenhouse gas it needs to be in the upper atmosphere to hold in heat! So
please explain to me how a heave gas can get in the upper atmosphere that is heavy. That should be easy for a wizard-like you.
GM did not confiscate any one's car. the cars were... (show quote)


Your IQ us below reason. This will be my last attempt with you on this, as you've proven it to be pointless.
No one on the left has EVER said we don't need C02, because of course, we do any i***t knows that, it is our thermal blanket to the outer space. But there has to maintain a certain Balance to support life on earth for us as we know it, and not for example dinosaurs that lived in a much different environment. Their oxygen levels hovered between 10 and 15 percent -- far below today's 21 percent, we ould not function well or for long with half the amount of oxygen we are getting now, and O2 has already decreased.


It's called atmospheric mixing alone with the different layers of the atmospheres creating changes in molecular structures.

Atmospheric mixing is really rather effective, so the relative concentrations of carbon dioxide changes relatively slowly with altitude.

However, carbon dioxide near ground level is at a temperature that is very similar to that of the ground beneath it. The consequence is that carbon dioxide near that ground emits a similar amount of infra-red to the infra-red that it absorbs. Indeed, I would expect it to emit more infra-red radiation than it absorbs, as it radiates in all directions but it does not receive a proportional amount from above. I’m not an expert, but on a purely physics basis I would expect that ground-level CO2 would tend to cause (very modest) cooling.

However, gases that are at higher altitudes are cooler, and carbon-dioxide absorbs and emits best at slightly shorter wavelengths than the emission peak of the ground. The peak wavelength for emission increases with temperature, and the emission rates reduce rapidly beyond this peak.
Clearly, the colder carbon-dioxide at higher altitudes will give out much less radiant heat than the CO2 that is nearer the ground. It will, however, absorb almost the same amount. Some of the radiant heat that would otherwise be lost to space is absorbed before it leaves the atmosphere; this heats up the carbon dioxide. Over time the high altitude CO2 will t***sfer some of this additional heat to the ground* via a mix of thermal conduction and convection.
CO2 that is high in the atmosphere, therefore, causes g****l w*****g**.
The description as a “layer” is purely because of the localization of the temperature and thus the effect, not the localization of the CO2. This loose usage can, as you have demonstrated, confuse those who are not close enough to the immediate topic.

Ok Got it. That's it for you and me Mr Brawny, AKA musclehead.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 14 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.