President-elect Donald Trump's goal to jump-start the coal industry will likely mean tossing out the Environmental Protection Agency's climate control agenda, the Washington Examiner reports.
Under Trump, the EPA is expected to focus on "genuine pollutants" that pose immediate problems to the public's well-being. It would move away from carbon pollution, which has been blamed for causing man-made globe warming.
"He's very much for clean air and clean water," Kathleen Hartnett-White, a member of Trump's economic advisory council, told the Washington Examiner. "But the better home for considering this discussion about carbon dioxide and climate is in the Department of Energy."
She said regulating carbon dioxide "is the killer of coal."
"Carbon dioxide has no adverse impact in the air we breath at all," Hartnett-White said. "It's a harmless trace gas that is actually an essential nutrient for plants."
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
14 comments:
I agree with this article.
Carbon Dioxide is not dangerous.
However, fluoride is a poison.
Mercury is a poison.
Vaccines are poison.
So on.
Stupid government.
Gut the EPA and hamstring the EPA's ability to just unilaterally make regulations.
1:41 CO2 IS dangerous. You are an absolute idiot.
3:10:
If CO2 is dangerous and people breath in oxygen and exhale CO2 while plants and trees take in CO2 and release oxygen, then shouldn't we start growing more plants and trees while killing people?
Also since Hydrogen is explosive and Oxygen is high flammable and water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen then should we ban water?
3:10
We should ban CO2 from soda, beer, fire extinguishers etc.
3:10 You're and idiot.
3:46 CO2 is dangerous. What you are referring to is toxicity. Ever seen what happens when a pocket of CO2 is released? It's called a limnic eruption. Basically a massive "cloud" of CO2 is released through a natural process such as an earthquake, volcanic eruption or explosions from say...coal mining. It causes asphyxiation. True, it's very very rare. The real danger of CO2 is it's role as a greenhouse gas (speeding up climate change) and also in our oceans where it creates carboxylic acid. Heard of coral bleaching? The earth usually takes care of CO2, as you said, by carbon sequestration when plants take it in to break the covalent bonds for photosynthesis. Trees take it in and trap it within the building blocks of their cells. When forests are clear cut and burned, guess what, we release a massive amount of CO2 that they were storing into the atmosphere.
To make this easier for you, you work on an assembly line where you have to place balls into a tube. Sure, when the balls are released at a steady rate you have no problem managing them. But when you are crushed by a dumptruck full of balls (such as these mass releases of CO2 caused by human activity) it gets a little more difficult.
I'm very glad you know your basic chemistry. Banning so called dihydrogen monoxide has been the subject of many satirical news stories. As usual, you failed to look at the big picture and understand the science behind it. Drinking water in excess WILL kill you.
As morbid as it is, the best thing for the planet would be the eradication of humans. However, we have the creativity, insight and ability to change our habits and harvest our energy from cleaner sources.
As far as your argument on vaccines? Did you die of measles, mumps, polio? Have you ever had to worry about dying from smallpox? You have vaccines to thank for that. Please do not continue to spread your ignorance in a subject you understand little about.
Also, let me add that the job losses experience in coal and fossil can be offset by investment in renewables if done properly. A clean cut elimination of fossil fuel from our energy systems would be catastrophic but there is no reason we cannot phase it out with a smooth transition. The only speed bump would be those oil barons and the fossil fuel millionaires dumping money into our political system. Go ahead and look at how many thousands of dollars are donated to climate change deniers in office. Why would they want to put a stop to an industry that makes them filthy rich?
Dear Mr. Science, please spare us from more awesome displays of your fantastic intelligence.
Yes the earth is warming and some of it is even from man made causes. Thinking that eliminating co2 and relying on wind and solar power is just plain simple minded. As simple minded as my point about water.
Didn't mean to offend you with my knowledge on the subject. Would you care to explain how eliminating co2 emissions and relying on wind and solar power is simple minded?
CO2 is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere. 400 PARTS PER MILLION
After the first 40 parts per million the effects of CO2 are negligible
Any person who thinks vaccines are safe is simply unaware of reality.
We have been lied to by Big Pharma.
You might want to do a little reading on the subject.
Try watching the new movie: VAXXED
Ex-CDC employees blow the lid on the data which very clearly indicate the MMP CAUSES Autism.
Open your mind, insert information.
Educate yourself.
5:36 You didn't offend me with your simple minded recitation of talking points from the liberal playbook.
Yes, I will explain.
Have you ever been to a full scale operating wind farm. My guess is no. If you had you would be aware of the size and noise of the wind farm. You would also notice that 10% or more of the wind turbines aren't operating even though the wind farm is fairly new and plenty of wind is blowing. Have you ever seen a wind farm that has been operating for 10 years. If you haven't you should. You will notice a lot of windmills not turning. I won't begin to talk about the birds. However I do wonder what happens with the natural weather pattern when that much energy is removed from the atmosphere. For 20 years I have tried to find any study on this and have found nothing. If adding CO2 to the atmosphere can have an effect then why wouldn't removing energy from it have an effect.
As to Solar power, have you ever been to a full scale operating solar power farm. My guess is no. If you had you would be in awe at the amount of land needed to produce such a small amount of electricity. Not to mention what are the effects on the land beneath these massive panels. Again very few studies have been done on this. Also lets not forget the effects of the mining that is needed to get the rare earth metals needed for these solar panels. This mining is just as devastating on the land as mining for coal. Of course we don't see the devastation because most of these minerals are in foreign countries.
If and when someone actually develops solar cells that are long lasting, economically feasible without huge government subsidies and can fit on the roof of a house then I will fully support alternative power on a large scale basis, although I don't believe there are currently enough of the rare earths available to do this on a large scale basis.
For these reasons I believe that relying on W&S power is a SIMPLISTIC viewpoint. However you are entitled to that viewpoint.
By the way I never said that reducing CO2 emissions would be a bad thing. I was just sarcastically making the point that 3:10's response to 1:41 was simple minded, inane and no better thought out then 1:41's comment.
The steps necessary to reduce CO2 could have equally bad consequences. Not just environmental consequences of which there are many but also societal costs that could overwhelm the weakest and least educated of the worlds population.
Significantly more birds are killed from oil spills than being hit by turbines. Offshore wind farms can produce a massive amount of energy. Some smaller countries get almost all their power needs from them. Also, the laws of thermodynamics state that energy cannot simply disappear from a system, it is neither created nor destroyed. This is why you cannot find a study on this disappearing energy. It doesn't simply evaporate, the energy from the kinetic movement of the atmosphere is harnessed to produce a current. I have been to a windfarm out in Nebraska. Your point about the noise is correct. But just like in Nebraska, they don't have to be put in your backyard. The argument that stopping a winds natural path would be an argument to tear down skyscrapers, because they too disturb the natural flow of wind.
Solar panels have made massive improvements in the last 5 years alone. You should check them out, seriously. They have plenty of panels that can be placed on your roof. Tesla is manufacturing tiles that are even aesthetically pleasing! I have no knowledge of mining practices in other countries so I can't make an argument there. I would assume you are correct since we tend to have a "not my problem" attitude.
You have some good points but I'll have to respectfully disagree. Fossil fuels will be phased out, it's inevitable. The question is do we want to switch to renewables after we've sucked all the fuels from the earth potentially causing irreversible damage or do we make the switch now and be proactive rather than reactive?
As for the anti-vaccer. When your kid gets measles mumps or rubella, don't come crying to anyone. Just let nature take its course then. What you have fallen victim to is a desperate ploy to make money from fear mongering documentaries. THEY have brainwashed YOU. When Louis Pasteur created the rabies vaccine in 1886 he was not under the control of Big Pharm. Eradicating smallpox was not a Big Pharm move.
"But just like in Nebraska, they don't have to be put in your backyard."
You obviously don't understand line loss.
Post a Comment