• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EPA Takes First Step Toward Regulating Pollution Linked to Climate Change

Arch Enemy said:
from the article:
""Even if you believe that man-made gases are causing global warming, does it make any sense us to unilaterally tax ourselves when all that will do is send our manufacturing jobs to areas where they don't have any emissions standards like China and Mexico?" Inhofe asked."

Does Inhofe realize that the answer to his conundrum could very well be Government regulation?
Click to expand...

So you live in the fantasy that if, as Inholfe correctly argues, these rules force factories to close here and shift to other nations who do not share the same concerns of pollution, that Government can regulate them to stay here? It happens to be GOVERNMENT regulation that is driving them all away.

Assume for a minute we use trade sanctions and enforce the notion that Factories based in the US cannot re-locate, do you think they will operate here at a loss?

What is inane and absurd is the notion that Government can make us all prosperous safe and happy. But that appears to be the weak mental state of the Western world today; that Government is the answer to all our needs.

When the factories close, will the Government re-open them and use tax payer dollars to pay to operate them at a loss until all our money runs out? That would be the better question.
 
April 17 (Bloomberg) -- House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said he won’t compromise on his proposed 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases over the next decade in the face of criticism from lawmakers who say the economy could suffer.

“I want to keep those caps in place,” Waxman said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt” airing this weekend. “It’s what the scientists are telling us we must do” to avoid a global catastrophe, he said.

Waxman, a California Democrat, said he would be willing to give ground in other areas of the measure, which comes up for its opening round of debate in Congress next week.

The four days of subcommittee hearings will follow the Environmental Protection Agency’s ruling today that greenhouse gases pose a danger to the public, a finding that opens the way for new U.S. regulation of cars, power plants and factories.

Waxman, 69, said he expects his climate bill, as well as health-care reform legislation, to clear the House before August.
Click to expand...
Waxman Won?t Compromise on 20% Carbon Cap in Climate Measure - Bloomberg.com
 
MrVicchio said:
Okay. Doubt away.

You had to call the FD, they sent in a guy with a resperator and special vacuum. And we all laughed about it, but rules be rules man.
Click to expand...

Okay fine then I guess you would have no problem providing a link to back up your story.
 
winston53660 said:
Okay fine then I guess you would have no problem providing a link to back up your story.
Click to expand...

I really don't care whether you believe me or not, and I'm not gonna waste time with this any further.


And you still avoid the 3 questions I posed earlier. Amazing, should I repeat them?
CO2, labeled a pollutant and regulated by the EPA...

What does it mean, will it effect your life and how? To what end? What is the cost?

And the above, go ahead, you MG and the others whose initial reaction is "So what it's pollution!?"
Click to expand...
 
Truth Detector said:
So you live in the fantasy that if, as Inholfe correctly argues, these rules force factories to close here and shift to other nations who do not share the same concerns of pollution, that Government can regulate them to stay here? It happens to be GOVERNMENT regulation that is driving them all away.
Click to expand...
Oh, no, please don't leave. We're sorry. We really did not mean to consider the way you conduct business a poison to human health. Please, please, when we said "clean up your act" we didn't mean "we don't want to burden our health-system to deal with CVD's and carcinogens from your wish to make a pretty-penny, and sense it has turned into an argument of business, the millions of dollars EPA has claimed is the result of a persons' death by pollution." we really meant "please, please, we put business at the helm of our nation. Stay here, we will fix our way of life to benefit you..."


Assume for a minute we use trade sanctions and enforce the notion that Factories based in the US cannot re-locate, do you think they will operate here at a loss?
Click to expand...
I am not in favor for regulation to tell a business where it can and cannot operate.
I don't think they will have a choice if that's that case though.
What is inane and absurd is the notion that Government can make us all prosperous safe and happy. But that appears to be the weak mental state of the Western world today; that Government is the answer to all our needs.
Click to expand...
What is theology and superstition is this bull**** idea of the free-market being the great patron to our lives. That's nothing more than religion.
When the factories close, will the Government re-open them and use tax payer dollars to pay to operate them at a loss until all our money runs out? That would be the better question.
Click to expand...

They will turn the factories into baby furnaces. They will make Kristallnacht look like an invitation to a county fair.
 
Arch Enemy said:
This thread started out strong, but then it turned into a conspiracy theory and an interpretation that Government will regulate turning off and on switches.
Click to expand...

California already has a law that home thermostats must be able to be remotely controllable by the state.

Is that a conspiracy theory??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom