RIP Carbon Capture

[Wild Cobra]

A few weeks old, but late is better than never, right?

American Electric Power (http://www.aep.com/) terminated their 2 year Carbon capture experiment, and I believe no one will follow in their footsteps. They placed it on a 235 megawatt system and successfully captured about 90% of the CO2. Their reason is twofold. They don't see the federal government subsidizing future operations, and will not be able to pass the cost along to the consumers. I couldn't find what this subsidy or cost is during the short time I searched, but the total cost of the installation was about $668 million with half subsidized. Now for a 235 MW capacity, that's $2,842.55 per kWatt. Not real expensive over the long term, but still, too many years at a few pennies per kwh. I get over 16 years at 2 cents per kwh, and this is just the installation cost. How much is the ongoing operational costs?

Funny how these liberal utopian ideas never come to pass without tax payer subsidies. That's because they are most often, unrealistic feel-good ideas.

Their news release:

AEP Places Carbon Capture Commercialization On Hold, Citing Uncertain Status Of Climate Policy, Weak Economy (http://www.aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/?id=1704)

[Halberto]

After your butter thermometer thread I will never take you seriously.

[Wild Cobra]

After your butter thermometer thread I will never take you seriously.
LOL...

Don't knock it till you try it.

Use real butter though. I will not be responsible if you adjust your temperature for margarine, spreads, etc.

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182528&highlight=butter

[Winehole23]

Yes, I am serious. I am in my kitchen everyday. I like real butter. If it's too firm to spread, I raise the temperature. If it's too soft, I cool the temperature. At the same time, the temperature is in a comfortable range.Whoa there.

I am serious. I am in my kitchen everyday. I like real butter (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5335804&postcount=12).

[Winehole23]

Weird, man. The temperature is in a comfortable range too. Earlier on, I cooled the temperature.

[Winehole23]

(This isn't fucking facebook, WC.) :lol

[Wild Cobra]

(This isn't fucking facebook, WC.) :lol
So why are you spraying the walls with useless BS?

[Winehole23]

So why are you spraying the walls with useless BS?Repeating your banal observations verbatim is useless bs? Appreciate the candor.

[Winehole23]

I just thought you'd appreciate the context and the proof you said what Halberto said.

[Drachen]

A few weeks old, but late is better than never, right?

American Electric Power (http://www.aep.com/) terminated their 2 year Carbon capture experiment, and I believe no one will follow in their footsteps. They placed it on a 235 megawatt system and successfully captured about 90% of the CO2. Their reason is twofold. They don't see the federal government subsidizing future operations, and will not be able to pass the cost along to the consumers. I couldn't find what this subsidy or cost is during the short time I searched, but the total cost of the installation was about $668 million with half subsidized. Now for a 235 MW capacity, that's $2,842.55 per kWatt. Not real expensive over the long term, but still, too many years at a few pennies per kwh. I get over 16 years at 2 cents per kwh, and this is just the installation cost. How much is the ongoing operational costs?

Funny how these liberal utopian ideas never come to pass without tax payer subsidies. That's because they are most often, unrealistic feel-good ideas.

Their news release:

AEP Places Carbon Capture Commercialization On Hold, Citing Uncertain Status Of Climate Policy, Weak Economy (http://www.aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/?id=1704)

So what you are saying is that there is no acceptable way to make coal a clean technology?? Sounds like a pretty staunchly liberal view to me.

[MannyIsGod]

So what you are saying is that there is no acceptable way to make coal a clean technology?? Sounds like a pretty staunchly liberal view to me.

:lmao

Pretty much.

Kinda sad you beat me to the punch though :(

[DMX7]

After your butter thermometer thread I will never take you seriously.

What took you so long?

[boutons_deux]

capturing CO2/mercury/cadmium/etc exhaust from coal plants isn't sufficient to "make coal clean".

Coal extraction, esp when done by a criminal org like Massey, is dangerous and destructive. Coal ash (BigCoal compromised EPA not to label ash as toxic) is a huge pollutant.

[boutons_deux]

Republicans Approve Regulation-Blocking Coal Bill on ALEC's Wish List

House Republicans who have received hefty campaign contributions from coal and electric power companies approved coal legislation supported by the industry and super-lobby group the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted to approve legislation on July 13 that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating toxic coal ash wastes from electric power plants and delay the implementation of air quality rules. The Republican-controlled House is expected to pass the bills.

Rep. David McKinley (R-West Virginia) introduced the bill that would block the EPA from regulating coal ash powder and sludge as a hazardous waste and give state agencies authority to further loosen regulations.

http://www.truth-out.org/print/4353

[Winehole23]

Use real butter though.Ease up, Martha Stewart, some people have dietary restrictions! :toast

[greyforest]

Funny how these liberal utopian ideas never come to pass without tax payer subsidies. That's because they are most often, unrealistic feel-good ideas.


Like public health care, public schools, research, and space exploration

[Th'Pusher]

LOL at Clean Coal Technology. Glad that ridiculous myth has been dispelled. By the way, I'm pretty sure those subsidies started under Bush. He's the one that began pushing this idea, although Obama had taken it up as well.

[boutons_deux]

Mayor Bloomberg Gives $50 Million to Sierra Club Anti-Coal Campaign Because Coal Plants Kill People and Harm Our Kids

Bloomberg: The time has come for our nation to begin transitioning away from coal-fired power plants towards cleaner, more efficient, and more cost effective energy sources. If we succeed, and I fully believe that we will, we will save millions of lives and we will help millions of children avoid asthma and its debilitating effects.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced today that he is giving $50 million to the Sierra Club campaign to shut down dirty coal plants around the nation.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/21/275378/mayor-bloomberg-sierra-coal-plants-kill-people-and-harm-our-kids/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Cli mate+Progress%29

[RandomGuy]

capturing CO2/mercury/cadmium/etc exhaust from coal plants isn't sufficient to "make coal clean".

Coal extraction, esp when done by a criminal org like Massey, is dangerous and destructive. Coal ash (BigCoal compromised EPA not to label ash as toxic) is a huge pollutant.

Massey is bad enough.

If you want some real hair-raising scary shit read up on Chinese mines, especially the illegal ones.

Between the pollution and the deaths it is a libertarian's dream. No government oversight keeping the "free-market entrepreneurs" from digging up all the coal they want, whereever they want, whenever they want, using whoever will work for what they offer. No red tape, no nothing, just a market price for coal, and producers without government red tape meeting that demand, and creating all the jobs that go with it.

Sounds like a utopia, right? The Job Creators that own the mines are really forging the economy ahead.

[coyotes_geek]

RG's really been cranking out the straw lately.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, behind the snark is a very good point about coal's dirtiness going far past the emissions. Even here in the US coal extraction can be horrendous. Look at the mountaintop mines in WV etc.

[boutons_deux]

methymercury.


http://cleanairboard.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/clean-air-board-testimony-on-power-plant-mercury-rules/

http://www.deq.state.ne.us/airdivis.nsf/pages/a-3

[Wild Cobra]

So what you are saying is that there is no acceptable way to make coal a clean technology?? Sounds like a pretty staunchly liberal view to me.
Not with today's technology. We need technological breakthroughs. Thing is, they are smart enough to know this would fail. It's just a liberal feel good waste of money. Really depressing in my view.

[Wild Cobra]

Like public health care, public schools, research, and space exploration
With the exception of huge ventures like space exploration, we have always had the others in less formal forms. People did just fine. I would say our founding fathers were brilliant considering they didn't have government schools. Others were fine getting schooling from those one room school houses. The community took care of it's own, probably better, than government one-size-fits-all solutions.

[Wild Cobra]

Republicans Approve Regulation-Blocking Coal Bill on ALEC's Wish List

House Republicans who have received hefty campaign contributions from coal and electric power companies approved coal legislation supported by the industry and super-lobby group the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted to approve legislation on July 13 that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating toxic coal ash wastes from electric power plants and delay the implementation of air quality rules. The Republican-controlled House is expected to pass the bills.

Rep. David McKinley (R-West Virginia) introduced the bill that would block the EPA from regulating coal ash powder and sludge as a hazardous waste and give state agencies authority to further loosen regulations.

http://www.truth-out.org/print/4353
I really get tired of you and others posting material that doesn't have the bill numbers attached. How many times have I proven these sites often misrepresent the truth?

Bill number please.

[ElNono]

H.r.1391

http://www.gipl.org/blog/blogView.asp?blogID=40968220&categoryId=6&title=Urgent+Advocacy+Alert%3A+Toxic+Coal+Ash

[Wild Cobra]

H.r.1391

http://www.gipl.org/blog/blogView.asp?blogID=40968220&categoryId=6&title=Urgent+Advocacy+Alert%3A+Toxic+Coal+Ash
Thanx.

If that's what they are talking about, I don't see a problem. It's all about removing the "cradle to grave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Conservation_and_Recovery_Act#Subtitle_C: _.22Cradle_to_Grave.22_requirements)" accounting requirement for these waste byproducts that aren't that serious, especially if some are recyclable.

[ElNono]

Thanx.

If that's what they are talking about, I don't see a problem. It's all about removing the "cradle to grave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Conservation_and_Recovery_Act#Subtitle_C: _.22Cradle_to_Grave.22_requirements)" accounting requirement for these waste byproducts that aren't that serious, especially if some are recyclable.

You don't think properly tracking and accounting for hazardous waste byproducts is that serious? I think regulating how those byproducts are disposed is exactly EPA's job.

[Wild Cobra]

You don't think properly tracking and accounting for hazardous waste byproducts is that serious? I think regulating how those byproducts are disposed is exactly EPA's job.
It doesn't need that level of tracking. I think it would be more acceptable to have that level of tracking on CFLs, than ash.

[ElNono]

It doesn't need that level of tracking. I think it would be more acceptable to have that level of tracking on CFLs, than ash.

They're both hazardous substances. If it wouldn't be hazardous, it wouldn't have that classification, thus wouldn't require that oversight.

[RandomGuy]

It doesn't need that level of tracking. I think it would be more acceptable to have that level of tracking on CFLs, than ash.

This is only a reasonable position if you don't know what is generally in this waste.


Toxic constituents depend upon the specific coal bed makeup, but may include one or more of the following elements or substances in quantities from trace amounts to several percent: arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, chromium VI, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, strontium, thallium, and vanadium, along with dioxins and PAH compounds.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash

If you are trying to say that tracking and safely disposing of dioxins and toxic metals are not really necessary, I would say that is not a reasonable position.

Do you think it is important to track and safely dispose of such things?





(by the by here is the entry for "PAH compounds") (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon)

As a pollutant, they are of concern because some compounds have been identified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic.

(teratogenic = causing birth defects, like two heads)

[boutons_deux]

"I don't see a problem"

coal ash is full of toxic minerals and compounds, but that's OK with WC.

WC doesn't see a problem with destroying mountains and millions of tons of toxic coal ash blowing around the country.

EPA Guidance on Mountaintop Removal: Acceptable Birth Defects and Cancer Corridors in Appalachian Coalfields?

In the face of irrefutable evidence of a spiraling humanitarian crisis in the Appalachian coalfields, the beleaguered EPA has just issued non-binding “guidance” rules to maintain the devastating practice of mountaintop removal mining through an admittedly failed review process.

For Appalachian residents who live under the deadly fallout of EPA’s decisions, state corruption and Big Coal’s assault, the rules are akin to a prolonged death sentence–and in effect, tacitly recognize birth defects and cancer corridors as acceptable collateral damage in the coalfields.

“This guideline falls far short of protecting the life and health of people living beneath and near mountaintop removal,” said Appalachian leader Bo Webb. “There are only two solutions available that will protect life in mountaintop removal communities. One: Keep all materials on the permitted site including blasting dust. Two: The most logical–abolsih mountaintop removal. Anything else serves only as a guideline for a slower kill.”

“The communities of Appalachia need our health and lives protected by abolishing mountaintop removal,” added Vernon Haltom, Executive Director of Coal River Mountain Watch. “While this final guidance is a step in the right direction, Coal River Mountain Watch needs the EPA to take much stronger action. Unfortunately, the politicians entrusted to represent our best interests would rather shackle the only agency taking action to protect us.”

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/07/22/epa-guidance-on-mountaintop-removal-acceptable-birth-defects-and-cancer-corridors-in-appalachian-coalfields/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet#

======

Government of UCA, by UCA, for UCA

[MannyIsGod]

Not with today's technology. We need technological breakthroughs. Thing is, they are smart enough to know this would fail. It's just a liberal feel good waste of money. Really depressing in my view.

Hey dumbass, liberal's don't want this.

[Th'Pusher]

a slightly better idea?




We have a winner
British Columbia’s carbon tax woos sceptics
Jul 21st 2011 | VANCOUVER | from the print edition


DURING Canada’s 2008 federal election campaign Stephen Harper, the Conservative prime minister, warned that an opposition promise to introduce a carbon tax would “screw everybody”. Partly for that reason, Mr Harper is still the prime minister. But in the same year, the provincial government in British Columbia introduced a carbon tax of its own. Despite the levy, its economy is doing well. What is more, the tax is popular: it is backed by 54%, says a survey in the province by Environics, a pollster. Gordon Campbell, the Liberal premier who introduced the tax, won a provincial election the next year.

When arguing for the carbon tax, Mr Campbell faced the same political obstacles that have stymied such plans elsewhere. Only environmentalists were enthusiastic. Businesses feared it would add to costs and slow the economy. The leftish New Democratic Party (NDP) worried it would hurt the poor. But these fears have proved groundless. “The carbon tax has been good for the environment, good for taxpayers and it hasn’t hurt the economy,” says Stewart Elgie, a professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa.

It helped that the law introducing the levy required its proceeds to be recycled back to individuals and companies as cuts in income taxes. The new tax was initially set at C$10 ($10) per tonne of carbon-dioxide emissions, rising by increments of C$5 per year to C$30 in 2012. It seems to be working as planned. Since 2008 fuel consumption per head in the province has dropped by 4.5%, more than elsewhere in Canada. British Columbians use less fuel than any other Canadians. And British Columbians pay lower income taxes too.

The new tax has not weakened the province’s economy, which has been boosted by high world prices for its commodity exports. Unemployment is slightly below the national average, and growth slightly higher. Because the tax started low and its rises were set out in advance, businesses had plenty of time to make plans to cut their carbon use.

A recent poll by the Pembina Institute, a green think-tank, found that 70% of British Columbians think their province should be a leader in cutting emissions. Christy Clark, Mr Campbell’s successor as premier, is committed to keeping the tax. Adrian Dix, the NDP leader in the province, says his party should have supported it. Both leaders want future carbon revenues to be used for energy-efficient infrastructure projects rather than more tax cuts. Only John Cummins, the Conservative leader in British Columbia, still opposes the tax.

At C$25 per tonne, British Columbia’s tax already exceeds the price of carbon in Europe’s emissions-trading scheme. But it is still too low to prompt radical changes in behaviour: it adds just five cents to the price of a litre of petrol. Getting the most energy-intensive industries to make big cuts might take a tax four times as high. Even so, British Columbia has shown the rest of Canada, a country with high carbon emissions per head, that a carbon tax can achieve multiple benefits at minimal cost. Unless Mr Harper reconsiders his opposition to the idea, in the future it might be him who faces being screwed.

[MannyIsGod]

Thats innovative. Funneling back the amount collected via income tax is actually very very smart I like it.

[Wild Cobra]

They're both hazardous substances. If it wouldn't be hazardous, it wouldn't have that classification, thus wouldn't require that oversight.
So why don't we comply with subchaper C regulations with CFL's?

Thing is, this isn't the only regulation. It doesn't eliminate all regulation. It only removes the stringent cradle to grave accounting requirements of 42 USC 6921. It doesn't remove the requirements.

[Wild Cobra]

This is only a reasonable position if you don't know what is generally in this waste.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash

If you are trying to say that tracking and safely disposing of dioxins and toxic metals are not really necessary, I would say that is not a reasonable position.

Do you think it is important to track and safely dispose of such things?





(by the by here is the entry for "PAH compounds") (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon)


(teratogenic = causing birth defects, like two heads)
These are sold waste compounds that have other requirements. If a firm is going to improperly dispose of them, they can just doctor the books anyway. It's not going to change any ongoing immoral activity. just reduce the costs involved.

[Wild Cobra]

"I don't see a problem"

coal ash is full of toxic minerals and compounds, but that's OK with WC.

WC doesn't see a problem with destroying mountains and millions of tons of toxic coal ash blowing around the country.

EPA Guidance on Mountaintop Removal: Acceptable Birth Defects and Cancer Corridors in Appalachian Coalfields?

In the face of irrefutable evidence of a spiraling humanitarian crisis in the Appalachian coalfields, the beleaguered EPA has just issued non-binding “guidance” rules to maintain the devastating practice of mountaintop removal mining through an admittedly failed review process.

For Appalachian residents who live under the deadly fallout of EPA’s decisions, state corruption and Big Coal’s assault, the rules are akin to a prolonged death sentence–and in effect, tacitly recognize birth defects and cancer corridors as acceptable collateral damage in the coalfields.

“This guideline falls far short of protecting the life and health of people living beneath and near mountaintop removal,” said Appalachian leader Bo Webb. “There are only two solutions available that will protect life in mountaintop removal communities. One: Keep all materials on the permitted site including blasting dust. Two: The most logical–abolsih mountaintop removal. Anything else serves only as a guideline for a slower kill.”

“The communities of Appalachia need our health and lives protected by abolishing mountaintop removal,” added Vernon Haltom, Executive Director of Coal River Mountain Watch. “While this final guidance is a step in the right direction, Coal River Mountain Watch needs the EPA to take much stronger action. Unfortunately, the politicians entrusted to represent our best interests would rather shackle the only agency taking action to protect us.”

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/07/22/epa-guidance-on-mountaintop-removal-acceptable-birth-defects-and-cancer-corridors-in-appalachian-coalfields/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet#

======

Government of UCA, by UCA, for UCA
How does this apply to the solid waste product after the carbon in the coal is consumed?

Nobody is denying there are toxic byproducts.

I guess nobody wants to talk about sequestration, huh?

[Blake]

How many times have I proven these sites often misrepresent the truth?


If I had been drinking coke when I read this, I might have spit it all over my screen

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

If I had been drinking coke when I read this, I might have spit it all over my screen
Why would you drink that poison?

[Blake]

Why would you drink that poison?

regular Coke, I almost never drink.

I like the Coke Zero with vanilla. Pretty addictive, imo.

[Drachen]

why would you drink that poison?

irony!!!

[Wild Cobra]

regular Coke, I almost never drink.

I like the Coke Zero with vanilla. Pretty addictive, imo.
Carcinogens and artificial crap.

Don't forget the CO2 and global warming!

[RandomGuy]

Keeping track of this stuff from production to disposal is too time consuming and expensive--Wild Cobra

"Toxic constituents [of coal ash]depend upon the specific coal bed makeup, but may include one or more of the following elements or substances in quantities from trace amounts to several percent: arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, chromium VI, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, strontium, thallium, and vanadium, along with dioxins and PAH compounds.[1][2] "--Wikipedia

Do you think it is important to track and safely dispose of such things?-RG



These are sold waste compounds that have other requirements. If a firm is going to improperly dispose of them, they can just doctor the books anyway. It's not going to change any ongoing immoral activity. just reduce the costs involved.

That's not really an answer to the question. I take it your answer is "No, it is not important to track such things, because it is too expensive, and people can lie anyways if they want to".

The policy solution you would then seem to be in favor of is removing reporting requirements to the EPA, so "we can have more jobs".

I would rather the government retain the ability to drop the hammer on the cheaters when they catch them, than to trust in industry to "just do the right thing".

Honestly I find your logic really weak. "we should not bother with X, because people will just break the law making X illegal"

The nasty shit in this ash is the unavoidable byproduct of burning coal. It seems to me you want to allow the producers of this toxic shit a free ride to dump it anywhere that is cheap, if they want to, because that "creates jobs".

Is that what you are saying?

[Wild Cobra]

RG...

If a firm is going to disregard the regulations, what good does accounting do that can be doctored anyway?

I see it as just more "feel good" liberal expenses.

[Blake]

Carcinogens and artificial crap.


I'm sure I know, but what ingredient(s) are you referring to as carcinogens?

[MannyIsGod]

I like Vanilla Coke Zero, too!

[MannyIsGod]

I like Fresca more, TBH.

[RandomGuy]

RG...

If a firm is going to disregard the regulations, what good does accounting do that can be doctored anyway?

I see it as just more "feel good" liberal expenses.

If someone truly wants to risks the costs of non-compliance, they will do so, and that is true for *any* law, but it is hardly a reason to not enact a law against some costly or harmful behavior.

You may as well ask:
"If someone is going to murder someone else, what good does the death penalty do?"

The answer to both your question, and the above is deterrence.
Businesses all the time use this cost/benefit calculuus to determine courses of action, and have famously used this to cover all sorts of behavior.

Insurance companies make this kind of cold calculation all the time. "Is it cheaper to live up to the policy, or to fight the contract we entered into and attemp to weasel out of our obligations". Ethics be damned, lets make some money.

You force companies to be aware of their toxic waste, and provide penalties that vastly increase the cost of doing something shady with it. You add severe criminal penalties for faking the books and outright fraud, along with some more minor penalties for errors to prod people into correct accounting and handling of the toxic waste.

Without this, you get polluters who will force the costs of their pollution on the unsuspecting.

Pollution is a definite cost. The only thing that this kind of reporting and disposal does is forces the people who want to use the product to bear the true costs of the pollution, instead of shifting that to everybody else not a party to the transaction.

If you want to use a product that produces this kind of nasty shit, then you should bear the cost of that, and not force everybody else to pay for it, just so you can get that product a few pennies cheaper.

[RandomGuy]

This concept, "negative externality", has been explained to you over and over and over, yet it still seems to elude you.

It isn't some "feel good" liberal expenses.

It is applying a conceptual framework to a problem, with the ultimate goal of eliminating unnecessary drags on the economy.

Do you not understand that it is wrong to steal from others?

[ElNono]

I'm sure I know, but what ingredient(s) are you referring to as carcinogens?

Coal ash, obviously :lol

[RandomGuy]

Just in case WC wants to walk back his "feel good liberal expenses" quote.

[Wild Cobra]

Just in case WC wants to walk back his "feel good liberal expenses" quote.
Say all you want asswipe.

You're a fucking liar by the way you changed the quote.

What's life like in the pathetic lane?

[Wild Cobra]

So it should be "some pollution controls are" instead of "pollution contols are".

Fair enough.
There you go lying again.

If you had enough intelligence to follow what I said, I clearly indicated that requiring they say on paper how they dispose of it is a waste of expense and time. If they are going to unscrupulously dispose of it, they will also unscrupulously lie about it on paper.

But you are the master of being unscrupulous, aren't you, so why don't you understand this concept?

[RandomGuy]

Say all you want asswipe.

You're a fucking liar by the way you changed the quote.

What's life like in the pathetic lane?

I thought it was fair, you didn't.

I took the point and changed it to something that is hopefully more accurate.

(shrugs)

If you got your panties in a wad, quit saying stupid shit.

[Wild Cobra]

I thought it was fair, you didn't.

I took the point and changed it to something that is hopefully more accurate.

(shrugs)

If you got your panties in a wad, quit saying stupid shit.
"Hopefully more accurate"

Bullshit. It was a calculated cheap shot.

Do you have any redeeming values?

[RandomGuy]

There you go lying again.

If you had enough intelligence to follow what I said, I clearly indicated that requiring they say on paper how they dispose of it is a waste of expense and time. If they are going to unscrupulously dispose of it, they will also unscrupulously lie about it on paper.

But you are the master of being unscrupulous, aren't you, so why don't you understand this concept?

I fully understand what you are saying, obviously better than you yourself do.

If someone is going to lie/cheat/murder they will do it anyways, yes.

But we have penalties for these things.

Controls such as this, are done partly to increase the penalty for breaking the law concerning the disposal.

The ability to hold companies accountable is a requirement for any law.

Is accountability not something you think is a good idea?

[RandomGuy]

"Hopefully more accurate"

Bullshit. It was a calculated cheap shot.

Do you have any redeeming values?

Crocodile tears from a guy who constantly distorts what "liberals" think.

:cry:

Sorry, you will get no pity from me on this. Like I said, stop saying stupid shit, and you wouldn't have the problem of your words coming back to haunt you.

[RandomGuy]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1438

[Wild Cobra]

I fully understand what you are saying, obviously better than you yourself do.

If someone is going to lie/cheat/murder they will do it anyways, yes.

But we have penalties for these things.

Controls such as this, are done partly to increase the penalty for breaking the law concerning the disposal.

The ability to hold companies accountable is a requirement for any law.

Is accountability not something you think is a good idea?
Wow...

And you extrapolate that into changing my quote.

Why not just increase the penalties in the first place? These people either play by the rules, or they don't. This added burden just adds expenses to all. There is no justification for it except to make more government jobs for more peanut counters.

[RandomGuy]

Wow...

And you extrapolate that into changing my quote.

Why not just increase the penalties in the first place? These people either play by the rules, or they don't. This added burden just adds expenses to all. There is no justification for it except to make more government jobs for more peanut counters.

Riddle me this:

How do you figure out if someone is playing by the rules?

[Wild Cobra]

Riddle me this:

How do you figure out if someone is playing by the rules?
There are better ways, and probably in play also. The "cradle to grave" rules are nonsense.

[RandomGuy]

Riddle me this:

How do you figure out if someone is playing by the rules?


There are better ways, and probably in play also. The "cradle to grave" rules are nonsense.

That isn't an answer.

Either you can give me some kind of option, or we can assume your criticism that the reporting requirements are unnecessary is invalid.

[ElNono]

That isn't an answer.

Either you can give me some kind of option, or we can assume your criticism that the reporting requirements are unnecessary is invalid.

You just don't understand his concept

[Wild Cobra]

That isn't an answer.

Either you can give me some kind of option, or we can assume your criticism that the reporting requirements are unnecessary is invalid.
I'm not going to research something to justify an opinion.

Tell me, how many times did these requirements pan out? Do you care to do that research?

We disagree on the need for this requirement. Fine.

You are still a pathetic ass because you misrepresent peoples easily understood intent.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not going to research something to justify an opinion.

Tell me, how many times did these requirements pan out? Do you care to do that research?

We disagree on the need for this requirement. Fine.

You are still a pathetic ass because you misrepresent peoples easily understood intent.

So you don't like the rules that have to be enacted to enforce pollution limits that discourage companies from dumping toxic waste anywhere, but can't tell me what rules you would put in place that are better.

Gotcha.

"Those rules are really bad!"

"Ok, fine, they are bad. How should be change them to be better?"

"um, well, those rules are really bad!"

:rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

So you don't like the rules that have to be enacted to enforce pollution limits that discourage companies from dumping toxic waste anywhere, but can't tell me what rules you would put in place that are better.

Gotcha.

"Those rules are really bad!"

"Ok, fine, they are bad. How should be change them to be better?"

"um, well, those rules are really bad!"

:rolleyes
Stop sidestepping my complaint.

You are a fucking liar. You slander me. You are pathetic to have to do so.

[RandomGuy]

Stop sidestepping my complaint.

You are a fucking liar. You slander me. You are pathetic to have to do so.

(sighs heavily)

Fine, since you want to act like a big baby about it, how exactly is the quote a lie?

Did you or did you not call reporting requirements for toxic pollution "feel good" liberal expenses?

[Wild Cobra]

Did you or did you not call reporting requirements for toxic pollution "feel good" liberal expenses?
Just the "cradle to grave" requirements.

[TeyshaBlue]

I like Vanilla Coke Zero, too!

Vanilla? You and Blake hand over your man-cards nao!:ihit

[MannyIsGod]

FU don't knock it till you've tried it!

[baseline bum]

Shit, good thing you didn't say vanilla big red.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm not going to research something to justify an opinion.



:shootme

[TeyshaBlue]

FU don't knock it till you've tried it!

Dude...I can't risk it. I'm fighting the man-board over the girly drink restriction for Kamakazies and Melloncollies.

[RandomGuy]

Just the "cradle to grave" requirements.

So in other words, you think that "some pollution controls" are silly.

[mouse]

While your at it get rid of carbon dating also.

[RandomGuy]

While your at it get rid of carbon dating also.

:lol

Thanks man. I needed that.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not going to research something to justify an opinion.

That may be an even better siggy quote.

"I don't like the rules in place to control pollution, but can't be bothered to actually come up with anything better."

If you don't like the "cradle to grave" accounting for coal ash, how *would* you enforce the laws that restrict this toxic waste?

If you can't think of anything better, then STFU.

[Agloco]

I'm not going to research something to justify an opinion.

You'll likely get hung by your balls then in most threads. Just saying.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not going to research something to justify an opinion.

Glad you guys can have fun with that. I guess I should have said "that opinion."

[mouse]

You'll likely get hung by your balls then in most threads. Just saying.

In order to be hung by the balls your assuming your opinions and data your able to find on Google is written in stone, when in fact we all have so much to learn.

After all you so called smart thinkers in here just realized we had two moons at one time who knows what you clowns will come up with next.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/mouse-flag-small.gif