Major US Shift On Climate Change Policy.....it has begun.....

[audtatious]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Ho...se_Ga

America's Environmental Protection Agency has announced that greenhouse gases are a danger to human health.

The ruling will allow it to regulate emissions without the approval of the US Congress - a move designed to show President Obama is taking climate change seriously.

The president and more than 100 other world leaders, including Gordon Brown, are set to attend the end of a major climate change conference in Copenhagen, which is taking place until December 18.

The meeting is being described as the "best, last chance" to save the planet.

The Obama administration wants to show that the US, which has shunned the current Kyoto Protocol, is taking action to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation.

Around 15,000 delegates are attending the talks which aim to agree immediate action to curb greenhouse gases and come up with billions of pounds in aid and technology to help poorer countries limit emissions.

The EPA has concluded greenhouse gases are endangering people's health and must be regulated.

The so-called endangerment finding is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from power plants, factories and cars.

The EPA would be able to order better insulation or greener technology to reduce emissions in the US, the world's largest economy and second biggest source of carbon blamed for global warming.

But the move has already faced fierce resistance by Republicans in Congress, which has yet to finalise legislation that would order emission cuts by 2020 of between 17% and 20% from 2005 levels.

Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, said of the EPA move: "This is very significant. If the Senate fails to adopt legislation (on emissions), then the administration will have the authority to regulate."

Meanwhile, Republican politicians have seized on leaked emails from climate scientists that they say calls into question the basis behind action on global warming.

Climate sceptics claim the stolen emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit show that researchers were manipulating data to support a theory of man-made global warming.

But scientists and negotiators at the Copenhagen talks have expressed anger over the email theft, calling the hacking an attempt to muddy public opinion on the issue.

--------------------------------------------------------

So, the roller coaster is now topping the hill.....I wonder if they are going to try and manage water vapor, which makes up 95% of greenhouse gasses. We all know CO2 is a pollutant now so they will definitely press on that.

[AZhitman]

More intrusion into our private lives... Big surprise.

So, governement shouldn't be allowed to tell us what we can do in the privacy of our own homes, yet they can dictate what's in the garage?

They've already pretty much outlawed fireplaces here in the Valley... what's next?

[RobPaulson]

OMG the arrogance of so many people, to think we could end the world or induce some kind of catostrophic natural disaster by 2020 is so god damn retarded.

everyone needs to SLOW DOWN. I want to see numbers and raw data. NOW. If they can not be produced, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MAN MADE APOCALYPSE. This is so out of control, not only on a local scale, but now I'm seeing it is a complete international circle jerk. They are willing to impose international policy over the world, and front my tax dollars to do it?

THEY LIED ABOUT WARMING! THEY REFUSE TO RELEASE RAW DATA! WHY IS THE ENTIRE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY NOT DEMANDING THIS BE INVESTIGATED BEFORE TRILLIONS ARE WASTED!?

As someone with a degree in sciences... this is an absolutely appalling and unacceptable situation. Why are people, educated in politics and public relations making policy based off of THEORIES (go look up what a theory is, ITS NOT FACT) spewed out by so called scientists who refuse to expose to the public the raw data and information. RIDICULOUS.

[audtatious]

More intrusion into our private lives... Big surprise.

So, governement shouldn't be allowed to tell us what we can do in the privacy of our own homes, yet they can dictate what's in the garage?

They've already pretty much outlawed fireplaces here in the Valley... what's next?

Remember, Cali was pressing to have Gov-monitored thermostats that allowed the state to turn off A/C due to the issues within their power grid causing rolling blackouts.......even though that had nothing to do with power consumption but all to do with corruption.

Wasn't it Seattle that has outlawed fires on the beech due to MMGW and not pollution?

[audtatious]

It has more to do with power and money than anything else.

[smockers83]

Didn't you hear? CO2 causes cancer!

There's a much easier, less costly fix. Educate Americans on energy use! Turn off the computers when they aren't being used for extended periods of time. I would be interested to see how correlated our energy demand is relative to the number of computers in a household.

Have a government subsidy for programmable thermostats where people can program their 'stats so the temp drops when they're away at work. Or educate.

Turn off the lights when you aren't using them.

These seem like very simple things, but I can tell you from personal experience that many people do not follow even these three simple things.

Electricity and heat/gas have become a very big thing taken for granted and the inefficient use of energy shows.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

So...who's to say the E-mails weren't created by anti-climate change hackers? I'm surprised that such a conspiracy theorist type of ordeal is being embraced so heavily by the ElephantsBoth sides of this are way way too entrenched to believe anything that they say. And to believe we don't affect our planet whatsoever is even more arrogant than saying that we do. Any way you slice it...we are buggered. But...If we have a chance to be more efficient as a species...I am ALL for it.

Do you really need that 40 year old lawnmower that takes the previous day to get it ready to cut grass on the day you planned?If they make you throw catalytic converters on your 66 Mustang will it really affect you that much?

I hear people b****ing and moaning about our liberties being taken away bit by bit and that we will eventually become a Fascist state controlled by the government. Are we really in danger of that coming to pass? Can you honestly say that you fear your freedom being taken away from you...and I'm not saying you answer to support a cause...I'm asking for a simple yes or no answer.

Do you fear for your freedom because of Climate Change legislation?

[audtatious]

So...who's to say the E-mails weren't created by anti-climate change hackers? I'm surprised that such a conspiracy theorist type of ordeal is being embraced so heavily by the Elephants

Because the "scientists" have stated that the emails were not fake.

And to believe we don't affect our planet whatsoever is even more arrogant than saying that we do. Any way you slice it...we are buggered. But...If we have a chance to be more efficient as a species...I am ALL for it.

And you feel that humans, which are nothing but a millisecond of time to the earth, is causing the climate to change? Can you tell me exactly what the normal climate of the earth is supposed to be? Seems to me it changes on its own.

Do you really need that 40 year old lawnmower that takes the previous day to get it ready to cut grass on the day you planned?If they make you throw catalytic converters on your 66 Mustang will it really affect you that much?

Tuned properly, both will have the same impact as a new vehicle. How good is a Prius in 5 years if the owners can't afford maintenance?

I hear people b****ing and moaning about our liberties being taken away bit by bit and that we will eventually become a Fascist state controlled by the government. Are we really in danger of that coming to pass? Can you honestly say that you fear your freedom being taken away from you...and I'm not saying you answer to support a cause...I'm asking for a simple yes or no answer.

Do you fear for your freedom because of Climate Change legislation?

It sure seems to me that you are listening to only one side and are OK with mandated change as long as there is a microscopic chance that those claiming we should have already been under water are correct. Should we also invest a couple trillion US dollars, along with mandating trillions from other top-tier countries to put a umbrella over the earth to stop the chance that an asteroid will kill us all within the next 100 years? How about letting the idiot walking down the street with a "The end of the world is near" sign and a Jesus beard make legislation that you must follow? Would you approve of that?

The facts are that the emails are admittedly real, the hockey stick is proven wrong by the last 10 years of temps not increasing (even those who claimed temps would increase are admitting that temps are dropping. (but, just wait another 20 years and it's gonna rise so fast we will all die) , the seas have not risen, the majority of data is NOT being released for people to validate the accuracy of the research (lawsuits are being filed against NASA for refusing to release their data) and the data that HAS been released has been proven to have been cherry picked, computer models are shown to have been wrong, the people who are pushing for sweeping legislation are the same ones who are making big bucks off of it.

Other than "feel good" legislation for the Chicken Little's, why should I believe it when every claim has been wrong?

[RobPaulson]

So...who's to say the E-mails weren't created by anti-climate change hackers? I'm surprised that such a conspiracy theorist type of ordeal is being embraced so heavily by the ElephantsBoth sides of this are way way too entrenched to believe anything that they say.

Quote »And to believe we don't affect our planet whatsoever is even more arrogant than saying that we do. [/quote]Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about at all? Seriously? I am personal friends with environmental engineers and am an engineer myself. I will tell you, you don't have a clue. Go educate yourself. The fact that all you can harp on is the idea that the emails are fake is ridiculous, even more so because it was stated, by the people who sent the emails, that they are real, REAL EMAILS, DAYS AGO.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Deeply entrenched...Read, immovable.

The conspiracy theorists are being set upon by the conspiracy theorists.And what does being an engineer have anything to do with Climatology? Engineering is the application of gathered knowledge to solve a problem...it doesn't study it.

Look...I'm not for or against this idea of human's affecting the environmet, though I do lean a certain way.

I'm just fed up with all the people seeing the next breakthrough as definitive answers and the "AH HAH" moment and then laughing in everyone elses faces yelling 'I told you so'. I mean you don't know anything more than what the people studying it do...yet you state with complete certainty that climate change is fake.

[AZhitman]

So...who's to say the E-mails weren't created by anti-climate change hackers?

Ummm, the people who wrote them.

Then again, they're liars, so...

But...If we have a chance to be more efficient as a species...I am ALL for it.

Agreed. Just give me incentives, not penalties. Carrots work - Sticks don't.

Do you really need that 40 year old lawnmower that takes the previous day to get it ready to cut grass on the day you planned?

Wow. Let me guess- You're spoiled.

What if it's all I own? Are you seriously advocating that a poor person be PENALIZED by having to buy something "new and green"?

Here's the problem - You're seeing the trees, not the forest.

That, and you're still too young to see your liberties being slowly eroded, or you don't educate yourself enough to care.

If they make you throw catalytic converters on your 66 Mustang will it really affect you that much?

Yeah, and who are you to be rooting in my checkbook, Mr. Politician?

At $200 a cat, yes it will. Especially if I only drive it once or twice a year. It's SO ignorant it defies logical explanation.

What if it passes the sniffer as clean as a new car? Huh? STAY OUT of my bank account, my garage, my bedroom, my business.

You people trust the government WAY too much.

Do you fear for your freedom because of Climate Change legislation?

Abso-fuggin-lutely.

It starts with the small things.

Besides, what if I could PROVE to you that NONE of the steps they're taking will make ANY difference? Would you STILL blindly support them?

Can we PLEASE get someone from the "other" side in here who at least presents a valid argument, instead of brainwashed college kids and people who believe everything MTV throws at them?

[AZhitman]

Speaking of mowers (since you brought it up), here's a case in point (and an opportunity for you to redeem yourself):

(NOTE: this is from a post I made in another thread weeks ago):

When they outlawed 2-cycle lawnmowers, I had a perfectly good, very expensive top-of-the-line LawnBoy mower... We bought it maybe 20 years ago.

It needed servicing, and because of some silly emissions law, NO ONE would service it. It was ILLEGAL to fix it.

So, instead of a little puff or two of blue smoke every couple weeks, I discarded a completely functional mower... what's the environmental impact of THAT? Even if you COULD recycle it all? PLUS, I had to replace it with a new one ($400 spent unnecessarily)...

And what was the environmental impact of MAKING that new mower? Lots of petroleum in the plastics and rubber... lots of harmful chemicals to make all the parts... plus the pollution generated by the manufacturing process, as well as transporting it to the store... the big cardboard box HAD to come from somewhere (bye-bye, trees)... Styrofoam packing... all the other packaging, printing... a new 40-page manual...

No, it's well-documented that keeping an old internal combustion engine (whether it be a car, a mower, an industrial machine) maintained and running is FAR LESS damaging to the environment than replacing it with a new one.

But the namby-pambies in the Legislature don't think beyond their own ignorance.

This applies to the 65 Mustang you mentioned as well as my lawnmower.

[bigbadberry3]

Can we PLEASE get someone from the "other" side in here who at least presents a valid argument, instead of brainwashed college kids and people who believe everything MTV throws at them?

I'm guessing you're looking for a proponent of global warming? I'm currently a proponent of MMGW and legislation to curb its effects. Unfortunately, I'm also a college kid/student.

Audatious- The 95% water vapor is somewhat misleading as water vapor also composes clouds. If you exclude water vapor due to clouds, the percentage of water vapor composition in the atmosphere falls to about 70% while the others rise accordingly. Because water vapor is mainly naturally occurring, high 90's%, man really cannot control this. However, carbon dioxide, number 2 in MMGW greenhouse gases, is still open to be regulated and that is why they focus more on this.

AZhitman- I have to agree that sometimes the government over steps their boundaries. But it is my opinion that if the government is doing so to prevent harm, e.g. wireless phone taps, than I will leave it in their hands. Obviously, the lawn mower example is an example of government run a muck.

RobPaulson- I do not have a degree in science yet but after the spring semester I will be receiving a bachelor in physics, and a minor in chemistry and mathematics. I'm not sure if you ever saw this in your college courses but I viewed a video with 2 frogs. One was put in a boiling pot of water where it immediately paniced and tried to get out. The other the frog was placed in a mild water bath and eventually the water temperature was increased to the point the frog was cooked. There may not be a Hollywood style apocalyptic moment but a tipping point where things will begin to snowball from here on out.

Smockers83- Yes. Educate people to make informed and smart decisions.

I do not see this as an entirely bad thing. I think it may lead to more development in the green technology which will hopefully lead to more jobs. It is always debatable where and how much money governments spend on any issue and that will continue nevertheless. Did my best to try and bring an opinion form the other side.
Modified by bigbadberry3 at 2:46 PM 12/8/2009

[audtatious]

Engineering is the application of gathered knowledge to solve a problem...it doesn't study it.

So, you gather knowledge to solve a problem without studying what the cause and effect is? You have to know what causes something before you can fix it, right?

[audtatious]

Audatious- The 95% water vapor is somewhat misleading as water vapor also composes clouds. If you exclude water vapor due to clouds, the percentage of water vapor composition in the atmosphere falls to about 70% while the others rise accordingly. Because water vapor is mainly naturally occurring, high 90's%, man really cannot control this. However, carbon dioxide, number 2 in MMGW greenhouse gases, is still open to be regulated and that is why they focus more on this.

Are not clouds part of the atmosphere? Since man has only imposed less than 12ppm out of 380ppm, what impact will lowering our causation to 8-9ppm do? Nothing. I'm all for being environmentally friendly and technology is constantly making things better. Jumping on the UN's MMGW train is a crock of crap and will do nothing to actually lower anything.

Realize as well that during the medieval warming period that temps were warmer than now, there was prosperity due to how good the crops enjoyed the climate and the sea levels did not swamp Florida nor islands.

Climate change is real. MMGW is a false positive being put out as fact. Why don't these groups, including NASA, put their data out for evaluation? Because holes will be poked into it immediately and they don't want that to happen. Just like the tree ring data which was shown to be cherry picked to prove a conclusion when the "scientist" was prompted to finally supply his data by a peer review journal. Tell you what, he won't make that mistake again. For them the best thing to do is keep their data under wraps and simply scoff at anyone who disagrees with it.

[bigbadberry3]

Like any start of any new idea, start small to build big. No one just instantly solves an entire issue at one time, ever. It's always a culmination of smaller building blocks which is why 8-9 is still a viable move.

I can tell you right now we're going to have a problem with arguing warm periods because of the possible scandal that broke lately. Going off of

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo....html

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.html

both show that medieval time period, which to me is about 1000 years ago, were cooler than today's temperatures.

I'm going to hold my hand for a little bit more time though until this whole climategate thing is resolved entirely though. Because if it runs as deep as I fear, it just would be bad for the entire science community.

[smockers83]

The 95% water vapor is somewhat misleading as water vapor also composes clouds. If you exclude water vapor due to clouds, the percentage of water vapor composition in the atmosphere falls to about 70% while the others rise accordingly. Because water vapor is mainly naturally occurring, high 90's%, man really cannot control this. However, carbon dioxide, number 2 in MMGW greenhouse gases, is still open to be regulated and that is why they focus more on this.

Yes, but no.

You cannot just exclude water vapor, whether it's condensed as clouds or not. Clouds serve two purposes in this debate. They make it warmer at night while also reflecting heat and light energy during the day, providing a cooling effect.

I also have to believe, and I believe I've heard this before, but much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is "naturally" occurring, not released by mankind. I use naturally loosely because any chemical reaction that releases CO2 into the atmosphere is naturally occurring.

[bigbadberry3]

Valid point on the clouds. I do not know off hand what the exchange rate of a cloud is regarding the amount of energy they reflect compared to the amount of warmth they are responsible for a lack of better words. Worst case scenario though, the water vapor holds all heat in and keeps no solar radiation out. However because clouds do reflect some of this energy, the idea that all water vapor is the true damaging greenhouse gas with no redeeming qualities is false. Is that a fair compromise?

Yes. Many processes on Earth due create C02. Heck, even breathing creates CO2. However, science (if you believe the numbers), says that CO2 in the over the past 150 years has increased a significant amount. More than what would be accounted for by Earth's processes like erupting volcanoes.

[audtatious]

both show that medieval time period, which to me is about 1000 years ago, were cooler than today's temperatures.

First they said it was cooler, then they said it was warmer, and directly afterward they say "oops, another mistake" and say it was cooler. What they come out with is that large areas were warmer which allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland, North America to have prolonged droughts, etc. There were also some places that were not as warm. The same can be said for the little ice age where some places were colder and others were warmer. Neither were global phenomena. Neither was the temp increases in the late 1990's. Tree ring data can be used from one place to show warming over time while rings from others show cooling over time. Which ones do you use? Guess it depends on what side you believe. What the data does show is that the climate changes without a doubt, either globally or regionally. None of the data pinpoints any of the causation to be man made. We all know the climate changes.

[audtatious]

I also have to believe, and I believe I've heard this before, but much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is "naturally" occurring, not released by mankind. I use naturally loosely because any chemical reaction that releases CO2 into the atmosphere is naturally occurring.

From what I have seen CO2 is at appx 380kppm +/- and of that man is responsible for a bit less than 12kppm +/-. That meas that 368kppm +/- is naturally occurring.

Some of the latest satellite data is also showing that as temperature increases the atmosphere allows more radiated energy to escape which is opposite of the theory which says as global warming gasses increase the atmosphere reflects that energy back to earth. I've only seen some of the information on this so I'm not 100% up to par on the science right now.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Ummm, the people who wrote them.

Then again, they're liars, so...

Agreed. Just give me incentives, not penalties. Carrots work - Sticks don't.

Wow. Let me guess- You're spoiled.

What if it's all I own? Are you seriously advocating that a poor person be PENALIZED by having to buy something "new and green"?

Here's the problem - You're seeing the trees, not the forest.

That, and you're still too young to see your liberties being slowly eroded, or you don't educate yourself enough to care.

Yeah, and who are you to be rooting in my checkbook, Mr. Politician?

At $200 a cat, yes it will. Especially if I only drive it once or twice a year. It's SO ignorant it defies logical explanation.

What if it passes the sniffer as clean as a new car? Huh? STAY OUT of my bank account, my garage, my bedroom, my business.

You people trust the government WAY too much.

Abso-fuggin-lutely.

It starts with the small things.

Besides, what if I could PROVE to you that NONE of the steps they're taking will make ANY difference? Would you STILL blindly support them?

Can we PLEASE get someone from the "other" side in here who at least presents a valid argument, instead of brainwashed college kids and people who believe everything MTV throws at them?

Again...just stirring the pot. No need to go fanatic. No one else is questioning anything. You are as much a mule for the media as I am...hurts to admit it but where else would we get our information from?I'm just throwing out questions to see what people think about them...I in no way am against or for the current government. Just because I'm asking question's I'm brainwashed? What's the color of this kettle now? And I agree with the mustang/lawnmower thing...I hate Priusi.

Spoiled? No...just wondering if all this arguing and circle jerking is really accomplishing anything.

[RobPaulson]

Engineering is the application of gathered knowledge to solve a problem...it doesn't study it.

you're right. engineers dont study a subject. they just fix it.

do you even read what you type? You're lack of any type of scientific reasoning and understanding is astounding

[C-Kwik]

From what I have seen CO2 is at appx 380kppm +/- and of that man is responsible for a bit less than 12kppm +/-. That meas that 368kppm +/- is naturally occurring.

Some of the latest satellite data is also showing that as temperature increases the atmosphere allows more radiated energy to escape which is opposite of the theory which says as global warming gasses increase the atmosphere reflects that energy back to earth. I've only seen some of the information on this so I'm not 100% up to par on the science right now.

First off I am going to offer my disclaimer that I am not a climate scientist by any means and that I am merely going to offer speculative points to show that we can't look at data in such a simple fashion and expect to draw accurate conclusions.

Based on your numbers alone, its easy to make a conclusion that such a small increase in CO2 levels can't possible have such a large effect on our temperatures. But you may have to look at this in a more absolute model rather than relative. Measurements and CO2 levels should be considered in absolute terms. That is temperature in Kelvin and the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. The actual modelling is going to be much more complex as there are going to be positive and negative feedback loops and other greenhouse gasses to consider. The latter can be influenced by feedback loops (Methane for example, can be released from pockets astemps rise). What may be the throught in going after CO2 is that CO2 may be like a catalyst (not chemically) as it sets off a chain of events that cause increased temperature. Since fossil fuels release carbon as they release energy, there is no other gas emission that we can control so directly as we can CO2. Other chemicals that come out ofour tailpipes are usually byproducts that use existing chemicals in the atmosphere so there is no net increase in carbon. Burning of fuels take carbon stored in the earth and releases them into the air. Some argue that water vapor could then become the target, but if you look at the chemical equation of the burning of most fuels, limiting the burning of a fossil fuel proportionately reduces theassociated water vapor as well. From this standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to go after CO2 than H2O. Even then, water vapor more readily responds to temperature and can be absorbed back onto the system. CO2 requires photosynthesis to make it back into the loop. And last I heard, we are losing more trees than we are gaining.

As I've said in many other threads before, at our level, we don't know enough to interpret data correctly. Yet somehow, we try to interpret data and draw conclusions. There is a ton of physics at work here and after 2 semesters of calc based physics, I'm nowhere near having enough knowledge to make such a conclusion. Big Bad Berry probably has a lot more physics than I will ever see and he isn't exactly making hardline conclusions either. How can anyone, not in the field of climate science or one without an extensive understanding of the physics, perhaps even chemistry involved make a conclusion based on a single set of data points (change in percentage of CO2)? You probably can't. But if you can, please do explain the science thoroughly. Chances are though, if all one has to fall back on are a bunch of out of context emails as "proof", they probably can't. Otherwise, MMGW would have been proven invalid long ago...

[AZhitman]

Here's the deal:

If you're going to do something, ANYTHING, that impacts the global economy, everyone's daily life, the free market, and people's core freedoms, you had DAMN WELL know without a shadow of a doubt that you're RIGHT.

We don't have that.

Therefore, I oppose any and all intrusions into MY private life and infringements on MY rights until there is irrefutable evidence that policy change will bring about the desired result.

Nice work stirring the pot. I'll keep that in mind next time and not come out with both barrels.

[AZhitman]

I do not see this as an entirely bad thing. I think it may lead to more development in the green technology which will hopefully lead to more jobs. It is always debatable where and how much money governments spend on any issue and that will continue nevertheless. Did my best to try and bring an opinion form the other side.

Agreed, and welcome aboard - I'm enjoying your posts.

FWIW, I DO support many "green" initiatives... NOT for the environmental impact, NOT for some economic stimulus impact... But from the "build a better mousetrap" perspective, a purely Capitalistic position, and an "evolution of technology" point of view.

[C-Kwik]

Here's the deal:

If you're going to do something, ANYTHING, that impacts the global economy, everyone's daily life, the free market, and people's core freedoms, you had DAMN WELL know without a shadow of a doubt that you're RIGHT.

We don't have that.

A shadow of a doubt is a bit broad, but how about a high degree of scientific certainty? Afterall, they are claiming just that. And with any scientific proofs, that's as good as you can ask for.

Therefore, I oppose any and all intrusions into MY private life and infringements on MY rights until there is irrefutable evidence that policy change will bring about the desired result.

How does this have any direct impact on your private life? There are some indirect impacts, sure, but its not like they are trying to watch over everything you do. With the limitations you place on it, we could not possibly have ANY law in place. Sure, I want effective laws in place over ineffective ones like any reasonable person, but I could make speculative arguments about any law's effectiveness. The problem I tend to see among votors is that if they don't prescribe to MMGW, they are against ANY law that might be effective. Ironically, they would probably be most pleased with a law that is purely ineffectual as the end result would be no change. It would be akin to making a law against jay-walking where the fine was always nothing more than a warning.

[AZhitman]

How does this have any direct impact on your private life? There are some indirect impacts, sure, but its not like they are trying to watch over everything you do.

...and here come the arrows.

If I point them out, the MMGW zealots will just say, "Oh, that's nothing", and then I gotta put a boot in someone's a$$.

But, since you asked, my lawnmower example was a perfect one. My leaf blower? Yeah, I can't use it either. Fireplace I was going to have put in? No need - it's been effectively outlawed as well. Let's not forget the exorbitant fees I pay to emissions test my cars EVERY year, plus the time taken out of my schedule... Before long, I won't be able to buy cheap filament light bulbs... let's see, what else is coming....

So, what was that question again?

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

you're right. engineers dont study a subject. they just fix it.

do you even read what you type? You're lack of any type of scientific reasoning and understanding is astounding

The personal attacks aren't needed. Calling an opposing argument idiotic is just a cop out. And you didn't give any evidence to the contrary.A simple google search provides a wakopedia quote

The American Engineers' Council for Professional Development (ECPD, the predecessor of ABET[1]) has defined engineering as follows:

“[T]he creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property.”[2][3][4]

As I said...it's the application of scientific principles, not the study of. You use those principles. I'm talking the basic theories.

[WDRacing]

Didn't you hear? CO2 causes cancer!

There's a much easier, less costly fix. Educate Americans on energy use! Turn off the computers when they aren't being used for extended periods of time. I would be interested to see how correlated our energy demand is relative to the number of computers in a household.

Have a government subsidy for programmable thermostats where people can program their 'stats so the temp drops when they're away at work. Or educate.

Turn off the lights when you aren't using them.

These seem like very simple things, but I can tell you from personal experience that many people do not follow even these three simple things.

Electricity and heat/gas have become a very big thing taken for granted and the inefficient use of energy shows.

I couldn't possibly agree more. There are tons of greener and cheaper ways to power your house. You can damn near live off the grid if you own your house. Regardless, point is we waste tons of power and the actual "grid" is old and full of leaks.

When I got laid off, I cut back every where I could. My electric bill went from the low $300's down to $156...IN THE TEXAS SUMMER!!! It was down to $98 when I didn't need to run the central system. My house is average in size, 1980 sq ft. I listen to music all day, a TV is usually on for my kids and I wash/dry/cook just like any other family with 2 kids, 4 dogs and a wifeunit.

Everything I own is plugged into a surge protector, flip the switch and no power leaks. I cut power to everything, PCs (3), satellite receivers (3), TVs (3) etc. Turned down the water heater, redid the seals on the windows and doors...ALL crap that the DIY Network said to do, I did.

Educate the people.

I love America because it's free. This doesn't seem like something I want the Gov to be dicatating. IMO, they already have their damn hands to far into my life and pockets.

What if I use wood burning stoves as my only heat source? Will they be able to arrest me some day? I mean, once the door is opened, it's very hard to close. How about GTFO out of my damn life!!!

There is a limit to how much you can increase the cost of living. This will undoubtedly cost every American more per month. Which sucks because it's not even going to accomplish a damn thing.

[AZhitman]

^ White Man Speak Big Truth.

Here' another thought: Since China is a FAR larger contributor to greenhouse gases than the US, why not start big? I mean, their citizens aren't free anyway, so a little extra government intrusion won't bother them at all.

Hmmmm... Gets ya thinkin', don't it?