Gregory F. Wandell on thu 3 jul 97
..... enviro hysterics... (slam, bam, crash)
..... enviro Nazis ... (boom, bang, crack)
..... panic fanatics at the EPA... (smash, thump, whack)
Boy Karl, you sure showed those environmentalist. They won t show up
around here again!
I strongly disagree with the tone and content of your message. The
individuals on both sides of this issue are generally intelligent,
committed and rational people who care about the environment, their
communities and our world. The only distinction is they share different
beliefs. Denigrating people because of their beliefs is narrow-minded.
Simple courtesy isn t so difficult, is it?
Now for my thoughts.
Karl wrote: Actually, the "damage" done by a coal-burning power plant
is very small.
It depends on how you want to look at it. Consider that there's not much
talk anymore today about "acid rain" Why? Not because of anything that
happened at a power plant.
What did you mean by Not because of anything that happened at a power
plant? I believe that the Clean Air Act Amendments, the Energy Policy
Act and other acts, mandated a reduced level of emissions of SOx, NOx,
PM10, CO, CO2, and others pollutants from power plants (coal, natural
gas and petroleum). One result of these acts are Clean Coal
Technologies, which VASTLY reduces these emissions. If you are saying
that the issue disappeared because of changing political and media
emphasis, I disagree. Acid Rain is less of an issue because of the
impact of regulations on power generation, not despite of them.
Karl wrote: However. no-one can produce a peer reviewed
climatological paper that says "global warming is happening". Why not?
There's no evidence to support this claim.
Ok, I am NOT a scientist, but I thought that the basic principles of
science operate differently. The object of science is not to prove a
theory, but to disprove it. I believe that the accurate argument would
be for you to prove that "global warming is NOT happening."
Karl wrote: Let me be real clear here. I was up in Sao Paulo, the 3rd
largest city in the world, last week. I Brasil there is no EPA --
everyone that can spew smoke does, and it's nasty. Your eyes burn,
passing trucks leaves you smelling like diesel, etc. However, outside of
the urban center -- about an hour away, the air is fine -- the sky is
blue, not green or brown, etc.
The air is fine an hour away? Chernobyl (sp?) should have demonstrated
that pollutants carry for very long distances. The pollution is not
limited by our arbitrary political boundaries, whether they are urban,
rural, state or national. Most of Europe had to contend with that
problem. Certainly, if radiation can cover most of Europe, then simple
greenhouse gasses can cover a mere hour drive from the source.
Karl wrote: Pollution problems are urban problems, not the problem of a
back yard barbque or wood potter in rural Virginia, for example. Why let
the enviro Nazis hassel these people and deprive them of a living.
Since two thirds of the US population lives in the urbanized east, what
do we do? Continually move to remoter and remoter areas? Build on our
limited farm lands, cut down our forests, pollute our rivers, streams,
and lakes, drain our wetlands, overload our infrastructure?
Also, that s like saying that the problems of violence, poverty,
education, housing and other ills that face inner cities are no concern
to us suburbanites. So, since I live in Montgomery County, Maryland,
one of the most affluent in the country, I can ignore the problems in
Washington, DC? Hmm, Can I also ignore the problems of developing
nations? Of minorities and women? Of the poor and undereducated? No,
pollution is the concern of everyone, no matter where they live or what
they do.
Karl, I think that a balanced approach provides for the best solutions.
Environmentalist have an agenda, and they can and often are wrong, but
we all know that corporate America have an agenda, and they can and
often are wrong. So, do we ignore the issue?
We both know that kilns are not the problem, but they are part of the
solution. I think that it is good that we are being challenged.
I am looking forward to your reply
Cheers
Gregory F. Wandell
Bethesda, Maryland
GWandell@USECRE.ORG
Gregory F. Wandell on fri 4 jul 97
..... enviro hysterics... (slam, bam, crash)
..... enviro Nazis ... (boom, bang, crack)
..... panic fanatics at the EPA... (smash, thump, whack)
Boy Karl, you sure showed those environmentalist. They won t show up
around here again!
I strongly disagree with the tone and content of your message. The
individuals on both sides of this issue are generally intelligent,
committed and rational people who care about the environment, their
communities and our world. The only distinction is they share different
beliefs. Denigrating people because of their beliefs is narrow-minded.
Simple courtesy isn t so difficult, is it?
Now for my thoughts.
Karl wrote: Actually, the "damage" done by a coal-burning power plant
is very small.
It depends on how you want to look at it. Consider that there's not much
talk anymore today about "acid rain" Why? Not because of anything that
happened at a power plant.
What did you mean by Not because of anything that happened at a power
plant? I believe that the Clean Air Act Amendments, the Energy Policy
Act and other acts, mandated a reduced level of emissions of SO2,
NOx,PM10, CO, CO2, and others pollutants from power plants (coal,
natural gas and petroleum). One result of these acts are Clean Coal
Technologies, which VASTLY reduces these emissions. If you are saying
that the issue disappeared because of changing political and media
emphasis, I disagree. Acid Rain is less of an issue because of the
impact of regulations on power generation, not despite of them.
Karl wrote: However. no-one can produce a peer reviewed
climatological paper that says "global warming is happening". Why not?
There's no evidence to support this claim.
Ok, I am NOT a scientist, but I thought that the basic principles of
science operate differently. The object of science is not to prove a
theory, but to disprove it. I believe that the accurate argument would
be for you to prove that "global warming is NOT happening."
Karl wrote: Let me be real clear here. I was up in Sao Paulo, the 3rd
largest city in the world, last week. I Brasil there is no EPA --
everyone that can spew smoke does, and it's nasty. Your eyes burn,
passing trucks leaves you smelling like diesel, etc. However, outside of
the urban center -- about an hour away, the air is fine -- the sky is
blue, not green or brown, etc.
The air is fine an hour away? Chernobyl (sp?) should have demonstrated
that pollutants carry for very long distances. The pollution is not
limited by our arbitrary political boundaries, whether they are urban,
rural, state or national. Most of Europe had to contend with that
problem. Certainly, if radiation can cover most of Europe, then simple
greenhouse gasses can cover a mere hour drive from the source.
Karl wrote: Pollution problems are urban problems, not the problem of a
back yard barbque or wood potter in rural Virginia, for example. Why let
the enviro Nazis hassel these people and deprive them of a living.
Since two thirds of the US population lives in the urbanized east, what
do we do? Continually move to remoter and remoter areas? Build on our
limited farm lands, cut down our forests, pollute our rivers, streams,
and lakes, drain our wetlands, overload our infrastructure?
Also, that s like saying that the problems of violence, poverty,
education, housing and other ills that face inner cities are no concern
to us suburbanites. So, since I live in Montgomery County, Maryland,
one of the most affluent in the country, I can ignore the problems in
Washington, DC? Hmm, Can I also ignore the problems of developing
nations? Of minorities and women? Of the poor and undereducated? No,
pollution is the concern of everyone, no matter where they live or what
they do.
Karl, I think that a balanced approach provides for the best solutions.
Environmentalist have an agenda, and they can be and often are wrong,
but we all know that corporate America have an agenda, and they can be
and often are wrong. So, do we ignore the issue?
We both know that kilns are not the problem, but they are part of the
solution. I think that it is good that we are being challenged.
I am looking forward to your reply
Cheers
Gregory F. Wandell
Bethesda, Maryland
GWandell@USECRE.ORG
| |
|
