Slashdot Mirror

Here's something from the EPA http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/ozonegen.html/

Also, do you live in or near a big city? If yes, you may have heard of ozone warnings on hot hazy days when it is strongly recommdended that kids and the elderly stay indoors.

Uh, the chart from

      http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/aqfactbk/page1 4.htm

gives an estimate of around 6,000 thousand short tons = 6,000,000 short tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) for light-duty vehicles emissions in the U.S. in 2004. Perhaps the chart is mislabeled.

During my few minutes of googling, I came across the following, somewhat related, page:

      http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2006/econ-emissions.h tml

Something interesting about tech companies is that concern for the environment is something that comes in usually later in the company's lifetime--after they've become millionaires. Because being green is, unfortunately, usually more expensive than the alternative.

Let's say you're making computer monitors in the early 90s and you start developing prototypes. You produce a 19" model that works well. Now, you could sink more money into the project and try to think of alterations to the design so that the chemicals inside the cathode ray tube can be safely removed before disposal ... but you're not even sure how many of these will be made and the market's not looking so good and you just want to start turning a profit. Plus you have all the other guys to compete with and they don't have any sort of thing like this nor does the government demand it.

Now it's ten years later and you're well off as a company selling tens of thousands of units each year. And you get a letter saying that because your product contains harmful chemicals, you've scored low in some newspaper rating for green companies. Plus, you want to tap the hippie market and score more profits. What do you have to do to make your product 'green'? Well, what would have been a design change in the beginning is no longer possible. Not only do you have to do that but you have to change all your manufacturing plants and work out the new source for the changes in these products. Plus you've got all that inventory and raw materials sitting around waiting to be made into new monitors. Well, it just doesn't seem worth it anymore. Even if you offer dismantling them as a service, you'll have to charge nearly as much as the monitor costs--is this even realistic?

The sad fact is that (most of the time) green products need to start out as green otherwise there's a very good chance their success will allow their manufacturers to overlook the benefits from being a green product. It needs to be a design time concern. Computers have valuable metals in them--can you see an easy way of extracting these? It's a pretty complicated process right now and I don't think it's very efficient. Nobody seems concerned with asking themselves where the product goes when it's done because initially they're not afraid of making an environmental impact. But if all companies have this shortsightedness then we're bound to suffer. As good little consumers, we buy the best product (hail capitalism) and we evaluate the products based on commonly held beliefs about quality and service. Unfortunately, we lack the foresight to imagine what we do with the product when it's (usually short) life span is over.

When your CD player breaks, what do you do with it? In the old days, if a phonograph broke, you took it to a skilled craftsman who fixed it. Today we throw things away and just buy a new one constantly. This is because the labor involved with fixing the old unit is more costly than a new unit. In doing this, we really build up staggering amounts of trash--the EPA estimates that U.S. citizens generate 4.6 lbs of trash per day. Doesn't this seem like something that is going to become a logistical nightmare?

And you don't need herbicides if you don't need crops... Actually, if used when needed, my statement still holds true for herbicides. Well, the rates and the number of sprays required for "weed control" are supposed to be less than what was required before (with the old nasty formulations). Crops were made herbicide resistant so that crop management would be safer and more affordable (which must be true or no one would by the stuff right : ^yield ^money). Obviously, the owners of the gene want to milk as much profit off of it as possible (that's why they exist) and marketing drives this stuff pretty heavy, but it works. You do need herbicide if you want to grow large acres of cropland. For example, weeds are the #1 yield-reducing agent for soybeans. That's why herbicides are used (farm size being another issue). Now, the flip side is that the success of the Roundup herbicide itself has probably caused an increase in herbicide use. But that isn't the same as saying the GE crop causes the use of more herbicide. This is a secondary or indirect problem. My statement was addressing a direct effect and it's true. Look, the investment and R&D into GE crops is the direct result of the Food Quality Protection Act. It mandates a reduction in chemical inputs into food systems. Chemical companies said, "oh crap, we need to invest in another strategy" and so did academia, and so did USDA and so that's where research advanced. There are probably a lot of things that we don't "need", but we do demand food, lots of it, AND we do want it at a high quality. That's why we use pesticides. You want to talk about indirect reasons, how about putting the blame where it is deserved; pesticides are used because of what the majority of us demand. GE crops were invented to meet demand and their affects on human health and the environment are not ironed out for all technologies. But I think the negative hype is blown out of proportion for some.

Thank god that hippies have not made any inroads. Here they were busy pushing such weird ideas as Organic Food, Alternative energy, cleaner environment (they blew up so much crap). And best of all, the military never listens to such weird ideas.

From http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/recycle. htm

"In 1999, recycling and composting kept ~64 million tons of material from landfills and incinerators. Today, this country recycles 28 percent of its waste...

... 42 percent of paper, 40 percent of plastic drink bottles, 55 percent of aluminum cans, 57 percent of steel packaging, and 52 percent of appliances are now recycled."

It seems like the Baby Boom consumer generation has left us with a legacy of trash we are continuing to produce, and we should invest in the infrastructure to mine it. Sort of high-end dumpster diving. But there are problems:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/paper.ht m
Paper - "challenges facing recovered paper processors and manufacturers are: 1) contamination, 2) sorting, and 3) fiber degradation... inks, adhesives, food, and broken glass affect the quality of recycled paper... Office paper cannot be recycled with newspaper and maintain its fiber integrity." And then the EPA website lists nice benefits of recycled paper as well.

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/tires/in dex.htm
Tires: "There are at least 275 million scrap tires in stockpiles in the U.S. In addition, approximately 290 million scrap tires were generated in 2003. Markets now exist for about 80 percent of scrap tires--up from 17 percent in 1990."
Doing anything with tires other than puting them in a big pile is a good idea. Tire piles are a fire hazard and are a great place for culturing things like mosquitos, rats, and skunks. In addition, tires have a very poor packing efficiency and just take up a lot of space.

From http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/recycle. htm

"In 1999, recycling and composting kept ~64 million tons of material from landfills and incinerators. Today, this country recycles 28 percent of its waste...

... 42 percent of paper, 40 percent of plastic drink bottles, 55 percent of aluminum cans, 57 percent of steel packaging, and 52 percent of appliances are now recycled."

It seems like the Baby Boom consumer generation has left us with a legacy of trash we are continuing to produce, and we should invest in the infrastructure to mine it. Sort of high-end dumpster diving. But there are problems:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/paper.ht m
Paper - "challenges facing recovered paper processors and manufacturers are: 1) contamination, 2) sorting, and 3) fiber degradation... inks, adhesives, food, and broken glass affect the quality of recycled paper... Office paper cannot be recycled with newspaper and maintain its fiber integrity." And then the EPA website lists nice benefits of recycled paper as well.

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/tires/in dex.htm
Tires: "There are at least 275 million scrap tires in stockpiles in the U.S. In addition, approximately 290 million scrap tires were generated in 2003. Markets now exist for about 80 percent of scrap tires--up from 17 percent in 1990."
Doing anything with tires other than puting them in a big pile is a good idea. Tire piles are a fire hazard and are a great place for culturing things like mosquitos, rats, and skunks. In addition, tires have a very poor packing efficiency and just take up a lot of space.

From http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/recycle. htm

"In 1999, recycling and composting kept ~64 million tons of material from landfills and incinerators. Today, this country recycles 28 percent of its waste...

... 42 percent of paper, 40 percent of plastic drink bottles, 55 percent of aluminum cans, 57 percent of steel packaging, and 52 percent of appliances are now recycled."

It seems like the Baby Boom consumer generation has left us with a legacy of trash we are continuing to produce, and we should invest in the infrastructure to mine it. Sort of high-end dumpster diving. But there are problems:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/paper.ht m
Paper - "challenges facing recovered paper processors and manufacturers are: 1) contamination, 2) sorting, and 3) fiber degradation... inks, adhesives, food, and broken glass affect the quality of recycled paper... Office paper cannot be recycled with newspaper and maintain its fiber integrity." And then the EPA website lists nice benefits of recycled paper as well.

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/tires/in dex.htm
Tires: "There are at least 275 million scrap tires in stockpiles in the U.S. In addition, approximately 290 million scrap tires were generated in 2003. Markets now exist for about 80 percent of scrap tires--up from 17 percent in 1990."
Doing anything with tires other than puting them in a big pile is a good idea. Tire piles are a fire hazard and are a great place for culturing things like mosquitos, rats, and skunks. In addition, tires have a very poor packing efficiency and just take up a lot of space.

The glass of a crt's monitor is filled with lead. Consider that a crt monitor is an electron gun, and the health implications of sitting for hours on end of one, were it not full of something to keep x-rays from irradiating the sitter.

Some Reference:
http://www.svtc.org/hightech_prod/desktop.htm
http://www.qsrecycling.com/whatisacrt.html
http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/comp-dic/lca-sum/ques8 .pdf

The most important thing with regard to protection against airline terrorism is that the bad guy not be allowed to take control of a 3.3 terajoule aircraft (guided missile). The solution is to lock the cockpit door. El Al understood this 30 years ago and the FAA realized that it was true on the morning of 9/11.

energy density of jet fuel
fuel capacity of a 767

( 5.62 million btu/ barrel ) * 23980 gallons == 3.3 terajoules

Hello Alsee, thanks for replying. I just checked my email and noticed your reply. But, I doubt anyone will see this, since the thread has long been abandoned.

I agree with you. There are significant differences between Al Gore's movie, and the youtube video. Only two things that are exactly alike have no differences. That they are different doesn't refute the assertion that they are both propaganda.

They are also different in the magnitude of their consequences. Al Gore's movie will likely result in a change in the allocation of hundreds of millions, even billions, of tax dollars. The youtube video is of near-zero consequence.

Al Gore is manipulating the issue of Global Warming in a bid to control the world's energy usage. He may be doing this because he believes it is good for humanity. I will concede that he likely believes what he is saying. However, I strongly disagree with his doomsday conclusions. So do others. Many of them Ph.Ds.

There is abundant scientific debate on the consequences of global warming. I Googled "global warming" (Note: intentionally choosing the pejorative term). The top result is a government link.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/cont ent/climateuncertainties.html

It states things like:
"Scientific understanding of these other factors - most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols - remains incomplete."

"...but to what extent is difficult to determine at the present time"

"...but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability.""

"But projecting what the exact impacts will be over the 21st century remains very difficult"

"...research has not advanced far enough to provide conclusive statements about how global warming will affect El Niño."

It is false to assert that scientists agree with Al Gore. I would agree that, in general, they are politically aligned with him and would like their results to match his agenda. He is a power-hungry fear monger, and his video is a destructive piece of propaganda.

Al Gore is not the world's first or most prominent fear monger. In the 19th century it was common knowledge that the world was going to run out of food. Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich "proved" that to be true. Their science was flawed. The world did not run out of food. This does not, of course, prove that Al Gore is wrong. It's just an example of how we are susceptible to those that sell dystopian futures.

It takes a small amount of certain key, limiting nutrients to increase productivity of the organisms that cause eutrophication (the technical term for reduction in oxygen due to an excess of biological activity). While it does happen from natural processes too -- even an ordinary river flood can introduce plenty of sediment into the marine environment and cause a nutrient increase -- the linkage with artificial fertilizers and land clearing activities is pretty strong. Fertilizer input makes the problem worse, even if it occasionally happened naturally before. There is a pretty good summary of anoxic zones in Wikipedia. Here are a few other links.

FTFA (bolded text was done by me):

Questioned by police, the scared friends admitted they had broken some loose branches because they had wanted to build a tree house, but said they did not realise what they had done was wrong.

Officers considered charging the children with criminal damage but eventually decided a reprimand - the equivalent of a caution for juveniles - was sufficient.

I can think of many other people to be arresting for criminal damage.

What the heck is this world coming to? Kids playing in a tree, break a few branches and get arrested (and DNA tested!? WTF?). Meanwhile, corporations are allowed to get away with this garbage. Yeah, there's nothing wrong with world ... civilized my ass.

I don't know if it's possible to be a history nazi, but here goes... If it was 1361, it would be Edward III

Egads, you're right. Upon investigation it appears that Edward I was indeed the correct Edward, but that the date in question should have been 1272. I shall amend the offending article forthwith.

--
The price of Wikipedia is eternal vigilance

Most. Apposite. Sig. Ever.

Sorry, according to the EPA, my http://www.epa.gov/emissweb/E-SUBARU-Forester-01.h tm Subaru Forester has a higher gas mileage rating than any of http://www.epa.gov/emissweb/mnvn-06.htm these 55 minivans... and a hybrid Ford Escape does even better.

And other SUVs come with big enough engines to tow a large boat, or a loaded horse trailer, or with the capacity to carry a load of paving bricks along with that soccer team. And real 4 wheel drive, and enough room to carry a table saw, etc. If minivans do have all the features of SUVs, then everyone would purchase them instead of SUVs, but in reality, SUVs are highly popular and there are reasons for it.

Sorry, according to the EPA, my http://www.epa.gov/emissweb/E-SUBARU-Forester-01.h tm Subaru Forester has a higher gas mileage rating than any of http://www.epa.gov/emissweb/mnvn-06.htm these 55 minivans... and a hybrid Ford Escape does even better.

And other SUVs come with big enough engines to tow a large boat, or a loaded horse trailer, or with the capacity to carry a load of paving bricks along with that soccer team. And real 4 wheel drive, and enough room to carry a table saw, etc. If minivans do have all the features of SUVs, then everyone would purchase them instead of SUVs, but in reality, SUVs are highly popular and there are reasons for it.

Parent is correct about oxygenated fuels.

Here is a quote from EPA documentation to that effect:

"In a vehicle with a properly functioning oxygen sensor, the feedback control of the air/fuel ratio acts to defeat the purpose of adding oxygenate to the fuel. The vehicles that will benefit the most from oxyfuels are high emitters, generally older vehicles or newer vehicles with broken emission control systems (PRC, 1992)"

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/ostp-1.pdf

-- Terry

You are right about Ethanol being more corrosive. Methanol is even worse. For the most part though, Ethanol is currently being used as a replacement for MTBEs. MTBEs are better than lead as an octane enhancer, but are still bad for the environment and for our health. Since Ethanol is being used instead this reduces harmful emissions from our cars, but at the expense of higher priced gas. I bet markets adjust in the long run though and reduce the price of Ethanol. The price at the pump may be a little higher in the end, but if we take the cost to our national health the effective price should be lower. We already did this once for lead and I'm glad we're taking a step forward and taking MTBEs from gas.

Also, check out the Gray & Varcoe paper on this topic. It's very informative, it explains why using Ethanol as an aromatic is a good idea and it has numerous references to back up every claim.

JOhn

Golly, I'm sure you're welcome.
Bonus!: Since the statewide driving ban was also killed, you have the freedom to pollute and cause involuntary health problems for others!

You mean this study? It seems to say tobacco smoke is a Class A carcinogen. Apparently, only 160,440 people in the USA died of lung cancer last year though. That means that 1.8% of all deaths from lung cancer are directly caused by second hand smoke. Then there are the 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year from heart disease due to second-hand smoke. Of course, if you're willing to murder 3000 people per year for a habit, what's another few thousand?

After years of promoting global hysteria it is nice to see the editors slashdot present the other side of the debate.

Yes... hysteria. I love how people can assume that pumping killotons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere every day - or about 6.6 tons per person per year in the US alone (that's a cool ~1.98B tons/year in the US) will have no negative effect - or an effect of any sort, positive OR negative.

What's even better are the "related stories" here on this page. One points to a study that shows of all the scientific papers on global warming, 75% agree that global warming is a human-caused condition, 25% take no stance, and a whopping 0% refute that man has anything to do with it.

We know there is a hole in the ozone layer - we've seen it, photographed it. Changes of that variety will have cascading changes all over - the butterfly effect on the environment.

Now I'm not saying that global warming as it currently stands will cause Noah part II, but the truth remains that there is something happening, courtesy of man, that is effecting the environment in a not-so-positive fashion.

I'm going to submit a sample from stringfellow superfund site!

Yes, I knew there was a reason I live ~10 miles from it.

Grump

yeah, I must really suck for pumping irrigation water from the creek beside my house and letting the water run back down into the creek! What a bastard!

btw, here's the watershed I'm in:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/huc.cfm?huc_code=0315010 4

and here's the watershed I get fresh water from:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/huc.cfm?huc_code=0315010 2

So I'm not carelessly taking treated water from my drinking water supply, & what's more I'm putting it back in the ground. I use drip lines on all bushes instead of area sprays and I water in the early mornings.

Lastly, I have a small patch of grass and the rest are plants and vegetables. So you're welcome to end your self-serving arguments anytime. BTW, do you re-use the water from your shower in your commodes? Do you have a leeching field and put the water back on the land? what about ultra low flow shower heads?

You guys are such hippocrites.

yeah, I must really suck for pumping irrigation water from the creek beside my house and letting the water run back down into the creek! What a bastard!

btw, here's the watershed I'm in:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/huc.cfm?huc_code=0315010 4

and here's the watershed I get fresh water from:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/huc.cfm?huc_code=0315010 2

So I'm not carelessly taking treated water from my drinking water supply, & what's more I'm putting it back in the ground. I use drip lines on all bushes instead of area sprays and I water in the early mornings.

Lastly, I have a small patch of grass and the rest are plants and vegetables. So you're welcome to end your self-serving arguments anytime. BTW, do you re-use the water from your shower in your commodes? Do you have a leeching field and put the water back on the land? what about ultra low flow shower heads?

You guys are such hippocrites.

If all pieces of mail delivered to Congressmen went through such a procedure, the mail would be useless.

My point exactly.

Citations:

Is my mail is being irradiated? Currently only mail to the White House, Congressional offices, and federal government offices in the 202-205 Zip Code exchanges is being irradiated. Irradiation is taking place at facilities in Ohio and New Jersey.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/mail_irrad.ht m

From that source, it does look like the irradiation is being done in Ohio and New Jersey, now.

The irradiation of Congressional mail beginning in November 2001 followed the detection of anthrax spores in 16 Congressional offices. It represented the first use of the irradiation process to eradicate anthrax spores from the mail delivery system. Beginning in January 2002, when the United States Postal Service began delivering irradiated mail to Congressional offices, the Office of Compliance became aware of numerous employee complaints of adverse health symptoms apparently caused by contact with irradiated mail, including headaches, nausea, nose bleeds, rashes, eye and skin irritation and similar symptoms.

http://www.compliance.gov/reports-studies/irradiat edmail/irradiatedmail_07-02.html

It would seem that Congressional Staff is less than thrilled...

The MSM ran some articles about mail irradiation a few years ago. For instance, Congress takes new steps to minimize mail risk or Irradiated Mail A Possible Health Risk.

Of course, the best evidence for me is that when I asked a staffer last week about the best way to get a copy of an article to my Congressman, she gave me his home fax (I've got a pretty good relationship with him) and said, "Of course, you know that you never want to mail something, right?"

NaCN is so toxic that, literally, a sniff can kill you.

Especially since NaCN is a nonvolatile solid that boils at 1500 degrees. A sniff of anything at that temperature will kill you. Hit it with a little acid, then you've got HCN, which is gaseous. What I've always wondered is how they determine the detectable odor threshold for toxic gases (1-5 ppm for HCN) without killing people.

Industrial facilities that use cyanides on large scale take every imaginable precaution, including "dead man" drills, in which one employee will pick a quiet spot, play dead, and see how long it takes for someone to notice.

On the other hand, consider a mildly toxic substance, lead. Expose a million rabbits to lead and they will have seemingly normal lives. The aqueduct that supplied water to the French city of Nimes had parts made of lead.

Let's not forget the Washington, DC water service lines.

In 50 or less years we will find a use for all of the waste we have today. Think about it landfills of just 50 years ago are being looked at and used as an energy source today. http://epa.gov/cleanenergy/renew.htm http://www.energy.sc.gov/Renewable%20energy/lmop.h tm

Not quite. It's actually from coal. Gas is 14%.

the EPA mandates MTBE (a known carcinogen, by the way) be in summer fuel

That's BS, they do not. MTBE is not even allowed to be used, sold, or imported into NY state. I am pretty sure Connecticut is the same way, not sure of any others. http://www.pcnr.com/News/2000/0531/Front_Page/may3 1Front_Page5670.html If you live in a state which still allows MTBE maybe you should contact your legislators and push them to stop!

From http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/gas.htm:
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) require the use of oxygenated gasoline in areas with unhealthy levels of air pollution. The CAA does not specifically require MTBE. Refiners may choose to use other oxygenates, such as ethanol.

First, Executive Agencies can and do fine each other under civil enforcement actions. For example see this EPA site about enforcing against other Federal (Executive) agencies http://www.epa.gov/compliance/federalfacilities/en forcement/index.html.

Secondly, there are these things call "Executive Orders". They are official orders from the President to all the Executive Agencies. If any Federal Officer runs afoul of an Executive Order, he can expect to be disciplined within the agency. Entire agencies have been "called on the carpet" by the Office of Managment and Budget.

For some strange reason, ther term "Unitary Executive" gets all the left-wing crazies bent out of shape, but it really means "separation of powers". What is Executive is wholly (and solely) Executive. What is Judicial is wholly (and solely) Judicial. What is Legislative is wholly (and solely) Legislative. Unitary Executive means that all executive functions are performed within the executive branch and are subject to the Executive Branch's chain of command. No branch may meddle in the internal affairs and running of the others. This is basic constitutional law in the US. The term "Unitary Executive" is primarily used to argue that the creation of "independent prosecutors" are unconstitutional , since prosecution is an executive function and all executive functions fall under the President and his appointed officers (like the Attorney General), while "independent prosecutors" are appointed by and answerable to Judges (thus running afoul of separation of powers).

Fuel efficiency is actually calculated by a formula set forth by the EPA. Read this for a bit of enlightenment. It's not the car companies doing much deceiving there. Horsepower, that's often stated as engine horsepower (bhp), rather than whp, or the horsepower after losses of going through the rest of the drivetrain after the engine. And not reading serving sizes... there's something being done about misleading serving sizes.
What a lot of it boils down to is that the consumer doesn't do the work required to actually compare things (you know, capitalism), and then bitches when it doesn't do what s/he expects.

Next, mandates don't work. You can encourage a sector to do something, but as soon as you mandate, you are requiring without funding. For a private company, it is often less expensive to simply ignore these mandates. That's why it took 10-15 years for many factories to get scrubbers on their smoke stacks.

You disprove your own argument (which is factually incorrect to begin with). Your premise is that mandates don't work. However, you concede that many factories have applied controls, demonstrating that the mandate was eventually effective.

The EPA mandated originally in 1963 with the Clean Air Act, amended in 66, 70 and 77, but it wasn't until the 1990 amendments that things really kicked in with the NAAQS and Title V. The CAA has demonstratively reduced emissions in the United States. Also note that in most jurisdictions the CAA is administered by a State or local agency. The CAA was never meant to be an overnight solution, as should be obvious from its now 40+ year history. Compliance deadlines are frequently years after regulations are promulgated, giving industry sufficient time to redesign their processes, evaluate control strategies, and evaluate the business market (i.e. decide to sell, relocate or change markets).

There is no similar demonstration for the effectiveness of voluntary, or in your words "encouraged", controls. That is because voluntary controls do not work and are a fairy tale bandied about by anti-regulation folks like yourself and dada21. When you give a business the choice of the status quo or upending their process, they are going to choose the status quo except in the very rare case of a cost-savings change that just so happens to result in lower emissions. The vast majority of emission reductions in the US are the direct result of regulation or international treaty. No one in the environmental field disputes this.

If you simply state "all vehicles will be 40mpg or better", what you have is bankrupt auto companies, and a very pissed off populace.

Nice strawman. The fact is that CAFE is not a hard and fast rule. CAFE is an averaging of a manufacturer's fleet. This allows the manufacturer to produce both high and low mileage vehicles, with the caveat that the overall fuel efficiency must meet a certain threshold. Also note that certain vehicles (such as the Hummer) are exempt from this rule due to their weight.

Try this. This gives the US o/p as 6000 TgCO2
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/Uniq ueKeyLookup/RAMR69V528/$File/05executivesummary.pd f
it doesn't give the "rest of the world" numbers - That's arithmetic, but is cited uniformly by nearly all "Googlable" sources,

Then there is this
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
And this is, I reckon the authoritative source.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_nam.htm
Scary isn't it ?
"Western Europe", note emits around 1/3rd than the US, with a larger population.

Steve

a) mans activities are the direct cause of global warming
b) global warming is a natural phenomenon, unaffected by mans activities
c) global warming is a natural phenomenon but mans activities have incresed the speed at which it occurs

If we assume a is correct then the data from ice core samples and elsewhere should show an increase in global tempertaures coinciding with the industrial revolution. This has been shown to be true.

If we assume b is correct then the data from ice core samples and elsewhere should show times in Earths past when man wasn't present that the temperature increased. This has been shown to be true.

If we assume c is correct then the issue becomes how much has man influenced the rise in global temperatures. In my opinion this is where the real discussion should lay. Since both a and b have been shown to be true then c is the real answer and we must look for ways to counteract our influence while realizing at the same time that nature will do what it wants and we will have to adapt.

For example, we know for a fact that cities produce their own microclimates. They produce excess heat due to the concentration of paved roads and heat from buildings in a small area which do affect local weather patterns.

We also know that deforestation has lead to increases in local weather temperatures whereas the planting of trees on rooftops has lowered temperatures (not to mention helps suck up some of the excess CO2). Deforestation also has an impact on streams and rivers since the removal of foliage allows the water temperature to rise which prevents certain species of fish and other wildlife from reproducing or significantly reduces their breeding areas. Deforestation also leads to exess silt flowing into waterways which clouds the water and kills off wildlife.

Again, the issue isn't whether global warming is occuring, we know it is, but rather what is causing it? Is it natural, manmade or a combination of both. Data seems to point to a combination of the two. As stated earlier, the real issue is what can we do to minimize our impact on this process?

http://www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/renew.htm#geothermal land can sink in
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298814/ the core could stop rotating

Personally, the one lesson I've learned in life, is that NOTHING is without consequences.
Make a simple change to make something easier, you may find you've made something else harder...

The fact is, nothing is 'without' issues.. they just may not be readily apparent before they are present.
and they may be disasters....

I don't think that's such a good idea. Smoke detectors have radioactive elements in them. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/smoke_dispose .htm. I applaud your safety aspirations though; lots of deaths could be avoided with such attention to smoke detectors. Now if we could just make sprinkler systems mandatory in homes; at least large-ish ones, anyway. http://www.nfsa.org/info/reducing.html

I thought that was Steve Johnson's job.

Thank you for your inquiry to the EPA Web site. Your request has been received by the Headquarters Information Resources Center Public Access Service, a contractor operated reference and referral service.

You asked if it is environmentally preferable to shred or burn junk mail.

We suggest you read the following quote from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation:

"Past generations burned their garbage, but that practice should be a thing of the past. Garbage back then didn't contain plastics, foils, batteries, paper (which is bleached with chlorine) and other materials. Even burning paper today can release dixions into the air."
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/redrecy/bu rn.html

In addition, burning of waste may be prohibited in certain areas.

For information on the pollutants released by burning paper and other trash, please see the following Web sites:

Backyard Burning: Human Health:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /health.htm

Backyard Burning: Basic Information:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /basic.htm

Backyard Burning home page:
http://www.epa.gov/msw/backyard/

For more information, you may contact the Office of Air and Radiation using the online comments form, by mail or telephone.

Online Comments form, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/Comments.nsf/Comments? OpenForm

By Mail:
Office of Air and Radiation 6101A
US EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC, 20460

By Telephone:
(202) 564-7400

Individuals seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastes: Consumer Tips:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/specials/funfacts/ index.htm

Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/reduce.h tm

Businesses seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastewise: Preserving Resources, Preventing Waste:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/wstewise /index.htm
WasteWise is a free, voluntary, EPA program helping U.S. organizations eliminate costly municipal solid waste, benefiting the bottom line and the environment.

National Waste Minimization Program:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/inde x.htm

Please contact us if we may be of further assistance.

External Links Disclaimer: Please be aware that links to non-EPA sites do not imply any official EPA endorsement. Furthermore, EPA does not accept any responsibility for the opinions, ideas, data or products presented at those locations, or guarantee the validity of the information provided. EPA does not guarantee the suitability of the information for any specific purpose.

*****************
Public Access Service, operated by ASRC Management Services
EPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (3404T)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax: (202) 566-0574
*****************

I'll just let you read yourself about dioxins but it sounds like you should switch to scissors (or maybe just mark

Thank you for your inquiry to the EPA Web site. Your request has been received by the Headquarters Information Resources Center Public Access Service, a contractor operated reference and referral service.

You asked if it is environmentally preferable to shred or burn junk mail.

We suggest you read the following quote from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation:

"Past generations burned their garbage, but that practice should be a thing of the past. Garbage back then didn't contain plastics, foils, batteries, paper (which is bleached with chlorine) and other materials. Even burning paper today can release dixions into the air."
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/redrecy/bu rn.html

In addition, burning of waste may be prohibited in certain areas.

For information on the pollutants released by burning paper and other trash, please see the following Web sites:

Backyard Burning: Human Health:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /health.htm

Backyard Burning: Basic Information:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /basic.htm

Backyard Burning home page:
http://www.epa.gov/msw/backyard/

For more information, you may contact the Office of Air and Radiation using the online comments form, by mail or telephone.

Online Comments form, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/Comments.nsf/Comments? OpenForm

By Mail:
Office of Air and Radiation 6101A
US EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC, 20460

By Telephone:
(202) 564-7400

Individuals seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastes: Consumer Tips:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/specials/funfacts/ index.htm

Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/reduce.h tm

Businesses seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastewise: Preserving Resources, Preventing Waste:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/wstewise /index.htm
WasteWise is a free, voluntary, EPA program helping U.S. organizations eliminate costly municipal solid waste, benefiting the bottom line and the environment.

National Waste Minimization Program:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/inde x.htm

Please contact us if we may be of further assistance.

External Links Disclaimer: Please be aware that links to non-EPA sites do not imply any official EPA endorsement. Furthermore, EPA does not accept any responsibility for the opinions, ideas, data or products presented at those locations, or guarantee the validity of the information provided. EPA does not guarantee the suitability of the information for any specific purpose.

*****************
Public Access Service, operated by ASRC Management Services
EPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (3404T)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax: (202) 566-0574
*****************

I'll just let you read yourself about dioxins but it sounds like you should switch to scissors (or maybe just mark

Thank you for your inquiry to the EPA Web site. Your request has been received by the Headquarters Information Resources Center Public Access Service, a contractor operated reference and referral service.

You asked if it is environmentally preferable to shred or burn junk mail.

We suggest you read the following quote from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation:

"Past generations burned their garbage, but that practice should be a thing of the past. Garbage back then didn't contain plastics, foils, batteries, paper (which is bleached with chlorine) and other materials. Even burning paper today can release dixions into the air."
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/redrecy/bu rn.html

In addition, burning of waste may be prohibited in certain areas.

For information on the pollutants released by burning paper and other trash, please see the following Web sites:

Backyard Burning: Human Health:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /health.htm

Backyard Burning: Basic Information:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /basic.htm

Backyard Burning home page:
http://www.epa.gov/msw/backyard/

For more information, you may contact the Office of Air and Radiation using the online comments form, by mail or telephone.

Online Comments form, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/Comments.nsf/Comments? OpenForm

By Mail:
Office of Air and Radiation 6101A
US EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC, 20460

By Telephone:
(202) 564-7400

Individuals seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastes: Consumer Tips:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/specials/funfacts/ index.htm

Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/reduce.h tm

Businesses seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastewise: Preserving Resources, Preventing Waste:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/wstewise /index.htm
WasteWise is a free, voluntary, EPA program helping U.S. organizations eliminate costly municipal solid waste, benefiting the bottom line and the environment.

National Waste Minimization Program:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/inde x.htm

Please contact us if we may be of further assistance.

External Links Disclaimer: Please be aware that links to non-EPA sites do not imply any official EPA endorsement. Furthermore, EPA does not accept any responsibility for the opinions, ideas, data or products presented at those locations, or guarantee the validity of the information provided. EPA does not guarantee the suitability of the information for any specific purpose.

*****************
Public Access Service, operated by ASRC Management Services
EPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (3404T)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax: (202) 566-0574
*****************

I'll just let you read yourself about dioxins but it sounds like you should switch to scissors (or maybe just mark

Thank you for your inquiry to the EPA Web site. Your request has been received by the Headquarters Information Resources Center Public Access Service, a contractor operated reference and referral service.

You asked if it is environmentally preferable to shred or burn junk mail.

We suggest you read the following quote from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation:

"Past generations burned their garbage, but that practice should be a thing of the past. Garbage back then didn't contain plastics, foils, batteries, paper (which is bleached with chlorine) and other materials. Even burning paper today can release dixions into the air."
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/redrecy/bu rn.html

In addition, burning of waste may be prohibited in certain areas.

For information on the pollutants released by burning paper and other trash, please see the following Web sites:

Backyard Burning: Human Health:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /health.htm

Backyard Burning: Basic Information:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /basic.htm

Backyard Burning home page:
http://www.epa.gov/msw/backyard/

For more information, you may contact the Office of Air and Radiation using the online comments form, by mail or telephone.

Online Comments form, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/Comments.nsf/Comments? OpenForm

By Mail:
Office of Air and Radiation 6101A
US EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC, 20460

By Telephone:
(202) 564-7400

Individuals seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastes: Consumer Tips:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/specials/funfacts/ index.htm

Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/reduce.h tm

Businesses seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastewise: Preserving Resources, Preventing Waste:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/wstewise /index.htm
WasteWise is a free, voluntary, EPA program helping U.S. organizations eliminate costly municipal solid waste, benefiting the bottom line and the environment.

National Waste Minimization Program:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/inde x.htm

Please contact us if we may be of further assistance.

External Links Disclaimer: Please be aware that links to non-EPA sites do not imply any official EPA endorsement. Furthermore, EPA does not accept any responsibility for the opinions, ideas, data or products presented at those locations, or guarantee the validity of the information provided. EPA does not guarantee the suitability of the information for any specific purpose.

*****************
Public Access Service, operated by ASRC Management Services
EPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (3404T)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax: (202) 566-0574
*****************

I'll just let you read yourself about dioxins but it sounds like you should switch to scissors (or maybe just mark

Thank you for your inquiry to the EPA Web site. Your request has been received by the Headquarters Information Resources Center Public Access Service, a contractor operated reference and referral service.

You asked if it is environmentally preferable to shred or burn junk mail.

We suggest you read the following quote from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation:

"Past generations burned their garbage, but that practice should be a thing of the past. Garbage back then didn't contain plastics, foils, batteries, paper (which is bleached with chlorine) and other materials. Even burning paper today can release dixions into the air."
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/redrecy/bu rn.html

In addition, burning of waste may be prohibited in certain areas.

For information on the pollutants released by burning paper and other trash, please see the following Web sites:

Backyard Burning: Human Health:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /health.htm

Backyard Burning: Basic Information:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /basic.htm

Backyard Burning home page:
http://www.epa.gov/msw/backyard/

For more information, you may contact the Office of Air and Radiation using the online comments form, by mail or telephone.

Online Comments form, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/Comments.nsf/Comments? OpenForm

By Mail:
Office of Air and Radiation 6101A
US EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC, 20460

By Telephone:
(202) 564-7400

Individuals seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastes: Consumer Tips:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/specials/funfacts/ index.htm

Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/reduce.h tm

Businesses seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastewise: Preserving Resources, Preventing Waste:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/wstewise /index.htm
WasteWise is a free, voluntary, EPA program helping U.S. organizations eliminate costly municipal solid waste, benefiting the bottom line and the environment.

National Waste Minimization Program:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/inde x.htm

Please contact us if we may be of further assistance.

External Links Disclaimer: Please be aware that links to non-EPA sites do not imply any official EPA endorsement. Furthermore, EPA does not accept any responsibility for the opinions, ideas, data or products presented at those locations, or guarantee the validity of the information provided. EPA does not guarantee the suitability of the information for any specific purpose.

*****************
Public Access Service, operated by ASRC Management Services
EPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (3404T)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax: (202) 566-0574
*****************

I'll just let you read yourself about dioxins but it sounds like you should switch to scissors (or maybe just mark

Thank you for your inquiry to the EPA Web site. Your request has been received by the Headquarters Information Resources Center Public Access Service, a contractor operated reference and referral service.

You asked if it is environmentally preferable to shred or burn junk mail.

We suggest you read the following quote from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation:

"Past generations burned their garbage, but that practice should be a thing of the past. Garbage back then didn't contain plastics, foils, batteries, paper (which is bleached with chlorine) and other materials. Even burning paper today can release dixions into the air."
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/redrecy/bu rn.html

In addition, burning of waste may be prohibited in certain areas.

For information on the pollutants released by burning paper and other trash, please see the following Web sites:

Backyard Burning: Human Health:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /health.htm

Backyard Burning: Basic Information:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /basic.htm

Backyard Burning home page:
http://www.epa.gov/msw/backyard/

For more information, you may contact the Office of Air and Radiation using the online comments form, by mail or telephone.

Online Comments form, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/Comments.nsf/Comments? OpenForm

By Mail:
Office of Air and Radiation 6101A
US EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC, 20460

By Telephone:
(202) 564-7400

Individuals seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastes: Consumer Tips:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/specials/funfacts/ index.htm

Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/reduce.h tm

Businesses seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastewise: Preserving Resources, Preventing Waste:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/wstewise /index.htm
WasteWise is a free, voluntary, EPA program helping U.S. organizations eliminate costly municipal solid waste, benefiting the bottom line and the environment.

National Waste Minimization Program:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/inde x.htm

Please contact us if we may be of further assistance.

External Links Disclaimer: Please be aware that links to non-EPA sites do not imply any official EPA endorsement. Furthermore, EPA does not accept any responsibility for the opinions, ideas, data or products presented at those locations, or guarantee the validity of the information provided. EPA does not guarantee the suitability of the information for any specific purpose.

*****************
Public Access Service, operated by ASRC Management Services
EPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (3404T)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax: (202) 566-0574
*****************

I'll just let you read yourself about dioxins but it sounds like you should switch to scissors (or maybe just mark

Thank you for your inquiry to the EPA Web site. Your request has been received by the Headquarters Information Resources Center Public Access Service, a contractor operated reference and referral service.

You asked if it is environmentally preferable to shred or burn junk mail.

We suggest you read the following quote from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation:

"Past generations burned their garbage, but that practice should be a thing of the past. Garbage back then didn't contain plastics, foils, batteries, paper (which is bleached with chlorine) and other materials. Even burning paper today can release dixions into the air."
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/redrecy/bu rn.html

In addition, burning of waste may be prohibited in certain areas.

For information on the pollutants released by burning paper and other trash, please see the following Web sites:

Backyard Burning: Human Health:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /health.htm

Backyard Burning: Basic Information:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /basic.htm

Backyard Burning home page:
http://www.epa.gov/msw/backyard/

For more information, you may contact the Office of Air and Radiation using the online comments form, by mail or telephone.

Online Comments form, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/Comments.nsf/Comments? OpenForm

By Mail:
Office of Air and Radiation 6101A
US EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC, 20460

By Telephone:
(202) 564-7400

Individuals seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastes: Consumer Tips:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/specials/funfacts/ index.htm

Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/reduce.h tm

Businesses seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastewise: Preserving Resources, Preventing Waste:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/wstewise /index.htm
WasteWise is a free, voluntary, EPA program helping U.S. organizations eliminate costly municipal solid waste, benefiting the bottom line and the environment.

National Waste Minimization Program:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/inde x.htm

Please contact us if we may be of further assistance.

External Links Disclaimer: Please be aware that links to non-EPA sites do not imply any official EPA endorsement. Furthermore, EPA does not accept any responsibility for the opinions, ideas, data or products presented at those locations, or guarantee the validity of the information provided. EPA does not guarantee the suitability of the information for any specific purpose.

*****************
Public Access Service, operated by ASRC Management Services
EPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (3404T)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax: (202) 566-0574
*****************

I'll just let you read yourself about dioxins but it sounds like you should switch to scissors (or maybe just mark

Thank you for your inquiry to the EPA Web site. Your request has been received by the Headquarters Information Resources Center Public Access Service, a contractor operated reference and referral service.

You asked if it is environmentally preferable to shred or burn junk mail.

We suggest you read the following quote from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation:

"Past generations burned their garbage, but that practice should be a thing of the past. Garbage back then didn't contain plastics, foils, batteries, paper (which is bleached with chlorine) and other materials. Even burning paper today can release dixions into the air."
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/redrecy/bu rn.html

In addition, burning of waste may be prohibited in certain areas.

For information on the pollutants released by burning paper and other trash, please see the following Web sites:

Backyard Burning: Human Health:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /health.htm

Backyard Burning: Basic Information:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /basic.htm

Backyard Burning home page:
http://www.epa.gov/msw/backyard/

For more information, you may contact the Office of Air and Radiation using the online comments form, by mail or telephone.

Online Comments form, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/Comments.nsf/Comments? OpenForm

By Mail:
Office of Air and Radiation 6101A
US EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC, 20460

By Telephone:
(202) 564-7400

Individuals seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastes: Consumer Tips:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/specials/funfacts/ index.htm

Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/reduce.h tm

Businesses seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastewise: Preserving Resources, Preventing Waste:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/wstewise /index.htm
WasteWise is a free, voluntary, EPA program helping U.S. organizations eliminate costly municipal solid waste, benefiting the bottom line and the environment.

National Waste Minimization Program:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/inde x.htm

Please contact us if we may be of further assistance.

External Links Disclaimer: Please be aware that links to non-EPA sites do not imply any official EPA endorsement. Furthermore, EPA does not accept any responsibility for the opinions, ideas, data or products presented at those locations, or guarantee the validity of the information provided. EPA does not guarantee the suitability of the information for any specific purpose.

*****************
Public Access Service, operated by ASRC Management Services
EPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (3404T)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax: (202) 566-0574
*****************

I'll just let you read yourself about dioxins but it sounds like you should switch to scissors (or maybe just mark

nuclear waste is infinitely easier to contain than a cloud coming out of a smokestack.

Oh really? "Infinitely?" It takes a hell of a lot of coal to come close to the problems at Hanford or Rocky Flats. And Yucca Mountain is already overflowing.

Personally, I'm pro nuclear power too. But it's only significantly cleaner than coal when you ignore the waste.

the worst polluter in all of history has been the U.S. government

True.

I'm not sure the worst polluter in history is really the best organization to regulate the pollution of private citizens.

Possibly, but it's an irrelevant argument. The government regulates on behalf of the people.

I do believe that there ARE free market ways to control pollution.

Really. What ways are those? How much pollution have they cut?

In the end, pollution can ONLY be controlled through voluntary desire.

False. While voluntary desire can be a strong motivator for pollution control, it is not the only solution. Regulations have proven results.

If people really want to end pollution, they need to be informed by others in who is the worst polluters, and we need to boycott those companies. If no one boycotts, I can only believe that no one cares, in which case the problem needs to get bad enough for the next generation to realize the error of their parents.

Except people do care, which is why environmental regulations have been enacted.

The U.S. also has a problem with radioactive Cesium. However, it mostly comes from bomb testing rather than a nuclear power plant. We were all living with elevated levels of radioisotopes prior to Chernobyl. The event didn't change that, it just made it a lot more apparent to the public.

The Wikipedia article cites UN sources.

And where do you think that the UN gets it's figures for US CO2 production? From the US Government. The US government EPA website documents:

"In 2003, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 6,900.2 Tg CO2 Eq[ivalants]." of which 5,841.5 was CO2 and the remainder was other greenhouse gasses.

The US government website for the US Geological Society page on volcanic gasses says:
"Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year."

You imply that he is spreading "bizarre disinformation", yet the US government backs up his data 100%.

He was in fact 100% coorect in debunking the absolutely ludacris claim that "Volcanoes put out far more greenhouse gasses than anything humans do". That is simply false, and wildly false. Human activites have been dumping a staggering quantity of CO2 into the atmosphere, orders of magnitute more CO2 than volcanoes and any other natural CO2 source.

You have no credibility.

Or maybe you just play mind games on yourself to find an excuse to filter out any inconvient information that threatens your currently accepted "truths" and threatens your trust in those who led you to believe those things.

Anyone trying to deny human caused global warming today is simply in denail. The details are certainly complex, but the basics are so simple that a child can follow it.
(1) The greenhouse effect is a fact. The greenhouse effect currently warms the earth by about 30C / 45F.
(2) CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.
(3) Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 levels were dead flat at about 275 ppm for the previous thousand years, and have been below 300 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years.
(4) Today we dump gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, an order of magnitude more than natural CO2 sources.
(5) That CO2 has built up, has hit 379 ppm today, and continues to increase.
(6) The rate of industrialization and the rate of increase has been increasing.
(7) Other powerful greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons are also a product of that industrialization, and have been increasing as well.

It would take complete psycological denial to suggest that we could raise CO2 from 275 ppm to unprecidented levels of 379 ppm and soon to over 400 ppm and that it would somehow not have any effect at all, not to mention the other greenhouse gasses. It would take complete psychological denial to suggest that the currently measured global increases in temperature are merely coincidental. It would take complete psychological denial to suggest that the widespread thawing of tundra permafrost is merely coincidental. It would take complete psychological denial to suggest that the massive melting now seen in glaciers and the polar icecaps is merely coincidental. Anyone claiming or defending the claim that "volcanoes put out far more greenhouse gasses than anything humans do" is disconnected from the facts of reality.

-

The Wikipedia article cites UN sources.

And where do you think that the UN gets it's figures for US CO2 production? From the US Government. The US government EPA website documents:

"In 2003, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 6,900.2 Tg CO2 Eq[ivalants]." of which 5,841.5 was CO2 and the remainder was other greenhouse gasses.

The US government website for the US Geological Society page on volcanic gasses says:
"Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year."

You imply that he is spreading "bizarre disinformation", yet the US government backs up his data 100%.

He was in fact 100% coorect in debunking the absolutely ludacris claim that "Volcanoes put out far more greenhouse gasses than anything humans do". That is simply false, and wildly false. Human activites have been dumping a staggering quantity of CO2 into the atmosphere, orders of magnitute more CO2 than volcanoes and any other natural CO2 source.

You have no credibility.

Or maybe you just play mind games on yourself to find an excuse to filter out any inconvient information that threatens your currently accepted "truths" and threatens your trust in those who led you to believe those things.

Anyone trying to deny human caused global warming today is simply in denail. The details are certainly complex, but the basics are so simple that a child can follow it.
(1) The greenhouse effect is a fact. The greenhouse effect currently warms the earth by about 30C / 45F.
(2) CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.
(3) Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 levels were dead flat at about 275 ppm for the previous thousand years, and have been below 300 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years.
(4) Today we dump gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, an order of magnitude more than natural CO2 sources.
(5) That CO2 has built up, has hit 379 ppm today, and continues to increase.
(6) The rate of industrialization and the rate of increase has been increasing.
(7) Other powerful greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons are also a product of that industrialization, and have been increasing as well.

It takes complete psycological denial to suggest that we could raise CO2 from 275 ppm to unprecidented levels of 379 ppm and soon to over 400 ppm and that it somehow would not have any effect at all, not to mention the other greenhouse gasses. It takes complete psycological denial to suggest that the currently measured global increases in temperature are merely coincidental. It takes complete psycological denial to suggest that the widespread thawing of tundra permafrost is merely coincidental. It takes complete psycological denial to suggest that the massive melting now seen in glaciers and the polar icecaps is merely coincidental.

the only questions are how big will the effect will be and how disruptive they will be, exactly what other side effects it will be and how disruptive they will be, and whether we want to do anything to dial back on the magnitude and speed of the already unavoidable increase, and if do what to do something what we want to do.

-