Slashdot Mirror
SCOTUS: Clean Air Act Trumps Emissions Lawsuits
schwit1 writes "The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a global warming lawsuit against five big power companies, its most important environmental ruling since 2007 and a victory for the utilities and the Obama administration. The justices unanimously overturned a ruling by a US appeals court that the lawsuit now involving six states can proceed in an effort to force the coal-burning plants to cut emissions of gases that contribute to climate change. In a defeat for environmentalists, the Supreme Court agreed with the companies that regulating greenhouse gases should be left to the Environmental Protection Agency under the clean air laws. The ruling stemmed from a 2004 lawsuit claiming the five electric utilities have created a public nuisance by contributing to climate change. The lawsuit wanted a federal judge to order them to cut their carbon dioxide emissions."
Supreme Court agreed with the companies that regulating greenhouse gases should be left to the Environmental Protection Agency
Yes, and I'm sure they're going to start doing that any day now.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Where did you get that from the story? You think this is actually a step towards strengthening regulation?
The most informative show for kids these days.
We'll trade you the Stanley Cup for a discount.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The true cost, once you factor in the health problems associated with the pollution caused by burning coal, is a hell of a lot higher than 30 or even 40 cents per kwh. Enjoy your cheap energy now, but make sure to put aside at least a hundred thousand dollars to treat your inevitable cancer and/or lung disease.
It would be nice if technology evolves so you could generate your own power easily, perhaps with a few neighbors - and not pay or support any company at all.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
...sometimes they actually get it right. Sort of.
Go figure.
Now if they could only figure out that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and therefore does not fall under the Clean Air Act either...
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
With apologies to Kermit and the rest of the at risk biomass, I humbly submit, World's oceans in 'shocking' decline.
This is an interesting ruling to me in that it is more about the balance of power between the three branches of government than it is about the subject of the lawsuit, greenhouse gases in this case.
It has become fairly common for activists to seek court orders to impose their pet issues rather than go through the incredibly slow sausage-making process of legislative reform. This ruling is a smackdown from the Supreme Court saying "no, you six states cannot get a judge to rewrite environmental policy for you. If you want a policy change, you have to do it the old-fashioned way, by getting Congress to tell the EPA what to do. That's why you states have representatives in Congress in the first place."
Regardless of how one feels about CO2 emissions regulation, I think it is none the less a Good Thing that SCOTUS has blocked off this back channel to overriding the normal policy-making process. It's not a sweeping ruling but it is a precedent. Also interesting is that here we have a clear case of the judiciary ruling to limit the power of ... the judiciary. Kind of. How often do you see something like that?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
The true cost, once you factor in the health problems associated with the pollution caused by burning coal, is a hell of a lot higher than 30 or even 40 cents per kwh. Enjoy your cheap energy now, but make sure to put aside at least a hundred thousand dollars to treat your inevitable cancer and/or lung disease.
I love it when someone wants to track the total cost... and then proceeds to leave out factors.
Why don't you include the health BENEFITS of having a reliable power grid and the advanced society that power grid facilitates? Oh I see, the power you use comes from little faeries that fly out your ass while you're shoving your head up it.
We'll trade you the Stanley Cup for a discount.
Wow, the Boston Bruins have more Canadian players than any other team in the league (other than san jose). In fact, there are many more Americans playing for the Vancouver Canucks than there are on the Boston Bruins.
So shut the fuck up.
We can get those benefits from nuclear power while causing 1/100,000 as many cancers. We need coal-burning energy production like we need injections of benzene.
Oh for crying out loud. While I'm sure that breathing crap is bad for you cancer and/or lung disease is not inevitable. Just like smokers that inhale 3 packs a day and live into their 80's and 90's and some die in their 40's it's all pretty much up to the physical ability of the individual's body to resist the poison. Meanwhile continuing to run the price of electricity out of sight affects everyone right now. I haven't read the actual figures on how much pollution we're talking about here but I know in the last 30 to 40 years that pollution in general where I live has pretty much been stable. Population has gone up but pollution controls have about kept pace with the growth. I'd like it to go lower, who wouldn't, but I'm not prepared to pay another 2 or 3 hundred dollars a month in electric bills to do it.
But would you be willing to breath an atmosphere that was 100% carbon dioxide? No?
g=
Er, no, however one that was 100% oxygen (or pretty much any gas) would be just as toxic for you and me...should the Clean Air Act cover oxygen emissions as well?
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
It does cover ozone.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
The ruling states that the CAA "displaces" the plaintiff's rights to sue. Meaning that now, we all have fewer rights to sue under the common law, even if the emitters are unequivocally imposing on our rights, such as that to clean air. And this could be applied elsewhere, including, say, contaminated drugs, if SCOTUS were to find the federal law had "displaced" our common law rights.
I find that limiting, not empowering.
...and I would love to see nuclear provide 75% of our power but the same environmentalists who hate coal also hate nuclear. To them, cheap energy (no matter the source) is the problem. Of course cheap energy has done more to lift civilization out of poverty then anything else.
We need coal-burning energy production like we need injections of benzene.
But, I love benzene! It's so yummy and )*&^&^%*&^[NO CARRIER]
Similar to the upcoming US election results
I'm wondering about this anyway. Don't the States license these plants? I know the State legislature here went round and round about the last big power plant they built here. We've got something called the Public Services Commission that decides how much they can charge for power.
This is an odd ruling. Where does it state in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendments, or any other federal documents that the federal government has sole authority over environmental protection? Surely this can't be considered interstate commerce since we're talking about individual states.
I'm not a believer of man made global warming so I have mixed emotions on this. States should be able to set stricter laws and regulations on activities within their border as they see fit. It shouldn't matter if it is the environment or immigration. We already have this with road use regulations, health care, etc.
The United States is not a country of the masses. It is an alliance of individual states. It is sad that most people (especially the federal government) forget this.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
I thought it would be more along the lines of "Mr. Obama's Neighborhood".
Can you say, "Hope and Change?" I thought you could! Bwahahah!
Similar to the upcoming US election results
We'll trade you the Stanley Cup for a discount.
Wow, the Boston Bruins have more Canadian players than any other team in the league (other than san jose). In fact, there are many more Americans playing for the Vancouver Canucks than there are on the Boston Bruins.
So shut the fuck up.
1993! That was the last time Canada won the Cup. Who cares what nationality the players are the cup is in Boston now and Chicago last year!
So why don't you shut the fuck up and go burn some cars or something.
If companies were dumping enough oxygen into the air for it to be a threat to our quality of life, then yes.
In very many places the law disallows suits over things. We don't need thousands of suits clogging up the courts over issues that have already been decided by law or already have an alternate legal venue prescribed by law.
People who bring such suits need to be punished for abuse of the court system.
Who is proposing that we not have a reliable power grid? Do you know what a peaking plant is?
Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
It does cover ozone.
Touche.
Perhaps the EPA's real intent is to be able to control all the world's diamonds, then? After all, they're carbon too, just in a different arrangement...;)
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
I am confused by the article. It could mean one of two very different things:
1) The states passed laws requiring the corporations to cut their emissions even further than what the EPA required. The companies did not comply so the states sued. The Supreme Court ruled that the state laws do not trump the federal law, so they cannot be enforced.
-- OR --
2) The states sued the companies for damages, even though the companies complied with the federal law.
The implications are very different. The first one would surprise me: it seems like a states rights issue. States often times impose local environmental restrictions that may be beyond the federal requirements. If it was the latter, then I am not surprised. This happens all the time with anything where there is any form of regulation or standard practice. If the entity is following the regulation or best practice, they are generally immune from suits. Ex: Suppose a boat captain requires everyone to wear a life jacket, properly maintains the boat according to all the rules, has coast guard inspections, training, certificates, etc.... the captain is probably not liable if the boat catches fire and kills someone . Often times the regulatory body gets sued instead. In the above example, the coast guard may be sued for having lax rules.
no, it's not. It is an essentially random process.
The coal particle get lodged into your lung, causing a tiny lesion. Cell growth is activated around it and the particle get encapsulated. This extra growth spurt might, or might not cause some of the cells to mutate. The mutation might, or might not, lead to cancer.
Some people are more susceptible, yes. But the development is random. Being healthy, or rich will not help you at all.
The same court that upheld the freedom of speech instead of the freedom to censor?
Not seeing an issue, other than they continue to make wise choices. And in the case of the decision mentioned in the article , the choice was unanimous...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If companies were dumping enough oxygen into the air for it to be a threat to our quality of life, then yes.
Afraid the trees and other assorted greenery have that covered...damn things are always trying to blow us up, consuming all that safe, inert CO2 and pumping out all that highly flammable and explosive O2...;)
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Ozone isn't "oxygen". When discussing the atmosphere, the term "oxygen" (as in "atmospheric oxygen") refers to O2, not just any compound that happens to have oxygen atoms.
It's just like how the term "hydrogen", in many contexts, is different from "deuterium" or "tritium".
Er, no, however one that was 100% oxygen (or pretty much any gas) would be just as toxic for you and me...should the Clean Air Act cover oxygen emissions as well?
If we were in danger of oxygen emissions reaching that level, then yes, the Clean Air Act should cover such emissions. Since such a thing has no chance of occurring, it's a moot question. The Clean Air Act after all should only affect those emissions that are actually a threat to our health.
Where were you when I was trying to figure out Riemannian Geometry? You make everything seem so damned easy! You get to the black and white of a problem immediately- None of those pain-in-the-ass nuances for you. How's volunteering for the Palin campaign working out for you?
The energy industry paid good money to neuter the Environmental Protection Agency. You can't just come in here and try to use the judicial system as a venue for the redress of grievances against the federal government. Oh..., wait.
The Earth used to have a primarily CO2 atmosphere. Then those polluting plants showed up and starting spewing waste oxygen. So it has happened.
"Do you know what a peaking plant is?" Is that like a fern that you put inside your bathroom?
Lets see...
Nuclear --- Not peaking (back bone)
Wind --- Not peaking (Supply driven)
Solar --- Not peaking (Supply driven)
Hydro --- Peaking (limited supply)
Wave --- Not peaking (Supply driven)
Coal --- Peaking (Demand driven)
Oil -- Peaking (Demand driven)
Natural Gas -- Peaking (Demand driven)
Hmmmmmmmmm Seems like you need a hydrocarbon to handle the peaking load... Correct me if I'm wrong but don't all hydrocarbons release CO2 into the atmosphere when burned?
Magic Fairies --- Must be peaking too.. but I wouldn't know because I'm not a wacko environmentalist... I live in the real world.
You can do anything you want as long as you don't fry the frickin' planet.
Is that too much to ask? Apparently yes for many people.
And don't give me "the science is wrong" crap. I heard it straight from the co-chair of working group 1 of the IPCC last week.
The science is high-quality. The predictions are getting worse (for us) every time they are revised. The evidence that humans
are a major cause is clear. As the CO2 is increasing, O2 is decreasing correspondingly, showing that the CO2 emissions
are from combustion processes. "The science is wrong" is a desperate last-ditch appeal by the ignorant or malicious to
the ignorant.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Well stated. If I hadn't already posted in this discussion, I would mod your comment up. Few people grasp the heart of these matters as they are cleverly obscured.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Of course cheap energy has done more to lift civilization out of poverty then anything else.
Read 'Ecoscience' co-authored by John P. Holdren (science Czar) and you'll understand that you hit it right on the nail. It has nothing to do with the environment, cheap energy is a very serious problem to these guys. They started at the forefront of the eugenicist movement (Holdren is a self-proclaimed malthusian) and now they're at the forefront of the global warming hysteria. If one is to believe what's in that book, the solution is de-industrialization of the world so that we can no longer sustain as large a population as we have now. According to the book, a billion is the magic 'sustainable' figure.
'Think of the environment' is the new 'think of the children'. Yes, there are very serious environmental issues but sadly, these issues are way too useful to our leadership as excuses to push an agenda to warrant implementation of any real solutions.
Mind the frickin' laser...
Er, no, however one that was 100% oxygen (or pretty much any gas) would be just as toxic for you and me...should the Clean Air Act cover oxygen emissions as well?
If we were in danger of oxygen emissions reaching that level, then yes, the Clean Air Act should cover such emissions. Since such a thing has no chance of occurring, it's a moot question. The Clean Air Act after all should only affect those emissions that are actually a threat to our health.
Actually, the chance of winding up with a 100% CO2 atmosphere is just as remote. The chance of even winding up with an atmosphere with enough CO2 in it to make it physically harmful is also nil.
The only point on which alarmists can hang their "CO2 is a pollutant" hat on is the theorized warming effects on the atmosphere, and even those theories are wildly inconsistent regarding the absolute and potential environmental effects of the postulated atmospheric warming.
So no, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is not a threat to our health. It is plant food.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
I agree. I said the same thing when the Nazi's were taking over Europe. The world will have another war. If not from Hitler then from someone else. We're better off focusing on our economy so we're better able to adapt to our new Nazi overlords... within reason of course. I'm not an advocate of being a coward, but we're not ready to defend ourselves and our families from a clear and present danger.
You mean ' defeat for consumers '
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Yeah, they are so open minded that they take in whatever lies the major news media spews out and regurgitates it as fact because they cant think for themselves. I guess you could call that open mindedness. If you are stupid enough to see it that way.
Because those "benefits" don't rely on coal as the source of power.
1) What is wrong with hydrocarbon-driven peaking, where needed? The point is not ideological purity; the point is getting our carbon emissions down. And it that equals geographically-distributed wind + solar + NG where needed for peaking..... so? What matters is that the coal comes off the grid and most of the energy comes from low or no carbon sources.
2) Conventional hydro is more than sufficient for peaking in the west, although in some places you need to uprate plants (but that's pretty cheap).
3) Storage can also act as peaking. At present, the most cost effective method is pumped hydro, which only adds 1-2 cents per kilowatt hour. It's so cheap that it's already extensively used in China -- not to balance out supply variation, but to balance out *demand* variation. I would not be surprised at all to find direct electrochemical or electrostatic energy storage dominating in 2-3 decades.
4) EGS/SWEGS can also act as peaking, or baseload.
But I'll jot down a note that you'd much rather make fun of your ideological foes with straw men than sit down to a serious debate.
Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
Just like smokers that inhale 3 packs a day and live into their 80's and 90's and some die in their 40's it's all pretty much up to the physical ability of the individual's body to resist the poison.
And that makes it ok to spew this crap in the air?
The EPA is filled with energy company executies and lobbiests who hate the environment and favor polluters. This all started under Reagan and Bush even hired an oil company lobbiest from Chevron or Enron to head the EPA!
This is why the suite was brought up and the bad guys one. The EPA will simply not enforce it unless people are falling dead in the streets as they work to help out the polluters. I have no idea what this is even legal to begin with, but we saw during deep water horizon just how corrupt the government's drilling and natural resource departments under the department of interior were. The heads of these departments have gifts from oil companies on their desks and the same inspectors also interview for jobs by the same companies by looking the other way and not doing their job.
http://saveie6.com/
The States are suing plants in nearby States.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Yes. Since the obama administration believes itself to be above, and not required to follow the law. To the point where it uses lawyers to 'bypass' regulation.
Om, nomnomnom...
enacting "laws" via states suing in federal court would be horrible public policy, it would create an (even more) unaccountable secondary legislature and signing committee made up of the states attorneys general and the SCOTUS
this is not the way laws and rules are supposed to be made.
I strongly agree with regulating CO2 emissions but it must be done in a constitutionally proper manner or the whole thing lacks legitimacy
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Why am I condescending? Final point...
Name ONE energy source the environmentalists will approve!
Wind, kills birds, it's ugly
Solar, alters the desert echo system, the chemicals are too bad in the manufacture process
Hydro, Destroys too much land creating the reservoir
Coal, natural gas, oil, --- CO2
Nuclear --- Radiation
Geothermal, destroys the echo system...
Oh I almost forgot... These wackos won't even let us build power lines between the power generation and the location the power is used...
And On and On...
No matter what the source is, those wackos find something to complain about.
Bottom line, coal isn't that bad... The hype about CO2 is just that, hype... So you want to find an alternative to get rid of CO2. But while you have all of these great ideas of other sources, the environmentalists WILL NOT let you build them in sufficient quantities to actually meet the demand. So, this continued discussion is just a WASTE of time because there isn't an environmentally friendly solution. Therefore, the only environmentally friendly solution is for us to live in caves sucking slime off the walls for nourishment. WHEN the ENVIRONMENTALISTS come forward with an energy source that can meet the nations needs then we can discuss alternatives... You know when that will happen? NEVER!!!
If the Republicans had been in power, the government would have taken the same position. This has nothing to do with the Obama administration.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Carbon Dioxide is not Carbon.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
So no, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is not a threat to our health. It is plant food.
Err... no, CO2 is a threat to human health, but that's not the only definition of a pollutant.
Your argument is that we would never be raising concentrations of CO2 to sufficient levels to cause human breathing difficulties, and sure that situation could never occur. However, you could say similar things for other regulated pollutants - but we don't just consider the impact on human health when considering what pollutants to regulate.
If you take the dictionary definition of pollution, that "Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem", then CO2 is definitely going to fall under that. Given legalese is all about defining terms and assessing them against other terms, unregulated CO2 emissions causing instability, disorder or discomfort to the ecosystem has been assessed by experts in the field as being a high likelihood. You're just quibbling over the impact.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
Exactly. The only people who hate cheap energy are the energy producers :)
Blar.
To them, cheap energy (no matter the source) is the problem.
No, energy which isn't priced to include the external factors, like environmental impact is the problem.
"Externalities" is the new "Divine Right of Kings"
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Considering that the Appellate Court is meant to essentially act as a gatekeeper to the next level of the legal system, I'm surprised that there's no mechanism to enforce SOME sense of intellectual rigor on appellate rulings. If the Supremes are consistently overruling a certain appellate court's findings (or any lower court, really) wouldn't that suggest that the lower court(s) are aren't doing their jobs, or in other words: that they don't correctly understand the law?
-Styopa
Er, no, however one that was 100% oxygen (or pretty much any gas) would be just as toxic for you and me
IIRC 100% oxygen at normal atmospheric pressure is survivable at least for a while and 100% oxygen at low pressure is fine. 100% anything else is going to render you unconscious very quickly and dead reasonably quickly.
But I agree with you there is no need to regulate oxygen or nitrogen emissions, they are large fractions of the air and we don't emit anywhere near enough of them to significantly impact those fractions.
The question is where does CO2 fit in, it is found naturally in the air but afaict human activities are substantially increasing the proportion.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Frankly, I would love to see some group of lawyers stand in court trying to show "harm" (required for any tort) based on someone releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. I'm sure it would be really interesting.
If it works, maybe those tornado victims in Alabama can find someone in Brazil that killed a butterfly for the damage to their homes and loss of life.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Why don't you include the health BENEFITS of having a reliable power grid
They are already included. Health benefits -> better quality of life -> more productive populace -> higher earnings.
What's your evidence for such an outlandish claim?
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Coal isn't peaking (at least, not in the efficient plants). And all sources are peaking (including back bone ones like coal and nuclear) when you include storage. We need to get away from the idea of generating power only when we need it, and instead generate power when and where we can and transport/store it for when/where it's needed. There are plenty of places that have hydro pumped up in the night by the back bone power surplus and drained in the day for peak delivery.
Just because you seem to ignore it doesn't mean it isn't the better way of doing it. Not to mention you did explicitly list hydro as peaking. And solar mostly is, because it's supply driven, but demand correlates well, at least in warm climes (the more sun you have, the more cooling you need).
Learn to love Alaska
the Supreme Court agreed with the companies [that the law, the way congress wrote it, says] that regulating greenhouse gases should be left to the EPA...
What then?
Add "Congress said" to the front of Supreme Court decisions and see what it sounds like.
And here I thought they were a conservative, for all the same reasons you listed with conservative and liberal swapped.
Learn to love Alaska
"IIRC 100% oxygen at normal atmospheric pressure is survivable at least for a while"
At high altitudes aviators use 100% oxygen so I doubt it is toxic.
I'm an environmentalist, and I'm big on solar, wind, and geothermal, like 95%+ of people who would tag themselves similarly.
QED, you have been disproven.
FYI, most of the people opposing big projects -- let's say, Cape Wind -- are not environmental groups, although they hide under that guise. Cape Wind was mainly opposed by wealthy landowners afraid it would lower their property values.
Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
Holdren is NOT a self-proclaimed malthusian. Alex Jones, a well respected journalist who does his research is one of the sources of this bovine excrement. You might check the reliability of the source of your "facts"
It's a trick!
You'll get sued for contributing to global warming!
English is not this
Jesus told me so
OMG I knew it- Al Gore is Jesus!
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html The 440 commercial nuclear reactors in use worldwide are currently helping to minimize our consumption of fossil fuels, but how much bigger can nuclear power get? In an analysis to be published in a future issue of the Proceedings of the IEEE, Derek Abbott, Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Adelaide in Australia, has concluded that nuclear power cannot be globally scaled to supply the world’s energy needs for numerous reasons. The results suggest that we’re likely better off investing in other energy solutions that are truly scalable. Fossil fuels or nuclear it makes no difference until solar/thermal energy is generated and stored economically.
15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
Justify your ass beating any way you can. No one gave Boston a chance going in, and they took the cup home. Oh, then Vancouver decided to pretend that they were Cleveland and trashed their own city.
Well done, Canada. Well done.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
If you two can't play together without picking i fight i am going to have to separate you. AC - I want you to finish your tuna sandwich Unless that is you are concerned about mercury cadmuim and a dozen other pollutants then it's okay leave the sandwich where you found it.
15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
Efficiency in the short term. hey it's easy ABTU saved is a BTU earned. The need beyond generation and conservation is storage. Batteries/gasses/thermal reservoirs.
15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
Cancer causing 'Hot Particles' detected in Seattle" www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4503
15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
15 TW with nuclear only, The world would need about 15,000 nuclear reactors. Every nuclear power station needs to be decommissioned after 40-60 years of operation due to neutron embrittlement. it takes 6-12 years to build a nuclear station, and up to 20 years to decommission.
To date, there have been 11 nuclear accidents at the level of a full or partial core-melt. these 11 accidents occurred during a cumulated total of 14,000 reactor-years.
Scaling up to 15,000 reactors would mean we would have a major accident somewhere in the world every month.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html
15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
the Boston Bruins have more Canadian players than any other team in the league
Even better, for a 50% discount, we'll trade you a Stanley Cup award-winning team for repatriation.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Bildenberg conspiracy in 3..2..1..
Uh, wait a sec Fox news is on.
15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
No, externalities are those extra costs that don't actually show up in the price you pay. Such as the increased impact on the environment and the increased cost to people's health. Are you trying to say that these costs don't exist and shouldn't be paid by the power utility?
No, externalities are those extra costs that don't actually show up in the price you pay. Such as the increased impact on the environment and the increased cost to people's health. Are you trying to say that these costs don't exist and shouldn't be paid by the power utility?
Which is it, me or the power utility? You used both. Oh, wait - corporations pass on all their costs to consumers, so of course it will be me that pays (or simply goes without). But the whole "externalities" meme is bullshit, anyway, because it's always implemented as a tax, which goes to the looters to help ... nobody but the looters. So they can pay for more weapons, boots, and cages.
Even the "costs" will be determined by the looters themselves. And it all flows back to the King, and your name may be on the deed (so you can pay your "externalities" and taxes), but only the King will decide what you can do with it, and when, and how, and what cut the King gets when you do.
So, yea, you're blind if you don't see the entire idea as just a way to restore the "Divine Right of Kings."
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Maybe if that externality was actually priced it, it wouldn't need to be added in the form of a tax.
The rest of your post is a bunch of anti-government, paranoid, pseudo libertarian bullshit.
The rest of your post is a bunch of anti-government, paranoid, pseudo libertarian bullshit.
And your theories of "externalities costs" is completely based on a bunch of anti-free-market, speculative fear-mongering, pseudo socialistic bullshit. So I guess we're even.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Ahh, so now we get to the crux of your position: The environment is "anti-free market". Good to know.
Ahh, so now we get to the crux of your position: The environment is "anti-free market". Good to know.
Ugliest straw man I've seen in a long time. I'm a real environmentalist. Take your socialist ideas wrapped in fake environmentalism and go away.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
"Real" in that you want a company to be able to do whatever the fuck they want.
Oxygen is toxic if the partial pressure is too high, IIRC pure oxygen at normal (roughly sea level) atmospheric pressure pure oxygen is not good long term but isn't immediately hazardous to health (though I belive it is a major fire risk).
As the overall pressure reduces (e.g. high altitude flying) you want to increase the fraction of oxygen, as the overall pressure increases (e.g. deep diving) you want to decrease the fraction of oxygen so the partial pressure remains about the same.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Have you read the book?
“We find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp. We hold this view not because we believe the world to be running out of materials in an absolute sense, but rather because the barriers to continued material growth, in the form of problems of economics, logistics, management, and environmental impact, are so formidable.”
- Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1977), p. 954.
I'll grant you that I missed the 'neo' bit.
Mind the frickin' laser...