[Dragom]

Yes, but switching from coal to natural gas is pretty painless.

[Zipperfish]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

From the article, it seems to imply that the businesses are already required to disclose the gross amount of gases that they release into the atmosphere, and are objecting to having to release internal data regarding their processes. Is that correct?

I'd be against requiring companies to reveal anything more than absolutely necessary. However, in this case they seem to be asking for the raw data from which their greenhouse gas data is calculated. I think that's fair. If they balk, then just tell the companies they have two options: stop emitting pollution or install direct measurement sensors at all discharge points (thus removing the need to calculate). Neither of them is likely to be economically palatable for the company.

That said the EPA has a horrible history of over-regulating.

A compromise that makes sense would be to require companies to maintain the data on site for inspection by an enforcement officer.

[Pseudonym]

Dragom Dragom:

Yes, but switching from coal to natural gas is pretty painless.

Isn't coal cheaper and more easily accessible? There were substantial alternatives to DDT as well, just significantly more expensive ones. We're driving the price of progress out of the buying range of countries that are trying to develop.

[Pseudonym]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

A compromise that makes sense would be to require companies to maintain the data on site for inspection by an enforcement officer.

I think there was also a proposal to provide the information to the EPA, but to not make it public, which should soothe privacy concerns.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Perhaps Dr. Caleb should be required to put his last night's dinner in the same condition he received it before he puts it back in the environment.

Well millions of animals don't, and the world has developed ways of creating more dinners from those digested ones. If we would only shit in harmony with the environment, it wouldn't be a problem. Driving a car tho, for example, is a different story.

'Zactly. Our form evolved from this environment. We compliment it as it compliments us. The day I start spewing highly toxic sludge and air pollution, then I'll develop a system to break it down into raw elements before returning it to the environment.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Perhaps Dr. Caleb should be required to put his last night's dinner in the same condition he received it before he puts it back in the environment.

Well millions of animals don't, and the world has developed ways of creating more dinners from those digested ones. If we would only shit in harmony with the environment, it wouldn't be a problem. Driving a car tho, for example, is a different story.

'Zactly. Our form evolved from this environment. We compliment it as it compliments us. The day I start spewing highly toxic sludge and air pollution, then I'll develop a system to break it down into raw elements before returning it to the environment.

If you drive a car, heat your home, eat food that you didn't grow yourself and didn't use commercial fertilizer etc - in other words unless you live in a primitive hunter gatherer or agrarian society, you're spewing toxic sludge and air pollution or paying somebody else to do it for you. As am I (in case you thought I was preaching.)

[GreenTiger]

desertdude desertdude:

After a long time there is a lot ( not all )of which I can agree with in there.

Very true. Once you get beyond the occasional hysterics, steriotyping and all that nonsense and actually get down to thinking we have a lot more in common than what divides us. That what is great about this forum occasionally gets some real good thinking here.