On Jul 3, 3:20 pm, "z0n0b" wrote:
18 Apr 2009

The inevitable has happened.

The Obama government has declared CO2-a nutrient required by plants to live,
and a gas exhaled with your every breath-a pollutant.


snip specious rant

|||
Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that
causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e.
physical systems or living organisms .Pollution can take the form of
chemical substances, or energy, such as noise, heat, or light energy.
Pollutants, the elements of pollution, can be foreign substances or
energies, or naturally occurring; when naturally occurring, they are
considered contaminants when they exceed natural levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

||||

Note a couple of qualifications: "they can be "naturally occurring
when they exceed natural levels".

The current concentrations of CO2 are above "natural levels" so
talking about humans exhaling and spotted owls is ignoratio elenchi --
a red herring.

Merriam-Webster speaks of it being "especially man-made waste"

pol·lu·tion
Pronunciation: \pə-ˈlü-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination
with man-made waste


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollution

So again, nothing to do with spotted owls.

Now the EPA has for years regulated vehicle and industrial emissions,
or tried to anyway. It sets a benchmark target that indicates the
pollution that is permitted and distingguishes that from the pollution
that is excessive.

It works this out on the basis of what is unavoidable and what
exceedds unacceptable levels of risk to humans. Thus, in the US, there
are for example regulations on how much sulphur can be emitted from
vehicle exhausts.

CO2 is an interesting onebecause clearly, some of the CO2 emitted is
simply cycled between the atmosphere and various carbon sinks -- the
oceans, terrestrial and marine biota etc. Some is naturally occurring,
and some is the result of disticntively human processes. Even the
anthropogenic CO2 gets a partial pass though because it's accepted
that the usages of modern life demand it, so the question is "how much
is acceptable?" That's not a new question but a very old one at least
in terms of pollutants. It is now being applied to CO2, not to reduce
existing concentration, but to slow its *accumulation* in the
atmosphere and eventually stabilise it some time in the future,
hopefully at a level that is consistent with avoiding uncontrolled or
excessively rapid climate change.

Fran

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 23:54:38 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:

On Jul 3, 3:20 pm, "z0n0b" wrote:
18 Apr 2009

The inevitable has happened.

The Obama government has declared CO2-a nutrient required by plants to li=
ve,
and a gas exhaled with your every breath-a pollutant.


snip specious rant

|||
Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that
causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e.
physical systems or living organisms .Pollution can take the form of
chemical substances, or energy, such as noise, heat, or light energy.
Pollutants, the elements of pollution, can be foreign substances or
energies, or naturally occurring; when naturally occurring, they are
considered contaminants when they exceed natural levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

||||

Note a couple of qualifications: "they can be "naturally occurring
when they exceed natural levels".

The current concentrations of CO2 are above "natural levels" so
talking about humans exhaling and spotted owls is ignoratio elenchi --
a red herring.

Merriam-Webster speaks of it being "especially man-made waste"

pol=C2=B7lu=C2=B7tion
Pronunciation: \p=C9=99-=CB=88l=C3=BC-sh=C9=99n\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination
with man-made waste


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollution

So again, nothing to do with spotted owls.

Now the EPA has for years regulated vehicle and industrial emissions,
or tried to anyway. It sets a benchmark target that indicates the
pollution that is permitted and distingguishes that from the pollution
that is excessive.

It works this out on the basis of what is unavoidable and what
exceedds unacceptable levels of risk to humans. Thus, in the US, there
are for example regulations on how much sulphur can be emitted from
vehicle exhausts.

CO2 is an interesting onebecause clearly, some of the CO2 emitted is
simply cycled between the atmosphere and various carbon sinks -- the
oceans, terrestrial and marine biota etc. Some is naturally occurring,
and some is the result of disticntively human processes. Even the
anthropogenic CO2 gets a partial pass though because it's accepted
that the usages of modern life demand it, so the question is "how much
is acceptable?" That's not a new question but a very old one at least
in terms of pollutants. It is now being applied to CO2, not to reduce
existing concentration, but to slow its *accumulation* in the
atmosphere and eventually stabilise it some time in the future,
hopefully at a level that is consistent with avoiding uncontrolled or
excessively rapid climate change.

Fran


What do you do when it is Governments who are the polluters.
For example, all the Coal fired power stations in NSW are owned and
operated by the NSW Govt.
What do you do about pollutants that originate in other countries.

On Jul 4, 1:34*pm, (Mauried) wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 23:54:38 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:





On Jul 3, 3:20 pm, "z0n0b" wrote:
18 Apr 2009

The inevitable has happened.

The Obama government has declared CO2-a nutrient required by plants to li=
ve,
and a gas exhaled with your every breath-a pollutant.

snip specious rant

|||
Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that
causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e.
physical systems or living organisms .Pollution can take the form of
chemical substances, or energy, such as noise, heat, or light energy.
Pollutants, the elements of pollution, can be foreign substances or
energies, or naturally occurring; when naturally occurring, they are
considered contaminants when they exceed natural levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

||||

Note a couple of qualifications: "they can be "naturally occurring
when they exceed natural levels".

The current concentrations of CO2 are above "natural levels" so
talking about humans exhaling and spotted owls is ignoratio elenchi --
a red herring.

Merriam-Webster speaks of it being "especially man-made waste"

pol=C2=B7lu=C2=B7tion
Pronunciation: \p=C9=99-=CB=88l=C3=BC-sh=C9=99n\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination
with man-made waste

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollution

So again, nothing to do with spotted owls.

Now the EPA has for years regulated vehicle and industrial emissions,
or tried to anyway. It sets a benchmark target that indicates the
pollution that is permitted and distingguishes that from the pollution
that is excessive.

It works this out on the basis of what is unavoidable and what
exceedds unacceptable levels of risk to humans. Thus, in the US, there
are for example regulations on how much sulphur can be emitted from
vehicle exhausts.

CO2 is an interesting onebecause clearly, some of the CO2 emitted is
simply cycled between the atmosphere and various carbon sinks -- the
oceans, terrestrial and marine biota etc. Some is naturally occurring,
and some is the result of disticntively human processes. Even the
anthropogenic CO2 gets a partial pass though because it's accepted
that the usages of modern life demand it, so the question is "how much
is acceptable?" That's not a new question but a very old one at least
in terms of pollutants. It is now being applied to CO2, not to reduce
existing concentration, but to slow its *accumulation* in the
atmosphere and eventually stabilise it some time in the future,
hopefully at a level that is consistent with avoiding uncontrolled or
excessively rapid climate change.

Fran

What do you do when it is Governments who are the polluters.

Sack those in charge? and replace them with people committed to best
practice?

For example, all the Coal fired power stations in NSW are owned and
operated by the NSW Govt.

Phase them out. Apply scrubbers in the interim. Do offsets.

What do you do about pollutants that originate in other countries

The same thing -- only the people over there do it, perhaps in some
cases, with the support of an international agreement and some funds
-- such as Gordon Brown was proposing

Fran

On Jul 5, 2:22*am, Fran wrote:
On Jul 4, 1:34*pm, (Mauried) wrote:



On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 23:54:38 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:

On Jul 3, 3:20 pm, "z0n0b" wrote:
18 Apr 2009

The inevitable has happened.

The Obama government has declared CO2-a nutrient required by plants to li=
ve,
and a gas exhaled with your every breath-a pollutant.

snip specious rant

|||
Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that
causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e.
physical systems or living organisms .Pollution can take the form of
chemical substances, or energy, such as noise, heat, or light energy.
Pollutants, the elements of pollution, can be foreign substances or
energies, or naturally occurring; when naturally occurring, they are
considered contaminants when they exceed natural levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

||||

Note a couple of qualifications: "they can be "naturally occurring
when they exceed natural levels".

The current concentrations of CO2 are above "natural levels" so
talking about humans exhaling and spotted owls is ignoratio elenchi --
a red herring.

Merriam-Webster speaks of it being "especially man-made waste"

pol=C2=B7lu=C2=B7tion
Pronunciation: \p=C9=99-=CB=88l=C3=BC-sh=C9=99n\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination
with man-made waste

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollution

So again, nothing to do with spotted owls.

Now the EPA has for years regulated vehicle and industrial emissions,
or tried to anyway. It sets a benchmark target that indicates the
pollution that is permitted and distingguishes that from the pollution
that is excessive.

It works this out on the basis of what is unavoidable and what
exceedds unacceptable levels of risk to humans. Thus, in the US, there
are for example regulations on how much sulphur can be emitted from
vehicle exhausts.

CO2 is an interesting onebecause clearly, some of the CO2 emitted is
simply cycled between the atmosphere and various carbon sinks -- the
oceans, terrestrial and marine biota etc. Some is naturally occurring,
and some is the result of disticntively human processes. Even the
anthropogenic CO2 gets a partial pass though because it's accepted
that the usages of modern life demand it, so the question is "how much
is acceptable?" That's not a new question but a very old one at least
in terms of pollutants. It is now being applied to CO2, not to reduce
existing concentration, but to slow its *accumulation* in the
atmosphere and eventually stabilise it some time in the future,
hopefully at a level that is consistent with avoiding uncontrolled or
excessively rapid climate change.

Fran

What do you do when it is Governments who are the polluters.

Sack those in charge? and replace them with people committed to best
practice?

For example, all the Coal fired power stations in NSW are owned and
operated by the NSW Govt.

Phase them out. Apply scrubbers in the interim. Do offsets.

What do you do about pollutants that originate in other countries

The same thing -- only the people over there do it, perhaps in some
cases, with the support of an international agreement and some funds
-- such as Gordon Brown was proposing

Fran

If you are the Goreacle, rich now thanks to pushing the threat of
global warming, you hop on a private jet and fly somewhere with a nice
beach to breathe in some fresh air. While in flight, you can chortle
over the suckers who bought worthless carbon credits and how the new
"cap and trade" proposal will make you and other insiders a fortune,
enabling you to unload more worthless carbon credits. Its a great
life, blame industry for global warming, part of a cycle that has been
going on for millions of years. But when it comes to reducing a real
danger, smokestack emissions from coal fired power plants, let those
plants with those high smokestacks get a paid pass from air quality
regulations by buying carbon credits. And if you are Gore, return to
you mansion that uses up 12X the power of am average sized house and
say it is okay, you have carbons credits. Maybe he even printed up
those credits himself in his mansion's basement, who is to know. Not
the government, which couldn't even catch Madoff.

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 23:22:41 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:

On Jul 4, 1:34=A0pm, (Mauried) wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 23:54:38 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:





On Jul 3, 3:20 pm, "z0n0b" wrote:
18 Apr 2009

The inevitable has happened.

The Obama government has declared CO2-a nutrient required by plants to=
li=3D
ve,
and a gas exhaled with your every breath-a pollutant.

snip specious rant

|||
Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that
causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e.
physical systems or living organisms .Pollution can take the form of
chemical substances, or energy, such as noise, heat, or light energy.
Pollutants, the elements of pollution, can be foreign substances or
energies, or naturally occurring; when naturally occurring, they are
considered contaminants when they exceed natural levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

||||

Note a couple of qualifications: "they can be "naturally occurring
when they exceed natural levels".

The current concentrations of CO2 are above "natural levels" so
talking about humans exhaling and spotted owls is ignoratio elenchi --
a red herring.

Merriam-Webster speaks of it being "especially man-made waste"

pol=3DC2=3DB7lu=3DC2=3DB7tion
Pronunciation: \p=3DC9=3D99-=3DCB=3D88l=3DC3=3DBC-sh=3DC9=3D99n\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination
with man-made waste

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollution

So again, nothing to do with spotted owls.

Now the EPA has for years regulated vehicle and industrial emissions,
or tried to anyway. It sets a benchmark target that indicates the
pollution that is permitted and distingguishes that from the pollution
that is excessive.

It works this out on the basis of what is unavoidable and what
exceedds unacceptable levels of risk to humans. Thus, in the US, there
are for example regulations on how much sulphur can be emitted from
vehicle exhausts.

CO2 is an interesting onebecause clearly, some of the CO2 emitted is
simply cycled between the atmosphere and various carbon sinks -- the
oceans, terrestrial and marine biota etc. Some is naturally occurring,
and some is the result of disticntively human processes. Even the
anthropogenic CO2 gets a partial pass though because it's accepted
that the usages of modern life demand it, so the question is "how much
is acceptable?" That's not a new question but a very old one at least
in terms of pollutants. It is now being applied to CO2, not to reduce
existing concentration, but to slow its *accumulation* in the
atmosphere and eventually stabilise it some time in the future,
hopefully at a level that is consistent with avoiding uncontrolled or
excessively rapid climate change.

Fran

What do you do when it is Governments who are the polluters.

Sack those in charge? and replace them with people committed to best
practice?

For example, all the Coal fired power stations in NSW are owned and
operated by the NSW Govt.

Phase them out. Apply scrubbers in the interim. Do offsets.

What do you do about pollutants that originate in other countries

The same thing -- only the people over there do it, perhaps in some
cases, with the support of an international agreement and some funds
-- such as Gordon Brown was proposing

Fran


Very good, how about explaining exactly in practical terms how you go
about doing this.
For example, how do you go about sacking Govts, or forcing Govts to
install scrubbers on their power stations.

Also explain how you go about forcing Govts in other countries to do
the same.

China for example, is a one party State.
The people cant sack the Govt even if they wanted too.

On Jul 6, 10:03*am, (Mauried) wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 23:22:41 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:





On Jul 4, 1:34=A0pm, (Mauried) wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 23:54:38 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:

On Jul 3, 3:20 pm, "z0n0b" wrote:
18 Apr 2009

The inevitable has happened.

The Obama government has declared CO2-a nutrient required by plants to=
li=3D
ve,
and a gas exhaled with your every breath-a pollutant.

snip specious rant

|||
Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that
causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e..
physical systems or living organisms .Pollution can take the form of
chemical substances, or energy, such as noise, heat, or light energy.
Pollutants, the elements of pollution, can be foreign substances or
energies, or naturally occurring; when naturally occurring, they are
considered contaminants when they exceed natural levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

||||

Note a couple of qualifications: "they can be "naturally occurring
when they exceed natural levels".

The current concentrations of CO2 are above "natural levels" so
talking about humans exhaling and spotted owls is ignoratio elenchi --
a red herring.

Merriam-Webster speaks of it being "especially man-made waste"

pol=3DC2=3DB7lu=3DC2=3DB7tion
Pronunciation: \p=3DC9=3D99-=3DCB=3D88l=3DC3=3DBC-sh=3DC9=3D99n\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination
with man-made waste

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollution

So again, nothing to do with spotted owls.

Now the EPA has for years regulated vehicle and industrial emissions,
or tried to anyway. It sets a benchmark target that indicates the
pollution that is permitted and distingguishes that from the pollution
that is excessive.

It works this out on the basis of what is unavoidable and what
exceedds unacceptable levels of risk to humans. Thus, in the US, there
are for example regulations on how much sulphur can be emitted from
vehicle exhausts.

CO2 is an interesting onebecause clearly, some of the CO2 emitted is
simply cycled between the atmosphere and various carbon sinks -- the
oceans, terrestrial and marine biota etc. Some is naturally occurring,
and some is the result of disticntively human processes. Even the
anthropogenic CO2 gets a partial pass though because it's accepted
that the usages of modern life demand it, so the question is "how much
is acceptable?" That's not a new question but a very old one at least
in terms of pollutants. It is now being applied to CO2, not to reduce
existing concentration, but to slow its *accumulation* in the
atmosphere and eventually stabilise it some time in the future,
hopefully at a level that is consistent with avoiding uncontrolled or
excessively rapid climate change.

Fran

What do you do when it is Governments who are the polluters.

Sack those in charge? and replace them with people committed to best
practice?

For example, all the Coal fired power stations in NSW are owned and
operated by the NSW Govt.

Phase them out. Apply scrubbers in the interim. Do offsets.

What do you do about pollutants that originate in other countries

The same thing -- only the people over there do it, perhaps in some
cases, with the support of an international agreement and some funds
-- such as Gordon Brown was proposing

Fran

Very good, how about explaining exactly in practical terms how you go
about doing this.
For example, how do you go about sacking Govts, or forcing Govts to
install scrubbers on their power stations.


There's this little thing called 'democracy', which applies to
government but not to private corporations and businesses. You set
performance parameters, get them independently monitored and results
put on the public record.

That's roughly what happens when I teach. Periodically we teachers are
audited, and we have to show evidence that our teaching programs match
the specifications of the syllabus, our units of work match our
teaching programs, and that our units of work are manifest in the work
produced by our students and that the output is of an adequate
standard for the cohort. If we fail these standards we get put under
direct supervision to get "support" and our supervisor is accountable
for our performance as well as us. If the failure is a serious one we
can get sacked.

I see no reason why the bureacracy should be rtreated any differently.


Also explain how you go about forcing Govts in other countries to do
the same.


People in those countries would do it in much the same way

China for example, is a one party State.
The people cant sack the Govt even if they wanted to.

That is a problem but if China doesn't do the right thing one can
always subject them to penalty tariffs to compensate for their
backsliding -- providing everyone else is doing the right thing. I
suspect if everyone else were doing the right thing they'd come to the
party because they need western markets.

You can always follow the idea of creating a substantial fund
disbursed subject to strict accountability to encourage reluctant
developing states to do the right thing.

Fran