# EPA debate over "carbon neutral" status of biomass



## heaterman (Aug 6, 2010)

I heard the other day from a reliable source that the EPA is formulating new standards that would basically make using cordwood nearly impossible with any present technology. They are far tighter than the Phase II regs. Basically, the only thing that would be able to meet it would be a chip feed or pellet boiler that has a scrubber system integral to it.  Current technology, even that which originates in Eurpo and has a minimum of around 2MM btu's is not in the ballpark.  
  This is absolute nonsense and it makes me mad on so many fronts I hardly know where to start. 

I'm wondering if anyone else in the wood burning industry has heard of these new regs.


----------



## rkusek (Aug 6, 2010)

Sounds like more of an attempt to take away the freedom of being independent from the big hand of government than anything else.  Absolutely no reason for that type of technology for the homeowner that burns wood.  I believe they are positioning themselves to discourage wood burning when they put the Cap & Trade stuff in effect.  When they double the price of electricity, natural gas, heating oil, etc. for revenue purposes they don't want everyone fleeing to wood burning, even if its responsible clean gassifier technology.  One more example that it has nothing to do with the environment just the money.  The same people will be traveling all over the country in chartered jets at 50-100 grand a pop on the taxpayers dime preaching their garbage, wasting a ton of fuel, and producing even more pollution.


----------



## boilermanjr (Aug 6, 2010)

You may be confusing the residential New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) with the commercial/industrial/institutional boiler rule that has been proposed (commonly called Boiler MACT).  The boiler MACT as proposed will make it almost impossible for wood boilers to be used in new and existing commercial/industrial/institutional installations- .03lbs/MM Btu Particulate and 100 PPM Carbon Monoxide (new boilers), 160 PPM CO (existing boilers).  Even for chip, pellet, and other solid biomass boilers what EPA has proposed is practically speaking, unattainable.  BTEC has drafted comments about the proposed boiler MACT that can be found here: http://www.biomassthermal.org/legislative/mact.asp.  

As for the residential NSPS, it is not exactly clear what EPA will do next.  The most recent number that I have heard from Gil Wood at EPA is a target of .15 lbs/MM Btu particulate emissions within the next few years.  Until a test method is confirmed along with the proposed target emissions rate, it is difficult to know what impact .15 lbs/MM Btu might have.  There are wood burning boilers that can meet this emissions level if tested within the burn rates that the appliances are designed to work within.  

A Heating The Northeast With Renewable Biomass working group along with BTEC are spending a significant amount of time drafting sign on letters for those interested in contacting their state congressional delegates, governor's offices, beaurocrats, and other interested parties about the boiler MACT.  The sign on letters should be complete by today.  Please contact Kyle Gibeault at BTEC: kyle.gibeault@biomassthermal.org to provide him with your contact information if you would like to speak up about what EPA has proposed.  All comments need to be received at EPA by August 23rd.


----------



## btuser (Aug 7, 2010)

From a purely selfish point of view, I'd be glad to see less of the wood chip plants going up in my area.  It used to be a truck full of logs was available to the homeowner for under $1,000.  Now that's not possible when a driver doesn't have to deal with residential homeowners.  I remember 2008 cordwood was fetching over $400/cord.  I'd rather they sold me the wood so I could burn it in my stove than sell it to a power plant that will in turn sell it back to me.  I get 70% efficiency with no transmition losses,  no service account charges, delivery charge, stranded investment charges, line maint or  renewable engergy taxes.  I think I'm the better deal for the enviroment.


----------



## Piker (Aug 7, 2010)

btuser said:
			
		

> From a purely selfish point of view, I'd be glad to see less of the wood chip plants going up in my area.  It used to be a truck full of logs was available to the homeowner for under $1,000.  Now that's not possible when a driver doesn't have to deal with residential homeowners.  I remember 2008 cordwood was fetching over $400/cord.  I'd rather they sold me the wood so I could burn it in my stove than sell it to a power plant that will in turn sell it back to me.  I get 70% efficiency with no transmition losses,  no service account charges, delivery charge, stranded investment charges, line maint or  renewable engergy taxes.  I think I'm the better deal for the enviroment.



Warning  STRONG OPINION

Having attended several seminars this year on biomass as an energy source, I can tell you that the main focus of the academic community is on large scale power generation.  Very little attention is given to the needs or desires of the individual with regard to efficient use of small residential systems.  For some reason, the smartest people in the room think that more government regulation and bureaucratic control always results in a net gain of some sort.  Maybe it's because they don't think individuals can think for themselves... maybe it's because some individuals can't think for themselves... probably a little of both I guess.  The problem is that most regulations aren't always driven by the things we think or at least want to think they are driven by...  whether your talking about environmental concerns of biomass combustion or safety concerns on the highway (having a great time these days trying to decipher the Federal Motor Carrier laws ... but that's another story altogether :-/ ).... at the end of the day... at the governmental level especially... IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY...  and the INDIVIDUAL, which to me is the most important ingredient in our recipe for freedom, is given very little, if any, consideration.  We are becoming regulation top-heavy in this country, which  in my humblest of opinions, quenches the entrepreneurial spirit that once made our economy strong, and forces businesses to be less diverse than they once could have been.  

Don't get me wrong... I understand the need for regulation in order to have a civilized society...  but it's all about balance.  If anyone can look at the new clean air regs coming down from the epa and tell me that they are "balanced" I would be suprised.  I forget what the cost to small business was going to be... i believe I posted it before.. something like 2 BILLION dollars.   Yes BILLION.  Given the current state of the economy, I don't know how this helps anyone except for a few companies selling and installing industrial baggers etc.  It just seems crazy.  Maybe in a different decade with a different economy it would be a different story.

At any rate... I'll step down off my soap box now.  Have a wonderful weekend to all.  

Cheers


----------



## Donl (Aug 7, 2010)

Well said Piker!


----------



## ernie (Aug 7, 2010)

I just ran across tis link on Fox News Sci-Tec page
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4303103/debate-over-carbon-neutral-status-of-biomass-industry/
Debate Over 'Carbon Neutral' Status of Biomass Industry
EPA threatening to pull the plug on an American renewable energy industry

Everyone needs to see this, it looks like Big Brother EPA is wanting to view our biomass industry as "dangerous carbon"

Can this administration do anything else new to drive our country into further ruin? I guess when we all are using windmills and rubber bands to power our energy sources they will be satisfied.

Any comments from the floor?


----------



## imacman (Aug 7, 2010)

ernie said:
			
		

> Can this administration do anything else new to drive our country into further ruin? I guess when we all are using windmills and rubber bands to power our energy sources they will be satisfied.
> 
> Any comments from the floor?



Yes, they can (and will) do anything they can to turn us into the United States of France.  Be afraid....be VERY afraid!   :ahhh:


----------



## jebatty (Aug 7, 2010)

Moderator - suggest moving this to the Green Room.

This is complicated, to say the least. I am a strong proponent of biomass for energy, as witnessed by 20 years of wood burning. Yet, all the wood I have burned likely has emitted more carbon than all the carbon sequestered by the new growth spawned by my harvesting of trees for firewood. Had I not cut these trees, many still might be living, and others would be on the forest floor or standing dead wood. All of these still would have retained, likely, most of their carbon rather than having released it to the atmosphere in decomposition, and many new trees would have been naturally regenerated -- net result more carbon sequestration, not neutrality.

20 years probably is not long enough to reach a carbon neutral equilibrium for burning wood -- perhaps 40 years is. The point being that in the short run, biomass to energy likely is not carbon neutral, but at some longer term a carbon neutral equilibrium probably is reached, at least in some cases.

Further complications with biomass are the energy inputs needed before a harvest occurs resulting in biomass ready for energy conversion. With some forests (and trees), these may be minimal, such as through natural regeneration where appropriate. In other situations substantial site prep occurs, including herbicides and sometimes fertilizers, both energy intensive in manufacture and application. With non-tree biomass the picture may change substantially, as cultivation, fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, processing, drying, etc. all involve substantial energy inputs, and carbon outputs.

Therefore, and I would logically say the EPA is probably justified in examining this issue, the carbon neutrality of biomass in the totality needs to be analyzed vis-a-vis other energy sources with regard to carbon output. I doubt this will have much impact on homeowner use of wood or pellets for fuel. The impact likely will fall on large-scale energy consumers, such as electricity generation. 

I see no reason to panic or fear. We have way too much fear-mongering and panic does not produce rational discourse. This already is a hot political issue, and as politics get involved, clarity and rationality becomes in short supply. Instead, greed, money and profits become the name of the game.


----------



## jebatty (Aug 8, 2010)

Moderator - similar post in the pellet forum. Suggest combining an moving to the Green Room. I posted a reply in the pellet forum.


----------



## begreen (Aug 8, 2010)

Threads merged and moved to green room. 

Must be a slow news day. The EPA ruling came out months ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/0...stry-sees-chilling-message-in-epas-60072.html

The news is that congress sent a note over to the EPA asking them to check their ruling. 
http://www.woodbiomass.com/news/timber/news/Congress-biomass-MACT-AFPA-EPA.html

I haven't read the full ruling yet, but is seems directed more towards assuring clean burning in large biomass boilers. 
"The proposed MACT standards would classify biomass boiler units, conventionally considered multi-fuel boilers, as incinerators and would be subject to new emission limits for mercury, hydrogen chloride, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and dioxin.  The new proposed ruling is originally part of the Clean Air Act of 1990." http://www.biomassintel.com/bpa-boiling-epa-proposed-mact-rule/


----------



## begreen (Aug 8, 2010)

This is a more informed and possibly affected group on the impact wrt boilers. Moving thread, but will leave the link open to the boiler room for further commentary.


----------



## webbie (Aug 8, 2010)

I think is is GW's or Reagans fault!
 
And the world is ending tomorrow because of them - the chinese are talking over!

Well, back to the regularly scheduled program - there are many factors at play when large biomass operations are considered. As some of our resident engineers have noted, burning green biomass for electricity only is terribly ineffective! I think we are talking 10-30% total efficiency. So throwing it into a giant burner alone or mixed with coal DOES create a lot of carbon.......which is NOT offset by getting a lot of energy (poor efficiency).

My first suggestion is to not relate it to Rev. Wright, Freedom Fries or WMD. It is exactly the opposite. The reason you are hearing about this is BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY THINKING FOR ONCE. Look, we've already been making mistakes for 30-40 years or longer - for forge ahead blinding would just add to the problems!

A similar news story has made the rounds in Ma. for the last couple of months. Here is a simple explanation for these stories....

1. Green biomass plants which are electric only are inefficient.
2. Many of the plans put into place by states are supposed to cut the CO2 emissions in 10-15 years. Therefore, when you do an actual study, the carbon from the inefficient burning measured against the wood use and the low efficiency means that it is not a good deal WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD. 

In modern civilization we have to measure things on a large scale. We also have to use resources in the most efficient manner possible. It would seem that biomass wastes would be used for everything EXCEPT inefficient green burning, those uses being:

1. Building materials
2. Pellets
3. Biobricks, etc.
4. Combined heat and power plants using air-dried, solar driers or other more efficient methods.

No, the sky is not falling. In fact, quite the opposite! People are debating and thinking.....which really is a CHANGE for a CHANGE.


----------



## ihookem (Aug 8, 2010)

Well, I don't think people are thinking any more than they ever were. I think the EPA is a big fat power hungry part of government. I again think if government stays out of it the companies making the biomass plants the companies will figure out very fast if the inefficiency is worth the cost. In the private sector, it's a good gauge. Thinking from big Government is usually the most inefficient brain dead entity there is. Also, if they get get biomass plants to shut down how long will it be before EPA sits down and needs someone else to dictate like small wood burner and OWB manufactures? Not long I bet.


----------



## webbie (Aug 9, 2010)

ihookem said:
			
		

> Well, I don't think people are thinking any more than they ever were. I think the EPA is a big fat power hungry part of government. t.



I guess Nixon was bad for starting it!

Well, all government might be big and bad in your opinion, however you can rest assured that EPA has saved MILLIONS of Americans from disease and early death. That might not matter to you, but it does to me and many others.

You are certainly right that "people are not thinking any more than they ever were"....that's for sure!


----------



## heaterman (Aug 9, 2010)

The thing that bugs me is that the EPA has almost draconian power to intercede and interfere with our lives. This summer they came out and classified raw milk as a hazardous waste. Yah.........you heard that right......raw milk, as it comes from the cow. Stuff I grew up drinking right from the cooler on my uncles farm.  
By the same logic, water is hazardous to our health also.....I'm just sayin'........... 
I'll match total carbon emitted from production to combustion & power generation between a bio mass plant and a coal powered plant any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Just consider the mining and transport of coal to harvesting a wood lot for a minute.........
After that do a little searching on the www about EPA's headquarters at Research Triangle Park in North Carolina. If that place was designed and built with carbon emissions in mind I'll eat my shorts. 
Good grief, what do they want us to do live in tents made out of deer skin and eat berries we find in the woods? They'll probably claim that's excessively harmful to the environment also. 

Don't get me wrong here, I am all for best practices and technology and I have to say that years of false claims, downright rotten technology by many of the wood burner manufacturers, along with user ignorance has probably gotten us in trouble we deserve at this point. We all need to be mindful of the resources we use and the earth we live on or it won't be around to support our grandkids.


----------



## ihookem (Aug 9, 2010)

When did I say ALL government is big and bad? Putting words in my mouth again so you can make a point I'm sure. Also, when Nixon started it they didn't have a fraction of the power they have now. Yes, there was a time for the EPA and sometimes they are needed but  they seem to be able to do as they please with our tax money. As a matter of fact the EPA can be used to do things that can't get done through congress. This tells me it's time to pull back the ropes on their power.  They can even tell me how to change a window in a house built before 1978 because of lead paint. It is a foolish law that tells me I have to take a lead abatement class for 300 bucks and a  day wasted in a room. This is way over board and my opinion is they make regulations so strict it gets very hard to do even change a window not to mention make a bio mass plant. Not that I think bio mass plants are the future, I'm saying if a company wants to make it they should be helped instead of being heckled.


----------



## ihookem (Aug 9, 2010)

LOL heaterman, you crack me up! Oh and by the way they don't want you eating berries in the woods because it will make you fart and that will emit a carbon foot print on the earth. Your body will also have to get rid of it in 12 hours and that should be regulated too, even if you are living in a deer hide tent. Come to think of it I've been hearing about the cows and pigs being taxed because they put out carbon and want to place a carbon tax on farmers with cows and pigs. Did it ever dawn on  them it's actually nitrogen for the crops? Heaterman, you helped make my point.


----------



## webbie (Aug 9, 2010)

heaterman said:
			
		

> The thing that bugs me is that the EPA has almost draconian power to intercede and interfere with our lives. This summer they came out and classified raw milk as a hazardous waste. Yah.........you heard that right......raw milk, as it comes from the cow. S.



I guess, then, you don't have to be educated that Anthrax often comes from dead animals and the eColi is in the guts of cows also.

Damn, make sure you don't expose yourself to those "natural and organic" products!

As you well know, the EPA has to go through various channels and legal processes to do anything. IMHO, looking around this wasteland (our country), they have no done enough! Take a close look around where you live.....

We have so much pollution here it is disgusting! PCB's, as you know, and lots of other junk line the bottom of the Hudson and many other major rivers. We have perchlorate in our water and in our ponds. The list of polluted sites just within 20 miles of here is too long to even fit on one page, and the deaths and suffering caused to human beings is vast.

When millions of American stop suffering and dying from environmental toxins (dirty air, water, land, etc.), then get back to me around our rights.


----------



## webbie (Aug 9, 2010)

ihookem said:
			
		

> . Did it ever dawn on  them it's actually nitrogen for the crops? Heaterman, you helped make my point.



Time for you to leave out pails for your neighbors and then empty them onto your lawn and garden for the nitrogen content. Or, just ask them to deliver. You could create some "homeless latrines" and try to entice people to come and fertilize your gardens.


----------



## leaddog (Aug 9, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> ihookem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Called ORGANIC FARMING. Be sure and wash your veggies. They don't have any of that Bad fertilizer and bug spray on them cause they let the chickens, ducks, pigs eat all that bad bugs, carrion, and pick thru the cow and horse manure before they put it on the plants to make those nice red tomatoes. They maybe even mulch those nice red strawberries with the left over straw after the cattle and pigs and chickens have bedded in it. Oh yes don't forget all those wonderful english sparrows that build those nests in the hay and straw before it's spread on the ground so you get nice and CLEAN veggies that you spend three times as much. But like heaterman said you don't have to worry about any of that milk getting spilt on the ground cause every farmer has to have an environmental plan in place so it doesn't pollute all that ground water.
but if the EPA can figure out how to tax all that bio-mass then they just might be able to figure out how it will help replace all that money peoples influence from coal, oil, gas and we'll be all set. Remember, the GOV doesn't do things for the people they do things where the money is and I'm talking DEM,REP and Tea sippers. You can't get into Washington without going to the money. Until all campaigns are totally financed by the gov I don't how you can keep the money out of it. And I don't think the EPA really cares if I save money cutting my own wood but they do care when I don't but that propane,oil, etc to help pay their pay check.
leaddog


----------



## ihookem (Aug 9, 2010)

No it won't go into anyones gardens unless the land owner wants some. The farmer just spreads it back on the hay field where the cows food came from. Helps the hay grow that's for sure. Don't you know that? You must know that web. 
  As for anthrax in the guts of animals. Well there must be anthrax all over the woods we hunt, fish and cut our wood. I never heard that one and I live in the middle of farm country all my life. With all the hunting and trapping I've done I don't know anyone who has ever gotten anthrax. Never! I think the EPA is using fear tactics if they told you  that. ANYONE else ever hear of anthrax in the guts of animals? I know an owner of a slaughter house and butchers thousands of chickens cows pigs and everything else. She is alive and well. And what if there is anthrax in the guts? Now we will need EPA standing over everyone gutting and butchering?


----------



## webbie (Aug 9, 2010)

"Bacillus anthracis can form dormant spores that are able to survive in harsh conditions for extremely long periods of time—even decades or centuries. Such spores can be found on all continents, even Antarctica. When spores are inhaled, ingested, or come into contact with a skin lesion on a host they may reactivate and multiply rapidly.

Anthrax commonly infects wild and domesticated herbivorous mammals which ingest or inhale the spores while grazing. Ingestion is thought to be the most common route by which herbivores contract anthrax. Carnivores living in the same environment may become infected by consuming infected animals. Diseased animals can spread anthrax to humans, either by direct contact (e.g. inoculation of infected blood to broken skin) or consumption of a diseased animal's flesh."

There you go. Remember the whole country was running around with their heads cut off because of the potential of Anthrax! 

The point is not that the EPA should watch over, but rather that Heaterman seemed to say that everything natural and organic was somehow not harmful...when, in fact, many of the most dangerous things on the planet are very natural. 

You may be able to consume raw milk - some can, and some can't. It might be that pouring raw milk onto the ground causes rapid growth of certain harmful bacteria. I don't know. But I do know this - in general we use SCIENCE to determine these things and that works out better than the middle ages when we were dropping by the millions from all these "natural" causes!


----------



## begreen (Aug 9, 2010)

eColi bacteria can and does spread from fecal contamination. It's a very good thing to watch out for.


----------



## Highbeam (Aug 9, 2010)

The high nutrient content of the milk is what makes it hazardous. You dump a bad load of milk, milk is deemed bad if it arrives at the processor at only slightly warmer than fridge temp, into a creek or into the sewage system and all heck breaks loose. That milk in the creek will suck up all the oxygen while it tries to decompose and the life that needs that oxygen (think fish) will suffocate. You dump it into my sewage system and the processes that are designed for regular strength waste will be overloaded and not able to "clean" the milk or the sewage so all of it will overflow into the river. Milk is good stuff, I consume great quantities and don't cry when it's spilled. In great quantities it is very hazardous to the environment. Not all hazardous waste is directly harmful to people.


----------



## Piker (Aug 9, 2010)

Interesting that the culture seems to want absolute protection from every harm that exists to man... to be 100% safe all the time at any cost.  This is neither practical, nor feasible... and I for one do not want to live my life attempting to attain something that is unattainable, not to mention something so deadly to our current economic situation.  All this is is an attempt to remove personal responsibility from our lives... which makes for no life at all.  

I understand that certain research scientists are now trying to measure into the "parts per billion."  Really?  Seriously?  What's the margin of error on a "part per billion."  It's ridiculous... My guess is that the EPA will definitely clean up the air with it's regulations... sure... it's easy... all they have to do is set the bar so high that small business ends up being no business.  No business... no pollution right?  Yeah... it makes sense doesn't it? 

This is not to say that science and technology doesn't have it's place... it most certainly does... but life and freedom are about more than numbers on a spreadsheet or measurements in the parts per billion... It's about INDIVIDUALS living side by side under DIFFERENT  economic, environmental, and sociological circumstances.  There is no one who can convince me that a monolithic organization like the EPA which ultimately does not and cannot distinguish between individuals is very useful for establishing sound regulation for everyone.  What fits for inner city regulations does not fit for cow-town usa... and why would anyone think it should?  It's funny how americans tend to thumb their nose at corporate america... and perhaps rightfully so.  There is no soul in many large corporations.  Employees tend to be just  a number... everyone they sell to is a number... and all their spreadsheets revolve around numbers and dollar signs... and yet the EPA, which is embraced by many, is basically the same thing... the only difference is, we don't have a say as to whether or not we buy what the epa is peddling... nor do we have any direct access to them from an elective perspective.  It's actually kind of scary if you think about it... a huge bureaucracy with tremendous power that doesn't really answer to anyone.  Hmmmm.  Kind of like the Fed.

The sad thing is there are tons of really good people that have honest and legitimate concerns for what they believe in..., be it clean air, clean water, or safe highways... what have you...  but once these concerns are in the hands of a beaurocracy like the epa or the FMCSA, all individuality goes out the window, and the people who originally voiced their concerns become nothing but a number themselves and ultimately used for the gain of political power and/or money.  It's sickening.

On a side note... RAW MILK.   Best stuff on earth!!  Now, you wouldn't want to drink raw milk from a modern Holstein dairy cow... in order to increase profits (follow the money... again!!)  they have been bread to produce way more milk than god ever intended a cow to produce and in the process they rely on great quantities of hormones and antibiotics just to keep them alive.  Raw milk from a modern dairy cow can actually have puss in it which must be separated later on in the "refining process."  PA allows the sale of raw milk through certified farms... we purchase about 3 or 4 gallons per week for our family... I grew up on the stuff... and actually have allergies to pasteurized milk..., which really isn't milk at all.  Did you know that pasteurized milk, as it ages, actually rots.? While raw milk sours and gives us delicious cheeses and yogurts etc.  Some of the healthiest, longest living people on earth live on Yak milk and fresh vegetables.   Don't tell me that science is always right... one day butter is bad for you and margarine will save your life... the next day, margarine is made by the devil to be indigestible and butter is the only option.  One day caffeine kills, the next day it saves.  Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps there's just a little truth on both sides of most issues... and that perhaps, oh, I don;t know... maybe INDIVIDUALS should have some say in how they choose to live?

At any rate... it is my true belief that regulation must exist to be civilized... I said that before...  and I stick by it.  But I also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the over-regulation that is running rampant in our country these days is taking us one direction, and it's not up.  Many times regulation is used to move technology forward... to bring new and better products into the forefront of our market.  This is fine if the market can support it... right now..., it can't... and the very thing we need to be able to support these new regulations (a robust economy) is actually being attacked by them.

Just my $.02.

Cheers


----------



## btuser (Aug 9, 2010)

Regulation favors big business.   That's why we have it, not to feed the great big government machine, but to take care of the less profitable parts of doing big business.  Things like enforcing your will, and protecting your markets.   The danger of any government entity is the tendency for power to co-opt it for their own means.  FDA, FCC, EPA, FBI, CIA and all of them are used by those in power to get what they want.  Government is an unpaid employee of the powerfull.  r

Think about it: We're getting so good at insulating our homes 30k btu/hr  plus solar gain will be enough for the coldest enviroment.  A single wood stove could heat a huge house, and I could afford to pay much more for wood than a power company subject to huge capital costs and distribution inefficiencies.  I, as the residential wood burner, will raise the cost of fuel for the big boys, while at the same time eliminating one of their best customers.  Wait for the fear-mongering (spread of invasive species) and the rip-off stories that force people to be regulated to handle cordwood.  Push the part-timer right out of business.


----------



## Todd (Aug 13, 2010)

What's wrong with carbon? Last I heard it was good for the environment. I don't think anyone has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that carbon causes glowbull warming. This is nothing but a power and money grab. The glowbull warming crowd stands to make trillions in carbon trading if they can convince everyone that carbon is bad.


----------



## heaterman (Aug 13, 2010)

Highbeam said:
			
		

> The high nutrient content of the milk is what makes it hazardous. You dump a bad load of milk, milk is deemed bad if it arrives at the processor at only slightly warmer than fridge temp, into a creek or into the sewage system and all heck breaks loose. That milk in the creek will suck up all the oxygen while it tries to decompose and the life that needs that oxygen (think fish) will suffocate. You dump it into my sewage system and the processes that are designed for regular strength waste will be overloaded and not able to "clean" the milk or the sewage so all of it will overflow into the river. Milk is good stuff, I consume great quantities and don't cry when it's spilled. In great quantities it is very hazardous to the environment. Not all hazardous waste is directly harmful to people.



And deer crapping in said creek don't carry E-Coli?  I have lived in this dairy farming community all of my life (we have more Holsteins than humans in our county) and never observed or heard of farmers spilling or dumping milk in any of the numerous swamps, creeks and rivers around here. Regulating milk in this way goes to the heart of the matter and that is the fact that many regulations these days are not about advancing human health and safety, they are only about control. 

Sorry but I'm not drinking the kool-aid.

Personal responsibility and accountability in all things are where our efforts should be invested.


----------



## Piker (Aug 13, 2010)

heaterman said:
			
		

> Personal responsibility and accountability in all things are where our efforts should be invested.




Indeed...   and we need leaders that can inspire us as a people to do great things for ourselves and for our neighbors.  I have often said that the problems that we face as a nation cannot be answered by knowledge and intelligence alone...  along with those things we must strive to be "good."  The problem is, few people actually sit down to consider what goodness actually is... where it comes from... and who or what defines it.  It's an important issue if you ask me... an issue that our nation's founders understood well... and it deals with matters of the human heart that require a great deal of self-reflection and humility.  Self reflection and humility are seemingly in short supply these days

cheers.


----------



## webbie (Aug 13, 2010)

>Regulation favors big business.  That’s why we have it
>nteresting that the culture seems to want absolute protection from every harm that exists to man… to be 100% safe all the time at any cost.

Those statements, IMHO, are those of Ideology, not of Reality!

It sounds a bit like talk radio...you know, since they repeat it so many times and it "sounds right", it must be accurate!

How about this? Millions of lives and untold suffering is alleviated by regulation. For instance, we avoid more of the thalidomide babies as per the enclosed pic. 
As to absolute protection, that is a complete crock. We are right now in a situation where the VAST majority of disease is probably caused by food and the environment (through food, air, water, etc.). Cancer, asthma and many other horrible conditions are often a result of the lack of either regulation OR our lack of caring about being protected.

Honestly, those are two of the least true statements I have read in a long time! Heck, we have 30,000 people die in the USA from car accidents alone each year. Add in injuries, firearm deaths and vast numbers of other "optional" situations, and it's hard to imagine we try to avoid all unsafe situations. 

These crazy ideas are part and parcel of the making of American into a third world country. It seems some long for the idea that people can expire en masse and we can just pile the corpses outside to be hauled away in the morning.


----------



## webbie (Aug 13, 2010)

Todd said:
			
		

> What's wrong with carbon? Last I heard it was good for the environment. I don't think anyone has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that carbon causes glowbull warming. This is nothing but a power and money grab. The glowbull warming crowd stands to make trillions in carbon trading if they can convince everyone that carbon is bad.



Radiation, X-Rays and Cat Scans are all good too. In fact, it has almost never been directly proven that radiation causes cancer. You see, it takes 5-30 years, so it takes 1/2 a brain to actually connect the two ideas! Meantime, millions of people have gotten cancer from radiation....the good part is that no one ends being responsible! 

What a country!

As to GW, sorry to inform you that it may not be proven to YOU beyond a reasonable doubt, but then again that is not the standard used for science. After all, about 50% of Americans think we are going above the clouds or to a burning hell when we die...they KNOW that beyond a reasonable doubt, and yet it is not true scientifically.

Humans are responsible for warming up the planet. That is science, and there is broad consensus on it except among certain rare bird scientists who are paid by Exxon, etc. 

Personally, GW does not concern me as much as the millions of gallons spilt into the Gulf, the trillions of dollars spent on Oil Wars, the other pollution caused by coal, oil, etc. - but that does not mean it does not exist.

If you really like carbon, todd, there is plenty for free in the Gulf right now. Go down....I'm sure you can get some.


----------



## Piker (Aug 13, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> >Regulation favors big business.  That’s why we have it
> >nteresting that the culture seems to want absolute protection from every harm that exists to man… to be 100% safe all the time at any cost.
> 
> Those statements, IMHO, are those of Ideology, not of Reality!
> ...



My gut... it tells me there is perhaps something not so humble about your "IMHO" comment.

"crazy ideas?"  Hmmmm...  interesting that while we simply just disagree on some basic principles of regulation, in what seems to be a pretty caustic tone I think you just called me crazy.  It's interesting because in all actuality you and I probably share more things in common on the issue than not, and for some reason it's just easier to attack than to find common ground.  It's a nice little snapshot of the current political state in our country.  

All in all, thus far the only difference I see between your thoughts and my thoughts are with respect to the balance of regulation...  And really, we haven't actually talked about that all that much.  I speak my mind about what I feel is over reaching regulation, or perhaps untimely at best, and immediately I'm just lumped into the crazy category.  There is no doubt that regulation has saved countless lives and that it is at least partly responsible for our current standard of living in this country.  There is also no doubt that regulation has has a down side.  I believe that it has also made us lazy... we think less about our neighbor as an individual or how what we do affects them... we just think about the fine we'll get if we get caught doing something outside of what the regulations say.  

You and I both want health, safety, and freedom for ourselves and our families I am sure... Believe me when I tell you that over regulation can take that all away just as easily as under regulation can.  You say that my "crazy" comments are "part in parcel  of making America a third world country..."  what kind of country do you think we will live in if we regulate our economy right out of competition with the rest of the world?  It's already happened in a lot of industries... to the point a great deal of companies have jumped ship and headed overseas or to Mexico to continue operations because of oppressive taxes and regulations here in the states.

Again... the bottom line is we all want to be safe.  We all want to be healthy.  We all want to be free... and it's interesting that we all want to be free and equal at the same time.  That's what regulation is in a lot of ways... an attempt to make everyone equal...  But freedom and equality are two forces diametrically opposed to one another and must be carefully balanced to maintain some resemblance of both.  Think about it in extremes... if everyone is absolutely free, then there can be no equality... if everyone is absolutely equal, then there can be no freedom.  The best we can hope for is not freedom and equality for all... but freedom and equal opportunity for all... equal opportunity being tied directly to the motivations of the INDIVIDUAL... which regulation tends to ignore.  

After considering your comments on what I said about the culture of protectionism... if I am wrong... and the culture does not want protection... then there must be some power hungry folks somewhere passing all these regulations just for the sake of control.  I don't generally go down that path... I want to believe that people have good intentions, and that sometimes circumstances just align themselves in such a way that bad things happen and once in a while we get a bad law or a bad set of regulations or even a poorly timed set of regulations... but if you think we don't want it... then who is forcing it on us?  Maybe the commies really are coming!?  Maybe I sould turn on NPR to find out!  %-P 

With all that said... I hope everyone has a wonderful day friday... and a very pleasant weekend.  We have a lot to be thankful for... and even though sometimes we need to debate these types of issues openly and sometimes very frankly,  I still believe we share more common ground than not... we just need to put ourselves in other peoples shoes once in a while.  


cheers


----------



## Piker (Aug 13, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Todd said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting to note that no one has been able to measure any amount of global warming over the last 10 or 11 years.  Actually, from what i have read we've cooled a bit.  Proponents of the theory say that global warming is just "taking a break".  Who knows... the bottom line is that whether or not global warming exists or not... there are people out there with no other intentions but to capitalize on it or to gain power... REGARDLESS of what side they are on.  I think it's naive to think that everyone on the pro-global warming side of the debate is somehow above reproach.  

I love science... not a scientist... but I love science, especially astronomy.  What is fascinating to me is how often things are "scientifically proven" and then end up being disproven at a later date.  Not bashing science at all, but it's important to note that the results of scientific study can still be skewed by our human perceptions.  I realize that science attempts to remove this from the equation as best as possible... but there are just circumstances that can't be overcome either because of the human element or the current limits of technology.

Has anyone come to the conclusion that we just can't do it?  That we just can't know everything or control everything in life?  We go around and around debating particulates this and global warming that...  it's like we are grasping at straws to actually make problems for ourselves, forgetting how good we actually have it... forgetting how blessed we have been in this country over the past 200+ years.  Perhaps it's true that affluence can put you out of touch with perspective.  It's just like the epa clean air regs.... where is the perspective in these?  Don't get me wrong, I think we should strive to be as environmentally friendly as we can providing the importance of the individual is not compromised... but when mother nature herself can in one striking moment put more particulates and carbon emissions into the atmosphere with a forest fire or volcano than all the wood boilers ever created in the history of man... I'm just sayin'... there's got to be perspective, especially given our economy the way it is.  It's kind of like how Lincoln knew slavery was wrong, but also knew the battle could ultimately only be won if he could preserve the union.  Maybe we are in the same boat... an old boss once told me that a business is like a body... at it's core, it has a few necessary functions required to maintain it's existence... ie breathing, sustenance, etc.  Other things like golf outings and new company cars, and things we enjoy can only be sustained if the basic functions are operating.  Sometimes I think our country needs to focus on breathing right now... and the other stuff will come.  And I am not just talking about the economy... that's obviously important, but I believe more important are things like our perspective on philosophy... do absolutes truth exist or is everything relative?  If absolutes exist, where do they come from?  Who defines goodness?  Evil?  Prosperity? How do you just know that somethings are inherently wrong or right?  If absolutes are just what we decide them to be as a culture, then what foundation do we have on which to build our lives?
Just my $.02.

cheers


----------



## jebatty (Aug 13, 2010)

Piker - all good philosophical questions; *maybe it's time to start a thread on emergence.*

But, might the answer be a bit more simple? No one disputes that human activity is not adding lots of carbon to the atmosphere. I haven't seen evidence that this increase in carbon has happened before since the last ice age. The world as it now is (before the last 100 years of carbon addition) has been pretty hospitable to humans for the most part. We have predictions on the effects of the additional carbon, especially if it continues, as it will. While the predictions don't all agree, the weight is that the result will not be good for humans. The effects of additional carbon are not easily reversible, and perhaps not reversible at all, especially in the short term (100 - 1000 or so years).

Isn't a more simple and logical answer that the world and humans will have a more predictable future if we don't continue to add carbon to the atmosphere, rather than take the risk of continuing to add large amounts of carbon and face an uncertain result? 

Based on the evidence I have seen and the forums I have attended, which relate to forestry, the weight of the evidence and the weight of the theory falls on the side of reducing carbon, not maintaining the continuing increase. That makes sense to me. I feel it is extremely risky to take the chance that the additional carbon will not impact world-wide ecosystem changes resulting from increasing carbon in a way that is adverse to humans and life as we know it. I feel it is much less risky to try to maintain a status quo that has been in existence for a long time. After all, does Mom like us to fool with Mother Nature?


----------



## begreen (Aug 14, 2010)

Agreed, this thread appears to have run its course.


----------

