Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[Clem1029]

You got it right.  Here's an article:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5673425

A huge Coal Lobby from W.VA keeps contributing to the election camps of the lawmakers.

Not in the article, so I assume you have a source for this one?

More importantly, I'll point out you didn't answer my question - why is a coal lobby operating for their best interests bad, but the AGW lobby operating for their best interests good?

I suppose this is a better form of policy huh?

I'm curious where I said this was a better form of policy. In fact, I'd suggest that the article you posted makes a better argument for emissions regulation than any of the AGW tripe in this or any other thread. Actual health concerns that could be cleaned up are much more important, not to mention believable than "the world is going to end." We can continue on that discussion and probably come to a valid understanding, but I should point out that should you do so, you will have moved the goalposts, which I originally warned about.

Clinton tried to get the new pollution controls installed, but lobbyist stopped it on the hill.
Bush just let it ride.
Sad huh?

Go ahead and turn it into a left/right thing all you want...I don't see the Dems in Congress for the past 3 years actually attempting to do anything about it, and they've been in control.

More importantly, is there a valid reason to NOT upgrade the one in the capitol? As the article says, this plant is "...so vital to the Washington, D.C. region's electricity supply..." that the rules are being bent. Let's say, for sake of the discussion, that cleaning or replacing this plant is the ideal policy - how do we get there from here? If the plant shuts down for the upgrade, there's not enough power for the region. If it's replaced (hopefully without NIMBY-ism), what's the timeframe? What's the cost to those living in DC? These are all valid questions that may or may not go into policy.

What's "sad" is that you don't actually want to address practical questions - you'd rather govern by your personal fiat of right and wrong.

[gatorback]

It's not a left/right thing with me at all.  I'm just pointing out who did what.  It just so turns out that all things bad happened on Bush's watch.  Isn't that strange?  He left office with the lowest ratings ever.  EVER. Don't you think there's a reason for that? 

I'm the furthest thing from a tree huger.  I like my cars pre OBT1 personally. But that's wrong environmentally I know. 

This is about what's right and wrong not left v right. 

What you are saying, and I see the theme here, is that as long as the management doesn't have it as a priority, then it shouldn't be done.  If the shareholders want to pollute and add to their pocketbooks then so be it.  If the shareholders want management to clean up it's act then it's okay. Or, are you waiting for government to give the power industry the money to clean up their act?

This is what truly sad if you ask me.  Thank god that Obama has the sense to do what is right.

[BridgeTroll]

Bumper stickers Clem... thats all your gonna get... bumper stickers.

[gatorback]

Not from the Obama administration.  He's already letting Cali. set their own emission standards.  If you call that a bumper sticker then so be it.

[Clem1029]

Sigh...I hope this isn't what qualifies as critical thinking any more...

It's not a left/right thing with me at all.  I'm just pointing out who did what.  It just so turns out that all things bad happened on Bush's watch.  Isn't that strange?  He left office with the lowest ratings ever.  EVER. Don't you think there's a reason for that? 

Irrelevant to the question at hand. More importantly, where in this discussion do you see me defending Bush? I've asked for evidence for attacks you've made, that's all. Imagine that evidence...

..oh wait, I forgot, we're in a global warming discussion. Evidence isn't a strong suit, is it?

I don't care who implements the policy - I ask a simple question: why is it a good idea to implement said policy.

This is about what's right and wrong not left v right. 

You could have fooled me the way you brought the big bad Bush administration into the argument instead of discussing the studies at hand.

What you are saying, and I see the theme here, is that as long as the management doesn't have it as a priority, then it shouldn't be done.  If the shareholders want to pollute and add to their pocketbooks then so be it.  If the shareholders want management to clean up it's act then it's okay. Or, are you waiting for government to give the power industry the money to clean up their act?

I never said that something shouldn't be done if it's not a priority. For the government to FORCE private enterprise to do something, there must be a compelling reason to do so. So to understand what you're saying, in a recession, you support the idea of customers having significantly increased bills?

I'm not arguing one way or another...I'm just saying that the policy discussion goes much further than just the bumper stickers.

This is what truly sad if you ask me.  Thank god that Obama has the sense to do what is right.

If by "right" you mean "politically expedient with no concept of how the real world works," then you might be onto something here.

Not from the Obama administration.  He's already letting Cali. set their own emission standards.  If you call that a bumper sticker then so be it.

Outside of your bumper stickers, you do understand why this could be a disastrous policy, right?

[gatorback]

It's no worse then the current policy. 

[NotNow]

GB, surely you see the problem with your post#334?  I am trying to follow some logic here...please take a breath and reread your post.

[gatorback]

Yes.  I'm not a politician.  LOL.  I hated being in student government.  I was on the Budget and Allocations committee in the State University System. Each University gets a small percentage of the tuition fees paid back to spend how the students want it spent. As you could  imagine, every student on campus came out of the woodworks during the budgeting process asking for money for this or that. It took forever to get to a vote on the budget but I hung in and voted.  We almost approved  unanimously the roughly million dollar(Back when a million dollars was a lot for a small campus < 18,000 fee paying students) budget with the exception of 2 votes. We worked so hard and wanted a unanimously vote.  But no. 2 people had a problem with it(they didn't get what they wanted in it), so they abstained.  Seems like this is the case here.  You're not going to please everybody, so you have to, (in my mind) do what's right for the most good. This is why, the world is moving forward with or without the few don't get things their way.

[BridgeTroll]

Perhaps this is a policy that is on the way...

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5627634.ece

From The Sunday TimesFebruary 1, 2009

Two children should be limit, says green guru

Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Editor
COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.

“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.

“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”

The Optimum Population Trust, a campaign group of which Porritt is a patron, says each baby born in Britain will, during his or her lifetime, burn carbon roughly equivalent to 2½ acres of old-growth oak woodland - an area the size of Trafalgar Square.

The British population, now 61m, will pass 70m by 2028, the Office for National Statistics says. The fertility rate for women born outside Britain is estimated to be 2.5, compared with 1.7 for those born here. The global population of 6.7 billion is expected to rise to 9.2 billion by 2050.

Porritt, who has two children, intends to persuade environmental pressure groups to make population a focus of campaigning.

“Many organisations think it is not part of their business. My mission with the Friends of the Earth and the Greenpeaces of this world is to say: ‘You are betraying the interests of your members by refusing to address population issues and you are doing it for the wrong reasons because you think it is too controversial,” he said.

Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

He said: “We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers.

[Charleston native]

^ Another indicator, BridgeTroll, on what these Climate Changers want to do: control people. It's all about power and control. Interesting that the greenies and the Nazis have something in common.

[tufsu1]

I take serious offense to that comment!

One group is trying to make the world a better place by having us all pay more attention to what we do.,

The other group "tried to make the world a better place" through ethnic cleansing and actually hid what they were doing from everyone else.

The parallels are obvious!

[BridgeTroll]

Really??  A better place??  With statements like...

COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment,

And

the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

I really dont think so...

[tufsu1]

that is not the majority of the green folks...just the fringe....and you know it!

[BridgeTroll]

The fringe appears to be part of the government in Britain... specifically the Sustainable Development Commission.  If this is the fringe where is the outcry from the "normal" greens.  Looks to me like most of them think this really may be good policy... you know... Good for everyone.

[gatorback]

tufsu1:  He doesn't know it.  He really doesn't.

As an American born outside this country and from extensive travels abroad, I have first hand experience with the implications of rapid population growth.  We cannot sustain the growth with current technology. Is the solution capping the number of kids you can have?  Probably.  What if everybody had octuplets like that lady just did in Cali.  There's no way we can sustain that growth.  What's the number?  One is probably not the number right now, but in the future, it just might have to be like that in places outside of China.  You know, one is the limit there already.