US 'must regulate car pollution'

[rtwo]

Just before things take a turn for the remarkably inane ... I've counted 2-3 seriously offended posts in response to what I read as complete sarcasm...

let's not get so worked up that we don't take the time to READ AND FULLY CONSIDER the arguments -before- posting objections. Just a thought.

Oh, and since we're talking about the environment, did you know that most -responsible- scientists without some sort of political bone to pick say that "global warming" is in fact a simple earth cycle, and that the only reason people start counting from the '70s is that in the '50s we were actually ending a "cooling" period? That's right... in the '40s and '50s, there were actually people concerned about "global cooling!"

[eagleswings]

I bet if people started repenting from all the gross sins going on the Lord would protect the earth but since everyone is taking God out of everything He is taking His hand of protection off of this world , No one can solve this problem, please!!!!! the focus is all wrong!! just another stupid excuse for the sins of the world......... The bible is clear this world will be destoyed and not one single soul can stop it!!!

[Giaour]

Do you realize how devastating these regulations will be to our economy?

As a business owner, I can tell you that in order to comply, I will have to raise my rates, and limit the amount of employees I can hire. I will also be forced to pay minimum wage.

[The Lorax]

The Top 10 most polluted places for 2006, in alphabetical order by country:

By Charles Q. Choi

Special to LiveScience

posted: 18 October 2006

Linfen, China, where residents say they literally choke on coal dust in the evenings, exemplifies many Chinese cities;

Haina, Dominican Republic, has severe lead contamination because of lead battery recycling, a problem common throughout poorer countries;

Ranipet, India, where leather tanning wastes contaminate groundwater with hexavalent chromium, made famous by Erin Brockovich, resulting in water that apparently stings like an insect bite;

Mailuu-Suu, Kyrgyzstan, home to nearly 2 million cubic meters of radioactive mining waste that threatens the entire Ferghana valley, one of the most fertile and densely populated areas in Central Asia that also experiences high rates of seismic activity;

La Oroya, Peru, where the metal processing plant, owned by the Missouri-based Doe Run Corporation, leads to toxic emissions of lead;

Dzerzinsk, Russia, one of the country's principal chemical weapons manufacturing sites until the end of the Cold War [image];

Norilsk, Russia, which houses the world's largest heavy metals smelting complex;

Rudnaya Pristan, Russia, where lead contamination resulted in child blood lead levels eight to 20 times maximum allowable U.S. levels;

Chernobyl, Ukraine, infamous site of a nuclear meltdown 20 years ago; and

Kabwe, Zambia, where child blood levels of lead are five to 10 times the allowable EPA maximum.

This is an irrelevant response to my post.

Again, the US has the highest emission rates per capita. You should also note that the US is one of the richest countries on Earth. Unlike the countries you listed, we have the money to develop a clean, sustainable economy; we're just too lazy and self-righteous to tweak our ways.

[Tubal-Cain]

Do you realize how devastating these regulations will be to our economy?

No (especially since the regulations you have in mind are ambiguous). We regulate plenty of other things and our economy marches on. I don't think carbon dioxide regulation will be any different. Plus you ignore the problems and costs associated with environmental problems that can arise.

[Giaour]

The Top 10 most polluted places for 2006, in alphabetical order by country:

By Charles Q. Choi

Special to LiveScience

posted: 18 October 2006

Linfen, China, where residents say they literally choke on coal dust in the evenings, exemplifies many Chinese cities;

Haina, Dominican Republic, has severe lead contamination because of lead battery recycling, a problem common throughout poorer countries;

Ranipet, India, where leather tanning wastes contaminate groundwater with hexavalent chromium, made famous by Erin Brockovich, resulting in water that apparently stings like an insect bite;

Mailuu-Suu, Kyrgyzstan, home to nearly 2 million cubic meters of radioactive mining waste that threatens the entire Ferghana valley, one of the most fertile and densely populated areas in Central Asia that also experiences high rates of seismic activity;

La Oroya, Peru, where the metal processing plant, owned by the Missouri-based Doe Run Corporation, leads to toxic emissions of lead;

Dzerzinsk, Russia, one of the country's principal chemical weapons manufacturing sites until the end of the Cold War [image];

Norilsk, Russia, which houses the world's largest heavy metals smelting complex;

Rudnaya Pristan, Russia, where lead contamination resulted in child blood lead levels eight to 20 times maximum allowable U.S. levels;

Chernobyl, Ukraine, infamous site of a nuclear meltdown 20 years ago; and

Kabwe, Zambia, where child blood levels of lead are five to 10 times the allowable EPA maximum.

This is an irrelevant response to my post.

Again, the US has the highest emission rates per capita. You should also note that the US is one of the richest countries on Earth. Unlike the countries you listed, we have the money to develop a clean, sustainable economy; we're just too lazy and self-righteous to tweak our ways.

Self righteous? "Lazy"?

I just told you it would hurt our economy.

I do not believe that the USA should be held to a higher standard than everyone else.

It's okay for them to pollute because they are poor?

Whateva

[The Lorax]

I just told you it would hurt our economy.

Only in the very short run. In the long term we will benefit greatly from it, especially our children and grandchildren.

I do not believe that the USA should be held to a higher standard than everyone else.

We're not. I'm holding the US and equally wealthy countries to the same standard. The US is failing that standard miserably.

It's okay for them to pollute because they are poor? Whateva

Is it OK? Of course not, but they can do less about it than we can. We have the money to limit most of our pollutants. Poor countries don't.

Whateva

Yeah, that's what most Americans are saying...

[georgesbluegirl]

did you know that most -responsible- scientists without some sort of political bone to pick say that "global warming" is in fact a simple earth cycle

Did you know that most of the "responsible" scientists you're referring to ARE the ones with political bones to pick - i.e. those that are on the payroll of companies in the petroleum industry. I have said it before, I will say it again: there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and will continue to occur. To say anything else is true and to try to say that scientists are "pushing an agenda" is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Come on people. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

I don't get why people are against essentially pushing EFFICIENCY. I don't get why the auto manufacturers are so against it, even. It's a basic economic principle that increasing efficiency increases the strength of the business/economy over time.

[rtwo]

there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and will continue to occur. To say anything else is true and to try to say that scientists are "pushing an agenda" is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Come on people. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

The facts say otherwise. The only thing the anthropogenic side is going on is -recent- satellite data. Historical data says this is, in fact, a cycle. By the way... don't exale -- we're killing the environment. People and animals are the cause of more CO2 than anything else. Maybe we should just drink the koolaid now and save the trees.

[Guest yod]

And dumbo-heads believe what CNN and algore is telling them.

I haven't listened to Rush in many many years but whenever compared to liberal "news" sources, he has ALWAYS been more accurate. For instance, CBS blatantly attempted to overthrow a sitting US President throught tools of the lie and misinformation.

We don't have to lie. Liberalism gives us plenty of truely monumental idiocy already.