Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?

1133134136138139223

Comments

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I'm not going to be dragged down by your false cynicism. Sorry.....:)

    If you want to be a cynic and believe that everything about the guvmint is evil, awful, and a lie, then believe that.

    But I'm not going to believe it for one second. Or agree when you say it.

    Like anything else, there are good and bad things to be said about guvmint programs and agencies.

    Some of the good things are true.

    Some of the bad things are true.

    Until PROVEN otherwise, I choose to believe, in light of ZERO evidence to the contrary, that the NOAA is NOT biased toward preaching MMGW.
  • alltorquealltorque Member Posts: 535
    It's ridiculous to say or think that the NOAA would get more money for lying about something and less money if they told the truth about something.

    Gagrice, I'm with you on this. All these Agencies rely on government for their funding and want to see annual increases in same. If an agency says there is no problem to research then part of their funding disappears..............just like in any business. No-one wants to be Director of an agency that is having its funding reduced, so..................

    If they're not actually lying then they are, at the very least, being economical with the truth.

    We all have blind-spots. This one seems to be larsb's.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    alltorque says, "We all have blind-spots. This one seems to be larsb's. "

    I kinda might a little bit resent that remark.

    I'm the one being objective and not cynical.

    Look, no one is trying to say that the "ugly side of politics" is NOT involved in funding requests.

    It obviously IS.

    But in today's environment, do you REALLY think that ANY agency has to BEG for money to study Global Climate Change?

    Really?

    That money is automatic. Everyone on the planet knows that study is still required to determine what is happening, the causes, the consequences, and the possible solutions to future climate PROBLEMS that might crop up. There are many climate issues that do NOT relate to CO2 and man's increasing production of it.

    Drought.
    More intense hurricane seasons.
    Ice storms.
    Species extinction.
    Heat waves.
    Affects of over-population.
    Arctic ice - growing or shrinking? Why or why not?

    Even if EVERY scientist in the WORLD had a press conference TODAY and declared " We have decided that Man is NOT causing Global Warming." there would STILL be a pressing need to study climate and prepare for the future of life on Earth and how climate will be affecting our lives.

    Quit trying to say, "Oh that larsb, he just doesn't understand."

    I understand FINE. Thank You.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    larsb, you answer these thought provoking posts too quickly to give them any consideration. It is easy to see that your mind is made up on the MMGW issue. So much for your objectivity. ;)

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    But in today's environment, do you REALLY think that ANY agency has to BEG for money to study Global Climate Change?

    They would if they did not fall goose step in with the AGW bunch.

    Quit trying to say, "Oh that larsb, he just doesn't understand."
    I understand FINE. Thank You.


    I don't think you do.

    Climategate: it's all unravelling now
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    My mind is not made up.

    If you follow my posts, you will know that I have never stated that I agree with MMGW.

    I have always said, "more study is needed."

    I firmly believe the warming is happening, but the cause is still undetermined.

    Maybe even a natural weather pattern. More study is needed

    (GASP !!!) He really IS objective !!!

    But remember: that arctic ice ain't meltin' it's own self.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I do. Trust me on that one.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    Also remember that all that raw research data is not destroying itself either...could we call that MMDD ? What are they trying to hide and what are they afraid of ?

    These guys have their entire reputations on the line here. NONE of them would reverse their position if the whole planet became one big ice ball.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    Latest news is that this was an inside job. A whistle blower who works in the lab sent out all the info. He made two attempts. The first one failed because he only sent the info to all the major news outlets with no results. The next one went out to the web.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • newdavidqnewdavidq Member Posts: 146
    The global warming issue has been seized by those who have an agenda other than the desire to "Save the planet". Reminds me of the "endangered species" crowd who believe humans are somehow omnipotent and can and should interfere with the normal changes which befall our planet. Over 99% of all species which have existed on the earth since the beginning have gone extinct. Shutting down the Imperial Valley by shutting off irrigation water to save a small fish borders on insanity.

    And by the way, how in tarnation did it become accepted dogma that a little warming is a bad thing?? The upsides are many: i.e. more temperate farmland to grow food---lets see...mass starvation or, I forget, what was the down side of global warming?
    Oh, and January in Florida or New York?

    Of course we should strive to make our transportation as "clean" as possible, but spending our treasure on dubious global warming mitigation while the Chinese and Indians are building cars and coal fired electric generators at breakneck speed is simply a huge waste of our precious resources.
    American humans should come before small fish or Chinese (nothing in particular against the Chinese),
    How about "Charity begins at home"

    Regards, DQ
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Member Posts: 7,709
    with you, newdavidq, on the following statement.

    Of course we should strive to make our transportation as "clean" as possible, but spending our treasure on dubious global warming mitigation while the Chinese and Indians are building cars and coal fired electric generators at breakneck speed is simply a huge waste of our precious resources.
    American humans should come before small fish or Chinese (nothing in particular against the Chinese),
    How about "Charity begins at home"


    So true. Nobody's saying we shouldn't recycle, save trees by going electronic with all of our paperwork, etc. But to overly freak out like Al Gore and make it seem like the sky is falling is ridiculous. These are natural cycles and until China declares that they're not going to continue building all of their coal-fired electrical generation plants (an estimated average that is circulating around is that China builds one new plant per week) and that we're working in unison on projects like this, all this hyperactive "fixing" won't fix anything.

    Now, on subjects like litter pickup and litter prevention and recycling it's true that it does make a difference to pitch in and do our part. Most of us agree on that. But the obvious GW scheming and dreaming up man-made horrors to sell DVD's for the few elite "experts", all the while creating empirical carbon footprints the size of King Kong is simply legalized fraud.

    It's really nice to see most participants in this Edmunds thread agree on this pseudo-threat to create wealth scheme going on. Keep up the good work and if a GW supporter can come up with some good evidence to convince us otherwise, well then, by all means, please have at it.

    2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick

  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    Two excellent posts by nd and il. I agree wholeheartedly with everything that you two said.

    The problem is that we are in a big hole here because this ongoing fraud was hatched over ten years ago when the United Nations commissioned the formation of the IPCC.

    The false assumption back then was that GW was happening and that it was caused by man's activities. The only purpose of the IPCC was to gather information and data TO SUPPORT the theory of global warming and nothing else.

    For the last 10 years it has been taught in our schools as the gospel, and all the kids were taught that we have been killing our planet, etc. They believe this stuff.

    It is strictly a political issue hatched by the U.N. and supported by the socialists in our country to redistribute wealth here in the U.S. Not from rich people here in the U.S. to poor people here in the U.S. but to the already rich elite leaders of poor countries around the globe.

    The GW folks are dedicated to seeing this happen by taxing our citizens so much that we will be no better off than the poorest of poor around the world. It is real, and it could very well happen because they have the socialist media on their side and it is going to be an uphill battle to stop it.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    houdini1 says, "The GW folks are dedicated to seeing this happen by taxing our citizens so much that we will be no better off than the poorest of poor around the world. It is real..."

    Nice theory, but where are the taxes? Still waiting to see the first dollar pulled out of my pocket for "GW" taxes.

    houdini1 says, "The false assumption back then was that GW was happening and that it was caused by man's activities."

    That "assumption" has yet to be proven true or untrue.

    The warming IS happening. The causes? We don't yet know.

    Better to err on the side of caution.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Nice theory, but where are the taxes? Still waiting to see the first dollar pulled out of my pocket for "GW" taxes.

    I don't receive a breakdown of where my tax money goes; and I don't think you do either? ;) So you'll be waiting 'til "heaven catches fire", (couldn't use the Hell Freezes Ove rin this forum :D ). But I would guess that the first dollar that was a GW-tax was last or this year - for the federal grants that go to automakers to do R&D on alternative fuel transportation. Those grants are going out to do R&D on vehicles that don't directly produce CO2.

    And I think your taxes go to support the EPA? Here's what they're spending some of your $ on (note this was already occurring in 1998!) : http://cei.org/gencon/004,01163.cfm
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Nice theory, but where are the taxes? Still waiting to see the first dollar pulled out of my pocket for "GW" taxes.

    How about the billions spent on Corn Ethanol? Those tax dollars were a direct result of the threat of MM/GW. I don't know about AZ, in CA we are paying more for ALL our utilities to try and cut CO2 emissions. You pay 5 cents per KWH, I pay 35 cents per KWH. That is a hidden tax. The billions of tax dollars spent on the Energy bill was spawned by the same pols that are pushing Cap n Trade. If it had not cooled the last 10 years we would already have those taxes in place. Thankfully countries like Australia have said enough is enough and defeated the politicians that would rape them for the GW cause.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    NEW DELHI, Dec 3 (Reuters) - India will not accept a legally binding emission cut nor a peak year of carbon emissions at the global climate talks in Copenhagen, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said on Thursday.

    "There is no question of India accepting a legally binding emission reduction cut," he told parliament, laying out India's negotiating position ahead of the December talks.

    India would however accept international verification of reductions if supported by financing and technology transfers.


    Get their drift?? If the US tax payers will pony up they will think about cutting emissions.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Meanwhile I saw where the head of Tata, is looking forward to some wonderful growth. He sees the now 300,000,000 middle-class Indians who currently only have an ownership rate of cars in the single-numbers, as being a wonderful market for the $2,000 cars he's building.

    It sounds like how the U.S. was around 1920 where very few people had cars, and Henry Ford decided everyone should have a car! Another 100,000,000 cars on the road in the next decade?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Another 100,000,000 cars on the road in the next decade?

    That is an interesting perspective. The automakers would like to go back to 2007 when they sold 14,000,000 vehicles. That would be about 140 million over the next 10 years. Even if they did one C4C per year it would only eliminate about 7 million vehicle. Add a few million totaled and you still are passing 300,000,000 cars on the roads by 2020.

    I noticed on November sales that one of the few bright spots for Chevy was the Tahoe and Suburban sales. Both way ahead of last year this month. :shades:
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Sure, that spending was a mistake.

    But not a dishonest one.

    The intent was to replace fossil fuel usage, to produce cleaner exhaust, and give US farmers and businesses the money we were sending to Saudi Arabia.

    Good intent, not-so-great end result.

    Move on people, nothing to see here.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    That 14M was U.S. alone. What I meant was global auto production. Would India's market increase from 1-2M/year to 11-12M/year with their middle-class becoming car owners.

    Similar to what's going on in China. Not to mention that when 300M Indians start getting the number of TV's and other electrical appliances, and AC, that their electricity needs will skyrocket.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Good intent, not-so-great end result.
    Move on people, nothing to see here.


    You wanted an example. That is one of 1000s. Our legislation is loaded with good intentions. Most are a total waste of our tax dollars. And it is getting worse by the minute. Our children and grand children will be paying for our good intentions. If it were not for Pork Spending we would be awash in surplus cash. All the CO2 and GHG emission spending is PORK. Many more snake oil salesmen than Al Gore are scamming US out of billions of tax dollars and duping the ignorant masses. Get rid of the incumbents and you will cut the PORK.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    gary says, "All the CO2 and GHG emission spending is PORK. "

    No it's not.

    Until it's PROVEN (and it has not yet been) that reducing GHG and CO2 emissions is NOT a good thing, then you have no complaint.

    And I'd rather have PORK going towards cleaner air and water projects than many of the directions that PORK is normally fired.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,589
    Does the benefit outweigh the cost? Shouldn't that be proven before the developed world digs itself deeper into a hole so a few can reap mindblowing profits?
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    The day that any Congress starts applying the "do the benefits outweigh the costs?" analysis in a meaningful, unbiased manner, to ANY issue, let me know, unKay?
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,589
    So because previous schemes have been wasteful, we should just lay back and expect this to be wasteful too?

    Seriously, can it be proven that benefits outweigh the costs? This is being asked on a level higher than what any congress can comprehend, this is weighing impacts on the entire developed world. Most congresspeople can't see outside of their county. I don't see any evidence that benefits exceed costs.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Our entire congressional budgeting system is corrupt and wasteful.

    Nothing short of revolution will repair that.

    So there is no reason whining about it, other than to make ourselves feel smart that we know it's going on.

    And until we know better, clean air and water and a less polluting infrastructure is nothing but GOOD.

    Should the money be spent wisely? Sure. Run for Congress and make it so.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    Until it's PROVEN (and it has not yet been) that reducing GHG and CO2 emissions is NOT a good thing, then you have no complaint.

    larsb, now that is really a laughable statement. Attempting to prove a negative ! That's like saying if you can't prove the sky won't fall next year, we better start taxing people so we can study the possibility, just to be safe !

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    No, the evidence is already there.

    Everyone KNOWS that cleaner air and lowered pollution is good for everyone. And that air is NOT going to AUTOMAGICALLY get cleaner WITHOUT human intervention.

    Think about that statement again.

    Wait, let me say it again:

    And that air is NOT going to AUTOMAGICALLY get cleaner WITHOUT human intervention.


    So anyone who tries to say otherwise is automatically losing that argument.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    So anyone who tries to say otherwise is automatically losing that argument.

    What a coincidence. I do believe that is the same argument the IPCC is using. ;)

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    OK - so you DO think the air will get cleaner if we just leave climate and the air completely alone?

    We don't do ANYTHING, don't spend a dime, and the air will get cleaner on it's own?

    Wow, that really would be magical.................:)
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,589
    That's dodging the question. Can these GW schemes be proven to have a positive cost-benefit relationship? I don't see anyone answering that.

    Clean air and water by making first world nations alone assume extreme costs, which will continue to drive business away, and make a few very wealthy at the same time? It's not about clean air.

    First you say the system is corrupt, which it is - then you say run and change it? It doesn't matter who wins, nobody running is going to change anything.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    The system ITSELF is not currupt - it's the way the people in the system MANAGE the system.

    I don't know how you would go about correcting it, however.

    That's as difficult a question as "what's causing the warming?"
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    I just have a hard time believing that a naturally occurring atmospheric gas that is essential to all our survival is a pollutant. The Supreme Court agreed that it was based on flawed data from the IPCC. Hopefully this will be revisited now that the cat is out of the bag.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,589
    The system is corrupt, it's broken. Two parties = no progress. The same good old boys and controlling special interest groups. No new suit draped around the same old clown is going to change it.

    I see no evidence that this entire scheme is what the developed world needs to embrace right now.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I have never believed it correct that CO2 was termed as a "pollutant."

    It *MIGHT* turn out to be bad for the atmosphere if it exists in huge numbers, but that is yet to be determined.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    Well, we agree on something. I assume then that you are also against the Cap and Trade legislation?

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Of course I'm against it.

    No one with any reasonable views on "climate change" is a proponent of that.

    Backing that issue means you are a "man is DEFINITELY causing Global Warming and we must stop it" advocate, and I have never been in that camp.

    I've always been in the "better safe than sorry and we need to study it more" camp.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    That is a big gripe for many of US. The EPA determining that CO2 is a Pollutant.

    Over the years, many pro-business groups have discouraged regulation of carbon-dioxide emissions by arguing that CO2 is an essential ingredient of life. In its decision, the EPA stressed that it considers CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases to be pollutants because of their role in propagating climate change, not because of any direct health effects.

    In 1998, the Clinton administration EPA studied the question and determined that the Clean Air Act was "potentially applicable" to CO2 and other greenhouse gases. But despite continued pressure from environmental groups, the administration never moved to regulate the gases.


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124001537515830975.html

    Today CO2, tomorrow Oxygen. After all Oxygen can be real dangerous around any kind of fire.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Not only is CO2 a pollutant. It is now a very dangerous pollutant. Meaning a tax on each breath you exhale should be in order. :sick:

    Carbon dioxide is likely to be declared a dangerous pollutant - a move that could help propel slow-moving climate-change legislation on Capitol Hill, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency said Monday.

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters that a formal "endangerment finding," which would trigger federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, probably would "happen in the next months."

    Jackson announced her timeline even as top senators said they were delaying plans to introduce legislation that would set new limits on carbon dioxide emissions.

    EPA scientists believe the greenhouse gases contribute to global warming by trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere.

    The EPA can formalize the finding anytime, now that it has closed a 60-day public comment period that netted more than 300,000 responses.

    A formal endangerment finding would obligate the agency to regulate greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act - even if Congress doesn't pass a final climate-change bill.

    But Jackson insisted the EPA would continue on a path that began when the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases qualified as pollutants and could be regulated if the government determined they threatened the public.

    "Two years is a long time for this country to wait for us to respond to the Supreme Court's ruling," Jackson said.


    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/31/MNM219GIJD.DTL

    For those that think the EPA can do no wrong. Think about that kind of power to control our lives.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Gary says, "For those that think the EPA can do no wrong. Think about that kind of power to control our lives. "

    I don't think anyone here thinks that about ANY guvmint agency.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Gary, when you use the term "Control Our Lives" it sounds kinda "conspiracy-theory-ish" and kinda "SkyNet-ish" and kinda "Big-Brother-ish" and has all kinds of negative connotations which do not belong in this particular discussion.

    The EPA will neither control your life nor mine, nor anyone else's either.

    They might force utilities to clean up their dirty coal act and invest more in renewable energy. Oh, Darn.

    They might force carmakers to make all cars PZEVs and increase their fleet MPG. Oh, Darn.

    They might impose penalties on companies which do not comply. Oh, Darn. That one might actually hit us in the pocket book a little, but the end result will be cleaner air.

    And remember - it still has not been PROVEN that increased GHG is harmless.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I just have a hard time believing that a naturally occurring atmospheric gas that is essential to all our survival is a pollutant. The Supreme Court agreed that it was based on flawed data from the IPCC.

    Too much water will kill you too.

    And the Supreme Court is so up on their science that they think tomatoes are vegetables. :P

    Meanwhile the Audi 3 TDI hatchback was named 2010 Green Car of the Year at the Los Angeles Auto Show this morning.

    Diesel Trumps Hybrid in Annual Green Car Contest
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Which proves you can go green and enjoy driving in the same vehicle. Now if Audi will just bring the A4 Allroad with that same engine I will go small and make all the SUV haters happy. Or even the Q5 with the 2.0L TDI would be ok.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    kinda "Big-Brother-ish" and has all kinds of negative connotations which do not belong in this particular discussion. The EPA will neither control your life nor mine, nor anyone else's either.

    And what do you think AGW is if not Big Brotherish?

    I consider telling me I can no longer eat Beef or Lamb because it is a polluter taking control.

    Raising the price of electricity with fines to the point many cannot afford to heat their homes or cool them is a big form of control.

    You like the fact that the EPA controls things you consider good policy. Well they may decide to control something you do not consider so good. Then what? Or wonder if one of your elderly relatives freezes in their home because they have put the squeeze on the electric companies to provide alternative energy. Then the same government blocks the company from putting in solar or wind. That is happening right today in CA my friend. So far AZ has sidestepped the bullet. Your day will come and I will hear you screaming about the sleazy bunch of enviro pigs that are destroying our economy, and trying to control our lives.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    Opps. That sentence of mine should have read...the Supreme Court agreed, BUT it was based on flawed data.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Was he afraid of tough questions? No money in AGW, all for the good of the planet. :sick:

    Al Gore Cancels $1,200 Per Handshake Event In Copenhagen

    According to Danish newspaper Berlingske, this has been canceled due to "unforeseen changes" to Gore's schedule (rough translation follows, h/t Marc Morano):

    Al Gore has this morning told Berlingske Media's great annoyance has canceled his planned major climate talks for Danes 16th December 1 Tap in the old Carlsberg because, under the title "Climate Conclusion".

    Cancellation comes with regard to unforeseen changes in Al Gore's program for the climate summit, Around 3000 the Danes had already secured a ticket for Berlingske Media's event, planned since August and should have taken place just two days before the climate summit, We have had a clear-cut agreement, and it is unusual with great disappointment that we have to announce that Al Gore cancels.


    That is $3.6 million they have to give back. Hopefully they sue Al Gore for the loss.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,589
    I got over 30mpg out of a diesel 7 series in almost 2000 miles of driving, with long stretches above 100mph, and over 40mpg in mixed driving out of a small engined diesel E-class. That's all I need to know.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    It is about to snow in Houston and Ahnold the big dummy is showing maps of San Francisco flooding in 100 years. When they learn to predict the weather next week I would be more apt to believe they know what they are talking about.

    Please be kind to your local forecasters. They'd very much like to definitively say it will snow Friday.

    But Friday's forecast is as slippery as the bottom of Clark Griswold's sled in National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation.

    To get snow in our typically tropical clime the timing must be just right, with cold air arriving at the same time as atmospheric moisture. It seems plausible this will happen Friday afternoon.

    The National Weather Service says much of the area could get from a trace to an inch of snow.

    But Houston only sees snow, on average, about every four years. And never this early in the season: Friday's, if it comes, would be the earliest snowfall ever in Houston, beating the record tied last year by six days. So forecasters like Fred Schmude, of ImpactWeather, are wary.


    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6748292.html

    Arnold Schwarzenegger unveils dramatic climate change map which shows flooded San Francisco of the future


    The map, which demonstrates the devastating effects of global warming in just a century, shows how San Francisco Airport would be completely underwater if sea levels were to rise by 150cm (60in).

    The coastline on the map was also coloured, highlighting how nearly half a million Californians are at risk from rising sea levels.


    As slow as grandma is with a walker, a century should be enough time to head for higher ground. The ignorance of our politicians buying into this crap is mind boggling.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Now, Copenhagen prostitutes are up in arms, saying that the council has no business meddling in their affairs. They have now offered free sex to anyone who can produce one of the offending postcards and their COP15 identity card, according to the Web site avisen.dk.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,665182,00.html

    That must be why Al Gore does not have time for the speech he was supposed to give. :shades:

    Why else would they have the summit in Copenhagen, than for the sex and drugs?
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Gary says, "I consider telling me I can no longer eat Beef or Lamb because it is a polluter taking control. "

    Oh, that's been mandated, has it? Funny, I saw both beef and lamb for sale last time I was at the grocery store. HHHMMM. Wonder when that "ban" kicks in for Arizona?

    Gary says, "Raising the price of electricity with fines to the point many cannot afford to heat their homes or cool them is a big form of control."

    Your "beef" in that case would not be with the EPA - it would be with the utility companies. THEY are the reason electricity is expensive - THEY have not made the infrastructure modifications to take full advantage of the FREE POWER that comes from the wind and the sun.

    Gary says, "Your day will come and I will hear you screaming about the sleazy bunch of enviro pigs that are destroying our economy, and trying to control our lives."

    Don't hold your breath for that one. The solar panel installers are here next Friday to start putting a 4.1 system on my roof. I'm being pro-active about my energy future, not sitting waiting for the sky to fall.
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.