|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Apr 21, 2010 12:28:10 GMT
The battle continues. I hope this bill passes. Partial excerpt from: www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/ag/blogs/template1&blogHandle=policy&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc2803bb3c012820351c5a0151&showCommentsOverride=falseGOPLooks to Slow Down NEPA
Several Republican senators have put forward a bill that would prevent the Obama administration from using the 40-year-old law, the National Environmental Policy Act, to consider greenhouse-gas emission or climate effects in proposed federal-agency rules.
If you are a farmer and not familiar with NEPA, you are going to get a crash course soon. NEPA was the law environmentalist used to sue USDA to block the deregulation of Roundup Ready alfalfa in a case that will be heard next week before the Supreme Court. And NEPA was then applied against Roundup sugarbeets as well. Effectively, in my own opinion, environmental groups have taken NEPA to create a defacto "precautionary principle," the philosophy used in Europe that you must prove beforehand that a decision will not cause any harm before allowing a practice or change to occur. The Bill - www.eenews.net/public/25/15249/features/documents/2010/04/20/document_gw_03.pdf . Note the comment within the bill credited to the Council on Environmental Quality. "(A) ‘‘it is not currently useful for the NEPA analysis to attempt to link specific climatological changes, or the environmental impacts thereof, to the particular project or emissions, as such direct linkage is difficult to isolate and to understand.’’; (B) ‘‘From a quantitative perspective, there are no dominating sources and fewer sources that would even be close to dominating total [greenhouse gas] emissions.’’; and (C) ‘‘agencies should recognize the scientific limits of their ability to accurately predict climate change effects, especially of a short-term nature’’. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 25, 2010 17:02:46 GMT
I think that the NEPA regulations should be allowed. They should then be enforced with all the zeal possible against ALL sources of CO 2. In particular ALL mature forests should be felled IMMEDIATELY and the plant material buried. Severe fines and prison sentences should be imposed on anyone attempting to prevent this immediate reduction in CO 2 output. As everyone knows mature trees are a net PRODUCER of CO 2 this must NOT be allowed to continue. I fully expect the support of all right thinking Californians in the immediate felling of all mature trees and replacement with saplings. See: "Experts such as Bob Scholes of the South African government's research agency, CSIR, argue that CO2 fertilisation may already have peaked and that respiration may be about to accelerate. Early in the next century, forests planted to protect the planet from global warming could be contributing to it.
How did researchers get it so wrong? Scholes, a leading light in the IGBP's Global Carbon Project, says that the confusion was caused by a time-lag. CO2 fertilisation is an instantaneous process. But respiration increases in response to temperature rises triggered by the CO2. That warming has a built-in delay of about fifty years, caused largely by the thermal inertia of the oceans. So the extra outpouring of CO2 from the world's forests would not yet be apparent. "During this delay there is an apparent carbon sink," he says.
At the Hadley Centre, Cox has just finished modelling the likely future carbon cycle. He warns that we are on a "saturation curve", where extra CO2 has an ever-smaller effect on plant growth. Respiration, on the other hand, continues to increase with temperature. Soil respiration in particular goes up exponentially with temperature, at least for a time, says Cox. So if CO2 levels in the air continue to rise, fertilisation rates will flatten out while respiration rates soar. He predicts that by 2050, forests will have released much of what they have absorbed. The overall reduction in CO2 levels will therefore have been small."www.angelfire.com/fl4/globalcooling/I note that there is NOTHING in the NEPA regulation stating that the criminal emitting CO 2 can avoid a penalty by also emitting O 2 into the atmosphere along with the pollutant. In consequence photosynthesis is NO defense against the respiratory output of CO 2. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Apr 25, 2010 20:09:05 GMT
;D ;D Nautonnier, you have the same twisted sense of humor my wife accuses me of. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 25, 2010 20:33:18 GMT
Perhaps  Yet in some ways I am serious - the best way with some laws is to insist that they are applied to the letter. Every law has within itself the seeds of its own destruction - one just has to approach it the correct way. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Apr 25, 2010 20:49:53 GMT
Perhaps Yet in some ways I am serious - the best way with some laws is to insist that they are applied to the letter. Every law has within itself the seeds of its own destruction - one just has to approach it the correct way. True. Don't recall the author, but: "A rule that controls a system, can also paralyse that system".  Btw, speaking of trees; I'll be cutting up a lot of blow downs as a result of the tornado that went thru here yesterday. Some really nice wood that I can use for furniture in a couple years.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 26, 2010 0:57:48 GMT
Has the tornado been labelled as caused by climate change / global warming yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Apr 26, 2010 2:09:45 GMT
Perhaps Yet in some ways I am serious - the best way with some laws is to insist that they are applied to the letter. Every law has within itself the seeds of its own destruction - one just has to approach it the correct way. True. Don't recall the author, but: "A rule that controls a system, can also paralyse that system". Btw, speaking of trees; I'll be cutting up a lot of blow downs as a result of the tornado that went thru here yesterday. Some really nice wood that I can use for furniture in a couple years. Ooo, a man who is good with his hands. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Apr 26, 2010 12:12:59 GMT
True. Don't recall the author, but: "A rule that controls a system, can also paralyse that system". Btw, speaking of trees; I'll be cutting up a lot of blow downs as a result of the tornado that went thru here yesterday. Some really nice wood that I can use for furniture in a couple years. Ooo, a man who is good with his hands. Why, thank you  I try. s79.photobucket.com/albums/j155/43gm94l/Shop/Old%20projects/ |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Apr 26, 2010 15:16:12 GMT
Wow, Nice work.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Apr 26, 2010 21:48:55 GMT
Thanks. It's modeled on my left arm, including the scars. Called "Hangin' on". Sold at auction for $600. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Apr 27, 2010 5:11:21 GMT
Thanks. It's modeled on my left arm, including the scars. Called "Hangin' on". Sold at auction for $600. Cool! |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 27, 2010 6:07:10 GMT
Thanks. It's modeled on my left arm, including the scars. Called "Hangin' on". Sold at auction for $600. "Hanging on". Was it dedicated to the warmers? |
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Apr 27, 2010 12:20:13 GMT
Thanks. It's modeled on my left arm, including the scars. Called "Hangin' on". Sold at auction for $600. Can you do a wood sculpture of "rotten ice?" I've always wondered what it looked like! |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Apr 27, 2010 12:35:16 GMT
Thanks. It's modeled on my left arm, including the scars. Called "Hangin' on". Sold at auction for $600. Can you do a wood sculpture of "rotten ice?" I've always wondered what it looked like! No need to sculpt it. Proper term is "spalted", and is caused by bacteria. It looks like this:  Ratty, "Hangin' on" was done long before I ever heard about AGW, so no it wasn't dedicated to warmers ;D . |
|
I try. 