Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    07 Feb '13 18:54 / 1 edit
    This is the price countries pay when they relax enviornmental standards for the sake of profits. Remember this when some stuff shirt politican wants to "get the government off our backs!"Are you listening Republicans??

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/around-the-world-abc-news/air-pollution-causes-more-6-million-deaths-worldwide-120237732.html
  2. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    07 Feb '13 20:20
    Originally posted by bill718
    This is the price countries pay when they relax enviornmental standards for the sake of profits. Remember this when some stuff shirt politican wants to "get the government off our backs!"Are you listening Republicans??

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/around-the-world-abc-news/air-pollution-causes-more-6-million-deaths-worldwide-120237732.html
    From what I could tell, the article was talking about Beijing and New Delhi, and the developing world. Right now, I'm looking at a bright blue sky in a city whose steel mills once filled the air with soot and smoke. Today, the air quality in Pittsburgh seems pretty damn good.

    So...precisely what the hell are you talking about?
  3. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    07 Feb '13 23:49
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    From what I could tell, the article was talking about Beijing and New Delhi, and the developing world. Right now, I'm looking at a bright blue sky in a city whose steel mills once filled the air with soot and smoke. Today, the air quality in Pittsburgh seems pretty damn good.

    So...precisely what the hell are you talking about?
    If you can't figure out "what the hell I'm talking about" you've got bigger problems than you realize little sasquatch!
  4. 08 Feb '13 00:08
    Originally posted by bill718
    If you can't figure out "what the hell I'm talking about" you've got bigger problems than you realize little sasquatch!
    I don't know what you are talking about either. Used to be that the sky was red as you crossed the Rouge River bridge northbound. Now there is little or no factory smoke.

    As to your deceptive and disingenuous thread title, how are pollution deaths measured? People die in car crashes, and we immediately can count them as killed in a car crash. What caused the crash is a different story. Measuring and counting pollution deaths I know is way beyond your comprehension.
  5. 08 Feb '13 14:17
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    From what I could tell, the article was talking about Beijing and New Delhi, and the developing world. Right now, I'm looking at a bright blue sky in a city whose steel mills once filled the air with soot and smoke. Today, the air quality in Pittsburgh seems pretty damn good.

    So...precisely what the hell are you talking about?
    You think tighter environmental regulations have had no impact on air quality in Pittsburgh?
  6. 08 Feb '13 22:44
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    You think tighter environmental regulations have had no impact on air quality in Pittsburgh?
    We in the US have been environmentally conscious for decades. It is of little use for us to further improve, while third world economies ignore environmental concerns altogether.
  7. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    08 Feb '13 23:08
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    You think tighter environmental regulations have had no impact on air quality in Pittsburgh?
    I second what Norm said. Have you been to Beijing? You literally can't see a block some days. The air quality is so poor that everything - your nostrils, throat, lungs - burns.

    We're no longer the problem. 70 gigawatts of coal power is coming offline in the US in the next five years - to be replaced by what, God only knows. Another Obama disaster - energy prices will skyrocket, which will drive up the price of everything else, since everything has to be manufactured, transported, heated, cooled, bought, sold, and a whole host of other processes - each of which requires energy.

    You just stand by, American libboes. Wait until the destruction of Obama's policies is fully realized. Think you're miserable now because your anthropology or sociology degree affords you only a meager standard of living? Stand by.
  8. 09 Feb '13 00:51
    Originally posted by normbenign
    We in the US have been environmentally conscious for decades. It is of little use for us to further improve, while third world economies ignore environmental concerns altogether.
    I took bill's OP as an argument that some laws and regulations are beneficial, augmented by his later reference to the cleanup of air in the USA, motivated by laws and regulations. Do you or Sasquatch disagree that some laws and regulations are beneficial in this way?
  9. 09 Feb '13 01:38
    Originally posted by JS357
    I took bill's OP as an argument that some laws and regulations are beneficial, augmented by his later reference to the cleanup of air in the USA, motivated by laws and regulations. Do you or Sasquatch disagree that some laws and regulations are beneficial in this way?
    Some are. Others are just scams, or worse. I enjoy the outdoors whether hunting or just hiking. I hate intentional pollution, beer and pop cans, candy wrappers, and MacDonalds bags littering State land. We can't afford enough DNR agents to police these areas. It has to be the people who use them.

    Most of the EPA regulations lately have little effect, and are sometimes counterproductive. It turns out that wind turbines, no matter where they are tend to kill birds, and produce noise pollution. I believe that individual measures and market solutions work best. All of the billion spent on "green jobs" was money wasted. When wind and solar energy are affordable for individuals, consumers will buy them to supplement or replace electricity from coal or other means. The green measures will never fulfill the general needs for electricity, but they probably will be practical in private applications as the technology becomes mature.

    Starting out with an alarmist, inaccurate, and badly crafted OP title gets it off to a bad start. I doubt it is possible to count in any rational or accurate manner air pollution deaths.