The Kiss Law
 

There is no question that the climate is changing. The cause is still up for debate. But is that truly the important question? Or is the real question, “Do I want to live in a world where the air is full of things carbon dioxide, methane and God alone knows what else? Or even more important question, "Do I want to leave that kind of world to my children and grandchildren?"

Answer is, of course, no I do not! OK, so how do we write a law to get rid of the pollution?

But before we get into a big debate as to what right the government has and what it can or cannot do, let me give you a bit of history.

In 1879, a scientist named Bouchardat created a form of synthetic rubber. Science kind of tinkered with it until 1941, about 62 years, but then the natural rubber supply from Southeast Asia was cut off at the beginning of World War II.

On December 19, 1941, Jersey Standard, Firestone, Goodrich, Goodyear, and United States Rubber Company signed a patent and information sharing agreement under the auspices of the RRC, Rubber Reserve Company.

Firestone produced the program's first bale of synthetic rubber on April 26, 1942, just over four months, that was followed by Goodyear on May 18, United States Rubber Corporation on September 4, and Goodrich on November 27. In 1942, these four plants produced 2,241 tons of synthetic rubber. By 1945, the United States was producing about 920,000 tons per year of synthetic rubber,

If you want to see how fast someone can get something done, you do not put a rope around their neck and try to drag them to the goal; you stand behind them with a pitch fork, the kind with the nice sharp, pointy tines, and keep sticking it to them. You will be amazed at how fast things can happen!

Only131 days from “How do we do this?” to “We did it.”, that is pretty fast! The last thing this country needs another of what I call a “Swiss Cheese Law,” enough loop holes to make a Swiss Cheese jealous, enter the “Kiss Law”, keep it simple stupid. So if we passed a law that simply says “If you cannot make it without polluting, no matter where in the world you make it; you cannot sell it in this country.” Give the manufactures a time frame, say five years.

In WW2 the rubber shortage was going to cost the tire companies a lot of money. Money was the pitch fork then, why not use the same pitch fork today? I think we all know what a driving force money can be; so why not use it to our advantage?

There would of course be an upheaval; there will be things we will have to live without, at least for a while, but I do not think it would be that long before some sharp businessperson came up with a solution or two.

Then for those that think they can get around the law, make the penalties Excruciatingly Painful, and hold all of the Board of Directors responsible too. The corporate shield was designed to protect the investor, not to allow a company to break the law.

So what do you think, is a cleaner earth would be worth maybe doing without for a little while?

I am sorry that you are going to commit suicide since that is the only way to get away from all pollution.

WOW! You have arrived late to the scene you are proposing. We already have seas and mountains of unproduced mineral, forests of un-harvested timber and thousands of acres of idle factories precisely because a lot of people think like you think.

You want to eliminate the automobile, I assume, and all other forms of transportation, since none are non-polluting. You also cannot produce food enough for 300 million people without polluting, so eating is out. Housing and other construction and maintenance would be a no-no and we would have to make an exception for the rocket program since we would need to send our feces into outer space, since septic systems, sewers and all other ways of getting rid of it pollute to some degree.

The great smoky mountains produce the mists that gave them their name because of the pine trees growing there, so I assume we will have to cover them with asphalt, and I can't imagine what you are going to do about the volcanos, which a single one of can produce more pollution than mankind has during the time since the beginning of the industrial revolution, but assuming you have a plan for that, and are truly intent on getting rid of the methane, we have one hell of a lot of swamps to fill in and large mammals to kill. And what about your own methane production?

It's time to wake up. The cure for all those "temporary hardships" that would be caused by such silly laws would be a very quick revolution that would not only pollute pretty badly, but eliminate the possibility that anyone would refer to himself as an "environmentalist" for the next 100 years.

Religious environmentalism is no different than any other radical and destructive form of worship that demands sacrifice by an entire population to sate the passions of a few. Your "law" has as much chance of passing as does a law deeming this a Muslim nation and casting out our constitution in favor of sharia law, which is no chance at all....Joe

I dunno.

The EPA fined power plants for polluting air, verses installing cleaning processes. They gladly paid the fines and kept on polluting.

They raised the fines and the producers, kept polluting and paying. They finally had to threaten to shut them down, before the scrubbers and ammonia injectors were installed.

Clean air and water, has nearly no financial gain, for businesses and much, much costs.

That's why nearly no business wants to comply, (let alone do it on their own) without the EPA, putting a gun to their heads.

Baloney.

The U.S. has relatively clean air and water, compared to 40 years ago, maybe even 100 years. We all live better lives because of it.

This you think this happened by magic, or being served a religious beat-down, by the EPA?

Volcanoes are what they are (silly comparison), but if we can make autmobiles zero emissions, why wouldn't we? We have increased gas mileage and considerably lowered auto emissions, but life has gone on.

Like the EPA or hate them, it hard to even imagine a world - today, with no pollution laws in place.

How nasty would our world be?

You've bought into the lie that CO2 is an environmental pollutant. That is the clever association made by scaremongers to panic the populace in an attempt to legalize the greatest scam ever.

Oh, I don't know, Darren.

Have you ever assaulted a greenhouse, full of plants, with a canister of CO2 and watched the results ?

I don't think our gardens could handle that kind of stress.

























:whistlin:

As I said make the fines for polluting "excruciatingly painful" the fine should be at least twice the cost of cleaning up.

I am not suggesting we give up cars, just force business to find ways to stop the pollution. There has been a great deal of research done on ways to stop pollution, probably more than was done on synthetic rubber in the course of 62 years.
If the businesses of this country are motivated, ie see money to be made by stopping pollution and money to be lost by laying back and doing nothing, they will find a way.
Heaver that air flight was first achieved in 1903 in 1969 we landed on the moon! Just 66 years! If we want it bad enough we can do it.
High fines for polluting vs money to be made by solving the problem, business will find a way.
The electric car is already on the road; a more efficient internal combustion motor and a scrubber for the exhaust is well with in the five year limit. We can do it; we just need to find the pitchfork.

I honestly don't know for sure, since I'm not a climatologist

Are you?

Certainly there are opinions and studies - on both sides, that are driven by politics, influence and money, as much as real science.

What else is new?

http://www.unc.edu/courses/2007fall/...leman_2000.pdf

CO2 might be one of those things, if we wait until everything is 100% "proven", it might be too late. Might not.


Forerunner, has it figured out. ;)



.

You didn't say you wanted to reduce pollution, but ELIMINATE it. Can't be done, because even the earth pollutes itself. We have done a good job of improving air quality, and if we continue at a reasonable pace, it probably will continue to improve, although we will ( or possibly have) reach a point of diminishing returns.

The environmental movement, however, suffers great public scorn whenever it gets too carried away. Al Gore is a public joke today, and "Man made global warming" slips further and further into fablehood every year.

You can no longer just make up any chunk of BS that strikes your fancy and convince America that it is going down the tubes and we will all be dead or sterile in another 50 years. We have had too many years of that in a row, too many deadlines are decades in the past with no ill effects.

Complaining about corporate profits made by non-compliance to your standards is kinder funny. Al Gore is up a couple of hundred million in profits made off of his global warming scam and the profits are still coming in, and researchers all over the world have gotten rich by "discovering" the "facts" that they are hired to "discover".

Solar panel makers are rolling in dough, manufacturing panels that use more energy than they produce in their lifetime, and the government is tapping taxpayers for subsidies to make wind and solar manufacturers rich, so they, in turn, can donate to Obama and other libs. Many of those companies were formed for no other reason, and go bankrupt after they have done their part, as in Solindra.

if you are looking for a profit motive in pollution, there is at least as large of a profit and a stronger motive in NON pollution. The private sector only has so much money, but government can print all they want, and give it to those they choose as "winners".

Finally, the more laws you pass, the less attention anybody pays to them. Industry is already being diced up into smaller and smaller facilities and more remote areas. Metalworkers all over the country are now operating in two car garages with nary an inspection EVER, and ditto woodworkers and tons of other manufacturers. And Blacksmiths? Lord, coal being coked in alleys and on farms and burned by the ton monthly.

I have run small manufacturing businesses for nearly 40 years in the Southwest and never seen an inspector of any kind, and have at least a half dozen friends who have done the same.

You are correct when you admire the capabilities of business to get things done when they want to and see a good reason, but in the case of laws like you are talking about, business would apply itself to creatively ignoring such laws. Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I can tell that your faith in the invincibility of government is far, far, beyond the reality, and government knows it, whether you do or not.....Joe

I just need to touch on a further point. Something about your posts about pitchforks and forcing people to do things your way, presumably because you believe somehow that you have that right, kept niggling at a memory, and I finally pulled it to the surface.

I VERY STRONGLY suggest that you read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. It is a classic, and over the years, several surveys were conducted as to "which book changed your life". The number two book comes out to be "Atlas Shrugged in all of them, with the Bible in first place.

It is a work of fiction, but you can see it playing itself out today. The antagonists in the book all feel that they can force the producers of the world to do as they are told if they can find, sort of, "the right pitchfork". They demand results of an impossible nature, but are convinced they can be delivered if the alternative punishments are severe enough.

I finally figured where I have read your theories before.....Within the pages of Atlas Shrugged, and to a lesser degree "State of fear" By Michael Cricton........which is another recommended read. I urge you to further your education with both, and I wish you well. You have a lot to learn....Joe

And finally, just for laughs and in a spirit of good clean fun, a short bit of prose about early synthetic rubber, published in "stars and stripes" during the second world war, circa my parents

"The sweet young thing and her boyfriend
were tripping the light fantastic
when she suddenly tore
for the bathroom door.
You just can't trust that wartime elastic......Joe

When dirty air and water cost them at least twice what it would cost to clean it up...they will clean it up!! By the way do not forget to include court cost.

An extreme in any thing is no good. You need salt to live it is vital to life, but if all you have is salt you will die and die quickly. You need oxygen to live, but too much is called Oxygen toxicity, and it can kill.

.....and may God have mercy on anyone who hasn't thought through just what products and lifestyle they will be without in the aftermath of your utopia.

Granted, a life of harmony on this earth would be phenomenal, but living through the transition will be hell.

BTW...... healthy plants not only "clean up" excess CO2.....they also make for healthy people.

Use a little more forethought and a little less emotion and you'll go far. :thumb:

I did say "OK, so how do we write a law to get rid of the pollution?" Pollution is not natural, if I am walking along a sandy beach and find a stone, it is part of the nature of the beach. A cigarette butt is pollution!

Regarding your last paragraph: I have absolutely NO faith in government. That is why I have repeatedly said, "We the People" must get rid of a "Government of the Business, by the Attorneys, for the Money"

As for the "capabilities of business" they are capable of nothing but making money no more no less, no matter what damage they do to this planet or to the people on it.

A person on the other hand can invent and create and design; a person can find the way to make something without polluting.

If we want a change "We the People" must take steps to effect the change, hence the right to vote.

Granted, a life of harmony on this earth would be phenomenal, but living through the transition will be hell. We are the ones that created the problem; who else do you think should be forced to clean up the mess.

NASA recently published a report based on newly derived satellite data that showed the CO2 in the atmosphere plays a far greater part in protecting life on earth by reflecting a large portion of the Sun's energy back into space than previously understood. In other words, CO2 was never a pollutant and it plays a significant part in protecting human life on earth.

And now many good things are happening in the dry areas of this planet, all for the Good Of Mankind.
Global greening, the other 'greenhouse effect', is underway
A New Greening is happening.

http://m.static.newsvine.com/servist....jpg&width=600
http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-underway?lite

The more and more GReen is happening the more they can Absorb the so called excess CO2. Neat

Get rid of all the CO2 because it is a pollution get rid of Oxygen because it is a pollution but you cant live with out it so get rid of humans also.

Carbon dioxide is what all animals breathe out when they use the oxygen for their bodies. It's a naturally occurring gas.

Methane is produced naturally by many/most animals and by natural sources.

If you're going to rant about pollutants, it would be best to look up really good examples of ones that are man-made and not a naturally occurring and needed part of the world, with or without humankind.

And I don't really know of any method to produce most of the goods needed in everyday life without creating some pollution, especially since you include naturally occurring things as "pollutants". Technically you could herd sheep(oops sorry sheep create not only methane but also manure and urine), clip their hair with hand clippers(wait, where'd you get those clippers? Steel is manufactured from iron ore which is mined and smelted before you can even work it...), spin it into yard, weave it by hand on a frame into cloth, then drape it into a garment since all of the cutting instruments like scissors or even knives fall under the same issues as your clippers.

I'm also guessing you'll be living off wildly occurring nuts, berries and forage, since more planting and harvesting will produce some sort of pollution even if you're using horses or oxen(same issues as those sheep)...

What I'm getting at is that you're asking the impossible by going to the extremes. You cannot provide for a country by going 'back' to the most simple forms of living. Yes, we should try to limit and reduce pollution that is harmful and yes, we should try to protect the environment. But saying 'No goods that cause ANY pollution' is impossible.

Factor in that things that aren't manufactured here will just be imported from countries with little or no standards.

Yes and no. From the respect of soot (carbon particulate), that's certainly true. The environment has been cleaned-up a lot since the hey-day of the industrial revolution, at least with respect to obvious pollution that we used to see and smell. But that's not to say that the kinds or pollution that are left aren't even more dangerous than the obvious pollution problems of past decades. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not bad for you.

Years ago I participated in a roundtable discussion with other oil company chemists & engineers about the effects of new government mandates for oxygenated fuels. The political claim was that more complete combustion would result, making automobile exhaust less of a health hazard. But a good argument could be made that the exhaust could be more dangerous as a results of oxygenating, since increased organic oxides such as epoxies could result. Some epoxy compounds are severe cancer-causing agents.

Just because the air looks cleaner doesn't necessarily mean it's better for you.

"As for the "capabilities of business" they are capable of nothing but making money no more no less, no matter what damage they do to this planet or to the people on it.

A person on the other hand can invent and create and design; a person can find the way to make something without polluting.

If we want a change "We the People" must take steps to effect the change, hence the right to vote." Quote

You do not understand the first thing about people who create things. it's a flaw in the thinking of most of those who want to "force people to do the "right" thing" That "right" thing is almost always one's man's opinion, and not thought through at all, but an emotional ground for taking control of the work and efforts of others.

I have changed a couple of industries for all time, although they were, admittedly, small industries, my innovations turned them around and made them better for not only my customers, but also my competitors. I have created a product in a different line that has supported a family for 30 years, supported retailers for 30 years, pleased hundreds of thousands of retail customers for very nominal purchase prices......I tell you this not to brag, but to let you know that I am a creative person, and have proven it over and over again. I UNDERSTAND the creative process and those who engage in it, and I can tell you that the stupidest thing you can possibly do is hold a gun or "a pitchfork" to somebody's face or ass and expect them to obligingly create anything that has meaning.

That is why that virtue, creativity, dries up in societies where individuality is discouraged. You want your "answers"? you are perhaps one of the few who cares enough about exterminating the last grain of pollution in the nation to pretty much exterminate a society in the process, so go right ahead and invent and institute the processes yourself! Nobody is stopping you from building a car that runs off of wishes and poetry. I can tell by your "golly gee" that you are young enough to get all the education that you need to do that very thing, if it is even possible, which it is not.

If, however, you think that any form of automobile can be made sans pollution, you are simply so far from an adequate education that you may not have the required equipment to acquire one. Bluster and force against those who know what they are doing will not make your dreams come true. It's been tried since the dawn of time. OK, you have a dream.........So did Pol Pot. He favored your system of "motivation" and managed to grab some power, but he didn't fulfill his dream or make anybody's life any better.

"So now you are a con-artist, swamp land and volcanoes for sale!!!" quote

No, merely pointing out the scientific fact that one volcano can put out more pollution than mankind has since the industrial revolution, and methane is produced naturally in greater quantities than man produces it, therefore you railing against industry over things that are produced naturally in greater quantities demonstrates a certain lack of understanding, especially when you stated that you are going to wipe out pollution by dealing harshly with mankind. Mankind produces some of it, some of the rest is produced naturally, a good bit is not pollution at all, but mistakenly identified as such. The earth constantly produces natural oil spills into the sea, in countless locations, mostly undiscovered because they are "gosh....underwater"....!

You are certainly not too young to discover that to be an effective human being, one needs more than a pitchfork and a cause. You need some scientific understanding and a bit of knowledge about what does and does not motivate humans, especially creative humans, would be in order. There is more than a sufficient supply of loud, uninformed, strident young folks in the environmental movement today, so unless you are the very BEST at that, you may also want to change your vocation a bit. I think Al Gore might be able to use a new yard boy....Joe

China will be more than happy to go along with these stridently strict rules and regs...........

* * * * * * *

China is just about to announce their very excellent program for the extreme world over-population problem............
Yes it is the slow-kill of that wonderful weapon.. . . . ..Air Polution

You are closer to the truth than perhaps you realized.

Plants can only absorb a certain amount of CO2 and they dismiss what they can't use. If you pump too much CO2 into a greenhouse it will stress and then kill the plants from acidification. Anyone who operates a commercial greenhouse knows this and is prudent with their use of CO2.

The oceans have taken up the excess CO2 that plants dismissed and have been absorbing HALF of the industrial CO2 that we've been pumping out into the atmosphere. Of course now the oceans are acidifying and warming up and that's killing marine life, corals, algaes, etc.

All life on earth is completely dependent on the good health of the oceans.

If the oceans die from acidification nobody will need to worry about pollution and greenhouse effect anymore because there won't be anybody left to worry about it. Dead oceans means dead planet going right back to the beginning and starting over again.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...eancarbon.html

The "experiments" that I've read about involving greenhouses and CO2 showed greatly enhanced plant growth via CO2 levels much higher than normally existent in the atmosphere that we breathe.

But whatever it takes to play devil's advocate, eh ?

The self-regulating properties of the earth are understood. What is not understood is how far those self-regulating properties can be pushed, beyond which the earth can't self-regulate without huge consequences.

I haven't read about any experiments. However, I have worked in commercial greenhouses that use CO2 generators as well as some grow ops that push the envelope beyond plants limits to hasten plant growth to flowering stage. So I've seen with my own eyes what can happen to plants that are exposed to too high concentrations of CO2 for too lengthy a time. Acid burn on plants is ugly and kills flowers and seeds. Also, workers can't work in there without all over protective clothing, masks, breathing equipment and eye protection. I have little speckles of white scar tissue caused by burns from CO2 acidified resin and nectar all over my forearms because of absent-mindedly pushing my sleeves up when I was working. The pain and itch from CO2 acid burns is excruciating, it's worse than hives and takes a long time to heal.

I don't understand that comment. Do you believe that high concentrations of CO2 are safe and that those who say it is not safe are playing devil's advocate?

Paumon, just curious......do you own or make use of any products, the manufacturing of which might give off some form of known toxic pollutant, or the mining of which might encroach upon the property rights of those, downstream, who like their clean earth, as well ?

Yes. Everybody does.

Would you please clarify that comment. Do you believe that high concentrations of CO2 are safe and that those who say it is not safe are playing devil's advocate?

Defending the notion that life on earth should stop for fear of a CO2 epidemic is playing devil's advocate.

.and......just because "everybody does"....does that make it right for you, and others, to make such use, and then have the gall to brow beat the rest of us for doing the same ?

Love the transparency.

Precisely! it is not understood.

And soooo, all those claiming to understand it and make dire and accurate descriptions and predictions are blowing smoke up one another's ankles.

Amongst the scientists alive before the first nuclear explosion, many thought it would destroy the universe. Afterwards, in my youth, many thought it was responsible for the drought of the 50's. Still others, a decade later, decided that we were in for global cooling that would make it impossible to grow crops, and then we were all supposed to return to the stone age during y2k.

Before that, the AIDS virus was supposed to go airborne and kill us all overnight, and then SARS, which turned out to be another popcorn fart. and don't for a minute forget the Soviet Union, that we could not possibly subdue or survive, and of course, space aliens. They are coming for us, you know.

Long, long before that, we appeased the gods by sacrificing virgins in the lake and beheaded firstborns to pacify either the earth or the gods thereof. My Grandmother thought it was "bad luck" to make a rocking chair rock when nobody sat in it.

We used to burn "witches", too. I guess that soon we will be burning those we imagine to be polluters, with the traditional feeling of accomplishment, of course. Or maybe not, if they convince us that they can make gold from lead.........Joe

I can't help myself. I have to laugh at the global warming holdouts. Meanwhile it looks like the Earth is rapidly approaching a pole shift. We better crank up the CO2 production to protect us during that period when the Earth and us planetary dwellers aren't protected by a magnetic field.

I wasn't aware that I was defending any notion that life on earth should stop because of CO2 epidemic. Where did I say that?

I wasn't aware that I was brow-beating anyone either. I thought I was being strictly informative with my posts, not offering up any kind of criticism, yeas, nays or otherwise.

How do you get brow-beating devil's advocate out of either one of my 2 informative posts and why have you attacked me for it?

We have all poisoned ourselves and other living things on the earth, intentionally or not. I personally think it's too late to reverse that, the damage has been done, the scales have tipped and now nature is doing what it does naturally to bring back some balance for the future. Nature's balancing act might mean the inevitable demise of the majority or even all of mankind but that is okay by me, not something I'm worried about.

I think you have been obfuscating, on the defensive and being offensive in order to avoid giving an honest answer to my simple question.

Do you think I am trying to put you on the spot?

Do you believe that high concentrations of CO2 are safe for us and that those who say it is not safe are playing devil's advocate?

It's not a hard question to answer so why are you having such difficulty with it?

Hardly conclusive evidence.

What is a high concentration of CO2 ?

By whose standards ?

What is a truly dangerous level of CO2 ?

By whose standards ?

How do you know ?

Higher than historical levels would be considered high.

We don't know.