Opinion Talk

By Van

April 10, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

Since the pro and con articles in the paper deal with a proposal that is not law and is in the first draft stages, I do not understand the forum question. Is the question about existing plants not polluting, then the question is another badly worded question. EVERYTHING we do pollutes. We exhale carbon dioxide(co2), when the gas heat turns on, we pollute, more co2 and carbon monoxide(co).

Any industrial plant will pollute and it is the job of the EPA to control the amount of pollution. You can not eliminate pollution, you can only control it.

As I look over Gwinnett this morning, I think of all the money spent on auto emissions and special blends of gasoline, and I still see some “brown” in the air. I guess that means we are all going to have to live with some level of pollution, whether we like it or not.

By John

April 10, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Acceptance of the pollution around us has been too long an “okay” way of thinking. As a Conservative, even I am disgusted with the lacadasical attitude the government has had toward this issue. Bush’s solution has been to allow large polluting companies to buy credits from each other in order to allow the current level of pollution to continue but “hopefully” not increase. That’s nothing but “government-ese” for “we’re going to do nothing”. Even though this administration has been informed of the dramatic and real issue of global warming by its own people, nothing is being done to stop the corporations who are responsible for this. Why not require every new car off of an assembly line have California emissions level catalyctic converters. How about mandatory emissions testing (we used to have that in GA)? We can encourage other countries to do the same, but this game of “we’re not going to do anything until the other countries do something” attitude is childish and belongs in a playground not at the global level.

Nowadays, I’m a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Let’s do something about the pollution and stop playing games with the only planet we have!

By Van

April 10, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

John,

New cars already meet California emissions and we do have emission testing in the metro Atlanta area. Other countries have their own standards, no where near ours.

While the Administration is aware of “global warming”, the big debate is whether it is man made or natural. In reality, if it is 50 - 50 on warming, 50% natural and 50% man made, how do you propose we stop the 50% natural warming and what can be done on the part man is responsible for?

By the way, the pollution credits is right out of the Kyoto Treaty. If it was good enough for them, why is it not okay for our administration?

By J & J Ranch

April 10, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Since industrial plants have long ignored the pollution problems, making them suddenly do something about it will not happen.

For many, many years, I have heard talk about pollution regulations. Have the “Corporate Gods” done anything on their own to curb the problem? Well, hell no. That would cost them money. What will it take for these companies do something about the problem? MONEY

Unless we hit them in their pocketbook, they will continue. If the standards become more strict, they pay someone off to look the other way.

We live in an extremely corrupt period. The scandals in Atlanta are proof of that. The Securities and exchange Commission are proof of that. The Comptroller of The Currency is proof of that.

With enough money, pay someone off, they will look the other way.

What kills me is that each state has the power to enforce stricter pollution standards. The problem did not happen over night, it will not go away over night. Washington State for example have taken measures on it’s own. Georgia can too.

Then it comes down to not only fuel is the problem. Yes, we have emission standards. But there are pollutants that cannot be seen. We b*** about emissions because we look out the window and see smog. People with asthma and or bronchitis have a harder time breathing, again emission standards are blamed.

When was the last time someone checked on “Green Energy”? It is a good idea. But when I checked on it, it cost more than what I use now. I pay GA Power over $250 monthly now. I have been unemployed for quite a long time. If people and or businesses are to explore changing to “Green Energy” or alternate forms of energy, the price is going to have to down.

Does it make any sense at all that “Green Energy” costs less to produce but costs the consumer more? I look forward to the day when I can get away from Georgia Power and Atlanta Gas. Sure, I will have to use them as supplemental, but the major part of my electricity, gas and water will not be paid to one of these Corporate Gods.

As long as the big business companies are not forced to cut pollutants, they will not do so on their own. It costs money to change.
The only way to force change is for it to cost more to not change than to change.

Dddduuuuhhhh!

By Brian Curtis

April 10, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Well, we could get past the sniveling weakness of “voluntary-compliance standards” and start stepping up actual enforcement of our pollution-control regulations.

We could start revoking corporate charters on repeat offenders, selling off their assets to new companies that are willing to actually obey the law.

And we could fund research and development of cleaner, safer, and (yes) more profitable technologies that cause less environmental damage than the standard “drill more, dig more” approach to any energy crisis.

But for that, we’d have to dislodge the energy interests and lobbyists from government. Anyone care to place bets on that happening?

By Van

April 11, 2006 08:41 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis, It is getting sacry, you are leaning to the right, I do believe.

I think we will get the lobbyist out of DC by the time we retake control our borders.

By Brian Curtis

April 11, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

I didn’t know it was “right-leaning” to fight the corporate takeover of our government.