What's new
By:
Filters

Climate Change fear: the new Religion

Water pollution​

Completed​

80. Scaled back pollution protections for certain tributaries and wetlands that were regulated under the Clean Water Act by the Obama administration. (A federal judge in Colorado halted implementation of the rule within the state, but it is in effect elsewhere.)
E.P.A.; Army | Read more »
81. Revoked a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into local streams.
Congress | Read more »
82. Weakened a rule that aimed to limit toxic discharge from power plants into public waterways.
E.P.A. | Read more »
83. Doubled the time allowed for utilities to remove lead pipes from water systems with high levels of lead.
E.P.A. | Read more »
84. Weakened a portion of the Clean Water Act to make it easier for federal agencies to issue permits for federal projects over state objections if the projects don’t meet local water quality standards, including for pipelines and other fossil fuel facilities.
Executive Order; E.P.A. | Read more »
85. Extended the lifespan of unlined holding ponds for coal ash waste from power plants, which can spill their contents because they lack a protective underlay.
E.P.A. | Read more »
86. Allowed certain unlined coal ash holding areas to continue operating, though they were previously deemed unsafe.
E.P.A. | Read more »
87. Withdrew a proposed rule requiring groundwater protections for certain uranium mines. Recently, the administration’s Nuclear Fuel Working Group proposed opening up 1,500 acres outside the Grand Canyon to nuclear production.
E.P.A. | Read more »

In progress​

88. Proposed a regulation limiting the scope of an Obama-era rule under which companies had to prove that large deposits of recycled coal ash would not harm the environment.
E.P.A. | Read more »

.​

Toxic substances and safety​

Completed​

89. Rejected a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to developmental disabilities in children. In 2020, the E.P.A. also rejected its own earlier finding that the pesticide can cause serious health problems, though it later recommended some label changes and usage restrictions. (Several states have banned use of the pesticide and its main manufacturer said it would stop producing the product because of shrinking demand.)
E.P.A. | Read more »
90. Declined to require that certain industries — including electric power, petroleum, coal products manufacturing and chemical manufacturing — have enough funds to cover major spills and accidents. (The Obama administration was planning to develop such requirements.)
E.P.A. | Read more »
91. Declined to issue a proposed rule that required the hardrock mining industry to prove it could pay to clean up future pollution.
E.P.A. | Read more »
92. Narrowed the scope of a 2016 law mandating safety assessments for potentially toxic chemicals like dry-cleaning solvents. The updated rules allowed the E.P.A. to exclude some chemical uses and types of exposure in the review process. In November 2019, a court of appeals ruled the agency must widen its scope to consider full exposure risks, but watchdog groups say it did not do so in some assessments.
E.P.A. | Read more »
93. Reversed an Obama-era rule that required braking system upgrades for “high hazard” trains hauling flammable liquids like oil and ethanol.
Transportation Department | Read more »
94. Changed safety rules to allow for rail transport of highly flammable liquefied natural gas.
Transportation Department | Read more »
95. Rolled back most of the requirements of a 2017 rule aimed at improving safety at sites that use hazardous chemicals that was instituted after a chemical plant exploded in Texas.
E.P.A. | Read more »
96. Narrowed pesticide application buffer zones that are intended to protect farmworkers and bystanders from accidental exposure.
E.P.A. | Read more »
97. Removed copper filter cake, an electronics manufacturing byproduct comprised of heavy metals, from the “hazardous waste” list.
E.P.A. | Read more »

In progress​

98. Announced a review of an Obama-era rule lowering coal dust limits in mines. The head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration said there were no immediate plans to change the dust limit but extended a public comment period until 2022.
Labor Department | Read more »

​

 

Other​

Completed​

99. Limited the scientific and medical research the E.P.A. can use to determine public health regulations, de-emphasizing studies that do not make their underlying data publicly available. (Scientists widely criticized the proposal, saying it would effectively block the agency from considering landmark research that relies on confidential health data.)
E.P.A. | Read more »
100. Limited funding of environmental and community development projects through corporate settlements of federal lawsuits.
Justice Department | Read more »
101. Repealed an Obama-era regulation that would have nearly doubled the number of light bulbs subject to energy-efficiency standards starting in January 2020. The Energy Department also blocked the next phase of efficiency standards for general-purpose bulbs already subject to regulation.
Energy Department | Read more »
102. Weakened dishwasher energy efficiency standards by exempting fast-cleaning machines from decades-old rules.
Energy Department | Read more »
103. Loosened water and efficiency standards for showerheads and washers and dryers.
Energy Department | Read more »
104. Changed the process for how the government sets energy efficiency standards for appliances and other equipment. The new rules set an “energy savings threshold” for regulations (which environmental groups say is too high) and allow industries to set their own test procedures.
Energy Department | Read more »
105. Withdrew proposed Obama-era efficiency standards for residential furnaces and commercial water heaters that were designed to reduce energy use.
Energy Department | Read more »
106. Made it easier for appliance manufacturers to get a temporary exemption from federal energy efficiency test procedure requirements.
Energy Department | Read more »
107. Finalized a rule that limits 401(k) retirement plans from investing in funds that focus on the environment. The Obama administration had issued guidance to encourage investing in environmentally- and socially-focused funds as long as they were competitive investments.
Labor Department | Read more »
108. Changed a 25-year-old policy to allow coastal replenishment projects to use sand from protected ecosystems.
Interior Department | Read more »
109. Stopped payments to the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations program to help poorer countries reduce carbon emissions.
Executive Order | Read more »
110. Reversed restrictions on the sale of plastic water bottles in national parks designed to cut down on litter, despite a Park Service report that the effort worked
 
it'd be sweet if any of those things stuck instead of most/all being rolled back and then further forward as soon as the hot seat changed.

seems easier to just abolish the EPA at this point and cut funding of DoI until they can't do anything
 
Provience said:
:shaking:

I don't see what the issue is :confused: you are even saying it yourself, that data changes DRASTICALLY.

sci-ence is only getting better, so of course they would need to improve the stuff for accuracy.

And yes, drastic data changes are the problem :confused:

so....yeah, you just proved man-made climate change.

MSN

www.msn.com







I was amazed when these headlines came out peak covid and election fraud season, but could see and understand the psyop need for them. Blew my socks off though when I saw the same headline trotted out again this week :laughing: maybe this is just a theme that will take time, such as "illegals aren't criminals" or "illegals are just migrants" and everybody will be happy
Click to expand...

Wut?

My sarcasm meter is broken. Need a new one.
 
I'm reposting this, screw the Rat. :flipoff2:

Well worth at least 12 minutes of your time.

 
Provience said:
it'd be sweet if any of those things stuck instead of most/all being rolled back and then further forward as soon as the hot seat changed.

seems easier to just abolish the EPA at this point and cut funding of DoI until they can't do anything
Click to expand...
A lot of them did, a lot didn't. None would have happened without him, imagine what he could have done with a little help from the cowards in Washington.
 
Because I am bored to fuckin tears :shaking:
I went down a rabbit hole of Taylor Swift and carbon production which I learned was ok because she purchased more than double the amount of carbon credits needed to fly her jet(s) all over the world at a whim.

So that gets me wondering how much that cost (cause it wasn't in the article) so off I go to investigate. This 8 billion trees article says I am avg of 16 tons per year (4x the world avg btw). So I'm thinking to make this right I'm gonna need to really fork over some cash...

So I go to this other site carbon credits.com where I learn I can buy offsets or just flat out buy carbon reduction in acres via a site called Nori.
So for a hefty service fee and a fee of $20 per ton totalling $400 I was never here.
I can continue to drive my diesel truck and gas car, use the 2 stroke weed eater/blower and dirt bike, even maybe take the pro-steeet Elcamino for a rip:idea:

So the real question is if all it costs to offset a red blooded Texan from effecting climate change is $400 then why doesn't Joe Biden just take that out of all of our taxes and not fuck up the world both from "climate change" and their attempts to stop it? :clown:


1000011025.jpg


 
Provience said:
That's the god damn point, they want to tax you more.

For nothing, it's just a tax. They won't do anything with it, they won't let you keep what you've got.

Who volunteers for a tax? For $200 I'll sell you a certificate of all the co2 you need to offset :flipoff2:
Click to expand...
Well I really just meant $400 annually for a average american is close to zero dollars, like a rounding error on the amount of Tax or social security I already pay. Even if I had to pay the $400 (i'm not advocating paying it just bs'ing) how many people would/could pay it to continue to drive a ICE vehicle? It really illustrates how fake the climate change / carbon game is.
 
CarterKraft said:
Well I really just meant $400 annually for a average american is close to zero dollars, like a rounding error on the amount of Tax or social security I already pay. Even if I had to pay the $400 (i'm not advocating paying it just bs'ing) how many people would/could pay it to continue to drive a ICE vehicle? It really illustrates how fake the climate change / carbon game is.
Click to expand...
it's $400.... today...

Tomorrow, it may be $4,000.
 
CarterKraft said:
Well I really just meant $400 annually for a average american is close to zero dollars, like a rounding error on the amount of Tax or social security I already pay. Even if I had to pay the $400 (i'm not advocating paying it just bs'ing) how many people would/could pay it to continue to drive a ICE vehicle? It really illustrates how fake the climate change / carbon game is.
Click to expand...
Hopefully enough for me to live on :laughing:

There's gotta be 1000 people who'd do it :rasta:
 
Al Gore, his Surrogate scientist, Michael Mann Mr Hockey Stick hiss Self.

He sued someone for slander who dared to call him out. Now, after 12 years its finally in court and it's not going good for the Climate alarmist liar.

criticallythinking.substack.com

Mann v Steyn (and us)

An exceptionally important trial started January 16, 2024
criticallythinking.substack.com criticallythinking.substack.com

" Mann’s contention about Science is interesting, and (for multiple reasons) seems to be a very weak argument. E.g., it’s fascinating to note that, despite this being a high-profile case about a topic of paramount interest (climate change), it appears that not a single Science organization formally stepped forward to side with Mann! (See here.)

Also very interesting is that (earlier) the Judge denied Mann’s request for certain experts (some of his climate alarmist buds) to testify on his behalf. What is extremely fascinating is the Judge’s reason:"

If you are a sadist, its worth reading the article to see how bdly the climate liar and Al Gore are being eviscerated.
 
Splib said:
Al Gore, his Surrogate scientist, Michael Mann Mr Hockey Stick hiss Self.

He sued someone for slander who dared to call him out. Now, after 12 years its finally in court and it's not going good for the Climate alarmist liar.

criticallythinking.substack.com

Mann v Steyn (and us)

An exceptionally important trial started January 16, 2024
criticallythinking.substack.com criticallythinking.substack.com

" Mann’s contention about Science is interesting, and (for multiple reasons) seems to be a very weak argument. E.g., it’s fascinating to note that, despite this being a high-profile case about a topic of paramount interest (climate change), it appears that not a single Science organization formally stepped forward to side with Mann! (See here.)

Also very interesting is that (earlier) the Judge denied Mann’s request for certain experts (some of his climate alarmist buds) to testify on his behalf. What is extremely fascinating is the Judge’s reason:"

If you are a sadist, its worth reading the article to see how bdly the climate liar and Al Gore are being eviscerated.
Click to expand...

That guy is responsible for.................well............everything.

I wonder what a guy like that thinks when he sees all the bullshit going on, knowing his hockey stick was a lie?
 
And we as the all powerful created him, then allow him, enable him, enrich him. And then we tell the rest of the world what is righteous or not. And then we bomb them with robot remote precision from security of a computer terminal as though we were aliens swatting insects. .
 
gt1guy said:
That guy is responsible for.................well............everything.

I wonder what a guy like that thinks when he sees all the bullshit going on, knowing his hockey stick was a lie?
Click to expand...

He's a whack job. He claimed many times and even on the court fillings (which should have brought charges), that he was a Nobel Prize recipient. He did it so often, the Nobel committee put out a request that he stop claiming it.
 
You just need to look at what they are doing to us up here. Carbon Tax, has been added to every single thing in Canada at every level of the consumer and manufacturing chain as things get passed along. It's a huge chunk (I heard 1/3 but I am guessing even more) of the inflation that we are paying for up here.
 
Icono said:
He's a whack job. He claimed many times and even on the court fillings (which should have brought charges), that he was a Nobel Prize recipient. He did it so often, the Nobel committee put out a request that he stop claiming it.
Click to expand...

He was one bullet away from the Presidency for some time. He morphed into his true self after. Look at Kerry.
 
At one point in this video, he makes a great statement: "Most young people these days don't know or remember any of this, they weren't around". (Paraphrased)


 
Famous radio guy once said for most people the world began when they were born, and everything else that happened before means nothing
 
Last edited:
bigun said:
Famous radio guy once said for most people the began when they were born, and everything else that happened before means nothing
Click to expand...

In some segments of our current society, this is certainly true. Other cultures across the globe honor and respect their legacy and history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh