Need for stricter EPA emissions? - Page 2
The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Wildear
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Need for stricter EPA emissions?

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,120

    Default

    Well, I'm doing my part to reduce green house gases. I'm eating as many cows as I can!

  2. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #12
    Senior Member kjrice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    5280
    Posts
    2,426
    A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths.

  4. #13
    Senior Member limiman12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Red Oak Iowa
    Posts
    1,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    No one with a sense of humor?
    Would be funny if livestock associations weren't having to spend money to prevent such BS. there are those that would have all of us be vegetarian, by the way the same groups that are after livestock production are after our hunting rights.

    On a similar note the EPA was tryin gto pass some law that would place a limit on the dust that a combine could produce. I am confused, if we can't raise cows, and we can't combine soybeans what are we supposed to eat

  5. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  6. #14
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,636

    Default

    I'm not sure why this is a concern. Polluting the environment and destroying the beauty of our country has been rewarded with handsome profits and little liability for decades. The only way to reduce pollution is to make it profitable to be environmentally sound. I hope that the potential for profit attracts large number of future millionaires into the business of reducing pollution.

  7. #15
    Senior Member kjrice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    5280
    Posts
    2,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    I'm not sure why this is a concern. Polluting the environment and destroying the beauty of our country has been rewarded with handsome profits and little liability for decades. The only way to reduce pollution is to make it profitable to be environmentally sound. I hope that the potential for profit attracts large number of future millionaires into the business of reducing pollution.
    Reducing pollution is fine. It is the intentions of those like Gore and his ilk that use it as a front for something else.
    A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths.

  8. #16
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kjrice View Post
    Reducing pollution is fine. It is the intentions of those like Gore and his ilk that use it as a front for something else.
    Not to mention the glaring hypocrisy of 'his ilk', and Algore himself. What a sleezy piece of garbage he has become. Makes the word "environmentalist" filthy.

    WTF ARE YOU AFTER ALGORE???

    UB
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  9. #17
    Senior Member kjrice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    5280
    Posts
    2,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Bill View Post
    Not to mention the glaring hypocrisy of 'his ilk', and Algore himself. What a sleezy piece of garbage he has become. Makes the word "environmentalist" filthy.

    WTF ARE YOU AFTER ALGORE???

    UB
    Tom DeWeese writes an article that sheds some light. It is the 9th paragraph down. http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom112.htm

    "Global warming has been the most convenient threat upon which all of the rhetoric has been based. What it is really leading to is the creation of a new economy based on trading carbon credits. Such policy is really nothing more than a massive redistribution of the wealth scheme designed to force industrial nations to make deals with less developed ones to trade for energy credits and get around severe energy use restrictions. It's what Al Gore trades in order to allow him to claim he has a "zero carbon footprint" - even as he flies around the world in his jets and pays $2000 electric bills on his Tennessee mansion. In the end, the same emissions are released into the atmosphere, but money and power exchanges hands from the industrial nations to the less developed. Where is the protection for the environment? Of course there isn't any."
    A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths.

Similar Threads

  1. EPA policitcizing new standards?
    By TXduckdog in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-06-2009, 06:13 PM
  2. EPA Concludes that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health
    By Sabireley in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-19-2009, 05:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •