Someone gave me these new stats yesterday!!! Very scary stuff!!!! Many people in the Southern Part of the Province could die. Check this out -
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Unless Greenhouse Gases are defined, you cannot claim people will die as a result. Carbon dioxide is defined as a greenhouse gas, yet every single one of us emits it by the minute. The refinery will definitely spew CO2, just as David Coon did as he gave his speech.
If the emissions are truly nasty stuff like NOx and SOx, or mercury, or the such, you could claim the future emissions will cause major decreases in standards of living. Increasing carbon dioxide emissions cannot be shown to seriously degrage the lives of Saint Johners. However, your handy little table of emissions does not define what an emission is, what percentage is inert, and what percentage is hazardous. Without such important information, one cannot make a truthful claim regarding future environmental quality.
This is simply poor science, meant to confuse the public into opposing job creation.
You can claim people will die as a result if you make the simple,and correct assumption that industries that emit this level of greenhouse gases will also emit the other pollutants mentioned above.
So there are two different issues, the table itself doesnt' talk about health effect pollutants but greenhouse gases, while CHarles refers to the other byproducts of those industries.
Since inert gases are highly marketable there is generally very little waste of inert gases, and since these will be new facilities they will be negligible if Irvings are the thrifty scotsmen we know them to be. There is a reason its called 'waste'.
Something people aren't aware of is that the new Gypsum Wallboard Plant which Irving is constructing with their new federal money will be using a synthetic by product which is waste generated by Coleson Cove, which partly explains why there is the political push behind that, as opposed to other sources of power.
To claim that Charles is a 'poor scientist' is probably a fact he'll readily admit, that doesn't mean that his overblown headline has nothing valid backing it up.
Whether the chart is 'poor science' is another issue since we don't know where the estimates come from. Typically they are fairly reliable because environmentalists know what kind of scrutiny ther claims are put under, unlike the claims of industry. Although that's pretty poor science to state that because a person breathes out CO2 its the same as a factory doing it.
Virtually ALL greenhouses gases are also naturally occurring, that's not really the point. They are easily defined, and assumed in the chart no doubt, as Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and three groups of fluorinated gasses (sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs). Methane comes out with your farts and poo as well, that doesn't mean you don't talk about massive factory emissions of it.
I think it would be a hard sell to get people to 'oppose job creation'. Has anybody ever done that? That comment simply seems designed to confuse the public into ignoring health effects.
4 comments:
Unless Greenhouse Gases are defined, you cannot claim people will die as a result. Carbon dioxide is defined as a greenhouse gas, yet every single one of us emits it by the minute. The refinery will definitely spew CO2, just as David Coon did as he gave his speech.
If the emissions are truly nasty stuff like NOx and SOx, or mercury, or the such, you could claim the future emissions will cause major decreases in standards of living. Increasing carbon dioxide emissions cannot be shown to seriously degrage the lives of Saint Johners.
However, your handy little table of emissions does not define what an emission is, what percentage is inert, and what percentage is hazardous. Without such important information, one cannot make a
truthful claim regarding future environmental quality.
This is simply poor science, meant to confuse the public into opposing job creation.
Interesting numbers. Who generated these numbers?
Rob I'm pretty sure you don't know what you are talking about, you can't compare emissions from people to a refinery.
You can claim people will die as a result if you make the simple,and correct assumption that industries that emit this level of greenhouse gases will also emit the other pollutants mentioned above.
So there are two different issues, the table itself doesnt' talk about health effect pollutants but greenhouse gases, while CHarles refers to the other byproducts of those industries.
Since inert gases are highly marketable there is generally very little waste of inert gases, and since these will be new facilities they will be negligible if Irvings are the thrifty scotsmen we know them to be. There is a reason its called 'waste'.
Something people aren't aware of is that the new Gypsum Wallboard Plant which Irving is constructing with their new federal money will be using a synthetic by product which is waste generated by Coleson Cove, which partly explains why there is the political push behind that, as opposed to other sources of power.
To claim that Charles is a 'poor scientist' is probably a fact he'll readily admit, that doesn't mean that his overblown headline has nothing valid backing it up.
Whether the chart is 'poor science' is another issue since we don't know where the estimates come from. Typically they are fairly reliable because environmentalists know what kind of scrutiny ther claims are put under, unlike the claims of industry. Although that's pretty poor science to state that because a person breathes out CO2 its the same as a factory doing it.
Virtually ALL greenhouses gases are also naturally occurring, that's not really the point. They are easily defined, and assumed in the chart no doubt, as Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and three groups of fluorinated gasses (sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs). Methane comes out with your farts and poo as well, that doesn't mean you don't talk about massive factory emissions of it.
I think it would be a hard sell to get people to 'oppose job creation'. Has anybody ever done that? That comment simply seems designed to confuse the public into ignoring health effects.
Post a Comment