Forum Thread

Pollution of Environment

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 79 1 2 3 4 5 .. 6 Next
  • Democrat
    Barre, MA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    It was a younger member of my family who went off to school in Michigan who first brought to my attention the fact that an oily waste pollutant is presently being dumped along the banks of a river which flows through the city of Detroit, Michigan. It is being dumped there without an okay from the permitting authority of the city by the Koch brothers....not just David or Charles......but yet another sibling by the name of William.
    Just because Detroit is going through the process of bankruptcy doesn't mean it should be allowed to be a dumping ground temporarily or otherwise for hazardous waste. Just Google Koch Bros dump toxic waste in Detroit or anything similar and you'll get dozens of pertinent
    articles.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Yes; because of budget cuts etc. the oversight is getting even worse than it already was. It is not only Detroit, our Republican Governor Scott, does not do anything either to stop polution of our water(ways) including our beaches and the Gulf. Even as far south at Key West the polution is causing less fish to be caught by our gorgeous pelicans, who are starving. Luckily wildlife organisations help these birds and feed themback to health.
    In the past when I just came to the States; no one dared to toss garbage out of their car windows, because there were huge fines if they were caught.
    Nowadays they just throw out anything they like without any fines or consequences. Yes the US is going down the drain; politically, financially and our worldwide meddling in all kinds of conflicts and wars will eventually ruin us. So welcome to a third grade country.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I think it's important to complain to the politicians telling them that it's a big problem that should be addressed if they want to receive votes in the future. Toxic waste is a harsh term. I will google that and see what I find. I think pollution of our air, land, and water are not given enough importance these days. The biggest contributor being cars. Americans just don't walk or ride a bike as often as they should. It could save money, be exercise, and be helpful to reducing pollution at the same time.
    Coal is bad too. I think that should be phased out sooner than later.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    http://gawker.com/koch-brothers-dump-three-story-pile-of-toxic-byproduct-508489766

    Wouldn't you know it involves Oil tar sands from Canada. Yes bring us the popular Keystone pipeline.
  • Center Left Democrat
    Democrat
    Flagstaff, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    This morning brought both good news and bad news about the Keystone XL pipeline

    The bad news is that the State Department released a report on Friday that the Keystone XL pipeline would not substantially worsen carbon pollution, which leaves President Obama an opening to approve the thing:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/us/politics/report-may-ease-way-to-approval-of-keystone-pipeline.html?hp

    The good news is that former mayor Michael Bloomberg was just named UN climate change envoy:

    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/31/ex-nyc-mayor-bloombergnamedunclimatechangeenvoy.html

    When he was mayor of New York, Bloomberg actually accomplished more than most of us realize to improve air quality in the Big Apple:

    http://www.arnoldporter.com/resources/documents/Michael%20Bloomberg%27s%20Environmental%20Record,%20Bill%20de%20Blasio%27s%20Promises_NYLJ_Gerrard_November%2014%202013.pdf



    Approval of the pipeline is still not guaranteed, but appointing Bloomberg to the UN post could potentially make it more difficult.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    President Obama is in a tough spot. He has delayed and stalled and put off the decision and keeps looking for a reason NOT to allow the pipeline. I wouldn't be surprised if he finds a way to put it off until he's out of office. Maybe he'll order two or three studies to study the original studies. He doesn't want to incur the wrath of either side by making a final decision, so he continues to try to sit on the fence and incur at least some wrath from both sides.

    The oil is coming, and that's just AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. It will be moved into and through the US one way or another.

    Pipelines are the safest mode of transport.

    Pipelines move over 70% of petroleum products already, barge and tanker over 20% but transport by rail is growing.

    Anyone remember the rail accident last July in Canada? 47 people were killed when a crude oil train derailed and exploded in a town in Canada's Quebec Province just across the border from Maine. There were 4 "major" accidents involving oil being transported by rail in 2013.

    I love solar and wind and hydro and any other "green" source of energy and the world will be a better place as they become more widespread, but oil and gas will be with us far into the future.

    The tar sands oil will be used by the US and other countries. The new pipeline will make transporting it safer, so why not build it?
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Another reason to include more Nuclear Power Plants. The new Nuclear Power Plants, although expensive, are much safer and they have less nuclear waste, because the material's energy is exhausted past concern as a dangerous waste byproduct. The biggest problem for building a nuclear power plant is locating a suitable place to build where geological forces will not endanger the plant. Many areas cannot be suited for building a nuclear power plant because of earth quakes, ground water and soft earth. So, engineers need to careful where they put these plants. It is good to see support for wind, solar and hydroelectric support. Wind and solar takes up a lot of space to produce energy comparable to Hydroelectric and Nuclear plants. Hydroelectric plants need a water source and given the probability that water (rivers & lakes) may dry up (like California currently), Nuclear Power Plants sure looks a whole lot better. Of course, Nuclear Power Plants need water also, but just not as much rush as a hydroelectric plant requires. Nature, weather climate and earthly resources will dictate where any power plant can be built to support mankind's thirst for energy. I just hope politics don't get in the way of making wise choices in selecting a power plant for energy. I know, "Silly Rabbit", politics will always foul up the best of planning.
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I located some web sites that provided energy comparisons of various producing designs for energy.

    1. www.energy4me.org/energy-facts/

    2. www.cielowind.com/wp-content/gallery/comparison_chart/comparison_chart.jpg

    3. www.intellectualTakeout.org/library/

    Energy is the amount of work performed by force and Power is rate at which work is performed. So, with that thought in mind Congress must be the lowest rated power of any group activity.

    Notice, Nuclear Power is the biggest bang for the buck that provides more energy than any other plant design.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I am very much against the Keystone pipeline. The oil product is too thick to pump so they have to add chemicals to make it able to be pumped. It's just a bad idea. Question: Why isn't Canada refining the crap ? Canada has many thousands of tons of nasty by-products from this stuff. That's spoke of in my above link about the Koch brothers/Detroit. This stuff will remain a bad idea. Will we be dealing with it in 8 - 10 years ? Probably. But my guess is we'll eventually regret it. As long as we keep the money makers happy. That's all that really matters.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Tony you got one thing right ..."As long as we keep the money makers happy. That's all that really matters."... That's right.

    The rest of your post is wrong. The oil is here already and will keep coming, so why not transport it by the most efficient and safest means possible? And that is by pipeline.

    When it is transported by less efficient means (tanker, barge, rail) even more pollution is added to the environment because all those methods utilize internal combustion engines to move the oil. Plus, statistically those other methods are more prone to accidents.

    How may people were killed by pipeline accidents last year? I don't know but I gave you one instance of 47 killed in just one rail accident.

    Build the pipeline.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jamesn Wrote: Tony you got one thing right ..."As long as we keep the money makers happy. That's all that really matters."... That's right.

    The rest of your post is wrong. The oil is here already and will keep coming, so why not transport it by the most efficient and safest means possible? And that is by pipeline.

    When it is transported by less efficient means (tanker, barge, rail) even more pollution is added to the environment because all those methods utilize internal combustion engines to move the oil. Plus, statistically those other methods are more prone to accidents.

    How may people were killed by pipeline accidents last year? I don't know but I gave you one instance of 47 killed in just one rail accident.

    Build the pipeline.
    I do not want to be the devils advocate; but what about security; because ofthe lenght of the pipeline you can not put a guard at it every mile.
    So if a terrorist wants to blow it up and create a huge disaster; who is going to stop them?
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    How much of the environment was destroyed by pipelines is a more relevant question!
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    How much of the environment was destroyed by railroads is relevant also.

    How much of the environment was destroyed by roads?

    How much of that town in Canada was destroyed by the railroad explosion that killed 47 people?

    And we can't put a guard on every mile on the railroad, either.

    The oil is coming so why not move it the MOST environmentally safe way: the pipeline.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Why do some people throw the terrorist thing into everything as if the terrorist's won't blow a rail car or truck up, just build the damn thing.
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Oh yea, build it right over the largest aquifer in the United States. A deep ground water source that landowners utilize at pumping stations for their precious water. Oh yea, to think building something like a massive pipeline where earth plates move routinely exercising a stiff metallic and plastic membrane pipes exposing cracks and breaks that will leak the deadly crude tar into the ground water system. Oh yea, build it so America can add jobs in cleaning up a natural disaster. If you study your earth science, you find that the crust we as a civilization lives on, is fluid and floats on a molten core. The least of the crust above the molten core vents exist below Yellowstone and six surrounding states. Visiting Yellowstone about three years ago, the tourism documents, Forestry experts, and Natural Resource Services will all inform you that this part of America is long overdue for a major disruption. Calculating the data that has been collected from science indicates a worst case scenario of one third of the United States will be gone when this magma blows it's top. Oh yea, build this pipeline so that we can add another natural disaster. It makes such a stupid reason for jobs. Canadians are saying America is so stupid for allowing this, because they really don't need our cooperation. They are just thankful that America sacrifices their natural resources in a pipeline for "Canadian" interests.

    A perfect example of the rigid building of man's devices failing is more recently seen in California, where earthquakes and land mass shifting broke apart US I5 and highways through LA. I don't care how fluid you try to make a design, it will not be adequate to not fall apart when massive land masses shift by geological forces that are beyond man's control. This pipeline idea is simply, "you can't fix stupid".