Show of HandsShow of Hands

political June 2nd, 2014 2:18am

The Obama administration wishes to have stricter emission regulations. Does the US need stricter emission regulations?

24 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Pirate Uses the Tap
06/03/14 10:04 am

If it were not for our strict regulations the corporations would pollute our air just like they do in China.

RossDMands Miami Township, OH
06/03/14 3:39 am

We need to regulate the emissions coming out of our President's mouth...

Reply
dxstap Bloomington, Indiana
06/03/14 3:09 am

Nice lead to your question. That will impact ur results.
Of course carbon emissions should be reduced in the USA and the rest of the world. But the Obama directive is aggressive which does nothing to encourage cooperation.

RINOTom Peoria, IL
06/02/14 11:36 am

Yes, but they'd need to be absolutely, 100% uniform in a way that doesn't play favorites. Make them as pro-business as possible while still addressing the problem.

Reply
rons on top of the world MA
06/02/14 5:13 am

Maybe the administration will ban all oil and gas production. It's not beneath them!

Reply
rons on top of the world MA
06/02/14 5:08 am

Yes, to regulate the emissions of the Obama administration!

Reply
skinner Wisconsin
06/02/14 3:51 am

Yes, we do. Carbon pollution is out of control and is facilitating the effects of climate change.

Reply
ScrewU Gone
06/02/14 3:53 am

Was just going to post that the chicken little in the White House coined a new term. "Carbon pollution." Lol

It's called exhaling.

skinner Wisconsin
06/02/14 4:14 am

All the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for because it came directly or indirectly from plant life which recently absorbed the CO2 from the atmosphere.

skinner Wisconsin
06/02/14 4:15 am

When breathing we are simply returning to the air the same carbon levels that was there to begin with.

ScrewU Gone
06/02/14 7:19 am

That's not even remotely the case. Sorry.

skinner Wisconsin
06/02/14 11:54 am

Really? Then explain to me how the carbon cycle works

ScrewU Gone
06/02/14 12:57 pm

In 320 characters? <rolleyes>

skinner Wisconsin
06/02/14 1:01 pm

Gun if you're not going to offer any evidence for your skepticism of global warming then you don't have an argument
www.skepticalscience.com/breathing-co2-carbon-dioxide.htm

ScrewU Gone
06/02/14 2:50 pm

Wonderful description for third graders, complete with a picture of a tree and a cow.

Predictably, you missed the entire point. CO2 is not a "pollutant." It's part if a natural cycle, as Mr Green Jeans points out.

skinner Wisconsin
06/02/14 3:04 pm

If you need a more detailed description it's as simple as clicking "intermediate".
Carbon dioxide is a pollutant according to legal and scientific definitions.
skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm

ScrewU Gone
06/02/14 3:46 am

New co2 emissions standards being announced today by the EPA that are going to reduce energy producing capacity and drive up energy prices for everyone. Thanks Obama!

Reply
MachoMatt84 Mountain climbing
06/01/14 9:09 pm

We have pretty strict emissions standards as it is. How about if they want to curb climate change they try working with the likes of China and India on curbing their emissions. Just saying

Reply
TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
06/01/14 9:00 pm

Of course not. Except for hot air emissions from the White House.

Reply
corino Utah
06/01/14 8:51 pm

Not without legislation we don't.

Reply
cowboy Come on, man
06/01/14 8:22 pm

The Obama administration is forcing the global warming hoax on us.

Reply
MaxineL New Jersey
06/01/14 8:54 pm

Not a hoax! It is happening, and
Faster than we previously thought. The Antarctic ice is now melting. Why do nonscientists refuse to believe?

unforgivnn
06/01/14 9:35 pm

Because there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is going through a natural warming cycle and there is plenty of scientific evidence supporting that ...

unforgivnn
06/01/14 9:36 pm

... Climate science is based on models built by humans with more variables than can be accounted. We cannot accurately predict the weather 30 days from now. But 50 years ago is a piece if cake??? I don't think so. :-)

MaxineL New Jersey
06/02/14 12:12 am

The weather perfecting science is meteorology NOT climatology. Different sciences. Climatology looks at the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (simplification of the science). It looks at how this affects the oceans temps, etc.

ScrewU Gone
06/02/14 3:43 am

Maxine - it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of science. Wherever you read that arctic ice melting is proof of global warming was LYING to you by cherry picking data. The ice right nearby in the Great Lakes us at record highs, and Antarctic

bluerum29 optimistic idealist
06/01/14 8:20 pm

Haha I was thinking emissions testing for cars.

goalie31 Byzantine Catholic
06/01/14 8:01 pm

No that's why my dads powerplant shut down last fall.

Reply
chickencookie
06/01/14 7:55 pm

Didn't Kerry fly all the way to China to discuss the dangers of pollution?
#YouGotWhatYouVotedFor

Snicker

Reply
commonsense a real hero among us
06/01/14 7:50 pm

Sure, I'm okay with more emission regulations as long as it allows businesses to slowly adapt to them without loss of profit.

Reply
goalie31 Byzantine Catholic
06/01/14 8:14 pm

I promise that EPA regs are fine right now. no need to get any stricter. I've lived within a mile of a coal power plant for 14 years and always been outside. no asthma, breathing problems, or anything. Tons of big green trees. it is fine.

commonsense a real hero among us
06/01/14 9:02 pm

I hear you. I'm not pushing for anything. I'm okay with how things are now. I'm just saying if "they" choose to increase regs, it needs to be slow , so businesses can adjust to them.

CalTexHawk spiral arm
06/01/14 7:33 pm

The US doesn't but the planet could use some additional relief.

Reply
EarlyBird Portland
06/01/14 7:32 pm

This states emissions requirement are strict enough, thank you.

Reply
itsOkay no longer answering here
06/01/14 7:32 pm

Not on carbon which is what they're after. I support stricter emissions on items involved in an interstate commercial transaction because that's the legitimate purview of federal law under the commerce clause.

Reply
itsOkay no longer answering here
06/01/14 7:32 pm

I would like to see stricter state rules for carcinogenic emissions.

soupyquinn Jr. nuke tester
06/01/14 7:24 pm

We have already had the greatest cut to emissions of any Western nation. China pollutes many time what we do and keeps increasing. Any cut we make will quickly be negates by China. All it does is hurt us.

Reply
elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
06/01/14 7:24 pm

No. We need stricter qualifications for candidates & fewer regulating entities across the board. Starting w/unelected EPA making tyrannical rules & penalizing w/little to no legal recourse.

Reply
goalie31 Byzantine Catholic
06/01/14 8:04 pm

duh...? more like "doh!". followed by a facepalm.

political Georgia
06/01/14 7:20 pm

This is an issue that is dividing the democrats.

Reply