otto Olean, NY
12/15/15 12:27 am
Dumbest. Idea. Ever.
The theoretical benefit of theoretically reducing warming by 1% or 2% over 100 years is NOT worth turning the entire world into a third world.
12/13/15 11:19 pm
Seeing how plant life needs CO2 to live develop and grow, how dare we subjugate them to a substandard life. No, I propose that we force manufactures to funnel all co2 to national greenhouses. Also, the rich should pay for it.
Zod Above Pugetropolis
12/13/15 10:48 pm
When they are operating in the US, I'd expect them to comply with the same rules every other business here complies with. I couldn't care less what they do in another country's jurisdiction.
12/13/15 8:01 pm
Has anyone ever flown into Beijing? Their troposphere looks like a nuclear blast in slow-mo. It's ridiculous that people are bitching about the US when really china should be sued by international committees but the whole idea of progressional environmentalism is stupid because there are always gonna be people in any government who will turn down emission limits to protect companies that are lobbying/paying them
12/13/15 2:30 pm
Our Earth is fine. Global warning isn't a real thing. It has been proven through untampered science for Great Britain. In fact NASA has predicted that there will be a mini ice age in the 2030's. The so called "Climate Change" is a hoax that the left has created to keep themselves in office.
12/13/15 2:10 pm
So we would be making it even harder for businesses in this country. Brilliant!
And we will soon wonder why we soon will no longer produce products in this nation.
12/13/15 1:32 pm
I hate how people just use the word "carbon". It's carbon dioxide, you know, the compound you breathe out and that plants "breathe" in to make oxygen. If people were told the basic truth that "your breathing is what people claim is destroying the Earth", less people would fall for the lie that it is happening.
12/13/15 1:16 pm
If you put restrictions on emissions, companies will just move to another country, such as China or India, and do the same thing, creating less revenue for the u.s., but still polluting.
12/13/15 12:48 pm
"Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013." - John Kerry, 31 August, 2009 Never became close to ice free & Antarctic ice continues to break records for most ice cover.
12/13/15 12:03 pm
Wants restrictions on emissions, but kills pipeline deal because trucks, trains and boats have less emissions than pipe, less expensive than pipe and far less car accidents then pipe. We need restrictions on pipe.
12/13/15 11:34 am
California is doing a pretty good job of driving away businesses. I'm for some restrictions but some are really out there. And don't help the environment at all and kill jobs.
akrealist a log cabin in the woods
12/13/15 11:15 am
I am against bureaucratic bloat. So, if by "stricter emissions regulations" you mean exponentially grow the size of the EPA/government taxation machine under the righteous banner of "stopping" climate change...well, then no.
12/13/15 11:13 am
I know libtards would because they think climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. Lets see how much they believe that when their family gets blown up. Of course liberals hate jobs and putting all these strict emission bullshit on this companies will just encourage them to leave this country and go anywhere else where they dont give a shit. V
Spiritof76 USA 1776
12/13/15 11:11 am
No. We want businesses to come here, create jobs, and flourish. Unnecessarily hindering business ventures with added taxes or by providing subsidies for select type of industries, stifles job creation. We could do it without mandates.
12/13/15 11:02 am
CO2 is not a pollutant. It's not toxic & is an essential component of our environment. Without it, no plants would grow...we'd all starve.
12/13/15 10:59 am
For most of the past 600 million years, CO2 levels in the atmosphere were much higher than the current "irreversible" level.
Brandon1995 San Francisco
12/13/15 10:59 am
There has to be regulations for those emissions for the sake of our planet. Industrial pollution is a big contributor to the depletion of the ozone layer. Carbon emissions have to be controlled, that is just a simple fact. No preferential treatment given to big companies.
Gunfighter06 Iowa, since 1846
12/13/15 10:25 am
No. Environmental regulation should be a state/local issue, not a federal issue. Furthermore, our corporate tax rates are already criminally high. Sometimes I think the left wants to commit economic suicide.
12/13/15 10:24 am
The question that should be asked is how much lower a take-home pay for you & your family are you willing to tolerate for them to lower emissions.
gow488 Seoul, Korea
12/13/15 10:19 am
Yes. Climate change is real and we need to limit it as best we can. I would also advocate for building more nuclear power plants to limit pollution.
Comments: Add Comment