• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas fights global-warming power grab

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Bmanmcfly, you lost complete credibility with the Holdren nonsense. As long as you buy into partisan crap, you can't be taken seriously. No a fact check on that and you should be able to see you error.

Have you read his 1970's writings?? How about his 80's writings? (repeating the same sentiment)... how about his writings from 1996? (another repeat of the sentiment).... you want 'partisan crap', Bush's science adviser Paul Ehrlich co-wrote 'ecoscience'.

These aren't the musings of some control freak... this was a scholarly justification of the hows and whys of population control.... Hell, even when Holdren was interviewed and asked about the book, he went and denied the allegations (which is probably that fact check you mentioned) MEANWHILE THE BOOK IN QUESTION WAS PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED!!!

So, specifically, am I discredited because he didn't write the book discussing such things? Is it because he 'didn't mean it'?? Is it because he changed his mind? Is it because you don't believe anyone could be that evil?

I'll try and address the rest later. But I had to point out how disappointing it is to see anyone spout out such stupid partisan nonsense.

No, I am not taking any sort of partisan position (except where my positions naturally will fall in partisan lines)... I limited the mention to Holdren ONLY to show that this is still going on now... if you want I could go further back... to the papers come out in the 60's how hormones were being studied that would be added to vaccines that would sterilize SOME women and reduce fertility in others. Or even further back to the 20's where the studies were being done on monkeys testing the potentials of 'anti-hormones'...

or I could also point to people like Prince Charles who wrote in his book how if he reincarnates he wishes to be a deadly virus to help with overpopulation.... or looking at the Georgia Guidestones which declares that the world population should be maintained at a stable 500 million.

There's simply TOO MUCH information to cover in the 12000 character limits. So, even if you COULD prove to me that ehrlich and Holdren were somehow joking back in the mid-70's, again in the 80's and again in 1996, I could probably find another 5-10 examples of people in positions of power and influence discussing the need or their desire to reduce human population numbers, and how this is intricately tied to the 'environmentalist' agenda.

That said, I don't expect most people with valid concerns, since yes, humans ARE causing environmental problems through certain activites / industries, to grasp how they are being led to support a position with such diabolical (for lack of a better term) intentions backing it up.

Bottom line... I don't care where my 'credibility' stands... my preference is to have people look into the information and come to their own conclusions... since I know that any objective look into the information makes a pretty conclusive case that there are influential members of society that have a deep seeded belief that the world is over-populated and that there is a need for drastic reduction in human population. Most sources that specify will allude to a 'majority', but most common numbers are between 80-90% reduction, with some 'extreme' who believe humanity to be a parasite and should be COMPLETELY eliminated. "How great an honor it will be to be the last human on earth and to commit suicide so that there can be a great return of the wilderness of the earth."

I honestly WISH I was completely off base with all this.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Have you read his 1970's writings?? How about his 80's writings? (repeating the same sentiment)... how about his writings from 1996? (another repeat of the sentiment).... you want 'partisan crap', Bush's science adviser Paul Ehrlich co-wrote 'ecoscience'.

These aren't the musings of some control freak... this was a scholarly justification of the hows and whys of population control.... Hell, even when Holdren was interviewed and asked about the book, he went and denied the allegations (which is probably that fact check you mentioned) MEANWHILE THE BOOK IN QUESTION WAS PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED!!!

So, specifically, am I discredited because he didn't write the book discussing such things? Is it because he 'didn't mean it'?? Is it because he changed his mind? Is it because you don't believe anyone could be that evil?



No, I am not taking any sort of partisan position (except where my positions naturally will fall in partisan lines)... I limited the mention to Holdren ONLY to show that this is still going on now... if you want I could go further back... to the papers come out in the 60's how hormones were being studied that would be added to vaccines that would sterilize SOME women and reduce fertility in others. Or even further back to the 20's where the studies were being done on monkeys testing the potentials of 'anti-hormones'...

or I could also point to people like Prince Charles who wrote in his book how if he reincarnates he wishes to be a deadly virus to help with overpopulation.... or looking at the Georgia Guidestones which declares that the world population should be maintained at a stable 500 million.

There's simply TOO MUCH information to cover in the 12000 character limits. So, even if you COULD prove to me that ehrlich and Holdren were somehow joking back in the mid-70's, again in the 80's and again in 1996, I could probably find another 5-10 examples of people in positions of power and influence discussing the need or their desire to reduce human population numbers, and how this is intricately tied to the 'environmentalist' agenda.

That said, I don't expect most people with valid concerns, since yes, humans ARE causing environmental problems through certain activites / industries, to grasp how they are being led to support a position with such diabolical (for lack of a better term) intentions backing it up.

Bottom line... I don't care where my 'credibility' stands... my preference is to have people look into the information and come to their own conclusions... since I know that any objective look into the information makes a pretty conclusive case that there are influential members of society that have a deep seeded belief that the world is over-populated and that there is a need for drastic reduction in human population. Most sources that specify will allude to a 'majority', but most common numbers are between 80-90% reduction, with some 'extreme' who believe humanity to be a parasite and should be COMPLETELY eliminated. "How great an honor it will be to be the last human on earth and to commit suicide so that there can be a great return of the wilderness of the earth."

I honestly WISH I was completely off base with all this.

I have read it, and you are doing more buying into Beck misinformation and disingenuous interpretation than honestly trying to understand what he wrote. Anf that is why you lose credibility and can't be taken seriously/

And while I commend people keeping an open mind and trying to gather information to make judgements, I don't see that from deniers. What I see is people doing the Bush drill, and starting with an answer they want, and trying to make information fit their precoceived answer. This is a poor way to problem solve. Mix that illogic with partisan garbage, beckish disingenuousness, and you have a pretty sad and silly position.
 

MCS117

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
121
Reaction score
27
Location
United States of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I have read it, and you are doing more buying into Beck misinformation and disingenuous interpretation than honestly trying to understand what he wrote. Anf that is why you lose credibility and can't be taken seriously/

And while I commend people keeping an open mind and trying to gather information to make judgements, I don't see that from deniers. What I see is people doing the Bush drill, and starting with an answer they want, and trying to make information fit their precoceived answer. This is a poor way to problem solve. Mix that illogic with partisan garbage, beckish disingenuousness, and you have a pretty sad and silly position.

I'm a denier, but I believe there is a better explanation for this. Considering how the Earth has to survive against volcanic activity, our CO2 output is probably that of a couple large volcano explosions. Earth has buffers in place to safeguard against large temperature changes just like our body regulate our temperatures. But I am not saying we should completely ignore the possibility of man-made CO2 as the culprit. I would like to see more research on that, but to force laws just on a hunch is enough to make me a denier for now because people are jumping on the bandwagon and making decisions that can break an economy or two in some countries.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm a denier, but I believe there is a better explanation for this. Considering how the Earth has to survive against volcanic activity, our CO2 output is probably that of a couple large volcano explosions. Earth has buffers in place to safeguard against large temperature changes just like our body regulate our temperatures. But I am not saying we should completely ignore the possibility of man-made CO2 as the culprit. I would like to see more research on that, but to force laws just on a hunch is enough to make me a denier for now because people are jumping on the bandwagon and making decisions that can break an economy or two in some countries.

I'm all for more research. But reasearch that never makes it to the making changes stage is kind of useless. At some point, research and information should inform our actions. Even if later proven wrong, prudent judgements based on the best information at the time is still better than simply putting off something until it is less likley to help. Remember the smoking debate? Deniers there had a huge impact on lives, and the industry was very successful in pretending there was doubt when there really wasn't. What was the cost?

It is not unreasonable to take the best information available and act accordingly.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have read it, and you are doing more buying into Beck misinformation and disingenuous interpretation than honestly trying to understand what he wrote. Anf that is why you lose credibility and can't be taken seriously

First, I heartily dislike Glen Beck, and I had no idea that he had even commented on the book... This particular book, in honesty, I first heard discussed listening to Alex Jones, after which I did manage to find the book in a local library, but never bothered to read the whole thing, just skimmed through certain pages to see that things quoted were accurate and in context...

Second, there's no NEED for interpretation... he says these things outright :
- Put sterilants into water supplies so that would-be parents could apply for the antidote to have children
- Forced abortions ARE constitutional (according to the author(s))
- with illigitimate children, the parents could be forced to go through adoption proceedings to be able to raise their own children

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet
Has all the page scans, and SOME of the quotes that I was aware of...

Here's the 1980's book he wrote... with some page scans and excerpts again :
John Holdren and Harrison Brown

And that is JUST ONE (1) example of an individual who TRULY BELIEVES in these eugenics / AGW / anti-human philosophies.

Beyond his 'job interview' for science czar, is there ANYTHING ELSE then his denial at that point that he has changed his views since then??

You don't HAVE to take my position seriously... I'm not forcing this down anyone's throats... but I would urge anyone who does think this is a joke to skim through the book itself...

That said.... how about we forget about Holdren's eugenicist dream... when there are SO MANY OTHER sources that are less contended that ALL say the same thing... Even the UN's agenda 21, then the 1996 biological diversity assessment (which alludes to the need for mass reduction in human population numbers)... and so on, and so on...
This isn't a new idea either... even Plato talked about the need back in his day to round up all the poor and stupid and kill them off for the betterment of the human species...

And while I commend people keeping an open mind and trying to gather information to make judgements, I don't see that from deniers. What I see is people doing the Bush drill, and starting with an answer they want, and trying to make information fit their precoceived answer. This is a poor way to problem solve. Mix that illogic with partisan garbage, beckish disingenuousness, and you have a pretty sad and silly position.

Yes... I agree. Do you honestly think that I somehow WANT to believe this is going on??? That, I'd rather be attempting to inform people about some of the people in power positions that just want to get rid of a majority of the worlds population to more 'manageable levels'... you know, instead of going out with my buds and drinking beer and picking up women or to watch the UFC matchup??? (I like doing those things too, minus the picking up women, my gf frowns on that somehow)... or to hear quotes from the likes of Warren Buffet who is all to happy to say, 'the only war is the class warfare between the rich and the poor, and it's US (the rich) that are winning' (to paraphrase).

Seriously, I would be ALL TOO HAPPY if we legitimately had a benevolent government that wanted to bring us into a 'new world order' that would raise humanity to the highest levels and then take us to the stars.... but almost everytime you scratch the surface of AGW alarmists, of high powered individuals, the super-wealth, the 'too big to fails', etc... IT IS ALL ABOUT control and depopulation so they can keep the earth and it's resources for themselves.

I WISH to be proven wrong. I would like nothing more then to think that everything is good, sadly more often then not, this is not the case.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm a denier, but I believe there is a better explanation for this. Considering how the Earth has to survive against volcanic activity, our CO2 output is probably that of a couple large volcano explosions. Earth has buffers in place to safeguard against large temperature changes just like our body regulate our temperatures. But I am not saying we should completely ignore the possibility of man-made CO2 as the culprit. I would like to see more research on that, but to force laws just on a hunch is enough to make me a denier for now because people are jumping on the bandwagon and making decisions that can break an economy or two in some countries.

Yes Earth has bufferes to deal with CO2 - they are called TREES and we are cutting them down at an unprecedented rate
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
First, I heartily dislike Glen Beck, and I had no idea that he had even commented on the book... This particular book, in honesty, I first heard discussed listening to Alex Jones, after which I did manage to find the book in a local library, but never bothered to read the whole thing, just skimmed through certain pages to see that things quoted were accurate and in context...

Second, there's no NEED for interpretation... he says these things outright :
- Put sterilants into water supplies so that would-be parents could apply for the antidote to have children
- Forced abortions ARE constitutional (according to the author(s))
- with illigitimate children, the parents could be forced to go through adoption proceedings to be able to raise their own children

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet
Has all the page scans, and SOME of the quotes that I was aware of...

Here's the 1980's book he wrote... with some page scans and excerpts again :
John Holdren and Harrison Brown

And that is JUST ONE (1) example of an individual who TRULY BELIEVES in these eugenics / AGW / anti-human philosophies.

Beyond his 'job interview' for science czar, is there ANYTHING ELSE then his denial at that point that he has changed his views since then??

You don't HAVE to take my position seriously... I'm not forcing this down anyone's throats... but I would urge anyone who does think this is a joke to skim through the book itself...

That said.... how about we forget about Holdren's eugenicist dream... when there are SO MANY OTHER sources that are less contended that ALL say the same thing... Even the UN's agenda 21, then the 1996 biological diversity assessment (which alludes to the need for mass reduction in human population numbers)... and so on, and so on...
This isn't a new idea either... even Plato talked about the need back in his day to round up all the poor and stupid and kill them off for the betterment of the human species...



Yes... I agree. Do you honestly think that I somehow WANT to believe this is going on??? That, I'd rather be attempting to inform people about some of the people in power positions that just want to get rid of a majority of the worlds population to more 'manageable levels'... you know, instead of going out with my buds and drinking beer and picking up women or to watch the UFC matchup??? (I like doing those things too, minus the picking up women, my gf frowns on that somehow)... or to hear quotes from the likes of Warren Buffet who is all to happy to say, 'the only war is the class warfare between the rich and the poor, and it's US (the rich) that are winning' (to paraphrase).

Seriously, I would be ALL TOO HAPPY if we legitimately had a benevolent government that wanted to bring us into a 'new world order' that would raise humanity to the highest levels and then take us to the stars.... but almost everytime you scratch the surface of AGW alarmists, of high powered individuals, the super-wealth, the 'too big to fails', etc... IT IS ALL ABOUT control and depopulation so they can keep the earth and it's resources for themselves.

I WISH to be proven wrong. I would like nothing more then to think that everything is good, sadly more often then not, this is not the case.

Still a dishonest reading of Holdren above. Try checking out the facts:

But in seeking to score points for a political argument, Beck seriously mischaracterizes Holdren's positions. Holdren didn't advocate those ideas then. And, when asked at a Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he did not support them now. We think it's irresponsible to pluck a few lines from a 1,000-page, 30-year-old textbook, and then present them out of context to dismiss Holdren's long and distinguished career. And we rate Beck's claim Pants on Fire!

PolitiFact | Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population

So whether you Listen to Beck or not, your ideas parot his, and they are factually inaccurate.

And no one is arguning the government is benevolent. But that doesn't mean that all things are ignored because you or we or anyone distrusts government. It is the science that is important here, and we should expect leaders to act on the best information. And the best information supports man playing a role, an important role in GW.
 

Utility Man

Sidewalk Inspector
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
8,062
Reaction score
9,896
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Seems like when the power goes out in certain parts of Texas the place becomes unstable. At least when the power goes out here I can still go outside and enjoy the weather.

I guess this is the most suitable place to leave these links:
Power outages cause air quality concerns in Texas City - Houston going green | Examiner.com

Texas City emergency lifted as power comes back - MarketWatch

The shelter-in-place warning has been lifted" at around noon, said Bruce Clawson, Texas City's director of emergency management. The measure, which asked residents to stay indoors and turn off their air conditioners, was initially enacted late Monday as power outages caused disruptions at several of the area's refining and petrochemical facilities, including a brief fire at a large refinery owned by BP PLC (BP, BP.LN). Texas City, an industrial suburb of Houston, contains one of the largest concentrations of refineries and petrochemical facilities in the world.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Texas - a healthy environment is not that important. Is this supposed to be a surprise to anyone?
 

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
94,224
Reaction score
32,159
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Not sure it is the best solution,and am not arguing it is. But the thinking is that if they have to pay, they seek other means, thus not havin to pay. It isn't rocket science, and it is a bit disingenuous to act as if the no one understands the reasoning. now, you may argue it won't work. And I might agree. But let's not pretend we don;t see the thinking behind it.

It's bull**** and you know it. It's a way for Al Gore to make money, and that's all it is. To pretend otherwise is think that paying money cleans the air. Carbon credits is a scam.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's bull**** and you know it. It's a way for Al Gore to make money, and that's all it is. To pretend otherwise is think that paying money cleans the air. Carbon credits is a scam.

Speaking of Bull ****, have you read what you wrote? :coffeepap
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Catawaba, completely lying, shocking? Not at all.

Oh really?

TEXAS: "Not only is Texas the biggest polluter in the country but it isn’t complying with federal air quality standards. Texas leads the nation in carbon dioxide emissions, and in 2008, Houston was ranked the fourth worst city for ozone. Texas has not been in compliance with federal air quality standards since 1994, when the state submitted a system of issuing flexible air pollution limits to the EPA — which allowed for a portion of a refinery or chemical plant to emit more pollutants than federal standards authorize as long as the total emissions did not infringe on federal air quality standards. In June 2010, the EPA published its “disapproval” of Texas’ air quality standards, stating that the Texas program “does not meet several national Clean Air Act requirements that help to assure the protection of health and the environment.” Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) and state Republicans responded by filing a lawsuit that challenges the EPA’s ruling. Texas Department of Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples also pushed back against the EPA’s decision, saying, “ltimately, in this process, it is the consumer, American families, that will be picking up the tab for” stronger air quality enforcement. Gina McCarthy, the EPA’s top air official, responded to the agency’s critics, citing that “enforcement of the Clean Air Act has saved lives and allowed the economy to grow.” In fact, the EPA just released a study which concluded that the Clean Air Act will “prevent 230,000 premature deaths and result in $2 trillion in economic benefits in 2020.”
GOP Vote Against Fighting Climate Change Latest Move In History Of Environmental Extremism | Tufts Democrats

Myth No. 1: The only reason why EPA has objected to the Texas “flexible permits” is because President Obama is “punitive” against “big, red” Texas.

The Facts: EPA has raised concerns about the illegality of the Texas flexible permitting programs since 1994. The Bush Administration in 2006 and 2008 wrote letters saying that the Texas program did not meet the legal standard of the Clean Air Act. This is not a new complaint by EPA and it is not political. The only people playing politics are Texas officials who are misrepresenting the facts.


Myth No. 2: The Texas flexible permit program has resulted in large emission reductions.

The Facts: The improvement in air quality is due to factors other than the flex permitting program, mainly national clean air protections and EPA enforcement actions.


Myth No. 3: Flexible Permits are legal and just as good at protecting the public as the permits in other states.

The Facts: The flexible permits are unenforceable, don’t protect public health, and have far higher emission rates of pollution than at facilities in other states with enforceable, transparent, legally compliant permits limiting air pollution discharges.


Myth No. 4: The disapproval of Texas’s unique “flexible" permitting program is costing jobs.

The Facts: This is now much ado about nothing, because almost all of the companies with flex permits have come forward with proposals that will result in them having legal and better permits within the year.


Lie No. 1: EPA is picking on poor little ol’ Texas.

The Truth: Texas is an outlier among all the states. Texas alone decided not to modify its permitting program to comply with the law.


Lie No. 2: EPA is acting unilaterally and without Congressional authorization.

The Truth: EPA is enforcing the Clean Air Act as written, and as interpreted by the Supreme Court. It is not that EPA is engaging in its own discretionary program – it has acted pursuant to mandatory CAA requirements that EPA regulate where, as here, a pollutant endangers the public.


Lie No. 3: Texas has a legitimate lawsuit concerning the endangerment finding that is aimed at protecting Texans.

The Truth: The Texas lawsuit was filed at the behest of industry lawyers, the state is represented by a Yankee lawyer whose firm represents Exxon among other polluters, and the claims are based on faulty legal and factual basis.


Lie No. 4: Texas industries just can’t comply with the greenhouse gas regulations.

The Truth: Many Texas industries are going beyond the minimum requirements of EPA’s rules. Officials are selling Texas' businesses short.


Lie No. 5: The EPA GHG regulations put Texas at a terrible competitive disadvantage.

The Truth: Texas has natural resources that mean it can be a big winner with greenhouse gas regulations, IF we have forward thinking leaders.
Texas Clean Air Matters » Texas Flex Permitting Lies and Myths - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Fund
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
92,877
Reaction score
45,635
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's really funny that conservatives suddenly decided emissions trading was socialism/bad/harms America the second a Democrat took office. It was their idea in the first place. You know who implemented the first cap and trade system in America?

Reagan.

It was for lead content in gasoline. The GOP at the time boasted that it was "unleashing the power of the free market." And that it would do the job faster and more efficiently than the Democrats' "command and control" proposal. And you know what? They were right. Lead ended up out of gasoline faster and cheaper than the estimated costs for the Democrats proposal. Well done, GOP.

Bush Sr. implemented a cap and trade system dealing with acid rain pollutants like sulfur dioxide. Notice how people don't freak out about acid rain so much these days? That's because those emissions have decreased substantially. Bush Jr. expanded on that system and further reduced those emissions.

But now it's a Democrat in office and suddenly everyone has forgotten that Cap and Trade is a Republican idea implemented as a free-market approach to what they used to say was a real problem. In addition to Presidents Reagan and Bushes, other GOP names that have historically supported cap and trade specifically for carbon emissions:

Newt Gingrich
Tim Pawlenty
Mike Huckabee
Sarah Palin
John McCain

All of these people became against Cap and Trade the second it became politically expedient to do so.
 

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
24,154
Reaction score
17,806
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
LOL - at first when I saw this thread from the main forum it looked like "Texas fights global warming." Then I was like "wait...that doesn't sound right."
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I happened on this and found it interesting. I wonder if it will ever go anywhere? It seems to good too be true. Maybe it's a hoax? If not, why aren't we on it?

Texas firm harnesses carbon dioxide to extract oil from abandoned fields | NOLA.com
At a time when many companies are focused on minimizing production of carbon dioxide, a major culprit in global warming, Denbury Resources is all about producing more of it.
The Plano, Texas, company extracts carbon dioxide from a giant underground deposit in Mississippi and uses the gas to draw more oil from abandoned fields. Denbury also sells the CO2 to companies that create carbonated beverages, make dry ice, load fire extinguishers and freeze pieces of chicken.
In trapping and using carbon dioxide that might otherwise be released into the atmosphere, Denbury has become a poster child of sorts for business groups that believe Louisiana should combine aggressive drilling for oil and gas with technologies that capture the carbon released by refineries and major consumers of fossil fuels.

Looking ahead to the day when its naturally occurring carbon dioxide supply at the Jackson Dome is exhausted, Denbury is building a 320-mile carbon dioxide pipeline -- the so-called green pipeline -- across Louisiana so it can buy more of the gas from the state's ubiquitous refineries, chemical plants, utilities and future gasification projects

Bob Cornelius, senior vice president of operations at Denbury, admits he gets some funny reactions when he tells people that he sees value in carbon dioxide. While it may seem perverse, he said it is a good business to be in at a time when the cost of fuel is at a premium and companies are looking for ways to sequester their carbon dioxide emissions.

"We can do a lot of good things at once: We can help the environment, produce more oil and gas, produce more jobs and more energy security," he said.
 

winston53660

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
29,262
Reaction score
10,125
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LOL - at first when I saw this thread from the main forum it looked like "Texas fights global warming." Then I was like "wait...that doesn't sound right."


We'd have to give up beans and jalapenos!!!

And you'd have pry those from my cold dead hands!!!

erinsTXflag.gif
 
Top Bottom