Jump to content
I find myself in a position on this subject that I don't hear expressed often, one that is largely embracing of both supposedly irreconcilable viewpoints.
I think it is important to develop energy sources that do not depend on combustion of fossil fuels, and the reasons why are far more diverse than the effect of CO2 on global climate. But it is clear that most such technologies are relatively in their infancy compared to simple carbon combustion applications. Even nuclear has only a half century of track history, and we apparently do not use the fuels as efficiently as prudence demands, to reduce the quantity and potency of the byproduct.
Because we have not yet accomplished the necessary levels of efficiency, most alternatives are very expensive by comparison, so much so that they cannot be utilized without subsidies, and cannot in the foreseeable future replace fossil fuels on a large scale.
Since the costs of energy in our society is such a large fraction of the economy, an increase in energy cost is very damaging. So if we are using a multiple source system and wish to use more of the expensive sources, we should logically strive to reduce the cost of the inexpensive ones. This is being accomplished with the recent advances in natural gas production, and improvements is other conventional fuels uses.
But we seem to be perusing a policy that hinders these improvements in conventional fuels. Instead, we should expand them and simply utilize a portion of the savings from these improved processes to invest in research and development of alternatives. Eventually we'll get the new ones right.
While I have been active in promoting efficiencies in energy use and implementation of practical alternatives, I have not studied the matter in such depth that I understand why some paths remain less traveled. Perhaps some other contributors to this forum could help enlighten me.
Storage and transfer of wind and solar generated electricity can be addressed by converting the electricity to hydrogen. This can be stored in tanks, transported by pipeline, burned cleanly with existing combustion technologies, and mixed in with methane. It seems such a logical alternative. Does anyone know why it is not more actively persued?
Biological conversion of CO2. Over the eons, a vast amount of CO2 has been converted into a very stable form, CaCO3, or limestone. Since we can easily produce concentrations of CO2, can we use it as a source of nurture to those organisms, and harvest other benefits such as food stocks or bio fuels at the same time? For that matter, will these same organisms in the oceans expand their activity significantly due to an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels? How many other potentials are there for utilization of CO2?
That's all I have time for now, thanks for listening. If someone has good information on these questions I would like to hear it.
God is Love.
Scott, the court case is not by the business owner, it is against him.
And the validity of my HC parking permit has been substantiated, that is exactly what it is for, to remove any doubt as to its users claim of legal privilege. It is just what is needed for Mr. Metezr and others with his affliction. This incident would never have happened if it was already thus.
Brian, you are seeing my responses differently than I had intended them if those are your conclusions. I have made absolutely no suggestion that Mr. Metzger is not legally qualified to take advantage of the provisions of the ADA, just as I am allowed to as demonstrated by the handicapped logo in my windshield.
I do think, in all fairness, one would have some understanding of a business owners frustration with a law that allows people to violate his policies and have fees waived without proving that they are legally entitled to that exemption.
Your point about laws and law breakers is hardly pertinent. Of course we are a nation of laws, we are not angels. But you will not need to look deeply into our massive legal code to find bad laws, wrong laws, and even illegal laws. The correction of these flaws in our legal system does not seem a high priority of the lawmakers.
But just as we need laws because we are not angels, we need proofs of applicability because we are not angels. My handicapped parking card, the license that allows you to drive, your vehicle insurance card, Peter's license to collect taxes, the ID one shows at the liquor store, our certifications are in evidence or required to be produced routinely. Claiming exemption from a law without having to demonstrate proof is virtually unheard of.
Peter is hardly one who would be considered a sympathetic figure. However if one knew the nature of the struggles he, like many business owners, has had with burdensome regulation and even targeted bureaucratic harassment there might be some understanding.
And lest we forget, the message from the founders of our Federal government is that the beast will grow and consume our liberties if not kept in check, that it is our right, nay our duty to resist.
This is probably not the case that will go to the Supreme court, and with a cantankerous old fleabag operator vs a decorated war veteran it would be a little inclined to prejudice. But some case probably will be heard and thenceforth persons claiming Mr, Metzgers exemption will be issued certifications. That will not give Peter more that a moral victory, he apparently broke the law as it exists today. He may only hope that the obscurity of the law and it's exceptional nature will incline the Judge to leniency.
Everybody has it right, these guns and magazines are designed to give the ability to attack or defend against numerous well armed foes. Am I the only one who can conceive that may become an important ability to have?
The structure holding the social order in place is stretched thin, the ability of the police to protect individuals from harm is limited. i believe the second amendment is a guarantee of the right to the means for effective self defense. And if you have a couple or more of gun packing bad guys coming into your home, these weapons would be just what you need.
Brian, I don't have any evidence nor am I alleging abuse, nor setting anyone straight. I'm just saying the way this law is written it can easily be abused. And that many provisions of the ADA are great examples of the federal government over reaching its authority.
It dos not need to be rampant, nor involve only low rent motels. Apparently you can check into any hotel, motel, B&B or whatever and claim you need your dog as it has been trained to assist you. The proprietor must then waive fees and deposits (and prohibitions) and may not ask for any kind of proof. The only reason abuse is not rampant is that these provisions are largely unknown.
From the link Matthew provided:
"Service animals are defined as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. "
(Individual training is not defined therein)
"When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task."
(No proof is required, nor can it be asked for!)
The regulations go on to stipulate no deposits of fees applicable to pets can be charged. This certainly seems to set up great potential for abuse of the exemption. I would assume in the all encompassing reach of federal regulations there are penalties prescribed for persons who claim disabilities without medical certification of whose dogs individual training does not meet a certain standard. Maybe.
As disturbed as I am about this type of regulation, I am more offended by a remark such as "Perhaps it's time to push people like him out!"
Tell me Lauren, who chooses who gets pushed out? And who does the pushing?
( Maybe we have the City buy an old motel?)
Whether Peter is an amiable person or not really misses the larger point. Can a person bring a dog into establishments that forbid them because they have a need for its companionship as therapy? If so, I want to bring mine.
What exactly are the parameters for determining this disability? In the case of guide dogs for the blind it is very clear, the person is greatly enhanced in functionality with the constant assistance from the animal. Is the threshold for PTSD that the person becomes just uneasy, or severely dysfunctional without the dog?
I support making public properties disabled accessible to a reasonable degree. But if we pursue this course too far we should build sidewalks in the wilderness areas and allow Segways and motorized wheelchairs there. That would benefit me, I was injured so badly I now have a handicapped parking permit. But I simply accept that there are places I can no longer go.
There is a suite of offices on the second level of the Sundance Plaza with no elevator. The stairs are long with no mid level landing, it is a challenge to me. It is impossible for one who is wheelchair bound. Should they be required to install an elevator?
I believe that an owner of a private property should not be compelled to create accommodations for all levels of disability as a condition of being open to the public. That is especially importance the definition of disability is continuing to expanded beyond reason.
Breathing in is not yet regulated but be careful about exhaling, carbon dioxide is a pollutant!
That quote did not paste right.
A gunman without a gun is not a gunman.
But a killer without a gun is still a killer.
If there are no guns, mass murders will be committed with homemade pipe bombs, with poisonous compounds, with motor vehicles on the sidewalks. Human ingenuity knows no bounds.
Last login: Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.