It is hard to capture organic methane (i.e cow farts) as it is hard to capture the exhaust pipe of every cow. Also there are huge deposits of crystallized methane on the ocean bottoms that has not been released, but may well be soon if it gets a little warmer, and is a concern for the Gulf of Mexico and Western Atlantic. On top of all that is the great northern bogs of Russian and Alaska/Canada, where the permafrost is melting and they are releasing a large volume of methane, that will be increasing. There is enough sources of it that a viable removal device would seem to be something important. They just focus on the knee jerk thing of the moment, and this moment it is coal.

I think that Methane could be a useful product. Since most of the time it's burnt off from wellheads why not find an inexpensive way of scrubbing it and sell it. Right now I have Propane for heating and cooking Mehtane would be alot cheaper. In some area's of Africa that Indain Engineers are working to help communities use methane generation for cooking and purifying water. So, Obama isn't thinking right for all his intelligence he is stupid.

That too.
Food stamps and Demonstrations.

Thanks for the info. These appear to all be propaganda from progressive leaning organizations. There have been a few cases in our area where a major storm caused farm runoff to kill fish but this is a very limited problem and short lived. I'm certain it is the same all over America. If this was a major problem lakes would be hurt the most and these fisheries are producing like never before.

I believe these organizations are doing just as you say, trying to scare people into believing there is a fertilizer problem. Just like the 90% of CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere is naturally generated, I'm certain that 90% of the nutrients washed into the water system are naturally occurring. A law passed in Wisconsin to reduce phosphorus is costing taxpayers millions of dollars and there has been no change to the problems that people were complaining about, which was algae growth in the popular boating/swimming lakes. These people don't like dealing with weeds but fish like the oxygen producing plants for many reasons.

Of course there is much more to this but I believe these organizations are leading people down the wrong path.

Bread and Circuses.

Indeed, it should not even be a tax, that implies government intervention. Do a rational job of mitigation and engineer it well, and usually the cost can be absorbed in the basic cost of business. Intel does not raise prices to install water treatment systems, they do it as part of doing business.

Ed, here are some reference articles illustrating the issue:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/nu...

http://science.time.com/2013/06/19/th...

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/...

Do not let your frustration with the politicizing of an issue blind you to what data is available. That is their way of getting the sheeple to comply, you tell the "X is going to kill you next week", they panic, and elect those who will say they will save them. That does not change the fact there is indeed a well documented issue with fertilizer and it's impact. There are several initiatives that are trying to address it, such as fertilizers that will bond to organic molecules in the soil making them much harder to wash out. It is a real issue but not one that should be escalated to DefCon 1. A rational government would identify the issue as such and try to get people to voluntarily address it. The engineering skill of America is rarely engaged by the political machines, it seems to be too much effort for them.

I might drink what we produce, but the moment it hits the river, nope. There are a lot more things going into it. But John Campbell is correct, living with the results tends to spur a lot more engagement than not. legislating it is probably way below that in efficiency.

There are some industries that really do try to follow the Hippocratic Oath "Do no harm". Some do it because it is politically correct, some because they think it is cheaper and better PR for them, and some just because engineering it in is cheaper than fines later. Even the common household has this issue, how much undegradeable garbage does each house send to the dump per week? That doesn't make it wrong, it is what it is.Can we do better? Sure, but having the Obamanation pick his target of the month is not going to do it. It is a cultural thing, not something that can be legislated. The coal issue has been around for decades, coal produces a significant amount of mercury and has denuded the mountain tops of the northeast. Removing it is expensive, if retrofitted, but not nearly as much on a new installation. If you want to legislate, then make it cost effective for a company to re-engineer. Just dictating it is not going to get nearly as much done. But the Obamanation follows the Imperial model of government, apparently he is beyond trying to persuade anyone since he is invariably insane sounding.

Before you add a big tax to our economy in the interest of doing something, tell me exactly how much benefit we are going to get. Don't bother doing something if it will have no identifiable effect.

Exactly. That is the bottom line, and the politicians hijack the various issues, manipulate them, and leave it in worse condition than they found it, with all the hype and fabrications. That was what happened the the Gore monster took it off, made a bunch of money and then faded into the woodwork to use all his ill gotten goods to add enough CO2 for a couple hundred people. As far as nitrogen and sulfur compounds, I have watched the subject for several years now, as more connections are made between things like red tides and fish kills is collected. Science should be left to independent scientists and organizations, but you still have the political and money connections to taint the observations and conclusions.

Hey DBHalling I was wondering if you were referring to ecologist you see when I was growing up in the 70s they were the trusted voices and got pushed out by the environmentalist because the ecologist where testing the truth which they did not like! Richard.

No argument pirate, my issue is that it always specific and targeted. Farmer Y gets a visit from EPA for cow gas, and Farmer X does not. Farmer Y is a member of the opposite party. That is seen a lot at local level. Many of these jihads are against a specific industry, which while it may be making a nasty mess, and should be done better, is overshadowed by the next guy. I do not see the Obamanation giving up any of his luxuries in an effort to "comply".

I agree with your position. It reminds me a lot of what I run into with Native Americans I know, they drive cars, have casinos, and put on showws to "protect their heritage". When I ask them if all that is not against their basic tenants for life, they tell me they have move on past that. Yet the origninal tenants of many of the tribes was something to be admired and respected. Self interest impedes self evaluation apparently.

hear hear

+1. I agree. The goal is to have us live as Luddites with a greatly reduced population. Their goal is evil and anti man.

That is not environmentalism Environmentalism is the philosophical or religious concept that every living organism is good except man.

These are interesting sites.

My takeaway impression is that so much of the projection of what is or is not happening is dependent on the models. Models of incredibly complex interactions. But the IPCC models are notoriously suspect for deliberate gerrymandering of predictive results. They have tried to demonstrate rapid warming of climates and oceans, constantly citing that this last year is the hottest ever, and then this is all contradicted by satellite data that shows no warming for almost 20 years.

The other thing that surprises me is that climate change politics focuses on carbon and carbon dioxide and not the role of increased nitrogen and sulfur also because of alleged anthropogenic sources. The first article really focuses on the role these elements and compounds have on ocean acidity.

A search on coral reef die offs returns a lot of contradictory articles. Many say that coral reef die offs are due to El Nino events warming ocean temperatures. But El Nino has always been around and the non El Nino years would have the opposite effect. And back to the complex models we go with some having dire predictions that coral reefs will be completely gone by 2100. Sounds familiar. The ice caps were supposed to have been gone by now, but have actually been increasing.

Politics and science don't mix well.

John Campbell once suggested that the Executives of such companies should have to live downstream of their plants. At some random time, a press conference could be called and the Execs and their families would have to go down to the river and dip up glasses of water - and drink them.

Jan

I am trying in my brain to phrase some sort of a rule (this is for a Perfect World scenario, not for our present reality) that would require entities (people or companies) to be responsible for their 'output'. This means 'for anything that crosses the border of their land', including visual and audible output.

While this hypothetical rule would be aimed at 'no dumping of waste' it would include 'the guy playing music too loudly' and 'the person who paints their house with pornography'. Mind you - playing music loudly and painting whatever you like wherever you like is your right, but if the 'stuff' constitutes 'output' into the environment, then it involves other folks too.

I appreciate your phrase "...impacts other with their activity...".

Jan

Polution and CO2 are 2 different things. I've studied the (non existent)GW issues but not the things that profchuck brought up and I'm interested in the data that supports the info.

As for the things about farmland and compounds that wash into rivers, it is possible that it could happen on a limited basis but I don't buy it on a regular basis. Not in America. Farmers are business people and they would not make money long term if they are washing things down the river or over farming the land. I believe that is mostly environmental propaganda very similar to the climate change garbage.

Indeed, it should not be something so cavalierly done, and I am sure it will impact a bunch of ranchers, who they will then jail when they try to fight back. Idiots. Any such decisions belong to Congress where it should be a lot harder, not easier.

Jan, that is generrally the rule. I wok in a chip plant, and the water we use (which is a lot) gets all kinds of stuff in it. We are required to return the water to the river system in the same condition, or better, than we get it. The issue is that it is expensive, and the monitoring is easily corrupted if you really want. My company has decided open information is cheaper than lawsuits and fines when caught. Your premise is correct, it is supposed to be the foundation of clean water law.

ok, I wasn't sure if that was what you meant. Thanks.

Agree....ideology just screws up all the possibilities.