PDA

View Full Version : Cap and Trade in Spain: 2.2 jobs lost for every green job created



Stizzel
06-29-2009, 11:12 AM
Looks like Obama's ideas for economic recovery have already been tried.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062403012.html

Of course Spain is not America, which is why we'll likely see worse numbers here.

Spetsnazos
06-29-2009, 11:14 AM
what does cap and trade mean??

adam005
06-29-2009, 11:20 AM
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+Cap+and+Trade

amtharin
06-29-2009, 11:22 AM
This will create a trade for carbon credits, so now carbon will be traded in similar fashion to gas futures. That's worked out well.

Spetsnazos
06-29-2009, 11:23 AM
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+Cap+and+Trade


Emissions trading (or emission trading) is an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. It is sometimes called cap and trade.

Looks like a good idea to me, whats the problem??

amtharin
06-29-2009, 11:23 AM
where have you been living?

USSR (aka the past)

Spetsnazos
06-29-2009, 11:25 AM
I guess I can see hwo this can limit some companies in their production but why would you want ****ty air quality and other pollution that goes with carbon emissions??

amtharin
06-29-2009, 11:27 AM
I guess I can see hwo this can limit some companies in their production but why would you want ****ty air quality and other pollution that goes with carbon emissions??


Polution is caused by a lot of stuff other than CO2. In fact CO2 do very little in terms of affecting the environment.

haulingboat
06-29-2009, 11:28 AM
what does cap and trade mean??


The idea is that companies have a cap on the amount of emmisions they can produce. The government sells "credits" to companies dictating how much that particular company is allowed to emit. The company is allowed to trade or purchase unused credits from other companies, hence the name.

The reality is, it's an additional expense the companies will have to bear and a tax that the government will collect. Essentially, all power plants, refineries, and manufacturing facilities will send money to the government in exchange for their permission to release emmisions.

There has been no clear explanation as to how the government will use the money it collects. Manufacturers, power plants, and refineries will pass along the added expense to us consumers to the tune of approximately $1200-$1400 a year, according to some.

That's right. $1200 extra for the same fuel, electricity, and goods we now buy.

Many predict that refineries (etc) will close down US operations and move over seas where they do not have to buy said "credits."

This has the potential to be a death blow to American industry.

BTW: Al Gore happens to own a company that sells carbon credits. Think he stands to profit from the global warm scare he preaches and cap and trade?

Stizzel
06-29-2009, 11:29 AM
I guess I can see hwo this can limit some companies in their production but why would you want ****ty air quality and other pollution that goes with carbon emissions??

Don't be a hippy

Spetsnazos
06-29-2009, 11:34 AM
The idea is that companies have a cap on the amount of emmisions they can produce. The government sells "credits" to companies dictating how much that particular company is allowed to emit. The company is allowed to trade or purchase unused credits from other companies, hence the name.

The reality is, it's an additional expense the companies will have to bear and a tax that the government will collect. Essentially, all power plants, refineries, and manufacturing facilities will send money to the government in exchange for their permission to release emmisions.

There has been no clear explanation as to how the government will use the money it collects. Manufacturers, power plants, and refineries will pass along the added expense to us consumers to the tune of approximately $1200-$1400 a year, according to some.

That's right. $1200 extra for the same fuel, electricity, and goods we now buy.

Many predict that refineries (etc) will close down US operations and move over seas where they do not have to buy said "credits."

This has the potential to be a death blow to American industry.

BTW: Al Gore happens to own a company that sells carbon credits. Think he stands to profit from the global warm scare he preaches and cap and trade?

sounds like a terrible idea...They should just monitor the pollution that some companies produce and slap fines if they dont reduce pollutions

Pay_Me
06-29-2009, 11:38 AM
sounds like a terrible idea...They should just monitor the pollution that some companies produce and slap fines if they dont reduce pollutions

Wall Street doesn't get its cut then.

Spetsnazos
06-29-2009, 11:40 AM
Wall Street doesn't get its cut then.

Id rather not let air pollution get out of hand like it is in China. I remember reading reports of athletes refusing to go to the Beijing Olympics because of the TERRIBLE air quality

War Machine
06-29-2009, 11:41 AM
You know....you would think someone would look at Spain...then Michigan...then California...see the effects of some of these leftist/socialist policies, and go "maybe it's not such a good idea"

haulingboat
06-29-2009, 11:43 AM
sounds like a terrible idea...They should just monitor the pollution that some companies produce and slap fines if they dont reduce pollutions

According to many of my clients their companies are already meeting the said emmission standards, assuming they don't change. So basically they will be sending money to Uncle Sam to continue doing exactly what they are doing now.

It is an incredibly bad idea.

Hopefully the Senate will knock it down.

tts0lid
06-29-2009, 12:00 PM
According to many of my clients their companies are already meeting the said emmission standards, assuming they don't change. So basically they will be sending money to Uncle Sam to continue doing exactly what they are doing now.

It is an incredibly bad idea.

Hopefully the Senate will knock it down.

If they are beating the emissions standards they can sell off the additional credits to other companies that aren't.. it's an additional source of revenue for companies that are already efficient.

tts0lid
06-29-2009, 12:08 PM
The idea is that companies have a cap on the amount of emmisions they can produce. The government sells "credits" to companies dictating how much that particular company is allowed to emit. The company is allowed to trade or purchase unused credits from other companies, hence the name.

The reality is, it's an additional expense the companies will have to bear and a tax that the government will collect. Essentially, all power plants, refineries, and manufacturing facilities will send money to the government in exchange for their permission to release emmisions.

There has been no clear explanation as to how the government will use the money it collects. Manufacturers, power plants, and refineries will pass along the added expense to us consumers to the tune of approximately $1200-$1400 a year, according to some.

That's right. $1200 extra for the same fuel, electricity, and goods we now buy.

Many predict that refineries (etc) will close down US operations and move over seas where they do not have to buy said "credits."

This has the potential to be a death blow to American industry.

BTW: Al Gore happens to own a company that sells carbon credits. Think he stands to profit from the global warm scare he preaches and cap and trade?

The government doesn't "sell" anything... It's just a limit on the carbon allowed, and if the companies don't meet those limits, they have to pay fines. But instead of just a normal limit/fine system, if another company is beating the limits, they can sell the excess to companies that aren't.

It's supposed to create competition for companies to become "greener." And it's supposed to give incentive for good companies to go beyond just the legal limit for emissions...

Vitalshok44
06-29-2009, 12:20 PM
If they are beating the emissions standards they can sell off the additional credits to other companies that aren't.. it's an additional source of revenue for companies that are already efficient.

at all it does is create a fake environmental system that lets companies actually pollute more.


The government doesn't "sell" anything... It's just a limit on the carbon allowed, and if the companies don't meet those limits, they have to pay fines. But instead of just a normal limit/fine system, if another company is beating the limits, they can sell the excess to companies that aren't.

It's supposed to create competition for companies to become "greener." And it's supposed to give incentive for good companies to go beyond just the legal limit for emissions...

lol it does no such thing, all it means is that companies that are already meeting the requirement now have a fake environmentalist Ponzi scheme device to sell to other companies.

Where's the reduction in pollution?

ZenBowman
06-29-2009, 12:25 PM
Cap&trade FTL. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Morbid_Mind
06-29-2009, 12:28 PM
A net loss of jobs is fine. We need to be GREEN :mad:

**** your GDP, I want to be GREEN

http://www1.ibdcd.com/image/ISS0626_2090625_310.png


"(T)he goal of the Waxman-Markey bill - would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius."


"Inflation-adjusted gasoline prices would rise 74%, residential natural gas prices by 55% and the average family's annual energy bill by $1,500.

Hit hardest by all this would be the "95% of working families" Obama keeps mentioning as being protected from increased taxation. They are protected, that is, unless they use energy."


An analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation projects that by 2035 it would reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. In an average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=480654

GREEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ElMariachi
06-29-2009, 12:41 PM
Yep, we'll lose over a million regular jobs to create 15,000 green jobs, most of which aren't "green" jobs but rather pencil-pushing administrative positions. Europe has proven these policies to be a failure, why the US insists on following along is completely based on increasing government control and power.

MrGuitar
06-29-2009, 12:44 PM
Obama's model for America:

-Increased unemployement
-Higher taxes
-More entitlement programs and dependability upon the federal governement
-"Crowding out" private sector investment
-Public sector growth
-Incresed deficit spending
-Higher costs
-"Leveling the playing-field" (subsidizing the non-productive while penalizing the productive)

Cap and trade is just another action plan set in place to achieve the objectives above.

MISTERDUDE
06-29-2009, 12:47 PM
Strong thread (serious). Nice to see actual info vs. just flamebaits on this topic.


Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report that, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.

Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain's economy.


^^^^ I think this just restates the obvious: Greener policies will need to make economic sense before they are implemented. You can do things to move it along, but you can't just throw money at this situation and expect it to fix itself. Progress takes time, and IMO green technology is moving along very quick WITHOUT the gov't saying "we're going to work against anything we don't deem GREEN ENOUGH."

ElMariachi
06-29-2009, 12:55 PM
Forcing the creation of green jobs would be the equivalent of all horse-led buggies being taken off the roads due to the creation of the automobile, 30 years before the automobile came into existence. We're forcefully trying to create jobs based on technology that either doesn't exist or is currently cost-prohibitive.

TheStender
06-29-2009, 12:57 PM
Even if this was the single greatest thing ever...what exactly was the need to pass this RIGHT NOW?

Spetsnazos
06-29-2009, 01:05 PM
Even if this was the single greatest thing ever...what exactly was the need to pass this RIGHT NOW?

why not?

and if not now, when?

amtharin
06-29-2009, 01:05 PM
Forcing the creation of green jobs would be the equivalent of all horse-led buggies being taken off the roads due to the creation of the automobile, 30 years before the automobile came into existence. We're forcefully trying to create jobs based on technology that either doesn't exist or is currently cost-prohibitive.


This. The government cannot dictate new technology.

Spetsnazos
06-29-2009, 01:06 PM
The government cannot dictate new technology.

the development of nuclear power was all done by the private sector...amirite?

jack90
06-29-2009, 01:10 PM
his plan must be to destroy as many jobs as possible so more people will back his social programs as they can no longer take care of themselves

MrGuitar
06-29-2009, 01:10 PM
Inequity Stain On Socialist Government

The free health care lifts a huge burden from the unemployed. But Spain's socialist government has come under intense criticism for the country's high unemployment rate and the inequity in benefits. The government is under pressure to reduce the high cost of firing workers so that companies will be more inclined to hire them.

But Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was defiant at a recent political rally. He enjoys support from Spain's major unions, whose membership is mostly made up of workers with contracts.

"There will be neither reforms to facilitate layoffs nor reductions in social expenditures, because I won't be blackmailed by anybody," he said.

With obama's entitlement programs and his push to unionize America, you'll soon be able to insert "America" for "Spain" in the quote above.

tts0lid
06-29-2009, 01:10 PM
the development of nuclear power was all done by the private sector...amirite?

same thing with satellite technology, aviation technology, large chunks of modern medicine (through public universities), internet technologies, etc...

amtharin
06-29-2009, 01:12 PM
same thing with satellite technology, aviation technology, large chunks of modern medicine (through public universities), internet technologies, etc...

They can make favorable conditions, but they cant dictate.

TheStender
06-29-2009, 01:14 PM
why not?

and if not now, when?

Maybe after the members could actually...I don't know...read it? There were people voting for it who admitted they hadn't read a page of it.

But of course, that's probably common for a lot of things they pass.

Spetsnazos
06-29-2009, 01:21 PM
But of course, that's probably common for a lot of things they pass.

I heard from a local congressman that its rare for them to actually read what they pass...

American politics, working as intended!

Stizzel
06-29-2009, 02:45 PM
I heard from a local congressman that its rare for them to actually read what they pass...

American politics, working as intended!

Ha!

In this case they're not ALLOWED to read it until they actually vote on it! So unless they can read 1,300 pages (up from 200) in the hour they're given to vote, they don't even know what they're voting for.

Hell, sometimes bills are changed after they're voted on. Who cares, right? No one read it anyway, so what difference does it make?

Meanwhile Bernake is threatening financial terrorism because the house had the audacity to pass a bill claiming its not subservient to the Federal Reserve and all the media can talk about is some ****phile pop singer dieing.

Thats American politics - corporatism. Washington does what these bankers tell them. The federal government is just a receivership entity acting on their behalf. This cap and trade BS has nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with profit and serfdom.

Are you ready to have everything in your house evaluated for its carbon efficiency? Another little tidbit from the bill thats being passed that the media doesn't think is worth mentioning. Luckily Obama has enough goons thanks to organizations like City Year to pull it off.

War Machine
06-29-2009, 04:19 PM
In this case they're not ALLOWED to read it until they actually vote on it! So unless they can read 13,000 pages (up from 200) in the hour they're given to vote, they don't even know what they're voting for.



I heard that one congressman asked for a copy to read it and was told there was only one copy available and he couldn't have it.

US_Ranger
06-29-2009, 04:22 PM
Question 1: What is the best thing to do during a recession?

Government answer : Screw over businesses!!!!!!!

Stizzel
06-29-2009, 04:41 PM
I heard that one congressman asked for a copy to read it and was told there was only one copy available and he couldn't have it.

Duh! What was he thinking? He's there to vote as he's told, not read! What a maroon!

Halfway
06-29-2009, 05:22 PM
Even if this was the single greatest thing ever...what exactly was the need to pass this RIGHT NOW?

Dems lose their majority in 2010, they need to push as much through as possible before then.

DCarruso
06-29-2009, 05:30 PM
It never fails. The numbnuts will over reach, every single time they are in power.

The more the Democrats, Obamessiah and his central planners screw up America, the easier it is for the GOP to be back in power.



YAY! Good Job Democrats!

Halfway
06-29-2009, 05:32 PM
The more the Democrats, Obamessiah and his central planners screw up America, the easier it is for the GOP to be back in power.

YAY! Good Job Democrats!

You think they'll cut down the money tree?

The other guys take the fall for the policy, but I highly doubt they will revert any of the Dem's taxation schemes. After all they are both Big Government parties, and that costs money.

dr_D
06-29-2009, 05:32 PM
Dems lose their majority in 2010, they need to push as much through as possible before then.

I really think this is the rationale.

Obama hasn't really had a whole lot of bipartisan luck (zero)

the cap and trade bill barely passed the house, and its supposedly going to be a harder sell in the senate

DCarruso
06-29-2009, 05:37 PM
You think they'll cut down the money tree?

The other guys take the fall for the policy, but I highly doubt they will revert any of the Dem's taxation schemes. After all they are both Big Government parties, and that costs money.


http://nationalrepublicantrust.com/about.html

Klippymitch
06-29-2009, 06:57 PM
Wallstreet should not touch anything.

Anything wall street touches dies. Wall street isnt about investing for the future. Wall street is about making money now. They buy and then sell almost as fast as they bought as long as there is profit to be made. Hell wall street will invest in self-damaging trades if money can be made. (The oil run that helped push oil way passed the price it should of been which was bad for the economy) F*ck wallstreet.

Guardian
06-29-2009, 07:29 PM
Looks like Obama's ideas for economic recovery have already been tried.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062403012.html

Of course Spain is not America, which is why we'll likely see worse numbers here.

The whole idea is bull****, china literally pollutes 20* more then we do, they have no standards at all we have then beat in pollution control 10 times over even without this bill. Washington should do less of this crap and more of pressuring chinas ass to pull there weight for the world.

Stizzel
06-29-2009, 07:32 PM
The whole idea is bull****, china literally pollutes 20* more then we do, they have no standards at all we have then beat in pollution control 10 times over even without this bill. Washington should do less of this crap and more of pressuring chinas ass to pull there weight for the world.

A better answer would be to keep as many production jobs HERE as possible. Less global pollution, more wealth for America. But Wallstreet loves cheap labor, so there you have it.

Klippymitch
06-29-2009, 07:38 PM
The whole idea is bull****, china literally pollutes 20* more then we do, they have no standards at all we have then beat in pollution control 10 times over even without this bill. Washington should do less of this crap and more of pressuring chinas ass to pull there weight for the world.

Also we need to tell them to stop the slave labor. Not only is slave labor inhumane but it is destroying the western society. You have the big wigs taking advantage of the poor poor people in China and India so they can produce cheap products. People in the west stop producing products because they cant compete. People in western countries have a hard time getting jobs. People in poor countries can get jobs but cant have enough money to support themselves even with a job and the big corporate big wigs hoards all the cash while the whole system crashes because of greed.

Guardian
06-29-2009, 09:25 PM
A better answer would be to keep as many production jobs HERE as possible. Less global pollution, more wealth for America. But Wallstreet loves cheap labor, so there you have it.

I know I have a good amount of cash I have invested in the market these past few months, I find myself liking when oil goes up cause that usually is good for the market. I sometimes stop and say hey I am becoming a wall street junkie all I care about is whats good for the market cause that's what's good for me lol.

Anyone with some extra cash I would look into the stock symbol "AoD," it is sporting 19% yield with monthly dividends. It has a solid asset to liability ratio, has paid the same dividend since inception, and even declares them in 3 month increments. The capital gains plus dividend opportunity for this one is incredible.

ElMariachi
06-29-2009, 09:32 PM
I know I have a good amount of cash I have invested in the market these past few months, I find myself liking when oil goes up cause that usually is good for the market. I sometimes stop and say hey I am becoming a wall street junkie all I care about is whats good for the market cause that's what's good for me lol.

Anyone with some extra cash I would look into the stock symbol "AoD," it is sporting 19% yield with monthly dividends. It has a solid asset to liability ratio, has paid the same dividend since inception, and even declares them in 3 month increments. The capital gains plus dividend opportunity for this one is incredible.




Where have you been? Haven't seen you in awhile.

War Machine
06-30-2009, 04:59 AM
I couldn't help but notice that it looks like most of the representatives that voted for it are from the New England area and Pacific US.

Y'know...the states that seem to be fuked up the most economically.


Duh! What was he thinking? He's there to vote as he's told, not read! What a maroon!

There was one congressman that admitted he never read it, but voted for it because he trusted Henry Waxman.


Would you trust this man!?!?!?!?!

http://www.lagunajournal.com/lon-phantom%5B1%5D.jpg

kel_varnsen
06-30-2009, 05:36 AM
You know....you would think someone would look at Spain...then Michigan...then California...see the effects of some of these leftist/socialist policies, and go "maybe it's not such a good idea"

cap and trade has never been intended as a short term economic boost. of course the economy will take a slight hit. how great, depends on a number of issues(azar, climate police 05 estimates: difference in growth rates is found to be less than 0.05% per year).

the point is to curb and reduce co2 emissions. to argue against it based on short term economic indicators is ineffective. in terms of this issue, they are red herrings.

swimmer32
06-30-2009, 08:39 AM
cap and trade has never been intended as a short term economic boost. of course the economy will take a slight hit. how great, depends on a number of issues(azar, climate police 05 estimates: difference in growth rates is found to be less than 0.05% per year).

the point is to curb and reduce co2 emissions. to argue against it based on short term economic indicators is ineffective. in terms of this issue, they are red herrings.

Except we're in the middle of a recession. That kind of makes the short term important.....

Stizzel
06-30-2009, 09:30 AM
cap and trade has never been intended as a short term economic boost. of course the economy will take a slight hit. how great, depends on a number of issues(azar, climate police 05 estimates: difference in growth rates is found to be less than 0.05% per year).

the point is to curb and reduce co2 emissions. to argue against it based on short term economic indicators is ineffective. in terms of this issue, they are red herrings.

Uh...in what way is the short term not important? I guess I see your point if you're of the opinion that carbon is about to destroy the planet so we have to do ignore the repercussions of our actions.

MMGW people keep telling me that no one thinks this way, though.

War Machine
06-30-2009, 09:55 AM
cap and trade has never been intended as a short term economic boost. of course the economy will take a slight hit. how great, depends on a number of issues(azar, climate police 05 estimates: difference in growth rates is found to be less than 0.05% per year).

Hmmm...I swear we were in a recession. Maybe even a slight hit isn't such a good idea. And I think you are being extremely kind saying slight.


the point is to curb and reduce co2 emissions. to argue against it based on short term economic indicators is ineffective.

Other than the whole CO2 climate change thing being complete BS.

The economic indicators are important....Al Gore is making a killing off this crap! Even Pelosi has stock in the company developing "green technology", her wealth will increase if the senate passes it.

kel_varnsen
06-30-2009, 11:08 AM
Hmmm...I swear we were in a recession. Maybe even a slight hit isn't such a good idea. And I think you are being extremely kind saying slight.



Other than the whole CO2 climate change thing being complete BS.

The economic indicators are important....Al Gore is making a killing off this crap! Even Pelosi has stock in the company developing "green technology", her wealth will increase if the senate passes it.


i'll answer the last three posts in one big swoop here:

yes, we're in a recession, but the scientific community are adamant about the need for immidiate action. co2 emissions need to be reduced right now; not in 3-4 years when the economy is growing steadily again. the current political leadership has decided to take this into account.

long term climate stability is more important than short term economic growth. now, you may disagree with the general consensus regarding climate change, but the current political leadership does not. so to argue against their actions, i.e. cap and trade legislation, on the basis of short term economic factors is not relevant. implementing the necessary actions to reduce co2 emissions, will hurt the economy. at least in the short run. the obama administration already know this.

though, as mentioned in my previous post, overall economic growth will not suffer greatly. i already posted one published study (azar, 2005) in climate policy, that supports this argument. i'll see if i can find others for you.

Stizzel
06-30-2009, 11:12 AM
i'll answer the last three posts in one big swoop here:

yes, we're in a recession, but the scientific community are adamant about the need for immidiate action.

Thank you! Riptor, you care to address this?

kel_varnsen
06-30-2009, 11:20 AM
Thank you! Riptor, you care to address this?

i'm not riptor, but i'll take the liberty of offering some info.

here's the synthesis report from the recent copenhagen conference.

take a look at page 18 and onwards:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/synthesis-report-web.pdf

Stizzel
06-30-2009, 11:26 AM
i'm not riptor, but i'll take the liberty of offering some info.

here's the synthesis report from the recent copenhagen conference.

take a look at page 18 and onwards:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/synthesis-report-web.pdf

Oh no, I believe you. The thing is, Riptor, et all, keeps telling me that all this histeria about our being on the brink and how we have to do something, anything, now, without regard to the consequences is entirely the work of a few politicians behaving with typical alarmism and should not be taken seriously.

riptor
06-30-2009, 04:34 PM
Oh no, I believe you. The thing is, Riptor, et all, keeps telling me that all this histeria about our being on the brink and how we have to do something, anything, now, without regard to the consequences is entirely the work of a few politicians behaving with typical alarmism and should not be taken seriously.

I don't ever recall saying that. I wasn't even participating in this thread. I guess this is like the time you said I once stated that it was safe to eat mercury at any quantity.

Stizzel
06-30-2009, 05:08 PM
I don't ever recall saying that. I wasn't even participating in this thread.

You may be right. Looking back your answers to that question were so vague and indirect that I may have misinterpreted. Is that your position then? That we're on the brink of destruction and no measure taken is too small, and damn the consequences?


I guess this is like the time you said I once stated that it was safe to eat mercury at any quantity.

Uhh...source please. What I said was that its your opinion that its okay for people to consume unregulated levels of mercury as long as each dosage is small enough, despite your acknowledgment that even trace levels will have detrimental effects on health over time. Which is almost verbatim what you said. Should I link the thread?

riptor
06-30-2009, 05:35 PM
You may be right. Looking back your answers to that question were so vague and indirect that I may have misinterpreted. Is that your position then? That we're on the brink of destruction and no measure taken is too small, and damn the consequences?

I never once said we were on the brink of destruction. To be honest I am not going to claim what is the best solution, other than common sense ones like investing in renewable energy.


Uhh...source please. What I said was that its your opinion that its okay for people to consume unregulated levels of mercury as long as each dosage is small enough, despite your acknowledgment that even trace levels will have detrimental effects on health over time. Which is almost verbatim what you said. Should I link the thread?

Here is the thread (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=112573801&page=3&highlight=mercury) I believe you are referring too, starting with post #80. In post #84 I stated the safe levels of consumption for mercury. In post #92 I restated my position. The only reason you even brought it up in that thread is because you are still upset there is no evidence to support your conspiracy that vaccines cause autism. I know you think that is a big conspiracy too. Since I was not even an original participant in this thread, I have no idea why you would even mention me in this thread. I am not going to respond anymore to this thread, since it seems to be just an attempt to annoy me.