CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 emissions do not produce negative externalities in the way that ground level ozone, lead, mercury, dioxin, fecal coli-form bacteria, particulate matter and fertilizer runoff produce negative externalities. Rising CO2 levels could be a feature or a bug depending on other factors which effect climate and depending on how man chooses to adapt.
The historical record is on the side of CO2 being a net positive. In last 100 million years, CO2 levels were once higher than 2000 ppm. In earlier periods, with much higher CO2, the earth was warmer,wetter, ecologically more diverse, less desertified and had much less ice. Declining CO2, over the last 100 million years, corresponds closely with a colder, drier, desertifying and frozen planet. Given a choice between the former climate and the latter, I choose the former.
I quibble with the entire notion of “renewable energy”. I believe the phrase is fallacious and sidetracks the whole debate. There is no renewable. There are different methods of power generation that utilize varying combinations of finite resources and finite land. Wind and solar are capital and labor intensive, toxic in their manufacture, and utter hogs of finite land. Other renewables like Hydro power are extremely limited in their application and destructive of the physical environment. Hydro power ruins freshwater fisheries and has been catastrophic for marine estuaries by impeding the normal ebb and flow of water.
Criminal law outlaws behavior not persons, whether living or legal. To outlaw living or legal persons would be a Bill of Attainder. There is a prohibition against Bills of Attainder which is what this would be if, in fact, the bill "does attempt to identify certain sites that exist for no realistic purpose...". I don't know if the bill actually does that, as you claim. But, if it did, that would be one way of nullifying it.
You would be better off not scheduling calls and simply taking them when they come, especially don't roll them to voicemail.
I sell insurance and I answer every call, myself, by the third ring, 24/7, and I let my customers know that if they call me I will answer by the third ring 24/7. The result: I save a lot of time not chasing people down and I get fewer calls during the week and rarely any on the weekend.
Many people call with minor BS that takes only a second handle and I would rather handle it right then than chase them around after a voicemail Sometimes people call with a major problem and I would rather handle that right then than chase them around after a voicemail. So I save a lot of time by handling stuff right away.
But why do I get less calls? This seems counter intuitive. I believe there is a whole class of people out there who like to play cat and mouse by leaving messages.
I got a call on a Sunday and I answered. The caller was surprised that I answered and asked me to hang up so that she could leave a message. I said no worries let's take care of it now. All she had was some question about a line on her bill she wasn't reading rightly. It really upset her that I took care of it then instead of calling her back on Monday. She's never called back except during business hours.
I guess if people really believe you are going to answer the phone then they make sure not to call unless they are really prepared to talk.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Jardinero1.