Tony Vahl discussed the Lehrer NewsHour and their interview with the head of the EPA. Specifically:
- her response to the Global Warming Hoax emails
- Damian’s climate change blog post
- the “Rich Little of Laughs” shows his skills
- Bush gets a shoe, Palin gets a tomato … which Republican will get tossed at next year?
- announces Comic Book Guy wins a no-prize for his comments on the Tiger Woods and Ambien blog post
Similar Posts:
- Tiger Woods and Ambien
- Tiger Woods is a Single Dad
- Meredith Baxter, Tiger Woods, June 2011
- a few minutes on Libya and Wisconsin Unions
- LDOTR: Palin
- 2009 Yeti Award Nominees — Who will be the 2009 Yeti of the Year?
- Michael Savage Valley of the Dolls
Rollercoaster Tangent…John Sterling would be proud of this DailySkew podcast.
Not sure about the college student connection.
FYI, here's a link about how marketers are involved in the Green business:
Click here
Vahl here.
I just checked out that ecoaid website … it calculated that my carbon offset would cost $188. There was a Paypal button for the transaction.
Holy cow!
Since this is a whole new Skew, my only real question, Mr. Hospital, is where do we sign up to sell these credits?!?
WOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooh!
I'm laughing here at work reading this…'selling carbon credits".
God, I wish we did a Realtor story on that one.
I mean it's better than Monopoly money.
I think all you need is a *.doc file to make a CERTIFICATE. You can then send it electronically to the client and SHAZAM!
Obama is a place-man for banking and big business,
and their next major criminal scam is to introduce carbon taxes,
-paid straight to the same set of banker who were his main campaign contributors.
The EPA are not neutral, and there are countless examples of that.
I think you are grossly overestimating the power of the EPA and how much good it *actually* does.
Wow. It's kind of creepy to think of putting a monetary value on human life, for the purpose of making life-or-death decisions. It's really scary that the process can work in reverse. Apparently, the value of life can be changed specifically for certain regulations:
"In 2004, for a major air pollution rule, the agency lowered the value to $7.15 million in current dollars."
"Then, in a rule governing train and boat air pollution this May, the agency took away the normal adjustment for one year's inflation."
While the EPA may justify the change:
"EPA officials say the adjustment was not significant and was based on better economic studies. The reduction reflects consumer preferences, said Al McGartland, director of EPA's office of policy, economics and innovation."
I think Viscusi is right:
"EPA's cut 'doesn't make sense,' said Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi. EPA partly based its reduction on his work. 'As people become more affluent, the value of statistical lives go up as well. It has to.' Viscusi also said no study has shown that Americans are less willing to pay to reduce risks."
It seems the EPA may have essentially sought a second opinion which gave a much lower value:
"Just how the EPA came up with that figure is complicated and involves two dueling analyses."
"Viscusi wrote one of those big studies, coming up with a value of $8.8 million in current dollars. The other study put the number between $2 million and $3.3 million."
And then modified the numbers in a questionable way:
"EPA took portions of each study and essentially split the difference — a decision two of the agency's advisory boards faulted or questioned."
"'This sort of number-crunching is basically numerology,' said Granger Morgan, chairman of EPA's Science Advisory Board and an engineering and public policy professor at Carnegie Mellon University. 'This is not a scientific issue.'"
I am sure the valuation of life is unfortunately necessary, but there certainly should be some restrictions on when and how it is done.