Advertisement

cg22165

Follow

Comment history

Jenkins hears about immigration, budget at Lawrence town hall meeting

Jenkins is concerned about fiscal responsibility, which is a good thing. But I can't reconcile that with her idea that the federal government should give money to schools with no strings to make sure the money serves the purpose for which it was intended.

December 18, 2014 at 11:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jenkins hears about immigration, budget at Lawrence town hall meeting

"Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the federal government is going to tell school children what to eat,""

That's not entirely correct. The school lunch program's main purpose is to provide at least one nutritional meal to kids. Around WWII there was a high rate of malnutrition, noticed by the incidence of those deemed unfit to serve in the military. Social groups had been pushing for it for decades, but came into being because of that. It would be nice to think that is no longer a problem, but that is not clear.

Participation is voluntary; no one is forcing you to buy into the program. It is a convenience for most of us, but that does not mean we should be subsidizing junk food, because that defeats the original purpose.

December 18, 2014 at 11:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

State officals worry about EPA proposals to cut power plant emissions

Hi Ken, I agree, but have not been able to find that the EPA regulations on carbon dioxide emissions are intrinsic to the agreement. They seem more of a means to an end to me, and that makes sense because two nations might agree on what needs to be accomplished, but not tell each other how to achieve it. Best source I've found so far. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-o...

Having said that, yes, if I can't find a screwdriver, I'll use a hammer. From one perspective, this puts more pressure on the GOP to come up with a better solution.

December 7, 2014 at 10:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

State officals worry about EPA proposals to cut power plant emissions

If you put a price on fossil fuel carbon, the market itself will sort out the best combination of alternatives, and there would be no need for EPA regulations, tax-payer funded studies, or government incentives.

Having said that, Kansas is one of the best states for wind development, and you can't tell me that having cheap energy would not draw industry to our state.

December 6, 2014 at 2:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

State officals worry about EPA proposals to cut power plant emissions

I would rather see a carbon tax (and rebate) than EPA regs because that would have less impact on the economy and be more effective at reducing emissions, but if people like Mr Hedke are unwilling to deal with the problem in a rational way, it seems to be the only tool available.

December 6, 2014 at 2:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

State officals worry about EPA proposals to cut power plant emissions

Mr. Hedke is simply not aware of his own limitations. The fact that the CO2 content affects the energy within the earth's climate system has been established for decades, starting with Fourier's observation that the earth is warmer than would be without an atmosphere in the 1820s.

Mr. Hedke wishing it were otherwise does not make it so, and it is some kind of dereliction of duty to misinform the public based on his own willful ignorance.

December 6, 2014 at 2:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: China, carbon tax

Andy,
Fourier, a French man, determined that the air causes the earth to retain energy in the 1820s, Tyndall, a Scot, discovered that CO2 interfers with infrared, which is the band in which the earth emits energy, in 1854, and Arrhenius, a Swede, wrote the first scientific paper on anthropogenic global warming in 1896. So, why are you talking about American tax dollars, and what do you think you know that actual researchers have not discovered in the last 100 years?

November 28, 2014 at 3:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Climate change as a moral issue

"At the time the "scientists" were trying to sell us on the next impending ice age."

Scott, you still are basing your conclusions on inaccurate information. There were a handful of scientists who thought our aerosol emissions would have a cooling effect larger than the warming effect of our CO2 emissions, but they were the minority, and they corrected their mistakes.

The facts are available if you can stomach them.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-a...

November 23, 2014 at 4:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Climate change as a moral issue

"You won't help the environment so you must be selfish."
You really don't get that our economy is dependent on a stable environment, do you?

November 23, 2014 at 12:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Climate change as a moral issue

a) We can make useful predictions about the future based on science established in the 1800s.
b) The only people who's lives will be radically impacted by our shifting off of fossil fuel energy are the people making money off of fossil fuels. You have bought into their fear campaign.

November 22, 2014 at 2:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous