Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Less paperwork, less stalling, less wasted time. I have known people that have tried to get permits to build a mine and mill. This takes years. The technology to do it is readily available, but to satisfy every group, every bureaucracy that is involved, including countless town meetings, blah blah, blah. A company announcing a plan to open a mine is to lawyers what throwing red meat is to a den of lions. The biggest problem is people that really are obstructing and do not want mines, period, so they use the permit process as one tool to obstruct, and some of these people work in government. You have a myriad of problems, including bureaucracies that may compete with each other over the jurisdiction even before the process begins. Before it is over, many lawsuits may be filed. Thick books could be written about this, concerning even just single projects. If the project is ever built, then it is forgotten and the band of lawyers and obstructionists go onto their next victim somewhere else to play out the next few years of similar excruciating events. It is the lawyers that are benefiting the most.

It is bad enough to just try to drill one oil well, let alone build something more substantial.

Actually, I would disagree somewhat. Speaking of people, it is their town in one sense, but not really, as this country should honor individual property rights, and if I own a piece of property, I should be able to do with it whatever I wish to do with it as long as it fulfills the laws and zoning. A town has no right to obstruct me based on their feelings, or that they don't want something there. A town has to show that something violates a law, but often something meets the regulations, but groups will file suit based on frivilous grounds just because they don't like you. That should not be allowed.

okie wrote:

Actually, I would disagree somewhat. Speaking of people, it is their town in one sense, but not really, as this country should honor individual property rights, and if I own a piece of property, I should be able to do with it whatever I wish to do with it as long as it fulfills the laws and zoning. A town has no right to obstruct me based on their feelings, or that they don't want something there. A town has to show that something violates a law, but often something meets the regulations, but groups will file suit based on frivilous grounds just because they don't like you. That should not be allowed.

But, that's called 'zoning.' The vast majority of the time, when people want to build a large installation or mine or whatever, the land they want to build it on is not originally zoned for such things. The companies in question have to apply for a change in the zoning of the land, and that's where they hit the roadblocks from citizens who don't want to see a factory go up in their town, unless it is going to be a clean one.

If it wasn't for the fact that the things you mention spew waste into the atmosphere, and not just on to your land, you wouldn't see the resistance that you see. But the building of these industrial complexes affects not only the land they are on, but the air and water of the entire region. Gotta keep that stuff in mind when building, and yes, that makes it much more expensive. Tough titty.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Actually, I would disagree somewhat. Speaking of people, it is their town in one sense, but not really, as this country should honor individual property rights, and if I own a piece of property, I should be able to do with it whatever I wish to do with it as long as it fulfills the laws and zoning. A town has no right to obstruct me based on their feelings, or that they don't want something there. A town has to show that something violates a law, but often something meets the regulations, but groups will file suit based on frivilous grounds just because they don't like you. That should not be allowed.

But, that's called 'zoning.' The vast majority of the time, when people want to build a large installation or mine or whatever, the land they want to build it on is not originally zoned for such things. The companies in question have to apply for a change in the zoning of the land, and that's where they hit the roadblocks from citizens who don't want to see a factory go up in their town, unless it is going to be a clean one.

If it wasn't for the fact that the things you mention spew waste into the atmosphere, and not just on to your land, you wouldn't see the resistance that you see. But the building of these industrial complexes affects not only the land they are on, but the air and water of the entire region. Gotta keep that stuff in mind when building, and yes, that makes it much more expensive. Tough titty.

Cycloptichorn

But its not just things like mies that get blocked.
My GF and I bought some property to build a new house on.
The county has told us we are not allowed to build on it,even though its zoned for residential use.

Their excuse is that it qualifies as a "wetland" because a small part of it floods when it rains.

That small part is on the other side of the property.

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Actually, I would disagree somewhat. Speaking of people, it is their town in one sense, but not really, as this country should honor individual property rights, and if I own a piece of property, I should be able to do with it whatever I wish to do with it as long as it fulfills the laws and zoning. A town has no right to obstruct me based on their feelings, or that they don't want something there. A town has to show that something violates a law, but often something meets the regulations, but groups will file suit based on frivilous grounds just because they don't like you. That should not be allowed.

But, that's called 'zoning.' The vast majority of the time, when people want to build a large installation or mine or whatever, the land they want to build it on is not originally zoned for such things. The companies in question have to apply for a change in the zoning of the land, and that's where they hit the roadblocks from citizens who don't want to see a factory go up in their town, unless it is going to be a clean one.

If it wasn't for the fact that the things you mention spew waste into the atmosphere, and not just on to your land, you wouldn't see the resistance that you see. But the building of these industrial complexes affects not only the land they are on, but the air and water of the entire region. Gotta keep that stuff in mind when building, and yes, that makes it much more expensive. Tough titty.

Cycloptichorn

But its not just things like mies that get blocked.
My GF and I bought some property to build a new house on.
The county has told us we are not allowed to build on it,even though its zoned for residential use.

Their excuse is that it qualifies as a "wetland" because a small part of it floods when it rains.

That small part is on the other side of the property.

I think you could probably successfully challenge that in court.

Did you check with the city to make sure it's okay to build on before you bought the land?

Cycloptichorn

But its not just things like mies that get blocked.
My GF and I bought some property to build a new house on.
The county has told us we are not allowed to build on it,even though its zoned for residential use.

Their excuse is that it qualifies as a "wetland" because a small part of it floods when it rains.

That small part is on the other side of the property.

okie wrote:

Actually, I would disagree somewhat. Speaking of people, it is their town in one sense, but not really, as this country should honor individual property rights, and if I own a piece of property, I should be able to do with it whatever I wish to do with it as long as it fulfills the laws and zoning. A town has no right to obstruct me based on their feelings, or that they don't want something there. A town has to show that something violates a law, but often something meets the regulations, but groups will file suit based on frivilous grounds just because they don't like you. That should not be allowed.

But, that's called 'zoning.' The vast majority of the time, when people want to build a large installation or mine or whatever, the land they want to build it on is not originally zoned for such things. The companies in question have to apply for a change in the zoning of the land, and that's where they hit the roadblocks from citizens who don't want to see a factory go up in their town, unless it is going to be a clean one.

If it wasn't for the fact that the things you mention spew waste into the atmosphere, and not just on to your land, you wouldn't see the resistance that you see. But the building of these industrial complexes affects not only the land they are on, but the air and water of the entire region. Gotta keep that stuff in mind when building, and yes, that makes it much more expensive. Tough titty.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Actually, I would disagree somewhat. Speaking of people, it is their town in one sense, but not really, as this country should honor individual property rights, and if I own a piece of property, I should be able to do with it whatever I wish to do with it as long as it fulfills the laws and zoning. A town has no right to obstruct me based on their feelings, or that they don't want something there. A town has to show that something violates a law, but often something meets the regulations, but groups will file suit based on frivilous grounds just because they don't like you. That should not be allowed.

But, that's called 'zoning.' The vast majority of the time, when people want to build a large installation or mine or whatever, the land they want to build it on is not originally zoned for such things. The companies in question have to apply for a change in the zoning of the land, and that's where they hit the roadblocks from citizens who don't want to see a factory go up in their town, unless it is going to be a clean one.

If it wasn't for the fact that the things you mention spew waste into the atmosphere, and not just on to your land, you wouldn't see the resistance that you see. But the building of these industrial complexes affects not only the land they are on, but the air and water of the entire region. Gotta keep that stuff in mind when building, and yes, that makes it much more expensive. Tough titty.

Cycloptichorn

Mines and mills are not placed in towns 99% of the time. In the old days, some towns grew up around mines, but they came with and after the mines. I am referring to mines located miles from nowhere, perhaps in the National Forest or on BLM land, and all the regulations have been met, but people oppose the mine just because they don't want it there and don't like mines. Often the people opposing it don't live even close to it, or even in the same state.

Its a net gain for China or Saudi Arabia or somewhere else, cyclops. You love to criticize Chinese junk, just one example, but one of the reasons some industries are leaving this country is obstructionism.

Well, so try to get Chinese or Saudi Arabian or somewhere else's law introduced to the USA, okie.

The heatwave that has already killed hundreds across Eastern Europe is no aberration. Since 1880, the frequency of extremely hot days has nearly tripled and the length of heatwaves across the continent has doubled.

Previous studies have shown that climate change is likely to make heatwaves more common across Europe. In April for example, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a report linking a range of changes seen in Earth's weather and ecosystems to global warming (see: Climate change is here now, says major report). The latest study suggests that these effects are already being felt.

Paul Della-Marta of the University of Bern in Switzerland and his colleagues studied data collected between 1880 and 2005 by 54 temperature stations across Western Europe.

Extremely hot days are also three times as common now as they were 127 years ago, the researchers found. This greater frequency of very hot days is also what is driving the longer heatwaves, says Della-Marta. On average heatwaves lasted 1.5 days in 1880, but now last about 3 days. Some drag on for up to 13 days.

Thanks, okie, for mentioning thos valuable sources.