C'mon, I was about 19...
:)
Posted on 05/07/2015 7:49:27 AM PDT by rktman
Robert Redford is sounding an environmental alarm, saying the planet is changing and that "our opportunities are shrinking."
Redford spoke during a one-on-one session with Santa Fe Mayor Javier Gonzales on Tuesday that packed a performing arts center in Santa Fe, The New Mexican of Santa Fe reported (http://bit.ly/1cmrI4Z ).
The 78-year-old actor and director is no stranger to Santa Fe; he owns a home in the city. During the session, the topics included the arts, Sundance Film Festival, activism and his interest and involvement in environmental issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
actors ,LOL
Just when, in the last 4 billion years, has the planet NOT been changing?...................A non-changing planet is a dead planet..........................
C'mon, I was about 19...
:)
And Al Gore has made money off of carbon credits.
Al Gore also has a large documented footprint himself....
I might just have some respect for these enviro-extremists, if any of them lived simply. But they spew out far more carbon than all of us everyday Americans whom Hillary seeks to represent. They themselves set a terrible example in this area. And that is also lost on the Climate Scientologists.
For all of these people, it’s do as I say, not as I do.
The opinions of an actor complex subjects is just what we need.
Yep. Don’t we all live our lives based on advice from Hollywood idiots????
Your teenage indiscretion is forgiven (sorta)
Carbon credits are like paying somebody else to NOT eat so you can eat more. Or something. Sure makes the ultra rich libs feel better about saving the erf. Oh, and it used to help algore make lots and lots of $$$$. Not sure, but I thought (danger, danger) that his carbon credit exchange scam was failing or did fail. I’m sure he still made mucho dinero off the scam.
I would estimate that in his lifetime, Redford has used five or ten times the energy of the average man his age.
Are there more than a couple or three movies that this clown made that didn’t push his socialist views? The only thing I will give him is that aged like a man and not paid to distort his features with plastic surgery.
I had to endure a commencement speech he delivered a few years back. It was some rambling diatribe about the CIA. He may have mentioned climate change, but my mind wandered through his droning.
LOL
“”our opportunities are shrinking.”
Translation: the more time passes, the more the people learn we’re full of crap. So there isnt much time left before we can scam everyone out of their dollars and freedom.
Every one of his movies is movie magic ... platforms under him to raise his face to the supporter’s level or above ... long shots use smaller doors, etc., ............... the guy’s a shrimp
Exactly. If they really believed what they say, they would lead by example. The would live in modest houses, fly coach, wear recycled clothes etc. But they obviously, really don't believe that malarkey.
If he wasn’t sounding the alarm I’d be worried about him. LOL!
Bob is well capitalized and business is good so he makes the capital investment in the pollution control and abatement equipment, which he will amortize over many years. By the fact that he made the capital investment, he also created pollution credit(s), which he can sell and use the proceeds against his capital cost, saving money.
Bill also owns a manufacturing company but doesn't have the money to invest, but he can buy Bob's pollution credit to tide him over and operate until business gets better and he can afford to make the capital investment, which will generate a pollution credit that he can sell. Actually Bill is paying for Bob's investment. And as you say, he can keep buying the pollution credit as long as he wants, but he is still paying for other's equipment.
Another method is taxing the pollutant(Cap & Tax), in which the govt gets the money from the emitter. In which case the emitter will buy the equipment to reduce emissions and avoid paying the tax.
The third way is to let EPA and the state agency regulate the pollutant in which the emitter, if he exceeds the regulatory threshold, is required to apply the best available control technology, which is based upon what is technically feasible and economically reasonable.
Since Congress was not able set up a cap and trade or cap and tax in 2009, EPA is regulating CO2 emissions, or in the process of setting it up to regulate.
The regulations for new plants are in place and being used while the regulations for existing plants will soon be established, and after the lawsuits are decided by SCOTUS, they will go into effect.
So if you want to put in a coal fired power plant, EPA is going to tell you that you will be exceeding the regulatory threshold of 100,000 tons per year of CO2, which means you will have to apply the best available control technology, which happens to be natural gas.
Is the natural gas alternative good or bad? I’m asking because I really have no idea.
Santa Fe is a liberal septic pit with all the usual radical left-wing causes (environment, immigration, homosexual marriage, “social justice,” etc.) and high gay population percentage (including the mayor) analogous to San Francisco but with a fraction of the population numbers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.