The HFC Phaseout We Knew Was Coming Is Now Official

[pageyjim]

LOL! Even when a deceitful Progressive admits he or she was wrong, they still make excuses why others should have responded to what they "meant" to post rather than what they actually "did" post. Classic rhetoric argumentation.

"It was Citizen's United. Then I made it clearer by saying Citizen's United vs FEC. I can understand your confusion seeing you don't seem to understand what it is."

"We will try it slow on this one ok?

This post of yours has nothing to do with Citizen's United vs FEC."

Originally posted by Poodle Head Mikey
""The only thing" ?????

Citizens United has accomplished maybe the ultimate Dream of Corporate America - and we are reaping the abusive results right now. And it is my opinion that: You Ain't Seen Nothin Yet!

Essentially; the Citizens United decision declared that "Money Is Speech". And that "Corporations Are People".

This madness is exactly what has given us the cesspool grade of politics that we are presently suffering through and so long as it stands - nothing will change. The People have been declared irrelevant and Corporations are free to fund whoever THEY want into office. The people are totally eff'ed.

PHM
"

You have been asked at least 3 times clearly by two different people and you have yet to respond to it. And you say it is "Classic rhetoric argumentation."

Arguments like yours work well on a playground filled with third graders or in a bubble maybe.

[Ted Atwood]

You're right, the phase-outs are usually good for the industry but not always the client. Truth is with an average leak rate of 25% throughout the US and more than 500MM lbs leaked annualy the problem gets bigger as the industry grows. The next generation of refrigerant is going to be costly and the options will require more of a scalpel than a knife. The HFCs are huge impact to environment - the 500MM lbs are likely 10-15% of total yearly emissions. The reason they dont get reported is that no one knows how to account for use, most techs dont report weight's accurately and using non numbered disposable cylinders makes the job even harder to certify. Beleive it or not the energy and leak rate go hand in hand. There is a 1-1 leak rate to energy increase ratio, (numbers ary by size & type but this is a fairly relible mediam value).

[Poodle Head Mikey]

Are you talking to me? <g>

Have I missed responding to something? If so; what? And I'll see if I can get to it then. Sorry; I've been detracted.

PHM
------

"It was Citizen's United. Then I made it clearer by saying Citizen's United vs FEC. I can understand your confusion seeing you don't seem to understand what it is."

"We will try it slow on this one ok?

This post of yours has nothing to do with Citizen's United vs FEC."

Originally posted by Poodle Head Mikey
""The only thing" ?????

Citizens United has accomplished maybe the ultimate Dream of Corporate America - and we are reaping the abusive results right now. And it is my opinion that: You Ain't Seen Nothin Yet!

Essentially; the Citizens United decision declared that "Money Is Speech". And that "Corporations Are People".

This madness is exactly what has given us the cesspool grade of politics that we are presently suffering through and so long as it stands - nothing will change. The People have been declared irrelevant and Corporations are free to fund whoever THEY want into office. The people are totally eff'ed.

PHM
"

You have been asked at least 3 times clearly by two different people and you have yet to respond to it. And you say it is "Classic rhetoric argumentation."

Arguments like yours work well on a playground filled with third graders or in a bubble maybe.

[RoBoTeq]

Ted, where are you getting your numbers and percentages from?

You're right, the phase-outs are usually good for the industry but not always the client. Truth is with an average leak rate of 25% throughout the US and more than 500MM lbs leaked annualy the problem gets bigger as the industry grows. The next generation of refrigerant is going to be costly and the options will require more of a scalpel than a knife. The HFCs are huge impact to environment - the 500MM lbs are likely 10-15% of total yearly emissions. The reason they dont get reported is that no one knows how to account for use, most techs dont report weight's accurately and using non numbered disposable cylinders makes the job even harder to certify. Beleive it or not the energy and leak rate go hand in hand. There is a 1-1 leak rate to energy increase ratio, (numbers ary by size & type but this is a fairly relible mediam value).

[RoBoTeq]

Ohhh, you did it now; you wrote "detracted".

I think pj was ranting about me, but I stopped trying to have a rational conversation with pj and won't try again. It seems all pj wants to do is rant incoherently.

Are you talking to me? <g>

Have I missed responding to something? If so; what? And I'll see if I can get to it then. Sorry; I've been detracted.

PHM
------

[Poodle Head Mikey]

Damned spell-check.

Although WTH; I guess it's better than being redacted. <g>

PHM
-------

Ohhh, you did it now; you wrote "detracted".

I think pj was ranting about me, but I stopped trying to have a rational conversation with pj and won't try again. It seems all pj wants to do is rant incoherently.

[timebuilder]

Anyone with any exposure to the legal profession can clearly state to you that corporations are legal individuals....and in fact they are owned by human individuals.

It is for this reason it was found that corporations are people in terms of speech, because they are made up of owners who have a right to speak, and in our society money is required to access the mechanisms of speech. Anyone who doesn't understand this is really a person living in their own safe space. And, they are to be pitied....

[Poodle Head Mikey]

Nope.

What you are stating is that corporation owners get to essentially vote twice and I'm pretty sure that is not allowed. And it's certainly not right.

Yes; corporations are "legal individuals" - but they are not citizens. Rapacious corporations are exactly what the government is supposed to be protecting the citizens From. Letting corporations vote does not serve this purpose well. <g>


PHM
-------

Anyone with any exposure to the legal profession can clearly state to you that corporations are legal individuals....and in fact they are owned by human individuals.

It is for this reason it was found that corporations are people in terms of speech, because they are made up of owners who have a right to speak, and in our society money is required to access the mechanisms of speech. Anyone who doesn't understand this is really a person living in their own safe space. And, they are to be pitied....

[timebuilder]

To be clear.....citizens united does not allow corporations to vote. It only allows them to speak on behalf of a group of owners who have a participation as owners in the social and political process that is guaranteed under the United States Constitution.

This right to speak is a parallel right to the right that Unions have to speak on behalf of a group of union members.

It is exactly the same type of right.

[Poodle Head Mikey]

Correct - corporation cannot cast a ballot.

But they can make unlimited financial contributions. This allows to essentially buy votes with that funding. No citizen can compete in that arena - which is exactly why this was not allowed prior to the citizens-united decision.

I only rarely disagreed with Scalia but in this case he was flawed in his interpretation of the US Constitution as he did in this decision.

The First Amendment was clearly intended to protect only the speech of individuals. It is the job of government to not only prevent corruption - but also to prevent even the Appearance of corruption. The citizens have the clear right to hear All available information and that cannot happen when corporations can spend essentially unlimited sums (as compared to the vast majority of individual citizens) and so ‘drown out’ all counter-point information - so that it actually impedes the exact thing that The First is intended to protect.

This decision Adds to both the appearance of corruption and the likelihood of it taking place by giving the special-interests operatives/lobbyists even More power to influence government / legislators. And if that isn’t corruption - then what the hell is?

The Founding Fathers made it a point to have strong restrictions on corporate activities - and so very clearly indicating that they did Not intend for corporations to enjoy the constitutional protections of individuals. They well knew that any corporatocracy would not serve the people well. Unlimited spending propagates ideas not on Merit - but rather by the ability of their proponents to broadcast them.

Our government officials are in place for one single purpose - to serve The People. Unlimited political spending forces elected officials court and cater to those who can best fund them. Who under this decision are always corporations and not The People.

And that is wrong.

PHM
------

To be clear.....citizens united does not allow corporations to vote. It only allows them to speak on behalf of a group of owners who have a participation as owners in the social and political process that is guaranteed under the United States Constitution.

This right to speak is a parallel right to the right that Unions have to speak on behalf of a group of union members.

It is exactly the same type of right.

[timebuilder]

...and that is what the teachers union, the trial lawyers association, etc, have been doing for decades.

The citizens united ruling underscored the natural right of corporate entities to be able to make the same huge contributions and buy the same millions of dollars of advertising as those other groups.

The Founders never imagined lawyers advertising on TV, or the existence of unions, or many other things.

Since unions were allowed to do this, it is only right that the other party to a union contract, the business, can do the same thing.

Today, speech costs money, and now we have everyone of the big players able to spend the same if they so choose. That is freedom.

Now, if someone wanted to say that no corporation, union, or association of lawyers could NOT pay for speech, then all those groups would also be on the same footing. But, that is not going to happen anytime soon, Because that could not happen, citizens united was needed to right a wrong.

[Poodle Head Mikey]

It seems more like adding a new wrong to an existing wrong to me. <g>

PHM
------

...and that is what the teachers union, the trial lawyers association, etc, have been doing for decades.

The citizens united ruling underscored the natural right of corporate entities to be able to make the same huge contributions and buy the same millions of dollars of advertising as those other groups.

The Founders never imagined lawyers advertising on TV, or the existence of unions, or many other things.

Since unions were allowed to do this, it is only right that the other party to a union contract, the business, can do the same thing.

Today, speech costs money, and now we have everyone of the big players able to spend the same if they so choose. That is freedom.

Now, if someone wanted to say that no corporation, union, or association of lawyers could NOT pay for speech, then all those groups would also be on the same footing. But, that is not going to happen anytime soon, Because that could not happen, citizens united was needed to right a wrong.

[timebuilder]

You know, sometimes the best we can do is to offset something that's a problem, because it's easier and has a greater likelihood of success than trying to eliminate the first problem.

For example, if it was up to me, it would be only legal to write a letter to your representative or Senator. No golf games, no rides on airplanes..... everyone would basically be on the same communicative footing. No facial recognition, no going to parties....none of that stuff.


Unfortunately, something like that is never going to happen because of human nature.