There is a road sign which depicts the cooling towers with steam and specifically says “Water Vapour”.

I wonder how many people drove along and were horrified at the amount of pollution… before that sign was put up.

One of the local papers, probably the Tucson Citizen, published a photo of steam rising off these cooling towers with a caption to the effect that it was a picture of TG&E’s pollution.

TG&E got on the paper’s case about it and the paper did print a retraction.

I look at it as an inadvertant welfare program. It exists for the sole purpose of transporting people who can’t or won’t use their own vehicles. I work in Pittsburgh and right now the public transportation system here is looking at an $80 million shortfall in funding this year. They are trying to cut back, but everytime they announce a reduction in service you end up with someone on the evening news saying how the bus system is the only transportation they have or a group saying how the cut backs are racist. I am not being critical of the people who use public transportation, if it could be relied upon to get me to work on time, I’d use it myself.

Anybody who tries to tell you that public transportation is environalmentally friendly hasn’t done their homework.

In any case, I recall thinking that the stuff that they’re doing is a means of concentrating the efforts of many. E.g. if we all had to produce X instead of a factory, we’d pollute much more than if a factory produces it for us. This is, of course, the argument the left uses when they preach public transportation. Yes, a bus pollutes more than a car, but a bus full of 20 people pollutes less than those 20 people driving 20 cars.

So even if pollution were coming out of those stack, I find it ironic that they don’t see this as a good thing since it’s more efficient pollution than everyone producing the same thing on their own. Maybe the difference in their attitude stems from the fact that public transportation is publically run while most factories are privately run.

Organic Chemistry quiz for you global warmers:

Since “methane emissions—another greenhouse gas that is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide” is CH4, highly combustible, what makes you think that ethanol,

CH3CH2OH

also highly combustible, but chemically nearly identical to methane, won’t pollute more than, say, benzene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene

toluene,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toluene

or Methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE

which we are currently using as additives?

And how do you explain that ethanol is in any way environmentally friendly, given that ethanol is 2/3 as combustion-efficient as regular gasoline (BTU/US gallon, i.e. we’ll need to burn more for equivalent output)?

Huh? What’s your answer, Al? How is this “going green,” except the green going into your freakishly undersized pants pocket????

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12040418

[say it with me, Coyote…….B-U-L-L-S-H-I………]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU1MzA0MjkxNjY2YzczN2M1MjE3YmU3YzE2MzQ3MTM

Notable:
“Since 1990, the baseline year of the Kyoto Protocol, methane emissions have dropped by 12.8 percent. This reduction of approximately four million metric tons represents an equivalent reduction of about 90 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Continued reductions in methane may make worries about carbon dioxide moot.
Most climate scientists did not forecast this enormous reduction in methane emissions, largely because it did not fit neatly into the accepted paradigm that climate change was an entirely human-induced phenomenon.”

Basically, cow farts are on the decline, and Prime Rib orders are on the rise, due to increased standard of living, so we can all relax.

See? Prosperity really is good for the environment….

And otherwise great analysis. Thanks, Coyote.