The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

The World without the US on Climate Change

^^speaking of Building Codes - most of the United States jurisdictions are under one of the more recent editions of the International Building Code (either 2009, 2012 or 2015). The next re-iteration will be revised, updated and issued sometime in 2018. All of them require buildings to adhere to the most recent edition of the International Energy Code which governs such items as air infiltration into (and out of) a building; HVAC systems; water, sewer & sanitation issues (both during construction and after occupancy) and even the type and wattage of light fixtures being used.

Admittedly it is a pain in the corporate assets for architectural and engineering firms to understand all of the intricate requirements (many of which are a "do this and you can get away with that" type of give-n-take), file all of the required paperwork with the AHJ (authority having jurisdiction) and wring the requisite fees out of their clients (over and above the normal fees for doing business :D ); but, buildings have and will continue to become more energy efficient, air tight and less damaging to the environment.
 
smokeshadow said:
^^speaking of Building Codes - most of the United States jurisdictions are under one of the more recent editions of the International Building Code (either 2009, 2012 or 2015). The next re-iteration will be revised, updated and issued sometime in 2018. All of them require buildings to adhere to the most recent edition of the International Energy Code which governs such items as air infiltration into (and out of) a building; HVAC systems; water, sewer & sanitation issues (both during construction and after occupancy) and even the type and wattage of light fixtures being used.

Admittedly it is a pain in the corporate assets for architectural and engineering firms to understand all of the intricate requirements (many of which are a "do this and you can get away with that" type of give-n-take), file all of the required paperwork with the AHJ (authority having jurisdiction) and wring the requisite fees out of their clients (over and above the normal fees for doing business :D ); but, buildings have and will continue to become more energy efficient, air tight and less damaging to the environment.
Click to expand...

The back side of building codes getting tighter all the time is increasing homelessness as people are priced out of housing.
 
smokeshadow said:
The next re-iteration will be revised, updated and issued sometime in 2018. (...) even the type and wattage of light fixtures being used.
Click to expand...
Time for the the US to dump the IBC then too.
Good riddance.
 
^^Most jurisdictions do adopt one of the IBC's mentioned. However, they also have the option of amending or modifying the codes as they wish. For example, some cities in Texas have deleted the code sections pertaining to the Americans with Disabilities Act and substituted the Texas Accessibilities Standards (which are basically a carbon copy of the ADA) and, IIRC, many localities in California have adopted the more stringent California earthquake regulations instead of those listed in the IBC.
 
smokeshadow said:
^^Most jurisdictions do adopt one of the IBC's mentioned. However, they also have the option of amending or modifying the codes as they wish. For example, some cities in Texas have deleted the code sections pertaining to the Americans with Disabilities Act and substituted the Texas Accessibilities Standards (which are basically a carbon copy of the ADA) and, IIRC, many localities in California have adopted the more stringent California earthquake regulations instead of those listed in the IBC.
Click to expand...

Most of the places I've lived have the attitude of "Fuck that -- we'll figure out our own rules!" That made things crazy while I was actively working as a handyman. Just as a bizarre example, in one town I was not allowed to redo wiring or plumbing in a wall unless that wall was brought up to code which required it to have 2x6 studs instead of the traditional 2x4, a minimum R-factor of 21 for insulation, brand new wiring and pipes, and hurricane brackets on all joints, which meant I was not allowed to so much as rewire an outlet from a two-prong plug to a 3-prong without tearing out an entire wall and rebuilding it to those codes -- regardless of what condition the rest of the house was in... but in the next town over, I could do that little upgrade and was only required to guarantee that the wall section between the studs where then outlet lay had insulation and wiring up to code (even if that new wiring didn't go all the way to the box!)... and in the next town down the highway I only had to guarantee that the wiring from that particular outlet to the box was up to the latest code. One town I did a bunch of work in had changed their code so anything below the main floor had to be up to the latest codes in order to sell a building, but the upper portion only had to be up to the codes when it was last sold -- a situation that got me lots of work retro-excavating to give crawl spaces sufficient clearance and all the wiring and pipes and floor insulation were the latest right up to the floor line.

I did help with one house where we in fact tore off an entire wall and rebuilt it to the latest code; the homeowner went that way only because it was the "weather wall", i.e. the one facing the direction the worst storms came from. And I'm about to do it to the upper half of one of the walls on my mom's house, which needs serious work so we'll be stripping it down to studs anyway (and it will bring our R-value from a blown-insulation figure of 5.5 to a much more robust 28... on that wall section). I also helped a friend with work where the rules required him to bring everything in a given room up to code if he changed the wiring in that room; we did one entire wall of the house anyway because giving the upgraded room walls two inches thicker than the rest on that side would have looked strange.
 
Telstra said:
Maybe "the sheeps" try to do good.
BUT the leaders drives by self interest.
Click to expand...

I think it is fair to say mr trump is driven by self interest. Time is always of the essence because it drives or tramples all. There are needs for attention and care now. mr trump seems to think time is money. By his rules, he is right.
 
Benvolio said:
'No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation.." Art. I Sec. 10
Click to expand...

Still clueless about the difference I see. News Alert. California and the province of Ontario have Agreements on climate going back several years.

And while you, as a 'lawyer' may not understand the difference between Agreements and treaties, alliances and confederation...apparently a lot of other people who studied as lawyers do.

Hence California's Agreements with other sovereign entities.
 
rareboy said:
Still clueless about the difference I see. News Alert. California and the province of Ontario have Agreements on climate going back several years.

And while you, as a 'lawyer' may not understand the difference between Agreements and treaties, alliances and confederation...apparently a lot of other people who studied as lawyers do.

Hence California's Agreements with other sovereign entities.
Click to expand...

Nope, that does not solve the problem. The third paragraph of Art I Sec 10 says that without the consent of Congress, no state shall enter into an agreement with another state of foreign power. I would suggest you read the Constitution some day.
 
Benvolio said:
Nope, that does not solve the problem. The third paragraph of Art I Sec 10 says that without the consent of Congress, no state shall enter into an agreement with another state of foreign power. I would suggest you read the Constitution some day.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you left out the most important parts. Do you seriously think we're stupid? Do you? I Googled it when you first posted the article and section.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Click to expand...

It has to do with WAR!! YOU should read the Constitution before you shove your lies down our throats. You really do not know what you're talking about.
 
Benvolio said:
Nope, that does not solve the problem. The third paragraph of Art I Sec 10 says that without the consent of Congress, no state shall enter into an agreement with another state of foreign power. I would suggest you read the Constitution some day.
Click to expand...

That should read "state OR foreign power."
 
Benvolio said:
Nope, that does not solve the problem. The third paragraph of Art I Sec 10 says that without the consent of Congress, no state shall enter into an agreement with another state of foreign power. I would suggest you read the Constitution some day.
Click to expand...

I suggest you read it.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Some of us seem to know it better than you. Context is everything.

And if you disagree...go ahead and file your case against the State of California. We'll all be looking on with interest.
 
rareboy said:
I suggest you read it.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Some of us seem to know it better than you. Context is everything.

And if you disagree...go ahead and file your case against the State of California. We'll all be looking on with interest.
Click to expand...

Context means little in a document so short and compact as the Constitution. Each clause is entitled to be taken literally. This issue comes up in the 2d Amendment dispute. Liberals want the mention of militia to limit the right to bear arms. It does not.
 
Benvolio said:
Context means little in a document so short and compact as the Constitution. Each clause is entitled to be taken literally.
Click to expand...

The section you pointed out to prove your case refers to W-A-R. Now, prove to us that a climate agreement between California and China is war-related. Otherwise, your statement means nothing, and you've actually found another way to lose credibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top