Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 22 of 27 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 400
  1. #316
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,488
    Yes, several of these are in process, not completed. As of September, 53 of the 85 identified in the Harvard Law/Columbia University study had been “officially reversed.”

    Still, as I see it, the intent remains.

    I admit I am neither pro-business or pro-states rights when it comes to issues relating to the environment. It is too big a global problem to be dealt with effectively even by national regulations, (thought that’s better than nothing) much less state regulations or, worse yet, profit-seekers.

    As for the Paris Accord, it might well have been a treaty, and thus binding, had we taken the requisite leadership role in dealing with a problem largely of our making, but of course McConnell and his minions vowed it would never get a majority, much less the 2/3 needed, in his Senate.

    All that said, do I take it then that on balance you would say that the Trump Administration is doing a good job with environmental concerns — moving the US in a generally positive direction?
    Last edited by Crovash; 11-19-2019 at 07:50 AM.

  2. #317
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    Yes, several of these are in process, not completed. As of September, 53 of the 85 identified in the Harvard Law/Columbia University study had been “officially reversed.”

    Still, as I see it, the intent remains.

    I admit I am neither pro-business or pro-states rights when it comes to issues relating to the environment. It is too big a global problem to be dealt with effectively even by national regulations, (thought that’s better than nothing) much less state regulations or, worse yet, profit-seekers.

    As for the Paris Accord, it might well have been a treaty, and thus binding, had we taken the requisite leadership role in dealing with a problem largely of our making, but of course McConnell and his minions vowed it would never get a majority, much less the 2/3 needed, in his Senate.

    All that said, do I take it then that on balance you would say that the Trump Administration is doing a good job with environmental concerns — moving the US in a generally positive direction?
    I think the US has horribly failed for a LONG time to empower the UN to manage these international issues, but the Paris accord was a severely broken agreement. The idea is that all the countries agree to work to improve their climate change story ... our agreement was to reduce our emissions by 28% by 2028, China agreed to infinitely increase their emissions until 2030 at which point they thought they would peak. The US can still meet that standard without the accord.

    New cars are going to be largely electric by 2028, that and nuclear power would be enough to get there, unfortunately nuclear power (the most feasible replacement for fossil fuel power) is not supported by the majority of dems.

    On balance I would say the Trump administration is not doing a good job on environmental concerns. But I would say that a lot of the complaining about them "dismantling 50 years of environmental controls" and extreme statements like that is not true.

    I don't think Obama's administration did much better though.

    I'm definitely pro-local government empowerment. I'm not pro-business, in that businesses would likely hate many of my policy ideas, but I don't assume they are all evil either.
    Last edited by Scoots; 11-20-2019 at 05:36 PM.

  3. #318
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    30,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I think the US has horribly failed for a LONG time to empower the UN to manage these international issues, but the Paris accord was a severely broken agreement. The idea is that all the countries agree to work to improve their climate change story ... our agreement was to reduce our emissions by 28% by 2028, China agreed to infinitely increase their emissions until 2030 at which point they thought they would peak. The US can still meet that standard without the accord.

    New cars are going to be largely electric by 2028, that and nuclear power would be enough to get there, unfortunately nuclear power (the most feasible replacement for fossil fuel power) is not supported by the majority of dems.

    On balance I would say the Trump administration is not doing a good job on environmental concerns. But I would say that a lot of the complaining about them "dismantling 50 years of environmental controls" and extreme statements like that is not true.

    I don't think Obama's administration did much better though.

    I'm definitely pro-local government empowerment. I'm not pro-business, in that businesses would likely hate many of my policy ideas, but I don't assume they are all evil either.
    Understatement of the century right here lol.

  4. #319
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    72,982
    Obama failed in more ways than not when it comes to combating climate change. But he tried, he acknowledged the threat, and he did do something. His failures were due to a lack of boldness, as well as the fact that he had to deal with a bunch of Neanderthals in congress. I think the only path forward is a large scale, GND-style approach. Obama clearly didn't.

    But man, and I know you're gonna get sick of me real quick -- "On balance I would say the Trump administration is not doing a good job on environmental concerns" is ridiculous. Sounds like someone like FNK finally conceding something. After a more clear criticism of Obama's policies (at least he had some policies!) you absolutely downplay what Trump is doing. It again feels like you're arguing from the right. An instinctual desire to view everyone as being equally bad.

    On the most fundamental level, one acknowledges it's real and the other refuses to do so.

    One did something about it. Was it enough? No. Was what he was able to do not as effective as it needed to be? Yes. Are there problems with his more hallmark actions to combat climate change? Yes.

    But come on. Trump is actively trying to undermine and sabotage the little progress we have made. He's actively harming our efforts to combat this very real problem. Reversing whatever he can. We lost time under Obama but Trump is setting us back. There's no comparison.

    On the first ****ing day of Trump's Presidency he announced he was eliminating Obama's Climate Action Plan. On day one.

    I don't think Obama's administration did much better though.
    Come on.

    I'll gladly use my ~once a month desire to defend Obama on this issue.
    Hello there! Welcome to ManRam v8.00.
    Patch notes: This version is nice, funny, cool & good™ now

  5. #320
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,488
    In terms of the earth’s climate, just maintaining the status quo — that is to say, simply leaving Obama’s initiatives intact — is actually more bad (sounds almost like like “morbid”, doesn’t it?).

    Eliminating many of them is a lot more bad than more bad.

  6. #321
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,503
    Quote Originally Posted by ManRam View Post
    Obama failed in more ways than not when it comes to combating climate change. But he tried, he acknowledged the threat, and he did do something. His failures were due to a lack of boldness, as well as the fact that he had to deal with a bunch of Neanderthals in congress. I think the only path forward is a large scale, GND-style approach. Obama clearly didn't.

    But man, and I know you're gonna get sick of me real quick -- "On balance I would say the Trump administration is not doing a good job on environmental concerns" is ridiculous. Sounds like someone like FNK finally conceding something. After a more clear criticism of Obama's policies (at least he had some policies!) you absolutely downplay what Trump is doing. It again feels like you're arguing from the right. An instinctual desire to view everyone as being equally bad.

    On the most fundamental level, one acknowledges it's real and the other refuses to do so.

    One did something about it. Was it enough? No. Was what he was able to do not as effective as it needed to be? Yes. Are there problems with his more hallmark actions to combat climate change? Yes.

    But come on. Trump is actively trying to undermine and sabotage the little progress we have made. He's actively harming our efforts to combat this very real problem. Reversing whatever he can. We lost time under Obama but Trump is setting us back. There's no comparison.

    On the first ****ing day of Trump's Presidency he announced he was eliminating Obama's Climate Action Plan. On day one.



    Come on.

    I'll gladly use my ~once a month desire to defend Obama on this issue.
    The thing is, I don't know of any specific policy Trump has passed that has made a significant negative difference in the environment. Like the Paris accords ... he said we're pulling out, but not until the next election so there is actually no real difference because the next president can say "nah, we're not pulling out" and what Trump said means literally nothing. Several policy changes moved power to the states which in some cases means the replacement policies are more strict not less, and fundamentally I'm for state laws over federal.

    Obama's climate action plan was about a lot of things, a bunch was infrastructure for disaster prep which isn't really climate change. Some was research, international efforts, etc. I don't know that the plan really had a positive effect on climate change emissions in the 3 years it was in place under Obama, and we are literally a year from potentially having a new president put a whole new toothless plan into place.

    The thing is, I think Obama was a MUCH better salesman than he was at getting things done. And the excuse of opponents stopping him has been true for every president in my lifetime.

    I think what Obama did better than any Pres in my life, and the main thing I think the President does, is frame the national debate/discussion. Obama's message was hope and progress, Trump's message is lies and contempt. On that alone Obama was a FAR FAR FAR better president than Trump. But thus far I don't see any policies Trump has passed that have a major long term effect on our country. Obama did Obamacare, and not much else.

    This idea that people can't see the negatives with "their side" or they can't look at the long term effect of hollow policy of the "other side" and see past the fear mongering ... I just don't get it.

    Climate change is a world issue, so I think it should be lead by the UN, and I think the US should empower the UN to lead with real policy and the ability to help countries that need it and to punish those who don't live up to the expected standards. I've said elsewhere we should cut our military in half and give it to the UN and encourage other countries to do the same.

  7. #322
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    30,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    The thing is, I don't know of any specific policy Trump has passed that has made a significant negative difference in the environment. Like the Paris accords ... he said we're pulling out, but not until the next election so there is actually no real difference because the next president can say "nah, we're not pulling out" and what Trump said means literally nothing. Several policy changes moved power to the states which in some cases means the replacement policies are more strict not less, and fundamentally I'm for state laws over federal.

    Obama's climate action plan was about a lot of things, a bunch was infrastructure for disaster prep which isn't really climate change. Some was research, international efforts, etc. I don't know that the plan really had a positive effect on climate change emissions in the 3 years it was in place under Obama, and we are literally a year from potentially having a new president put a whole new toothless plan into place.

    The thing is, I think Obama was a MUCH better salesman than he was at getting things done. And the excuse of opponents stopping him has been true for every president in my lifetime.

    I think what Obama did better than any Pres in my life, and the main thing I think the President does, is frame the national debate/discussion. Obama's message was hope and progress, Trump's message is lies and contempt. On that alone Obama was a FAR FAR FAR better president than Trump. But thus far I don't see any policies Trump has passed that have a major long term effect on our country. Obama did Obamacare, and not much else.

    This idea that people can't see the negatives with "their side" or they can't look at the long term effect of hollow policy of the "other side" and see past the fear mongering ... I just don't get it.

    Climate change is a world issue, so I think it should be lead by the UN, and I think the US should empower the UN to lead with real policy and the ability to help countries that need it and to punish those who don't live up to the expected standards. I've said elsewhere we should cut our military in half and give it to the UN and encourage other countries to do the same.
    Well aside from the ones Crovash has posted in this thread, passing laws that have a negative effect on the environment is not the only way to harm the environment. Repealing laws that help the environment also hurts the environment, and by that measure, this administration has done that in spades.

  8. #323
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    In terms of the earth’s climate, just maintaining the status quo — that is to say, simply leaving Obama’s initiatives intact — is actually more bad (sounds almost like like “morbid”, doesn’t it?).

    Eliminating many of them is a lot more bad than more bad.
    I think it was an MIT review that said based on current trends, if the US went to 0 green house emissions today, than in 12 years the improvement in the global situation would be around .014%. That's pretty depressing. The biggest issue being the rate China/India/and Pakistan are building new coal plants. China has said they are looking at as many as 500 new coal plants in the next 11 years, some estimates double that number, and those plants have none of the scrubbers US and European plants have to have.

    We should be installing nuclear power plants all over the world (including the US) as that's the only power solution that can be done quickly and effectively enough to make a significant difference. We can subsidize it when it results in the shutting down of coal plants, like we do with wind and solar power.

    We should also have huge x-prizes for energy storage and transmission.

  9. #324
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,488
    This is only one source, so take it for what it is worth, but you can see that according to this study the US appears to have taken global leadership — to where, who knows?

    https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/

  10. #325
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,488
    Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases once again reached new highs in 2018.
    The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the increase in CO2 was just above the average rise recorded over the last decade.

    Levels of other warming gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have also surged by above average amounts.
    Since 1990 there's been an increase of 43% in the warming effect on the climate of long lived greenhouse gases.

  11. #326
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases once again reached new highs in 2018.
    The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the increase in CO2 was just above the average rise recorded over the last decade.

    Levels of other warming gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have also surged by above average amounts.
    Since 1990 there's been an increase of 43% in the warming effect on the climate of long lived greenhouse gases.
    You are the US president, what would you do about it?

  12. #327
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    You are the US president, what would you do about it?
    First: SOLAR AND WIND: Implement massive subsidies for conversion to renewable energy sources, especially solar, on an individual, corporate, and community level.

    Second: LEAD THE GLOBAL EFFORT: Host a global initiative to require a reduction in carbon emissions.

    Third: CARBON CAPPING of sorts: Phased in cap on carbon emissions. Luxury tax on those who exceed the cap.

    Fourth: RAISE TAXES

  13. #328
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    47,795
    Also stop consuming so much animal products. Even just a small reduction.

  14. #329
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,488
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Also stop consuming so much animal products. Even just a small reduction.
    And it’s generally better for your health (which can result in lower insurance costs).

  15. #330
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    First: SOLAR AND WIND: Implement massive subsidies for conversion to renewable energy sources, especially solar, on an individual, corporate, and community level.

    Second: LEAD THE GLOBAL EFFORT: Host a global initiative to require a reduction in carbon emissions.

    Third: CARBON CAPPING of sorts: Phased in cap on carbon emissions. Luxury tax on those who exceed the cap.

    Fourth: RAISE TAXES
    1. We already have massive subsidies for wind and solar, storage and transmission are major issues with no current technical solution.

    2. I agree, but we need to lead it through an international organization not under our name.

    3. Can't tax other countries, so it has to be done by giving them money most likely.

    4. No need, we already have high taxes. Need to eliminate ways to get out of taxes and possibly reduce taxes rates. Though I didn't know that taxes are climate change gasses.

    All that said, it makes nearly no difference without major buy in from ALL the top countries and they all need to be held to the same standard and that's just not possible without huge money from us most likely.

    I think the best bet is likely to build relatively inexpensive modular nuclear power plants and install them all over the world.

Page 22 of 27 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •