The environment thread

[NorthSideSox72]

So, all 1300 pages of the bill is just that?

 

Also, can anyone deny that this bill wasn't rushed and poorly put together. If the bill was basically those 2 points, than why in hell did it take the length of Les Miserables to explain it?

I actually agree with your point here. The length makes it impossible that anyone really understood the DETAILS of what they were voting for, and its in those details that this government will likely make a good idea poorly executed.

 

[KipWellsFan]

Let me clarify, because it's been lost in translation.

 

I don't care to prove it right or wrong, I'm not an expert in the field and I have no agenda on either side of the discussion. I'd like them to continue researching it, study it over a span of years and come up with some well thought (and politically disconnected) recommendations based on data from BOTH sides, and I'd like it done objectively, as all scientific research should be done. I see a lot of hidden agenda on this specific subject, and I'd like them to toss that, and rather than studying it from one side or the other, to study it from the middle.

 

My big issue/problem with this is that the government is shoving things like this climate bill through without knowing one way or the other. As it stands, they're guessing, based on politically charged science. The fact that debate still exists is what I have a problem with -- meanwhile we're taking drastic steps that may or may do absolutely nothing, and at what cost to the country, to the people, and to business?

 

That's my issue with this. I know I tend to come of as bullheaded when it comes to things like this, but politics really annoys me...I try to be objective, but when I see things like this happening, I have a problem with it. I've always been a devils advocate of sorts.

 

If the bill was really that solid, then Obama and his administration shouldn't have had to make phone calls and convince people to vote for it -- well written bills based on fact should need no push to get it signed...it should just happen.

 

You absolutely have to read this academic article. Completely relevant to your discussion here. It's PDF

 

"How science makes environmental controversies worse

 

Abstract

 

I use the example of the 2000 US Presidential election to show that political controversies with technical underpinnings are not resolved by technical means. Then, drawing from examples such as climate change, genetically modified foods, and nuclear waste disposal, I explore the idea that scientific inquiry is inherently and unavoidably subject to becoming politicized in environmental controversies. I discuss three reasons for this. First, science supplies contesting parties with their own bodies of relevant, legitimated facts about nature, chosen in part because they help make sense of, and are made sensible by, particular interests and normative frameworks. Second, competing disciplinary approaches to understanding the scientific bases of an environmental controversy may be causally tied to competing value-based political or ethical positions. The necessity of looking at nature through a variety of disciplinary lenses brings with it a variety of normative lenses, as well. Third, it follows from the foregoing that scientific uncertainty, which so often occupies a central place in environmental controversies,

can be understood not as a lack of scientific understanding but as the lack of coherence among competing scientific understandings, amplified by the various political, cultural, and institutional contexts within which science is carried out.

In light of these observations, I briefly explore the problem of why some types of political controversies become “scientized” and others do not, and conclude that the value bases of disputes underlying environmental controversies must be fully articulated and adjudicated through political means before science can play an effective role in resolving environmental problems."

 

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publicat...rsies_worse.pdf

Edited June 27, 2009 by KipWellsFan

[lostfan]

Absolutely. Count me in the "I'm not 100% sure, but better safe than sorry" category.

Me too but I don't really like to bother arguing it anymore because it becomes an exercise in knocking down straw men.

[kapkomet]

Quite simply, you're wrong. The science is politically charged...because the natural conclusions of that science are going to cost a lot of very powerful people a lot of money. Basically that is the only reason there is "Debate" on this. The science about whether greenhouse gas emissions are driving a warming trend that will be bad for man is in, and has been for years. The Scientific community really has moved on to looking at things like mitigation and what the impacts of the changing climate on parts of the earth will be (did you know that melting ice caps will cause a decrease in volcanism at the mid-oceanic ridges?)

 

And really, you're also wrong on how the government works. People are allowed to have legitimate disagreements on the best way to make policy going forwards, and people are going to disagree on bills. Were the Bush Tax cuts bad because Bush had to whip hard to get them through, and then did so in reconciliation where the Dems couldn't filibuster? Was the Patriot Act good because it was 99-1 in favor of it?

And the opposite is true of the bolded part as well.

 

[BigSqwert]

[HuskyCaucasian]

This goes out to eh flat-earth republicans in the house who kept saying "climate change is a myth. look, our air temps havent gone up since 2001". I just watched a special on Hurricanes. This stat was a bit alarming to me: In the past 100 years, the average temp of the water in the tropics has gone up 1 degree. That's a LOT of water to heat up one degree.

 

Why is this alarming? The air is supposed to heat up faster then the oceans. The worlds oceans suck up heat but give most of it back up due to evaporation. 1 degree is staggering to me.

[kapkomet]

I don't think anyone says anything about climate change being a myth.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think anyone says anything about climate change being a myth.

Very few do now because its ridiculous, but some are still hanging onto that. And a few years ago, a lot more were.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

I don't think anyone says anything about climate change being a myth.

Actually, I watched the debate on C-SPAN last week. Many house republicans stood up and said it was a myth.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think anyone says anything about climate change being a myth.

 

There's plenty of people who still call it a myth or a hoax.

[Cknolls]

Good, back to the point. Let's talk about the bill. Here again is what I posted a few pages ago, about the bill, but no one seemed interested in the bill at that time...

 

 

So, about the bill itself, a few points for discussion...

 

1. CBO and EPA say this will cost households on average $100 or $200 a year, somewhere in that range. Spread that out over 80 million households, that is $8B to $16B, and is effectively a tax increase. That's an increase in cost that will be put directly on families, and that seems less than ideal. However... why is it that some people are OK with spending 100 times that amount of money fighting wars in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, but they aren't OK with this amount of money spent on getting us out of their grip and-oh-by-the-way maybe making all our lives healthier? Seems like screwed up priorities to me.

 

2. GOP'ers are claiming the real costs will be much higher when you factor in passed-down costs. Probably true. But then, the CBO and EPA numbers also don't reflect the creation and sustaining of a lot of high-paying jobs that this will result in, with money going to that instead of out the door for oil. So, you need to really look at both sets of indirect cost/benefit pieces, not just the one that fits your views.

 

 

Is that over a certain period, or just for 2020?

[NorthSideSox72]

Is that over a certain period, or just for 2020?

I stated it was per year, which I assumed meant each year going to 2020.

 

[KipWellsFan]

There's plenty of people who still call it a myth or a hoax.

 

Pat Buchanan just called it a hoax. And something to the effect that its real purpose is to transfer wealth from the private sector to government and to create world government.

 

Say what you will about climate change but I do think the scientists, advocates, bureaucrats and politicians for the most part are doing what they think is right and do not have particularly devious goals. I'd hope the same were true for the contrarians and Republican critics as well.

Edited June 29, 2009 by KipWellsFan

[BearSox]

There's plenty of people who still call it a myth or a hoax.

 

climate change or man-made climate change?

 

I believe man has an effect on everything and our very existence is gonna impact the climate in some way. However, as of now, I do not buy the theory that this current climate change is mainly man's fault. There's just no definitive proof that man is the main reason for this climate change. And any bills passed regarding this issue should wait until after more research, more debates, and more ideas are put together. How can anyone doubt that this cap and trade bill is nothing but a tax that's being shoved down our throats?

 

I got no problem with wanting to cut down pollution, find new energy resources, etc. But we gotta be smart about this. We can't have which ever party that is in charge go, "nuh uh, we're right, you're wrong, end of discussion." It's like the politicians are using playground rules to determine our futures.

[BearSox]

Funny, you can use that very picture for what this current administration is doing (you can throw in Bush and his 2nd term as well) regarding how it does nothing but add on to the already huge amount of depth we have, can possibly cause hyper-inflation by printing a trillion of more dollars out of thin air, raising taxes big time, etc.

Edited June 30, 2009 by BearSox

[KipWellsFan]

climate change or man-made climate change?

 

I believe man has an effect on everything and our very existence is gonna impact the climate in some way. However, as of now, I do not buy the theory that this current climate change is mainly man's fault. There's just no definitive proof that man is the main reason for this climate change. And any bills passed regarding this issue should wait until after more research, more debates, and more ideas are put together. How can anyone doubt that this cap and trade bill is nothing but a tax that's being shoved down our throats?

 

I got no problem with wanting to cut down pollution, find new energy resources, etc. But we gotta be smart about this. We can't have which ever party that is in charge go, "nuh uh, we're right, you're wrong, end of discussion." It's like the politicians are using playground rules to determine our futures.

 

I guess you didn't read that academic article I posted. It argues that scientific debate isn't going to clear up this issue any further. The only actual thing that will do anything to "solve" this issue will be definitive political action (for or against). If anything, more scientific information will just provide outliers even more information from which to cherry pick and allow them to argue whatever their extreme position. Again I'd encourage you to go back and read it.

 

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publicat...rsies_worse.pdf

 

And I would argue that this bill isn't even close to being strong enough. It should be a much larger tax and it should be applied at all sources of pollution, hence a carbon tax. It does not cost enough for individuals and businesses to do the polluting they're doing, period. And no the bill is not being shoved down your throats. Your elected representatives have passed it in part. Your quality of life probably won't be affected anyways by this weak bill. That will probably be the case for 99% of the American population. And seriously do I really have to spend time feeling sorry for people in the coal industry. Like duh... you didn't think that one day someone might realize that is a fugged up industry.

 

Some of the house members apparently voted against because it wasn't strong ENOUGH. I think it's pretty clear a large chunk of the Republicans in the house have zero interest in making the best legislation possible.

 

Sometimes politics is about power, and unfortunately for some, those who give half a s*** about climate hold a very large chunk of it right now. Democrats and Obama were pretty clear on their environmental position in recent election campaigns and I think it would be a betrayal to pass anything weaker than this now.

Edited June 30, 2009 by KipWellsFan

[mr_genius]

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Just a tad bit emotive

[kapkomet]

There's plenty of people who still call it a myth or a hoax.

Nevermind. It's been addressed/

Edited June 30, 2009 by kapkomet

[BearSox]

Your quality of life probably won't be affected anyways by this weak bill. That will probably be the case for 99% of the American population.

 

Some of the house members apparently voted against because it wasn't strong ENOUGH. I think it's pretty clear a large chunk of the Republicans in the house have zero interest in making the best legislation possible.

 

Sometimes politics is about power, and unfortunately for some, those who give half a s*** about climate hold a very large chunk of it right now. Democrats and Obama were pretty clear on their environmental position in recent election campaigns and I think it would be a betrayal to pass anything weaker than this now.

 

Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.

 

 

Don't forget about how you now also have to meet government qualifications if you want to sell your home. That means is your house isn't green enough, you have to pay to get all that stuff taken care of before you can sell... YAY!!!!

[southsider2k5]

 

Glad to see the era of Governance by fear is over...

[NorthSideSox72]

Glad to see the era of Governance by fear is over...

Except that poster wasn't generated by the government. I expect partisan groups to use fear.

 

[BigSqwert]

Snarky eco bags.

 

[BearSox]

I can't decide if my favorite is "my other bag is in my SUV" or the one with the picture of a guy chopping down a tree.

[BigSqwert]

I can't decide if my favorite is "my other bag is in my SUV" or the one with the picture of a guy chopping down a tree.

I'm partial to "I Imported Produce".