Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan
Quote | Reply
This is a great one for some serious discussion by all the intelligent folks here. The EPA administrator announced that he was rescinding the Obama EPA's Clean Power Plan. This was with the rhetoric that the war on coal was over.

Leaving out politics (I'm trying to quit politics), lots of fodder for discussion.

Was the Clean Power Plan going to survive judicial review -- having quite a convoluted and fascinating procedural history in the courts? Has the Supreme Court really ruled that the EPA is required to address climate change and regulate CO2 emissions as the WaPo article claims? (I haven't checked but I'd be surprised if that is the case, because that question was not before the court afaik.) Is the Clean Power Plan the way we want to reduce CO2 emissions?

More generally, does this expose a weakness or problem with our current system of governance by administrative agency? Our governing system of environmental regulations has stood the test of time and many administrations after being put in place primarily during Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan administrations. These regulations by EPA followed specific mandates from Congress during the 70s and 80s in the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act (CWA and FWPCA), Haz. waste/Superfund (CERCLA), Pesticides and Insecticides (FIFRA), Safe Drinking Water (SDWA), Oil Spills (OPA), and others.

If one administration's EPA can make law and another one take it away, does that point to a weakness? Obama's EPA used a statue enacted some 45 years earlier in 1970 (CAA) as a basis for EPA action on CO2. Do we need Congressional action with regard to CO2 emissions?

In general, looking back at the federal environmental laws that I've listed above, which are very detailed, specific, and well conceived (albeit complicated -- but the complication is excusable as they do so much in a complicated arena), I have to ask myself: How did these laws come to be? How did we once have a Congress that could do something?
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
In general, looking back at the federal environmental laws that I've listed above, which are very detailed, specific, and well conceived (albeit complicated -- but the complication is excusable as they do so much in a complicated arena), I have to ask myself: How did these laws come to be? How did we once have a Congress that could do something?
Back in the late 50s / early 60s, there started to be concern over pesticides, and that launched the modern environmental movement. When bald eagle populations were suffering, I suspect it was easy to get popular support across the nation to ban DDT.
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's pretty hard to leave politics out of it because it's all about politics. It just shows that the Koch brothers are still very active.

You're such a Trump ball washer! - Duffy - Feb 8, 17 13:18
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
He’s got a pen. He’s got a phone.

”look, duffy is a great lover. the best!” -

slowman (owner of slowtwitch.com) 10/01/17
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have no problem with removing tax breaks and subsidies for energy, ALL energy.

Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
H- wrote:
Has the Supreme Court really ruled that the EPA is required to address climate change and regulate CO2 emissions as the WaPo article claims? (I haven't checked but I'd be surprised if that is the case, because that question was not before the court afaik.)

Fascinating questions; I've snipped all but a couple.

The regulation of CO2 under the Clean Air Act hinges partially on the definition of 'pollutant'. This first went to the Supreme Court AFAIK in Mass. vs. EPA (https://en.wikipedia.org/...al_Protection_Agency). In 2003 the EPA (under Bush) had determined that they could not regulate CO2 from motor vehicles under the CAA - some states sued and the Supreme Court eventually decided in their favor. So the SC has said quite clearly that the EPA can regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles.

The EPA (under Obama) extended the reasoning in that decision to apply it to stationary sources (i.e. power plants). They were sued, and the case was decided by the Supreme Court in 2014. EPA lost on a significant component of their argument ("Tailoring Rule"), but the Court allowed them to regulate greenhouse gas emissions at facilities that were already subject to " prevention of significant deterioration" regulation under the CAA.

At this point the EPA changed course slightly and used section 111(d) of the CAA in developing the Clean Power Plan. It gets real complicated at this point and I don't pretend to fully understand it. But the CPP basically establishes performance criteria for power plants, and then requires individual states to develop plans to achieve those performance standards. It's weird because it involves the states as intermediates.

I think the Bush EPA was wrong in refusing to regulate CO2 from motor vehicles, and I think the Obama EPA was wrong in their convoluted approach to the CPP. In their decisions on these issues, the justices have said that Congress needs to do something, and I fully agree. But Congress won't touch CO2. Indeed, I wonder if their inaction is encouraging ideologues in the Executive. I wonder if our gridlocked, ineffective Congress is encouraging the Executive branch towards what might be called risky behavior - placing ideological bets that are undertaken only because they will not be checked by Congress, only by the judiciary in many years time, if at all.
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [spudone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spudone wrote:
Quote:
In general, looking back at the federal environmental laws that I've listed above, which are very detailed, specific, and well conceived (albeit complicated -- but the complication is excusable as they do so much in a complicated arena), I have to ask myself: How did these laws come to be? How did we once have a Congress that could do something?
Back in the late 50s / early 60s, there started to be concern over pesticides, and that launched the modern environmental movement. When bald eagle populations were suffering, I suspect it was easy to get popular support across the nation to ban DDT.



You have part of the answer and are on the right track. Was really a rhetorical question, but no way for you to know that.

I was in my teens when all this happened and paid no attention, I but studied environmental law in law school in late 80s. At that time most of the big battles had happened, but events were still fresh, at least within last decade or so.

From what I can remember, the narrative was that there was a popular consensus arising from a number of factors, including, off the top of my head, Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring, DDT, Eagles, the Cuyahoga River was literally burning, many rivers were sewers, California smog, Love Canal.
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [eb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks for the link to Mass v. EPA. My memory was fuzzy but my intuition was correct. The curious thing about environmental law, and administrative law in general, is that courts must defer to the agency (I'm stating that broadly -- it gets complex). Clearly CO2 is a pollutant. But what regulations are needed, if any? That question is to be answered by the agency and the agency gets deference. In cases where the facts seem to call for the agency to address the issue in some way, the most the court can do is remand to the agency saying, in essence, "your reasons for x do not make sense to us, look at it further and do something or explain yourself better."

Accordingly, per the wiki article,

Quote:
the Court remanded the case to the EPA, requiring the agency to review its contention that it has discretion in regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The Court found the current rationale for not regulating to be inadequate and required the agency to articulate a reasonable basis in order to avoid regulation.

Thus I think the WaPo article's characterization was incorrect. Complex legal question so the slight mistake understandable. Written by a reporter not a law professor whose work is reviewed by a team on the publishing law review.

I just realized I'm ten years retired from the business and have no business talking about it anymore.

I think you are right that Obama EPA messed up by going under 111(d) instead of tackling it more broadly under 202(a). My guess is they were being too clever by half. I could read up on it, but I'll wait for one of the smart ones here to fill me in, or, perhaps more likely, just ask my old environmental law professor next time I talk to him.
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have no idea about the all the legal subtleties. If you think you're unqualified to talk about it, I'm not even qualified to judge my own qualification.

My one contribution is to question whether the recent actions are being oversold. As in this is a new life for coal. Because it's my understanding that coal is effed for lots of reasons having little to do with government regulation. Primarily the cost of natural gas getting crushed, followed after by the costs of solar and wind also falling.

So some part of this is just political posturing. No matter which way it goes, there is no substantive resurgence of coal in the coming decade or so. It's just a matter of which sides gets to declare victory to their "base."

Could be wrong, that's just how I see it.
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
. . . .

My one contribution is to question whether the recent actions are being oversold. As in this is a new life for coal. Because it's my understanding that coal is effed for lots of reasons having little to do with government regulation. Primarily the cost of natural gas getting crushed, followed after by the costs of solar and wind also falling.

So some part of this is just political posturing. No matter which way it goes, there is no substantive resurgence of coal in the coming decade or so. It's just a matter of which sides gets to declare victory to their "base."

Could be wrong, that's just how I see it.

I'm thinking the same way as you. But that includes the last sentence, and now I'm confused because is that a double negative or something to agree with that? I guess I'm saying if you are wrong, so am I.
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm not an attorney, but I often consult with them. My impression is that environmental law has become more difficult in the last decade or so, partially because the landmark legislation is outdated, partially because Congress refuses to take action, and partially because of executive branch overreach and/or pandering to industry (engaged in by both parties).

If you want a good example of how environmental regulation has failed the public, look at the PFAS issue. EPA got the manufacturers to stop making PFOS in 2002, but never regulated the use of products containing it. So firefighters continued to use AFFF containing PFOS, and it continued to leach into groundwater all around the country. Meanwhile only few toxicology studies were undertaken. Finally in 2009 EPA issued a non-binding Provisional Health Advisory level for PFOS and PFOA in drinking water. Non-binding, that is, until EPA arbitrarily applies an Administrative Order under the emergency provisions of the SDWA (as they did in several cases). Then in 2016 they updated the HA numbers, but still didn't make them enforceable. So the states are in the position of having to deal with affected water supplies, without having any regulatory tools. Meanwhile the public is outraged that their drinking water supplies have been polluted and their states aren't doing anything about it (the states' hands having been tied by EPA). The result is a patchwork of regulation as states adopt their own contaminant levels, many of them different and ranging over a couple of orders of magnitude. The result? Adverse effects on public health, and billions out of the treasury. Meanwhile industry has switched to shorter-chain PFAS (google "chemours genx cape fear"), and so the whole scenario will play out again in a couple of decades.

Congress is starting to act on the issue, but so far they are 1) providing funding to DoD to clean up PFAS, and 2) requesting that CDC/ATSDR conduct health surveys. What's needed is 1) a broad basic research effort on PFC toxicology, and 2) an updated TSCA that provides a precautionary principle for any further industrial uses of PFAS.

I'm not holding my breath ...
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [eb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
Quote:
Meanwhile the public is outraged that their drinking water supplies have been polluted and their states aren't doing anything about it (the states' hands having been tied by EPA).

In places yes. But not enough to create a national movement. It is not on the radar of the general public.

Since I learned years ago how PFCs -- non-naturally occurring chemicals -- were ubiquitous in the environment (literally ubiquitous -- like in every ecosystem and in every living creature), I have always wondered why an environmental movement did not arise regarding their manufacture and use, like it had over DDT. It is like PFCs are the teflon chemical. ;)

I would find it difficult to be comfortable being in the flourocarbon business knowing that the products don't degrade (well, very slowly) and have now found their way into everything and everybody. We are all stockholders of Dupont and 3M in a sense.

But PFCs are in use everywhere in our society: in the fiber optic cables carrying the internet, in frying pans, and in the rain jackets the Sierra Club members wear on their hikes. PTFE is in bicycle chain lubricants and ski wax. It is the slippery slope.
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
PTFE is in bicycle chain lubricants and ski wax. It is the slippery slope.

These are especially slippery....
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
H- wrote:

Quote:
Meanwhile the public is outraged that their drinking water supplies have been polluted and their states aren't doing anything about it (the states' hands having been tied by EPA).


In places yes. But not enough to create a national movement. It is not on the radar of the general public.

Haven't you previously argued here that environmental protection measures taken in the 70s and 80s did all that was necessary and that the Trump 'roll-backs' were/are perfectly fine? So I'm a bit confused about your stance (do we need more or less regulation?) and your attempt to take an apolitical stance on these issues (given your apparent big-business bias seen here previously). Or maybe I have you confused with someone else.
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [Sanuk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sanuk wrote:
It's pretty hard to leave politics out of it because it's all about politics. It just shows that the Koch brothers are still very active.

It's only hard for you.



And that's what she said.
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think the EPA has been out of control, overstepping their authority and negligent. The EPA has said the Obama regulations had no measurable effect on climate change and that it is a "enormously beneficial" symbolic act. In the link below you can watch Obama EPA chief Gina McCarthy Testify to Congress: 'The value of this rule is not measured in that way. (Temperature impact) It is measured in showing strong domestic action which can actually trigger global action to address what's a necessary action to protect...I'm not disagreeing that this action in and of itself will not make all the difference we need to address climate action, but what I'm saying is that if we don't take action domestically we will never get started and we'll never...' In short the EPA is trying to pass laws that will not impact the climate and will hurt our economy and each citizens wallet to demonstrate leadership. This kind of insanity can only exist inside the government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkkeLpbz0-Y


Carbon emitting fuels account for 87% of American's energy needs and throughout history access to energy positively impacts economic growth. The idea that every business and individual is going to is going to cut back on energy consumption, or be charged more money, without an alternative in place to ludicrous. By restricting the production of carbon emitting fuels, without cost effective alternatives, will hurt the economy and each and every American citizen. Everything we buy is impacted by the cost of energy and business are not going to eat the increased cost they will simply increase prices. Making energy more expensive is not a solution to the problem and the EPA has no business taking control of America's electrical power infrastructure.


As far as negligence is concerned look into the Flint water crisis, the DC water crisis and the Gold King mine blowout. The smart kids at the EPA intentionally opened a abandoned mine which let loose 3 million gallons of toxic waste into rivers of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and the Navajo Nation. Then the EPA claimed they cannot be sued for their negligence. Hopefully that is false or at a minimum the law is changed. The EPA has also gone on land and water grabs all over the nation. Essentially the EPA wants to control all water in the US and lord over all carbon dioxide emissions.
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [Perseus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
+1
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
[Haven't you previously argued here that environmental protection measures taken in the 70s and 80s did all that was necessary and that the Trump 'roll-backs' were/are perfectly fine? So I'm a bit confused about your stance (do we need more or less regulation?) and your attempt to take an apolitical stance on these issues (given your apparent big-business bias seen here previously). Or maybe I have you confused with someone else. /quote]

I'm confused about myself sometimes so that's ok.
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [Perseus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Perseus wrote:
I think the EPA has been out of control, overstepping their authority and negligent. The EPA has said the Obama regulations had no measurable effect on climate change and that it is a "enormously beneficial" symbolic act. In the link below you can watch Obama EPA chief Gina McCarthy Testify to Congress: 'The value of this rule is not measured in that way. (Temperature impact) It is measured in showing strong domestic action which can actually trigger global action to address what's a necessary action to protect...I'm not disagreeing that this action in and of itself will not make all the difference we need to address climate action, but what I'm saying is that if we don't take action domestically we will never get started and we'll never...' In short the EPA is trying to pass laws that will not impact the climate and will hurt our economy and each citizens wallet to demonstrate leadership. This kind of insanity can only exist inside the government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkkeLpbz0-Y


Carbon emitting fuels account for 87% of American's energy needs and throughout history access to energy positively impacts economic growth. The idea that every business and individual is going to is going to cut back on energy consumption, or be charged more money, without an alternative in place to ludicrous. By restricting the production of carbon emitting fuels, without cost effective alternatives, will hurt the economy and each and every American citizen. Everything we buy is impacted by the cost of energy and business are not going to eat the increased cost they will simply increase prices. Making energy more expensive is not a solution to the problem and the EPA has no business taking control of America's electrical power infrastructure.

You're being a little disingenuous, I feel. No-one expects to see measurable climate change effects within a single presidential administration. I haven't watched the video but from what you quoted it seems like the point she is making is that nations need to show some leadership on the issue of climate change and be willing to endure some cost towards making the planet cleaner. Is that such a terrible thing? As discussed in another thread, the state of South Australia has completely weaned itself off coal as a source of energy. Is it perfect? No. Does their electricity cost more? Absolutely. But your attitude of 'what's in it for me?' is the kind of attitude that will mean change only comes at a glacial pace (unlike the pace they're melting) and potentially too late. Of course, we'll only know in a couple of generations by which time we'll be dead, so I guess maybe you're right... fuck it.
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The clip is short and I quoted the relevant statement. Like the Kyoto protocol and the Paris accords each climate change suggestion involves tons of money and has almost zero impact. We need both a greater understanding of humans impact on climate and new technology not taxes.
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [Perseus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Perseus wrote:
The clip is short and I quoted the relevant statement. Like the Kyoto protocol and the Paris accords each climate change suggestion involves tons of money and has almost zero impact. We need both a greater understanding of humans impact on climate and new technology not taxes.

Sure there are flaws in Kyoto and Paris but doing something is better than nothing, and richer developed countries may have to carry a greater financial burden.

It's also pretty apparent that pumping millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere is not good for the future of the planet and its ecosystems, as well as all the other pollutants and destruction of the environment we humans create. Ergo, burning cleaner fuels and trying to reduce the impact of humans is net a good thing. Yes, technology will be a huge part of that process and until the technology allows us to produce renewable energy at a cheaper cost, it might cost us the consumer a little more. I'm ok with a little more. Even in some cases a lot more. Gasoline in the UK costs about 4 times what it costs in the US. That's mostly due to tax. It's too much IMO, but I also think gasoline tax in the US is ridiculously low. If it were higher there would be greater incentives to use public transportation, buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars, develop better battery technology etc etc

And while we can all try to do our little bits, through government policies is the most meaningful way all these things can change.

If we wait until we fully understand the effects of our impact on the planet (which could take another 100 years or more) it will likely be way too late to reverse much of the damage and it will certainly be too late for all the hundreds or even thousands of animal and plant species we've wiped out. But God forbid that our electricity or gas bills should go up 10%...
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
And while we can all try to do our little bits, through government policies is the most meaningful way all these things can change.

If we wait until we fully understand the effects of our impact on the planet (which could take another 100 years or more) it will likely be way too late to reverse much of the damage and it will certainly be too late for all the hundreds or even thousands of animal and plant species we've wiped out. But God forbid that our electricity or gas bills should go up 10%...

By their own admission or their data the government policies past and present have next to zero impact on climate change. The CPP would reduce temperatures 1/100th of a degree the Paris Accord if fully implemented would reduce temperatures 0.023 degrees by 2100. The idea that we need to do something incredibly expensive regardless of its impact or the world is going to end is incredibly short sighted at best.
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [Perseus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Perseus wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
And while we can all try to do our little bits, through government policies is the most meaningful way all these things can change.

If we wait until we fully understand the effects of our impact on the planet (which could take another 100 years or more) it will likely be way too late to reverse much of the damage and it will certainly be too late for all the hundreds or even thousands of animal and plant species we've wiped out. But God forbid that our electricity or gas bills should go up 10%...


By their own admission or their data the government policies past and present have next to zero impact on climate change. The CPP would reduce temperatures 1/100th of a degree the Paris Accord if fully implemented would reduce temperatures 0.023 degrees by 2100. The idea that we need to do something incredibly expensive regardless of its impact or the world is going to end is incredibly short sighted at best.

Is The Donald your source? As the researchers cited in the article below assert, even if you keep warming at "tolerable" levels that is better than "dangerous." What you're saying, essentially, is that if the Paris Deal would only have a minor impact, it's not worth it. The problem with that (myopic) view is that, without the Paris Deal and continuing to allow emissions to rise, we are going to get to "dangerous" levels of warming. You're arguing that's better?

http://www.bbc.com/...environment-40135049

The President argued that even if the accord was fully implemented it would only have a "tiny, tiny" impact.
But researchers have told BBC News that the President was "cherry picking in the extreme" in his use of the facts. They say that the Paris deal could make the difference between tolerable and dangerous levels of warming.
While much of his statement on withdrawal was concerned with the negative economic impact of being part of the Paris agreement, the President also mentioned the negligible impact that the deal would have on temperatures.
"It is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree … Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100," he said during his lengthy explanation.
"Tiny, tiny amount."
Climate researchers have immediately taken issue with the President's use of the data.
"This is cherry picking in the extreme," said Prof Niklas Höhne, who works with the Climate Action Tracker to monitor likely emissions levels.
"He picked the study that has the least impact of the Paris agreement on the global temperature increase."
The study on which this assertion was based was carried out by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2014 and published in 2015.
Crucially the study didn't include all the commitments made by countries in the run up to the meeting in the French capital at the end of 2015 that agreed the wide-reaching Paris deal.
Another major question is that the study presumed that none of the actions proposed would continue past 2030.
"Their study assumes that countries implement their Paris pledges by 2030 but then move back to high emissions," said Prof Höhne.
"We think that is unrealistic because if the countries implement Paris they will likely continue with similar policies."
A subsequent investigation in 2016 by the same group at MIT suggests that up to one degree of warming could be averted if all the promises made in the Paris agreement were honoured. The authors believe that withdrawing from Paris is the wrong approach.
Their findings on how much difference Paris will make are echoed by the Climate Action Tracker researchers who found that 0.8 of a degree of warming could be avoided if countries stuck to their pledges. This difference could help prevent dangerous levels of warming for the whole planet.
"It is a considerable impact, and it is the first time since 2009 we see a considerable downward trend in temperatures because countries have made proposals for what they are going to do," said Prof Höhne.
"This, for me, is a really strong point of the Paris agreement."
How strongly the US pullout will impact future global temperatures is currently being assessed by scientists, including those at the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).
"This is an additional 0.3 degrees on the warming, due to the withdrawal of the US," Deon Terblanche, the head of the WMO's Atmospheric Research and Environment Department, told a meeting in Geneva, stressing that this was an estimate and not a modelled result.
"That's a worst case scenario, and this is probably not what will happen."
Prof Niklas Höhne agrees that the full impact of the US pullout could be less than feared.
"President Trump wants to stop the Clean Power Plan, but it is very likely that some of the states will go even further and be more aggressive and we also hear there is pushback from many major companies that they want to go towards more renewables.
"In essence progressive states and companies could compensate for Trump."
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [Perseus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Perseus wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
And while we can all try to do our little bits, through government policies is the most meaningful way all these things can change.

If we wait until we fully understand the effects of our impact on the planet (which could take another 100 years or more) it will likely be way too late to reverse much of the damage and it will certainly be too late for all the hundreds or even thousands of animal and plant species we've wiped out. But God forbid that our electricity or gas bills should go up 10%...


By their own admission or their data the government policies past and present have next to zero impact on climate change. The CPP would reduce temperatures 1/100th of a degree the Paris Accord if fully implemented would reduce temperatures 0.023 degrees by 2100. The idea that we need to do something incredibly expensive regardless of its impact or the world is going to end is incredibly short sighted at best.

You sound like sick patients who argue that they don't want to change their behavior because it will at best provide a status quo or a very slight improvement.
Ironically, this also happens a lot in clinical settings...If I'm going to do all this crap that's really hard or expensive, it'd better provide some real improvements stat, otherwise I'd rather just die.
Sigh.

-------------------------------------------

http://www.fmcoaching.com
Quote Reply
Re: Can we tackle a serious substantive issue: EPA Clean Power Plan [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
seems like the point she is making is that nations need to show some leadership on the issue of climate change and be willing to endure some cost towards making the planet cleaner

Showing leadership doesn't mean forcing those costs onto the citizens.

Showing leadership would mean no more private jets.

Showing leadership would be Al Gore living in a tiny house.

Showing leadership would be no more drivers and SUVs for legislators.

If those touting changes in lifestyles would actually make some of their own. Their words wouldn't sound as hollow.
Quote Reply

Prev Next