I traveled through Thailand and Cambodia with my Filipina girlfriend (now my wife) 15+ years ago and the looks I got ticked me off. I imagine lots of locals thought I was there for the sex trade and had “found” someone. It was funny though at times when people would start talking to her in Thai and she would just respond back in English with a puzzled look on her face!
So now let’s turn that around, and see what the rest of the world thinks about the U.S. right now and what Donald Trump is doing.
This isn’t about Trump but I thought you would find it interesting.
In late 2010, I biked through the Middle East and would often stop and talk with young people, particularly young or middle aged men who were often curious about me going through their country. They would often ask me what people back home thought of their country or their government. One day I was in Damascus, sitting in a coffee shop talking with a few University students. The Iraq war was still going on next door.
They asked the typical questions about my views on Assad and Syria in general and then I turned it around and asked what the people of Syria thought of the U.S (I used the U.S because of the war and because they knew far more about them than Canada). Their response was that they were able to separate the government from the people and thought Americans don’t do that. They did not like Bush (they did like Obama) but they said they liked the people. They felt that Americans tend to group the government and people together. If the Syrian government is bad, the people are bad.
Then they said something interesting. One guy said, “We don’t understand how Americans can decide on where to send their children to school.” I thought it was a language problem so asked for them to clarify because I didn’t understand. He said, “with so many children being shot in schools, how do you know which school is safe?”
Their perception of the U.S was that the people were different than the government, and the lots of children are shot going to school. I was reminded how our perceptions of a country depend on the news headlines.
Want to have an intelligent debate about environmental policy…
Sure, let’s start with addressing some of these Trump initiatives below. Let me know which you support and which you oppose and why:
14 February Trump signs a bill repealing an anti-corruption rule that required energy companies to disclose payments to foreign governments. The regulation was scrapped under the Congressional Review Act.
16 February The stream protection rule, which prevented mining companies dumping their waste into streams, is axed under the Congressional Review Act. Trump calls it a “terrible job-killing rule.â€
28 February Trump instructs the EPA to rewrite the ‘waters of the United States’ rule, which expanded the definition of the Clean Water Act to protect the water supply for around 117 million Americans. Many farmers, real estate developers and golf course owners opposed the rule.
2 March On 1 March, governors and attorneys general from several Republican-led states write to Scott Pruitt to request the EPA stop collecting methane emissions data from around 15,000 oil and gas operations. A day later, Pruitt says he has decided to oblige “after hearing from industryâ€.
15 March Trump announces a review of vehicle fuel efficiency standards that are designed to push down greenhouse gases and other pollutants. More than a dozen car company chief executives asked the president to revisit an Obama-era decision to mandate improved fuel economy by 2025. Pruitt calls the standards “costly for automakers and the American people.â€
28 March A sweeping executive order penned by Trump orders a rewrite of the EPA’s clean power plan, which was Obama’s centerpiece climate policy, an end to the moratorium on coal mining on public land and the removal of climate change as a consideration when approving federal projects.
29 March Pruitt denies a bid to halt the use of chlorpyrifos, a widely-used pesticide. The chemical has been linked to damage to the nervous system and last year EPA scientists said a ban was warranted. Household use of the chemical was phased out a decade ago but it is still used in farms across the US.
11 April A court grants an EPA request to delay the implementation of ozone pollution standards that were made stricter in 2015. The EPA intends to review the rules around ozone, which is created when sunlight reacts with pollutants from vehicles exhausts and other sources. Ozone can create smogs and can trigger a raft of health ailments, especially among children, the elderly and those with respiratory problems.
13 April The EPA pauses a regulation that curbs the dumping of toxic metals such as arsenic and mercury by power plants into public waterways. The Obama-era rule, set to commence in 2018, would’ve destroyed jobs, according to Pruitt.
27 April The EPA successfully convinces a US appeals court to halt a challenge by states and industry groups to an Obama administration rule aimed at reducing toxic emissions from power stations. Pruitt, in his previous role as attorney general of Oklahoma, had sued the EPA to stop the rule, which is known as MATS.
23 May A three-month pause is put on landfill methane rules so they EPA can “reconsider certain aspects†of the regulation. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and is emitted from rotting garbage in landfills, as well as other sources such as agriculture.
13 June The EPA announces plans for a two-year pause on regulations that would reduce emissions leaks from oil and gas operators. The regulator acknowledges that pollution from the leaks results in “disproportionate†harm to children but proposes to go ahead with the suspension of the rule anyway.
27 June The EPA, along with the US army, proposes to scrap the clean water rule. This would reverse an Obama-era move that expanded federal government protections to the drinking water of around a third of all Americans. Pruitt said the rollback will provide “regulatory certainty to our nation’s farmers and businesses.†The announcement didn’t reference public health.
Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/...pa-scrap-regulations
Good post – slanted, as I’ll explain – but now you are putting real issues on the table. For months I’ve been saying that the media has been so fixated on the Russia deal and Trump’s tweets in general that there has been little attention paid to real policy initiatives that are happening.
I don’t have the time or the inclination to read up on all those policy and regulatory initiatives. But they are real issues that deserve attention and informed debate. Any of those issues are worthy of a thread in my opinion, but I don’t know if folks here want to get into that much technical detail.
When I say your description is slanted, e.g., saying the EPA and US Army propose to scrap the clean water rule is imprecise to the point of being meaningless. Since the Federal Water Pollution and Control Act and accompanying regulations were enacted in the 1980s, the Army Corps of Engineers has been administering the “404(b)” dredge and fill program which relates to land that is a jurisdictional wetland. The Trump action does not scrap the program, but only a recent proposed Obama Administration expansion of the program that expands the definition of wetland. In brief, I think the prior definition of wetland – in place during Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, and GWB administrations is sufficient. Additionally, I suspect that the Obama regulation was unlikely to survive judicial review (if it was not already struck down by a court) because the EPA exceeded its statutory authority with the new definition.
But in any event, as I said, the issues you referenced are real, not imagined like some concern about renewables because Perry said that in a few years he may look at the stability of the grid.
$25,000 financed, just curious what are the expected savings over regular electricity? Also, what’s the expected lifespan of the batteries assuming they’re cared for correctly?
I asked my boss more about this…He has a 3000 sq.ft. house and his electricity bill was averaging about $200/month prior (don’t need a lot of AC here in Orange County). So he has dropped his costs there only slightly. His note is for 20 years, not 15. In addition to the note he has to pay a processing fee to SDG&E of about $10/month. The panels are designed to generate electricity for the home in real time and any extra that is generated is sold back to the electric company at a ridiculously low rate. No batteries involved. When the panels are installed, they review 2 years worth of prior bills to determine your average usage and try to make sure they are putting the comparable amount of panels on your roof. The warranty on the panels is 20 years.
There isn’t enough of a savings for me to buy in yet. Although the current panels are so much more efficient than from years ago, I am sure they will continue to advance the technology. Especially since the govt is subsidizing the industry.
.
When I was looking at solar, I was given three financing options to consider. 1. Outright purchase of panels to cover my electricity needs 2. Lease program over 20 years - I just pay a monthly lease payment, but I do not own the panels 3. Pre-pay for my electricity usage for the next 20 years. I went with option #3. I calculated what my monthly, yearly usage was based off retrospective data, then extrapolated out 20 years adding in a bit of buffer since I wanted to switch over to an electric dryer and electric water heater. I then wrote a check and had the panels installed. I do not own the system, but that is fine since my solar company is incentivized to keep it running smoothly and updated with the latest technology. They are making money off the excess electricity my system produces by selling it to the local utility. I’m in effect renting them my roof to produce electricity, some of which I use. They constantly monitor my production and have even emailed me to trim back a tree since it appeared my production dipped a bit when the tree threw a shadow on a couple of panels.
What was my out of pocket cost? $7000. I didn’t get any rebates (those go to the solar company), but I’m covered for 20 years against any rise in rates (and I have never experienced a decrease in electricity rates).
First read. Then shake head. Then roll eyes. Then let’s discuss.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/...grid-as-11226625.php
Ok, I’ve already pointed out the the basis for the editorial is silly. Perry said he intends to study grid stability and did not indicate any intention to stop net metering. Utilities in 43 states allow net metering. In general, operation of electric utilities is regulated by the individual states.
What authority does Trump have to modify, for instance, California laws and regulations regarding net metering? Has Congress granted to any agency of the executive branch authority to write regulations that would regulate net metering? If not changing California, or any other state law, would require an act of Congress (and good luck with that).
Interesting, I don’t think we have any of the options you’ve mentioned here. I know of several farms that have taken their house and some of the out buildings off grid. However, because of some of the demands for grain storage & handling they can’t completely cut the cord.
Yawn…
I second that…