Climate Consensus Con Game

[homersapien 11,362]

I think it's a great conversation. I don't have all, or even a few of the answers. I just know that the day the term "Global Warming" took over it killed the focus on illicit discharges and point source pollution and turned it towards CO2 emissions because of a few hot and dry summers.

There's a bunch of folks in West Virginia that would disagree.

Regardless, there is no reason - and certainly no intent - for AGW to discount the risks of other pollution problems.

After reading this, I got it backwards. The folks in WV (that were impacted by the toxic leak into their river) probably would agree that we have neglected that branch of pollution.

But I disagree that AGW has anything to do with diverting attention or resources. Their local (state) laws have always been lax. Apparently, we cannot rely on the states to take care of their own pollution risks.

[autigeremt 6,598]

I think it's a great conversation. I don't have all, or even a few of the answers. I just know that the day the term "Global Warming" took over it killed the focus on illicit discharges and point source pollution and turned it towards CO2 emissions because of a few hot and dry summers.

There's a bunch of folks in West Virginia that would disagree.

Regardless, there is no reason - and certainly no intent - for AGW to discount the risks of other pollution problems.

After reading this, I got it backwards. The folks in WV (that were impacted by the toxic leak into their river) probably would agree that we have neglected that branch of pollution.

But I disagree that AGW has anything to do with diverting attention or resources. Their local (state) laws have always been lax. Apparently, we cannot rely on the states to take care of their own pollution risks.

Apparently the EPA hadn't been doing their job either. They have oversight responsibilities along with WV. As usual you see the Feds as the best option for oversight when in fact they are just as, and in some cases worse, at doing their stated job.

[autigeremt 6,598]

So....should we close down coal right now? Shut it down completely? What happens then?

We should look to phase it out gradually. Immediate shutdown isn't economically feasible.

I'd love to see an alternative that works but where is it and how feasible is it?

Nuclear is very feasible. I think that's our best bet.

Most environmentalists cite Japan's most recent nuclear meltdown and go nuts when bringing it up as a viable option. Wind power seems to be the new leading cause for eagle deaths in the US. If we don't do something about the energy situation it would be a travesty. Allowing ideological liberals the lead the effort would cause issues in areas where people depend on fossil fuels as a way of life (jobs, production, etc.)

With a nation so split it's hard to see anything rational coming from it.

[homersapien 11,362]

I think it's a great conversation. I don't have all, or even a few of the answers. I just know that the day the term "Global Warming" took over it killed the focus on illicit discharges and point source pollution and turned it towards CO2 emissions because of a few hot and dry summers.

There's a bunch of folks in West Virginia that would disagree.

Regardless, there is no reason - and certainly no intent - for AGW to discount the risks of other pollution problems.

After reading this, I got it backwards. The folks in WV (that were impacted by the toxic leak into their river) probably would agree that we have neglected that branch of pollution.

But I disagree that AGW has anything to do with diverting attention or resources. Their local (state) laws have always been lax. Apparently, we cannot rely on the states to take care of their own pollution risks.

Apparently the EPA hadn't been doing their job either. They have oversight responsibilities along with WV. As usual you see the Feds as the best option for oversight when in fact they are just as, and in some cases worse, at doing their stated job.

Yeah, right. :-\

I'd be willing to assign more blame to the EPA if the West Virginia Coal Industry and their paid politicians haven't been fighting them them tooth and nail for years. They are pretty clear they don't want EPA calling the shots in West Virginia:

http://www.wvcoal.co...y-epa-role.html

[homersapien 11,362]

So....should we close down coal right now? Shut it down completely? What happens then?

We should look to phase it out gradually. Immediate shutdown isn't economically feasible.

I'd love to see an alternative that works but where is it and how feasible is it?

Nuclear is very feasible. I think that's our best bet.

Most environmentalists cite Japan's most recent nuclear meltdown and go nuts when bringing it up as a viable option. Wind power seems to be the new leading cause for eagle deaths in the US. If we don't do something about the energy situation it would be a travesty. Allowing ideological liberals the lead the effort would cause issues in areas where people depend on fossil fuels as a way of life (jobs, production, etc.)

With a nation so split it's hard to see anything rational coming from it.

Everything is politics to you isn't it?

[autigeremt 6,598]

So....should we close down coal right now? Shut it down completely? What happens then?

We should look to phase it out gradually. Immediate shutdown isn't economically feasible.

I'd love to see an alternative that works but where is it and how feasible is it?

Nuclear is very feasible. I think that's our best bet.

Most environmentalists cite Japan's most recent nuclear meltdown and go nuts when bringing it up as a viable option. Wind power seems to be the new leading cause for eagle deaths in the US. If we don't do something about the energy situation it would be a travesty. Allowing ideological liberals the lead the effort would cause issues in areas where people depend on fossil fuels as a way of life (jobs, production, etc.)

With a nation so split it's hard to see anything rational coming from it.

Everything is politics to you isn't it?

This "is" the political forum. And yes, due to the politicization of this topic by the far left (and the over reaction at times by the far right) the two are intertwined.

[homersapien 11,362]

So....should we close down coal right now? Shut it down completely? What happens then?

We should look to phase it out gradually. Immediate shutdown isn't economically feasible.

I'd love to see an alternative that works but where is it and how feasible is it?

Nuclear is very feasible. I think that's our best bet.

Most environmentalists cite Japan's most recent nuclear meltdown and go nuts when bringing it up as a viable option. Wind power seems to be the new leading cause for eagle deaths in the US. If we don't do something about the energy situation it would be a travesty. Allowing ideological liberals the lead the effort would cause issues in areas where people depend on fossil fuels as a way of life (jobs, production, etc.)

With a nation so split it's hard to see anything rational coming from it.

Everything is politics to you isn't it?

This "is" the political forum. And yes, due to the politicization of this topic by the far left (and the over reaction at times by the far right) the two are intertwined.

Yeah, and the purpose of a political form (IMO) is to try to move things out of the political into the practical. That's why they are politicized by both sides (not just the liberal one). What do you call the link I posted above?

It's fine to argue about what to do about global warming (if anything) or any other ecological threat for that matter, but in the final analysis, most of the perceived problems causing the degradation of the environment are real. They are observable and they require either remedial action or prevention.

Sometime you sound like you would prefer to maintain a political stance that simply denies their existence.

Environmentalists compromise all the time, but the trend is pretty much going in one direction - loss or reduction of natural ecosystems. You might want to keep that in mind when thinking about your children.

And if environmentalists (and they aren't all liberal) don't "lead the effort", who in hell will? The coal companies? Wall Street?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Obama and the EPA have struck again. Bypassing Congress, they are issuing new regulations placing new limits on allowed sulphur emissions by refineries. They already went thru requirements to eliminate 95% and now must make expensive changes to accommodate at most another 5%. it is ridiculous and will only cause gas prices to go up.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Obama and the EPA have struck again. Bypassing Congress, they are issuing new regulations placing new limits on allowed sulphur emissions by refineries. They already went thru requirements to eliminate 95% and now must make expensive changes to accommodate at most another 5%. it is ridiculous and will only cause gas prices to go up.

The EPA is part of the executive branch. They did not bypass congress, because congress doesn't have the primary authority.

All congress can do, by the Constitution, is allocate funding and create a structure, and give authority to the new agency. It is then the executive branch who gets to decide on implementation and enforcement.

[autigeremt 6,598]

So....should we close down coal right now? Shut it down completely? What happens then?

We should look to phase it out gradually. Immediate shutdown isn't economically feasible.

I'd love to see an alternative that works but where is it and how feasible is it?

Nuclear is very feasible. I think that's our best bet.

Most environmentalists cite Japan's most recent nuclear meltdown and go nuts when bringing it up as a viable option. Wind power seems to be the new leading cause for eagle deaths in the US. If we don't do something about the energy situation it would be a travesty. Allowing ideological liberals the lead the effort would cause issues in areas where people depend on fossil fuels as a way of life (jobs, production, etc.)

With a nation so split it's hard to see anything rational coming from it.

Everything is politics to you isn't it?

This "is" the political forum. And yes, due to the politicization of this topic by the far left (and the over reaction at times by the far right) the two are intertwined.

Yeah, and the purpose of a political form (IMO) is to try to move things out of the political into the practical. That's why they are politicized by both sides (not just the liberal one). What do you call the link I posted above?

It's fine to argue about what to do about global warming (if anything) or any other ecological threat for that matter, but in the final analysis, most of the perceived problems causing the degradation of the environment are real. They are observable and they require either remedial action or prevention.

Sometime you sound like you would prefer to maintain a political stance that simply denies their existence.

Environmentalists compromise all the time, but the trend is pretty much going in one direction - loss or reduction of natural ecosystems. You might want to keep that in mind when thinking about your children.

And if environmentalists (and they aren't all liberal) don't "lead the effort", who in hell will? The coal companies? Wall Street?

You obviously don't read...you just reply and use innuendo to belittle those you oppose. In your mind it's constructive criticism, but it's not viewed that way. You are just as bent as you claim that I am. I'm done with replying to you but it won't stop me from attacking your slight of hand. Good day.

[autigeremt 6,598]

Obama and the EPA have struck again. Bypassing Congress, they are issuing new regulations placing new limits on allowed sulphur emissions by refineries. They already went thru requirements to eliminate 95% and now must make expensive changes to accommodate at most another 5%. it is ridiculous and will only cause gas prices to go up.

The EPA is part of the executive branch. They did not bypass congress, because congress doesn't have the primary authority.

All congress can do, by the Constitution, is allocate funding and create a structure, and give authority to the new agency. It is then the executive branch who gets to decide on implementation and enforcement.

The EPA is just a tool for each presidency one way or the other. This president likes to use it to advance it's own interests, just like others have. I wish it weren't that way but it us. It would be nice if it were consistent.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Obama and the EPA have struck again. Bypassing Congress, they are issuing new regulations placing new limits on allowed sulphur emissions by refineries. They already went thru requirements to eliminate 95% and now must make expensive changes to accommodate at most another 5%. it is ridiculous and will only cause gas prices to go up.

The EPA is part of the executive branch. They did not bypass congress, because congress doesn't have the primary authority.

All congress can do, by the Constitution, is allocate funding and create a structure, and give authority to the new agency. It is then the executive branch who gets to decide on implementation and enforcement.

The EPA is just a tool for each presidency one way or the other. This president likes to use it to advance it's own interests, just like others have. I wish it weren't that way but it us. It would be nice if it were consistent.

Not to play devil's advocate, but lifetime appointments of judges is pretty consistent, but you often hear cries from the Right about "activist judges" along with a simmering populist desire to term-limit the judges.

[autigeremt 6,598]

Obama and the EPA have struck again. Bypassing Congress, they are issuing new regulations placing new limits on allowed sulphur emissions by refineries. They already went thru requirements to eliminate 95% and now must make expensive changes to accommodate at most another 5%. it is ridiculous and will only cause gas prices to go up.

The EPA is part of the executive branch. They did not bypass congress, because congress doesn't have the primary authority.

All congress can do, by the Constitution, is allocate funding and create a structure, and give authority to the new agency. It is then the executive branch who gets to decide on implementation and enforcement.

The EPA is just a tool for each presidency one way or the other. This president likes to use it to advance it's own interests, just like others have. I wish it weren't that way but it us. It would be nice if it were consistent.

Not to play devil's advocate, but lifetime appointments of judges is pretty consistent, but you often hear cries from the Right about "activist judges" along with a simmering populist desire to term-limit the judges.

Apples and oranges but your point is taken. When I say consistent I mean the moving target regulations that cost us all billions of dollars one way or the other. Instead of a reassessment period it's a swinging pendulum.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Obama and the EPA have struck again. Bypassing Congress, they are issuing new regulations placing new limits on allowed sulphur emissions by refineries. They already went thru requirements to eliminate 95% and now must make expensive changes to accommodate at most another 5%. it is ridiculous and will only cause gas prices to go up.

The EPA is part of the executive branch. They did not bypass congress, because congress doesn't have the primary authority.

All congress can do, by the Constitution, is allocate funding and create a structure, and give authority to the new agency. It is then the executive branch who gets to decide on implementation and enforcement.

The EPA is just a tool for each presidency one way or the other. This president likes to use it to advance it's own interests, just like others have. I wish it weren't that way but it us. It would be nice if it were consistent.

Not to play devil's advocate, but lifetime appointments of judges is pretty consistent, but you often hear cries from the Right about "activist judges" along with a simmering populist desire to term-limit the judges.

Apples and oranges but your point is taken. When I say consistent I mean the moving target regulations that cost us all billions of dollars one way or the other. Instead of a reassessment period it's a swinging pendulum.

I agree 100%, I was just bein' a jerk. There isn't a lot of leadership continuity, which leads to inefficiency, as well as the "revolving door" of leadership. One administration has one guy or girl in charge, and then when the opposing administration comes to power, that person goes and is a CEO of one of the companies they oversaw, while that CEO comes to be the head of an agency.

Ironically enough, what continuity there is is largely there because of career bureaucrats, who we tend to heap a lot of scorn on.

There are positive examples, though, of continuity, particularly at the Federal Reserve. I know how you feel about it as an institution, but you have to admit that there's a ton of carryover and it is rarely a partisan position.

[autigeremt 6,598]

Obama and the EPA have struck again. Bypassing Congress, they are issuing new regulations placing new limits on allowed sulphur emissions by refineries. They already went thru requirements to eliminate 95% and now must make expensive changes to accommodate at most another 5%. it is ridiculous and will only cause gas prices to go up.

The EPA is part of the executive branch. They did not bypass congress, because congress doesn't have the primary authority.

All congress can do, by the Constitution, is allocate funding and create a structure, and give authority to the new agency. It is then the executive branch who gets to decide on implementation and enforcement.

The EPA is just a tool for each presidency one way or the other. This president likes to use it to advance it's own interests, just like others have. I wish it weren't that way but it us. It would be nice if it were consistent.

Not to play devil's advocate, but lifetime appointments of judges is pretty consistent, but you often hear cries from the Right about "activist judges" along with a simmering populist desire to term-limit the judges.

Apples and oranges but your point is taken. When I say consistent I mean the moving target regulations that cost us all billions of dollars one way or the other. Instead of a reassessment period it's a swinging pendulum.

I agree 100%, I was just bein' a jerk. :)/> There isn't a lot of leadership continuity, which leads to inefficiency, as well as the "revolving door" of leadership. One administration has one guy or girl in charge, and then when the opposing administration comes to power, that person goes and is a CEO of one of the companies they oversaw, while that CEO comes to be the head of an agency.

Ironically enough, what continuity there is is largely there because of career bureaucrats, who we tend to heap a lot of scorn on.

There are positive examples, though, of continuity, particularly at the Federal Reserve. I know how you feel about it as an institution, but you have to admit that there's a ton of carryover and it is rarely a partisan position.

Honestly, as citizens, we shouldn't notice or feel the changes. The carryover reflects those who work throughout the various agencies. Career minded individuals who dedicate their lives to their job. The problem is when the top administrator is given the power to erase 4 to 8 years of continuity and makes changes based on ideology or politics without assessing his or her agency first. I have friends who work in Region 4 and Region 2 in the air and water divisions, respectively. Their stories lead me to my stance on this issue.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Obama and the EPA have struck again. Bypassing Congress, they are issuing new regulations placing new limits on allowed sulphur emissions by refineries. They already went thru requirements to eliminate 95% and now must make expensive changes to accommodate at most another 5%. it is ridiculous and will only cause gas prices to go up.

The EPA is part of the executive branch. They did not bypass congress, because congress doesn't have the primary authority.

All congress can do, by the Constitution, is allocate funding and create a structure, and give authority to the new agency. It is then the executive branch who gets to decide on implementation and enforcement.

The EPA is just a tool for each presidency one way or the other. This president likes to use it to advance it's own interests, just like others have. I wish it weren't that way but it us. It would be nice if it were consistent.

Not to play devil's advocate, but lifetime appointments of judges is pretty consistent, but you often hear cries from the Right about "activist judges" along with a simmering populist desire to term-limit the judges.

Apples and oranges but your point is taken. When I say consistent I mean the moving target regulations that cost us all billions of dollars one way or the other. Instead of a reassessment period it's a swinging pendulum.

I agree 100%, I was just bein' a jerk. :)/> There isn't a lot of leadership continuity, which leads to inefficiency, as well as the "revolving door" of leadership. One administration has one guy or girl in charge, and then when the opposing administration comes to power, that person goes and is a CEO of one of the companies they oversaw, while that CEO comes to be the head of an agency.

Ironically enough, what continuity there is is largely there because of career bureaucrats, who we tend to heap a lot of scorn on.

There are positive examples, though, of continuity, particularly at the Federal Reserve. I know how you feel about it as an institution, but you have to admit that there's a ton of carryover and it is rarely a partisan position.

Honestly, as citizens, we shouldn't notice or feel the changes. The carryover reflects those who work throughout the various agencies. Career minded individuals who dedicate their lives to their job. The problem is when the top administrator is given the power to erase 4 to 8 years of continuity and makes changes based on ideology or politics without assessing his or her agency first. I have friends who work in Region 4 and Region 2 in the air and water divisions, respectively. Their stories lead me to my stance on this issue.

And great huzzahs were raised that day. You've nailed it 100%.

You and I, we speak the same language, even if we say different things sometimes.

[homersapien 11,362]

Obama and the EPA have struck again. Bypassing Congress, they are issuing new regulations placing new limits on allowed sulphur emissions by refineries. They already went thru requirements to eliminate 95% and now must make expensive changes to accommodate at most another 5%. it is ridiculous and will only cause gas prices to go up.

The EPA is part of the executive branch. They did not bypass congress, because congress doesn't have the primary authority.

All congress can do, by the Constitution, is allocate funding and create a structure, and give authority to the new agency. It is then the executive branch who gets to decide on implementation and enforcement.

The EPA is just a tool for each presidency one way or the other. This president likes to use it to advance it's own interests, just like others have. I wish it weren't that way but it us. It would be nice if it were consistent.

Not to play devil's advocate, but lifetime appointments of judges is pretty consistent, but you often hear cries from the Right about "activist judges" along with a simmering populist desire to term-limit the judges.

Apples and oranges but your point is taken. When I say consistent I mean the moving target regulations that cost us all billions of dollars one way or the other. Instead of a reassessment period it's a swinging pendulum.

I agree 100%, I was just bein' a jerk. :)/> There isn't a lot of leadership continuity, which leads to inefficiency, as well as the "revolving door" of leadership. One administration has one guy or girl in charge, and then when the opposing administration comes to power, that person goes and is a CEO of one of the companies they oversaw, while that CEO comes to be the head of an agency.

Ironically enough, what continuity there is is largely there because of career bureaucrats, who we tend to heap a lot of scorn on.

There are positive examples, though, of continuity, particularly at the Federal Reserve. I know how you feel about it as an institution, but you have to admit that there's a ton of carryover and it is rarely a partisan position.

Honestly, as citizens, we shouldn't notice or feel the changes. The carryover reflects those who work throughout the various agencies. Career minded individuals who dedicate their lives to their job. The problem is when the top administrator is given the power to erase 4 to 8 years of continuity and makes changes based on ideology or politics without assessing his or her agency first. I have friends who work in Region 4 and Region 2 in the air and water divisions, respectively. Their stories lead me to my stance on this issue.

Can you say, James Watt?

(Different agency, I know)