The Argument for Prosecution

[Leftfield 2,585]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

He’s not going to end fracking too, except on federal land by an EO he signed his first day.  He is a typical wind shock politician, full of half truths.  He may not implement the entire GND, but parts will be seen in the near future.

My God. The number of times you change the argument, twist words, or put words in someone's mouth is just dizzying. 

First off, Biden has always said he would ban fracking on Federal land. It was others twisting those words that led his opponents to state he was going to ban all fracking. So now you're using the fact he has done exactly what he said he would do as proof that he's a liar?

And of course he would implement parts of the GND, because parts of it he agrees with. Just because you don't agree with any of it doesn't mean he's in perfect agreement with AOC or anyone else.

 

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, it would put people to work, but replacing an existing building that is perfectly good for one that is made from zero emission sources is fantasy.  Who is paying for that?

Please show me an example of anyone being forced to replace an existing building. Is Biden proposing any legislation that would do this?

 

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

If schools do not consider males that believe they are females in all aspects of school life he will take a look at the financial aid they may get.

Very strange tangent. This has nothing to do with the climate accords or environmental policy. For what it's worth, I think I know where you're going with it, and if it's in reference to sports I tend to agree with you, but this opens a whole other discussion.

 

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Extracting CO2 from the air is one of the best ways to reverse climate changewithout resorting to expensive technologies, convoluted tax schemes or preventing billions of people from getting the energy they need to have a good life.  If you could then make gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel from it, then you’d kill two birds with one stone.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/10/08/carbon-engineering-taking-co2-right-out-of-the-air-to-make-gasoline/?sh=473d0cc813cc

Have you heard of this technology?  Probably not, all we hear about is solar panels and windmills. Solar panels have a 20 year life and are toxic after that period.  Windmills costs more energy to produce than it will ever produce and is expensive to keep up.  They also use oil as a lubricant that leaks.

Yes, I've heard of CO2 extraction, and it could become a viable technology that can help. There are two problems. First, for right now, it is more expensive than you seem to realize and will take quite some time to get enough in place to begin making a difference. Your own article states that the current cost of removing a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere is about $100. Manmade CO2 emissions per year are 40 billion tons, and there is already a significant excess in the atmosphere. Who pays for that? It would have to be governments. You can't run a profitable business removing CO2 from the atmosphere because there's no market for it. Certainly some could be sold to companies that would use it to produce the fuels the article mentions, but those companies would have all the leverage because the producer has no other place to sell it in large quantities, so the cost recovery would be minimal.

The second problem with extraction is you have to keep using fossil fuels for there to be a need for it. Fossil fuels will only last so long. At some point the availability will decline, so you will have to have alternative energies to pick up the slack. When they come along and fossil fuels are no longer needed, what do you do with the extraction infrastructure you've put in place?

I would point out, the article also mentions that in order to make these fuels it mentions, the CO2 would have to be combined with hydrogen, and "If the hydrogen is produced from water using nuclear or renewable energy, then the fuel is carbon-neutral." So you would still need alternative energy sources to make it carbon neutral. 

Certainly these costs will decrease as the technology advances and become more widespread, but then, so will alternative energy sources.

As to windmills, you're only partially correct. There are areas where it makes sense and generates quite a profit, but it's certainly not practical on a worldwide scale. Also, your statement about oil leaking is rather laughable in the face of the amount of oil spills from transportation through ships and pipelines over the years.

Solar panels absolutely need to have more focus applied so that they are recycled properly to avoid becoming an environmental hazard. This has been a major shortcoming for most of them to date, and the fact that setting up proper recycling programs for them has been neglected is unforgivable. That doesn't mean they're a dead end. Lead-free solar panels are being developed, as well as production processes that remove some less-friendly substances like cadmium.

 

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

She keeps herself in the news and for that reason I listen to what she says, but ignore her (or better laugh at her logic).  When she was a freshman Rep. I listened as did most until she proved her worth.

Air travel is necessary for transporting people and goods across great distances in a timely manner with efficiency. .  How would we be able traverse oceans as quickly as we do?  Losing air travel would greatly reduce commerce between nations.

So you listen to what she says, but you ignore her? Do you have some idea how ridiculous that sounds? 

Why do you assume that everyone now ignores AOC except Biden? You keep pushing the fact that she is now a well-known member of the Democratic Party as proof that Biden supports the GND wholesale, while simultaneously pointing out that nobody takes her seriously. Could that possibly be because of your bias and that you want Biden to be a failure?

You're also changing the argument about air travel by looking at a static picture. There is no chance it will be replaced if the alternative isn't in the same ballpark financially or if it takes significantly longer for travel to occur, and I have seen no instances where someone is suggesting mandating it. If technology somehow develops enough in the future to make a viable replacement, well then why not? 

I'm pretty much done chasing this down. It's clear you've passed judgment on Biden before he's even had a chance to do anything, and that you're convinced any development of alternative energy will crash all business associated with fossil fuels, so I'm not sure what the point of discussion is. As I said, if Biden ends up adopting the entire GND, I'll admit I was wrong. There are certainly things I'm not going to agree with him on in many aspects, but that's the price I gladly paid in order to get Trump out of office.

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

12 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

According to @icanthearyou response to your question I am assuming results do not matter. The gentleman from Princeton grades the pact as failing yet says it is worthwhile. Are you a “denier”?

 

 

 

If the definition of a *denier* is not believing climate change is an existential threat that will end the world if nothing is done by 2030, then yes I am a *denier*.  I believe we have several generations yet to come that will solve the problem, or will realize mankind can not control the weather or climate.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

15 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

You are right, it’s harder to kill American jobs without being in a worthless agreement that doesn’t hold  other countries to the same standards as us. 

@icanthearyou I know, it is facepalm worthy that the left wants to kill American jobs. It’s even sadder that some on here support such actions. 

[homersapien 11,354]

On 2/12/2021 at 3:05 PM, I_M4_AU said:

@homersapienthe Paris Accord is a toothless agreement.  The nations that take is seriously will, the others won’t.  If rejoining the Paris Accord costs the US in jobs and economic growth, is it worth it or is that agreement before its time.  There are people that do not believe climate change is an existential threat that needs to be addressed in such a way as the Biden administration is doing.

You still don't understand the Paris Accord.

It's not going to "cost" the US anything that the US doesn't volunteer to do.

And I get that you don't accept the reality of AGW which is at the basis of your position.  Just admit it.  You think you know better than virtually every scientist involved with it.  

You're certainly not worth my time in trying to educate you (as if I could).

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

12 hours ago, Leftfield said:

First off, Biden has always said he would ban fracking on Federal land.

The man can’t even keep track of what he has said and the media cover for him.

12 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Very strange tangent. This has nothing to do with the climate accords or environmental policy.

You asked for a policy that he has implemented that affect people, that was an example.  If you specifically meant his climate policy, its obviously shutting down the pipeline.  That is controlling people earning a living for his policies.  If that chance comes from the free market, so be it, but its not, its Biden pulling those strings.

To your statements about CO2 extraction, windmills and solar panels; there is no turn key proposal that is available, they all have kinks to be worked out, but the extraction would be temporary to get us from where we are now to we should be.  It gives fossil fuel industries time to adapt instead of sudden stoppage.  Any paradigm shift takes time for industries to adapt to and the government shouldn’t be dictating this, the free market should.

13 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Could that possibly be because of your bias and that you want Biden to be a failure?

I don’t want Biden to fail, I’m just afraid he will.  I have always thought he was not up to the task of the office.  And if you believe AOC isn’t in Biden’s ear on a daily basis, you’re drinking the cool-aid.

13 hours ago, Leftfield said:

If technology somehow develops enough in the future to make a viable replacement, well then why not? 

I have said before if technology comes up with the Star Trek type of Transporter aviation will be done.  I wouldn’t want to be the a test subject, but once they perfect the process that will be the time fossil fuels will need to adjust.

13 hours ago, Leftfield said:

It's clear you've passed judgment on Biden before he's even had a chance to do anything

This is a lot like every Democrat did to Trump, so.......

13 hours ago, Leftfield said:

and that you're convinced any development of alternative energy will crash all business associated with fossil fuels

This is not true, the problem is how fast the alternative energy is produced so the fossil fuel industry can adjust.  If it is done by the free market, great.  If it is mandated by Global elitist, I have a problem with it.  The EU has mandated no new cars can be sold that are not electric by 2030/2040 and the car companies are adapting. That also means that fossil fuel automobiles will still be available to drive.  Adaptation as opposed to no need for fossil fuels by 2030.   See the difference?

[homersapien 11,354]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

If the definition of a *denier* is not believing climate change is an existential threat that will end the world if nothing is done by 2030, then yes I am a *denier*.  I believe we have several generations yet to come that will solve the problem, or will realize mankind can not control the weather or climate.

I rest my case.  You have no standing to discuss the merits of the Paris Climate Accords.

You are just another ignorant denier.

[homersapien 11,354]

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Any paradigm shift takes time for industries to adapt to and the government shouldn’t be dictating this, the free market should.

Since when has the "free market" given a rats ass about the environment or anything else that might depress next quarter's earnings. 

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It's not going to "cost" the US anything that the US doesn't volunteer to do.

Do really believe the pipeline workers volunteered to give up their jobs to promote Biden’s appearance he is doing something to help the AGW?  Is that how it works?  Are you in favor of the UN?

 

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And I get that you don't accept the hypothesis of AGW which is at the basis of your position.  Just admit it. 

There FIFY, and I think I just did admit it.

 

[homersapien 11,354]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do really believe the pipeline workers volunteered to give up their jobs to promote Biden’s appearance he is doing something to help the AGW?  Is that how it works?  Are you in favor of the UN?

 

There FIFY, and I think I just did admit it.

 

That's called "begging the question", a rhetorical fallacy.  (And this was a particularly clumsy and crude example.)

One could even say idiotic.

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Since when has the "free market" given a rats ass about the environment or anything else that might depress next quarter's earnings.

When government mandates no new cars will be sold with internal combustion engines by 203/40 as the EU has.  You are old enough to remember the restrictions placed on car companies that California placed on emissions, aren’t you?  They all fell in line with a lot of kicking and screaming, but they did.

You are also old enough to remember the original *fuel* crisis in the early 70’s and the development of more fuel efficient cars and the 55 MPH speed limit.  Be honest; did you always drive 55 MPH on the interstates?  He!!, I gave up my 68 Plymouth Road Runner for a POS Fiat to save the planet and that was almost 50 years ago.

Let the market do it’s job, it takes longer, but at least it’s not mandating fast change which is basically a power grab.

[homersapien 11,354]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

When government mandates no new cars will be sold with internal combustion engines by 203/40 as the EU has.  You are old enough to remember the restrictions placed on car companies that California placed on emissions, aren’t you?  They all fell in line with a lot of kicking and screaming, but they did.

You are also old enough to remember the original *fuel* crisis in the early 70’s and the development of more fuel efficient cars and the 55 MPH speed limit.  Be honest; did you always drive 55 MPH on the interstates?  He!!, I gave up my 68 Plymouth Road Runner for a POS Fiat to save the planet and that was almost 50 years ago.

Let the market do it’s job, it takes longer, but at least it’s not mandating fast change which is basically a power grab.

You are obviously conflating a "free market" with regulated markets.

Boy, are you confused.

(But thanks for arguing my case.)

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

You are obviously conflating a "free market" with regulated markets.

The California case is free market as the car companies made a decision to built all of their cars to California’s standards without being regulated.  It was an economically sound decision and not regulated at the time.

The EU example is too as US companies are adapting for markets in the US that do not have this requirement.  Regulations can drive the free market, it’s not a cram down.

If you just look at the end result of the regulation, you could come to the conclusion it is a regulated market, but how you got there is important.

The airline industry used to be a regulated market and then came de-regulation.  The industry was still regulated to a high degree, but they were given enough freedom to make the industry profitable without subsidies.

 

[homersapien 11,354]

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The California case is free market as the car companies made a decision to built all of their cars to California’s standards without being regulated.  It was an economically sound decision and not regulated at the time. ???

The EU example is too as US companies are adapting for markets in the US that do not have this requirement.  Regulations can drive the free market, it’s not a cram down.

If you just look at the end result of the regulation, you could come to the conclusion it is a regulated market, but how you got there is important.

The airline industry used to be a regulated market and then came de-regulation.  The industry was still regulated to a high degree, but they were given enough freedom to make the industry profitable without subsidies.

 

The car industry didn't create the regulations California did.  The car companies simply decided to standardize to their regulatory standard because the California market is so large and they wanted to comply. 

And of course these cars were regulated - they complied with the regulations California creates.  Without the California regulations, the car makers wouldn't have modified anything.

So, yes, regulations can "drive" the markets.  That's exactly why I support them. But a "free market" by definition is one that is not regulated.  Manufacturers can produce whatever they can sell to maximize their profits without having to consider regulations.

(The last paragraph on the airline industry makes no sense regarding this particular discussion on environmental regulations.)

Bottom line, you claimed support for a "free market" as opposed to regulated market as a way to address AGW (which you don't accept to start with. )

You obviously don't understand what "free market" means, since you are now conflating it with regulations (a regulated market).

 

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

But a "free market" by definition is one that is not regulated.

By this definition there are no free markets, none.

 

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

(The last paragraph on the airline industry makes no sense regarding this particular discussion on environmental regulations.)

It does with regard to regulated/free market, it was an example of being regulated, but free to run your business as you see fit.  And if you don’t think the airline industry is full of environmental regulation you haven’t been paying attention. 

 

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Bottom line, you claimed support for a "free market" as opposed to regulated market as a way to address AGW (which you don't accept to start with. )

I support a company being able to make decision based on its best interest with in the confines of whatever regulation the government has, environmental or otherwise.  I do not support a mandated regulation of markets.  The difference being most regulations have a long period of dialogue between government and private industry to evaluate the feasibility of the stated regulation, which means the industry has a say in the results.  Not a cram down.    

[homersapien 11,354]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

By this definition there are no free markets, none.

Possibly.  But that's only been true until fairly recently, thanks to progress in government.

 

It does with regard to regulated/free market, it was an example of being regulated, but free to run your business as you see fit. That's generally true of most businesses, but again, it wasn't relevant to the discussion.

 And if you don’t think the airline industry is full of environmental regulation you haven’t been paying attention.   I never suggested or implied that.  More to the point, neither did you.

 

I support a company being able to make decision based on its best interest with in the confines of whatever regulation the government has, environmental or otherwise.  I do not support a mandated regulation of markets.  That's a paradox (self-contradictory)

 

The difference being most regulations have a long period of dialogue between government and private industry to evaluate the feasibility of the stated regulation, which means the industry has a say in the results.  Not a cram down.    Irrelevant to your claim that you'd prefer a free market solution to AGW instead of a regulated one.

That's some pretty good crawfishing, but I suggest you withdraw the original statement.

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

36 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Possibly.  But that's only been true until fairly recently, thanks to progress in government.

If you agree, even slightly, you argument falls apart.  Oh, and the deregulation movement started in the late 70’s and early 80’s with the airline, energy and banking industries.  You missed it my a few decades.

[homersapien 11,354]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If you agree, even slightly, you argument falls apart. 

What is my argument, in your own words.

 

[homersapien 11,354]

57 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Oh, and the deregulation movement started in the late 70’s and early 80’s with the airline, energy and banking industries.  You missed it my a few decades.

Regulations probably started with the first "governments".  They are intrinsic to government.  Regarding food - my personal area of expertise - one of the early regulations in England was in 1202:

".....In 1202, King John of England proclaimed the first English food law, the Assize of Bread.  This law prohibited the adulteration of bread with such ingredients as ground peas or beans, and established weights, quality standards, and prices of beer and bread sold in England.  In 1646 the Massachusetts Bay Colony enacted a law with almost identical wording.  While designations might have changed from Colony to State after the American Revolution, the regulation of food was still thought to be a local concern, and there was limited involvement from the fledgling federal government......"

https://www.tresquire.com/blog/fda

As far as "deregulation" is concerned, simply because an industry here or there has had regulations modified or lifted doesn't reflect an "age of deregulations" which is kind of laughable. (See the CFR)

 

So you missed it by a few centuries, (or more).

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

19 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What is my argument, in your own words.

 

The argument that a free market has no restrictions and a regulated market is one that is regulated even if it has provisions for a free market.  If this isn’t your case I’m sure you will let me know.

[homersapien 11,354]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You’re slow.

Well, that's that's certainly one of my arguments, you are slow. 

But the argument that started us down this path is that a "free market" will not / cannot address AGW - or pretty much any other problem that doesn't directly affect their bottom line. Companies operating in a free market don't consider "external costs" as their problem, by definition.  In a "free market" there is no business rationale for them to do so.

Therefore, no progress can be or will be achieved on AGW (for example), without government-imposed regulations.

Your arguments - on the other hand - are all over the map. 

You first say you would like to see AGW amelioration handled by the "free market" (impossible), then you proceed to provide examples of companies responding to such problems which are actually examples of companies operating in regulated markets, which proves my point.

I think you are confused. Which is exactly why I asked you to cite my argument (in your own words).  The apparent fact you cannot, confirms your confusion.

I hope this helps.

 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,354]

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The argument that a free market has no restrictions and a regulated market is one that is regulated even if it has provisions for a free market.  If this isn’t your case I’m sure you will let me know.

Good grief.

If a market - such as the energy market - is regulated (which it should be) it doesn't suddenly become a "free market" simply because anyone who operates within it can compete equally, as long as they all abide by the regulations.  That's simply open competition (within the bounds of regulations everyone has to abide by.)  It doesn't mean that market is without regulations.

But let's get back to your statement:   You present a supposed conflict between addressing AGW (which you don't accept) by regulating market practices vs. letting the free market handle the problem.  In other words, don't regulate, let companies figure it out on their own however they see fit.

Is that accurate?

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Is that accurate?

An analogy would be Honk Kong under British regulations as opposed to Honk Kong under CCP regulations.  

[homersapien 11,354]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

An analogy would be Honk Kong under British regulations as opposed to Honk Kong under CCP regulations.  

Most - if not all - markets are regulated in both cases.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Most - if not all - markets are regulated in both cases.

One forces their regulations on the people.  The other allowed to the people to control their own destiny. Why would Honk Kong protest the change in government?  It was because one government is tyrannical in their application of the regulations.

This is what I don’t want with regard to environmental regulations.

[homersapien 11,354]

You need to learn how to cut your losses and quit.