US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1063

On May 20 2014 07:03 xDaunt wrote:


This is the most sensible perspective that I have seen from your side in some time.



I don't think that anyone objects to sensible modernization and green development. As just an example, I'm all for putting in decent public transportation in urban areas, and I think that it is criminally stupid that so many large US cities are without it.

For me, the issue is that many of the proposals for what needs to be done to avert disaster entail severe economic consequences -- especially in that they all result in the elimination of cheap energy. If you want to talk about harming the poor, eliminating cheap energy is the fastest way to accomplish that. I'm just not prepared to sign off on that kind of change given where the science is on the actual risk.

On May 20 2014 07:03 xDaunt wrote:


This is the most sensible perspective that I have seen from your side in some time.



I don't think that anyone objects to sensible modernization and green development. As just an example, I'm all for putting in decent public transportation in urban areas, and I think that it is criminally stupid that so many large US cities are without it.

For me, the issue is that many of the proposals for what needs to be done to avert disaster entail severe economic consequences -- especially in that they all result in the elimination of cheap energy. If you want to talk about harming the poor, eliminating cheap energy is the fastest way to accomplish that. I'm just not prepared to sign off on that kind of change given where the science is on the actual risk.

On May 20 2014 07:03 xDaunt wrote:


This is the most sensible perspective that I have seen from your side in some time.



I don't think that anyone objects to sensible modernization and green development. As just an example, I'm all for putting in decent public transportation in urban areas, and I think that it is criminally stupid that so many large US cities are without it.

For me, the issue is that many of the proposals for what needs to be done to avert disaster entail severe economic consequences -- especially in that they all result in the elimination of cheap energy. If you want to talk about harming the poor, eliminating cheap energy is the fastest way to accomplish that. I'm just not prepared to sign off on that kind of change given where the science is on the actual risk.

On May 20 2014 05:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:


You know, it's my impression when I see stuff like this, that people aren't saying that "stuff is going to hell in 500 days- 10/15 years". They're saying that the window for political change that can have a significant impact in slowing down climate change is closing fast - be it 500 days or 10-15 years.

Obviously there are some alarmists out there, and I do not believe that people who share my political opinion are on average significantly more intelligent or noble than ones on the other side of the spectrum - I would assume that disinformation, if not evenly spread, is at least likely to be found no matter where you look. But there is a big difference between being skeptical towards the more extreme models for consequences of climate change and being skeptical towards man-made climate change period. (and man-made is an important distinction as man-made implies that it can be man-unmade). Personally I have no idea whether sea levels will rise by 1 meter or 30 cm by 2050 or by 2100 and I have no idea whether the gulf stream warming norway's coast line is gonna disappear if temperatures increase and I have no idea what frequency hurricanes will increase by and I have no idea whether the water reserves in the himalayas are actually melting away and I have no idea how many africans are predicted to die because Malaria is spreading to regions that were previously untouched as a consequence of increased temperatures and I think polar bears are great animals but I understand that preserving them might not be a reason to lose out on the convenience of driving an oil-powered car or eating steak. There are a whole lot of maybes, and media will often report the most alarming findings or scenarios because they generate more hits.

But then I think, I do like unspoiled nature. I don't like pollution (and walking next to a highly trafficked road, it's not hard to witness pollution!). I like snow. I think public transportation ultimately makes sense and I vastly prefer being in urban regions where cars don't dominate the scenery - it's much nicer to walk around, there's less noise, less stress. I enjoy my steak, but I could happily eat less of it. It's like, to me, the possible bad consequences of man made climate change are absolutely terrible, furthering the divide between poor and rich regions of the world, creating more instability in the most populous regions of the world where the changes are most likely to be felt the hardest. Maybe some of them are exaggerated, but I hardly even care, because the medicine for man made global warming, to me, sounds pleasant even in the event that the consequences are greatly exaggerated.

And then there's the additional aspect that as more and more time passes, it is my impression that the scientific consensus is becoming more and more pessimistic..

But I could totally get on board with say, large subsidies for vegetable production and increased taxation for meat, and prioritizing a change in dietary habits over stopping oil gas and coal consumption, although to be honest I don't have numbers on how these changes would stack against each other and frankly it's not that relevant to my greater argument, it's just that I often feel like the "climate skeptics" are opposed to any change that is environmentally motivated because this would necessitate an admission of climate change being real, as well as some degree of regulation which is to a larger degree opposed period by that faction.. Still, I have no problems laying some blame for this polarization on "my own side", it pretty much always goes both ways.

On May 20 2014 08:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Sorry, it is not debatable whether every 4th person using public transportation (assuming trains and buses in any city of say, 150000 people or more, and assuming full cars, which is extremely generous) instead driving a car would have a negative impact on the environment.

A federal judge on Monday ruled that Utah must recognize the marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples before the Supreme Court issued a stay on the December ruling that struck down the state's gay marriage ban.

"These legal uncertainties and lost rights cause harm each day that the marriage is not recognized," Judge Dale Kimball wrote in his opinion, according to the Associated Press.

After a federal judge ruled the state's law unconstitutional in December, more than 1,000 same-sex couples were married. The Supreme Court then issued a stay on the ruling, putting gay marriages on hold while the state appeals the decision.

On May 20 2014 09:07 IgnE wrote:
Please stop. Cars are an order of magnitude worse than public transportation.

We have a solution for the problems relating to impinging on your freedom. It's called a rental car. Put large rental car lots on the edges of cities so that people with a legitimate use or want for a car can rent a car.

On May 20 2014 09:19 IgnE wrote:
I'm not being facetious. But only an idiot would think that I suggested people rent a car 365 days a year.

On May 20 2014 09:23 Wegandi wrote:


Well I guess people don't need to or want to leave the house on their days off of work of which probably encompasses 5 days a week. /shrug

Anyways, the public transportation as a means of being environmentally friendly is certainly questionable, but hey, if it feels right, it must be so. (Zoning laws for instance are much more environmentally damaging, but they create symmetry and beauty and hey, it's terrible to have industrial facilities next to communities!)

On May 20 2014 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:



Did you bother to read the report you posted?

It listed several public transportation options that beat even 2 passenger cars in every metric measured there...They also left articulated buses out of their calculations among other questionable data issues.....

I guess if you were suggesting increased pushes towards vanpools or something your argument might make sense. But trying to say we should have more cars instead of more public transit or that we should have schools placed more closely to industrial pollution to reduce emissions, sounds pretty ridiculous.

Perhaps you would prefer to just push to make vehicles more efficient with things like CAFE standards instead of investing any further in proven public transportation systems?

Either way I think this thread is doing a pretty good job of highlighting the schizophrenic nature of conservative arguments on these issues.

Some cannabis growers may soon find themselves with a lot less irrigation water if the U.S. government decides to block the use of federal water for state-legal marijuana cultivation.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which oversees management of federal water resources, "is evaluating how the Controlled Substances Act applies in the context of Reclamation project water being used to facilitate marijuana-related activities,” said Peter Soeth, a spokesman for the bureau. He said the evaluation was begun "at the request of various water districts in the West."

Local water districts in Washington state and Colorado, where recreational marijuana is now legal, contract with federal water projects for supplies. Officials from some of those water districts said they assume the feds are going to turn off the spigots for marijuana growers.

“Certainly every indication we are hearing is that their policy will be that federal water supplies cannot be used to grow marijuana,” said Brian Werner at Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which handles approximately one-third of all water for northeastern Colorado and is the Bureau of Reclamation's second-largest user in the number of irrigated acres.

Washington state’s Roza Irrigation District, which supplies federal water to approximately 72,000 acres in Yakima and Benton counties, has already issued a “precautionary message” to water customers that may be involved in state-legal cannabis growing.

“Local irrigation districts operating federal irrigation projects have recently been advised that under Federal Reclamation Law, it is likely project water cannot be delivered and utilized for purposes that are illegal under federal law,” wrote Roza district manager Scott Revell in letters to the Yakima and Benton county commissioners. “Presumably growing marijuana would fall into this category.”

Both Washington and Colorado legalized marijuana for medical use more than a decade ago. Pot remains illegal under federal law. Reclamation’s Soeth said that the issue of cutting off water supplies for marijuana has never come up before.

On May 20 2014 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Going off of wikipedia cars don't look too bad:

+ Show Spoiler +
link

On May 20 2014 10:01 IgnE wrote:


Most public transportation systems aren't anywhere near at max capacity, and adding new travelers would only marginally increase the total energy cost. If you raised taxes on cars/driving to reduce the number of people who are drive and those people filled the empty capacity of the public transit systems you would see a much better spread.