|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency unveiled new standards on Monday, calling for a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions from power plants by 2030.
The regulations are the first of their kind for the fleet of existing power plants, which currently produce 39 percent of U.S. emissions. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will describe the rules in further detail at a press conference at agency headquarters at 10:30 a.m. Monday.
According to her remarks prepared for the announcement, McCarthy will emphasis the problems stemming from carbon pollution, which "supercharges risks not just to our health -- but to our communities, our economy, and our way of life."
The rules direct states to cut greenhouse gas emissions from power plants 30 percent by 2030, using emissions from 2005 as a baseline. The rules are expected to cut emissions 25 percent by 2020. The agency says the rules will provide the country $90 billion in climate and health benefits, and avoid hospitalizations due to health concerns such as asthma.
But the EPA is giving states flexibility in how to meet those standards. States can direct power plants to cut emissions directly, either by switching to a fuel source with lower carbon emissions, such as natural gas, or by making upgrades to equipment or efficiency. States can also meet the standards by increasing the amount of energy drawn from renewable sources such as solar, wind or hydropower.
McCarthy will highlight the fact that states get to determine how to meet those standards in her address Monday morning. "The glue that holds this plan together -- and the key to making it work -- is that each state's goal is tailored to its own circumstances, and states have the flexibility to reach their goal in whatever way works best for them," she plans to say.
The administration had previously released rules for new power plants, which will essentially require plants to burn natural gas, or have technology installed that can capture and sequester carbon dioxide.
Source
|
|
|
lol this is pure gold. "...just the tip". The sad thing is behind all the sarcasm all of this is true.
|
On June 02 2014 21:01 Acrofales wrote:
In particular "vaccines cause autism" is a big one on the left hand of the political scale.
Do you have the poll data to back up that assertion?
|
On June 03 2014 05:18 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2014 21:01 Acrofales wrote:
In particular "vaccines cause autism" is a big one on the left hand of the political scale. Do you have the poll data to back up that assertion?
What Mindcrime is saying. I live in a solid red, affluent part of Texas and I hear the anti-vaccine dumbasses all the time. Granted, I don't see the Venn diagram of anti-vaccine and creationists cross too much, but that doesn't mean one camp is "liberal" while the other is "conservative." Also, last time I checked, Michelle Bachmann was the last high-profile politician to speak out against vaccines.
|
Just let them bible-thumpers teach their children however they see fit. They are free to do that without my moral judgement it unfortunate for the children to be born into that culture but it's the parents and constituents right to teach the kids whatever they want.
|
On June 03 2014 06:54 Wolfstan wrote:
Just let them bible-thumpers teach their children however they see fit. They are free to do that without my moral judgement it unfortunate for the children to be born into that culture but it's the parents and constituents right to teach the kids whatever they want.
And there you have a big difference of opinion. Children should have a choice and not be forced to believe what there parents believe because of faulty education.
|
On June 03 2014 06:54 Wolfstan wrote:
Just let them bible-thumpers teach their children however they see fit. They are free to do that without my moral judgement it unfortunate for the children to be born into that culture but it's the parents and constituents right to teach the kids whatever they want.
care to elaborate why that would be their right to screw up the life of their children? If you claim that children are some kind of good that parents own and can do what they want with than you better have some argument to back that up.
|
(Although I don't post in this thread, I read it occasionally. Despite being horribly out of my league, I'll throw in a comment anyways!)
On June 03 2014 06:58 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 06:54 Wolfstan wrote:
Just let them bible-thumpers teach their children however they see fit. They are free to do that without my moral judgement it unfortunate for the children to be born into that culture but it's the parents and constituents right to teach the kids whatever they want. care to elaborate why that would be their right to screw up the life of their children? If you claim that children are some kind of good that parents own and can do what they want with than you better have some argument to back that up.
Since a child can't decide for him or herself how or what he or she wants to be taught, whose decision is it? Should the parents decide, or should the state decide? I sort of feel like that's what you're trying to ask. Rather than the child being a possession that the parents get to do what they want with - We can probably all agree that children ought to be taught things. What should happen if the things the parents want to teach aren't necessarily popular?
Do the parents have that primary right, or does the state (or majority of citizens living in it) have the right to teach (assuming the viewpoint of the parents is in the minority)?
haha now that I'm writing it, i feel like my explanation/thought is sorta crummy - oh well. ^^;;
|
On June 03 2014 07:20 Obzy wrote:
Do the parents have that primary right, or does the state (or majority of citizens living in it) have the right to teach (assuming the viewpoint of the parents is in the minority)?
Yeah that's what I'm getting at. A large number of Americans always acts as if their constitution has been passed down from the gods and as if it was some proof in itself.. "why is x right? yeah, you know this 300 years old document says so, so it must be true!"
If you let religious nutjobs raise their children you don't give them freedom, you screw up their lives and turn them into indoctrinated idiots(which is pretty much the opposite of individual freedom). If the constitution guarantees parents that right then the constitution is stupid in that regard and should be changed.
It feels like American conservatives view the rights of children as something that starts at impregnation and ends at birth.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
I can agree with not letting children get indoctrinated with terrible ideas. Since opinions vary on what a terrible idea is, should the state be responsible for all education, and do its best to prohibit all parents from teaching their children? (this sounds stupid, sorry i can't get the idea across a little more cleanly)
Basically, is there a way to put in your fix (don't let bad parents teach their kids dumb things) fairly, without infringing on the rights of other parents? I'm assuming that you're going with the mindset of "I dislike this specific thing, lets just stop it from happening" - but how can that be set up in such a way to not be abused later? (If religious opinions held a majority, would it be reasonable for the state to enforce teaching religion? I don't really think so, but then how could I argue that the state should try to inhibit the teaching of religion?)
blah blah blah blah i can't get my ideas across how do you stop only certain parents without directly targeting specific ideas, and instead make it applicable to other(all?) situations?
|
On June 03 2014 06:58 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 06:54 Wolfstan wrote:
Just let them bible-thumpers teach their children however they see fit. They are free to do that without my moral judgement it unfortunate for the children to be born into that culture but it's the parents and constituents right to teach the kids whatever they want. care to elaborate why that would be their right to screw up the life of their children? If you claim that children are some kind of good that parents own and can do what they want with than you better have some argument to back that up.
Just a belief that I hold consistently that a parent usually have the best interests of their kids at heartand know best. Much more than some bleeding heart politician 2000 km away. I feel this can be applied pretty consistently, across all cultures, let the Islamists teach Sharia, Russians teach homophobia, blacks teach black culture and white privilege, and wealthy folks teach their children to be wealthy. It is not our role to take those kids out of their culture against their parents wishes.
|
On June 03 2014 07:45 Obzy wrote:
blah blah blah blah i can't get my ideas across how do you stop only certain parents without directly targeting specific ideas, and instead make it applicable to other(all?) situations?
Make education up to a high school degree compulsory, get rid of homeschooling. If the parents want to teach their kids their religious believes they still have the rest of the day to do that.
|
On June 03 2014 06:58 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 06:54 Wolfstan wrote:
Just let them bible-thumpers teach their children however they see fit. They are free to do that without my moral judgement it unfortunate for the children to be born into that culture but it's the parents and constituents right to teach the kids whatever they want. care to elaborate why that would be their right to screw up the life of their children? If you claim that children are some kind of good that parents own and can do what they want with than you better have some argument to back that up.
Because we don't live in a totalitarian society in which all children are taken from their parents and become wards of state. What you are suggesting is far more radical than the status quo.
|
On June 03 2014 08:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 06:58 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2014 06:54 Wolfstan wrote:
Just let them bible-thumpers teach their children however they see fit. They are free to do that without my moral judgement it unfortunate for the children to be born into that culture but it's the parents and constituents right to teach the kids whatever they want. care to elaborate why that would be their right to screw up the life of their children? If you claim that children are some kind of good that parents own and can do what they want with than you better have some argument to back that up. Because we don't live in a totalitarian society in which all children are taken from their parents and become wards of state. What you are suggesting is far more radical than the status quo.
totalitarian lol. Yes life is hard in the totalitarian United Kingdom.(or insert any other developed country with mandatory secondary education). I get the whole 'Murica thing, but at least do us a favor and stop throwing words like totalitarianism around if you don't know what it means.
|
On June 03 2014 08:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 06:58 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2014 06:54 Wolfstan wrote:
Just let them bible-thumpers teach their children however they see fit. They are free to do that without my moral judgement it unfortunate for the children to be born into that culture but it's the parents and constituents right to teach the kids whatever they want. care to elaborate why that would be their right to screw up the life of their children? If you claim that children are some kind of good that parents own and can do what they want with than you better have some argument to back that up. Because we don't live in a totalitarian society in which all children are taken from their parents and become wards of state. What you are suggesting is far more radical than the status quo.
To be fair my original point was on how twisted it is to put on state party platforms that you want to to 'teach' innocent young children a pile of historical horse shit and call it science, using the public education system.
I agree one of the many costs of freedom is letting people brainwash their children with some pretty twisted lies, although I don't see anything wrong with calling those people out on their bullshit and not taking seriously ridiculous political positions originating out of what everyone here (according to Jonny) agrees are completely delusional teachings (or at least not fit for public classrooms).
Especially when they are political officials representing states on things like the Science Committee... We should not look at our failure to agree politically that the Earth is not ~7,000 years old with pride, and people who believe that should be relieved of (at least their science) related responsibilities until they can come to grips with that simple fact.
I don't understand why republicans/conservatives don't smarten that part of their party up. It makes them pretty hard to take seriously when it comes to things like Climate Change, pre-history, evolution, Energy production/consumption, etc...
It makes it pretty hard to have any reasonable conversation about the science of those subjects when the person in opposition is starting from a place where they believe with absolute certainty at least 3 things.
1. There was only 1 Ice Age, it was ~4,300 years ago and was caused by God flooding the earth in a revenge/frustration/cleansing mass murder.
2. All oil (and other natural resources) were either divinely placed or created by natural processes in the last ~7,000 years
3. Humans were created in their current form and are all decedent from 2 people created by God <~7,000 years ago further more we are actually all decedent from the people on Noah's Ark ~4,300 years ago.
I don't see how people don't think Congressmen on the SCIENCE COMMITTEE propagating garbage like that isn't a problem for his party and our country. Especially when you see several state GOP platforms backing up that garbage to be taught as science in public schools.
|
On June 03 2014 08:22 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 08:06 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2014 06:58 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2014 06:54 Wolfstan wrote:
Just let them bible-thumpers teach their children however they see fit. They are free to do that without my moral judgement it unfortunate for the children to be born into that culture but it's the parents and constituents right to teach the kids whatever they want. care to elaborate why that would be their right to screw up the life of their children? If you claim that children are some kind of good that parents own and can do what they want with than you better have some argument to back that up. Because we don't live in a totalitarian society in which all children are taken from their parents and become wards of state. What you are suggesting is far more radical than the status quo. totalitarian lol. Yes life is hard in the totalitarian United Kingdom.(or insert any other developed country with mandatory secondary education). I get the whole 'Murica thing, but at least do us a favor and stop throwing words like totalitarianism around if you don't know what it means.
Giving the state the power to so intervene in the traditional parent/child relationship is totalitarian. Whether the aims of the state are for good or for ill is besides the point. This goes right back to my argument from a few pages that "form matters." The end does not justify the means. What you're suggesting infringes upon fundamental constitutional rights, which is why it is not permissible in the US.
|
On June 03 2014 08:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 08:22 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2014 08:06 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2014 06:58 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2014 06:54 Wolfstan wrote:
Just let them bible-thumpers teach their children however they see fit. They are free to do that without my moral judgement it unfortunate for the children to be born into that culture but it's the parents and constituents right to teach the kids whatever they want. care to elaborate why that would be their right to screw up the life of their children? If you claim that children are some kind of good that parents own and can do what they want with than you better have some argument to back that up. Because we don't live in a totalitarian society in which all children are taken from their parents and become wards of state. What you are suggesting is far more radical than the status quo. totalitarian lol. Yes life is hard in the totalitarian United Kingdom.(or insert any other developed country with mandatory secondary education). I get the whole 'Murica thing, but at least do us a favor and stop throwing words like totalitarianism around if you don't know what it means. Giving the state the power to so intervene in the traditional parent/child relationship is totalitarian. Whether the aims of the state are for good or for ill is besides the point. This goes right back to my argument from a few pages that "form matters." The end does not justify the means. What you're suggesting infringes upon fundamental constitutional rights, which is why it is not permissible in the US.
So why is it okay to lock people up in prison then if they commit a crime? After all that would impair someones individual freedom just for the benefit of society? And why don't have children freedom? Many extreme religious communities and families in the US seem to be run by males that rule over their children in patriarchal and totalitarian fashion. Why is that an okay form of totalitarianism? Because it's religious?
Edit: the ideology behind your argumentation is ridiculous. Every single action of the state is a trade-off between individual interests and the interests of society. By denying the state the right to interfere with personal freedom means to deny the state the right to exist at all. It's anarcho nonsense.
|
On June 03 2014 08:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 08:22 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2014 08:06 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2014 06:58 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2014 06:54 Wolfstan wrote:
Just let them bible-thumpers teach their children however they see fit. They are free to do that without my moral judgement it unfortunate for the children to be born into that culture but it's the parents and constituents right to teach the kids whatever they want. care to elaborate why that would be their right to screw up the life of their children? If you claim that children are some kind of good that parents own and can do what they want with than you better have some argument to back that up. Because we don't live in a totalitarian society in which all children are taken from their parents and become wards of state. What you are suggesting is far more radical than the status quo. totalitarian lol. Yes life is hard in the totalitarian United Kingdom.(or insert any other developed country with mandatory secondary education). I get the whole 'Murica thing, but at least do us a favor and stop throwing words like totalitarianism around if you don't know what it means. Giving the state the power to so intervene in the traditional parent/child relationship is totalitarian. Whether the aims of the state are for good or for ill is besides the point. This goes right back to my argument from a few pages that "form matters." The end does not justify the means. What you're suggesting infringes upon fundamental constitutional rights, which is why it is not permissible in the US.
Or maybe this is an example of a totalitarian government infringing on the traditional parent child relationship too? Is this bad form too?
PHILADELPHIA, Penn. -
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A couple who believed in faith-healing were sentenced Wednesday to three-and-a-half to seven years in prison in the death of a second child who never saw a doctor despite being stricken with pneumonia.
Herbert and Catherine Schaible defied a court order to get medical care for their children after their 2-year-old son, Kent, died in 2009.
Instead, they tried to comfort and pray over 8-month-old Brandon last year as he, too, died of treatable pneumonia.
Source
|
It is dangerous giving the state that kind of power (not the mandatory secondary education thing), but I think that there ought to be some critical threshold in science, that if enough scientists agree that something is true and good for human health, it should be considered some kind of criminal act to instill opposite beliefs in the minds of children. Because what the parents are doing with respect to vaccines actually harms the child, its nothing but delayed child abuse in a sense, except its by an oblivious parent.
There should be some reasonable middle ground, maybe you can have all sorts of checks and balances attached just like with the government. But at some point (as far as this case is concerned) the negative effects of conspiracy theories outweigh the benefits of free speech, because it potentially leads to the loss of life (among other painful outcomes). I'm guessing that from the perspective of a supreme court judge, they would probably seek to balance the two (life, freedom) given that they are both aims of the constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
