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.
If a new proposal passes a final City Council vote next week in Berkeley, California, poor and low-income medical marijuana users in the city will no longer have to worry about how to afford their next high.
The Berkeley City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to change its laws to require marijuana dispensaries to give 2 percent of the amount of cannabis they sell each year to low-income medical users for free.
The 2 percent would have to be the same quality of medical marijuana a dispensary would sell to paying customers.
The change in rules would also allow Berkeley to open another dispensary, bringing the city’s total number to four.
“Basically, the City Council wants to make sure that low-income, homeless, indigent folks have access to their medical marijuana, their medicine,” Berkeley City Council Member Darryl Moore told CBS San Francisco.
“We think this is the responsible thing to do for those less fortunate in our community,” Moore added.
The fourth dispensary would also help the city meet its growing demand for medical marijuana.
“There’s definitely a need for more dispensaries in Berkeley,” Charles Pappas, a member of the Berkeley Medical Cannabis Commission, told the East Bay Express. “This was really important.”
Berkeley will vote on the fourth dispensary as the federal government moves forward with a plan to close one of the city’s most prominent ones — Berkeley Patients Group, which has been giving away marijuana to needy patients for 15 years.
During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 67 percent. The graph also shows that between 1980 and 2012, CO2 emissions increased by 19 percent.
Plain meaning, jonny, plain meaning.
Should be easy to replant the rainforest right?
US trade deficit with China has nothing to do with offshoring, of course.
IgnE, I don't know what to tell you, I'm posting facts - good data from good sources. Mainly I'm posting about the environment in the US, since this is a US politics thread and the preceding conversation was about fracking in the US.
In recent years CO2 emissions have been declining as well:
And if someone ever asks why they should know maths, let this be a proof to them. The answer is "So you do not get fooled by people with statistics that look shiny".
The Annual emission of CO2, combined with the absorbtion through various means, is the rate of change of the CO2 in the atmosphere. It is the first derivative. If the first derivative gets smaller, this means that the whole thing gets bigger slower. Not that it gets smaller.
If you derive a real world value often enough, you will at some point find a derivative that points in the direction you like. (This is not strictly true mathematically, but good enough for any real values).
The economy is increasing! The rate of growth of the economy is decreasing! The increase of the rate of growth is slowing down! If you look far enough, your statistic is gonna prove whatever you want as long as the other person is bad at maths.
Hence this:
On July 04 2014 12:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: What would you like us to do? Tear down our factories and replace them with temples to Gaia?
The bar for global climate change action has been a reduction of CO2 emissions. He's not dressing a wolf in sheep's skin. He didn't change the graph to start at 4, he didn't anchor the numbers at a date, he just posted data that showed we're reducing our CO2 emissions, which is the standard...
up to date view on fracking and earthquakes. basically the reinjection adds very minuscule seismic energy by itself, it's more of a lubricant for existing faults, but only small scale triggers are likely. one may say that these induced quakes might even relieve energy from potential big quakes, but there's a lot of complex interaction between how small quakes can induce larger ones so it's not for sure.
The video is obviously pretty boring, and doesn't really come to any firm conclusions on anything, preferring generalities. In other words, a standard student thesis. The most interesting points that he made were that it was impossible to adequately determine risk before drilling.
well it's not new research on particular injection earthquakes, but i don't think anyone can tell you a precise estimate of particular risk right now. takeaway is that risk depends on the site but is generally low.
Yeah something about gas pipelines and probably inducing earthquakes sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Not sure if they have anything better than 'geofoam' yet but seems like if we didn't at least expect them to prepare for inevitable earthquakes we are intentionally building a huge ecological disaster.
They need to be studied and accounted for, but they've never been something to live in fear of.
Uhh isn't that just what I said? Looks like the article you are citing shows evidence of humans being responsible for quakes above a 6.0 magnitude and 1000's of deaths and billions in damage. Seems like concern about energy companies/building owners taking appropriate precautions without being forced by law is also a reasonable concern.
I don't think people are fearing the quakes themselves(at least I'm not), it's the stupid humans that have to deal with/prepare for it, that makes me so concerned.
Like I said, despite (or because) the science shows there are risks, I'm sure the 'Right'/ Gas Energy states will strongly support adding new rules and regulations to the gas industry to protect citizens from reasonable concerns... /sarcasm
No, you're playing off of the anti-science fear mongering. There's nothing about fracking that you need to shit your pants over. It's reasonably safe, and as new problems and opportunities emerge they will be dealt with as they always have been.
No ones shitting their pants, unless you have something to tell us? Your suggestion that " as new problems and opportunities emerge they will be dealt with as they always have been." really says it all...
I feel like it's pretty obvious why that statement is so problematic for alleviating the types of concerns I was talking about? Think about how well the risks of deep offshore drilling and the BP spill were 'dealt with'
If not I can explain it. I just got some other stuff I'd like to get done and that seems waaaay too obvious to spend time breaking it down just for you.
Otherwise we have already come to the conclusion that we have different ideas of what 'dealt with' or 'punished' does or should mean when it comes to corporate criminals, and I have no interest in discussing that with you.
"OMG BP SPILL!! **shits pants**"
The environment is getting cleaner, not dirtier, and you're shitting your pants as if there's doom on the horizon thanks to corporate ne'er-do-wells and evil Republicans.
The enviroment is not getting cleaner. It is getting dirty slower. That is a different thing.
up to date view on fracking and earthquakes. basically the reinjection adds very minuscule seismic energy by itself, it's more of a lubricant for existing faults, but only small scale triggers are likely. one may say that these induced quakes might even relieve energy from potential big quakes, but there's a lot of complex interaction between how small quakes can induce larger ones so it's not for sure.
The video is obviously pretty boring, and doesn't really come to any firm conclusions on anything, preferring generalities. In other words, a standard student thesis. The most interesting points that he made were that it was impossible to adequately determine risk before drilling.
well it's not new research on particular injection earthquakes, but i don't think anyone can tell you a precise estimate of particular risk right now. takeaway is that risk depends on the site but is generally low.
Yeah something about gas pipelines and probably inducing earthquakes sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Not sure if they have anything better than 'geofoam' yet but seems like if we didn't at least expect them to prepare for inevitable earthquakes we are intentionally building a huge ecological disaster.
They need to be studied and accounted for, but they've never been something to live in fear of.
Uhh isn't that just what I said? Looks like the article you are citing shows evidence of humans being responsible for quakes above a 6.0 magnitude and 1000's of deaths and billions in damage. Seems like concern about energy companies/building owners taking appropriate precautions without being forced by law is also a reasonable concern.
I don't think people are fearing the quakes themselves(at least I'm not), it's the stupid humans that have to deal with/prepare for it, that makes me so concerned.
Like I said, despite (or because) the science shows there are risks, I'm sure the 'Right'/ Gas Energy states will strongly support adding new rules and regulations to the gas industry to protect citizens from reasonable concerns... /sarcasm
No, you're playing off of the anti-science fear mongering. There's nothing about fracking that you need to shit your pants over. It's reasonably safe, and as new problems and opportunities emerge they will be dealt with as they always have been.
No ones shitting their pants, unless you have something to tell us? Your suggestion that " as new problems and opportunities emerge they will be dealt with as they always have been." really says it all...
I feel like it's pretty obvious why that statement is so problematic for alleviating the types of concerns I was talking about? Think about how well the risks of deep offshore drilling and the BP spill were 'dealt with'
If not I can explain it. I just got some other stuff I'd like to get done and that seems waaaay too obvious to spend time breaking it down just for you.
Otherwise we have already come to the conclusion that we have different ideas of what 'dealt with' or 'punished' does or should mean when it comes to corporate criminals, and I have no interest in discussing that with you.
"OMG BP SPILL!! **shits pants**"
The environment is getting cleaner, not dirtier, and you're shitting your pants as if there's doom on the horizon thanks to corporate ne'er-do-wells and evil Republicans.
The enviroment is not getting cleaner. It is getting dirty slower. That is a different thing.
As are CO2 and noxious gasses. Pollution isn't JUST CO2, it's stuff like Nitrogen Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide. In fact, CO2 doesn't really affect the environment in a "dirty" way. It's a greenhouse gas multiplier, and it lingers around for much longer than most other chemicals.
During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 67 percent. The graph also shows that between 1980 and 2012, CO2 emissions increased by 19 percent.
Plain meaning, jonny, plain meaning.
Should be easy to replant the rainforest right?
US trade deficit with China has nothing to do with offshoring, of course.
IgnE, I don't know what to tell you, I'm posting facts - good data from good sources. Mainly I'm posting about the environment in the US, since this is a US politics thread and the preceding conversation was about fracking in the US.
In recent years CO2 emissions have been declining as well:
And if someone ever asks why they should know maths, let this be a proof to them. The answer is "So you do not get fooled by people with statistics that look shiny".
The Annual emission of CO2, combined with the absorbtion through various means, is the rate of change of the CO2 in the atmosphere. It is the first derivative. If the first derivative gets smaller, this means that the whole thing gets bigger slower. Not that it gets smaller.
If you derive a real world value often enough, you will at some point find a derivative that points in the direction you like. (This is not strictly true mathematically, but good enough for any real values).
The economy is increasing! The rate of growth of the economy is decreasing! The increase of the rate of growth is slowing down! If you look far enough, your statistic is gonna prove whatever you want as long as the other person is bad at maths.
I was responding to IgnE's comment that CO2 emissions were up 19% over the period in the graph. To my greater point about the environment getting cleaner:
On July 05 2014 01:59 kwizach wrote: I'm not sure what your point is, aksfjh. Do you agree with Simberto who quite clearly explained why JonnyBNoHo's graph did not support his statement?
Simberto was incorrect. My statement was that CO2 emissions are falling and the graph showed that.
My other statement was that the environment was getting cleaner and I showed an emissions graph to prove my point. If you look at the source, the EPA, they have on the same page an air quality index as well as data on emissions. While those are two different things, they track each other very closely. For example, from 1980 and 2012 lead emissions are down 99% and the air quality index on lead is down 91% (down being good). Because they're so closely linked, there should be no problem using one as a proxy for the other, particularly when the EPA only made the sexy graph for emissions.
During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 67 percent. The graph also shows that between 1980 and 2012, CO2 emissions increased by 19 percent.
Plain meaning, jonny, plain meaning.
Should be easy to replant the rainforest right?
US trade deficit with China has nothing to do with offshoring, of course.
IgnE, I don't know what to tell you, I'm posting facts - good data from good sources. Mainly I'm posting about the environment in the US, since this is a US politics thread and the preceding conversation was about fracking in the US.
In recent years CO2 emissions have been declining as well:
And if someone ever asks why they should know maths, let this be a proof to them. The answer is "So you do not get fooled by people with statistics that look shiny".
The Annual emission of CO2, combined with the absorbtion through various means, is the rate of change of the CO2 in the atmosphere. It is the first derivative. If the first derivative gets smaller, this means that the whole thing gets bigger slower. Not that it gets smaller.
If you derive a real world value often enough, you will at some point find a derivative that points in the direction you like. (This is not strictly true mathematically, but good enough for any real values).
The economy is increasing! The rate of growth of the economy is decreasing! The increase of the rate of growth is slowing down! If you look far enough, your statistic is gonna prove whatever you want as long as the other person is bad at maths.
I was responding to IgnE's comment that CO2 emissions were up 19% over the period in the graph. To my greater point about the environment getting cleaner:
Note 2: Negative numbers indicate improvement in air quality! Same source as the aggregate emissions graph from earlier.
Or if you want smaller scale data, look at the number of 'smog days' in LA:
So glad conservatives have been such strong supporters of California's increased environmental regulations! Oh wait they aren't... Everything you are saying is evidence of the environment getting cleaner, is a direct result of measures specifically attacked and belittled by conservatives.
They were also using the same doom and gloom forecasts about making those changes and continue to fight to prevent those types of improvements seen in California from happening elsewhere.
Like I said I wont waste breath arguing whether we are getting cleaner or not, but at least we should be able to agree any cleaning has been a result policies of the Left, in spite of staunch conservative opposition to any and every measure that is responsible for the cleanliness you are touting.
Bottom line is that if we are getting cleaner we did it in the face of conservatives screaming at the top of their lungs that doing what we did would destroy the economy and kill jobs. This is just another reason why I am tired of hearing literally the exact same talking points from the 80's about acid rain, being repeated about climate.
On July 05 2014 01:59 kwizach wrote: I'm not sure what your point is, aksfjh. Do you agree with Simberto who quite clearly explained why JonnyBNoHo's graph did not support his statement?
Simberto was incorrect. My statement was that CO2 emissions are falling and the graph showed that.
My other statement was that the environment was getting cleaner and I showed an emissions graph to prove my point. If you look at the source, the EPA, they have on the same page an air quality index as well as data on emissions. While those are two different things, they track each other very closely. For example, from 1980 and 2012 lead emissions are down 99% and the air quality index on lead is down 91% (down being good). Because they're so closely linked, there should be no problem using one as a proxy for the other, particularly when the EPA only made the sexy graph for emissions.
The 80's were REALLY bad. We were destroying our environment at an unbelievable pace. So being better than that is a mediocre accomplishment. Regardless, it's not like those policies were ez pz to get done. Conservatives desperately didn't want to regulate to improve the environment. Keep in mind conservatives ABSOLUTELY DID NOT want the changes that Jonny is touting for reducing emissions and the toxicity of the air we breath.
So if you think the cleaner air is a good thing you better not vote conservative/republican because they don't support the very policies that are responsible. In fact they want the environment to get worse... (or they are literally too stupid to know that's the result of their actions).
Taking advantage of a spike in gasoline prices, House Republicans are moving rapidly to gut California's landmark controls on greenhouse-gas emissions from cars as a way to prevent the tougher state standards from spreading nationwide.
The legislation, HR910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, would revoke the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to grant California the federal waivers it needs to impose tougher fuel-efficiency requirements based on carbon emissions.
"This really is a shocking attack on states' rights and on public health," said Stanley Young, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, which is working on emissions standards for cars that would take effect in 2017. He estimated that the bill could roll back scheduled cuts in pollution and petroleum consumption by 25 percent nationwide.
It's not like the environment just 'got cleaner' because we wanted it to, we had to write laws, alter production, and track the environment in new and different ways. One party was largely responsible for supporting those changes, and one largely responsible for trying to prevent it. If you wan't to suggest we are cleaner you have to at least admit it was done in the face of continued opposition from the right.
On July 05 2014 01:59 kwizach wrote: I'm not sure what your point is, aksfjh. Do you agree with Simberto who quite clearly explained why JonnyBNoHo's graph did not support his statement?
I'm trying to draw a distinction between CO2 emissions and traditional pollution, since they are not the same.
On July 05 2014 01:59 kwizach wrote: I'm not sure what your point is, aksfjh. Do you agree with Simberto who quite clearly explained why JonnyBNoHo's graph did not support his statement?
Simberto was incorrect. My statement was that CO2 emissions are falling and the graph showed that.
My other statement was that the environment was getting cleaner and I showed an emissions graph to prove my point. If you look at the source, the EPA, they have on the same page an air quality index as well as data on emissions. While those are two different things, they track each other very closely. For example, from 1980 and 2012 lead emissions are down 99% and the air quality index on lead is down 91% (down being good). Because they're so closely linked, there should be no problem using one as a proxy for the other, particularly when the EPA only made the sexy graph for emissions.
The 80's were REALLY bad. We were destroying our environment at an unbelievable pace. So being better than that is a mediocre accomplishment. Regardless, it's not like those policies were ez pz to get done. Conservatives desperately didn't want to regulate to improve the environment. Keep in mind conservatives ABSOLUTELY DID NOT want the changes that Jonny is touting for reducing emissions and the toxicity of the air we breath.
So if you think the cleaner air is a good thing you better not vote conservative/republican because they don't support the very policies that are responsible. In fact they want the environment to get worse... (or they are literally too stupid to know that's the result of their actions).
Taking advantage of a spike in gasoline prices, House Republicans are moving rapidly to gut California's landmark controls on greenhouse-gas emissions from cars as a way to prevent the tougher state standards from spreading nationwide.
The legislation, HR910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, would revoke the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to grant California the federal waivers it needs to impose tougher fuel-efficiency requirements based on carbon emissions.
"This really is a shocking attack on states' rights and on public health," said Stanley Young, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, which is working on emissions standards for cars that would take effect in 2017. He estimated that the bill could roll back scheduled cuts in pollution and petroleum consumption by 25 percent nationwide.
It's not like the environment just 'got cleaner' because we wanted it to, we had to write laws, alter production, and track the environment in new and different ways. One party was largely responsible for supporting those changes, and one largely responsible for trying to prevent it. If you wan't to suggest we are cleaner you have to at least admit it was done in the face of continued opposition from the right.
Nixon, a Republican, organized the EPA into existence.
Free market conservatives teamed up with environmentalists in the 80's / 90's to stop acid rain. From a Smithsonian article:
People now call that system "cap-and-trade." But back then the term of art was "emissions trading," though some people called it "morally bankrupt" or even "a license to kill." For a strange alliance of free-market Republicans and renegade environmentalists, it represented a novel approach to cleaning up the world—by working with human nature instead of against it.
Despite powerful resistance, these allies got the system adopted as national law in 1990, to control the power-plant pollutants that cause acid rain. With the help of federal bureaucrats willing to violate the cardinal rule of bureaucracy—by surrendering regulatory power to the marketplace—emissions trading would become one of the most spectacular success stories in the history of the green movement.
Additionally, people who hunt and fish are often conservative. The taxes and fees that they pay, along with their actions, play an important role in wildlife and forestry management.
The Pentagon has grounded all of its F-35s while it investigates the cause of a fire last month involving one of the jets.
In a statement late Thursday, the Defense Department said the decision was made based on initial findings from a runway fire incident June 23 at the Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. No one was hurt.
"The root cause of the incident remains under investigation," the statement said. "Additional inspections of F-35 engines have been ordered, and return to flight will be determined based on inspection results and analysis of engineering data."
In a statement, Lockheed Martin, which makes the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, said it was working closely with its partners in supporting the investigation.
Hunting and fishing license fees and anachronistic references to Nixon and the G.H.W years are a poor substitute for an up-to-date defense of the Republican take on environmentalism. That is unless you think that Republicans haven't changed since 1990, in which case any conversation with you proves worthless.
On July 05 2014 01:59 kwizach wrote: I'm not sure what your point is, aksfjh. Do you agree with Simberto who quite clearly explained why JonnyBNoHo's graph did not support his statement?
Simberto was incorrect. My statement was that CO2 emissions are falling and the graph showed that.
My other statement was that the environment was getting cleaner and I showed an emissions graph to prove my point. If you look at the source, the EPA, they have on the same page an air quality index as well as data on emissions. While those are two different things, they track each other very closely. For example, from 1980 and 2012 lead emissions are down 99% and the air quality index on lead is down 91% (down being good). Because they're so closely linked, there should be no problem using one as a proxy for the other, particularly when the EPA only made the sexy graph for emissions.
The 80's were REALLY bad. We were destroying our environment at an unbelievable pace. So being better than that is a mediocre accomplishment. Regardless, it's not like those policies were ez pz to get done. Conservatives desperately didn't want to regulate to improve the environment. Keep in mind conservatives ABSOLUTELY DID NOT want the changes that Jonny is touting for reducing emissions and the toxicity of the air we breath.
So if you think the cleaner air is a good thing you better not vote conservative/republican because they don't support the very policies that are responsible. In fact they want the environment to get worse... (or they are literally too stupid to know that's the result of their actions).
Taking advantage of a spike in gasoline prices, House Republicans are moving rapidly to gut California's landmark controls on greenhouse-gas emissions from cars as a way to prevent the tougher state standards from spreading nationwide.
The legislation, HR910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, would revoke the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to grant California the federal waivers it needs to impose tougher fuel-efficiency requirements based on carbon emissions.
"This really is a shocking attack on states' rights and on public health," said Stanley Young, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, which is working on emissions standards for cars that would take effect in 2017. He estimated that the bill could roll back scheduled cuts in pollution and petroleum consumption by 25 percent nationwide.
It's not like the environment just 'got cleaner' because we wanted it to, we had to write laws, alter production, and track the environment in new and different ways. One party was largely responsible for supporting those changes, and one largely responsible for trying to prevent it. If you wan't to suggest we are cleaner you have to at least admit it was done in the face of continued opposition from the right.
Nixon, a Republican, organized the EPA into existence.
Free market conservatives teamed up with environmentalists in the 80's / 90's to stop acid rain. From a Smithsonian article:
People now call that system "cap-and-trade." But back then the term of art was "emissions trading," though some people called it "morally bankrupt" or even "a license to kill." For a strange alliance of free-market Republicans and renegade environmentalists, it represented a novel approach to cleaning up the world—by working with human nature instead of against it.
Despite powerful resistance, these allies got the system adopted as national law in 1990, to control the power-plant pollutants that cause acid rain. With the help of federal bureaucrats willing to violate the cardinal rule of bureaucracy—by surrendering regulatory power to the marketplace—emissions trading would become one of the most spectacular success stories in the history of the green movement.
Additionally, people who hunt and fish are often conservative. The taxes and fees that they pay, along with their actions, play an important role in wildlife and forestry management.
Seriously Nixon creating the EPA and Republican support of Cap and trade is what you want to use to defend republican/conservative positions on the environment?
Congress had put forward and slapped down 70 different acid rain bills, and frustration ran so deep that Canada's prime minister bleakly joked about declaring war on the United States.
Texas Republicans in the U.S. House did something truly impressive in the last session of Congress: Their voting records on the environment were even worse than the previous session, according to the League of Conservation Voters’ latest legislative scorecard. While the Texas GOP members collectively cast pro-environment votes 7.5 percent of the time in the last session of the 112th Congress, they sided with the environment a little more than 4 percent of the time in the first session of the 113th. At this rate, zero is within grasping distance.
Only one of the 24 Republicans in the House, Houston Rep. John Culberson, scored more than 10 percent. Five congressmen got the special distinction of scoring zero, taking what LCV considers a non-green position on all 28 key votes.
Not surprisingly, Texas Republicans favored policies beneficial to the oil and gas industry, including expanding offshore drilling and fracking, and voted against measures to protect air, water and green spaces. Many of the bills or amendments they favored would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to oversee industry and regulate toxic emissions and byproducts, including coal ash
In 2001, President Bush broke a campaign environment promise by reversing a promise he had made during his presidential campaign to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants. Governor Bush pledged power plants would have to meet clean-air standards while promising to enact tougher policies to protect the environment.[17] The broken campaign promised was seen as a betrayal by environmental groups. The president’s reversal on regulating carbon dioxide emissions was one of a series of controversial stands on environmental issues. For example, the Bush administration ruled that factory farms can claim they do not discharge animal waste to avoid oversight from the Clean Air Act.
Yeah the right loves supporting the environment... I just can't take you seriously today.
I was responding to IgnE's comment that CO2 emissions were up 19% over the period in the graph. To my greater point about the environment getting cleaner
That was less a comment than more a quote from your own source, which states exactly those 19%.
I was responding to IgnE's comment that CO2 emissions were up 19% over the period in the graph. To my greater point about the environment getting cleaner
That was less a comment than more a quote from your own source, which states exactly those 19%.
Thanks for the nitpick? I wasn't denying what that graph showed, I was showing that in more recent years CO2 emissions have been falling.
Thank God the right slowed down these regulations though protecting jobs and lifestyle what the right wants to protect. That way technology and compliance catches up to whatever sensationalist threat the left dreams up. We are saving ourselves through innovation and awareness, I think we'll be fine on the climate change front. Don't worry, in 2030 when the charts show climate change is shown to be managed you guys can take credit for that.
On July 05 2014 01:59 kwizach wrote: I'm not sure what your point is, aksfjh. Do you agree with Simberto who quite clearly explained why JonnyBNoHo's graph did not support his statement?
Simberto was incorrect. My statement was that CO2 emissions are falling and the graph showed that.
My other statement was that the environment was getting cleaner and I showed an emissions graph to prove my point. If you look at the source, the EPA, they have on the same page an air quality index as well as data on emissions. While those are two different things, they track each other very closely. For example, from 1980 and 2012 lead emissions are down 99% and the air quality index on lead is down 91% (down being good). Because they're so closely linked, there should be no problem using one as a proxy for the other, particularly when the EPA only made the sexy graph for emissions.
The 80's were REALLY bad. We were destroying our environment at an unbelievable pace. So being better than that is a mediocre accomplishment. Regardless, it's not like those policies were ez pz to get done. Conservatives desperately didn't want to regulate to improve the environment. Keep in mind conservatives ABSOLUTELY DID NOT want the changes that Jonny is touting for reducing emissions and the toxicity of the air we breath.
So if you think the cleaner air is a good thing you better not vote conservative/republican because they don't support the very policies that are responsible. In fact they want the environment to get worse... (or they are literally too stupid to know that's the result of their actions).
Taking advantage of a spike in gasoline prices, House Republicans are moving rapidly to gut California's landmark controls on greenhouse-gas emissions from cars as a way to prevent the tougher state standards from spreading nationwide.
The legislation, HR910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, would revoke the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to grant California the federal waivers it needs to impose tougher fuel-efficiency requirements based on carbon emissions.
"This really is a shocking attack on states' rights and on public health," said Stanley Young, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, which is working on emissions standards for cars that would take effect in 2017. He estimated that the bill could roll back scheduled cuts in pollution and petroleum consumption by 25 percent nationwide.
It's not like the environment just 'got cleaner' because we wanted it to, we had to write laws, alter production, and track the environment in new and different ways. One party was largely responsible for supporting those changes, and one largely responsible for trying to prevent it. If you wan't to suggest we are cleaner you have to at least admit it was done in the face of continued opposition from the right.
Nixon, a Republican, organized the EPA into existence.
Free market conservatives teamed up with environmentalists in the 80's / 90's to stop acid rain. From a Smithsonian article:
People now call that system "cap-and-trade." But back then the term of art was "emissions trading," though some people called it "morally bankrupt" or even "a license to kill." For a strange alliance of free-market Republicans and renegade environmentalists, it represented a novel approach to cleaning up the world—by working with human nature instead of against it.
Despite powerful resistance, these allies got the system adopted as national law in 1990, to control the power-plant pollutants that cause acid rain. With the help of federal bureaucrats willing to violate the cardinal rule of bureaucracy—by surrendering regulatory power to the marketplace—emissions trading would become one of the most spectacular success stories in the history of the green movement.
Additionally, people who hunt and fish are often conservative. The taxes and fees that they pay, along with their actions, play an important role in wildlife and forestry management.
Seriously Nixon creating the EPA and Republican support of Cap and trade is what you want to use to defend republican/conservative positions on the environment?
Congress had put forward and slapped down 70 different acid rain bills, and frustration ran so deep that Canada's prime minister bleakly joked about declaring war on the United States.
Texas Republicans in the U.S. House did something truly impressive in the last session of Congress: Their voting records on the environment were even worse than the previous session, according to the League of Conservation Voters’ latest legislative scorecard. While the Texas GOP members collectively cast pro-environment votes 7.5 percent of the time in the last session of the 112th Congress, they sided with the environment a little more than 4 percent of the time in the first session of the 113th. At this rate, zero is within grasping distance.
Only one of the 24 Republicans in the House, Houston Rep. John Culberson, scored more than 10 percent. Five congressmen got the special distinction of scoring zero, taking what LCV considers a non-green position on all 28 key votes.
Not surprisingly, Texas Republicans favored policies beneficial to the oil and gas industry, including expanding offshore drilling and fracking, and voted against measures to protect air, water and green spaces. Many of the bills or amendments they favored would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to oversee industry and regulate toxic emissions and byproducts, including coal ash
In 2001, President Bush broke a campaign environment promise by reversing a promise he had made during his presidential campaign to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants. Governor Bush pledged power plants would have to meet clean-air standards while promising to enact tougher policies to protect the environment.[17] The broken campaign promised was seen as a betrayal by environmental groups. The president’s reversal on regulating carbon dioxide emissions was one of a series of controversial stands on environmental issues. For example, the Bush administration ruled that factory farms can claim they do not discharge animal waste to avoid oversight from the Clean Air Act.
Yeah the right loves supporting the environment... I just can't take you seriously today.
Elizabeth Warren defended MA's fishing industry against regulators a couple years ago. I guess her and fellow liberals don't care about the oceans?
What Elizabeth Warren and William "Mo" Cowan heard was a broad sampling of many of the deep concerns of those groundfishermen whose livelihoods are nearly gone thanks to catch restrictions. ...
"We need something to be done. Stop it. Hold it off for a year," she said.
Animosity toward government-sponsored researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution was clear.
Rodney Avila, a former regional fisheries council member, said "We need to drop an atom bomb on Woods Hole."...
Warren has hired New Bedford native Bruno Freitas from retired Rep. Barney Frank's staff, and she said she is also consulting with Frank on fisheries issues.
Cowan said that as a member of the Commerce Committee, he intends to keep a close eye on the nominees for commerce secretary and NOAA administrator, whoever they might be.
As a "fish senator," he said he intends to make it clear to colleagues how important the fishing industry is to the state of Massachusetts.
Come on, we really have to stoop to chopping up articles and youtube clips? A politician from a fishing state is going to defend the fishing industry just as a politician from an oil producing state will defend the oil industry. It doesn't mean that either hates momma Earth.
It's much better to ignore every joint venture that protected the environment in pursuit of the conclusion: Republicans want you dying from breathing filthy air and the catastrophic effects of man-made global warming. Isn't this the conclusion of it all? Willful ignorance of history, both of the environmental movement and past successes in combating air pollution problems, because your conclusion is taken for granted?
On July 05 2014 01:59 kwizach wrote: I'm not sure what your point is, aksfjh. Do you agree with Simberto who quite clearly explained why JonnyBNoHo's graph did not support his statement?
Simberto was incorrect. My statement was that CO2 emissions are falling and the graph showed that.
My other statement was that the environment was getting cleaner and I showed an emissions graph to prove my point. If you look at the source, the EPA, they have on the same page an air quality index as well as data on emissions. While those are two different things, they track each other very closely. For example, from 1980 and 2012 lead emissions are down 99% and the air quality index on lead is down 91% (down being good). Because they're so closely linked, there should be no problem using one as a proxy for the other, particularly when the EPA only made the sexy graph for emissions.
The 80's were REALLY bad. We were destroying our environment at an unbelievable pace. So being better than that is a mediocre accomplishment. Regardless, it's not like those policies were ez pz to get done. Conservatives desperately didn't want to regulate to improve the environment. Keep in mind conservatives ABSOLUTELY DID NOT want the changes that Jonny is touting for reducing emissions and the toxicity of the air we breath.
So if you think the cleaner air is a good thing you better not vote conservative/republican because they don't support the very policies that are responsible. In fact they want the environment to get worse... (or they are literally too stupid to know that's the result of their actions).
Taking advantage of a spike in gasoline prices, House Republicans are moving rapidly to gut California's landmark controls on greenhouse-gas emissions from cars as a way to prevent the tougher state standards from spreading nationwide.
The legislation, HR910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, would revoke the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to grant California the federal waivers it needs to impose tougher fuel-efficiency requirements based on carbon emissions.
"This really is a shocking attack on states' rights and on public health," said Stanley Young, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, which is working on emissions standards for cars that would take effect in 2017. He estimated that the bill could roll back scheduled cuts in pollution and petroleum consumption by 25 percent nationwide.
It's not like the environment just 'got cleaner' because we wanted it to, we had to write laws, alter production, and track the environment in new and different ways. One party was largely responsible for supporting those changes, and one largely responsible for trying to prevent it. If you wan't to suggest we are cleaner you have to at least admit it was done in the face of continued opposition from the right.
Nixon, a Republican, organized the EPA into existence.
Free market conservatives teamed up with environmentalists in the 80's / 90's to stop acid rain. From a Smithsonian article:
People now call that system "cap-and-trade." But back then the term of art was "emissions trading," though some people called it "morally bankrupt" or even "a license to kill." For a strange alliance of free-market Republicans and renegade environmentalists, it represented a novel approach to cleaning up the world—by working with human nature instead of against it.
Despite powerful resistance, these allies got the system adopted as national law in 1990, to control the power-plant pollutants that cause acid rain. With the help of federal bureaucrats willing to violate the cardinal rule of bureaucracy—by surrendering regulatory power to the marketplace—emissions trading would become one of the most spectacular success stories in the history of the green movement.
Additionally, people who hunt and fish are often conservative. The taxes and fees that they pay, along with their actions, play an important role in wildlife and forestry management.
Responses given: Facts don't matter, Republicans have gotten more evil since then and/or you can't even take somebody seriously who brings up facts to the contrary. Anything good that has been done to protect us from pollution, the poisoning of water sources, the hole in the ozone layer ... that has entirely been Democratic turf and always was.
Things have changed in recent times. The environmentalist side has entirely gone over to adopting measures and targets without a thought to lives affected and industries destroyed. The caps and forced compliance legislative and regulatory push have replaced any nod towards how innovation and technological advancement have solved problems in the past. The reduced emissions caused by the cheap availability of natural gas as compared to dirtier coal isn't celebrated. Advances in nuclear energy with miniscule and short-lived wastes aren't applauded. These breakthroughs aren't allowed to flourish and power the next generation of technology, we're too busy increasing their costs in a futile effort to match India and China's increased emissions with our regulated cuts. Opposition to the Keystone Pipeline remains after a long series of environmental impact reports spanning more than 2 years from the State Department, which enjoys bipartisan support in the senate and house. I think we should look at both side's apparent resistance to compromise, and not just a single party's.
Let's applaud the success stories of the past, as Jonny posted, and not just retrench the tired cliches about conservatives. Just accept for a period that conservatives are not first and foremost environment hating monsters. All readers of this forum also know about tradeoffs with respect to the environment, having not personally gone carbon-neutral in their own lives by forgoing electricity, plastics, home heating/AC, and transportation along with the rest. Maybe you too have chosen between competing options weighing multiple criteria at once.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2013.04.05/annualemissions.png)
![[image loading]](http://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/assets/4689773/sequence-01-reduced.gif)
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/AQ.PNG)
![[image loading]](http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site568/2009/0428/20090428_080316_SMOG%20levels%20042909_400.jpg)
