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.
Gov. Jerry Brown, who is in the middle of a political battle over climate-change legislation, took aim at oil companies Monday, saying they sell a “highly destructive” product.
“The oil industry is in deep trouble,” the governor told reporters Monday at a news conference on the shores of Lake Tahoe, where he was attending an annual meeting about the area’s environment.
Oil companies “have a product that is highly destructive, while highly valuable at the same time. And we’re trying to work out the right policies,” he said.
Brown has proposed cutting California's consumption of gasoline in half by 2030. Lawmakers are considering a measure to achieve that goal, as well as other steps intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The legislation has passed the state Senate but is facing some trouble in the Assembly, where business-friendly Democrats hold more sway.
Oil companies have ramped up their opposition, saying the legislation would lead to gasoline rationing — a contention the measure's supporters reject.
LA Times, still special pleader for Brown's insanity.
so you're saying there's something wrong about what brown is saying? because pretty much the entire oil industry is highly destructive to the land. not to mention the pollutants it causes.
at some point we're going to run out of oil. might as well start early.
He wants to cut CA gas use by 50% in 15 years. That alone is ridiculous. And the LAT just goes along and mindlessly repeats whatever the governor says.
well if we don't make major changes soon it's going to be too late (in fact it's alreadytoo late.) I have no problem with trying to set a seemingly impossible goal, it inspires creative thinking and more innovation ("If a scientist says something is possible it probably is. If a scientist says something's impossible it probably isn't" Artur C Clarke.") we won't know if it's possible until the actual year that comes. and I don't see why it'ssuch a big deal since if you set a modest goal and reach it you probably could have set a more drastic goal. obviously if it proves to be impsible it can be adjusted down the road.
obviously I don't think they should put in a terrible plan for the sake of trying to get it to 50 percent but trying to figure out a way do cut it in half could lead to something really valuable
didn'tpeople think it was insane when America promised to put a man on the moon within 10 yers?
All I'm saying is I don't see what the issue is as long as it is applied in a sane manner and reevaluated as it goes on.
also isn't the point of the news to report what the leaders say? I mean it's a major newspaper people would throw a fit if every single article was accompanied by an opinion piece of it. If the newspaper want's to say something about it they can use the editorial section.
He's just a governor who is supposed to be running a state making choices on policy for its citizens. He isn't supposed to be dreaming impossible goals that have real consequences for those living here. He's not JFK, and he isn't proposong a moon landing.
And he's apparently ignorant. The idea that you could remove Californians, of all people, from their cars or keep them from driving is absurd. And they want to tax people who buy electric more. The whole state is run by idiots.
the goal of a governor is to try to make choices that they think are good and not just in the short term. I don't know enough about the measure (or economics really) to know whether it's good or bad so I'm not going to comment on any specifics but I don't have a problem with what what his intentions are.
but sometime's you do have to make short term sacrifices for the future and not be so focused on what's good this instant. On the same hand you can't make people miserable for the sake of policy to help future generations, there's a balance somewhere. (of course if the legislation is terrible and doesn't accomplish anything than that's a problem. or if it accomplishes things only by perman)
Yes, but you are more or less repeating truisms and platitudes.
His idea is not possible, especially in a state like CA.
If you don't live here you can be forgiven for not knowing as much about CA
Gov. Jerry Brown, who is in the middle of a political battle over climate-change legislation, took aim at oil companies Monday, saying they sell a “highly destructive” product.
“The oil industry is in deep trouble,” the governor told reporters Monday at a news conference on the shores of Lake Tahoe, where he was attending an annual meeting about the area’s environment.
Oil companies “have a product that is highly destructive, while highly valuable at the same time. And we’re trying to work out the right policies,” he said.
Brown has proposed cutting California's consumption of gasoline in half by 2030. Lawmakers are considering a measure to achieve that goal, as well as other steps intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The legislation has passed the state Senate but is facing some trouble in the Assembly, where business-friendly Democrats hold more sway.
Oil companies have ramped up their opposition, saying the legislation would lead to gasoline rationing — a contention the measure's supporters reject.
LA Times, still special pleader for Brown's insanity.
so you're saying there's something wrong about what brown is saying? because pretty much the entire oil industry is highly destructive to the land. not to mention the pollutants it causes.
at some point we're going to run out of oil. might as well start early.
He wants to cut CA gas use by 50% in 15 years. That alone is ridiculous. And the LAT just goes along and mindlessly repeats whatever the governor says.
well if we don't make major changes soon it's going to be too late (in fact it's alreadytoo late.) I have no problem with trying to set a seemingly impossible goal, it inspires creative thinking and more innovation ("If a scientist says something is possible it probably is. If a scientist says something's impossible it probably isn't" Artur C Clarke.") we won't know if it's possible until the actual year that comes. and I don't see why it'ssuch a big deal since if you set a modest goal and reach it you probably could have set a more drastic goal. obviously if it proves to be impsible it can be adjusted down the road.
obviously I don't think they should put in a terrible plan for the sake of trying to get it to 50 percent but trying to figure out a way do cut it in half could lead to something really valuable
didn'tpeople think it was insane when America promised to put a man on the moon within 10 yers?
All I'm saying is I don't see what the issue is as long as it is applied in a sane manner and reevaluated as it goes on.
also isn't the point of the news to report what the leaders say? I mean it's a major newspaper people would throw a fit if every single article was accompanied by an opinion piece of it. If the newspaper want's to say something about it they can use the editorial section.
He's just a governor who is supposed to be running a state making choices on policy for its citizens. He isn't supposed to be dreaming impossible goals that have real consequences for those living here. He's not JFK, and he isn't proposong a moon landing.
And he's apparently ignorant. The idea that you could remove Californians, of all people, from their cars or keep them from driving is absurd. And they want to tax people who buy electric more. The whole state is run by idiots.
the goal of a governor is to try to make choices that they think are good and not just in the short term. I don't know enough about the measure (or economics really) to know whether it's good or bad so I'm not going to comment on any specifics but I don't have a problem with what what his intentions are.
but sometime's you do have to make short term sacrifices for the future and not be so focused on what's good this instant. On the same hand you can't make people miserable for the sake of policy to help future generations, there's a balance somewhere. (of course if the legislation is terrible and doesn't accomplish anything than that's a problem. or if it accomplishes things only by perman)
Yes, but you are more or less repeating truisms and platitudes.
His idea is not possible, especially in a state like CA.
If you don't live here you can be forgiven for not knowing as much about CA
I actually do live in California. (I'm about 2 hrs south of oregon.). But yeah I don't see a legitimate way to actually cut emissions in half. at the same time I also realize that there are many moments in history of things that are supposed to be impossible being done so I'm trying to keep an open mind. I think California emissions (and global emissions in genera)l need to be drastically cut so I don't mind California trying to be a leader in reducing reliance on oil. Also I like people trying to think about how to accomplish seemingly impossible goals (although this probably has more to do with the intention of the legislation then the actual legislation)
On August 27 2015 06:00 SolaR- wrote: Greenhorizons your extremist views are not doing anyone any favors. If you really want to end racism, it doesn't help to relate this incident with the current political movement. The smart move would be to keep this kind of activity as far away from anything race related. This guy just obviously had mental issues and associating it with ending racism to stop this kind of behavior makes you lose all credibility.
lol what "extremist" views? Seriously?
defending this guy obviously
he never defended him, which he had to clarify multiple times: saying you understand where some of the anger comes from isn't the same thing as you agree that what he did in response was justified
he's justifying the behavior.
your reading comprehension is terrible
no it isn't. He's saying one thing but doing another I don't believe everything people tell me about themselves. Sure he clarifies that he doesn't justify these actions but if you actually read and understand the context of his argument you would realize that he is at least somewhat justifying it. Or at least sympathizing with it. Everyone says there are a good driver, do I believe that no?
On August 27 2015 06:30 Roe wrote:
On August 27 2015 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 27 2015 05:11 Roe wrote: You're just upset. Take a break before you say more you'll regret.
I don't regret a word I said. You all obviously aren't even close to understanding this. Your post was just ignorant and ignored my opening. Just own it, don't try to put it back on me and butter me up by saying you agree with me sometimes.
It wasn't ignorant. I read your entire post and that's why I said what I said. Maybe read it again when you have a clear head, because all you did was ignore what I said because I disagree with you.
Y'all keep trying to reach these people with your NPR voices and reasoned logical arguments, I sincerely don't think you're going to make any more progress than I have by simply calling them out for what they are.
Normally I pick when to use my NPR voice and when to call them a useless racist. Or as someone else put it once, "I don't want to beat them, I want to win."
I don't think people are useless.Solar did a great job of proving my point. For some people, it doesn't matter how it's said, or whether they are factually wrong, they have their ignorance and they aren't going to let go.
Gov. Jerry Brown, who is in the middle of a political battle over climate-change legislation, took aim at oil companies Monday, saying they sell a “highly destructive” product.
“The oil industry is in deep trouble,” the governor told reporters Monday at a news conference on the shores of Lake Tahoe, where he was attending an annual meeting about the area’s environment.
Oil companies “have a product that is highly destructive, while highly valuable at the same time. And we’re trying to work out the right policies,” he said.
Brown has proposed cutting California's consumption of gasoline in half by 2030. Lawmakers are considering a measure to achieve that goal, as well as other steps intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The legislation has passed the state Senate but is facing some trouble in the Assembly, where business-friendly Democrats hold more sway.
Oil companies have ramped up their opposition, saying the legislation would lead to gasoline rationing — a contention the measure's supporters reject.
LA Times, still special pleader for Brown's insanity.
so you're saying there's something wrong about what brown is saying? because pretty much the entire oil industry is highly destructive to the land. not to mention the pollutants it causes.
at some point we're going to run out of oil. might as well start early.
He wants to cut CA gas use by 50% in 15 years. That alone is ridiculous. And the LAT just goes along and mindlessly repeats whatever the governor says.
well if we don't make major changes soon it's going to be too late (in fact it's alreadytoo late.) I have no problem with trying to set a seemingly impossible goal, it inspires creative thinking and more innovation ("If a scientist says something is possible it probably is. If a scientist says something's impossible it probably isn't" Artur C Clarke.") we won't know if it's possible until the actual year that comes. and I don't see why it'ssuch a big deal since if you set a modest goal and reach it you probably could have set a more drastic goal. obviously if it proves to be impsible it can be adjusted down the road.
obviously I don't think they should put in a terrible plan for the sake of trying to get it to 50 percent but trying to figure out a way do cut it in half could lead to something really valuable
didn'tpeople think it was insane when America promised to put a man on the moon within 10 yers?
All I'm saying is I don't see what the issue is as long as it is applied in a sane manner and reevaluated as it goes on.
also isn't the point of the news to report what the leaders say? I mean it's a major newspaper people would throw a fit if every single article was accompanied by an opinion piece of it. If the newspaper want's to say something about it they can use the editorial section.
He's just a governor who is supposed to be running a state making choices on policy for its citizens. He isn't supposed to be dreaming impossible goals that have real consequences for those living here. He's not JFK, and he isn't proposong a moon landing.
And he's apparently ignorant. The idea that you could remove Californians, of all people, from their cars or keep them from driving is absurd. And they want to tax people who buy electric more. The whole state is run by idiots.
What is the saying that so goes California so goes the nation? Just look at cars when California upped the mileage requirements every manufacture followed because they had to sell to almost 40 million people in the state alone.
There is such a thing as overdoing it, and anywhere close to 50% is a fantasy. And that's just what is mentioned in the short article. Never mind all the new taxes they want. I don't trust these people to make rational decisions, and with good reason.
On August 27 2015 07:07 Introvert wrote: There is such a thing as overdoing it, and anywhere close to 50% is a fantasy. And that's just what is mentioned in the short article. Never mind all the new taxes they want. I don't trust these people to make rational decisions, and with good reason.
that's fair enough. I tend to have a bit of an extreme view when it comes to pollution and carbon emissions so I tend to support pretty much anything that I can think actually help somewhat irrelevant to cost. Ultimately what it comes down to is what the constituents want and I don't believe in foringe people to believe the same way I do or force legislation on people who don't want it.
that being said if the legislature passes it we did elect them so.
On August 27 2015 06:00 SolaR- wrote: Greenhorizons your extremist views are not doing anyone any favors. If you really want to end racism, it doesn't help to relate this incident with the current political movement. The smart move would be to keep this kind of activity as far away from anything race related. This guy just obviously had mental issues and associating it with ending racism to stop this kind of behavior makes you lose all credibility.
lol what "extremist" views? Seriously?
defending this guy obviously
he never defended him, which he had to clarify multiple times: saying you understand where some of the anger comes from isn't the same thing as you agree that what he did in response was justified
he's justifying the behavior.
your reading comprehension is terrible
no it isn't. He's saying one thing but doing another I don't believe everything people tell me about themselves. Sure he clarifies that he doesn't justify these actions but if you actually read and understand the context of his argument you would realize that he is at least somewhat justifying it. Or at least sympathizing with it. Everyone says there are a good driver, do I believe that no?
On August 27 2015 06:30 Roe wrote:
On August 27 2015 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 27 2015 05:11 Roe wrote: You're just upset. Take a break before you say more you'll regret.
I don't regret a word I said. You all obviously aren't even close to understanding this. Your post was just ignorant and ignored my opening. Just own it, don't try to put it back on me and butter me up by saying you agree with me sometimes.
It wasn't ignorant. I read your entire post and that's why I said what I said. Maybe read it again when you have a clear head, because all you did was ignore what I said because I disagree with you.
Y'all keep trying to reach these people with your NPR voices and reasoned logical arguments, I sincerely don't think you're going to make any more progress than I have by simply calling them out for what they are.
Normally I pick when to use my NPR voice and when to call them a useless racist. Or as someone else put it once, "I don't want to beat them, I want to win."
I don't think people are useless.Solar did a great job of proving my point. For some people, it doesn't matter how it's said, or whether they are factually wrong, they have their ignorance and they aren't going to let go.
On August 27 2015 07:07 Introvert wrote: There is such a thing as overdoing it, and anywhere close to 50% is a fantasy. And that's just what is mentioned in the short article. Never mind all the new taxes they want. I don't trust these people to make rational decisions, and with good reason.
that's fair enough. I tend to have a bit of an extreme view when it comes to pollution and carbon emissions so I tend to support pretty much anything that I can think actually help somewhat irrelevant to cost
Just keep in mind the goal isn't explicitly cutting emissions (i.e. cleaner burning cars). It's cutting consumption as a whole. It's insane. (though cleaner cars is one thing they pass legislation on, obviously.)
And they now want a tax on electric because they lose the ridiculously high gas tax money.
WASHINGTON -- A coalition of environmental groups is threatening to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for not implementing new regulations on the disposal of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations.
The organizations -- which include the Environmental Integrity Project and the Natural Resources Defense Council -- will file a lawsuit if the EPA does not issue rules explaining where and how oil and gas drillers should deal with the water left over from their operations, they told the agency on Wednesday.
Hydraulic fracturing, often called fracking, uses a high-pressure stream of water, sand and chemicals to tap in to oil and gas reserves within rock formations. The environmental groups are concerned about wastewater injected into the ground -- an estimated 2 billion gallons a day, according to industry estimates -- and cite recent research linking wastewater injection sites to increased seismic activity in some parts of the United States. They also worry about the practice of spreading wastewater on fields and roads to deal with dust and drought, and about the lack of structural requirements for storing wastewater in landfills or ponds.
Wastewater from fracking operations has been found to include carcinogens and radioactive components, they say.
"Oil and gas waste is extremely dangerous -- yet the EPA admitted decades ago that federal rules are inadequate to protect the public," said Matthew McFeeley, an attorney at the NRDC, in a statement. "Toxic waste should not be sent to run-of-the-mill landfills, sprayed on our roads and fields, or stored in open air pits."
The coalition wants the EPA to review and revise how it handles this wastewater under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which governs waste disposal. They say that while the RCRA requires the agency to review regulations at least every three years, it has been more than 25 years since oil and gas waste rules have been updated.
If the EPA does not take action on fracking waste within 60 days, the coalition says it will file a lawsuit.
On August 27 2015 07:07 Introvert wrote: There is such a thing as overdoing it, and anywhere close to 50% is a fantasy. And that's just what is mentioned in the short article. Never mind all the new taxes they want. I don't trust these people to make rational decisions, and with good reason.
that's fair enough. I tend to have a bit of an extreme view when it comes to pollution and carbon emissions so I tend to support pretty much anything that I can think actually help somewhat irrelevant to cost
Just keep in mind the goal isn't explicitly cutting emissions (i.e. cleaner burning cars). It's cutting consumption as a whole. It's insane.
And they now want a tax on electric because they lose the ridiculously high gas tax money.
They don't have a clue. That's my point
yeah. cutting electric doesn't seem productive very much. I'm all for lowering consumption as well but in the means of offering alternatives and trying to encourage alternative energies.
On August 27 2015 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
lol what "extremist" views? Seriously?
defending this guy obviously
he never defended him, which he had to clarify multiple times: saying you understand where some of the anger comes from isn't the same thing as you agree that what he did in response was justified
he's justifying the behavior.
your reading comprehension is terrible
no it isn't. He's saying one thing but doing another I don't believe everything people tell me about themselves. Sure he clarifies that he doesn't justify these actions but if you actually read and understand the context of his argument you would realize that he is at least somewhat justifying it. Or at least sympathizing with it. Everyone says there are a good driver, do I believe that no?
On August 27 2015 06:30 Roe wrote:
On August 27 2015 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 27 2015 05:11 Roe wrote: You're just upset. Take a break before you say more you'll regret.
I don't regret a word I said. You all obviously aren't even close to understanding this. Your post was just ignorant and ignored my opening. Just own it, don't try to put it back on me and butter me up by saying you agree with me sometimes.
It wasn't ignorant. I read your entire post and that's why I said what I said. Maybe read it again when you have a clear head, because all you did was ignore what I said because I disagree with you.
Y'all keep trying to reach these people with your NPR voices and reasoned logical arguments, I sincerely don't think you're going to make any more progress than I have by simply calling them out for what they are.
Normally I pick when to use my NPR voice and when to call them a useless racist. Or as someone else put it once, "I don't want to beat them, I want to win."
I don't think people are useless.Solar did a great job of proving my point. For some people, it doesn't matter how it's said, or whether they are factually wrong, they have their ignorance and they aren't going to let go.
how I'm i ignorant?
You said I defended the guy who murdered those people, that I justified it, and you refuse to acknowledge that you're wrong, despite several people correcting you. That you still don't see it, I have to admit, is a bit amusing.
The Times did not preform the poll, only reported on it. I wouldn't be surprised if polls that down show Trump with a huge are not getting reported or just not being sought out. The US News is all about viewers and right now this better than any reality show.
On August 27 2015 08:26 Gorsameth wrote: I also would not call a poll a year before the election accurate in any sense.
True, but they keep on making these polls because of people like us who spend their time eating up anything politically related, even this far in advance. We are a hopeless bunch.
Gov. Jerry Brown, who is in the middle of a political battle over climate-change legislation, took aim at oil companies Monday, saying they sell a “highly destructive” product.
“The oil industry is in deep trouble,” the governor told reporters Monday at a news conference on the shores of Lake Tahoe, where he was attending an annual meeting about the area’s environment.
Oil companies “have a product that is highly destructive, while highly valuable at the same time. And we’re trying to work out the right policies,” he said.
Brown has proposed cutting California's consumption of gasoline in half by 2030. Lawmakers are considering a measure to achieve that goal, as well as other steps intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The legislation has passed the state Senate but is facing some trouble in the Assembly, where business-friendly Democrats hold more sway.
Oil companies have ramped up their opposition, saying the legislation would lead to gasoline rationing — a contention the measure's supporters reject.
LA Times, still special pleader for Brown's insanity.
so you're saying there's something wrong about what brown is saying? because pretty much the entire oil industry is highly destructive to the land. not to mention the pollutants it causes.
at some point we're going to run out of oil. might as well start early.
He wants to cut CA gas use by 50% in 15 years. That alone is ridiculous. And the LAT just goes along and mindlessly repeats whatever the governor says.
well if we don't make major changes soon it's going to be too late (in fact it's alreadytoo late.) I have no problem with trying to set a seemingly impossible goal, it inspires creative thinking and more innovation ("If a scientist says something is possible it probably is. If a scientist says something's impossible it probably isn't" Artur C Clarke.") we won't know if it's possible until the actual year that comes. and I don't see why it'ssuch a big deal since if you set a modest goal and reach it you probably could have set a more drastic goal. obviously if it proves to be impsible it can be adjusted down the road.
obviously I don't think they should put in a terrible plan for the sake of trying to get it to 50 percent but trying to figure out a way do cut it in half could lead to something really valuable
didn'tpeople think it was insane when America promised to put a man on the moon within 10 yers?
All I'm saying is I don't see what the issue is as long as it is applied in a sane manner and reevaluated as it goes on.
also isn't the point of the news to report what the leaders say? I mean it's a major newspaper people would throw a fit if every single article was accompanied by an opinion piece of it. If the newspaper want's to say something about it they can use the editorial section.
He's just a governor who is supposed to be running a state making choices on policy for its citizens. He isn't supposed to be dreaming impossible goals that have real consequences for those living here. He's not JFK, and he isn't proposong a moon landing.
And he's apparently ignorant. The idea that you could remove Californians, of all people, from their cars or keep them from driving is absurd. And they want to tax people who buy electric more. The whole state is run by idiots.
JFK was just a president who was supposed to be running a nation making choices on policy for its citizens. He wasn't supposed to be dreaming impossible goals that have real conequences for those living there.
Regarding your second statement, isn't that the ENTIRE POINT OF SETTING AN IMPOSSIBLE GOAL? If you looked at it and said "yeah, it's going to be easy to get Californians out of their cars", then it wouldn't be an impossible goal. Would it?
I hope he has some actual policy ideas that can get him there, though. Such as massive investments in public transport systems, bike lanes and encouragement programs, etc. etc. I am not invested enough to read up on it, I just think it's funny that you leveled such an utterly simplistic criticism of the program.
Ocean levels on Earth have risen an average of three inches in the last 23 years, and could rise an additional three feet in the next century, according to an interdisciplinary NASA team charged with measuring changing sea levels.
Scientists from NASA Wednesday presented satellite data gathered since 1992 that measured ocean levels rising at an average of 3 millimeters per year. The findings pointed to thermal expansion caused by warming ocean temperatures, as well as melting ice sheets and glaciers, as the reasons for the rise — and scientists warned that the rate at which sea levels are climbing is accelerating.
“Given what we know now about how the ocean expands as it warms and how ice sheets and glaciers are adding water to the seas, it’s pretty certain we are locked into at least 3 feet of sea level rise, and probably more,” Steve Nerem, a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder and leader of NASA’s Sea Level Change Team, told reporters in a Wednesday afternoon conference call. “But we don't know whether it will happen within a century or somewhat longer.”
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made a comprehensive assessment of rising sea levels in 2013, with climate experts stating that oceans would rise from one to three feet by the end of the century.
But NASA said Wednesday that satellite data gathered since then has shown that sea levels will climb to the higher end of that range, though it will be difficult to predict exactly how long it will take to reach that level.
I can't wait until people start dropping out so we can actually get meaningful polls with first and second choices-who has 22-30% of the first choice vote seems pretty pointless to me.
I guess it's more about the coverage than the polls. It was especially egregious with the pre-debate Trump polls, where he was polling absurd "dislike" numbers and poorly against quite a few GOP candidates head-to-head but everybody just reported the overall numbers. Slightly less so now.
EPT
