|
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. |
On December 15 2015 06:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Show nested quote +The US government has not halted a single project out of the 88,000 actions and developments considered potentially harmful to the nation’s endangered species over the past seven years, a new study has found.
An analysis of assessments made by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that the agency very rarely used its powers to intervene in projects that could imperil any of the US’s endangered plants and animals, which currently number almost 1,600.
Of 88,000 actions assessed by the FWS between January 2008 and April 2015, just two triggered significant further action. A 2007 plan to drop fire retardant in California was deemed by the FWS to be prohibitively harmful to forest-dwelling endangered species, although this was challenged in court. The FWS also stepped in over a plan to divert water from the San Francisco Bay Delta due to concerns over the impact to threatened fish.
In both cases the FWS used a regulation called section seven, which requires a federal agency to consult with the wildlife regulator if it is undertaking, funding or authorizing an action that may be detrimental to an endangered species.
Following an assessment, the FWS can rule that the project would jeopardizes the ongoing survival of the species and require that the project either be halted or altered to lessen the impact. Projects can include developments such as roads and buildings that require a habitat to be flattened or destroyed.
According to Defenders of Wildlife, a wildlife welfare group that conducted the analysis, the FWS is intervening in a diminishing number of cases. A tally from 1991 shows that there were 350 “jeopardy judgements” out of 73,560 previous consultations, compared with the two adverse outcomes in 80,000 cases over the past seven years.
Defenders of Wildlife said that the analysis shows it is misleading to claim that federal wildlife regulations are hampering development and harming jobs. Source Oh right, Defenders of Wildlife. They surely may be trusted because they are a "wildlife welfare group."
The delta smelt/other endangered fish are more important than drought-stricken citizens and farmers. Californians have known this for ages. But it's not enough for left wing groups, never enough for progressives.
On December 15 2015 01:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +At 11.30pm Paris time, a small group of White House officials dashed into a temporary plywood hut in the exhibition hall where, a few hours earlier, a historic legal agreement to cut emissions causing climate change was secured. They were just in time to catch a live feed of Barack Obama declaring “a turning point for the world”.
These were the officials who helped set the US negotiating position for the talks – or, perhaps more accurately, helped craft the deal according to US specifications in order to insulate Obama and the agreement from attacks.
When it came to Republicans in Congress, they wanted the agreement to be bullet-proof. That was no easy feat in a negotiation over an immensely complicated challenge involving nearly 200 countries, and half a dozen rival negotiating blocs.
“We met the moment,” Obama said in his address. The Paris agreement on its own would not end climate change, he said, but “this agreement will help delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change, and will pave the way for even more progress, in successive stages, over the coming years”.
Nonetheless, the fight over the deal began even before French workers could finish dismantling the conference site. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, led the attack for Republicans.
“The president is making promises he can’t keep, writing checks he can’t cash, and stepping over the middle class to take credit for an ‘agreement’ that is subject to being shredded in 13 months,” McConnell said.
The deal reached in Paris set goals to limit warming, phase out carbon emissions by the middle of the century, help poor countries realign their economies, and review their progress towards hitting those targets at regular intervals.
Jim Inhofe, the chair of the Senate environment and public works committee, who holds views on global warming outside the scientific mainstream, said he would continue to scrutinise Obama’s climate agenda. Inhofe and other committee chairs in Congress have held hearings seeking to undermine the Paris climate meeting and the work of government scientific agencies.
“The United States is not legally bound to any agreement setting emissions targets or any financial commitment to it without approval by Congress,” Inhofe said in a statement.
Meanwhile, campaigners plan to use the agreement to push Obama to stop Congress lifting a ban on oil exports in the budget bill, and to phase out fossil fuel extraction on public lands.
But as administration officials pointed out after the deal was done, the agreement reached in Paris was constructed with a view to making it safe from Republican attacks – which was one reason negotiations were so difficult. Source
Why do they pollute the piece with "legal agreement" and "bulletproof" if it hasn't even been presented to Congress, the deliberative body for treaties of all forms?
|
Well many of the farmers settled in areas that required water to be diverted to them to allow for their crops to grow. So they pretty much knew when they settled in an area that was not drought resistant that this conflict would happen.
|
On December 15 2015 07:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2015 06:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The US government has not halted a single project out of the 88,000 actions and developments considered potentially harmful to the nation’s endangered species over the past seven years, a new study has found.
An analysis of assessments made by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that the agency very rarely used its powers to intervene in projects that could imperil any of the US’s endangered plants and animals, which currently number almost 1,600.
Of 88,000 actions assessed by the FWS between January 2008 and April 2015, just two triggered significant further action. A 2007 plan to drop fire retardant in California was deemed by the FWS to be prohibitively harmful to forest-dwelling endangered species, although this was challenged in court. The FWS also stepped in over a plan to divert water from the San Francisco Bay Delta due to concerns over the impact to threatened fish.
In both cases the FWS used a regulation called section seven, which requires a federal agency to consult with the wildlife regulator if it is undertaking, funding or authorizing an action that may be detrimental to an endangered species.
Following an assessment, the FWS can rule that the project would jeopardizes the ongoing survival of the species and require that the project either be halted or altered to lessen the impact. Projects can include developments such as roads and buildings that require a habitat to be flattened or destroyed.
According to Defenders of Wildlife, a wildlife welfare group that conducted the analysis, the FWS is intervening in a diminishing number of cases. A tally from 1991 shows that there were 350 “jeopardy judgements” out of 73,560 previous consultations, compared with the two adverse outcomes in 80,000 cases over the past seven years.
Defenders of Wildlife said that the analysis shows it is misleading to claim that federal wildlife regulations are hampering development and harming jobs. Source Oh right, Defenders of Wildlife. They surely may be trusted because they are a "wildlife welfare group." The delta smelt/other endangered fish are more important than drought-stricken citizens and farmers. Californians have known this for ages. But it's not enough for left wing groups, never enough for progressives.
Hmmm....growing almonds in a fucking desert, or wiping out biodiversity that's existed for hundreds of thousands of years....I definitely know which one I would choose. Growing crops that need to divert enough water from entire watersheds that it threatens whole ecosystems is fucking stupid in the first place.That is an inherently unsustainable use of a resource, and is pretty illogical.
And who the hell else are you going to trust to conserve biodiversity? What other group should advocate for endangered animals? You seem to think the EPA and federal government are not to be trusted. I guess these guys should just regulate themselves....
|
I'm sure with less taxes and regulations the money will sooner or later tickle down to animals so they can themselves profit from the wealth creators.
|
Also, isn't the main reason that california has these drought problems the fact that they keep on using more water than than falls onto the land as rain? While that may be a good idea in the short run, it is quite obviously unsustainable in the long run. You may buy a few additional years by wrecking the ecology even further, but at some point, there simply won't be anywhere to pump the water from, at which point your almonds will still dry.
|
California gets a lot of its water from out of state. Edit for clarity, though it should be clear from the following: Most of it is from in state, though I don't know exact numbers.
But the state government has done almost zero of consequence to collect more water. Even now, they continue to call for people to take shorter showers, but there no proposals made by the governor to deal with this now or in the future. It really is pathetic. If the state needs more water now than 30 years ago (because of, say, population growth or the use of water heavy farming) then the state should have dealt with it. I believe San Diego county took their own steps, and now they have plenty of water (although they are still mandated to use less). It's not the drought that's a problem, it's the fact that nothing was done in preparation.
|
There was a long set of stories on NPR about how the state was and still is unwilling to fine people for overusing water. With the exception of San Diego. But this is the state that can't fix its prisons despite the Supreme court ordering them to do it like a billion times now.
|
The solution should be collecting and keeping more water, not fining people for what ends up being a small amount of water. The highest number I've seen for residential/urban use is like 10%. This isn't a solution.
|
Californians had plenty of chances after the last drought to build more reservoirs. They also had plenty of chances to get rid of the monopoly and price-controls. They also had plenty of chances to stop diverting hundreds of millions of gallons of water into the ocean.
They chose not to do these things and they will continue to suffer until they do. Sad, but this kind of stuff is why I left California a long time ago and have no plans on going back.
|
On December 15 2015 07:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2015 07:31 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2015 06:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The US government has not halted a single project out of the 88,000 actions and developments considered potentially harmful to the nation’s endangered species over the past seven years, a new study has found.
An analysis of assessments made by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that the agency very rarely used its powers to intervene in projects that could imperil any of the US’s endangered plants and animals, which currently number almost 1,600.
Of 88,000 actions assessed by the FWS between January 2008 and April 2015, just two triggered significant further action. A 2007 plan to drop fire retardant in California was deemed by the FWS to be prohibitively harmful to forest-dwelling endangered species, although this was challenged in court. The FWS also stepped in over a plan to divert water from the San Francisco Bay Delta due to concerns over the impact to threatened fish.
In both cases the FWS used a regulation called section seven, which requires a federal agency to consult with the wildlife regulator if it is undertaking, funding or authorizing an action that may be detrimental to an endangered species.
Following an assessment, the FWS can rule that the project would jeopardizes the ongoing survival of the species and require that the project either be halted or altered to lessen the impact. Projects can include developments such as roads and buildings that require a habitat to be flattened or destroyed.
According to Defenders of Wildlife, a wildlife welfare group that conducted the analysis, the FWS is intervening in a diminishing number of cases. A tally from 1991 shows that there were 350 “jeopardy judgements” out of 73,560 previous consultations, compared with the two adverse outcomes in 80,000 cases over the past seven years.
Defenders of Wildlife said that the analysis shows it is misleading to claim that federal wildlife regulations are hampering development and harming jobs. Source Oh right, Defenders of Wildlife. They surely may be trusted because they are a "wildlife welfare group." The delta smelt/other endangered fish are more important than drought-stricken citizens and farmers. Californians have known this for ages. But it's not enough for left wing groups, never enough for progressives. Hmmm....growing almonds in a fucking desert, or wiping out biodiversity that's existed for hundreds of thousands of years....I definitely know which one I would choose. Growing crops that need to divert enough water from entire watersheds that it threatens whole ecosystems is fucking stupid in the first place.That is an inherently unsustainable use of a resource, and is pretty illogical. And who the hell else are you going to trust to conserve biodiversity? What other group should advocate for endangered animals? You seem to think the EPA and federal government are not to be trusted. I guess these guys should just regulate themselves.... The problem is one-sided articles posted in rags like the Guardian advocating the position of activist environmental groups. They'd champion the cause of two dumpy-looking fish until the last farmer went bankrupt. Never mind how many billions were spent on the project to supply fresh water to the rest of the state instead of ejecting it into the salty bay. Here we have lousy reporting on another pressure group coming along to get federal agencies to comply with their agenda.
If you want to take it beyond the latest green group to caterwaul, California as a state has catered to the popular sentiments of the left -- light-rail, public transportation projects, carbon emissions, green energy, you name it -- while neglecting the budgeting of reservoirs and desal plants that other first-world countries with limited rainfall plan ahead for. The state has been a one-party show in legislature essentially since the Reagan era and boy is that ever apparent today.
I've developed work relations here that have tied me down to this area as things get worse and old clients move out of state steadily. The climate here is wonderful and I'd miss it. However, the sickness here is much worse than other states and the national environment.
|
On December 15 2015 09:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2015 07:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On December 15 2015 07:31 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2015 06:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The US government has not halted a single project out of the 88,000 actions and developments considered potentially harmful to the nation’s endangered species over the past seven years, a new study has found.
An analysis of assessments made by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that the agency very rarely used its powers to intervene in projects that could imperil any of the US’s endangered plants and animals, which currently number almost 1,600.
Of 88,000 actions assessed by the FWS between January 2008 and April 2015, just two triggered significant further action. A 2007 plan to drop fire retardant in California was deemed by the FWS to be prohibitively harmful to forest-dwelling endangered species, although this was challenged in court. The FWS also stepped in over a plan to divert water from the San Francisco Bay Delta due to concerns over the impact to threatened fish.
In both cases the FWS used a regulation called section seven, which requires a federal agency to consult with the wildlife regulator if it is undertaking, funding or authorizing an action that may be detrimental to an endangered species.
Following an assessment, the FWS can rule that the project would jeopardizes the ongoing survival of the species and require that the project either be halted or altered to lessen the impact. Projects can include developments such as roads and buildings that require a habitat to be flattened or destroyed.
According to Defenders of Wildlife, a wildlife welfare group that conducted the analysis, the FWS is intervening in a diminishing number of cases. A tally from 1991 shows that there were 350 “jeopardy judgements” out of 73,560 previous consultations, compared with the two adverse outcomes in 80,000 cases over the past seven years.
Defenders of Wildlife said that the analysis shows it is misleading to claim that federal wildlife regulations are hampering development and harming jobs. Source Oh right, Defenders of Wildlife. They surely may be trusted because they are a "wildlife welfare group." The delta smelt/other endangered fish are more important than drought-stricken citizens and farmers. Californians have known this for ages. But it's not enough for left wing groups, never enough for progressives. Hmmm....growing almonds in a fucking desert, or wiping out biodiversity that's existed for hundreds of thousands of years....I definitely know which one I would choose. Growing crops that need to divert enough water from entire watersheds that it threatens whole ecosystems is fucking stupid in the first place.That is an inherently unsustainable use of a resource, and is pretty illogical. And who the hell else are you going to trust to conserve biodiversity? What other group should advocate for endangered animals? You seem to think the EPA and federal government are not to be trusted. I guess these guys should just regulate themselves.... The problem is one-sided articles posted in rags like the Guardian
The Guardian is a rag now? How can you expect to be taken seriously when writing nonsense like this? Surely you must know that outside of your little die-hard conservative bubble nobody considers the Guardian to be a rag?
|
On December 15 2015 09:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2015 07:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On December 15 2015 07:31 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2015 06:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The US government has not halted a single project out of the 88,000 actions and developments considered potentially harmful to the nation’s endangered species over the past seven years, a new study has found.
An analysis of assessments made by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that the agency very rarely used its powers to intervene in projects that could imperil any of the US’s endangered plants and animals, which currently number almost 1,600.
Of 88,000 actions assessed by the FWS between January 2008 and April 2015, just two triggered significant further action. A 2007 plan to drop fire retardant in California was deemed by the FWS to be prohibitively harmful to forest-dwelling endangered species, although this was challenged in court. The FWS also stepped in over a plan to divert water from the San Francisco Bay Delta due to concerns over the impact to threatened fish.
In both cases the FWS used a regulation called section seven, which requires a federal agency to consult with the wildlife regulator if it is undertaking, funding or authorizing an action that may be detrimental to an endangered species.
Following an assessment, the FWS can rule that the project would jeopardizes the ongoing survival of the species and require that the project either be halted or altered to lessen the impact. Projects can include developments such as roads and buildings that require a habitat to be flattened or destroyed.
According to Defenders of Wildlife, a wildlife welfare group that conducted the analysis, the FWS is intervening in a diminishing number of cases. A tally from 1991 shows that there were 350 “jeopardy judgements” out of 73,560 previous consultations, compared with the two adverse outcomes in 80,000 cases over the past seven years.
Defenders of Wildlife said that the analysis shows it is misleading to claim that federal wildlife regulations are hampering development and harming jobs. Source Oh right, Defenders of Wildlife. They surely may be trusted because they are a "wildlife welfare group." The delta smelt/other endangered fish are more important than drought-stricken citizens and farmers. Californians have known this for ages. But it's not enough for left wing groups, never enough for progressives. Hmmm....growing almonds in a fucking desert, or wiping out biodiversity that's existed for hundreds of thousands of years....I definitely know which one I would choose. Growing crops that need to divert enough water from entire watersheds that it threatens whole ecosystems is fucking stupid in the first place.That is an inherently unsustainable use of a resource, and is pretty illogical. And who the hell else are you going to trust to conserve biodiversity? What other group should advocate for endangered animals? You seem to think the EPA and federal government are not to be trusted. I guess these guys should just regulate themselves.... The problem is one-sided articles posted in rags like the Guardian advocating the position of activist environmental groups. They'd champion the cause of two dumpy-looking fish until the last farmer went bankrupt. Never mind how many billions were spent on the project to supply fresh water to the rest of the state instead of ejecting it into the salty bay. Here we have lousy reporting on another pressure group coming along to get federal agencies to comply with their agenda. If you want to take it beyond the latest green group to caterwaul, California as a state has catered to the popular sentiments of the left -- light-rail, public transportation projects, carbon emissions, green energy, you name it -- while neglecting the budgeting of reservoirs and desal plants that other first-world countries with limited rainfall plan ahead for. The state has been a one-party show in legislature essentially since the Reagan era and boy is that ever apparent today. I've developed work relations here that have tied me down to this area as things get worse and old clients move out of state steadily. The climate here is wonderful and I'd miss it. However, the sickness here is much worse than other states and the national environment.
There was a Governator. He may have been a pretty moderate republican, but he was a republican.. and he also did fuck all about improving water infrastructure. It's not a partisan problem, it's a California problem. Stop trying to inject partisan politics where it clearly is not the issue.
|
Winning by 20 percent in the last election both before Arnold and then again just in 2014 is hard to swing as a non partisan problem.
regardless of politics its a hugely dysfunctional state that should never have grown to the size that it did. Its already hemorrhaging jobs to texas NC and the morman states and that just means things are going to get worse.
|
California has far too many problems for it to be purely a Democrat or Republican responsibility at least from what I understand (in that the fault kind of lies with both parties and historical decisions). There's a whole Gordian knot of problems, and unfortunately in the real world you can't just slice that with a big-ass sword.
Kind of like trying to blame [insert party here] for the issues in the Middle East, or blaming [insert party here] for the 2008 financial collapse, or blaming [insert party here] for illegal immigration. It's reductionist and kind of silly, though it does play well on TV and every party, even non-major parties, does it.
|
California needs to embrace more water-efficient farming tactics and stop growing water guzzlers like alfalfa and almonds or something. Watering lawns and taking long showers is a drop in the metaphorical bucket compared to agricultural water usage.
|
On December 15 2015 11:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
California needs to embrace more water-efficient farming tactics and stop growing water guzzlers like alfalfa and almonds or something. Watering lawns and taking long showers is a drop in the metaphorical bucket compared to agricultural water usage.
This is a weird way to look at it. You should say that the alfalfa and almonds should be able to pay for all the infrastructure third world countries have to avoid the water situation the state finds itself in now. That way you don't lose major industries in your state and can pay for more things down the road.
But yeah domestic water usage is nothing compared to industrial water usage.
|
United States43902 Posts
Can't they just sell the water to the farmers at the cost of production/desalinization and if the crops are still profitable to grow then everyone is happy? I mean the issue here is essentially that a limited communally held resource is being used without the true costs and externalities being accounted for. That's hardly a unique California problem, that happens wherever there is a commonly held resource.
|
On December 15 2015 11:23 KwarK wrote:
Can't they just sell the water to the farmers at the cost of production/desalinization and if the crops are still profitable to grow then everyone is happy? I mean the issue here is essentially that a limited communally held resource is being used without the true costs and externalities being accounted for. That's hardly a unique California problem, that happens wherever there is a commonly held resource.
Lobbying/politicians afraid of said possibility of lost industry in the state is the problem.
|
On December 15 2015 06:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Oh man Nate. I usually love 538 and respect their statistics a lot, but that is not what a 95% frequentist confidence interval means.
Otherwise an interesting article though.
What he's doing is a prediction interval, not a confidence interval. I'm not sure his methods are great in this case, since elections tend not to be too similar to each other. My subjective prediction interval would be more like 15-50%, but I think Silver just doesn't have enough data to get his prediction range that narrow.
|
On December 15 2015 11:23 KwarK wrote:
Can't they just sell the water to the farmers at the cost of production/desalinization and if the crops are still profitable to grow then everyone is happy? I mean the issue here is essentially that a limited communally held resource is being used without the true costs and externalities being accounted for. That's hardly a unique California problem, that happens wherever there is a commonly held resource.
Yes. But politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
