|
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 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.
Seems like an elegant-ish solution would be a tax on water for industrial use which goes directly towards improving water infrastructure-- pipes, desalination plants etc. A marginal cost seems like it should be effective, if you can still be profitable then plant all you want.
*I'm not a policymaker/expert
|
On December 15 2015 10:03 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2015 09:17 Danglars wrote: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. The governator was elected to the position of governor. When I said "one-party show in legislature" I meant the legislature. Prioritizing spending to developing water resources requires funding priorities from the elected state bodies ... which are too busy on their light rail and green energy. Interestingly enough with your example it was even more stark: Arnold tried to circumvent the Democratic legislature (which wouldn't support him despite election, surprise surprise) by driving two initiatives on the ballot (CA allows citizens to pass state laws through the initiative process). They both failed.
On December 15 2015 14:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Pretty much. They don't have the political clout nor money to make inroads. The political machine of both parties also isn't incentivized to plan for the future: It costs political capital for no immediate gain and the electorate itself isn't engaged.
|
On December 15 2015 16:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2015 10:03 Acrofales wrote:On December 15 2015 09:17 Danglars wrote: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. The governator was elected to the position of governor. When I said "one-party show in legislature" I meant the legislature. Prioritizing spending to developing water resources requires funding priorities from the elected state bodies ... which are too busy on their light rail and green energy. Interestingly enough with your example it was even more stark: Arnold tried to circumvent the Democratic legislature (which wouldn't support him despite election, surprise surprise) by driving two initiatives on the ballot (CA allows citizens to pass state laws through the initiative process). They both failed. Show nested quote +On December 15 2015 14:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. Pretty much. They don't have the political clout nor money to make inroads. The political machine of both parties also isn't incentivized to plan for the future: It costs political capital for no immediate gain and the electorate itself isn't engaged.
The politics seems to be all on the farming ownership class side. If agribusiness is using up all the water, the politics are pro-agribusiness. I don't understand what you and Jonny are going on about. Why would what passes for "the left" in California be against selling water to corporations at desalination cost or whatever?
|
On December 15 2015 16:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2015 16:20 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2015 10:03 Acrofales wrote:On December 15 2015 09:17 Danglars wrote: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. The governator was elected to the position of governor. When I said "one-party show in legislature" I meant the legislature. Prioritizing spending to developing water resources requires funding priorities from the elected state bodies ... which are too busy on their light rail and green energy. Interestingly enough with your example it was even more stark: Arnold tried to circumvent the Democratic legislature (which wouldn't support him despite election, surprise surprise) by driving two initiatives on the ballot (CA allows citizens to pass state laws through the initiative process). They both failed. On December 15 2015 14:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. Pretty much. They don't have the political clout nor money to make inroads. The political machine of both parties also isn't incentivized to plan for the future: It costs political capital for no immediate gain and the electorate itself isn't engaged. The politics seems to be all on the farming ownership class side. If agribusiness is using up all the water, the politics are pro-agribusiness. I don't understand what you and Jonny are going on about. Why would what passes for "the left" in California be against selling water to corporations at desalination cost or whatever?
If environmental groups didn't shutter water infrastructure built to keep farms running and municipal water districts supplied, they'd have been the low man on the political totem pole. Google any number of articles on the history of the smelt issue and you can find out. Farmers are politically second-class citizens to a freshwater fish that likes the delta.
I already presented the case for diverting funds twice now so it's no use. Every legislator has their pet projects so its a matter of putting water reservoirs and infrastructure like aqueducts ahead of this nice shiny new windfarm or what have you. There's no traction in this broke state to support anything but the left's top-10 projects. It's back to opportunity cost.
|
What are you even talking about? We are talking about raising the cost of water for farming over here.
|
Presidential candidates typically take a timeout from the paid-speech circuit to avoid potential conflicts of interest and thorny restrictions on mixing campaign and personal business. But that hasn't stopped Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina or Mike Huckabee, who chose to fulfill commitments to the nonprofits and business groups that signed them up for five-figure fees before they jumped into the race.
Carson just completed a string of seven paid speeches that commanded fees worth as much as $500,000 in total. Fiorina delivered a pair of $48,000 speeches in October — one to AT&T and one to Young Presidents Organization, a business executives' group — though her financial disclosure suggests she diverted the fees to charity. Huckabee's campaign acknowledged that the candidate delivered paid speeches since announcing his bid but declined to provide a list of venues or fees earned.
The decision to give paid speeches forces the three Republican candidates to navigate a complex set of rules that, in many ways, require them and their audiences to suspend reality. Though their identity as presidential candidates is widely known — and sometimes used by organizers to attract a crowd — they're prohibited from making references to their candidacies or the presidential campaign. And federal rules forbid using campaign resources to support their private endeavors, including ancillary costs like travel and accommodations.
Yet all three have darted on and off the campaign trail to deliver their talks, sometimes sandwiching them between campaign stops. And, particularly in Carson's case, the substance of speeches can be virtually indistinguishable from remarks delivered on the stump.
"It's unusual," said Larry Noble, an attorney with the Campaign Legal Center. "It's a hard thing to do and pull off without stepping over one line or another."
Candidates have sometimes found ways to make money while on the campaign trail, most frequently in royalties from books often released mid-campaign, sales of which can soar thanks to the notoriety that comes with a presidential bid. (Not to mention, campaigns often purchase their candidates' books in bulk to give away at fundraisers or other functions.) But paid speaking comes with the added element of a well-heeled sponsor that could present at least the appearance of currying influence with a would-be president.
Source
|
But paid speaking comes with the added element of a well-heeled sponsor that could present at least the appearance of currying influence with a would-be president.
Seriously,apearance?
In a country where big corporations sponsor their favorit candidates with 100,s of mills,people worry about candidates giving paid sponsored speeches because it would threaten their independence.
|
Has anyone imagined a caucus where 20-30%+ of the people there are Trump supporters?
Trump may do even better in the caucuses than the polls show.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
can't believe someone is paying carson 500k to talk.
|
On December 15 2015 22:04 oneofthem wrote:
can't believe someone is paying carson 500k to talk.
I cant believe people would vote for him. Some people are just a mystery.
|
On December 15 2015 21:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
Has anyone imagined a caucus where 20-30%+ of the people there are Trump supporters?
Trump may do even better in the caucuses than the polls show.
This assumes they will attend. Polls suggest that the vast majority of Trump supporters have never participated in a primary. A good part have never voted in the general election either.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 15 2015 22:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2015 21:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
Has anyone imagined a caucus where 20-30%+ of the people there are Trump supporters?
Trump may do even better in the caucuses than the polls show. This assumes they will attend. Polls suggest that the vast majority of Trump supporters have never participated in a primary. A good part have never voted in the general election either.
this should strike fear into the heart of the establishment
|
On December 15 2015 23:33 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2015 22:54 Plansix wrote:On December 15 2015 21:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
Has anyone imagined a caucus where 20-30%+ of the people there are Trump supporters?
Trump may do even better in the caucuses than the polls show. This assumes they will attend. Polls suggest that the vast majority of Trump supporters have never participated in a primary. A good part have never voted in the general election either. this should strike fear into the heart of the establishment
Maybe. I would point out that one of the reasons Obama and other groups have been successful in primaries is that they have infrastructure to “get out the vote”. Getting your supporters to the polls is a critical and often ignored part of elections that can sink any election bid, good polling numbers be damned. I am not sure that Trump has any infrastructure in place. There is a reasonable chance that a good number of Trump supporters don’t show up.
|
Breaking: All LA schools closed to "credible" threat.
|
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.
Its not a communally held resource.
What it is, is a resource where the ownership rights are Very complicated. Most farmers own a certain amount of the water but only IF they use it in particular ways (so they can't sell it), and how much various other parties own depends on what the "upsteam" parties use.
There are attempts to try to get the legal knots worked out so that water can be sold between all parties, but people are afraid their water rights will be lost.
and that's not getting into the groundwater issue (which IS a semi-communally held resource)
|
That's what I like about America, they don't mess around with things like this.
All schools closed in LA.
Must be a very credible thread. They cant do this for everyone who calls a bomb else schools would never be open again.
|
Nothing matched when the Boston bombers were on the run, which lead to Boston and the surrounding towns all shut down and everyone just stayed home. Private businesses just told employees to not even bother if there was even a chance the bomber had fled to that area.
|
On December 16 2015 01:32 Rassy wrote:
That's what I like about America, they don't mess around with things like this.
All schools closed in LA.
Must be a very credible thread. They cant do this for everyone who calls a bomb else schools would never be open again.
Nothing keeps people from protesting for privacy like a good dose of fear every now and then.
Plus its hardly just America. All schools is Brussels were closed for several days while the anti terrorist operations were going on there. Schools in the Netherlands have been closed aswell if there was a credible threat.
|
Southern California Gas Co. is warning that it might need several months to plug a natural gas leak that has been sickening residents in the San Fernando Valley for weeks.
A leaking well in the Santa Susana Mountains, more than a mile from the nearest homes in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Porter Ranch, has elicited hundreds of complaints from residents and drawn the scrutiny of state regulators and health officials.
The gas company discovered the leak at its Aliso Canyon storage facility Oct. 23 and said it occurred in a pipe casing a few hundred feet below the surface of a well that goes 8,500 feet underground. The gas is flowing into the earth and seeping up through the ground, said Javier Mendoza, a gas company spokesman.
On Friday, the California Air Resources Board released a report showing that the well has been leaking a huge amount of methane, the primary component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas. Methane is being released at a rate of about 50,000 kilograms per hour, accounting for about one-quarter of all methane emissions in California, the board estimated.
To date, the leak has released the equivalent of 0.80 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, the air board estimates, about the same amount of emissions as driving 160,000 cars for a year or consuming 90 million gallons of gas. The finding "underscores the urgency of stopping the gas leak," according to the report, which is based on measurements collected on the ground and from towers, airplanes and satellites.
As the leak drags on, patience is wearing thin among Porter Ranch residents, who have reported rotten egg odor, headaches, nausea, dizziness, nosebleeds and other symptoms that have forced some to stay indoors.
Source
|
E-mail threat to Los Angeles schools was sent to a board member from an IP address in Frankfurt, Germany: school district spokesperson
wat
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
