I can hardly believe this... (US environmental policy)

[Ilosar]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/04/republicans-attack-obamas-environmental-protection

Now, I know that not everybody believes in man-made global warming and blablabla, but those are completely different issues. Republican politicians are pushing to reduce funds given to, of all things, environmental protection agencies and other assorted things like State Parks.

These guys don't make crackpot theories about end-of-the-world Day After Tomorrow scenarios, they make sure the US doesn't look like a giant dumpster because most polluting companies don't give a rat's ass about the consequences their activities have on the surroundings of their factories. Gas drilling in State Parks? what's next, strip mining the Grand Canyon?

I don't have problems with developing an economy, but these natural spaces and disappearing species need to be protected for a reason. Butchering a natural habitat to build oil well no 22511 is just stupid given there are so few of them left. It's not like enormous amounts of funds go to this anyway, so the ''we must cut state spendings!'' argument is a bit moot.

And finally, environmental policy is too high in the United State's 'hierarchy of values''? I beg your pardon, the most polluting country in the world has environmental policy too high in it's priorities?

Ah well, we still have loads of natural habitats here in ye olde Canada. Until they find a few drops of oil and strip mine it like they are doing to Alberta, at least.

 

[SimpleMinded]

I have a feeling, from what you've posted thus far, that you and I have very similar political ideologies. I agree with you completely that it seems strange to rip apart the environmental protection agency. I grew up along the Hudson River and GE's dumping of PCBs has created a real negative perspective on the area, not to mention the terrible environmental impact it had.

The argument for these cuts in regulation is that they hurt the businesses ability to function and add a lot of costs to working in the United States. So getting rid of these regulations will generate jobs. But jobs generated from destroying the environment are jobs I'd rather not have.

 

[Ilosar]

Exactly SimpleMinded. I live in Montreal and the dumping of shit in the Saint-Laurent (our local river, for the uninitiated) has made it impossible to swim in it. Worse, lumber companies and big mining corporations (Canadian ones at that) have turned big parts of the north of the province in an open-air trash warren (but since only Natives are living up there, nobody cares). It was the subject of a pretty popular shock documentary and the situation has improved since, so it's not like Alberta. Now that's freaky stuff, the whole north of the province is one huge playing ground for companies like Shell because the local government are complete sellouts. It's funny because they were all haughty and proud of their zero debt for a year or two, then the 2008 crisis hit and boy it wasn't funny anymore.

Again, I am no hippie, creating jobs and fueling an economy with resources is a-OK in my books, but there is a point where someone has to make sure we don't rip the land apart to do it, especially beautiful places like a Stake Park, and making species extinct has consequences far beyond us having to fetch a different fish at the supermarket. Wolves in that article are a good example, entire ecosystems rely on them to regulate local populations, if they are over-hunted shit will happen. I remember it happened in France, wolves were pretty much hunted to extinction, angry farmers rejoice. Until shitloads of rabbits, deers, boars, and other assorted forest animals start pillaging farms en masse. What's a few sheep here or there then. Apparently not much since they are re-introducing the species with wolves from North America IIRC.

Final point is, over-developing resources has more consequences than making a few tree-huggers cry in their beds. This sort of decision should be taken very carefully, certainly not with the cavalier approach those Republicans take by claiming the country should revise it's priorities entirely .

 

[DammitBoy]

I beg your pardon, the most polluting country in the world has environmental policy too high in it's priorities?

I'd like to see you source and backup that silly statement. And please make it something other than the UK Guardian - probably the most biased publication you could find.

On Thursday Republicans introduced bills in both houses of Congress to strip the Obama administration of its powers to act on climate change. The bill introduced in the House and the Senate would bar the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using existing air pollution laws to reduce carbon dioxide.

Nothing wrong with that - it's taxation based on fraud and we can't afford it, so fuck off.

It would stop the EPA from regulating carbon emissions from power plants and factories. It would not strike down a deal, reached between the White House and car makers, to reduce car emissions. But it would allow no further reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from cars once that deal runs out in 2016.

Don't worry, we won't be able to afford gasoline by then anyway.

The brunt of the cuts are intended to starve the EPA of the funds it would need to begin regulating carbon dioxide.

Good

The cuts have even invaded the White House. The Republican proposal cut off funding for the post of Obama's energy and climate adviser and the state department envoy to the UN climate negotiations.

Good

In Wisconsin the governor, Scott Walker, says he is cutting off funds to local recycling programmes. City councils told reporters they would no longer be able to offer kerbside pick-up of newspapers and glass for recycling.

Oh noes!

 

[Ilosar]

I could have used your tactic of ''search it yourself, bro'', but here you go;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Cumulative emissions
Over the 1900-2005 period, the US was the world's largest cumulative emitter of energy-related CO2 emissions, and accounted for 30% of total cumulative emissions (IEA, 2007, p. 201).[47] The second largest emitter was the EU, at 23%; the third largest was China, at 8%; fourth was Japan, at 4%; fifth was India, at 2%. The rest of the world accounted for 33% of global, cumulative, energy-related CO2 emissions.

and before screaming ''Wikipedia''!, check the note associated with the quote.

Midly related, here's a fun little thing I found too : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch Not the fault of anybody in particular, but damn.

As for the rest, yes, spending a few millions (peanuts at federal level) less to have pollution everywhere is stupid no matter how you spin it. I doubt you realize the costs in property value, human health, and eventual clean-up of lax environmental laws, but then again at least you stay true to yourself. And you didn't even address the rest of the article or my posts, so I guess you just disagree because you can.

 

[Walpknut]

I guess extending poluting fuel usage for a couple of decades more and putting even more money on the pockets of rich people is worth destroying nature, I mean what has that bitch do for us anyway? its not like human actions have any form of repercusions in their surroundings.

 

[Crni Vuk]

anything you cut on the enviroment now you will have to pay later. As simple as that. Many scientists and even economists calculated that the Industry (worldwide) will loose Billions because of pollution. So there is not just a human side to it. But one has to think about side effects for the industry as well in the long run. Polution will have many indirect effects on the idustry one way or another.

It is man vs nature. The most retarded fight ever. Because even if we win. We loose.

 

[DammitBoy]

Over the 1900-2005 period, the US was the world's largest cumulative emitter of energy-related CO2 emissions

A history lesson, really? How about being less of a dork and look up who is the current actual real time biggest polluter today, you disingenious douche?

China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, figures released today show.

The surprising announcement will increase anxiety about China's growing role in driving man-made global warming and will pile pressure onto world politicians to agree a new global agreement on climate change that includes the booming Chinese economy. China's emissions had not been expected to overtake those from the US, formerly the world's biggest polluter, for several years, although some reports predicted it could happen as early as next year.

But according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, soaring demand for coal to generate electricity and a surge in cement production have helped to push China's recorded emissions for 2006 beyond those from the US already.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews

 

[Ilosar]

I stand corrected then, was in a bit of an hurry IRL so didn't check them numbers right . There's no need for such insults, however (the eyeroll was very much warranted, I'll give you that), and I would still like to hear where you stand on the rest of the concerns brought up by the article. Especially since I had my very first sentence as a disclaimer that the thread wasn't really about global warming but environmental policy as a whole. But I guess only speaking about the politically controversial issues is a bit of a trend in internet discussions.

@ Crni Vuk: eh. I always thought global warming was not that much of an issue, at least not now. Soil and water corruption, waste management and destruction of natural habitats are graver concerns, for the moment. I guess the perfect world for some companies would be where every corner of the earth is just pesticide-loaded farms and the only animals are domesticated, the habitables places remaining anyway, owned by them of course. Man how that would be a crime.

@ Walpknut: remember, global warming and destruction of the environment is a hoax that loony liberals perpetrate for fun and personnal profit . These kind of people aren't allowed to have principles.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I am actually not interested in the global warning. But not because I dont care. It is becaue of other reasons. However that doesnt mean that any attempts to go for better cleaner technologies is useless. We have one way or another to decrease the use of carbon based resources and find ways to use the resoures we have more efficiently. I mean there is no doubt about that as whole humanity is doing serious damage to the planet. What ever if that is global warming or other effects.

 

[SimpleMinded]

On Thursday Republicans introduced bills in both houses of Congress to strip the Obama administration of its powers to act on climate change. The bill introduced in the House and the Senate would bar the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using existing air pollution laws to reduce carbon dioxide.

Nothing wrong with that - it's taxation based on fraud and we can't afford it, so fuck off.

Elaborate on this whole taxation based on fraud? Why shouldn't companies be taxes for the amount of pollutants they produce? If you don't charge people for the amount they pollute, you're artificially lowering the cost of production, and offloading those costs onto the public and the government.

Even if you don't believe in global warming, the destruction of coral reefs by the large influx of CO2, and all that good stuff, the output of waste products still is bad for everyone. Chemicals that seep into your drinking water and ponds, the changes in the air that you're breathing, and if you need to get treatment for it, the bills you have to foot. [This area isn't my expertise so if you want to disagree that business pollution/CO2 emissions have no negative effect on anything or anyone around them, let me know and I'll get you resources]


Arguing that China is worse doesn't make an allowance of it any better. If anything, our allowance of it is what permits China to make it worse because we drag our feet on every global agreement for regulations, thereby stopping us from slowing China. Not too mention, having been in parts of Southern China, I'm not sure that's something you'd want to compare to. The pollution in the air made our clothes physically dirty and the gray fog that loomed over everything was disgusting.

 

[Crni Vuk]

arguing about if China or the US are the biger source for polution makes it actually just worse. Because both use that as political excuse for "economy > enviroment" which is simply stupid. Sure we can not expect from everyone to do the same. But even China slowly is realizing now that they simply can not continue that way in the future. Already now some of their biger cities face very real problems. What to do with the garbage ? Recylcing doesnt work with everything. And to say that. It has to be stored somewhere. The Chinese kill their own land. And its no surprise some of the most poluted places on earth are in China and Russia. Anything we can win to get companies investing more in enviroment friendly technologies is a win for the future of economics. You explain very nicely how the side effects will cause issues for the people at some point and thus what we save now will backfire eventually.

 

[SimpleMinded]

I've always enjoyed this comic that is not quite what we're talking about, but close enough:

 

[DammitBoy]

I'm all for energy independence - let's build nuclear power plants and eliminate the need for coal fired energy. Oh wait, Obama and the tree hugging loons say no way.

Anything that helps for a cleaner environment is great, as long as it doesn't destroy our industry and economy in the process. Oh wait, Obama has said he wants to bankrupt the coal industry, even as progress is being made to produce cleaner coal processing plants - even though coal produces 70% of our energy.

The U.S. is the world leader in cleaning up it's past pollution excesses and the technology that will lead to a better cleaner world. China, is the world leader in making an effort to double and triple it's pollution excesses and shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon.

Bottom line is, you have to be able to afford the changes and improvements you make or they will not be sustainable.

We're broke. Further progress will be stymied until we are not broke.

 

[fedaykin]

let's build nuclear power plants and eliminate the need for coal fired energy. Oh wait, Obama and the tree hugging loons say no way.

Obama renews commitment to nuclear energy
His pledge may help spur building of first U.S. plant in nearly three decades

LANHAM, Md. — Promising "this is only the beginning," President Barack Obama announced more than $8 billion in federal loan guarantees Tuesday for the construction of the first nuclear power plant in the United States in nearly three decades.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35421517/ns/business-oil_and_energy/

He's sooo anti-nuclear energy

 

[Yoshi525]

I'd like to see you source and backup that silly statement. And please make it something other than the UK Guardian - probably the most biased publication you could find.

Aside from virtually all other British tabloids and Fox 'News', you are close to the mark.

The U.S. is the world leader in cleaning up it's past pollution excesses and the technology that will lead to a better cleaner world. China, is the world leader in making an effort to double and triple it's pollution excesses and shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon.

Your first point is, well...debatable to say the least. Your second point is spot on, and the foremost reason why I don't really care about measures to reduce perceived climatic changes - it's a hopeless battle for the West to fight, we are entering our industrial and economic twilight and soon night will fall.

Like you say, nuclear power makes a lot of sense.

 

[Ilosar]

Your response is nuclear energy? ooh boy.

Aside from the usual risks (they are quite low, but still existent), nuclear energy has two major drawbacks: 1. It's expensive as hell, not only to build, but to maintain the facility, to keep the uranium going (Canada supplies it at low low price, fortunately), and to train and pay the very specialized and educated personnel that must run these installations. 2) Nuclear energy is not ''clean'' by any stretch of the imagination. It produces huge amounts of the worst waste imaginable, in that it stays polluting and dangerous for hundreds of years. The French learned the hard way that converting most of your energy production to nuclear was a bad idea. Now they have no idea what to do with the waste, dumping it into the ocean is dangerous to the wildlife and cost-prohibitive. Nuclear is anything but a long-term solution to the problem, at best a stop-gap until we either adopt other sources of energy or refine the process.

What I do not understand is why people could possibly be against the development of alternative sources of energy, if not right because the US have little $, then some time in the future. Why putting restrictions now, when it hardly matters anyway? The territory has lots of potential for renewable energy (southern deserts for solar, mountains and windy coasts for wind).

 

[Crni Vuk]

And once again China is thrown in when it comes to the own pollution ...

Its all hopeless OMG! We should simply stop and enjoy our life as long we can

 

[Yoshi525]

1. It's expensive as hell, not only to build, but to maintain the facility, to keep the uranium going (Canada supplies it at low low price, fortunately), and to train and pay the very specialized and educated personnel that must run these installations.

Relative to fossil fuels, practically all energy sources are 'expensive as hell. Relative to nuclear fission, practically all green energy sources are 'expensive as hell'. Most types of power station require highly trained personal, not a significant issue compared to construction/fuel/maintenance/waste disposal costs anyway.

2) Nuclear energy is not ''clean'' by any stretch of the imagination. It produces huge amounts of the worst waste imaginable, in that it stays polluting and dangerous for hundreds of years.

Short term storage in concrete isolation is the key, followed by long term storage in underground facilities when financially feasible. Followed by disposal into deep space, when financially and technologically practical.

'Worst waste imaginable' so far as we know. The whole global warming debate, at the very least should illustrate how little we really know about our climate and more specifically the factors that can artificially modify it. Assume for a second that the most extreme global warming theories proved correct, that CO2 emissions are having a significant greenhouse effect, said effect is melting polar ice, said melting is releasing much more worrying greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, said gases are exponentially increasing the effect, said planet ends up as a sister to Venus. I don't think this will happen, I don't know this for certain, if I'm wrong in the extreme then I would bloody well say in hindsight that pollution from uranium fission was a rather small problem, no?

The French learned the hard way

Part of being French I'm afraid.

Nuclear is anything but a long-term solution to the problem, at best a stop-gap until we either adopt other sources of energy or refine the process.

The process would be self refining if it were popular. For a start it would be in almost everyone interests to increase efficiency, uranium is actually an extremely common element on this planet. There's a lot more of the stuff than coal and 1 Kg can produce the equivalent energy to ~ 2,000,000 of coal. Thus there would be a lot less globalized political bullshit regarding price control. Likewise, the industry would no doubt be under heavy scrutiny and improved safety and waste storage would follow.

What I do not understand is why people could possibly be against the development of alternative sources of energy, if not right because the US have little $, then some time in the future. Why putting restrictions now, when it hardly matters anyway? The territory has lots of potential for renewable energy (southern deserts for solar, mountains and windy coasts for wind).

I'm not against them being developed, just against said development when I'm paying for it and/or when it's followed by implementation. 'southern deserts for solar'? You have the nerve to describe nuclear fission as 'expensive as hell' and follow it on with this? Theoretically, sometime in the distant future when efficiency and cost have *massively* improved, solar power looks great. Right now it looks completely ridiculousness on a national level. Don't get me started on wind turbines.

Hope this helps.

And once again China is thrown in when it comes to the own pollution ...

Its all hopeless OMG! We should simply stop and enjoy our life as long we can

I'm not entirely sure what meaning your first point is supposed to convey. Then again that's hardly surprising. is it? Naturally China should come up, seeing as it's going to become the leading economy in the not-so-distant-future...

I never said it's all hopeless, nor did I make a moronic exclamation, which you are much more likely to spout than I. Firstly, I doubt it's going to hit the fan in my lifetime, so I don't really feel hopeless on a personal level. Humanity as a collective? Yes we are hopeless, yes we are most likely doomed. Does it upset me that we will probably be extinct within a thousand years? Not really.

Also, stop? Stop what? Caring? The world isn't just black and white kid, there's stuff in between.

 

[Crni Vuk]

though I doubt that nuclear energy as we use it today will really be the answer to our energy needs in the next 100 years. It is part of it. Yes. But that doesnt mean one can build his whole needs around it. Long term storing of nuclear waste is a huge problem. I dont know how the US is actually solving that issue. But I know here in Europe it is a serious problem. At the moment many avoid by simply using Russia as "dump" which has spawned some controversy.

One of the problems with long time storage is the region. How to prevent possible contamination of the surface at some point ? From what I can read there are many contradicting informations. At least with scientists here. Some say the "area" is save. others say it might become instable in the future. Who knows.

I think the best solution is to divide the need for energy on as many sources as possible if just to have the industry and keep them researching new more effective technologies. Which includes anything from carbon based sources to nuclear energy and renewable sources. I know for some time they made a lot of advertisement for "wood" beeing a very "clean" product (compared to coal or oil). Till the point new calculations have shown that it actualy isnt THAT effective as many have believed.

I think DB has a point somewhere when he is talking about coal. Because considence is that new technology here can reduce the pollution and consuption a lot. In some cases more then 70% compared to old technolgy from what I heard. So we would already win very much if those plants which still use Coal or Oil are replaced with generating plants of new generations. Not using it would be the "ideal". But hands down thats impossible to achieve.

Another big issue is the use of the energy. A lot of it gets wasted. Same with Water. There can be done a lot here. Yet many concentrate on how to get "more" energy with less pollution instead of how to use the energy we have now more efficiently.

In the end we will probably have to find ways how to combine all of it. Of course that is hard because of lobbyism. On every side. Regardless if it are the "tree hugers" or those which are behind the different industries. No one will probably oppenly admit that he is not the solution in one way or another.