By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - EPA Withdrawing from Clean Power Plan

 

Should EPA withdraw from the CPP?

Yes, because I have no gr... 19 21.35%
 
No. 70 78.65%
 
Total:89
vivster said:
It's nice if a country wants to be like China but why do they have to pick 90's China and not current China?

Hehe, I like your post. To the point.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [1], [2], [3], [4]

Around the Network
OdinHades said:
There is just no reason to not pursue renewable energy. Sure, maybe climate change isn't real and blahblahblah. But even if that turned out to be the case, we would end up with a better energy source that doesn't rely on limited resources.

Of course there is. Clean energy is the main cause for destroying the fragile ecosystem of Republican egos.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

StarOcean said:
Ganoncrotch said:
I clicked yes because a poll like that is a terrible way to run a poll if you think that's a good way to gauge public views on a matter... sad times for the illusion of democracy or a vote.

Do you like Tim
[ ] Yes
[ ] No I'm a dribbling idiot who likes a moron

See how the above isn't a way to ask a question of a user? you are stacking the odds on a user clicking the option which doesn't attack either them or the reason behind clicking the option they feel is right, if you want to load reasons for an option being right into something then do it in the OP and educate people why your thoughts on the matter are valid.

Because there only is one option. If you believe it's good to put the country behind, ruin the planet, and avoid better methods of obtaining energy -then, I'm sorry, the person is stupid. As stupid as the less than human animals that deny climate change. 

No point putting the poll/thread then if you don't want to possibly hear someone bring up their side of a matter, you just want to bang out what you think and include "anyone that thinks otherwise is stupid" Doesn't invite discussion when you come into something with that mindset.

Maybe you just wanted to use the thread as a soapbox to stand on and shout about something, that's fine, but you have to understand that if you start a debate with the pretense that anyone who would debate against you is stupid, then people aren't going to really bother.

(I'm not just talking about this thread in the slightest btw, I couldn't care less about the EPA or will not lose sleep about someone leaving the Clean Power Plan simply because what goes on there is decided by billionaire business's which fund the people in Government, I'm just saying in general, open discussion doesn't happen with a put down of one side before the word "discuss" comes out)



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

fatslob-:O said:
Teeqoz said:

I agree that global warming is a relatively short term problem in the grand scheme of all humanity's history, past and future, but that doesn't mean I'm going to gloss over the possible shorter term humanitarian consequences.

Yes but those consequences don't necessarily have to be all or a net detriment ... 

Even NASA is willing to admit that higher CO2 concentrations and temperatures than before benefits plant life so far shows this ... (climate change is and was never a doomsday scenario to begin with as we literally don't have enough reserves/deposits to create a runaway greenhouse gas effect, the most likely doomsday scenario was our sun progressing into a red giant but even that isn't for another billion or so years) 

I have never said that we would get a runaway greenhouse effect, that has never been the issue. And the issue hasn't been plants either - as you say, many plants thrive due to higher CO2 concentrations and temperatures. My biggest concern is the potential impact on people, states and the economy.



I will never understand those who defend this just because "miners would lose their jobs".

I mean, yes, it sucks for them but the planet and everyone on it is more important than those people of whom many can do something else if they just try. Many will end in a job like working for Amazon or shit like that but that's not an excuse that they should work as miner as long as they want without to fear losing the job because "a miner can only mine and also not leave his town to another place to find a job"

Sometimes there are just more important things than that.



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
Machiavellian said:

I think not.  No matter what, coal is going out even if this roll back happens.  After reading this article this thing will be locked up in court for years before its takes effect if it takes effect.  The problem with coal is that Natural Gas is cheaper or comparable and cleaner, doesn't polute the air with dangerous ash or harmful mecury etc.  

Withdrawing from CPP also benefits natural gas since there will be less strenuous restrictions regarding usage of that source of energy ... 

Also is it a good idea to completely drop coal production to increase natural gas consumption when much of the natural gas in the US is imported from a foreign nation such as Canada ?

By dropping coal production entirely we'd be effectively sending Canada a message that it's okay for them to set whatever price the US has to pay plus keeping US coal production keeps vulnerable communities out of poverty too ...

Can you really say that your fine with with curbing emissions at the expense of human welfare and letting a foreign nation have a monopoly on US energy sources ? 

At this point extreme enviromentalists and those colluding with them ironically have as much empathy as Trump does so they say ... 

I am not sure if CPP effects Natural gas as much as it effect coal.  From what I have read the real impact of CPP has always been coal and probably why the Senator is in Kentucky preaching about this saving their jobs.  Even still, this only just prolong their jobs as more companies look to move away from Coal to Natural Gas which has all the benefits and less of the issues coal has.

Also way before the CPP and even the Obama Administration Coal was on the decline and jobs in that market was dropping as well.  Now that most mines are looking for automation it will be like the Automotive industry where machines will take care of those manual jobs.

The key issue here is if America isn't on the for front of renewable energy then we will still be in the same place buying our products from another country. 

I believe there is no empathy is because Coal is considered bad for the environment but also for the health of the people that do the work, for the people that breath in the air like children, drink the water that is contaminated with mercury or deal with the effect in the atmosphere.  If the coal industry want to keep rolling then they need to put more effort in converting their plants to the many clean coal solutions but instead they do not want to put any money into it instead they want to continue business as usual.   



fatslob-:O said:
Errorist76 said:

You probably don’t have kids if you really deny that we’re rapidly speeding processes up. No, I don’t want to understand your ignorant kind. You’re cancer to humanity.

Ooh, you have me scared now ... /sarcasm 

What are you gonna do ? Continue using more of your feelings in an argument like how anti-intellectual's would ? LOL ... (Can't put up any facts to back up any of your crap ?)

 

No need to be scared, I’m not threatening you. The opposite actually. You are threatening the vast majority of us. I don’t need to repeat arguments when the vast majority of scientist...those who are not financed by the oil and coal lobby of course, have being doing this for ages. It’s just that some don’t want to believe it, just as there are still people who believe the world is flat. Why?! I don’t know. Of course I’m being emotional cause it seems you selfishly don’t want to listen to reason and in the long run it will affect all of us. Forgive me for being so rude, I’m just sick of all that ignorance and wish you’d all for a year had to live in coastal regions or on small islands which are directly threatened by rising sea levels already. Or help ice bears and Inuit who are having trouble finding food or travel because huge areas of their habitat are disappearing. Even if there would only be a 50% chance that climate change is real, wouldn’t it still be worth fighting against?!

We are exploiting this planet on the cost of our following generations. The technology is there already. Why not use it?! Germany, a country with a rather mediocre amount of sun hours, is already taking 35 % of its energy from renewable sources. Image what an impact it would make for the planet when the world’s biggest polluters like China and the US would do the same?!



fatslob-:O said:

Earth in the far future after a billion years when solar output will make all of our ocean's boil regardless ...

That's your counter?  That Earth will die off in 1 billion years anyway so why bother?  

There is so much wrong with this.  



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

sc94597 said:
KLAMarine said:

Where did you get the ".000001%" number from?

To that statement I would counter that I never stated a warmer climate would cause extreme weather or bring to an end calm weather, all I claimed is warmer oceans would amplify extreme weather if said extreme weather were to manifest.

I didn't get the ".0000001%" it is a hyperbolic hypothetical to make a point. But if you read the article I posted one of the meteorologist mentioned how there should be a 10% surge in rainfall by the end of the century, and there is no reason to believe this increase is going to happen linearly. But that is mostly a guess. We don't know what the actual increase is, and that is why we shouldn't talk as we do. 


"According to Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center, the amount of increased precipitation in Harvey is not significant. Landsea expects a 10 percent surge in rainfall by the end of the century due to climate change, which he predicts would only have only increased rainfall by an inch or two in this case.

Kevin Trenberth, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said he could justify a 5 to 15 percent increase in rainfall during Harvey from climate change effects, which then increase with natural variability."


Fair enough. 

Noted, thanks.

fatslob-:O said:
KLAMarine said:

This may come as a surprise but predicting short term weather changes is more difficult than predicting longer term changes.

For example, I can't tell you with 100% accuracy that tomorrow will be warmer or colder than today but I am willing to bet big money that in the Northern hemisphere, summer 2018 will be warmer than winter 2017.

That's not even true with sensitive and chaotic systems such as the climate ... 

Are you willing to bet big money that summer's in the northern hemisphere will warmer than the previous summer's in 100, 10000 or even a million years ? 

KLAMarine said:

Ah yes, that familiar claim: that CO2 concentrations were 10x higher back then and yet we had ice ages. This is completely, positively, undeniably TRUE!...

...

BUT our sun was also much weaker then too! Understand that our CO2 levels alone does not determine average world temperatures, it's far more complicated than that and the sun certainly plays a role. Time does too and melting immense masses of snow takes time the same way bringing water to a boil takes time so it's not incompatible that there was a period when we had both a snowy Earth and high CO2 concentrations at the same time.

@Bold Which is why we should all calm down even as CO2 levels are spiking when solar activity is just as big of a factor in determining average temperatures ... (even a change in the Earth's orbit could affect temperatures!) 

The fate of Earth is boiling oceans either way so we have to find a new planet to live on (if our species even survives that long) whether if we continue to use fossil fuels or not ... 

"That's not even true with sensitive and chaotic systems such as the climate ... 

Are you willing to bet big money that summer's in the northern hemisphere will warmer than the previous summer's in 100, 10000 or even a million years ? "

>If the Earth's movements around the sun don't change in those years then yes.

"Which is why we should all calm down even as CO2 levels are spiking when solar activity is just as big of a factor in determining average temperatures ... (even a change in the Earth's orbit could affect temperatures!)"

>We can't do anything about the Sun's activity or the Earth's orbit (yet) but we can do something about the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere.

"The fate of Earth is boiling oceans either way so we have to find a new planet to live on (if our species even survives that long) whether if we continue to use fossil fuels or not ... "

>You're thinking too far off to the future. It's the near future that is more pressing.



Teeqoz said:

I have never said that we would get a runaway greenhouse effect, that has never been the issue. And the issue hasn't been plants either - as you say, many plants thrive due to higher CO2 concentrations and temperatures. My biggest concern is the potential impact on people, states and the economy.

Also doesn't necessarily have to be negative either, plants were just one example ... 

There could also easily be more arable land to be had in places such as Canada, Russia, Greenland and the Antartic too ... 

Machiavellian said:

I am not sure if CPP effects Natural gas as much as it effect coal.  From what I have read the real impact of CPP has always been coal and probably why the Senator is in Kentucky preaching about this saving their jobs.  Even still, this only just prolong their jobs as more companies look to move away from Coal to Natural Gas which has all the benefits and less of the issues coal has.

Also way before the CPP and even the Obama Administration Coal was on the decline and jobs in that market was dropping as well.  Now that most mines are looking for automation it will be like the Automotive industry where machines will take care of those manual jobs.

The key issue here is if America isn't on the for front of renewable energy then we will still be in the same place buying our products from another country. 

I believe there is no empathy is because Coal is considered bad for the environment but also for the health of the people that do the work, for the people that breath in the air like children, drink the water that is contaminated with mercury or deal with the effect in the atmosphere.  If the coal industry want to keep rolling then they need to put more effort in converting their plants to the many clean coal solutions but instead they do not want to put any money into it instead they want to continue business as usual.   

Prolonging the jobs for as much as 2 decades is a benefit to the younger generation of these vulnerable communities who are trying to reach higher educational standards to be able to compete ... (if we risk cutting coal out altogether then we also risk taking away the only option for social mobility for some families) 

Not only are we sacrificing social mobility for some of these communities but we lose our only realistic potential to energy independence to the likes of Canada which can charge as high of an asking price they want ... (Renewables can't meet all of our demands. Hydro power is nearly tapped out and solar panel installations cost thousands of dollars per skilowatt which makes solar power inaccessable so the best bet is wind power or doubling down on nuclear power) 

But there is empathy to be had for coal miner in being able provide for their family, right ? (giving all the money to Canada doesn't help them either since that just means less money for the coal miner's family) 

Errorist76 said:

No need to be scared, I’m not threatening you. The opposite actually. You are threatening the vast majority of us. I don’t need to repeat arguments when the vast majority of scientist...those who are not financed by the oil and coal lobby of course, have being doing this for ages. It’s just that some don’t want to believe it, just as there are still people who believe the world is flat. Why?! I don’t know. Of course I’m being emotional cause it seems you selfishly don’t want to listen to reason and in the long run it will affect all of us. Forgive me for being so rude, I’m just sick of all that ignorance and wish you’d all for a year had to live in coastal regions or on small islands which are directly threatened by rising sea levels already. Or help ice bears and Inuit who are having trouble finding food or travel because huge areas of their habitat are disappearing. Even if there would only be a 50% chance that climate change is real, wouldn’t it still be worth fighting against?!

We are exploiting this planet on the cost of our following generations. The technology is there already. Why not use it?! Germany, a country with a rather mediocre amount of sun hours, is already taking 35 % of its energy from renewable sources. Image what an impact it would make for the planet when the world’s biggest polluters like China and the US would do the same?!

What argument from scientists ? Can you not think up of your own argument ? Are you emotional cause you feel the need to be so closed and hive minded ? 

Science is not a concensus, it's about critical and independent studies. Do you not like the fact that I've done reputable research since that runs in contrast with everyone's doomsday scenario including yours ? 

As far as sea level rise goes, even IPCC estimates put that under a meter so the vast majority of the areas in coastal cities remains good and two or three generations should enough for those people to migrate towards the inlands ... 

Anthropogenic climate change is real, it's figuring out whether or not it poses as a instable long term threat. Three generations is enough time for humans to adapt ... (people forget the climate change is gradual rather than instantaneous) 

As for why 35% of Germany's energy source are renewable that's because they have lower per capita power consumption than the likes of the Czech Republic or Estonia. I bet if germans consumed as much electricity as americans did the numbers wouldn't be so impressive than they currently are now, am I right ?

SpokenTruth said:

That's your counter?  That Earth will die off in 1 billion years anyway so why bother?  

There is so much wrong with this.  

It's not even meant to be a counter, it's just meant to point out the futility in even trying to stop industrialization. If the human race hasn't figured interstellar travel and interstellar colonization in the hundreds of millions of years available then our fate is to be cremated either way ... 

Why shouldn't we use up our fossil fuel reserves if it provides a stable way to progress to a better human race ? We should we deny the usage of these resources when it could come in handy to drive our consumption for biotechnology which could dramatically improve the intelligence of human race so that we can progress faster ... 

Think of it as a debt game where where we take out a loan from earth to invest in the human race where the hope lies in humans progressing civilization faster than earth's environment deteriorating so we can buy ourselves a new home or in this case a new planet before the inevitable end of our original planet ... 

But even if our gamble doesn't play out the risk in the long term is mitigated since the CO2 gets reabsorbed again and are deposited into sediments ... (Which one sounds better to you ? Making a desperate attempt to prevent the invetable future of our boiling oceans or explore terraforming/interstellar colonization ?)