myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Exxon in California
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 9477

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2017 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900, you might want to think about how stricter regulations forced many productive changes over time. It could never have been done if we let the tobacco, oil and automotive companies have their way in the past. Many today want to crap on liberals and progressive ideas, but you have to admit that they were the important foundation and impetus for the stricter regulations that readily improved our environment and quality of life.

Now, Republicans, with their reactionary conservative agenda, want to drive large scale deregulation and the loosening of important controls for what? Profit for the few. Look for the rape and exploitation of our national resources for export, and life will get a lot uglier and dirtier, especially when mistakes happen. Believe me, sooner or later, lack of regulations and control always leads to mistakes and tragedy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 13018
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2017 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Funny thing is, the sugar companies and the oil companies hired some of the "scientists" that lied about the dangers posed by smoking. Regulation of cigarettes and public education has reduced the use of tobacco:

Quote:
Cigarette smoking among U.S. adults has fallen to the lowest rate in generations, according to data released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's good news, considering that smoking still accounts for about 480,000 deaths annually in the United States, along with an estimated $300 billion in health costs and lost productivity.

But the CDC numbers also offer an interesting glimpse at the 17 percent of adults who continue to light up. People in the Midwest, for instance, smoke more on average than Americans elsewhere in the country. People on Medicaid are more than twice as likely to smoke as those on Medicare. Adults with a GED certificate smoke at eight times the rate of those with graduate degrees. Asians smoke less than other ethnic groups. Men smoke more than women, but not by much....Half a century ago, more than two of every five adults were smokers. But that has fallen steadily over time. From 2005 to 2014, the adult smoking rate declined from 20.9 percent to 16.8 percent. Public health officials are hoping to to drive that rate below 12 percent by 2020.


The food industry has been completely co-opted by the use of sugar, which is the leading cause of many diseases--far more hazardous than fat. And the mania for deregulation is fueled by a desire to maintain profits, from industries that deeply understand the addictive nature of their products.

Quote:
Obesity remains one of the biggest threats to the health of our children and our country, putting millions of Americans at increased risk for a range of chronic diseases and contributing to more than $147 billion to $210 billion dollars in preventable healthcare spending.1


So it is with the carbon industry--any lie to prevent loss of market share is ok. And it was mrgybe who bragged about the effectiveness of their PR campaign in convincing the public that global warming was not an important issue.

The proposed Trump cabinet is filled with liars from the oil and fast food industry. You must be so proud of how they have made the swamp safe for alligators.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KGB-NP



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2857

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2017 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The swamps biggest alligator-

http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/obamas-new-pick-to-head-the-fda-is-an-ultimate-insider-for-big-pharma/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3469

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2017 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler said:
Quote:
techno900, you might want to think about how stricter regulations forced many productive changes over time. It could never have been done if we let the tobacco, oil and automotive companies have their way in the past. Many today want to crap on liberals and progressive ideas, but you have to admit that they were the important foundation and impetus for the stricter regulations that readily improved our environment and quality of life.

No argument here, but mac's push is that Exxon is this really bad guy because they didn't acknowledge the risks that everyone already knew existed. How many other oil companies and scientists worldwide had the same information?

Mac's sugar post is just so silly. Blaming the sugar industry because some people eat too much of it is beyond logic. Even if sugar is addictive for some, we have known the down side of too much sugar for 50 years or more. The typical leftist approach is that we are all too stupid to make the right decisions about our wellbeing and that government must intervene to guide us down what they think is the right path. Current regulations are enough. Anyone can see how much sugar is in every product on the shelf. People that choose the road to obesity do so of their own accord. Maybe the left wants to jail them until they reduce to their "normal" weight? What is mac's solution?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 4570

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2017 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
And it was mrgybe who bragged about the effectiveness of their PR campaign in convincing the public that global warming was not an important issue.

Another complete fabrication. Just can't help himself. He enters the new year the way he left the old.........an angry, bitter old man.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 13018
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2017 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac's solution? Stop subsidizing unhealthy food, provide a complete educational effort, and exact taxes on products that add to our health cost commensurate with the damage they do. Use market forces rather than regulations to discourage bad behavior. It has worked with cigarettes. https://www.atr.org/top-five-reasons-end-us-sugar-subsidies

Favored by some conservative outfits. Do the same with carbon products--charge the full cost instead of transferring those to the public.

Exxon lied to everybody, including their stockholders. And mrgybe just lied again, I guess he's kept his new year's resolutions. The fact that they are not alone in their dishonesty must be a good reason to appoint Tillerson, eh?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 4570

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
And mrgybe just lied again

Please be specific. What did I say that was a lie? People are tired of your childish accusations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3469

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac said:
Quote:
Mac's solution? Stop subsidizing unhealthy food, provide a complete educational effort, and exact taxes on products that add to our health cost commensurate with the damage they do. Use market forces rather than regulations to discourage bad behavior.


Sounds like a good conservative plan. I agree. However, I doubt that it will have much of an impact on consumption.

Education? Anyone dumb enough or uninformed enough to think that the over consumption of sugar is OK maybe shouldn't be allowed to make any personal decisions or judgements without assistance.

Tax it? Fine, it will put those already at the poverty level even deeper. Do you think that if a candy bar or Coke goes up 5,10,20,30% in price because of a tax, folks will stop buying them? However, it might push up the consumption of artificial sweetened products, which would be less expensive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 13018
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2017 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Taxing works:

Quote:
Abstract
We examined the advantages and disadvantages of implementing a junk food tax as an intervention to counter increasing obesity in North America.

Small excise taxes are likely to yield substantial revenue but are unlikely to affect obesity rates. High excise taxes are likely to have a direct impact on weight in at-risk populations but are less likely to be politically palatable or sustainable.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of earmarked health programs and subsidies is likely to be a key determinant of tax success in the fight against obesity.

In response to rapidly increasing obesity in North America, health researchers and policymakers are considering novel approaches to counter the growth of this epidemic.1 The divergence between energy intake and expenditure has widened since 1970,2 with a steady increase in daily calorie intake leading scientists and researchers to suggest targeting food consumption as a means of addressing the obesity epidemic. One such approach is now gaining momentum while generating heated debates in and outside the scientific community: a tax on unhealthy foods has been proposed to help reduce their consumption. We consider the implications of implementing 2 types of junk food tax (a nutrient tax and a food and beverage category tax) and provide an overview of arguments in favor of and against their institution. Ethical concerns must be considered along with the current state of scientific evidence about obesity and the efficacy of taxes for behavior change. We have identified significant knowledge gaps that provide direction for future research.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/08/23/491104093/berkeleys-soda-tax-appears-to-cut-consumption-of-sugary-drinks

Quote:
It may seem obvious that taxing sugary drinks causes people to drink less of them. But that’s actually controversial.

Now a new study out of Berkeley, Calif., adds to the evidence that our intuition is right.

Researchers followed residents of several low-income communities in Berkeley, San Francisco and Oakland around the time that Berkeley voters passed the country’s first big soda tax in 2014. The study found that, in the four months after the tax took effect last year, self-reported consumption of sugary drinks fell by 21 percent in the Berkeley neighborhoods, but rose by 4 percent in the other two cities.

The study, published in The American Journal of Public Health on Tuesday, also found that the Berkeley residents reported drinking more water, a sign that they were replacing sugar-sweetened beverages with something healthier.


You might want to do a little research on the degree to which the food industry hides evidence. . http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html

Quote:
This story is excerpted from an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organization.

The food industry regularly turns to a small group of scientists — including several with ties to Big Tobacco — to determine whether additives it is adding to food products are safe. And these relationships often allow food companies to avoid a rigorous pre-market government safety review, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of publicly available data.

Critics of the system that ushers new food products to market say it is rife with conflicts of interest. When scientists depend on the food industry for income, they may be less likely to contest the safety of ingredients companies hope to market.

"These are standing [scientific] panels of industry-hired guns," says Laura MacCleery, an attorney for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "It is funding bias on steroids."


Where do you go to work when you are caught lying about the impact of tobacco on health? The oil and food industries.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KGB-NP



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2857

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Will the plan include taxing all dairy products, sugar, processed foods, GMOs, meat, just about any form of processed cooking/food oils, most fats of any form.....basically anything outside of the realm of plant based whole foods? Just about everything outside of that realm is, has, and does create disease, and study after study after study supports this. Hey, I'm all for it, but totally unrealistic. I've posted before the environmental impact of the consumption of meat alone, but all I ever hear is crickets.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 3 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group