myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos 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 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 203, 204, 205 ... 301, 302, 303  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4671

PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW==now yo're just being obtuse. You are arguing that regulations will kill coal. There are two glaring holes in your logic. First, natural gas already killed coal. That's life in the market place. Second, coal was only surviving by ignoring te environmental impacts of particulate emissions, cutting the tops off of mountains and burying streams (ignoring stream protection laws), and ignoring the costs of carbon emissions. And, by the way, killing miners with unsafe practices. That was the company owned by Bush's appointee to the coal board. That's not the market--that is subsidizing uneconomic businesses with our health. Of course for every job lost in one energy form, there is a new job created in insulation, natural gas, and renewables.

Don't worry, you can ignore the facts and return to talking points. But you can't convince me you are really committed to market forces.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3030

PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac your posts are packed with info and well supported opinions.
Why mix in personal insults like Others here whose posts aren't worth reading as a result of the rancor?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1849

PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac...I am well aware that Obama has the ability under the clean air act to enact additional regulations. Just as another President could relax those regulations in the future.

Unless I misunderstand the law, the President cannot use the clean air act to force other countries, such as China, clean up their dirty energy production by placing tariffs on goods produced with that energy. That places our industries at risk. Where are the Repubs in this?

The way I see it, I can buy Chinese solar panels, produced with electricity from very dirty coal, and receive a tax credit from our government. Meanwhile, the extra costs to produce an equivalent domestic panel, using clean energy, make them too expensive.

This end run, by the President, regardless of its legality, is not sustainable politics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13309

PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
This end run, by the President, regardless of its legality, is not sustainable politics.

We can only hope the stench of his policies and morals, acknowledged now even by some of the media which put him in office, rubs off onto his party next year and in 2016.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4671

PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KC--in context, I really thought "bleating" was pretty mild. Remember, the thread update was whether or not it was appropriate to call deniers the "flat earth society." Here NW is arguing somehow that regulation will cost coal miners jobs. The facts, which are apparently of no interest to the carbonistas, are that coal cannot compete with natural gas. But defending coal as a fuel, even ignoring the question of CO2, is a terrible idea.

You can start with the removal of mountains and burial of streams, which can be seen here: http://www.southernenvironment.org/cases/mountaintop_removal_coal_mining

and here: http://www.google.com/earth/outreach/stories/app_voices.html

Of course you have NW and NW silent on the issue of particulate emission deaths, continuing to argue against regulation that prevents health impacts. I consider a callousness towards human health pretty insulting.

Finally, lest we forget the Massey disaster, and Bush's appointment of a Massey official to a safety board:

Quote:
By Travis Waldron on Dec 8, 2011 at 12:30 pm


Federal regulators and Alpha Natural Resources this week reached an “unprecedented” settlement regarding the tragic explosion that killed 29 miners at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch mine outside Beckley, West Virginia in 2010, and though the deal has hardly pleased victims’ families, members of Congress were quick to pile on Massey (which was sold to Alpha Natural Resources earlier this year).

Among those members was Rep. John Kline (R-MN), the chairman of the House workforce committee, who slammed Massey’s “reckless disregard for critical worker safety protections” and for making its workers “face greater danger in an inherently hazardous profession.” But while Kline has repeatedly rebuked Massey, he and his GOP colleagues have done little to address mine safety. Congress, in fact, hasn’t passed a mine safety law since 2006, despite numerous deadly accidents since, as the GOP claims such laws will inhibit job creation — despite evidence showing that increasing mining regulation does just the opposite.

Instead, he has heaped blame on the the agency charged with enforcing mining regulations, as he did in June, when the original Massey report was issued:


“As we have said time and again, the strongest laws on the books will not protect workers if those laws are not obeyed and enforced,” he said. “We will continue to follow this ongoing investigation closely and work to ensure mine safety laws are being followed by mine operators and aggressively enforced by federal officials.”

Kline is correct in stating that even the most stringent laws won’t prevent disasters if they aren’t enforced. What he ignores in blaming regulators, however, is that years of Republican policies made federal mine regulators virtually impotent in efforts to prevent such tragedies. It was a Bush-era policy that urged the Mine Safety and Health Administration to “point out safety violations and help mine operators comply with the rules,” The Hill notes, instead of issuing safety violations and citations. Even so, MSHA issued thousands of violations and citations at Upper Big Branch before the tragedy, to no avail.

Close relationships between politicians and coal officials often prevent regulators from being effective as well. President Bush, for instance, appointed a former Massey official to an MSHA review commission in 2002, despite the company’s already-deadly record. And Bush’s MSHA chief was a former coal exec whose company had amassed injury rates at double the national average. In coal states like Kentucky, officials on the state mine safety board are former coal executives from companies with shoddy safety histories.

Mine safety legislation, meanwhile, continues to go nowhere. The latest effort, a bill introduced in April 2010, was never taken up in the Senate, likely because it couldn’t break a Republican filibuster, and failed to pass the Republican-controlled House.



Defending coal, without bothering to respond to rebuttals, is, in my mind, pretty disturbing--if not outright insulting. But I really limited my "sky is falling" comment to refer to the loss of jobs--because employment is booming in the fracking world. See for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/opinion/global/the-facts-on-fracking.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

It is empirically true that protecting the environment has created more jobs than it has cost--and is why we can reach our access points and sail safely. Arguing that we should ignore the costs of energy production using combustion--but not invest in the future--is short sited. Perhaps the analogy of an ostrich with its head in the sand would be more appropriate?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4671

PostPosted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CB said:

Quote:
Mac...I am well aware that Obama has the ability under the clean air act to enact additional regulations. Just as another President could relax those regulations in the future.

Unless I misunderstand the law, the President cannot use the clean air act to force other countries, such as China, clean up their dirty energy production by placing tariffs on goods produced with that energy. That places our industries at risk. Where are the Repubs in this?

The way I see it, I can buy Chinese solar panels, produced with electricity from very dirty coal, and receive a tax credit from our government. Meanwhile, the extra costs to produce an equivalent domestic panel, using clean energy, make them too expensive.

This end run, by the President, regardless of its legality, is not sustainable politics.


CB--I suggest you read the case that I cited, which didn't merely authorize regulation of CO2 under the Clean Air Act, but virtually required it. No President can create regulations that go beyond, or far short, of Congressional direction. The reason that case succeeded is that the Bush administration, and specifically Cheney, tried to weaken the standards administratively. That's why they lost the case. There are public health and scientific information tests that trigger the requirement to regulate, and the Bush EPA lost on both grounds. Efficient or not, the rule-making process is the process established under the CAA, and it is sustainable until the two parties sit down and agree on a better approach.

I absolutely agree that the adversarial rule-making process is time consuming and relatively inefficient. Financial incentives and dis-incentives work better, and would be a better choice for regulating CO2, and lowering emissions gradually without too much economic disruption. But that option is not open, and the case requiring action was decided by the Supreme Court in 2007. Obama has to act or the matter goes back to court.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 3625

PostPosted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

oops

Last edited by stevenbard on Sat Jun 29, 2013 5:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3030

PostPosted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is a link to a house for sale in Malibu?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5475

PostPosted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, its a link for pricey townhouse rental in Malibu that requires a 1 year lease. I have to admit though, I'm totally missing what Bard wanted to say. "Green energy madness?" Anything for rent or sale in Malibu is going to be expensive, and there's nothing new there. I don't get it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 3625

PostPosted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/28/birdwatchers-flock-to-see-rare-bird-then-watch-it-killed-by-wind-turbine/

Ooops. Sorry, that's a cheap townhouse in Malibu that I meant to link to a friend. Thank God it wasn't porn... Embarassed
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 ... 203, 204, 205 ... 301, 302, 303  Next
Page 204 of 303

 
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