09-16-2002, 12:27 PM | #41 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
09-16-2002, 12:59 PM | #42 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
For those of you actually interested in hearing some from both sides of the argument, I reccomend this book. I consider it a bit to the right, but since most of the stuff in the main stream is way to the left, I think it makes a good balance.
The Satanic Gasses Clearing the air about Global Warming. By: Patrick J. Michaels and Rober C. Balling Jr. Endorsed by: Frederick Seitz, past president of the national Academy of Science. ISBN: 9 781882577927 Just in case you think I am just makin this stuff up as I go along. [ 09-16-2002, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ] |
09-16-2002, 01:06 PM | #43 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Magik, your apology is accepted, but it was not needed.
As for which administration approved Kyoto, it matters not for this discussion. The USA's interests as compared to other countries doesn't really change that much from president to president: those of us inside the USA see it as more different than it is. No matter the president, when we enter into ANY negotiation with other nations, we want our businesses and people to benefit - that gets any president re-elected. Proof of global warming: I have to send you to others to convince you - I am only a hack when it comes to science, I'm not a real pro. I encourage you the check out the PEW Center for Climate Change website. PEW is run by Eileen Claussen, who was at the State Dept. for years. It's really middle-of-the-road, and is the organization that got Shell, BP, etc. to agree to voluntary emission reductions. Ms. Claussen has told me, regarding her approach as "the middleman," that she needs the Sierra Club left and the OPEC right to help her stay where she is and get real things done in positive ways. If you like, I once compiled a list of websites, some liberal some conservative, to give to my students to educate themselves on climate change - I could dig it out and send it to you. IMHO, there is scientific evidence that supports a theory that we COULD change the climate, and also proof that some types of changes could be irreparable - and that, I think, should be enough to trigger the Precautionary Principle that is so common-sensical (not a word - I know). Economy: this seems to be your biggest concern. It shouldn't. First, On the one hand, history has time-and-again proven that the industry can well-handle any increase in costs. Shrimpers screamed bloody murder and blocked ports in the south when they were forced to put Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) on their trawlers, saying they would all go under. A few years later, and we see no economic impact. Same with all the "big dirty" power plants targeted under the Clean Air Act and the CAA 1990 Amendments. Ditto for waste haulers and storers and the Resource COnservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Second, I again reiterate the Polluter Pays principle. Now, with GHGs I admit it may or may not be "pollution" and that there is debate as to how harmful it is, but I want to use a pollution analogy here. If you make my air dirty, i.e. take my clean air, and then use it to make a product you sell, without paying me for what you took - then you have been the beneficiary of a windfall. Quite simply, a business should pay for what it uses (i.e. resources) to make its product, otherwise its "profit" really is stolen from others. I'm a hard-core economic realist - I want real-cost accounting. But, I want to account for all the costs of doing business. If you cannot pay for the resources you use and still make a profit off of the product, then you are inefficient and need to shut your doors. Third, there are large piles of money to be made in clean air. Seatbelt laws have created businesses that thrive making a product (seatbelts) to sell - and jobs are created. We and other countries had to spend money on National Defense - which is an economic externality just like environmental protection - but that necessity led to some of the most successful companies (and researchers I might add) in American history (cite: McDonald-Douglas, BMW [did you know they began a German airplane makers?], Mercedes-Benz). Who do you think will be at the forefront of development if/when climate-friendly products increase in demand - that's right, the developed countries' folks - our good ole US engineers. If you don't buy this line of reasoning, why don't you check the Chicago Board of Trade where Kyoto climate change credits have been listed as a futures commodity for years. And, believe me, that will really open your eyes to the increasing value of clean air. You really think China is going to make its clean coal plants? It already has projects where the US is helping build them. And even though there's an expense up front, guess who's collecting the money on the back end? There is a reason that the US is supporting over 35 joint climate change projects worldwide - and that reason is the boat-load of bucks to be made. |
09-16-2002, 01:54 PM | #44 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
09-16-2002, 02:17 PM | #45 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Well, quite technically, Kyoto isn't bad for any nation until the prescribe number of nations ratify it to make it law (which, for Kyoto, is both a flat # of nations as well as a threshold % of GHG emissions). And, if Kyoto goes through without US ratifications that means it will apply to everyone who signs on BUT NOT the US. That's how international law works - except for the customary law of nations (those things so old and ingrained we assume every nation must follow them) a nation is only bound by what it agrees to be bound by. In fact, many many nations fear an in-force Kyoto treaty that the US has not ratified - as it leaves the biggest do-badder (on the GHG issue) out running amuck amuck amuck amuck. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
As for the current state of the economy, it is not relevant to our discussion of how environmental laws impact the economy. There have been no real environmental laws enacted since the early 1990s, when the Clean Air Act Amendments and the Superfund Amendement and Reauthorization Act (also called the "superfund attorney's retirement act" by those of us in the biz) came down. Moreover, environmental laws have consistently been less-and-less prosecuted since the early 1990s, and now are at a standstill. It's called "power of the pocketbook." Believe me, no matter how stringent the EPA's mandate is to clean up the environment, when the administration and congress pull the $$$, nothing gets done. And, since this administration came in (please this is not a slam on anyone and I just want to state a fact), the EPA's budget has gone down. As proof, the NYTimes just last week reported that the EPA was whinning because it didn't have the $$ to pursue superfund cases. I think that you and I would agree the science of climate change is rather sketch at best - with that leading us to possibly different conclusions as to a course of action. So, while I think that while PEW is quite interesting, you might do yourself a better favor by checking into the economic impact of enviro laws. It's a tough topic to research, but it's also one that just might surprise you. |
09-16-2002, 04:44 PM | #46 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
09-17-2002, 12:53 PM | #47 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Magic said:
As for ploicys enacted since 1990 you are wrong, I don't have the docs available but I do know Clinton passed sever environmentally friendly presidential orders (circumventing congress by the way) Not to mention the recent short sighted ANWAR vote. To say that the country is not doing anything for the envrionment is misleading and disengenuous. I will also point out that seeing as how this is a capitalistic society you cannot just confine your comments about the environment to the government, there are litterally hundreds of private organizations working on technology for cleaner safer products and others also activly cleaning up previous problems. As you yourself pointed out, there are $$$$$ to be made in the "cleaning up" business and there are companies that are making the $$$$. Actually, Clinton's orders were not, as a rule, circumventing Congress, as more than anything they were orders as to how certain Agencies (which are in the Executive branch, controlled by the Pres.) would interpret the statutes that governed their behavior. It does not circumvent congress for the Pres. to order the EPA to read the Clean Air Act mandates in one certain way or another, as the EPA could have made that determination on its own and the Pres. is, quite literally, its boss/manager. Forgive me for speaking generally, but Clinton's orders were more to the tune of "now you will enforce this way rather than how you have been." Believe me, the language of most environmental laws is broad enough that the Executive Branch doesn't need a new law to decide it will undertake new actions under existing laws. As an interesting side note on this topic, the EPA could, on its own, declare the GHGs (CO2 and the five others listed in Kyoto) as "pollutants" under the existing Clean Air Act and begin regulating them tomorrow if it took a notion to do so. In fact, to combat this possibility, bills have been introduced in Congress trying to get it enacted into law that CO2 is not a "pollutant." As for the people making the $$$ in the cleanup business, the companies I usually represent won't spend the $$$ and hire them unless they know: (1) a law or regulation exists that (more or less) makes them undertake the activity, and (2) that law or regulation is actually being enforced. As for the country doing things about the environment, I do not mean to say nothing is being done. I do mean to imply that a lot less is being done now than in the heyday of environmental law (1970s-1990). I could be specific if you like, but it would be exhausting to my time. In brief, I will say that, regarding the big US Enviro laws and concerns: 1. The CLean Water Act, after much ado about dredge and fill and how for the government could regulate, suffered some bad court defeats in the past couple of years, limiting what waters the act applied to and creating certain exemptions that are very big. 2. While the US was very active in climate change early on, that has dwindled significantly. US was a huge participant in drafting the UN Framework Convention on CLimate Change (UNFCCC) and then the Kyoto Protocol that further defined the UNFCCC at the third annual UNFCCC meeting in 1997. Since then, we've poo-pooed it pretty much. 3. The Clean Air Act is really off-schedule, and it has been in the news a lot lately that the EPA is not keeping up with the findings mandated in the CAA regarding study and classification of pollutants. On the other hand, there has been a lot of work at USEPA to regulate a new pollutant, fine particulate matter of smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), which we just discovered this decade is a worse pollutant than those you can see (and is why what we though were "cleaner" technologies, such as natural gas plants, can also pose significant health hazards). PM2.5 3-year studies are due to be finished this year. 4. CERCLA has pretty much ended. Attorneys jumped to litigate the 100 million dollar cleanup sites, as no matter which side of the case you are on you can bill the shit out of your client. Now, though, cleanup sites worth more than 20 million are hard to come by, and really not much to waste our time litigating - not for 5 yrs like the other sites, at least. Best to settle these and sweep em under the rug. 5. The Endangered Species Act was given such wicked teeth in early litigation (e.g. Sierra Club v. TVA - stopping the completion of a multi-billion dollar dam that was 90% finished because the rare snail darter fish was found at the bottom) based on the ESA's strong language regarding how important a species is, that subsequent courts have reacted harshly, severely limiting its use now. 6. Citizen suit provisions are harder to pursue these days because of limits the courts have put on them. And, just so you know, an individual has NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION under an environmental law unless Congress puts one in it. Generally, we must wait for the government to pursue environmental actions. There are exceptions, such as the citizen suit provision of the ESA, but they are rather rare. Otherwise, citizens are left trying to sue the agency to make it enforce its own regulations and laws - a difficult battle to win. There are other examples I have in my pocket if you like. This affects me personally, as I do environmental law. Trust me, the market for my work has tanked in the last decade. And, I claim no side in these matters: I have worked on both sides of environmental issues. But, with lack of enforcement, no matter which side I'm on demand for my services goes down. OK - I've rambled for too long, now. |
09-17-2002, 04:21 PM | #48 |
Account deleted by Request
Join Date: May 17, 2001
Location: .
Age: 38
Posts: 8,802
|
I say that Global Warming caused by humans is quite possible. But it's also possible that it's not happening. So in order to avoid screwing things up for ourselves if it IS happening, we should do some of the things that would prevent if happening if we were the cause. As far as I know a good deal of those things also lower pollution, yes? So even if it didn't help stop Global Warming we'd at least pollute less.
|
09-17-2002, 05:33 PM | #49 |
The Magister
Join Date: September 17, 2002
Location: Hexatown
Age: 51
Posts: 137
|
Simple things is that it has become a bilion dollars industry providing thousands of people with jobs. It has just become commercial.
And yes people ain't responsible for global warming!@
__________________
|
09-26-2002, 10:25 AM | #50 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
This hasn't been posted on for a while but I just saw the season premiere of West Wing last night and it was discussed. In telling the industry reps why he would not budge on global warming he said 2 things that interested me:
1. It's stupid for a nation of SUVs to tell a nation of bicycles it's got to decrease it's greenhouse gas emissions. 2. I don't care if you don't support it, we caused this mess and we're gonna clean it up. How un-American is that? Hollywood is so great about romanticizing our leaders. No president would *ever* openly tell any industry leader he was going against the industry on such a large issue. It's so true that when an industry leader approaches a politician on issues (including this one), there is absolutely NO discussion of what is right - he simply brings a clear to-the-penny calculation of what it will cost his company. And, boy, can they get precise. And, boy, can they screw you by taking away your campaign funding. Anyway - just something I was thinking about as I was driving past the buses, "L" trains, and bicycles while on my way to work in my SUV. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
global warming stopped by cars | burnzey boi | General Discussion | 17 | 04-25-2005 03:00 PM |
Talk about global warming, eh? | Link | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 19 | 07-16-2004 12:25 PM |
Global Warming: Who's to blame? | Avatar | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 31 | 09-03-2003 10:50 AM |
Global Warming (time to stir the pot) | MagiK | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 22 | 05-16-2002 09:28 AM |
Global Warming! Please read and answer | Moridin | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 51 | 04-11-2001 08:01 AM |