I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[FanboyOf91]

He'll figure it out.

[twa]

Make it a marina 

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ok, THIS is what pissss me off about the GOP and many of their rank and file. Just sheer willful ignorance, and it is applauded...applauded. "Hey, your neighbor is polluting, no worries God'll work it out. Too much crime? God'll work it out? No healthcare? God'll work it out. Hell, why do you even need me or the government, God'll magically work out all your problems...you may die in the process but then you won't have to worry about it any more! Vote for me!"

 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_592edc73e4b0540ffc837acf?utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&utm_source=main_fb&utm_term=nosplashcard&utm_medium=facebook&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

 

 

[MartinC]

Well Trump pulled the trigger and announced the US is leaving the Paris Accord on Climate change.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/trump-paris-climate-decision/index.html

 

"We want fair treatment," Trump said. "We don't want other countries and other leaders to laugh at us anymore."

 

Good luck with the above - although its more holding their heads in their hands and wondering how the US elected this idiot at this stage. Pity followed by anger rather than mirth.

[Jumbo]

I know most folks are talking about this in the cabinet thread (as I was), but this is where extended conversation should be (good eye, MartinC). 

 

 

Mayor of Pittsburgh just gave a concise and well-argued summary as part of a ironic rebuke to don's use of his city in his address, of why he and many mayors have found economic benefit for their cities in the process and they will be putting out executive orders confirm their intentions to adhere to the accord. talked about being in a group of 500 mayors from across usa and the world who support the accord.

[PeterMP]

This is an issue where it would be nice to have some national leadership.  But it is clear and has been clear (even with Obama as President) that is not going to happen at a large scale.

 

However, unlike something like gun control, this is a case where individuals and states can act.  Cutting consumption and moving consumption to alternative energy sources at a state level and individual level can happen.

 

Many states, including MD, (I can't find anything for VA, but if you call your electric company, they might do something) give you the ability to buy electricity from renewable sources (and yes, you have to pay a little more).

 

http://www.psc.state.md.us/electricchoice/green-options/

[NoCalMike]

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

This is an issue where it would be nice to have some national leadership.  But it is clear and has been clear (even with Obama as President) that is not going to happen at a large scale.

 

However, unlike something like gun control, this is a case where individuals and states can act.  Cutting consumption and moving consumption to alternative energy sources at a state level and individual level can happen.

 

Many states, including MD, (I can't find anything for VA, but if you call your electric company, they might do something) give you the ability to buy electricity from renewable sources (and yes, you have to pay a little more).

 

http://www.psc.state.md.us/electricchoice/green-options/

 

Same in CA.  I believe there are actually tiered plans available too for what % you want to come from renewable sources. I pay a little extra. I forgot what % I chose.

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Same in CA.  I believe there are actually tiered plans available too for what % you want to come from renewable sources. I pay a little extra. I forgot what % I chose.

That's really really cool.

 

I'd love to have that option.  We looked into solar panels when we built our house 3 years ago, and they were still just a bit too high.  At the time it would have cost 40k.  The projected savings would have made my average bill around 40 bucks a month (with the pool).  Today though, that same panel system is closer to 25k.  And would probably take my bill down to close to zero.  If we were building today, I would probably add them.

 

Your micro example is a pretty good analogy for the entire debate about climate.  You were willing to pay A LITTLE extra (as a percentage) to do your part, but still overall (if Im reading it correctly) wanted to pay less over using renewable sources entirely.  Which is totally understandable for all of us.

 

Including businesses.

 

If I had the magic wand, I would make a barrel of oil cost 100 and use a floating tax to keep it there.  Market forces take Oil to 40 bucks?  Add a 60 dollar tax.  Oil goes to 90?  tax is 10 bucks.  Earmark the tax dollars earned to go into R&D and infrastructure (think more nuke plants more than wind farms).

 

If we can get the price points even marginally close, it will make companies (and individuals) more likely to CHOOSE to use renewable sources, even though it will cost a little bit more.   And eventually, it will become cheaper.

 

I still love the Carlin joke about it.  The earth will be fine.  The PEOPLE will be ****ed.  But the earth will be just fine.

[twa]

15 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Same in CA.  I believe there are actually tiered plans available too for what % you want to come from renewable sources. I pay a little extra. I forgot what % I chose.

 

We have them here.....I like people to choose

[LadySkinsFan]

This cartoon is appropriate here too.

 

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

If I had the magic wand, I would make a barrel of oil cost 100 and use a floating tax to keep it there.  Market forces take Oil to 40 bucks?  Add a 60 dollar tax.  Oil goes to 90?  tax is 10 bucks.  Earmark the tax dollars earned to go into R&D and infrastructure (think more nuke plants more than wind farms).

 

Wouldn't work.  Market forces would just adjust so that it stayed about $100.

[Kilmer17]

11 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Wouldn't work.  Market forces would just adjust so that it stayed about $100.

Market forces would speed up the R&D of alternatives to compete though right?

 

[Larry]

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Wouldn't work.  Market forces would just adjust so that it stayed about $100.

 

Yeah.  It does occur to me that if the government is artificially setting the price of oil at $100, then every ship docking at the US will simply charge $100 for their oil, and pocket the money.  After all, the (US) customer can't get it cheaper anywhere else, because of the government.  

 

In that kind of artificial market, why would anybody who has oil ever sell it for less than $100?  

 

 

---

 

Now me, if I wanted to use tax policy to encourage conservation and alternative fuels?  

 

Pass a law saying that the tax on gasoline will go up 50 cents a gallon.  And will go up another 50 cents per gallon, every year for 10 years.  (And do something similar for other fossil fuel uses, in non-automobile uses.)  

 

Now, every consumer out there will know that 10 years from now, gasoline is going to cost $9/gal (maybe $10), ten years from now.  And can factor that into the decisions they make, today.  

 

You're using the market to influence decisions.  But you're giving people advance notice, so they don't get caught by surprise.  

 

(10 years might be too soon, though.  There's lots of people who have cars that are older than 10 years old right now, for example.  And who don;t exactly have the option of replacing it with a new Prius.)  

 

[PeterMP]

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

Market forces would speed up the R&D of alternatives to compete though right?

 

 

Yes.

[Kilmer17]

This is how I see the real change occurring.  Give people and businesses a competitive reason to us alternatives and they will.

[mcsluggo]

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

That's really really cool.

 

I'd love to have that option.  We looked into solar panels when we built our house 3 years ago, and they were still just a bit too high.  At the time it would have cost 40k.  The projected savings would have made my average bill around 40 bucks a month (with the pool).  Today though, that same panel system is closer to 25k.  And would probably take my bill down to close to zero.  If we were building today, I would probably add them.

 

Your micro example is a pretty good analogy for the entire debate about climate.  You were willing to pay A LITTLE extra (as a percentage) to do your part, but still overall (if Im reading it correctly) wanted to pay less over using renewable sources entirely.  Which is totally understandable for all of us.

 

Including businesses.

 

If I had the magic wand, I would make a barrel of oil cost 100 and use a floating tax to keep it there.  Market forces take Oil to 40 bucks?  Add a 60 dollar tax.  Oil goes to 90?  tax is 10 bucks.  Earmark the tax dollars earned to go into R&D and infrastructure (think more nuke plants more than wind farms).

 

If we can get the price points even marginally close, it will make companies (and individuals) more likely to CHOOSE to use renewable sources, even though it will cost a little bit more.   And eventually, it will become cheaper.

 

I still love the Carlin joke about it.  The earth will be fine.  The PEOPLE will be ****ed.  But the earth will be just fine.

 

10 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Wouldn't work.  Market forces would just adjust so that it stayed about $100.

 

it wouldn't work if the objective was to keep the global price of oil exactly $100.... but that isn't the objective.   An politically-independent commission that set a variable tax that raised petroleum taxes when petro prices are falling, and lowered taxes when petro prices were rising could certainly do something... 

 

i'd see it looking a lot like the fed.   The fex roughly targets an inflation rate... but not exclusively (some other central banks DO target inflation rates exclusively).   But the fed looks at a balance of conditions, with inflation being a large portion of the bucket, but also looking at general macro leading indicators, as well.... 

 

a petro tax board could be similar... not JUST look at prices of petro, because they would want to treat supply shocks and demand shocks differently ( price of gas rises when the economy is over-heating because of excessive demand (demand shock) --- in this case, you don't really want to lower the petro tax too much.... on the other had, when the price of gas rises because supply has been curtailed (OPEC manipulating, or disruptions from war or whatever ) you DO want to lower the tax...in the short run.   Same (and more so) in the downside.... if the price of oil is dropping because  the economy is tanking... you don;t want to raise oil taxes TOO much, annd certainly not tooo rapidly.... but if the price is dropping because OPEC is flooding the market...???   bring on that tax.)

 

anyway... a board following a slightly less simple algorithm and objective function could potentially be really cool (without REALLY thinking through the complexities, and potential pittfalls...)    

[DogofWar1]

Just give DARPA unlimited funds, tell them we want Cold Fusion, live T-Rexes with Lasers, and maybe a warp drive and watch them pull it off within a decade.

 

DARPA is, or at least should be, a bunch of Rick Sanchezs running around.  Give them resources, we'll get our toys.

[Larry]

4 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

This is how I see the real change occurring.  Give people and businesses a competitive reason to us alternatives and they will.

 

That's why I like my idea of announcing it in advance, and phasing it in gradually.  

 

For one thing, enacting any sudden change in the energy market can have devastating impact on all kinds of people.  lots of people have old cars, uninsulated houses, similar things, who would be devastated by sudden proce increases, and who don;t have the options of making a huge cash outlay on more effeciant technology.  

 

But I'm also convinced that if you give the energy market 10 years notice that a change is going to happen, the market will adjust, today, to that known, future, change.  Give everybody 10 years notice that the price of fossil fuels are going to triple, 10 years from now, and the market will respond instantly.  Prices of new and used cars will change, today, to reflect that future.  So will the prices of things like new subdivisions that are a 45 minute drive from work.  (Or maybe those new subdivisions will suddenly get rooftop solar panels, and electric car charging stations.)  

 

Give the market a predictable future, and it will adjust in the present.  

 

[twa]

9 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Just give DARPA unlimited funds, tell them we want Cold Fusion, live T-Rexes with Lasers, and maybe a warp drive and watch them pull it off within a decade.

 

DARPA is, or at least should be, a bunch of Rick Sanchezs running around.  Give them resources, we'll get our toys.

 

or they would provide unaffordable solutions ....except for the select few

 

I like DARPA though,and funding research is very beneficial.

[Jumbo]

Interesting that Rick Perry is reported to have advised trump to remain in the accord. According to media sources in the admin and actual on air trump spox, next to Don, Pruitt as much as Bannon was the primary cabinet voice in favor. But the move also had strong support from Cohn, Ross, and DeVos. Strong anti-science lean and basic whacko/extreme-ideologue/nutjob (which keep in mind fits aprrox. 40% of the population, scientifically speaking) mindset in that contingent---Cohn being the least so--he shows more as a standard self-enriching, power-seeking "normal" ideologue. I post this aside actual debate on the accord.

[Kilmer17]

Re: the Paris Accord.  I think Trump pulled us out to try and renegotiate a better deal for the US.

 

But I also dont think it matters.  The worlds polluters were going to pollute whether the US was in or not.  

 

If it's really that important.  The US can rejoin anytime.

[twa]

But if we pull out the other countries do not get environmental child support.

 

Think of the children.

[DogofWar1]

13 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

I'm all for renewable energy, if the market says it is needed. 

 

Pulling this quote from Trump thread to here to avoid clutter there.

 

Market forces tend to be bad at dealing with issues like climate change.  It requires new tech and abandonment of old industry leaders.  New tech needs money to develop and build infrastructure, old leaders have money, and are more than willing to throw it at blocking new tech that threatens them.  And the costs of failing to change tech are largely in externalities, which the public as a whole deals with, not the corporations who make them.  There are too few punishments for resting on laurels.

 

Furthermore, consumers can't really force a quick change through choice, because energy is one of those things where you don't really get a choice.  Lights or no lights, car or no car.  People pick lights and cars.  That money flows to old leaders, not the new tech.  "Invisible hand" generally does poorly in situations with necessities.

 

So the market basically won't change things on its own.  The sudden growth in private solar has taken a long time to make happen and a lot of government grants.  It is pretty clearly going to be a great step up from present infrastructure, which is why adoption is happening, but without the government investment, we wouldn't be seeing the ball rolling like it is.

[PeterMP]

16 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Where are you getting the natural resources needed for your solution?

 

IF you truly believe research can advance solutions my solution is best...and can fund it w/o crippling the economy or exposing our throats.

 

Move the goal posts much?

 

The fact of the matter is that your solution IS exposing our throats.  It isn't protecting our throats.

 

Your solution had lead us to fighting 2 wars in Iraq in the last 20 years, a proxy war in Afghanistan and having troops stationed for the foreseeable future in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia while conducting random raids through out much of the Middle East.  Those are resources that your solution has wasted and your solution is going to keep wasting.

 

We are where we are because of your "solution", and you have no method to withdraw now or the foreseeable future without undertaking actions that you would consider "exposing our throats".

 

We could easily cut our consumption without crippling our economy, especially if we could take some of the money that we using to subsidize the oil industry.

 

In terms of crippling our economy, you are making a number of not likely correct assumptions:

 

1.  That many people could easily reduce consumption without having a negative affect on our economy and even in some cases an advantageous affect on our economy.  People with money buying newer fuel efficient cars is not going to cripple our economy and very likely will spur the economy.

 

2.  That we aren't paying a significant costs to our economy by using fossil fuels because of issues related to fossil fuels (foreign policy, military, and non-CO2 pollution).

 

3.  That there isn't an economic drag on our economy ALREADY from climate change.  That by NOT acting we aren't crippling our economy.

 

As to where the natural resources will come from, I don't have a good answer because as I've told you before, I do not support planning on that level.

 

Various forms of hydro power use different natural resources, and different than solar (which again depends on how you are doing solar), which are different than wind, which are different than geothermal, which are different than nuclear, which are different than biomass (which again depends how you are doing it), etc.

 

The best solution or right mix of solutions can be figured out as we go based on market drivers.

[twa]

12 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

Interesting that Rick Perry is reported to have advised trump to remain in the accord.

 

Not a surprise, he has never left the Goracles nest.