[Discussion] Climate Change

This thread is just to post interesting news, thoughts, opinions about climate change.

1987, the last date on your list to feature a Republican, was THIIRTY FOUR years ago.

The criticism is entirely valid. Republicans have done dick-squat on climate for decades. Decades during which the urgency of action has become clearer and clearer with every passing year.

The problem is is that you're pointing to a historical version of the GOP which no longer exists. The modern GOP is so far out of whack with the GOP that enacted the policies that you rightly claim are public goods that your criticism is entirely hollow.

~mod~ Unnecessarily caustic stuff removed. The bread here is excellent, but the chest-puffing in the middle here is distracting and the cussing-people-out thing is not in line with the coc. Thx! -Amoebic

but it is critical to point out that for decades the left has talked continuously on environmental issues and efforts, and the right has delivered time and again on final legislation

From your own table, the last time that happened was 1987, 34 years ago.

They just spent four years in power. What did they accomplish?

If the Republican party went back to what they were under Roosevelt, I'd be very happy.

So, I'm pointing to legislation in 1990's and can get into a full discussion on Paris or Copenhagen if you would like, but only using peer reviewed articles and data which I suspect with your 'get the f*** out comment' you do not have. The anecdote of pointing to a GOP party that does not exists if simple fallacy, as I've been a part of t he party since the 1980's and its the same core belief system, and support for real environmental policy remains.

Please feel free with actual info to link to significant legislation from the Dems in the last 30+ years. Just note as mentioned:

Kyoto has huge holes, Copenhagen had even fewer mechanisms to hold parties accountable, and I can show you the peer article by a creator of Paris showing how it has largely been an absolute failure. I'll also be glad to discuss Affordable Clean Energy replacing the Obama never approved CPP. I can also discuss the over-reach of WOTUS if you would like. I have several papers that also discuss the politicization of science and the damage it does to the credibility of science, as well as the fact that few (if any) 'green' energy sources of processes are truly all that green - although some company's such as Nestle has showed remarkable movement in supporting more sustainable practices in accordance with the UN goals.

Note - since I'm now writing my doctoral dissertation related to Wetlands and Environmental and Social Sustainability, you'll note my slight disdain although much more respectful response to your entirely anecdotal comments.

(so I'll pass on shutting up, but appreciate the effort to shut out any dissent that is fact based on your part...)

The wing of the Party that did this was purged utterly, chipped away through the 80's and early 90's and put down hard by Gingrich and his followers. Reagan's tenure began the incessant drive against regulations, which was used to remove restrictions on environmental protections all across the board. This accelerated under the Tea Party, and Trump functionally distanced science from policy in the EPA, CDC and many other government agencies, all in the name of tearing down the very laws that Republicans put in place, as conservatives trying to protect natural resources and citizen health.

I get that it's distressing to see your party go crazy and leave you behind, but the Republican Party of today is a radical party with its roots in John Birch, Father Coughlin, Barry Goldwater, George Wallace and, yes, George Lincoln Rockwell. The days of the Country Club Republicans, genteel policy thinkers with deep intellectual roots and a gentle touch across the aisle, are GONE. The Party today presents a different face to the world...

IMAGE(https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2021/01/13/gettyimages-1230455457_custom-709f812aa8d9e809459d3b4e83fdd092320105da.jpg)

Malor,
Pluses and minuses on Trump. Was not a huge fan of his on the environmental side. BUT - that said -
- his pull back on WOTUS overreach was much needed
- ACE putting responsibility to states over one national policy was good - replaced Obama Power Plan which never was ratified, and happened while I was in Air Quality Division. Overall...not completely...a good move, although courts now in that game.
- Pulling from Paris, which is a joke. BTW...US is one of the few nations meeting Paris Accord mandates...and guess what...we aren't in it.
- US lowest GGH and continues to be a leader - not THE leader, but a leader thanks to industry efforts.

There are others, but again, was only lukewarm to Trump efforts. But let me ask that same question...Obama was in for 8 and what did he do/have to show?

Come on Robear - I'm trying to actually discuss debate on environmental and the impact of saying one party is pro-environment and the other is anti-, and we go to semantics of pictures. I can post pictures (daily) of new attacks on federal buildings in places such as Portland that continue daily, but what does t hat prove...we can find pics on the internet. Just as with the Dem party...the vocal minority is loudest, as with the pic you post on the GOP.

I've had my ups and downs with the party...but its core remains the same in values and beliefs...

Pigpen wrote:

The anecdote of pointing to a GOP party that does not exists if simple fallacy, as I've been a part of t he party since the 1980's and its the same core belief system, and support for real environmental policy remains.

This is a laughable assertion, and this is not a serious argument. Buh bye, Felicia.

Pigpen wrote:

Please feel free with actual info to link to significant legislation from the Dems in the last 30+ years.

It was nearly 30 years ago that Republicans adopted a policy of simply opposing everything that Democrats tried to pass. In 2009, this was codified by McConnell and others and they have functioned in lockstep in the minority as well as in the majority to turn down even legislation and policies they once supported. Climate change was a bipartisan Congressional priority in the early 90's, remember?

You can't point to much Democratic progress on these points because their hands were tied legislatively for most of that time. The one big, popular, successful legislation that passed, the ACA, has been purposely vilified and crippled by Republicans even though it was undeniably beneficial to their constituents. It's still remained so popular that they have to grudgingly support it under different allusions, so that folks don't associate the best features with Obama.

(Like you, I had a professional front row seat to the ACA implementation, and I saw some things that are just scurrilous. Through Obama's term, every single request for additional funding to unscrew problems that cropped up with the legislation (as happens with every large bill that passes) was denied. So were legislative attempts to fix the problems. DHHS had to resort to taking money from other essential programs just to ensure that the absolutely critical stuff was at least partially addressed. That's all down to Republicans trying to invalidate anything that Democrats have done to benefit citizens.)

You're really lumping in anarchists in the NW, whose movement and violence have emphatically not spread elsewhere in spite of Fox's shrill alarmism, with Democratic goals and policies? Contrast that with national-scale Trumpism. There is no comparison. 65% of Republicans don't believe Biden's election was legitimate, as of Feb 5 (AP/NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll). I guarantee you that the number of Republicans who felt that Clinton and Obama's elections were not legitimate was in the low single digits.

The current Republican Party is not at all the responsible care-taking party of the past. It's changed. I'm happy you don't want to be associated with the horrible policies of today, but you just can't responsibly claim that the old party is still in power. Some may believe this stuff, but even just the 30 years of banging the deregulation drum alone shows that they have no power in the party today.

Environmentalism isn't really my thing, so I don't have anything on tap to talk about from the Obama years. However, a quick search turned up several lists. This one seems like a good place to start:

  1. Jumpstarting the green economy. The stimulus provided $90 billion dollars for a bevy of green initiatives, including $29 billion for improving energy efficiency, $21 billion for renewable energy generation, $10 billion for the grid, $18 billion for rail, and several smaller initiatives.
  2. EPA Endangerment Finding. For the first time, EPA made an official finding that greenhouse gases (GHGs) endanger human health and welfare. This finding was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; the Supreme Court declined review.
  3. GHG Standards for New Vehicles. EPA issued the “tailpipe” rule, cutting CO2 emissions from new cars by almost a billion tons. This was also upheld by the courts.
  4. GHG Standards for Power Plants and Factories. At the same time as the “tailpipe” rule, EPA issued a rule requiring GHG cuts for major new facilities; most of that rule was upheld by the Supreme Court. More importantly, EPA issued the Clean Power Plan, addressing emissions from existing power plants. The legality of that rule is now before the D.C. Circuit.
  5. Mercury Controls for Power Plants. Using its authority to regulate toxic chemicals, EPA established a rule cutting mercury emissions, which will save thousands of lives, primarily by cutting dangerous particulates. The rule is now in front of the D.C. Circuit on remand from the Supreme Court, but most of the industry has already complied.
  6. Social Cost of Carbon. For the first time, the government tried to measure the harm that CO2 causes, for purposes of future cost-benefit analyses. The current figure is around $35 per ton.
  7. National monuments. Obama has established more national monuments than any other president in history. They also cover more acreage than any previous president’s.
  8. Oceans. Obama designated some 580,000 square miles off Hawaii as a national monument. He also cleaned up the mess from the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, twisting BP’s arm into setting up a compensation fund for victims, and then ultimately obtaining billions of dollars in criminal and civil penalties. He also reformed regulation of deepwater drilling after the disaster, with no help from Congress.
  9. New environmental legislation. Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which finally fixed the nearly moribund Toxic Substance Control Act. He also signed the Food Modernization and Safety Act in 2011, which substantially strengthened the FDA’s power to safeguard the food supply. Given the near-total gridlock of today’s Congress, obtaining any new legislation is something of a minor miracle.
  10. Interstate air pollution. EPA established its first major rule addressing interstate transport of particulates and ozone, something that had been attempted unsuccessfully by the Bush Administration. The major features of the rule have been upheld by the Supreme Court; some lesser matters are still before the D.C. Circuit.
  11. Keystone XL Pipeline. Obama blocked construction of this pipeline to take Canadian tar sands oil to market. The pipeline had come to symbolize the profligate use of fossil fuels.
  12. Mountaintop mining. In decisions in 2013 and 2016, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Obama EPA’s effort to curb mountain top mining, an extremely destructive variant on strip mining, even when that means withdrawing or modifying an existing permit.
  13. Endangered species. As of April 2015 (the latest figures I could find), the Obama Administration had listed 299 species, bringing them under the protection of the Endangered Species Act. It had also delisted 12, and had 35 listings in progress.
  14. Fracking. In 2015, the Administration issued new rules regulating fracking on public lands, designed to protect against groundwater pollution. This year, EPA followed up with rules to restrict methane emissions from natural gas operations.
  15. Energy efficiency. In December 2015, the Department of Energy issued a standard governing commercial air conditioners and furnaces, which covers heating and cooling for about half of the country’s commercial space. The new rule is estimated to save a total of $167 billions in energy costs and reduce carbon emissions by 885 megatons.
  16. International mercury agreement. The Obama Administration entered into the Minimata Convention on Mercury, which bans mercury mining and regulates mercury products, processes, and pollution.
  17. Coal ash. EPA issued the first-ever regulation of coal-ash impoundments, imposing new requirements for structural integrity and for groundwater protection.
  18. Stricter air quality standards. After dodging the issue in the run-up to the 2012 election, the Administration finally issued a new air quality standard for ozone, cutting the allowable level from 75 to 70 ppb. In 2013, EPA had also issued a new standard for particulates, cutting the permissible level of PM2.5 from 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 12 μg/m3.
  19. Protecting wetlands. The Administration issued the Water of the United States (WOTUS) rule, which clarified the reach of federal jurisdiction over wetlands. The rule is now mired in litigation.
  20. International climate negotiations. Last but far from least: President Obama succeeded in obtaining the 2009 Copenhagen Accord and more recently the 2015 Paris Agreement, the first international agreement including developing nation commitments to address emissions. Even more recently, the Administration was successful in negotiations to curb super-strong greenhouse gases using the Montreal Protocol and in negotiations for emissions limitations on commercial aviation.
Quintin_Stone wrote:

If the Republican party went back to what they were under Roosevelt, I'd be very happy.

They have - they are just called Democrats now.

Pigpen wrote:

I've had my ups and downs with the party...but its core remains the same in values and beliefs...

True, since 1964 they've been the party of racists

Goldwater, a Republican, managed to win five Southern states in that election, which was unheard of for a Republican. How did Goldwater do that? He won those states by opposing the Civil Rights Act.

After the bill passed, Strom Thurmond left the Democratic Party, as did many Southern whites. In 1968, he teamed up with Richard Nixon, the 1968 Republican presidential candidate, and convinced Nixon that a Republican could win the South if he was willing to dog-whistle racism to the Southern voters.

Along with H.R. Haldeman, they developed the “Southern Strategy,” by emphasizing to white voters in the South that: “[T]he whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognized this while not appearing to.”

Nixon won the 1968 election by carrying seven southern states, a remarkable feat for a Republican. In the 1972 election, he doubled down on the racist rhetoric and won every single state in the South.

Since that election, no Democratic candidate has won a majority of the old Confederate states formerly known as the “Solid South.” The old Confederate states fused into a Republican voting block few Democrats have been able to penetrate.

In 1981, Lee Atwater, the political campaign architect who refined the Southern Strategy for Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, described the Republican party’s winning template:

Atwater wrote:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “{racist slur}, {racist slur}, {racist slur}.” By 1968, you can’t say “{racist slur}”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. ... “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “{racist slur}, {racist slur}.”

Robear,
As always, agree to some degree - the issue is starting after Clinton, and part way through Bush was the last true efforts of bi-partiship. You saw it start to seep in at the end of Bush, all of Obama and all of Trump. There are a few nuggets, but you are correct, yet we keep putting in the same folks on both sides. To assert that McConnell is different from Schumer is different from Pelosi is really a reach on any concept. Hence why I'll avoid the ACA in any shape form or fashion since I'm talking climate and the environment only.

My whole point on that front was that for the history of the last 100+ years, MAJOR milestone environmental legislation was signed into office by Republican Presidents...and for whatever current issue we have in Congress, that fact remains true, does it not?

Stele,
Great to pick up one racist concept from 1964 on Goldwater. Want me to pick up the gauntlet - Southern Dems held up the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 60 days, and it was largely the GOP that marched WITH MLK. At the time, we can pick both sides having racists (Byrd from WV was what party?), and I can go back to Lincoln if you want. - Oh...I know now you trot out the 'but parties have changed'...but they really haven't. The GOP supports largely pro-capitalists policies and a balance of environmental issues with pro-economic growth...and that was much of what I referred to in general.

Pigpen wrote:

Robear,
As always, agree to some degree - the issue is starting after Clinton, and part way through Bush was the last true efforts of bi-partiship. You saw it start to seep in at the end of Bush, all of Obama and all of Trump. There are a few nuggets, but you are correct, yet we keep putting in the same folks on both sides. To assert that McConnell is different from Schumer is different from Pelosi is really a reach on any concept. Hence why I'll avoid the ACA in any shape form or fashion since I'm talking climate and the environment only.

My whole point on that front was that for the history of the last 100+ years, MAJOR milestone environmental legislation was signed into office by Republican Presidents...and for whatever current issue we have in Congress, that fact remains true, does it not?

Republicans used to be a coalition that included some conservatives and some more liberal members who truly believed in conserving the environment to some extent. Those days are long gone.

Just like you don’t get credit for being the party of Lincoln if your party just marched the Confederate flag through the US Capitol while hunting down the VP and Speaker to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.

So turn it in a positive direction. What major climate legislation has been proposed by Republicans since 1987?

The way that McConnell is different from other leaders in the past is his ability to maintain party lockstep and his declared policies of no wins for Democratic policies in Congress since 2009 (a streak which was maintained from the passage of the ACA until the recent passage of the Covid emergency assistance act). This is literally unprecedented in American history, and no other Congressional leader has tried anything like it.

The argument that "all politicians are equally bad" is simply used to conceal that one party has literally gone off the rails in a highly undemocratic direction. It's just like the old canard "I don't see race", which is used to dismiss any notice of problems in society related to race. If we see no problem with today's Republicans, then there is nothing to fix and we can get on with the business of vilifying Dems while Democracy itself collapses in a cloud of tear-gas stained Trump flags and dead Federal cops.

I will grant you that Republicans played their part to protect the environment into the late 80's, but that part of the Party was purged completely by 1994. Today, Republican environmental policies involve endangering the most productive salmon run in the world, reducing air and water pollution protections, removing the ability to use huge amounts of scientific data in making policy assessments, attempting to reduce mileage standards (which even the car companies opposed and voluntarily ignored for the most part). There are many other examples but these are the recent climate achievements foisted on us by the Party of Trump.

I don't want to escalate any pile on.

Malor,
I've seen similar lists, and of those, just like with Trump's bullet list - there are about 5 noteworthy, 10 that are classified as in the works and EPA simply gets them out (the EPA issues hundreds of these each administration, as most agencies do) - and likely 5 that are completely wrong of overblown.

For instance - Paris is an absolute failure of an accord and the perfect example of what an accord looks like if you just want to sign something to look good, and WOTUS was way overblown to mean that if you had a big storm, the flowing puddle in your back yard was now covered by federal law (yes, I oversimplified). Keystone has no real reasoning, as our green sector is not able for multiple reasons to supply the power needs of the US in any shape form or fashion, and oil is a key ingredient in so much of what we use daily - and so on.

Cheers..

Karmajay - I clearly noted the bipartisan spirit in these where Dems introduced when I mention the Bill submitted by Dem from WV and signed by GOP President. Many of these were that way. I always started my focus on the 1970 CAA and that is what I focus on in my permit world - 1963 was an good start but relatively weak legislation - I'll admit it should have been added.

Since you are hitting wiki, make sure you cross reference with EPA as they have excellent info on history of key legislation.

Sure, Paris needs to be stronger, and it would have been a decent first step, but we backed out of it, which gave cover for countries who were wavering. The fact that we left the process had as much impact on what could have been better follow-on agreements, as it did on the failure of the Accord itself (which could have been improved). Our decisions have consequences, and Trump's active opposition to mitigating climate change - Republican orthodoxy today - has slowed the world's response to the crisis. (Which important Republicans tell us is not actually a crisis...)

The idea that Green power cannot supply the US need for power is, to me, outdated. But the fact is that oil electric generation is dying, and natural gas will follow in the next few decades (coal is essentially dead in terms of new plant investment, I believe, but feel free to correct me. I see it's gone up about 2% recently, but I put that down to the removal or delay of upgrades to existing generation that allowed some previously phasing-out plants to come back online.)

Hydroelectric, wind, and solar would be the major Green power sources, right? The key to the latter two is battery technology and an advanced grid, I think. Both of them have vastly decreased in cost over the last 3 decades, to the point where the policy debate for solar is whether it is time to decrease the various incentives for construction of new generation. US EIA figures show that renewables account for just about the same percentage of electricity generation as nuclear and coal, this year, and the vast majority of the planned 12GW in new construction this year is set to be solar and wind (with 11% of the coming from battery-based systems).

That just does not speak to me of large scale issues with renewable power sources in the US. The example of other countries bears that out, I'd say.

Bringing back to topic on climate though, I also saw some positive notes on China vs the US position. Let me post from a report on Paris:

Emissions from the top four emitters combined account for 56 percent of global GHG emissions –China
(26.8 percent), the United States (13.1 percent), the European Union and its 28 Member States (9
percent) and India (7 percent). The analysis of their pledges show that:

China, the largest emitter, is expected to meet its pledge of “reducing its carbon intensity by 60-65
percent from 2005 levels by 2030” (or the amount of CO2 emissions per unit of GDP).
However, China’s CO2 emissions increased by 80 percent between 2005 and 2018 and are expected
to continue to increase for the next decade given its projected rate of economic growth.

India’s emissions are growing rapidly. Its pledge to reduce “the emissions intensity (of all GHGs) of
its GDP by 30-35 percent from 2005 level by 2030” is expected be met.
However, India’s GHG emissions increased by about 76 percent between 2005 and 2017 and, like
China, are expected to continue to increase until 2030 due to economic growth.

(Pigpen note - I bolded the However - as this is one of the assertions is China and India managed to get away with environmental murder in a manner of speaking by such a low pledge on carbon intensity while vastly increasing their CO2.)

Info pulled from "The Truth Behind the Climate Pledges" by the FEU-US and Acting on Climate Together - look for Sir Robert Watson if Google Scholar'ing it...

FEU does some great work and I'm glad to see that's underlying your thinking. But ask yourself how different things would have been if the US had been pushing to improve the Paris Accords, or get a better deal going. Then ask yourself which Republicans in Congress or the State parties would support such thing today.

That's the fundamental problem I see with your claim. Sure, some individual Republicans as citizens might be concerned. But the Party as a whole maintains a stance that, at best, climate change is unproven and thus our response to it should be local and reactive at best. Read the GOP 2020 Platform on American's Natural Resources. It's as much about vilifying Democrats as about rejecting participation in the major climate change agreements, with a hefty helping of working to destroy the very regulations you cited as Republican successes...

I sure don't remember how to paraphrase and attribute Robear, but here are my comments (your comments in italic)

Sure, Paris needs to be stronger, and it would have been a decent first step, but we backed out of it, which gave cover for countries who were wavering. The fact that we left the process had as much impact on what could have been better follow-on agreements, as it did on the failure of the Accord itself (which could have been improved). Our decisions have consequences, and Trump's active opposition to mitigating climate change - Republican orthodoxy today - has slowed the world's response to the crisis. (Which important Republicans tell us is not actually a crisis...)

Paris was never a good first step...treating India and China as developing nations is a non-starter. And while the paper "The Paris Agreement in the 2020s: Breakdown or Breakup?" by Noah M. Sachs (peer reviewed) gives sanction that the Trump admin pulling out damaged the validity of the agreement, its proof isn't really there other than as a comment. I also ask you, how so? The US has continued to lower GHG and with the regulatory wheels cut down, capitalist desire for green products has put us in the leaders of the pack despite being out of Paris. How have we remained a leader if Paris had any real validity, and key measures show Paris had no real impact (see my previous post).

Next - how has the response of deregulating industry and allowing for significant green innovation caused the world to slowdown on climate change? Looking for real responses, not just an example of company A failed here or company B got fined there - those happen continuously as you know - bad actors are bad actors anytime and anywhere.

The idea that Green power cannot supply the US need for power is, to me, outdated. But the fact is that oil electric generation is dying, and natural gas will follow in the next few decades (coal is essentially dead in terms of new plant investment, I believe, but feel free to correct me. I see it's gone up about 2% recently, but I put that down to the removal or delay of upgrades to existing generation that allowed some previously phasing-out plants to come back online.)

I NEVER said green power cannot supply the US need for power...in the future...but it cannot even get close now. I have 4 comrades working on their dissertations related to this exact issue right now. Look at Manitoba Hydro in 2015 (i think) as Manitoba is 100% hydro, or at the recent cluster in TX (not pinning that on Green...). If the sun doesn't shine in many parts, the wind slows, there is too much fluctuation in power that you need at this time - oil and especially natural gas to fill in the gaps. Most major power sources of those are reworking their systems to be able to generate to fill surges, so that is good. They see the future, but ignoring the role of nuclear and natural gas is to ignore America's power needs and the fluctuation and current cycle of Green power.

Hydroelectric, wind, and solar would be the major Green power sources, right? The key to the latter two is battery technology and an advanced grid, I think. Both of them have vastly decreased in cost over the last 3 decades, to the point where the policy debate for solar is whether it is time to decrease the various incentives for construction of new generation. US EIA figures show that renewables account for just about the same percentage of electricity generation as nuclear and coal, this year, and the vast majority of the planned 12GW in new construction this year is set to be solar and wind (with 11% of the coming from battery-based systems).

There is a reason I pump money into Tesla...batteries...you are right. As batteries get better, the ability to store green energy is increased. HOWEVER - are batteries green (lithium and disposal), are wind turbines green in construction (landfills, materials), and same for solar. We ignore construction costs when we simply factor in green energy - as do solar and wind sources have a 50+ year life cycle costs that you find in Natural gas? (I'm asking that...as I don't know...)

Pigpen, in a sense, the problem here is that you're slapping the label "Republican" on what seems to be your reasonable work towards conservation of resources. Republicans today just don't support the kind of work you are doing, at a national policy level, or in most states or communities. You're reasonable and a thoughtful person; that's not fashionable in the Party, nor is any approach to regulation beyond "burn the rules and walk away". (You saw the HHS "regulatory reform", where any rule that can't be analyzed thoroughly by 10 years after it takes effect automatically goes out of force?) I view what you are doing as most likely (since I have not read it) a reasonable conservative approach to wetlands sustainability, and that seems completely at odds with the current Republican policies.

Does that make sense?

I separated this response on your second post. My issue is we keep going to platforms and such and making this a Dem vs Repub issue (I know I did that in my original post...and was erred in doing that). The politicians don't give a hoot...and tieing it to platforms is a farce. California sets the golden standard for standards...followed by the golden standard for not realizing consequences, such as timber management and fires to name just one. WE...you and I, have to have factual discussions - the Gores and Kerry's don't give two rat f***'s about climate...nor did Trump or McConnell or Pelosi or Schumer.

Its the Musk's that set the stage, and the CEO's who really dive into their corporate CSR's and promote sustainable practices. The stage is set and the US and EU are leading the push with global company's working to promote sustainable growth - they find the balance of protecting limited resources, using sustainable resources, and making processes more efficient to improve the bottom line. Similar to my wetland dissertation of make it great for the ecosystem, great for the investor...win / win.

EDIT - in effect, I don't mean to imply my work is the work of all republicans and the platform...but I do acknowledge I am a Republican who has been a champion of the environment since I gave to the Whale Protection Fund in 1974...haha.

EDIT EDIT - yes...you make perfect sense and are correct

Pigpen wrote:

Malor,
I've seen similar lists, and of those, just like with Trump's bullet list - there are about 5 noteworthy, 10 that are classified as in the works and EPA simply gets them out (the EPA issues hundreds of these each administration, as most agencies do) - and likely 5 that are completely wrong of overblown.

For instance - Paris is an absolute failure of an accord and the perfect example of what an accord looks like if you just want to sign something to look good, and WOTUS was way overblown to mean that if you had a big storm, the flowing puddle in your back yard was now covered by federal law (yes, I oversimplified). Keystone has no real reasoning, as our green sector is not able for multiple reasons to supply the power needs of the US in any shape form or fashion, and oil is a key ingredient in so much of what we use daily - and so on.

Cheers..

I honestly read that as, "Sorry, my list counts, your list doesn't count. For reasons."

Over and over, you assert that Democrats can't have good motives, that even if they push climate stuff really hard, they don't actually care about climate, they're just doing it for optics.

I think you've been poisoned by right-wing media.

DSGamer - my only real retort to mentioned one arse with a Confederate flag is the CHOP/CHAZ abdication zone, several dead cops from rioting in St Louis, and takeover of federal buildings out west. If a scumbag from either party is our manifest representation of that party, then we are all doomed... (and lets avoid comparisons of Trump to Biden to Hills...shall we...)

Robear wrote:

That's the fundamental problem I see with your claim. Sure, some individual Republicans as citizens might be concerned. But the Party as a whole maintains a stance that, at best, climate change is unproven and thus our response to it should be local and reactive at best.

Yep. There was an article a couple years ago talking to mayors or state reps in Florida. They know the sea level is rising, they are trying to preserve their beaches. But then nationally they have to fall in with the party line that nothing is happening, regulations are bad, etc. Might be in this thread somewhere but Google fu is failing me.