[Discussion] Climate Change

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

Meanwhile, yesterday... 12 Republican state attorneys general sue President Biden over climate change order

On his first day in the White House, Biden signed Executive Order 13990, directing federal agencies to calculate the "social cost" of greenhouse gas pollution by estimating "monetized damages" to inform future federal regulations. This includes changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damage from increased flood risk and the value of ecosystem services.


"If the Executive Order stands, it will inflict hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars of damage to the U.S. economy for decades to come," the suit reads. "It will destroy jobs, stifle energy production, strangle America’s energy independence, suppress agriculture, deter innovation, and impoverish working families. It undermines the sovereignty of the States and tears at the fabric of liberty."

Republican state attorneys general from Arkansas, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Utah joined the suit.

Pigpen wrote:

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...)

You missed the point completely. The point is that you don't get to seriously claim the heritage of Lincoln if members of your party literally storm the Capitol of the United States carrying the flag of the Confederacy. Period. End of story.

And similarly, if the current iteration of your party is literally trying to rollback substantial portions of the Clean Air Act and prevent a serious attempt to move to renewables as Climate Change threatens the global stability of human civilization it doesn't matter to me if Nixon was the one who signed the Clean Air Act.

As an additional observation for PigPen: discounting and deriding environmental progress because you don't trust the motives of the people doing it is really, really messed up.

If someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons, it usually doesn't matter, because they still did the right thing. You focus hard on this weird belief that most of the really visible Democrats don't care about climate, they're just pretending. I think you're using this as mental cover, so that you don't have to consider that Democrats might be doing a much better job than Republicans.

Your beliefs have hardened to the point that you can look at genuine progress, and deride it and ignore it, because you're using a mental justification that it's all posturing. You also point to the flaws that the different programs have, how they fell short of the mark, without considering that they usually fell short of the mark because of Republican interference.

Meanwhile, you completely ignore the absolute mountains of evidence that the modern Republican party has about as much in common with you as Muammar Gaddafi.

It's time to really re-examine some of these core beliefs, because they just don't match reality.

The only reason that Obama didn't get a lot more done is because Mitch McConnell wouldn't let anything through. The government was mostly paralyzed for six years. (For the first two years, of course, the Democrats engaged in their usual circular firing squad. They did get some stuff done, but really wasted the opportunity they had.)

This thread has had a lot of posts and some good discussion Thanks all.

I will ask because I don't see it, was this every addressed?

Robear wrote:

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

I think we have to acknowledge a huge huge change in the republican party around the 90s and Gingrch's "contract with America" push. The rise of Fox news, etc.

So talking about great legislation pushed by republicans before that is kind of like saying they are the party of civil rights because Lincoln was a republican and he freed the slaves. Meaning that is not what they support currently.

Anyway - what is the major climate legislation proposed by republicans since 1987? They have had the presidency and control of congress for about half that time frame so what have they done when they are in charge?

Malor - in regards to "I honestly read that as, "Sorry, my list counts, your list doesn't count. For reasons."" - could not be more opposite of my intent.

I did NOT post the Trump list for just that reason...its just a list that partisans put together. Trumps has the same validity as Obama's without the details behind it - in support or against...

I did however retort a few key points that I have both real world and academic knowledge of on your list briefly. But I went no further on the whole list, as that would be like me posting that list of Trumps and saying 'its all true til you academically prove it false...and that is just a time sink."

Again - the point being that in the last 100+ years, movement has been, while bipartisan, signed into law by Republican presidents on most accounts. If we take into account the last 35+ years, fine, but your questions comes right back to you - what have the Dems done in that period (talking about a Green New Deal or accords with NO teeth or sanctions tied to them is just talk...no substance).

The fact remains on a political level, that 4 of the 5 most significant (pulling from an ABC story here) were CAA, CWA, ESA, Montreal and Reformation Plan of 1970 were signed by Republican Presidents, and the CAA, while signed in 63 was overhauled to the point we know it now in 72 and 90 by Republican Presidents.

That is simply a fact.

In those 30 years, pulling from wiki, here is the list of major environmental regulation:
1991 – Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
1992 – Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act
1993 – North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
1994 – Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice
1996 – Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act (P.L. 104-19)
1996 – Food Quality Protection Act (amended FIFRA)
1996 – Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996
1997 - Kyoto Protocol
1998 – Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
2002 – California AB 1493 sets standards for emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from automobiles and light duty trucks.
2002 – Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (amended CERCLA)
2005 – Energy Policy Act of 2005
2005 – Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA)
2007 – Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)
2016—The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act

In effect, the essence of all that we think of in terms of safe environmental concern dates back before those 30 years you talk about. Clinton did some good efforts, as did Bush II. Obama...not so much, but time will tell and as Robear pointed out, partisanship played a HUGE part in the last 20+ years now.

So, if history shows one party made a difference in the past, not so much recently, and the other party made a lesser difference, not so much recently...well...you should not disparage the Republican party for its greater contribution to environmental causes (platforms and modern media take set aside...) Let us remember that those 5 greatest contributions all fall before that 30 plus period...

Yeah, but SO WHAT?

Like, sure, Republicans used to be the party that's good on environmental issues, and now the opposite is true. What's your point, other than a history lesson?

I'm hardened to political rhetoric, not to fact and data. I will grant the GOP focus is not on environmental policy...AND I've stated as such with my disagreement with Trump and some of his EPA actions and policies. HOWEVER - I then flip and say the Dem's are talk with little scientific or factual support. Whether Kerry cares is moot...he's an asshat politico. AOC has no clue on the Green New Deal - BUT, I'll give her getting the conversation moving in the direction of Green Energy as the focus. That is huge, but there is no substance and reality in her plan.

In other words, I look past the words. I try to find the balance, erring on the side of nature...the GOP is tilted to economics and the Dems to environment in words...but the actions don't bear that out good sir... Remember the demographic map...the democratic blue zones ARE URBAN...come on man. You telling me all those folks in a city can tell me how to regrow a wetland or revitalize an ecosystem like the Alaska's and Montana's. AOC represents NYC...so that would assume she is not the expert in rural America (edited).

I'm jaded to political bs...nothing more. Show me facts not excuses...Clinton had a hostile congress...Bush did...etc...McConnell may have been an ass...but he's been there like Pelosi and Schumer for 40+ years...blaming one stopping post is BS as even Trump got the Criminal Justice Reform done under the most partisan Congress in our nations history...

Malor wrote:

As an additional observation for PigPen: discounting and deriding environmental progress because you don't trust the motives of the people doing it is really, really messed up.

It’s true - because if you go down that road, you’d have to look at the motives Nixon had to pass the Clean Water Act...after he vetoed it.

You keep saying your not into political BS but you insert little jabs like this frequently. It makes other parts of your argument seem disingenuous

Pigpen wrote:

AOC represents NYC...and its 7 trees...so she is the expert of all.


Lets call it what it is...

"And similarly, if the current iteration of your party is literally trying to rollback substantial portions of the Clean Air Act and prevent a serious attempt to move to renewables"

THERE ARE ZERO facts in that statement that I'm aware of - personal opinion at best.

None of the signature CAA was being rolled back - NONE. I was in Air Quality at the state...so none. Like every admin, changes to interpretations of statutes and state responsibility were amended. BUT AGAIN - the CAA and subsequent ratified major versions (1990 is the main one) were not touched.

Second - how did they prevent a serious attempt to move to renewables. Industries such as automotive and food and energy all took MAJOR steps toward renewable and sustainable efforts. Our GHG levels support that, as does the green sector stocks and ETF's - to the contrary - less regulation seems to have spurred green growth nationally. So what other than the media narrative supports this assertion? Just because of reductions in regulations does not mean good actors that lead our industries such as a Nestle or a Tesla can't make t heir own move to green.

farley3k - well stated and edited out. Thank you for calling that...I'm not a fan of her, but the jibes indeed dilute any discussion or argument I may have.

Pigpen since you’ve already ceded that there isn’t a single Republican in congress who has done anything materially beneficial for climate change since the late 80s, is your new point that Democrats aren’t much better?

I’d have to agree. They’re objectively better on climate change. But not much better.

On your post above - it is valid as my understanding is the concern of t he intent. ie, who is calculating those damages. I have about thirty peer articles on the Triple Bottom Line and calculating sustainable costs. The issue is the system used to calculate them. That said...this seems to be about the constitutionality of this action, and I'm not up to speed on that. I'm not a fan of a flurry of exec orders to replace Congress' action (or inaction) - but not sure your intent other than to highlight GOP governors of largely rural states oppose Biden's actions (which is a given...)

So far, this admin and actions such as the 1.9T package have penalized red vs blue states in several areas - I can only guess that the AG's assume this type of calculation could be used to further halt growth. Please understand, I'm in the business of wetlands and mitigation banks, so I actually will likely benefit from more regulation here in Florida in terms of credit demand and prices...

The question is on this exec order...what is the purpose and intent from a constitutional perspective - no idea from me...

Actually, AOC's district includes the Little Hell Gate Salt Marsh, the City Island wetlands, and Pelham Bay Park, along with the wetlands of the Bronx River Forest. Possibly others. Given that these have been maintained in an urban environment for several centuries, I'd say she has access to quite a respectable amount of information on maintaining wetlands...

Pic of a section of the wetlands in the middle of the Bronx River Forest:

NYC itself has between 5600 and 10,000 acres of wetlands, depending on how it is measured, and a robust planning and care-taking operation to maintain them. You might have picked the wrong city and congresscritter to pick on...

(And wouldn't that be a dream job? Live in the city, work on water quality in wetlands... As cushy an ecology gig as there ever could be lol.)

Seth... sadly...to boil it down...that's kind of a 'yeah'...

We can find folks in both parties that have done some good things - remember that the rural states with the most national parks and heavy on resources tend to be red - and blue industrial states can make huge plus impacts on environmental issues - but by and large, those issues are to play to the base or constituents vice any genuine concern. I'm very jaded on our political representation in Congress and the Executive Branch.

It's also fact that white people are responsible for many major improvements in civil rights laws. Lincoln is responsible for the Emancipation Proclamation. White Senators & Representatives are responsible for the13th &14th amendments, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Kennedy proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 & LBJ signed it.
Your fact is correct Pigpen, but the stance you're using it to support is absolutely insane.

But those were in place, although, I read about one sweet wetland mitigation bank that just went in. prices per credit were 1.5mil I believe in her area...insane but the cost to mitigate and rehab that small sliver were astronomical as well.

That said, nothing in her lingo or the bill seems to lend credibility to any real sense of understanding of ecological systems in her area or out, or the economic impact tied to it. It is an attention getter and as mentioned...did start a valid conversation. My concern is as above, when I say we aren't ready to go all green, I'm beaten down as a heretic, when in fact, no data suggests we are ready or could be ready under any reasonable scenario's in the next 5-10 years (the state of dis-repair of our utility infrastructure is unbelievable...)

I think that that "advantaging blue states over red" is a bit of a red herring. The last four years massively advantaged red states over blue, to the extreme of not offering Federal disaster aid in several situations to Blue states when Red states were quickly given it. Those policies need to be undone. There's also the natural political tendency to support your supporters, which applies to both sides.

Stengah - again, it pulls from the point of discussing climate change.

But how so. Throughout these pages, Republicans are portrayed to hate the environment...something that is a given and always has been. How is that simple stereotype right and mentioning the contribution of stalwart republicans such as Bush I and Reagan to environmental causes 'wrong'? You are correct in that history becomes a never ending loop...but at least my party has validation in being the signator all all environmental protections we enjoy today...

Robear...agreed to a point...eliminating the subsidy that helped high tax states tax the heck out of you isn't really a red state plus as a blue state minus. Other than that, I have issues with bailing out states that shut everything down to the detriment of those such as Florida and Texas that did most things right and kept their economies humming... I disagree on that point but it has nothing to do with our topic.

But on the tendency of support...indeed...

I agree with you on the state of the utilities, but respectfully, you didn't put a 5-10 year time scale on a change to Green power sources. You said they were "unfit" to supply our power, when they actually provide 20%+ and growing... And the claim that the goal was "All Green power" was kind of yours... No one said we'd do that in 5-10 years or even want to. 50, if we push, maybe, but I doubt that even in that timeframe we will give up LNG or oil reserve generation capacity...

And like said, if you hadn't tied your claims to the Republican party, I think you'd have gotten a more receptive response. That's mostly what people are disagreeing with, the idea that Republicans are coming back to a position they've been out of for at least 25 years. I wish they would, but I'm not going on a hunger strike until it happens.

Pigpen wrote:

Stengah - again, it pulls from the point of discussing climate change.

But how so. Throughout these pages, Republicans are portrayed to hate the environment...something that is a given and always has been. How is that simple stereotype right and mentioning the contribution of stalwart republicans such as Bush I and Reagan to environmental causes 'wrong'? You are correct in that history becomes a never ending loop...but at least my party has validation in being the signator all all environmental protections we enjoy today...

~mod~ Nope. the vulgarity is entirely unnecessary. -Amoebic

And the problem is that as of today, your party, the one that has all the validation, is THE reason none of that is getting done. They've been actively and virulently resisting addressing the rapidly-compouding problem for decades, and you know how compound interest works? Maybe, like AOC, you don't live in a bank, so you couldn't possibly understand that.

Removed by Robear

Jonman - since you had a semblance of a question, I'll bite. How does your party have t heir fingerprints on anything positive environmentally.

I'll be glad to debate either Kyoto or Copenhagen or Paris, but lets not use pretty msnbc or fox pieces.

Environmentally and sustainably focused, I'll be glad to debate the focus of the last 4 years (using readily available CSR's from company's in any major industry) vs the previous 4 or 8. You will find a much stronger support for sustainable and renewable processes and internal products to support that we are in a much better position now than under Obama. (PS - I do NOT give Trump the credit for this...but industry and capitalism).

When you throw out they have resisted for decades...how so. Under Obama, he had a Dem House and Senate for 2 years...how did the GOP shut that sh*t down? Clinton was able to get things done, and oh, btw...McConnell was in the Senate - and BOTH houses were Republican (the Clinton economy was balls up...and I give him credit for that).

So that aside...what is the ACTUAL problem you refer to? Maybe if we clarify that, we have grounds and framework.

We all know the earth as is cyclical for billions of years is warming - how much is man made (recognizing most scientists acknowledge humans have a net negative effect...but is it 5%, 30%, etc...?)

And then...WHAT legislation did the republicans specifically block that would have reversed that trend...recognizing the fact that in the past 4 years...the US GHG have gone DOWN...not up...?

Thank you Robear...but that was one of the areas I was ok with...it is rapidly compounding. But HOW do we stop that and reverse the trend?

That is the question I'm asking of anyone...

My thoughts are we continue the push to green energy, we incentivize industry - NOT with regulations - to move to green, we keep the Keystone open to ensure that industry and gas prices remain cheap for the next 10 years, and we actually use science to look at systemic impact of our actions on the ecology and its systems. We have to find win-win scenarios...Biden exec orders shut down innovation, Trumps EPA actions were anti environment...neither is helping us get out of the whole.

And Paris...for F... sake...abandon that turd...and force China and India and Russia to come to the table with global sanctions ...(but yeah...that won't happen sadly...)

Robear...on the post above that.

Agreed...I should have not tossed out the GOP turd grenade...and I admitted that above.

When I mentioned utilities, I meant right now...and should have clarified that - as I'm a fan and truly think we will be 80% in 20 years. And yeah...I'm not hopeful about the platform change in the GOP, but neither in the Dem party as for some reason, the concept of that bipartisan effort that existed for 200 years is dead and buried...and that saddens me tremendously...


Pigpen wrote:

Jonman - since you had a semblance of a question, I'll bite. How does your party have t heir fingerprints on anything positive environmentally.

Why are you so concerned about parties actually signing the laws? Most of the laws you've cited are from almost half a century ago and when they were signed by Republican presidents it was after significant input and often origination in the progressive Democratic caucus. So what?

The parties used to be less ideologically coherent (there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats) and as a result either party might possibly pass a good environmental bill. We live in a different world now, once again, half a century later.

The irony of all this is that Pigpen, as a conservative, is working on *exactly* what we want conservatives to work on... I for one applaud his choice of field and wish him true success, because he's bucking the trend. We need more of that, not less...