[quote='RiceLad15' pid='16684564' dateline='1582050389']
[quote='tanqtonic' pid='16684540' dateline='1582049843'][quote] But the new analysis, outlined in a letter Wednesday by Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), projects that the benefits of Trump’s proposed rollback would not significantly outweigh the costs. Trump’s approach would lower the sticker price of new cars, according to the documents, but drivers would spend more at the gas pump over time by driving less efficient vehicles.


[/quote]

I decided to see for myself if extra time at the gas pump was worth it. I used 22,000 miles/yr, about average for me, and a reduction of mileage from 28 to 26. I then divided the resulting difference by 13, an estimated average number of gallons per fillup. I came up with 4.69 extra trips to the gas pump. Using 12 minutes per fillup, that came to 56.3 minutes/year extra. Now the quote did not say how much the sticker price would be lowered, but using $200 gives me a net return for my time of $213.14/hour, well above the $15/hr that Dems say is a living wage.

So I will gladly exchange the time for the cash.

Of course, if I keep the car 15 years, the cumulative time spent starts to become in total worth more than the one time discount on the sticker.

You technical dems might want to check my math, as I have always said I was not good at it. Apply some reciprocal thingie to the mean, or whatever.

(02-18-2020 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you want to provide me ample evidence of Republicans talking about environmental concerns and properly weighting them, I'm more than happy to change my tune. It would make me really happy to know that the Republican party is an advocate for environmental issues. It has nothing to do with deplorableness - I just don't see a lot of Republican politicians talking about environmental stewardship.

Jesus, this is just so unreal that I even have to talk about this. So you wish Republicans were Democrats?

You can be against misuse of the environment without feeling compelled to address it at every turn. I am 100% certain that the bills and debate talking about reducing unnecessary environmental regulation, Republicans talk of what makes that regulation unnecessary... IOW, they're talking about environmental stewardship.

I don't see a lot of Democrats talking about the negative economic impacts of their environmental plans either... other than the 'nod' that Republicans similarly give.

(02-18-2020 05:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you want to provide me ample evidence of Republicans talking about environmental concerns and properly weighting them, I'm more than happy to change my tune. It would make me really happy to know that the Republican party is an advocate for environmental issues. It has nothing to do with deplorableness - I just don't see a lot of Republican politicians talking about environmental stewardship.

Jesus, this is just so unreal that I even have to talk about this. So you wish Republicans were Democrats?

You can be against misuse of the environment without feeling compelled to address it at every turn. I am 100% certain that the bills and debate talking about reducing unnecessary environmental regulation, Republicans talk of what makes that regulation unnecessary... IOW, they're talking about environmental stewardship.

I don't see a lot of Democrats talking about the negative economic impacts of their environmental plans either... other than the 'nod' that Republicans similarly give.

I don’t want Dems to be Reps and vice versus, but I don’t see a lot of evidence that environmental protection/conservation is a focus of the Republican Party. Theoretically, that should be a focus of both parties, with the argument being how that goal is reached. It makes no sense why environmental protection should be partisan - Nixon started the EPA after all. Kind of like how both parties definitely view unemployment as an important issue, but often disagree with how to address it.

What I wish Republicans were publicly and actively interested in addressing environmental issues in ways that typically didn’t just amount to “let’s cut regulations.” Look at carbon emissions - plenty of ways to address increased emissions that don’t require a heavy handed government mandate and leverage the market. I don’t expect them to be free huggers, but when was the last time we heard of Republican politicians making environmental concerns a priority? Seriously, what was the last public policy position on a federal level that made progress on the environment? I think movement on PFAS contamination, which is being driven by the EPA, is the only thing I can think of.

But again, happy to be proven wrong by being shown evidence that the current Republican Party is full of environmental stewards.

All you can offer are roundabout explanations as to how Republicans are secretly stewards of the environment with some mental gymnastics about unnamed factories not moving overseas.

(02-18-2020 06:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 05:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you want to provide me ample evidence of Republicans talking about environmental concerns and properly weighting them, I'm more than happy to change my tune. It would make me really happy to know that the Republican party is an advocate for environmental issues. It has nothing to do with deplorableness - I just don't see a lot of Republican politicians talking about environmental stewardship.

Jesus, this is just so unreal that I even have to talk about this. So you wish Republicans were Democrats?

You can be against misuse of the environment without feeling compelled to address it at every turn. I am 100% certain that the bills and debate talking about reducing unnecessary environmental regulation, Republicans talk of what makes that regulation unnecessary... IOW, they're talking about environmental stewardship.

I don't see a lot of Democrats talking about the negative economic impacts of their environmental plans either... other than the 'nod' that Republicans similarly give.

I don’t want Dems to be Reps and vice versus, but I don’t see a lot of evidence that environmental protection/conservation is a focus of the Republican Party. Theoretically, that should be a focus of both parties, with the argument being how that goal is reached. It makes no sense why environmental protection should be partisan - Nixon started the EPA after all. Kind of like how both parties definitely view unemployment as an important issue, but often disagree with how to address it.

What I wish Republicans were publicly and actively interested in addressing environmental issues in ways that typically didn’t just amount to “let’s cut regulations.” Look at carbon emissions - plenty of ways to address increased emissions that don’t require a heavy handed government mandate and leverage the market. I don’t expect them to be free huggers, but when was the last time we heard of Republican politicians making environmental concerns a priority? Seriously, what was the last public policy position on a federal level that made progress on the environment? I think movement on PFAS contamination, which is being driven by the EPA, is the only thing I can think of.

But again, happy to be proven wrong by being shown evidence that the current Republican Party is full of environmental stewards.

All you can offer are roundabout explanations as to how Republicans are secretly stewards of the environment with some mental gymnastics about unnamed factories not moving overseas.

WTF is an "environmental steward" and since when is that part of the job description of a Congressman? You're trying to force a narrative wherein there's a binary divide between Republicans who don't care about the environment vs. Democrats who prioritize environmental concerns. Go beyond the party-line rhetoric and you'll find no such divide. Congressmen and Presidents of both parties are weighing and balancing a mix of concerns and priorities, and they are first and foremost politicians who want to get reelected. Your Red Team/Blue Team narrative on the environment is a load of BS. Republicans will vote for the environment when it suits them to do so, and Democrats will vote against it when it suits them to do so.

And again, not every "environmental" law is actually good for the environment, it was just spun that way - corn ethanol, for example.

Very few Congressmen are truly environmental stewards, whatever that means. Maybe you can name a Democrat who never compromises on the environment because that's his or her highest priority, and truly out of personal conviction and not political expediency?

(02-18-2020 06:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 05:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you want to provide me ample evidence of Republicans talking about environmental concerns and properly weighting them, I'm more than happy to change my tune. It would make me really happy to know that the Republican party is an advocate for environmental issues. It has nothing to do with deplorableness - I just don't see a lot of Republican politicians talking about environmental stewardship.

Jesus, this is just so unreal that I even have to talk about this. So you wish Republicans were Democrats?

You can be against misuse of the environment without feeling compelled to address it at every turn. I am 100% certain that the bills and debate talking about reducing unnecessary environmental regulation, Republicans talk of what makes that regulation unnecessary... IOW, they're talking about environmental stewardship.

I don't see a lot of Democrats talking about the negative economic impacts of their environmental plans either... other than the 'nod' that Republicans similarly give.

I don’t want Dems to be Reps and vice versus, but I don’t see a lot of evidence that environmental protection/conservation is a focus of the Republican Party. Theoretically, that should be a focus of both parties, with the argument being how that goal is reached. It makes no sense why environmental protection should be partisan - Nixon started the EPA after all. Kind of like how both parties definitely view unemployment as an important issue, but often disagree with how to address it.

What I wish Republicans were publicly and actively interested in addressing environmental issues in ways that typically didn’t just amount to “let’s cut regulations.” Look at carbon emissions - plenty of ways to address increased emissions that don’t require a heavy handed government mandate and leverage the market. I don’t expect them to be free huggers, but when was the last time we heard of Republican politicians making environmental concerns a priority? Seriously, what was the last public policy position on a federal level that made progress on the environment? I think movement on PFAS contamination, which is being driven by the EPA, is the only thing I can think of.

But again, happy to be proven wrong by being shown evidence that the current Republican Party is full of environmental stewards.

All you can offer are roundabout explanations as to how Republicans are secretly stewards of the environment with some mental gymnastics about unnamed factories not moving overseas.

This is really a ridiculous conversation. There are some on the left so aggressive in their 'support' for anything they can claim supports the environment that even many Democrats don't need to talk about it. Republicans don't need to talk about it.

A) Obama expanded government controls at Bears Ears and others. Trump is not taking us back to 1960, but to 2016 in that regard. You're defining 'steward' not as someone who supports current standards, but someone seeking to continually expand them. As has been noted, sometimes more regulation is just more... and sometimes it is even harmful. The right hasn't sought to eliminate or reduce EVERY such effort... just those that they feel do more harm than good. The people of UTAH didn't want Obama's designation.

B) When the left can demonstrate why global consumers will simply pay more for 'green' products and that corporations won't simply shift production to nations far less concerned with the environment... many of whom have demonstrated that they don't care at all unless we pay 150% of the cost for it... See Kyoto and Paris... THEN we can talk about this sort of thing. Many nations aren't even to where we were in 1972, much less 2020. China and Russia will sign whatever accord we put up, and then not follow it if it remotely hurts them.

Your focus is on solving the problem for the globe... but outside of Europe, there is little evidence that the globe is interested in those solutions without being bribed or seeing an opportunity for themselves to gain power.

Hey Lad... Interesting that we're talking about Bears Ears in Utah and this came up today...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...risis-plan

In a move to protect its ski slopes and growing economy, Utah – one of the reddest states in the nation – has just created a long-term plan to address the climate crisis.

“If we don’t think about Utah’s long-term future, who will?” Republican state house speaker Brad Wilson said at a recent focus group to discuss the proposals.

You can read whatever one wants into the article, but you said you don't see Republicans taking ownership of the environment. This is specifically where they have acted AGAINST Obama's issues in Bears Ears and acted FOR protecting their local environment, which of course impacts their economy

(02-19-2020 12:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Hey Lad... Interesting that we're talking about Bears Ears in Utah and this came up today...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...risis-plan

In a move to protect its ski slopes and growing economy, Utah – one of the reddest states in the nation – has just created a long-term plan to address the climate crisis.

“If we don’t think about Utah’s long-term future, who will?” Republican state house speaker Brad Wilson said at a recent focus group to discuss the proposals.

You can read whatever one wants into the article, but you said you don't see Republicans taking ownership of the environment. This is specifically where they have acted AGAINST Obama's issues in Bears Ears and acted FOR protecting their local environment, which of course impacts their economy

This is actually awesome and the type of info I was looking for! It's chalk full of information about changes that Republican parties are making, with respect to environmental stewardship. As I said, environmental stewardship shouldn't be a partisan issue, but it's turned into one. How we achieve environmental goals is what I would expect to differ.

This article clearly lays out why I was saying Republicans were not giving enough weight to environmental issues. And I think it makes a good case that local Republicans, acting on a state level, are more willing, and interested, in solving environmental issues, than I have given them credit for (but see the bolded text for why I felt that way).

Quote:A few years ago, the Utah legislature passed a resolution urging the EPA to “cease its carbon dioxide reduction policies, programs, and regulations until climate data and global warming science are substantiated”.

But now the perspectives of some state lawmakers – and of Holst, who spent most of his career in the oil and gas industry – have shifted...

After banning the words “climate change” from state environmental agencies, Florida now has a chief resilience officer tasked with preparing for sea level rise. After a year of disastrous flooding, Nebraska lawmakers advanced a bill to develop a climate change plan for a full legislative debate...

“It cuts across political lines. [Clean air] is not a partisan issue in our state,” said Utah speaker Wilson. He said there is not the same kind of consensus on climate change in the legislature, but “there is absolutely overlap between air quality concerns we have and reducing greenhouse gas emissions”

Clean air concerns are also the reason officials are pushing Utah gas refineries to produce cleaner gasoline, and when the Trump administration announced plans to roll back clean car standards, Utah’s bipartisan clean air caucus held a press conference urging Congress to resist the move.

“What I’m interested in is a viable future for the state of Utah,” Republican state representative Stephen Handy said. “There are still a number of Utah legislators who don’t want to look at the science that’s very obvious on climate change, but we’ve come a long way.”

It looks like significant portions of the Republican party are shifting on environmental issues, and I should update my opinions. I appreciate the article.

One item to quibble with in your Bear Ear's item - it was a federal decision to shrink the monument, not a Utah-based decision.

(02-19-2020 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It looks like significant portions of the Republican party are shifting on environmental issues, and I should update my opinions. I appreciate the article.

No, they really aren't. You believed your party's rhetoric, and now you're being made aware of the facts. It's your understanding that's shifting.

(02-19-2020 01:50 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It looks like significant portions of the Republican party are shifting on environmental issues, and I should update my opinions. I appreciate the article.

No, they really aren't. You believed your party's rhetoric, and now you're being made aware of the facts. It's your understanding that's shifting.

Did you happen to read some of the highlighted portions of the article Ham posted?

(02-19-2020 02:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 01:50 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It looks like significant portions of the Republican party are shifting on environmental issues, and I should update my opinions. I appreciate the article.

No, they really aren't. You believed your party's rhetoric, and now you're being made aware of the facts. It's your understanding that's shifting.

Did you happen to read some of the highlighted portions of the article Ham posted?

Yes. I read the Guardian every day. Their editorial slant is the polar opposite of Fox News, though perhaps more extreme. The Guardian reporters regularly portray conservatives as dullards who sometimes surprise them by becoming almost as virtuous and woke as they are.

Did you read the entire article? Did you see the connection drawn between climate and the Utah tourism industry? As I'm saying for the third time, nobody in politics is a purist. It's a balance of interests.

(02-19-2020 02:13 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 02:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 01:50 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It looks like significant portions of the Republican party are shifting on environmental issues, and I should update my opinions. I appreciate the article.

No, they really aren't. You believed your party's rhetoric, and now you're being made aware of the facts. It's your understanding that's shifting.

Did you happen to read some of the highlighted portions of the article Ham posted?

Yes. I read the Guardian every day. Their editorial slant is the polar opposite of Fox News, though perhaps more extreme. The Guardian reporters regularly portray conservatives as dullards who sometimes surprise them by becoming almost as virtuous and woke as they are.

Did you read the entire article? Did you see the connection drawn between climate and the Utah tourism industry? As I'm saying for the third time, nobody in politics is a purist. It's a balance of interests.

I did read the entire article, hence how I pulled specific quotes out of it and posted them here...

I'm not arguing that anyone is a purist - what I have been arguing is about how much value each party has put on the environmental consequences of our actions, and how to address them. The article pointed out pretty clearly, how Republican legislators are starting to become more focused on tackling environmental issues because they're starting to correctly weight their impacts, and realize that they need to be addressed. And that shift is likely because they did not properly weight their impacts before.

Frankly, that fits with both of our perspectives - that politicians' perspectives can change as their interests do AND that the Republican party in the past decade, or so, has generally not placed a high value on the environmental side of the formula.

I mean, that Republican politician quoted at the end of the article was a perfect example. Again:

Quote:“What I’m interested in is a viable future for the state of Utah,” Republican state representative Stephen Handy said. “There are still a number of Utah legislators who don’t want to look at the science that’s very obvious on climate change, but we’ve come a long way.”

Or this quote, which I hadn't passed before:

Quote:The Utah plan, known as the Utah Roadmap, began, like a number of recent environmental initiatives, with young people clamoring for action. High school students drafted a resolution that recognized the impacts of the climate crisis and encouraged emissions reductions, and persuaded two Republican lawmakers to sponsor it. Environmental advocates say it was the first measure of its kind to pass in a red state. The legislature followed up with state money for experts to provide policy recommendations.

(02-19-2020 02:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 02:13 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 02:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 01:50 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It looks like significant portions of the Republican party are shifting on environmental issues, and I should update my opinions. I appreciate the article.

No, they really aren't. You believed your party's rhetoric, and now you're being made aware of the facts. It's your understanding that's shifting.

Did you happen to read some of the highlighted portions of the article Ham posted?

Yes. I read the Guardian every day. Their editorial slant is the polar opposite of Fox News, though perhaps more extreme. The Guardian reporters regularly portray conservatives as dullards who sometimes surprise them by becoming almost as virtuous and woke as they are.

Did you read the entire article? Did you see the connection drawn between climate and the Utah tourism industry? As I'm saying for the third time, nobody in politics is a purist. It's a balance of interests.

I did read the entire article, hence how I pulled specific quotes out of it and posted them here...

I'm not arguing that anyone is a purist - what I have been arguing is about how much value each party has put on the environmental consequences of our actions, and how to address them. The article pointed out pretty clearly, how Republican legislators are starting to become more focused on tackling environmental issues because they're starting to correctly weight their impacts, and realize that they need to be addressed. And that shift is likely because they did not properly weight their impacts before.

Frankly, that fits with both of our perspectives - that politicians' perspectives can change as their interests do AND that the Republican party in the past decade, or so, has generally not placed a high value on the environmental side of the formula.

I mean, that Republican politician quoted at the end of the article was a perfect example. Again:

Quote:“What I’m interested in is a viable future for the state of Utah,” Republican state representative Stephen Handy said. “There are still a number of Utah legislators who don’t want to look at the science that’s very obvious on climate change, but we’ve come a long way.”

Or this quote, which I hadn't passed before:

Quote:The Utah plan, known as the Utah Roadmap, began, like a number of recent environmental initiatives, with young people clamoring for action. High school students drafted a resolution that recognized the impacts of the climate crisis and encouraged emissions reductions, and persuaded two Republican lawmakers to sponsor it. Environmental advocates say it was the first measure of its kind to pass in a red state. The legislature followed up with state money for experts to provide policy recommendations.

I do cross-referencing before relying on anything I read in the Guardian.

What the article fails to mention is that coal mining and petroleum refining are significant parts of Utah's economic base.

The potential impact of climate change on Utah's tourism industry and on air quality is starting to tilt the scales toward protecting those assets, over protecting the oil and coal industry.

The Utah republicans did not wake up one morning and suddenly realize they live in a state with clean mountain air and prime ski country. They've always known and valued that, and no more or less in the past than now, and no more or less than any given Blue Team member. You don't know any Republicans who like to ski and hike? Your rhetoric is as though you don't. Red Team is only now starting to care about the environment, and Blue Team has always cared more deeply about the environment than their own pocketbooks, goes your rhetoric. Bollocks.

(02-19-2020 02:59 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 02:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 02:13 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 02:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 01:50 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  No, they really aren't. You believed your party's rhetoric, and now you're being made aware of the facts. It's your understanding that's shifting.

Did you happen to read some of the highlighted portions of the article Ham posted?

Yes. I read the Guardian every day. Their editorial slant is the polar opposite of Fox News, though perhaps more extreme. The Guardian reporters regularly portray conservatives as dullards who sometimes surprise them by becoming almost as virtuous and woke as they are.

Did you read the entire article? Did you see the connection drawn between climate and the Utah tourism industry? As I'm saying for the third time, nobody in politics is a purist. It's a balance of interests.

I did read the entire article, hence how I pulled specific quotes out of it and posted them here...

I'm not arguing that anyone is a purist - what I have been arguing is about how much value each party has put on the environmental consequences of our actions, and how to address them. The article pointed out pretty clearly, how Republican legislators are starting to become more focused on tackling environmental issues because they're starting to correctly weight their impacts, and realize that they need to be addressed. And that shift is likely because they did not properly weight their impacts before.

Frankly, that fits with both of our perspectives - that politicians' perspectives can change as their interests do AND that the Republican party in the past decade, or so, has generally not placed a high value on the environmental side of the formula.

I mean, that Republican politician quoted at the end of the article was a perfect example. Again:

Quote:“What I’m interested in is a viable future for the state of Utah,” Republican state representative Stephen Handy said. “There are still a number of Utah legislators who don’t want to look at the science that’s very obvious on climate change, but we’ve come a long way.”

Or this quote, which I hadn't passed before:

Quote:The Utah plan, known as the Utah Roadmap, began, like a number of recent environmental initiatives, with young people clamoring for action. High school students drafted a resolution that recognized the impacts of the climate crisis and encouraged emissions reductions, and persuaded two Republican lawmakers to sponsor it. Environmental advocates say it was the first measure of its kind to pass in a red state. The legislature followed up with state money for experts to provide policy recommendations.

I do cross-referencing before relying on anything I read in the Guardian.

What the article fails to mention is that coal mining and petroleum refining are significant parts of Utah's economic base.

The potential impact of climate change on Utah's tourism industry and on air quality is starting to tilt the scales toward protecting those assets, over protecting the oil and coal industry.

The Utah republicans did not wake up one morning and suddenly realize they live in a state with clean mountain air and prime ski country. They've always known and valued that, and no more or less in the past than now, and no more or less than any given Blue Team member. You don't know any Republicans who like to ski and hike? Your rhetoric is as though you don't. Red Team is only now starting to care about the environment, and Blue Team has always cared more deeply about the environment than their own pocketbooks, goes your rhetoric. Bollocks.

You've literally just posted about what I have been saying - Red Team (as you put it) weights/weighted economic interests more heavily than environmental interests, and it appears that some are starting to weight environmental interests differently, because they're understanding their true costs better. IMO, they are starting to weight them more correctly than they had in the past as they start to realize their actual costs.

I mean, in the bolded section you just said they're now starting to recognize the actual costs of climate change, so they are starting to favor more stringent environmental standards and policies that protect the environment.

It seems, with your comments about personal hobbies, that you think I've been talking about what someone personally likes to do. I have not, and started using terms like "Republican politicians" to try and make it clear that I've been talking about politics, and what political decisions parties in general have been doing. Saying Republicans didn't/don't support gay marriage doesn't mean that there aren't Republicans with gay children that are married - but it would be an accurate description of their party's recent policy focus.

(02-19-2020 03:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, in the bolded section you just said they're now starting to recognize the actual costs of climate change, so they are starting to favor more stringent environmental standards and policies that protect the environment.

That's not what I said at all!

Now I'm experiencing for myself what other people mean when they complain about you twisting their words.

(02-19-2020 03:54 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 03:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, in the bolded section you just said they're now starting to recognize the actual costs of climate change, so they are starting to favor more stringent environmental standards and policies that protect the environment.

That's not what I said at all!

Now I'm experiencing for myself what other people mean when they complain about you twisting their words.

I'm confused - then what did you mean to get across when you typed:

Quote:The potential impact of climate change on Utah's tourism industry and on air quality is starting to tilt the scales toward protecting those assets, over protecting the oil and coal industry.

It sure sounds like you're saying that Utah's Republicans started to realize the true cost of climate change, and are starting to act.

(02-19-2020 04:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 03:54 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 03:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, in the bolded section you just said they're now starting to recognize the actual costs of climate change, so they are starting to favor more stringent environmental standards and policies that protect the environment.

That's not what I said at all!

Now I'm experiencing for myself what other people mean when they complain about you twisting their words.

I'm confused - then what did you mean to get across when you typed:

Quote:The potential impact of climate change on Utah's tourism industry and on air quality is starting to tilt the scales toward protecting those assets, over protecting the oil and coal industry.

It sure sounds like you're saying that Utah's Republicans started to realize the true cost of climate change, and are starting to act.

The Guardian's slant is that the progressives - Labour and Democrat - have known for a long time about the economic consequences of climate change and it's only just now that the uneducated rubes on the right are getting woke to it. I interpret your posts to mean that you generally agree, although you aren't quite that condescending.

That's not really true, of course. The economic impact of climate change is a relatively new political issue that's only for the last few years been taken into account in the politics of Red Team or Blue Team.

As they do over every hot-button issue, rhetorically the two teams take opposite positions. That includes the environment and climate change of course. Then the extremists on either side gravitate to the team that more closely represents their position, and when they start cheering for their side then you get the usual polarization.

Rhetorically, Red Team's position is that climate change concerns have to be weighed in the balance and in general aren't cause enough for alarm to make sudden and drastic changes in energy and environmental policy. Blue Team's rhetoric is that we are in a "climate emergency" - that's the Guardian's term for it - and climate change outweighs economic considerations.

In Utah, the Republican action doesn't match the Red Team rhetoric because protecting the tourism industry is more important than the rhetorical stance.

In Blue jurisdictions, Blue Team can match their rhetoric with some virtue-signalling measures like banning plastic bags or whatever to make their fans happy, but nowhere have they taken any really drastic action that would actually tank the local economy for the sake of the environment. Blue Team, in practice, makes the exact same value judgments on climate vs. economy that Red Team does.

My problem with the whole climate change debate is that the climate change activists keep telling us how awful it is going to be unless we do something, but so far they haven't come up with a viable something to do.

For example, we need to get off oil. Onto what?

(02-19-2020 04:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My problem with the whole climate change debate is that the climate change activists keep telling us how awful it is going to be unless we do something, but so far they haven't come up with a viable something to do.

For example, we need to get off oil. Onto what?

A wind powered raft?

(02-19-2020 04:34 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 04:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 03:54 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 03:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, in the bolded section you just said they're now starting to recognize the actual costs of climate change, so they are starting to favor more stringent environmental standards and policies that protect the environment.

That's not what I said at all!

Now I'm experiencing for myself what other people mean when they complain about you twisting their words.

I'm confused - then what did you mean to get across when you typed:

Quote:The potential impact of climate change on Utah's tourism industry and on air quality is starting to tilt the scales toward protecting those assets, over protecting the oil and coal industry.

It sure sounds like you're saying that Utah's Republicans started to realize the true cost of climate change, and are starting to act.

The Guardian's slant is that the progressives - Labour and Democrat - have known for a long time about the economic consequences of climate change and it's only just now that the uneducated rubes on the right are getting woke to it. I interpret your posts to mean that you generally agree, although you aren't quite that condescending.

I think this is the most important paragraph to address, as you're making a value judgement about what my posts mean and the intent behind them.

I don't think Republican policy decisions have ANYTHING to do with education, intelligence, etc. I don't think I've posted anything like that, or that I'm in general agreement with the idea that people are "uneducated rubes." I don't think they have anything to do with the "deplorable" line you tried to throw out a number of posts ago.

Everyone has different values and beliefs that stem from multiple factors, some of which have nothing to do with education, intelligence, etc. But just because I disagree with the weight that people apply to the value of something, and I think they're wrong, says nothing about how I feel about their intelligence, or that they're "rubes."

Look, I can tell that you seem to think many liberals have their priorities wrong, but I didn't accuse you of thinking they were "evil deplorables," or that you had a slightly better view of them than rubes. And I don't get why my belief that a political party has historically made decisions that undervalued environmental protection, means that I must feel that way about that party.

To the rest of your post, you're still basically saying that the Republican party in Utah recognized that environmental protections were going to start saving sufficient money to enact them. As in, the cost of those environmental impacts are great enough to warrant change...

And your criticism of some actions the Dems have taken, and the idea of "virtue signaling" is spot on. There are plenty of actions that look good, but really don't do much to benefit the environment. But I don't see why that matters in regards to the criticism levied at the Republican party - two wrongs don't make a right.

(02-19-2020 05:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 04:34 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 04:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 03:54 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 03:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, in the bolded section you just said they're now starting to recognize the actual costs of climate change, so they are starting to favor more stringent environmental standards and policies that protect the environment.

That's not what I said at all!

Now I'm experiencing for myself what other people mean when they complain about you twisting their words.

I'm confused - then what did you mean to get across when you typed:

Quote:The potential impact of climate change on Utah's tourism industry and on air quality is starting to tilt the scales toward protecting those assets, over protecting the oil and coal industry.

It sure sounds like you're saying that Utah's Republicans started to realize the true cost of climate change, and are starting to act.

The Guardian's slant is that the progressives - Labour and Democrat - have known for a long time about the economic consequences of climate change and it's only just now that the uneducated rubes on the right are getting woke to it. I interpret your posts to mean that you generally agree, although you aren't quite that condescending.

I think this is the most important paragraph to address, as you're making a value judgement about what my posts mean and the intent behind them.

I don't think Republican policy decisions have ANYTHING to do with education, intelligence, etc. I don't think I've posted anything like that, or that I'm in general agreement with the idea that people are "uneducated rubes." I don't think they have anything to do with the "deplorable" line you tried to throw out a number of posts ago.

Everyone has different values and beliefs that stem from multiple factors, some of which have nothing to do with education, intelligence, etc. But just because I disagree with the weight that people apply to the value of something, and I think they're wrong, says nothing about how I feel about their intelligence, or that they're "rubes."

Look, I can tell that you seem to think many liberals have their priorities wrong, but I didn't accuse you of thinking they were "evil deplorables," or that you had a slightly better view of them than rubes. And I don't get why my belief that a political party has historically made decisions that undervalued environmental protection, means that I must feel that way about that party.

To the rest of your post, you're still basically saying that the Republican party in Utah recognized that environmental protections were going to start saving sufficient money to enact them. As in, the cost of those environmental impacts are great enough to warrant change...

And your criticism of some actions the Dems have taken, and the idea of "virtue signaling" is spot on. There are plenty of actions that look good, but really don't do much to benefit the environment. But I don't see why that matters in regards to the criticism levied at the Republican party - two wrongs don't make a right.

Your posts convey the notion that you believe that Republicans are more ignorant on the subject of climate change than Democrats and care less about the environment, and that in both understanding and action on the issue, the Democrats are ahead of them and more proactive. If that's not what you mean then you should phrase things differently, because that's the the conclusion any reasonable person reading your posts would draw.