I'm really kind of tired of this lad...

This discourse started because you said something to the effect of never hearing Republicans make the environment a priority... and you used Trump's overturn of Obama's EO in Utah as an example.

Now you have and they even TELL you why... because the ECONOMICS have changed.... They talk about the cost of the tech coming way down very quickly... Yes, I see the author like you, speculates otherwise... but I tend to focus on what people say...

The only reason I brought up Ukraine is that it demonstrates how you come across. Rather than accept that information, you simply demomnstrate that it's true while once again claiming it's not.

OF COURSE you think Democrats are right and Republicans wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. The question is, why? What do you think motivates that decision?

If you recognize that it's tangible economics vs uncertian environmental outcomes (what is clear from the article I randomly picked).... then you wouldn't simply argue (as you did from the start) that Obama 'taking over' Bears Ears was the right thing to do and Trump reversing it was the wrong thing to do. Instead, you simply seem to have assumed that what Obama did was good because he appears to prioritize the environment while what Trump did was bad because he appears to do the opposite.

This is what I meant by you want Republicans to be Democrats... to NOT value highly the tangible economic issues and value MORE highly the less certain environmental consequences.

You want Republicans to support more green technology? Talk about how many domestic jobs it creates and how it doesn't cost the consumer any more... or like Organic veggies, how it's a nominal cost. Instead we seem to get that the world will end unless we spend trillions on as of yet, undiscovered technology.

PLENTY of Republicans will pay a little more for renewable energy.... but all sorts of people can't afford to, especially if it means they lose their jobs.

(02-20-2020 02:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm really kind of tired of this lad...

This discourse started because you said something to the effect of never hearing Republicans make the environment a priority... and you used Trump's overturn of Obama's EO in Utah as an example.

Now you have and they even TELL you why... because the ECONOMICS have changed.... They talk about the cost of the tech coming way down very quickly... Yes, I see the author like you, speculates otherwise... but I tend to focus on what people say...

The only reason I brought up Ukraine is that it demonstrates how you come across. Rather than accept that information, you simply demomnstrate that it's true while once again claiming it's not.

OF COURSE you think Democrats are right and Republicans wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. The question is, why? What do you think motivates that decision?

Sometimes it's like arguing with a creationist. Present the undeniable facts - stratified rock formations and fossils - and the creationist has no choice but to acknowledge they exist, but will discount them, and a few minutes later will revert to statements those facts were brought up to refute. A passionate Blue Team member, like a creationist, needs to believe because believing is part of belonging. Then there's also the necessity for binary thinking, so observations that don't fit the narrative must be discounted. Republicans that recycle, and Democrats that drive SUV's and throw plastic bottles out the window, are like the vestigal tailbone and pineal gland in humans.

(02-21-2020 10:35 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 02:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm really kind of tired of this lad...

This discourse started because you said something to the effect of never hearing Republicans make the environment a priority... and you used Trump's overturn of Obama's EO in Utah as an example.

Now you have and they even TELL you why... because the ECONOMICS have changed.... They talk about the cost of the tech coming way down very quickly... Yes, I see the author like you, speculates otherwise... but I tend to focus on what people say...

The only reason I brought up Ukraine is that it demonstrates how you come across. Rather than accept that information, you simply demomnstrate that it's true while once again claiming it's not.

OF COURSE you think Democrats are right and Republicans wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. The question is, why? What do you think motivates that decision?

Sometimes it's like arguing with a creationist. Present the undeniable facts - stratified rock formations and fossils - and the creationist has no choice but to acknowledge they exist, but will discount them, and a few minutes later will revert to statements those facts were brought up to refute. A passionate Blue Team member, like a creationist, needs to believe because believing is part of belonging. Then there's also the necessity for binary thinking, so observations that don't fit the narrative must be discounted. Republicans that recycle, and Democrats that drive SUV's and throw plastic bottles out the window, are like the vestigal tailbone and pineal gland in humans.

That last bit is akin to saying it would have been incorrect a few years ago to say Republicans didn't support gay marriage because some people who identified as Republican had gay children and supported their marriage. It would have been absolutely inane to have made that argument about the Republican party.

I've been talking about policy positions, not individual positions. I made that point before - I'll dig up the post if I need to do it.

(02-21-2020 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-21-2020 10:35 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 02:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm really kind of tired of this lad...

This discourse started because you said something to the effect of never hearing Republicans make the environment a priority... and you used Trump's overturn of Obama's EO in Utah as an example.

Now you have and they even TELL you why... because the ECONOMICS have changed.... They talk about the cost of the tech coming way down very quickly... Yes, I see the author like you, speculates otherwise... but I tend to focus on what people say...

The only reason I brought up Ukraine is that it demonstrates how you come across. Rather than accept that information, you simply demomnstrate that it's true while once again claiming it's not.

OF COURSE you think Democrats are right and Republicans wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. The question is, why? What do you think motivates that decision?

Sometimes it's like arguing with a creationist. Present the undeniable facts - stratified rock formations and fossils - and the creationist has no choice but to acknowledge they exist, but will discount them, and a few minutes later will revert to statements those facts were brought up to refute. A passionate Blue Team member, like a creationist, needs to believe because believing is part of belonging. Then there's also the necessity for binary thinking, so observations that don't fit the narrative must be discounted. Republicans that recycle, and Democrats that drive SUV's and throw plastic bottles out the window, are like the vestigal tailbone and pineal gland in humans.

That last bit is akin to saying it would have been incorrect a few years ago to say Republicans didn't support gay marriage because some people who identified as Republican had gay children and supported their marriage. It would have been absolutely inane to have made that argument about the Republican party.

I've been talking about policy positions, not individual positions. I made that point before - I'll dig up the post if I need to do it.

Then why do you keep making inane statements like Republicans care more about economic issues than environmental issues?

(02-21-2020 10:59 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-21-2020 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-21-2020 10:35 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 02:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm really kind of tired of this lad...

This discourse started because you said something to the effect of never hearing Republicans make the environment a priority... and you used Trump's overturn of Obama's EO in Utah as an example.

Now you have and they even TELL you why... because the ECONOMICS have changed.... They talk about the cost of the tech coming way down very quickly... Yes, I see the author like you, speculates otherwise... but I tend to focus on what people say...

The only reason I brought up Ukraine is that it demonstrates how you come across. Rather than accept that information, you simply demomnstrate that it's true while once again claiming it's not.

OF COURSE you think Democrats are right and Republicans wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. The question is, why? What do you think motivates that decision?

Sometimes it's like arguing with a creationist. Present the undeniable facts - stratified rock formations and fossils - and the creationist has no choice but to acknowledge they exist, but will discount them, and a few minutes later will revert to statements those facts were brought up to refute. A passionate Blue Team member, like a creationist, needs to believe because believing is part of belonging. Then there's also the necessity for binary thinking, so observations that don't fit the narrative must be discounted. Republicans that recycle, and Democrats that drive SUV's and throw plastic bottles out the window, are like the vestigal tailbone and pineal gland in humans.

That last bit is akin to saying it would have been incorrect a few years ago to say Republicans didn't support gay marriage because some people who identified as Republican had gay children and supported their marriage. It would have been absolutely inane to have made that argument about the Republican party.

I've been talking about policy positions, not individual positions. I made that point before - I'll dig up the post if I need to do it.

Then why do you keep making inane statements like Republicans care more about economic issues than environmental issues?

Because the term "Republican" is a great term to describe a political party - and a political party advocates for specific policies. And when I started to add "politicians" behind the term, it led you to try and argue that politicians just pander/react to the base, which gets away from the fact that I was still trying to talk about policy.

I don't think I've been saying conservatives/liberals, to try and avoid that confusion, because Owl#s pointed out a good way where conservatives approach addressing environmental issues in a way that the current Republican party does not.

Plenty of conservatives who are members of the Republican party individually care about the outdoors - heck, hunting is an important part of many peoples' lives, especially in the South and Midwest. But the trend for the Republican party that many of them support has more recently been to generally ignore environmental issues. As Ham pointed out, Utah is a state that's showing that this trend may be starting to break. I'm more hopeful that we'll see the Republican party adopt a more aggressive stance towards environmental protection than we have seen in the past decade or so.

ladspeak

weighing economic effects against environmental effects == 'ignore environmental issues'. That is 'ignoring lad's priority in weights means ignoring an issue in toto', seemingly.

No it is not 'ignore', it is employing a weight that lad doesnt like.

Good grief. Again.

(02-21-2020 11:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  ladspeak

weighing economic effects against environmental effects == 'ignore environmental issues'. That is 'ignoring lad's priority in weights means ignoring an issue in toto', seemingly.

No it is not 'ignore', it is employing a weight that lad doesnt like.

Good grief. Again.

Yes, I caught that too. Admits the possibility of nuance and complexity in the way they think, then snaps right back to binary.

(02-21-2020 11:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  ladspeak

weighing economic effects against environmental effects == 'ignore environmental issues'. That is 'ignoring lad's priority in weights means ignoring an issue in toto', seemingly.

No it is not 'ignore', it is employing a weight that lad doesnt like.

Good grief. Again.

You're right - ignore was the wrong word choice there. I think prioritize would have been a better term.

The problem that many have with environmental protection is that we have adopted, at least at the federal level, an almost totally command-and-control model. Texas is Exhibit A in proving that an economic model works at least as well, and probably a lot better. Texas also does surprisingly well with endangered species. The whooping cranes at Aransas are probably one of the, if not the, most successful effort in saving an endangered species. And the populations of a number of endangered exotic species are being replenished at a number of exotic hunting ranches in central and west Texas. EPA doesn't like those efforts, and in fact has tried to stop any number of private efforts to repopulate species or provide alternative habitat. They've actually argued in court to the effect that, "If these repopulation efforts succeed, then the species wouldn't be endangered any more, and we wouldn't get to regulate them."

My approach to pollution regulation would be economic. Some sort of cap and trade or carbon tax fits that approach, as does allowing a private right to sue for pollution damage. And as far as endangered species, I think we should support any effort to repopulate. I think exotic hunting ranches that repopulate species, because they have found a way to monetize doing so, make a lot of sense.

I look at cows. Cows are nowhere near extinction. It's not because they have any particular defenses, nor because they don't have any enemies. It's because we found ways to make economic use of them. Anybody who has ever worked on a ranch knows that cows are extremely stupid and almost defenseless--I don't know how many times I've pulled a dying cow out of the mud where it was stuck, popped it with a bottle of gamma globulin, watched it come back to life, get up, walk around, and go right back into the same mudhole.

So we're right back to where I said you want Republicans to be Democrats. You want 'our' perspective to change from putting the economy/jobs/people first while respecting the environment to one that puts the environment first while respecting the economy/jobs/people. That's not going to happen. If it were, 'we' would simply be Democrats.

That's the fairest I can say that. Numerous proposals by some vocal leaders of the left severely strain the definition of 'respecting'.... which is why it is so often pointed out how little some of them know about the economy. It's hard to respect something one knows almost nothing about.

That's also why the right always seeks an 'answer' in terms of the outcomes of the proposals when it comes to green technology. It does often seem that the 'cost' and the 'solution' are poorly defined by climate supporters. If you want people looking at the economics and trying to respect the environment, you have to tell them a) how much the solution will cost and b) what the solution will address. Said simply to get to your goal of having 'us' put more weight onto environmental issues; you're (the left) trying to do it by making us afraid of doing nothing... an emotional response... and you need to appeal to our more analytical side... our desire for solutions.

In the Utah example, when the cost of solar and storage came down a lot to where it was easy to make the decision to support it, the decision was made. Prior to that, it was either unknown expense, too much expense or too uncertain an outcome of the expense.

(02-21-2020 12:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So we're right back to where I said you want Republicans to be Democrats. You want 'our' perspective to change from putting the economy/jobs/people first while respecting the environment to one that puts the environment first while respecting the economy/jobs/people. That's not going to happen. If it were, 'we' would simply be Democrats.

That's the fairest I can say that. Numerous proposals by some vocal leaders of the left severely strain the definition of 'respecting'.... which is why it is so often pointed out how little some of them know about the economy. It's hard to respect something one knows almost nothing about.

That's also why the right always seeks an 'answer' in terms of the outcomes of the proposals when it comes to green technology. It does often seem that the 'cost' and the 'solution' are poorly defined by climate supporters. If you want people looking at the economics and trying to respect the environment, you have to tell them a) how much the solution will cost and b) what the solution will address. Said simply to get to your goal of having 'us' put more weight onto environmental issues; you're (the left) trying to do it by making us afraid of doing nothing... an emotional response... and you need to appeal to our more analytical side... our desire for solutions.

In the Utah example, when the cost of solar and storage came down a lot to where it was easy to make the decision to support it, the decision was made. Prior to that, it was either unknown expense, too much expense or too uncertain an outcome of the expense.

Just look at Owl#s responses to see how I would like Republicans to tackle environmental issues, and why I'm not advocating for Reps to be Dems. I don't think prioritizing environmental issues should be a party-specific platform. It's not like growing the economy is a party-specific issue, but both parties have different approaches.

In your Utah example, you only focused on one item they discussed. Air quality was a primary driver, and there's more to tackling that than just alternative energy, as the article points out.

Quote: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.

Those are items that could have been tackled at any time in the recent past, cost of renewable energy be damned. So why didn't the Republican party in Utah act sooner?

That's a clear example of how they have decided to act when the cost of inaction became too high. That's what I would would like to see change with Reps. I would like for them to be more proactive and not wait until the cost of inaction is too great; research into these issues exists (like inversion layers trapping pollutants and how to reduce their loading) and it is readily available if you want to make it a priority. And there's way to address the issues, once they're made a priority, which rely more heavily on leveraging the market than a lot of Dem plans do.

(02-21-2020 12:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So we're right back to where I said you want Republicans to be Democrats. You want 'our' perspective to change from putting the economy/jobs/people first while respecting the environment to one that puts the environment first while respecting the economy/jobs/people. That's not going to happen. If it were, 'we' would simply be Democrats.

Except I don't think the democrats do the respecting the economy/jobs/people part. They are like got off oil now. But onto what? Doesn't matter. Off. Oil. Now. The solutions are supposed to happen magically. Like JFK made the space program appear magically.

Except he didn't. That is one of the worst fictions of our lifetime. By the time JFK gave his, "Why does Rice play Texas?" speech, we already had a space program, we already had astronauts, three of them had already flown in space. We actually had two competing space programs--the official NASA one and Werner von Braun's skunk works at Redstone Arsenal. Von Braun had actually had the earlier success. Explorer 1 and 2 were von Braun's, after the Russians had launched Sputnik and the establishment's Vanguard had crashed and burned.

Von Braun's idea was to build a space station first, and go to the moon from there. His approach would have gotten us to the moon about 1975. Here is a video of his proposal from 1955:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIDFx74aSY

By setting the end of the decade as a deadline, JFK basically eliminated von Braun's program, since the intermediate space station would have taken too long, and selected the establishment one. I had family who worked for von Braun, and I remember that this speech angered them because it effectively shut them down.

(02-21-2020 01:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-21-2020 12:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So we're right back to where I said you want Republicans to be Democrats. You want 'our' perspective to change from putting the economy/jobs/people first while respecting the environment to one that puts the environment first while respecting the economy/jobs/people. That's not going to happen. If it were, 'we' would simply be Democrats.

Except I don't think the democrats do the respecting the economy/jobs/people part. They are like got off oil now. But onto what? Doesn't matter. Off. Oil. Now. The solutions are supposed to happen magically. Like JFK made the space program appear magically.

Except he didn't. That is one of the worst fictions of our lifetime. By the time JFK gave his, "Why does Rice play Texas?" speech, we already had a space program, we already had astronauts, three of them had already flown in space. We actually had two competing space programs--the official NASA one and Werner von Braun's skunk works at Redstone Arsenal. Von Braun had actually had the earlier success. Explorer 1 and 2 were von Braun's, after the Russians had launched Sputnik and the establishment's Vanguard had crashed and burned.

Von Braun's idea was to build a space station first, and go to the moon from there. His approach would have gotten us to the moon about 1975. Here is a video of his proposal from 1955:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIDFx74aSY

By setting the end of the decade as a deadline, JFK basically eliminated von Braun's program, since the intermediate space station would have taken too long, and selected the establishment one. I had family who worked for von Braun, and I remember that this speech angered them because it effectively shut them down.

Not all Dems have that opinion, but I agree with the criticism of the ones who have lobbied for the ban on fracking. It completely ignores the reality of the situation.

(02-21-2020 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just look at Owl#s responses to see how I would like Republicans to tackle environmental issues, and why I'm not advocating for Reps to be Dems. I don't think prioritizing environmental issues should be a party-specific platform. It's not like growing the economy is a party-specific issue, but both parties have different approaches.

Interestingly I almost wrote exactly the same in reverse. Having clean air and water etc isn't a party-specific platform like you seem to be implying.

Quote:In your Utah example, you only focused on one item they discussed. Air quality was a primary driver, and there's more to tackling that than just alternative energy, as the article points out.

First, you brought up Bears Ears and I randomly selected an article on the issue to counter your claim that they never say anything... now you're admitting they did, but it's still not what you want. The author and editor decided what was printed and what to point out. Maybe that's the problem. People like you tend to downplay what they say or only give those portions they support, which is going to limit what you 'see them say'.

Quote:

Quote: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.

Those are items that could have been tackled at any time in the recent past, cost of renewable energy be damned. So why didn't the Republican party in Utah act sooner?

That's a clear example of how they have decided to act when the cost of inaction became too high. That's what I would would like to see change with Reps. I would like for them to be more proactive and not wait until the cost of inaction is too great; research into these issues exists (like inversion layers trapping pollutants and how to reduce their loading) and it is readily available if you want to make it a priority. And there's way to address the issues, once they're made a priority, which rely more heavily on leveraging the market than a lot of Dem plans do.

This is the same tired discussion, Lad. You keep presuming without evidence 'why' they did something, claiming it was the cost of inaction that became high enough. In the previous one, you similarly, but in reverse, ignored them talking about the low cost of the alternatives.

Clean cars is mostly related to electric car production and MPG, not cleaner burning fuels. A state like Utah who refines fuel but doesn't build cars is going to prioritize things differently than a state like Michigan that manufactures them but doesn't refine fuel.

If you want Republicans to listen sooner, then do a better job of proving your case. That's the real problem here.

I don't know all the reasons why Trump talked about rolling back Obama's aggressive rules (which he of course waited until he was out of office, putting the burden of compliance on someone else) and of course, the left assumed it was oil companies pressure... when it seems obvious to me that at least PART of the issue is that 'air quality' in the way you're talking about isn't really local. As I've suggested earlier, we could probably do a lot more to improve global air quality by giving away our current technology to 2nd and 3rd world nations and keeping our standards where they are. That's why I would not focus on pushing on the 'string' of the US and instead focus on the push of Mexico, South America, China, Africa etc.

(02-21-2020 01:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-21-2020 12:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So we're right back to where I said you want Republicans to be Democrats. You want 'our' perspective to change from putting the economy/jobs/people first while respecting the environment to one that puts the environment first while respecting the economy/jobs/people. That's not going to happen. If it were, 'we' would simply be Democrats.

Except I don't think the democrats do the respecting the economy/jobs/people part.

I DID say that was the fairest I could say it... and that's what I meant. I believe like you at least for the most vocal, but I am willing to accept that at least for some/many, I could be wrong

majpr cities most at risk of rising sea levels

Good news: Houston not on the list (top 30).

No west coast cities, either.

Cool news out of the UK.

Quote: UK carbon emissions fell by almost three per cent last year, topping off a decade of deep decarbonisation which has left CO2 at its lowest level since the English Football League was founded in 1888, fresh analysis released today indicates.

CO2 emissions dropped 2.9% in 2019, as coal power played an ever decreasing role in the UK energy mix and renewable electricity capacity expanded, according to data from Carbon Brief. The latest annual results suggest emissions have fallen 28 per cent over the past decade, further cementing the UK's position as the industrialised economy with the most impressive emissions reduction track record.

https://www.investmenteurope.net/news/40...ent-decade

Cool, wet news

Interesting article in Bloomberg on Jim Blackburn and his most recent efforts to address climate change within Houston and Texas. Worth a read.

Quote:In his Texas twang, Blackburn, a 72-year-old native of the Rio Grande Valley, warns that the Army Corps’ coastal barrier is insufficient. The region’s flood maps are wrong, making new infrastructure, designed to last decades, obsolete the day it’s finished. Renewable energy is getting cheaper, and climate activists are getting louder. Without creative thinking, the fossil fuel industry will collapse, and Houston will turn into a warmer, wetter rust belt.

“There’s a void in Houston right now of leadership,” Blackburn says. “That’s what allows a voice like mine to resonate a bit. I’m saying things that other people are not saying.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/...0Tz2mHVg-c

(03-04-2020 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Interesting article in Bloomberg on Jim Blackburn and his most recent efforts to address climate change within Houston and Texas. Worth a read.

Quote:In his Texas twang, Blackburn, a 72-year-old native of the Rio Grande Valley, warns that the Army Corps’ coastal barrier is insufficient. The region’s flood maps are wrong, making new infrastructure, designed to last decades, obsolete the day it’s finished. Renewable energy is getting cheaper, and climate activists are getting louder. Without creative thinking, the fossil fuel industry will collapse, and Houston will turn into a warmer, wetter rust belt.
“There’s a void in Houston right now of leadership,” Blackburn says. “That’s what allows a voice like mine to resonate a bit. I’m saying things that other people are not saying.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/...0Tz2mHVg-c

I remember Blackburn's nickname around certain parts of the environmental and regulatory community in Austin used to be "Crusader Rabbit" after the old cartoon show of the same name.

(03-04-2020 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Interesting article in Bloomberg on Jim Blackburn and his most recent efforts to address climate change within Houston and Texas. Worth a read.

Quote:In his Texas twang, Blackburn, a 72-year-old native of the Rio Grande Valley, warns that the Army Corps’ coastal barrier is insufficient. The region’s flood maps are wrong, making new infrastructure, designed to last decades, obsolete the day it’s finished. Renewable energy is getting cheaper, and climate activists are getting louder. Without creative thinking, the fossil fuel industry will collapse, and Houston will turn into a warmer, wetter rust belt.
“There’s a void in Houston right now of leadership,” Blackburn says. “That’s what allows a voice like mine to resonate a bit. I’m saying things that other people are not saying.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/...0Tz2mHVg-c

I remember Blackburn's nickname around certain parts of the environmental and regulatory community in Austin used to be "Crusader Rabbit" after the old cartoon show of the same name.

Would not be surprised to hear that.

The first day of a sustainability course I took from him started with his presentation on the American Lawn and all of the environmentally detrimental aspects of maintaining one. He told us a story about how he gave the presentation to a garden club, and how, after the presentation was finished, a member approached him to ask him a question. The member asked him if he was a *** **** communist, and to basically get the hell outta Dodge.

He's a really interesting guy, with some very strong opinions.