Netphoria Message Board


Go Back   Netphoria Message Board > Archives > General Chat Archive
Register Netphoria's Amazon.com Link Members List Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-13-2008, 10:56 PM   #1
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
Default Here we go.. environmentalists again trying to stop American power generation

Wired News - AP News

Utah coal plant permit blocked by EPA panel
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer


http://te.ap.org/tte/blank.gif?0.322...CTION=POLITICS



Latest News
Lawyers plan collective lawsuit over tainted milk China to ensure grain self-sufficiency
China democracy activist detained for subversion
Nigerian satellite launched by China loses power
USGS: Moderate quake strikes northwestern China

**********var mytd = document.getElementById('mytd'); var mydiv = document.getElementById('spnrefmoneymarkets'); if (mytd != null) {mytd.innerHTML = spnrefmoneymarkets.innerHTML; mydiv.innerHTML = ''};
Your Questions Answered
Ask AP: Jet fuel and fees, drinking the oceans
**********var mytd = document.getElementById('mytd'); var mydiv = document.getElementById('spnrefmoneymarkets'); if (mytd != null) {mytd.innerHTML = spnrefmoneymarkets.innerHTML; mydiv.innerHTML = ''};
Multimedia
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/intera.../handpoint.gif An interactive look at the process of carbon sequestration
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/intera.../handpoint.gif An interactive exploring what percentage of each state's electricity comes from coal
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Environmental Protection Agency was blocked Thursday from issuing a permit for a proposed coal-burning power plant in Utah without addressing global warming. The ruling by an agency appeals panel means the Obama administration probably will determine the fate of other similar plants.
The panel said the EPA's Denver office failed to adequately support its decision to issue a permit for the Bonanza plant without requiring controls on carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas.
The matter was sent back to that office, which must better explain why it failed to order limits on carbon dioxide. This is "an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting process," the panel said.
EPA spokesman Jonathan Shrader said the agency was reviewing the ruling by the appeals panel, which traditionally gives great deference to agency decisions. He declined to say how many other coal plant permits might be affected.
Environmentalist and lawyers representing industry groups said the ruling stops the permitting of perhaps as many as 100 coal plants.
"In essence this is a punt to the Obama administration. ... All permits in the pipeline are now stymied," said Jason Hutt, a lawyer who represents a number of utilities, merchant energy developers and refineries seeking permits. He said it also would affect permits for oil refinery expansion.
The Sierra Club had appealed the Bonanza permit. David Bookbinder, a lawyer for the group, said the ruling will stop the permitting of any coal burning power plants "while EPA mulls over what to do next" about how the Clean Air Act is to be used to control carbon dioxide. "And that will be decided by the next administration."
The gas is a product of burning fossil fuels and a leading culprit in global warming.
Bookbinder had led the club's efforts to block the attempt by six electric cooperatives to build a second coal-burning generating unit at the Bonanza facility on the Uintah and Ouray Indian reservation in Utah, knowing a decision on carbon dioxide could have broad implications.
He said as many as 100 coal power plant permits - both those in process and others under appeal - will now be decided by the EPA, or state agencies that closely follow EPA's direction, after the Bush administration leave office.
The co-op group, Deseret Power, had no comment about the EPA developments.
President George W. Bush has made clear that he believes the Clean Air should not be used, in permitting new plants, to control greenhouse gases. It is not clear how the Obama administration will address regulating carbon dioxide. The Supreme Court has told the EPA it must decide on whether carbon dioxide endangers public health and welfare, and if it does it must be regulated.
Michael Gerrard, a lawyer not involved in the Bonanza case and author of "Global Climate Change and the Law," said the decision "will embolden the lawsuits" challenging construction of new power plants based on their impact on climate.
"It means that the appeals board recognizes that carbon dioxide regulation of power plants is a very live and open issue. It does not ban them. It puts a cloud over them, by making it clear that this is a real issue," Gerrard said in an interview.
The Utah case has attracted wide interest because of its broader implications.
Among those filing legal papers with the EPA's appeals panel, arguing the permit should be upheld, were the American Petroleum Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council and the National Association of Manufacturers.
---
Associated Press writer Dina Cappiello contributed to this story.
---

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 11-14-2008, 12:24 AM   #2
topleybird
Janis Jopleybird
 
topleybird's Avatar
 
Location: Let me see you do the booty hop. And now make the booty stop. Now drop, and do the booty wop.
Posts: 6,564
Default

Great looking post, dude.

 
topleybird is offline
Old 11-14-2008, 02:20 AM   #3
D.
Consume my pants.
 
D.'s Avatar
 
Location: Missouri
Posts: 36,099
Default

yeah what the hell, dude

 
D. is offline
Old 11-14-2008, 03:09 AM   #4
commando
Apocalyptic Poster
 
commando's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,663
Default

well, if he's as ultra progressive and forward-thinking as clinton he'll have the nuclear facilities nixed and phased out in no time.

 
commando is offline
Old 11-14-2008, 03:15 AM   #5
ryan patrick
Apocalyptic Poster
 
Posts: 3,520
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son View Post
Wired News - AP News

Utah coal plant permit blocked by EPA panel
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer


http://te.ap.org/tte/blank.gif?0.322...CTION=POLITICS



Latest News
Lawyers plan collective lawsuit over tainted milk China to ensure grain self-sufficiency
China democracy activist detained for subversion
Nigerian satellite launched by China loses power
USGS: Moderate quake strikes northwestern China

**********var mytd = document.getElementById('mytd'); var mydiv = document.getElementById('spnrefmoneymarkets'); if (mytd != null) {mytd.innerHTML = spnrefmoneymarkets.innerHTML; mydiv.innerHTML = ''};
Your Questions Answered
Ask AP: Jet fuel and fees, drinking the oceans
**********var mytd = document.getElementById('mytd'); var mydiv = document.getElementById('spnrefmoneymarkets'); if (mytd != null) {mytd.innerHTML = spnrefmoneymarkets.innerHTML; mydiv.innerHTML = ''};
Multimedia
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/intera.../handpoint.gif An interactive look at the process of carbon sequestration
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/intera.../handpoint.gif An interactive exploring what percentage of each state's electricity comes from coal
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Environmental Protection Agency was blocked Thursday from issuing a permit for a proposed coal-burning power plant in Utah without addressing global warming. The ruling by an agency appeals panel means the Obama administration probably will determine the fate of other similar plants.
The panel said the EPA's Denver office failed to adequately support its decision to issue a permit for the Bonanza plant without requiring controls on carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas.
The matter was sent back to that office, which must better explain why it failed to order limits on carbon dioxide. This is "an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting process," the panel said.
EPA spokesman Jonathan Shrader said the agency was reviewing the ruling by the appeals panel, which traditionally gives great deference to agency decisions. He declined to say how many other coal plant permits might be affected.
Environmentalist and lawyers representing industry groups said the ruling stops the permitting of perhaps as many as 100 coal plants.
"In essence this is a punt to the Obama administration. ... All permits in the pipeline are now stymied," said Jason Hutt, a lawyer who represents a number of utilities, merchant energy developers and refineries seeking permits. He said it also would affect permits for oil refinery expansion.
The Sierra Club had appealed the Bonanza permit. David Bookbinder, a lawyer for the group, said the ruling will stop the permitting of any coal burning power plants "while EPA mulls over what to do next" about how the Clean Air Act is to be used to control carbon dioxide. "And that will be decided by the next administration."
The gas is a product of burning fossil fuels and a leading culprit in global warming.
Bookbinder had led the club's efforts to block the attempt by six electric cooperatives to build a second coal-burning generating unit at the Bonanza facility on the Uintah and Ouray Indian reservation in Utah, knowing a decision on carbon dioxide could have broad implications.
He said as many as 100 coal power plant permits - both those in process and others under appeal - will now be decided by the EPA, or state agencies that closely follow EPA's direction, after the Bush administration leave office.
The co-op group, Deseret Power, had no comment about the EPA developments.
President George W. Bush has made clear that he believes the Clean Air should not be used, in permitting new plants, to control greenhouse gases. It is not clear how the Obama administration will address regulating carbon dioxide. The Supreme Court has told the EPA it must decide on whether carbon dioxide endangers public health and welfare, and if it does it must be regulated.
Michael Gerrard, a lawyer not involved in the Bonanza case and author of "Global Climate Change and the Law," said the decision "will embolden the lawsuits" challenging construction of new power plants based on their impact on climate.
"It means that the appeals board recognizes that carbon dioxide regulation of power plants is a very live and open issue. It does not ban them. It puts a cloud over them, by making it clear that this is a real issue," Gerrard said in an interview.
The Utah case has attracted wide interest because of its broader implications.
Among those filing legal papers with the EPA's appeals panel, arguing the permit should be upheld, were the American Petroleum Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council and the National Association of Manufacturers.
---
Associated Press writer Dina Cappiello contributed to this story.
oh shit

 
ryan patrick is offline
Old 11-14-2008, 12:50 PM   #6
Debaser
ghost
 
Debaser's Avatar
 
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
Default

Whoa, the EPA deciding that maybe we should actually start regulating carbon dioxide emmissions?

Amazing.

 
Debaser is offline
Old 11-14-2008, 10:06 PM   #7
killtrocity
Saturday Night Goth
 
killtrocity's Avatar
 
Location: POLLOS
Posts: 9,207
Default

Don't Should on Us

In class last week I had my Penn State students read a horrifying article on tree death in America, and then polled them on their gut response. The four choices I offered were:

A) This is terrible, and I’m inspired to do something about it.
B)Yes, this is terrible, and I care, but I’m not inspired because I am powerless to do anything about it.
C) This is terrible, but for some reason I just don’t care that much. I suppose I should care, but to be honest I really don’t.
D) It couldn’t be that bad. Besides, science will come up with a solution.

The results of my little poll and the way my students articulated their responses bears great relevance to the much-publicized failure of the American environmental movement today. First, though, a hopeful note: not a single student out of a hundred chose (D)–although probably many would have on the first day of class. Unfortunately, almost no one chose (A) either. Over 90 percent of the class chose the second and third responses, and in the ensuing discussion most of them articulated feelings combining the two. Not caring, it seems, is in part a defensive response for dealing with feelings of powerlessness or despair. It is, also, in part a response to the perceived remoteness of the problem–in the words of Charles Little, “We look out our windows, what do we see? Trees.” Or as one student said, “As long as I can get a Big Mac, fries and shake for less than $5, to be quite honest I don’t care about the environment.”

Somehow, the urgency of the planetary crisis has not penetrated into popular consciousness. If it had, then the envronmental movement’s futile struggles, painfully detailed in Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus’s provocative essay, “The Death of Environmentalism", would not even have been necessary. On the policy level, there has been no progress on carbon emissions or fuel efficiency, even as the victories of generations past on protecting air, water, and forests have been gutted one by one. Meanwhile, the movement has failed to win the hearts and minds of the public. Most people polled don’t even rank the environment among their top ten most important issues. My students’ sentiments are consistent with those of the public at large. Their grades, their job interviews, their love lives, Penn State football, and so forth all trump the environment as urgent issues in their lives.

More than indifference, though, many students evince an outright hostility or annoyance toward activists of all stripes, right or left. Whether social or environmental, the silence that greets today’s activist messages is often a sullen silence, a resentful silence. Environmental and social activists annoy a lot of people, and I don’t think it’s only because they bring up uncomfortable truths. A deeper issue is involved here, one with enormous implications not only for the strategy of the environmental movement, but for its basic conceptual underpinnings.

One reason environmental activists so commonly meet with resentment or marginalization is because of the implicit judgementality of their message. An unstated judgment accompanies such facts as “We are using more than our share of resources,” or “Our way of life is destroying the planet,” or “The average American’s ecological footprint would require five earths to be sustainable.” The judgment is that you are greedy, lazy, ignorant… in a word, bad. You SHOULD do better. You shouldn’t take more than your sure. You should sacrifice some of your selfish interest for the good of other people, other species, and future generations. Stop being so greedy. On the collective level, the same logic pits the economy against the environment, arguing that our society must rein in its rampant materialism and greed. Individually or collectively, we have to try harder and do better.

On the most obvious level, this approach backfires simply because people can always sense judgementality, and they naturally respond to it with hostility. We rarely say it outright, but an intuitive response to anyone who tells us to be ashamed of ourselves is something along the lines of “Screw you!” Alternatively, some people are temperamentally inclined to buy into guilt or shame. The message works on such people, but it cannot spread beyond them.

Even worse, to say that it is our greed that compels us to consume the planet for the sake of our lifestyle, implies that the high-consumption lifestyle is indeed a good thing. To say that the man with the 8,000-square-foot house, and Americans collectively, are selfish is to imply that material extravagance is indeed in our self-interest. That is what selfish means—to seek the aggrandizement of the self at the expense of others. In other words, environmentalists have framed the debate in terms that actually reaffirm the way of life they are trying to dismantle. They reaffirm the delusion that is destroying the world: namely, that the modern consumptive way of life is to our selfish benefit. They assume that the big consumers of the world, the wealthiest and most “fortunate", are actually better off than the typical peasant in India.

These assumptions prevail across most of the political spectrum. Conservatives think that society’s winners should not be forced into providing for the losers, while liberals think the winners should be legally required (e.g. through taxes) to help those less fortunate. Both agree in principle, though, that the winners are the winners and the losers are the losers, whether this happens through accident of birth or dint of personal virtue.

In other words, much environmentalist exhortation comes down to a demand to sacrifice your own self-interest, with guilt and shame the main mechanisms by which to enforce that demand. Now, I don’t know about you, but I tend not to trust people who want me to act against my own self-interest. No wonder the environmental movement has been so ineffectual for thirty years.

Fortunately, there is another way, rooted in the realization that society’s winners are not winners at all. It is rooted in the observation that the 8,000-square-foot house is a breeding ground for loneliness, isolation, and depression, a pathetic sop to the poverty of modern existence. It is rooted in the realization that the consumer thrills of our luxury cars, entertainment technologies, and sports spectacles feed a gaping void caused by our separation from nature, community, and spirit. The emptiness of the modern formula for success is palpable, as is the robbery of life and youth in exchange for money. Yet the assumption that success as conventionally defined is the key to happiness is ubiquitous in our culture. Just one example: the economic term for anything bought or sold for money: a “good".

The alternative I am suggesting starts by making the point that the rational self-interest everyone buys into is neither rational nor in anyone’s interest. It is not in your interest to work at an unfulfilling job that pays well, to enjoy “security” that isn’t and “goods” that aren’t. Even if we don’t make this point explicitly, it can inform our every interaction in the cause of the environment. When we approach people with the energy of wanting what is truly in their best and highest interest, they will instinctively trust us. Sometimes, to be sure, a person must experience something in order to realize that isn’t what they actually wanted. But the message will stay with them until the time comes for it to sprout. When we act from the knowledge that a person’s “selfish” interest is actually toward simplicity, closeness to nature, and closeness to community, then our urgings lose any judgementality and assume the force of a trusted friend’s support.

Similarly on the policy level, arguments based on the economic consequences of bad environmental policies are ultimately self-defeating, because they reinforce the ideology that for something to be (a) “good", it must take the form of a commodity denominated in dollars. So immersed are we in this logic that it is hard to even articulate the value of nature otherwise: hence the profusion of environmentalist arguments based on cost-benefit analyses. Why should we save the rainforests? Because of all the medicines that might be produced from the undiscovered plant species there? Because of the economic value of their contribution as a carbon sink? Of their pollinating species? Well-meaning as they are, arguments that try to persuade us to protect the environment based on the fact that the long-term cost to the economy of environmental destruction far exceeds the economic cost of preservation only exacerbate the root problem, which is the basic Benthamite assumption that goodness can be quantified, that the way to make life better is to maximize financial returns, and even more deeply, that nature can be made ours, and yet more deeply, the illusion of our separateness. Such arguments grant the disastrous premise that nature is indeed a thing, best disposed of according to the financial consequences.

Cost-benefit arguments for environmental protection have the further disadvantage that they are usually ineffective even as a short-term tactic. I am inspired in this regard to Gandhi’s exhortation to “appeal to their reason and conscience,” and by Edwin O. Wilson’s invocation of a universal “biophilia"—a love of living beings—innate to each one of us, however deeply buried. In the long run and probably even in the short run, it may be more effective to appeal to people’s sense of beauty and their desire to do the right thing. “Let’s save the environment because otherwise it will cost too much” is an appeal to a baser instinct, greed, and therefore disrespects its audience by assuming that greed is their strongest motivation. (It is especially counterproductive when facing people who in fact stand to gain financially from consuming natural capital.) It is also on some level dishonest: I do not know any environmentalist motivated by the long-term economic savings of environmental protection. Let us instead appeal to what is highest in other people: their sense of rightness, beauty, and justice; their desire to be a good person; their longing to enact their innate love for our beautiful planet. The greed behind the plundering of the planet, and the insecurity and anxiety behind the greed, is after all a product of our money system as well as an inevitable effect of our separation from self, spirit, nature, and each other, and not our true essence.

Charles Eisenstein, 2005

Last edited by killtrocity : 11-14-2008 at 10:11 PM.

 
killtrocity is offline
Old 11-16-2008, 03:02 AM   #8
<sp3
****
 
<sp3's Avatar
 
Location: live free or die
Posts: 1,057
Default

The EPA does a great job at telling people what they can't do.. but does a really terrible job at offering solutions for what they can do to substitute for the impact of what they just told them they can't do.

What an incredibly bad method of leadership.

Last edited by <sp3 : 11-16-2008 at 03:09 AM.

 
<sp3 is offline
Old 11-17-2008, 03:48 PM   #9
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
Default

We're swimming in coal in the US. You'd think we should try to use it.

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 11-17-2008, 05:31 PM   #10
Debaser
ghost
 
Debaser's Avatar
 
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
Default

Coal pollutes like crazy and the mining of it destroys the environment. You'd think we should try to regulate it.

 
Debaser is offline
Old 11-17-2008, 05:53 PM   #11
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
Default

Obama on coal:

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 11-17-2008, 07:28 PM   #12
Debaser
ghost
 
Debaser's Avatar
 
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
Default

that sounds about right

 
Debaser is offline
Old 11-17-2008, 07:56 PM   #13
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
Default

Yes, let's make it unprofitable for anyone to generate power, that makes sense

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 11-17-2008, 08:04 PM   #14
Debaser
ghost
 
Debaser's Avatar
 
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
Default

Yes, let's make it unprofitable for anyone to generate dirty power, that makes sense.

 
Debaser is offline
Old 11-17-2008, 08:09 PM   #15
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
Default

i'll wait patiently for the truly clean power proposals that will lessen our dependence on foreign sources as well as generate enough power to be worth it and something we have in abundance

maybe we can get all of the homeless to ride stationary bicycles

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 11-17-2008, 08:09 PM   #16
Debaser
ghost
 
Debaser's Avatar
 
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
Default

I'm starting to think you've failed to comprehend what Obama is saying in the video.

Obama is basically just explaining how cap and trade works. Nothing he said there is alarming unless you a) don't know how a cap and trade system works or b) you're against cap/trade. oh, or both.

 
Debaser is offline
Old 11-17-2008, 08:10 PM   #17
Debaser
ghost
 
Debaser's Avatar
 
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son View Post
i'll wait patiently for the truly clean power proposals that will lessen our dependence on foreign sources as well as generate enough power to be worth it and something we have in abundance
yep, i was right. you don't understand what Obama is saying.

 
Debaser is offline
Old 11-17-2008, 08:12 PM   #18
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
Default

I understand what cap and trade is. I don't think it's a good system to begin with and Obama's essentially saying he wants to make it nigh to impossible to open a coal plant.

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 11-17-2008, 08:21 PM   #19
Debaser
ghost
 
Debaser's Avatar
 
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son View Post
i'll wait patiently for the truly clean power proposals that will lessen our dependence on foreign sources as well as generate enough power to be worth it and something we have in abundance
well, ok then. where are these truly clean power proposals going to come from with no market disincentive for the power industry to move away from cheap and dirty coal?

 
Debaser is offline
Old 11-17-2008, 08:35 PM   #20
dudehitscar
Apocalyptic Poster
 
Posts: 2,652
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
well, ok then. where are these truly clean power proposals going to come from with no market disincentive for the power industry to move away from cheap and dirty coal?
we will have clean power when the market demands it... meaning when rich people can't see the sunset from their lakefront mansion because of the smog.

How dare the government try to interfere with freedom.

 
dudehitscar is offline
Old 11-17-2008, 11:23 PM   #21
dudehitscar
Apocalyptic Poster
 
Posts: 2,652
Default

we should have cap and trade on vehicles too. I would love to sell my carbon saving credits to some douch with a hummer.

 
dudehitscar is offline
Old 11-17-2008, 11:26 PM   #22
<sp3
****
 
<sp3's Avatar
 
Location: live free or die
Posts: 1,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dudehitscar View Post
we will have clean power when the market demands it...
the market will demand it when clean power is available for the same price, without social/political roadblocks associated with it

what we need is a NASA/Kennedy style challenge to find the next energy source that efficiently, economically, and politically trumps our 400 year old fixation with burning things (wood, coal, gasoline, natural gas, whatever). Somebody should put the challenge out there to build a self sustaining fusion reactor.. or to make solar panels so cheap that everyone can use them for house shingles. Then the big oil and coal companies wont be able to compete.

But for the population to stand behind Kennedy in his challenge to the moon, it took the very real threat of complete obliteration by the russians to scare people into believing the advance of space technology should be a top priority. That and it produced a generation of heros, and was just plain cool.

I just don't think that people care enough about the threat of pollution.. its not as scary as a communist empire and it doesn't effect the majority of people in their daily lives, it wont produce any Neil Armstrongs, and it is quite boring to most people. I think it is a social issue as much as it is an economic and environmental one.

In my opinion, what agencies like the EPA should be doing is taking the lead, researching the technologies of tomorrow and bringing their price down just like NASA made plastic cheap enough for the common man, ect. What they should not do is yell at everyone and punish them for doing something the only way they know how, or the only way that is economically feasible at the moment.

 
<sp3 is offline
Old 11-18-2008, 07:12 AM   #23
Future Boy
The Man of Tomorrow
 
Future Boy's Avatar
 
Posts: 26,965
Default

yeah

 
Future Boy is offline
Old 11-18-2008, 03:24 PM   #24
Debaser
ghost
 
Debaser's Avatar
 
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
Default

What's the argument?

Government investing in new technology. (Obama's "Apollo" program for green energy)

Regulate and begin limiting carbon emissions. (EPA actually doing its job)

Create a market that punishes polluters, giving a major incentive for the private industry to utilize, discover and innovate cleaner technology. (Cap and Trade)

Why can't we do it all at the same time?

 
Debaser is offline
Old 11-18-2008, 07:10 PM   #25
Ever
Minion of Satan
 
Ever's Avatar
 
Location: ☆.。.:*・゜`★
Posts: 8,203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
What's the argument?

Government investing in new technology. (Obama's "Apollo" program for green energy)

Regulate and begin limiting carbon emissions. (EPA actually doing its job)

Create a market that punishes polluters, giving a major incentive for the private industry to utilize, discover and innovate cleaner technology. (Cap and Trade)

Why can't we do it all at the same time?
Well you said one correct thing - there does need to be a market for punishing polluters. If people actually learned to respect property rights then pollution amounts to nothing but vandalism. If you allow private dispute agencies to handle that (i.e create a market for punishing polluters) then you've just solved what was once a big problem. All the benefits of the free-market would ensue, those that satisfy their consumers for the lowest price will come out on top and those that don't will fail.

But of course the solution would never be allowed to be so simple. Nope, it has to be through paperwork and government and bureaucracy and all these systems (trade and cap lololol) and then we get to argue which type of paper work is better and which type isn't and so on.

 
Ever is offline
Old 11-18-2008, 07:26 PM   #26
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
Default

Wouldn't it be better to add incentives for clean power rather than punish others?

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 11-18-2008, 08:26 PM   #27
Debaser
ghost
 
Debaser's Avatar
 
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
Default

avoiding punishment is the incentive here...


I mean, what other incentive is there to employ that isn't already in effect?

 
Debaser is offline
Old 11-18-2008, 08:42 PM   #28
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
avoiding punishment is the incentive here...
You should know by now that negative reinforcement rarely if every works

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 11-18-2008, 08:50 PM   #29
Debaser
ghost
 
Debaser's Avatar
 
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
Default

so why have any laws at all

 
Debaser is offline
Old 11-18-2008, 08:56 PM   #30
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
Default

I'm talking about business. What you'll get instead is companies who wanted to build new power sources just saying "fuck it" rather than focusing on different technologies. That's what happens with negative reinforcement controlling a marketplace. Companies invest their dollars and resources elsewhere.

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is On
Google


Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The little post phillies win mini riot on my campus was fun Banana General Chat Archive 112 12-22-2008 08:23 AM
post your desktop agenda suicide General Chat Archive 56 05-27-2008 04:06 PM
april 22nd anticipation thread ??? General Chat Archive 13 04-06-2008 02:49 AM
Monthly dean_r_koontz appreciation / positive comments thread Warsaw General Chat Archive 10 12-06-2007 07:32 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:52 AM.




Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright © 1998-2022