Koko78 Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 22 minutes ago, ALF said: I don't believe anyone here supports making our air and water dirtier. I just don't see much resistance to the administration for 85 Environmental Rules being rolled back under Trump that affect clean air and water. Opinion is one thing , facts are important. Of those 85 regulations, how many were redundant? How many were necessary? How many were effective? What did they actually accomplish? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 11 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Of those 85 regulations, how many were redundant? How many were necessary? How many were effective? What did they actually accomplish? Read the article and decide for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, ALF said: 85 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html So do you agree with the President ? ROLLBACKS COMPLETED ROLLBACKS IN PROCESS TOTAL ROLLBACKS Air pollution and emissions 10 14 24 Drilling and extraction 9 9 18 Infrastructure and planning 12 1 13 Animals 9 1 10 Toxic substances and safety 4 1 5 Water pollution 5 2 7 Other 4 4 8 The Times compilation is a 3rd or 4th hand account of the changes, and doesn’t actually detail the effects of the change and how it affects the environment. I’ll leave it to you to determine if the Times’ is biased in any way. I took a look at one of the regs cited, it dealt with reclassifying compliance requirement for chemical facilities that have reduced emissions and pollutants below the threshold levels. Under the old regs, the facilities were still bound under the stricter requirements, but under Trump the facilities who cleaned up would be subject to the same requirements as other cleaner facilities. It’s all in the perception, isn’t it? 3 hours ago, ALF said: Read the article and decide for yourself. The article is a compilation of the changes. It doesn’t address the regs themselves, nor Koko’s valid questions. Edited October 12, 2019 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 27 minutes ago, GG said: The Times compilation is a 3rd or 4th hand account of the changes, and doesn’t actually detail the effects of the change and how it affects the environment. I’ll leave it to you to determine if the Times’ is biased in any way It’s all in the perception, isn’t it? The article is a compilation of the changes. It doesn’t address the regs themselves, nor Koko’s valid questions. If I were a Environmental Scientist I might be able to answer those valid questions, but I'm not. It's a long article with a link to every item. It's a general take FWIW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 16 minutes ago, ALF said: If I were a Environmental Scientist I might be able to answer those valid questions, but I'm not. It's a long article with a link to every item. It's a general take FWIW That's the point. It's a generalized article from people with an agenda. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 17 minutes ago, ALF said: If I were a Environmental Scientist I might be able to answer those valid questions, but I'm not. It's a long article with a link to every item. It's a general take FWIW A general take from the NY Times. The paper of record. A paper full of journalistic integrity! Staffed by teams of writers who would never spread less-than-accurate information, or intentionally put things out-of-context solely to trash the current administration. I'm convinced! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 How did those regulations get put in place in the first place (rhetorical)? Were those Obama edicts or were they Congressional actions or where did they typically begin? If not edicts, at some point folks debated the need for these regs and thought they had some value, right? The problem I have is that Trump seems to view the economy as his sole scorecard. He acts as if the economy is good, he will be re-elected, and he is likely right. In my opinion, this is trading short term gain for long term pain. For example, I imagine dropping the child labor laws in this country would generate short term profits for some industries and look good for business profits initially but would leave our country with a generation of under educated, difficult to retrain workers. Promoting business growth over all else is bad policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 22 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: ... would leave our country with a generation of under educated, difficult to retrain workers. ... they're not under educated now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 1 hour ago, ALF said: If I were a Environmental Scientist I might be able to answer those valid questions, but I'm not. It's a long article with a link to every item. Probably a good time to point out that most of those regulations weren't written by environmental scientists anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 1 minute ago, Foxx said: they're not under educated now? Didn't say that actually. Certainly wide open for a different discussion. I was trying to make a point that placing business concerns uber alles is short sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 3 minutes ago, Foxx said: they're not under educated now? Can't have that. Ditch diggers need to be stupid so they keep voting Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 1 hour ago, GG said: That's the point. It's a generalized article from people with an agenda. Gee, it's almost like you just described virtually every article about the reality of global warming cooling climate change climate crisis! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 12, 2019 Author Share Posted October 12, 2019 44 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Probably a good time to point out that most of those regulations weren't written by environmental scientists anyway... Lawyers writing environmental policy is made up for by MIT economists creating the ACA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albwan Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said: How did those regulations get put in place in the first place (rhetorical)? Were those Obama edicts or were they Congressional actions or where did they typically begin? If not edicts, at some point folks debated the need for these regs and thought they had some value, right? The problem I have is that Trump seems to view the economy as his sole scorecard. He acts as if the economy is good, he will be re-elected, and he is likely right. In my opinion, this is trading short term gain for long term pain. For example, I imagine dropping the child labor laws in this country would generate short term profits for some industries and look good for business profits initially but would leave our country with a generation of under educated, difficult to retrain workers. Promoting business growth over all else is bad policy. Why is this just a Trump issue...why is everyone dead silent on China on these same climate issues? This is just another weapon forged by the left to attack Trump. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 (edited) https://twitter.com/WWLTV/status/1183032346032922624 https://twitter.com/NOLAnews/status/1183057734306074625 Edited October 12, 2019 by Foxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 30 minutes ago, Foxx said: I'm not sure what's more disturbing, people driving around while recording it on their cell phones, or people who watch TV while recording it on their cell phones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, Koko78 said: Of those 85 regulations, how many were redundant? How many were necessary? How many were effective? What did they actually accomplish? Exactly. How many are based in science, or even reality vs purely political motivation? Many regulatory benchmarks are set simply to allow officials to say that they imposed tighter regulations, many of which are nothing more than lip service to activists. 8 hours ago, ALF said: Read the article and decide for yourself. Dodge. You posted it, so you must find some validity in it, right? 5 hours ago, GG said: The Times compilation is a 3rd or 4th hand account of the changes, and doesn’t actually detail the effects of the change and how it affects the environment. I’ll leave it to you to determine if the Times’ is biased in any way. I took a look at one of the regs cited, it dealt with reclassifying compliance requirement for chemical facilities that have reduced emissions and pollutants below the threshold levels. Under the old regs, the facilities were still bound under the stricter requirements, but under Trump the facilities who cleaned up would be subject to the same requirements as other cleaner facilities. It’s all in the perception, isn’t it? The article is a compilation of the changes. It doesn’t address the regs themselves, nor Koko’s valid questions. Exactly. 4 hours ago, ALF said: If I were a Environmental Scientist I might be able to answer those valid questions, but I'm not. It's a long article with a link to every item. It's a general take FWIW General take or not, you ought to be able to back up your point with some kind of substance. 4 hours ago, GG said: That's the point. It's a generalized article from people with an agenda. 3 hours ago, DC Tom said: Probably a good time to point out that most of those regulations weren't written by environmental scientists anyway... 2 hours ago, Albwan said: Why is this just a Trump issue...why is everyone dead silent on China on these same climate issues? This is just another weapon forged by the left to attack Trump. The NYT would be all over China if they adopted Trump's environmental standards, despite the fact that his are far more responsible than theirs are currently. Edited October 12, 2019 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Koko78 said: I'm not sure what's more disturbing, people driving around while recording it on their cell phones, or people who watch TV while recording it on their cell phones. what's disturbing is that it doesn't appear that we can build ***** anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 4 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: How did those regulations get put in place in the first place (rhetorical)? Were those Obama edicts or were they Congressional actions or where did they typically begin? If not edicts, at some point folks debated the need for these regs and thought they had some value, right? The problem I have is that Trump seems to view the economy as his sole scorecard. He acts as if the economy is good, he will be re-elected, and he is likely right. In my opinion, this is trading short term gain for long term pain. For example, I imagine dropping the child labor laws in this country would generate short term profits for some industries and look good for business profits initially but would leave our country with a generation of under educated, difficult to retrain workers. Promoting business growth over all else is bad policy. Child labor laws didn’t do the leg work to end child labor in the US, capitalism did. Almost all child labor had been eliminated prior to legislation being passed. Innovations which made workers more productive had eliminated the need for their labor in the economy. The only child labor those regulations eliminated was that of people in families living in poverty and orphans, two groups which depended on the ability to work to survive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Azalin said: Exactly. How many are based in science, or even reality vs purely political motivation? Many regulatory benchmarks are set simply to allow officials to say that they imposed tighter regulations, many of which are nothing more than lip service to activists. Dodge. You posted it, so you must find some validity in it, right? General take or not, you ought to be able to back up your point with some kind of substance. The NYT would be all over China if they adopted Trump's environmental standards, despite the fact that his are far more responsible than theirs are currently. You convinced me , Trump is the greatest savior of the environment in the history of mankind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 4 minutes ago, ALF said: You convinced me , Trump is the greatest savior of the environment in the history of mankind Yep, that's right. Your post was demonstrated to be shallow, so everyone who pointed it out must believe the extreme opposite of whatever bull#### point your shallow understanding failed to make. ***** child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: Yep, that's right. Your post was demonstrated to be shallow, so everyone who pointed it out must believe the extreme opposite of whatever bull#### point your shallow understanding failed to make. ***** child. Are you insinuating that I'm not in the COT (cult of trump) ? Will the air and water quality be better after Trump leaves office then before he was elected ? Honest question Edited October 12, 2019 by ALF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 2 hours ago, ALF said: You convinced me , Trump is the greatest savior of the environment in the history of mankind This is surprisingly immature. You react to admonishments for taking politically-driven articles as fact by accusing me (and most of the rest of us involved in the thread) of believing Trump to be an environmental savior. You ought to answer direct questions with what you personally believe, not some linked counter-argument from biased sources. And if you think that this place is nothing more than some kind of Trump-cult, why bother posting anything? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 4 minutes ago, Azalin said: This is surprisingly immature. You react to admonishments for taking politically-driven articles as fact by accusing me (and most of the rest of us involved in the thread) of believing Trump to be an environmental savior. You ought to answer direct questions with what you personally believe, not some linked counter-argument from biased sources. And if you think that this place is nothing more than some kind of Trump-cult, why bother posting anything? Will the air and water quality be better after Trump leaves office then before he was elected ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 9 minutes ago, ALF said: Will the air and water quality be better after Trump leaves office then before he was elected ? It'll be whatever CNN tells you it is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: It'll be whatever CNN tells you it is. Of course not , what do you believe ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 1 minute ago, ALF said: Will the air and water quality be better after Trump leaves office then before he was elected ? Possibly yes, possibly no. Can you say one way or another which, if any of those rollbacks, will have any meaningful effect on the healthfulness of air and water? How many of them, if left in place, will increase the cost of electricity being generated? What would be the impact that more expensive energy would have on communities, large or small? How many of these regulations that Trump rolled back have increased toxicity levels to a degree that is actually harmful? Were any of those levels actually acceptable before the Obama administration lowered them further? That kind of thing happens frequently you know; the amount of lead in the water in Austin, Texas may be well within acceptable levels, but that doesn't stop agenda-driven anti-capitalists masquerading as environmentalists from ginning up fear simply because it's not a leftist in office. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 Ok Azalin , I accept your answer, because only time will tell , and I truly hope you are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 Just now, ALF said: Ok Azalin , I accept your answer, because only time will tell , and I truly hope you are right. The only “fix” to the environmental issues facing our species is through innovation and new technology. Full stop. Giving the federal government a bigger seat at the table, in an effort to fight something which no nation can fight through restrictions and taxation alone, is a sure fire way to SLOW the very innovation and technology advances we need to get out of this pickle. Because the liberals pushing climate change solutions aren’t really pushing solutions that will help address the problem. They’re pushing solutions that will increase the power of the political class at the expense of you and me. ***** that. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: The only “fix” to the environmental issues facing our species is through innovation and new technology. Full stop. Giving the federal government a bigger seat at the table, in an effort to fight something which no nation can fight through restrictions and taxation alone, is a sure fire way to SLOW the very innovation and technology advances we need to get out of this pickle. Because the liberals pushing climate change solutions aren’t really pushing solutions that will help address the problem. They’re pushing solutions that will increase the power of the political class at the expense of you and me. ***** that. there are a lot of tech items that are very close to coming out that are going to ease a great many current dis-eases we currently experience. we are on the threshold of sci-fi world. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 18 minutes ago, ALF said: Ok Azalin , I accept your answer, because only time will tell , and I truly hope you are right. Don’t ignore the fact that Flint and Newark water systems are run by the government. How’s that worked out? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Foxx said: there are a lot of tech items that are very close to coming out that are going to ease a great many current dis-eases we currently experience. we are on the threshold of sci-fi world. Agreed. And to go back down a rabbit hole that's my specialty (at least in terms of generating laughs/good natured derision): we now know, for a fact, that kind of "sci-fi" technology exists right here on our planet, right this very moment. Technology which would revolutionize travel, energy, and expand our understanding of multiple branches of science. That's not conjecture, it's not fantasy, it's not "conspiracy theory". It's proven, and vouched for by the USN, even if the origin of said technology remains an "unknown". Let that sink in a bit and then remember what the "government"/political class are demanding from us in terms of fighting climate change. They want to expand this practice, grow the government and its power. The same government who kept the existence of this technology a secret from its people for at least 5 years (when the tic-tac footage was captured),if not many decades. Had they not kept it secret, had they not worked to silence those scientists and researchers who dared to ask 'what if it's real' -- there's no telling how far ahead we'd be today as a civilization/species/country. Why should we give up more of our individual rights and sovereignty to an entity that has proven, time and time again, it does not trust us with the truth? The same government that's spent our tax dollars to keep the knowledge of this kind of technology confined to the "alternative" community is asking us to "trust them" to fix the climate if we only just give them MORE power. I understand fully that UFOs/UAPs generate giggles. And 9 times out of 10 that I bring that subject up (especially down here) it's done with a wink and a smile more than a Fox Mulder type "the truth is out there". And that's fine, to a point. You can debate where these things come from, but there is no longer any debate that they're here. In craft which use technology -- technology which challenges our own understanding of material sciences, aeronautics, physics, and engineering -- but it's still technology not magic. Thus, it can be replicated. This technology has the ability to change our world in a heartbeat. If you doubt it, think back to the development of the combustion engine -- and how that changed nearly every aspect of life in the modern world within a generation or two. The same is possible with this kind of tech, things we struggle with today will be foreign concepts to the generations to come... So long as we don't ***** it up and allow for the secrecy to continue unchecked. Edited October 12, 2019 by Deranged Rhino 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 I could not agree more with DR on this subject . Just getting your opinions . Yes Flint , Newark and many more infrastructure is in critical condition to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 Just now, ALF said: I could not agree more with DR on this subject . Just getting your opinions . Yes Flint , Newark and many more infrastructure is in critical condition to say the least. You're a good egg, ALF. Truly. Even when we disagree on certain subjects, you have proven to always be willing to engage and reconsider your positions and push me to do the same. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 (edited) And now for a wild change in subjects... Just in time for legalization. (I've never done shrooms, but I have a group of friends wanting me to try it for my upcoming birthday... who's a fan?) Edited October 12, 2019 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 30 minutes ago, ALF said: Ok Azalin , I accept your answer, because only time will tell , and I truly hope you are right. Something else I've said in the past and have neglected to reiterate here is that climate and environmentalism as subjects have been politicized to the point where many people (on both sides) argue points that they've only gleaned from biased sources, because that fits their preconceived beliefs. It makes honest discussion that much more difficult to have. 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: And now for a wild change in subjects... Just in time for legalization. That's it - I'm not cleaning my kitchen any more. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 3 minutes ago, Azalin said: That's it - I'm not cleaning my kitchen any more. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 12, 2019 Share Posted October 12, 2019 58 minutes ago, ALF said: Of course not , what do you believe ? Nothing. I'm an empiricist. I don't believe in belief. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: Just in time for legalization. (I've never done shrooms, but I have a group of friends wanting me to try it for my upcoming birthday... who's a fan?) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 13, 2019 Share Posted October 13, 2019 Saturdays are always a good time to offer up travel tips, and Forbes had some advice for single women: . 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts