- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A climate for change: A solution conservatives could accept
Posted on 8/28/14 at 9:25 am to a want
Posted on 8/28/14 at 9:25 am to a want
quote:WOW! What an incredibly poorly written "article". Almost no details of the plan. Just word salad advocating for it. Wonder if someone in van Hollen's office wrote it?
Washington Post
quote:Sure. Just like every person should pay a tax for the air they breathe. Does that seem sensible to you?
Shouldn't industry have to pay for the air they are fouling?
quote:Who claimed they should?
Should industry be free to dump waste/chemicals in local waterways?
quote:Do you have any idea what this picture is?
Thoughts?
1
Posted on 8/28/14 at 9:28 am to LSUnKaty
quote:
The notion that production and economic activity are harmful to the environment rests on the abandonment of man and his life as the source of value in the world and its replacement by a non-human standard of value—i.e., the belief that nature is intrinsically valuable.
I've never understood how man is somehow no included in nature.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 9:30 am to a want
I used to believe in regulating emissions in this way, but I have long since changed my mind. Once you get into exactly what you charge (and for which emissions), you are picking winners and losers in a way that leads to ever more crony capitalism. Incentives also exist thereafter for carve-outs for pet industries, etc. Rather than wading into this thicket, we should continue with the more point-source/technology-based regulations that have done an tremendous job of providing better air quality in the US and - this is key - not regulate CO2 emissions at all. I am not a "denier," but I do deny that we are doing the climate any appreciable good by hamstringing our economy when the developing nations are ensuring that CO2 emissions will increase no matter what we do. And don't forget that the US has been one of the very best nations at reducing CO2 over the last ~20 years, and we did it without a potentially crippling CO2 tax. This nation is poised for a wave of prosperity if we could just get out of our own way.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 9:30 am to a want
quote:Yes.
Shouldn't industry have to pay for the air they are fouling?
Define "fouling".
Posted on 8/28/14 at 9:31 am to a want
Here's another solution
From this
To this
From this
To this
Posted on 8/28/14 at 9:32 am to GumboPot
quote:+1
Perfectly valid reason to use more methane in lieu of gasoline IMO.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 9:33 am to a want
quote:have you seen how drastically these emissions have gone down since the clean air act?
What about sulfur dioxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter like ash & soot?
Posted on 8/28/14 at 9:36 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Do you have any idea what this picture is?
Propaganda? Deceitful? Dishonest? Completely out of context in a discussion about pollution?
Posted on 8/28/14 at 9:37 am to a want
quote:if you can't differentiate the environmental impacts of benzene, MTBE, dioxin, DNAPL, etc and CO2... Then you ignorance is too much to overcome on a message board. One of those things is veeeery unlike the others.
What's the difference?
This post was edited on 8/28/14 at 9:37 am
Posted on 8/28/14 at 9:39 am to goatmilker
quote:No. But it appears they have issued a lot more permits for strawman construction.
Has the EPA been disbanded under BHO?
Posted on 8/28/14 at 9:42 am to a want
quote:
But it is avoidable.
Not avoidable right now, though.
quote:
Nuclear, for example
Progressives killed nuclear in the U.S. (okay, not killed, but seriously crippled) with over-the-top propoganda in the 70s and 80s.
quote:
and this guy's point is to improve it through innovation.
When the tech improves to the point that wind/solar/nuclear can compete with coal, oil and natural gas, without government subsidies, we'll be there. I'm all for a little nudge, and would choose to be green if it made financial sense as well.
quote:
You also have the question of how many people are sick b/c of pollution
How many people would die if the hospitals didn't have electricity or there was no way to get them there in the first place?
Posted on 8/28/14 at 9:42 am to NC_Tigah
I just hope the day comes soon where I can fuel my vehicle from the natural gas line at my house. The technology is available.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 9:42 am to jimbeam
quote:
have you seen how drastically these emissions have gone down since the clean air act?
There seems to be a pattern here:
GOP president signs sensible legislation to address a problem/issue.
Legislation solves problem/issue 90-95%.
Liberal complains that legislation alone is not enough and we need MOAR and uses GOP enacted legislation for social engineering and wealth redistribution schemes.
Public complains about additional liberal legislation being too costly in terms of taxes and infringing on the public's liberties.
Liberal uses the excuse that this is GOP legislation anyway, so it's okay.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 9:45 am to STEVED00
quote:
I just hope the day comes soon where I can fuel my vehicle from the natural gas line at my house. The technology is available.
Invent a natural gas compressor that is safe and affordable you you'd make a mint.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 9:46 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:Folks who are harmed by such practices should have some recourse to compensation for damages.
Now, if your contention is that externalities + asymmetric info have made the "price" of these byproducts of production artificially lower than it should be, and that the output of these is higher than the efficient amount, I may agree. And I may support some worthwhile effort to fix the market failure.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 9:49 am to Champagne
quote:
The USA already has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and Leftists want to RAISE this tax rate even further.
I used to think this - and it is to a certain respect it's true - but it is deeper than this - not just taxation for taxation's sake - you can even argue with them til you're blue in the face that, at a certain point, they will get diminishing returns or even negative returns with their tax policies.
So,while they want higher tax receipts to fund their redistribution programs - most important is control - and now that they've effectively secured taxation control over health care (ACA is enforced by the IRS, correct? Not HHS or some health based agency...), they have, effectively controlled retirement (again, SS is funded by a complicated tax/insurance premium scheme), health care (combination of Medicaid for the poors, Medicare for the elderly, and now ACA for everything else) - the next goal is energy.
Then Big Gov will literally be able to decide who lives and who dies - what their thermostat is set one, how many miles they drive, what kind of car to drive, which doctor to see, what size house to live in, what medical procedures, innoculations, etc., they MUST have, and those they CANNOT have.
Once they solidify those gains, if you think you've seen social engineering with the War on Poverty(tm) over the past 50 years? You ain't seen nothing, yet.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 10:00 am to a want
quote:
It’s only 28 pages long, it’s market-based, and it would put money into the pockets of most Americans.
Wut?
How?
Users paying more for fossil fuels = cost of everything increasing.
Lib-prog ideas never result in people having "more money". It will just enrich some gov friendly business and create another alphabet agency with more rule making authority. They always package their shite-gifts all nice by saying "common sense"," prominent","logic","only","privilege",
"simple","minimum cost",and "more money in the pockets of average Americans". So foolish people are like "I'm SO in!Sounds like it's just the right thing to do and clearly it's a win-win for everyone".
When they actually find out what's "inside" they are like "Hey! That's not what you said!". Over and over again.
This post was edited on 8/28/14 at 10:02 am
Posted on 8/28/14 at 10:07 am to a want
quote:
But it is avoidable. Nuclear, for example....and this guy's point is to improve it through innovation.
i wholeheartedly agree!
tell me when Obama gets around to approving those plans for new nuclear plants that have been languishing for the last 6 years....
Posted on 8/28/14 at 10:16 am to HonoraryCoonass
quote:It's a picture of a sandstorm hitting Beijing. Has literally nothing to do with pollution, CO2, or even the US.
Propaganda? Deceitful? Dishonest? Completely out of context in a discussion about pollution?
LINK
Posted on 8/28/14 at 10:22 am to LSUnKaty
quote:
Folks who are harmed by such practices should have some recourse to compensation for damages.
Of course, and the added cost from that compensation would cause the price of production to rise, and then output would adjust to the efficient amount.
But these external harms may be very subtle and/or deferred, and therefore not be noticed by the harmed party (that's the reason I said imperfect info in addition to the negative externality). So in that case the availability of recourse for damages may not solve the whole problem
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News