Environmental regulations and global warming

First time poster, I just found this site and am excited to have an actual discussion. I have a few questions related to global warming.
If we can all agree that we prefer clean air and water, to the air pollution found in China, why not let EPA continue their work?
The arguments against regulations by the EPA are the cost and time required to meet the clean energy mandates. Further, the overall regulations suppress growth creating a barrier to entry that reduces potential job makers. I realize these are significant costs, but they would pail in comparison to moving backwards with environmental regulations if future catastrophes like rising oceans prove to be true. What short term gain we make nationally with oil and natural gas will be obliterated by property damage insurance claims and lawsuits in the ocean level cities in the US.
Why rely on old technology to fill our demand for middle America jobs. We could be the world leader in green energy technologies, creating a manufacturing and installation industry rivaled by none. Due to the potential employment growth in the energy sector, I naively don't see this debate as a partisan issue. We can create jobs, protect the environment for future generations, and if we plug back in to global carbon cutting agreements worldwide, we could export our new energy all over the world.

I know I am missing several keys including the power of American oil companies, the strength of the union fitters working on the pipeline etc, but I honestly believe it should be a win win for both sides of the aisle.

Tualcoloop said:

First time poster, I just found this site and am excited to have an actual discussion. I have a few questions related to global warming.
If we can all agree that we prefer clean air and water, to the air pollution found in China, why not let EPA continue their work?
The arguments against regulations by the EPA are the cost and time required to meet the clean energy mandates. Further, the overall regulations suppress growth creating a barrier to entry that reduces potential job makers. I realize these are significant costs, but they would pail in comparison to moving backwards with environmental regulations if future catastrophes like rising oceans prove to be true. What short term gain we make nationally with oil and natural gas will be obliterated by property damage insurance claims and lawsuits in the ocean level cities in the US.
Why rely on old technology to fill our demand for middle America jobs. We could be the world leader in green energy technologies, creating a manufacturing and installation industry rivaled by none. Due to the potential employment growth in the energy sector, I naively don't see this debate as a partisan issue. We can create jobs, protect the environment for future generations, and if we plug back in to global carbon cutting agreements worldwide, we could export our new energy all over the world.

I know I am missing several keys including the power of American oil companies, the strength of the union fitters working on the pipeline etc, but I honestly believe it should be a win win for both sides of the aisle.

Click to expand...

Welcome to DP Tualcoloop! Good Luck!

Greenhouse gasses are not the primary driver of climate change. In the past co2 levels have gone up without a corresponding rise in temperature and other times temperature has risen and co2 levels remain the same.

It might be good to manage this factor, there is good argument to go this way.

Human consciousness is a primary driver of temperature rise. People, even in Alaska want it sunny and warm so the universe and it's angels fulfill our demands.

Sunlight hits the atmosphere and can either bounce off into space or get trapped behind the greenhouse gasses. With a powerful enough mind one can exert some control over this activity so that a few more of the suns rays are reflected or trapped. In fact any factor related to the weather can easily be manipulated by the mind. Those who watch over us know this and are thus not worried and this has rubbed off onto a political faction.

Personally, I think the task is how to siphon water into outer space to keep our shorelines and coastal cities intact while we melt the poles, and how to feed polar bears and keep coral species etc.

Tualcoloop said:

First time poster, I just found this site and am excited to have an actual discussion. I have a few questions related to global warming.
If we can all agree that we prefer clean air and water, to the air pollution found in China, why not let EPA continue their work?
The arguments against regulations by the EPA are the cost and time required to meet the clean energy mandates. Further, the overall regulations suppress growth creating a barrier to entry that reduces potential job makers. I realize these are significant costs, but they would pail in comparison to moving backwards with environmental regulations if future catastrophes like rising oceans prove to be true. What short term gain we make nationally with oil and natural gas will be obliterated by property damage insurance claims and lawsuits in the ocean level cities in the US.
Why rely on old technology to fill our demand for middle America jobs. We could be the world leader in green energy technologies, creating a manufacturing and installation industry rivaled by none. Due to the potential employment growth in the energy sector, I naively don't see this debate as a partisan issue. We can create jobs, protect the environment for future generations, and if we plug back in to global carbon cutting agreements worldwide, we could export our new energy all over the world.

I know I am missing several keys including the power of American oil companies, the strength of the union fitters working on the pipeline etc, but I honestly believe it should be a win win for both sides of the aisle.

Click to expand...

The. Best of both worlds is to research, research and research some more.

Tualcoloop said:

First time poster, I just found this site and am excited to have an actual discussion. I have a few questions related to global warming.
If we can all agree that we prefer clean air and water, to the air pollution found in China, why not let EPA continue their work?
The arguments against regulations by the EPA are the cost and time required to meet the clean energy mandates. Further, the overall regulations suppress growth creating a barrier to entry that reduces potential job makers. I realize these are significant costs, but they would pail in comparison to moving backwards with environmental regulations if future catastrophes like rising oceans prove to be true. What short term gain we make nationally with oil and natural gas will be obliterated by property damage insurance claims and lawsuits in the ocean level cities in the US.
Why rely on old technology to fill our demand for middle America jobs. We could be the world leader in green energy technologies, creating a manufacturing and installation industry rivaled by none. Due to the potential employment growth in the energy sector, I naively don't see this debate as a partisan issue. We can create jobs, protect the environment for future generations, and if we plug back in to global carbon cutting agreements worldwide, we could export our new energy all over the world.

I know I am missing several keys including the power of American oil companies, the strength of the union fitters working on the pipeline etc, but I honestly believe it should be a win win for both sides of the aisle.

Click to expand...

Welcome to DP. I think you misunderstand the nature of what is wanting to be curtailed within the EPA.
Large Government agencies if provided funding, tend to get scope creep.
For the last few decades the EPA has been not so quietly expanding their reach.
If you search for EPA overreach, there are many stories, where the EPA has ruled that some action fell under their purview,
and attempted to fine the subjectively defined offender, they further stated their findings were beyond review or challenge.
The last claim was struck down by by unanimous decision from the US Supreme Court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackett_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency.
In many cases the EPA is not enforcing the regulations, but rather creating new regulations through their interpretations.
No one is really talking about taking apart the EPA the cleaned the rivers and skies, but rather the scaling the EPA back to
it's original purpose.

Very well put Longview, thanks for the link. At a base level is too much media focus placed on global warming in your mind? They talk about Mr. Pruitt not agreeing with science in their understanding of the human impact towards global warming. EPA's mission from their website is to protect human health and the environment. Should the potential of global warming fall under their oversight, and how do we effectively limit/ focus the EPA so they don't overreach? From my perspective, if global warming is only a cyclical warming trend and we are unable to control it, the downsides in trying to take measures to reduce our impact are minimal. The end result would still be an improvement to our emission standards, development of new tech, and reduced dependency on oil.
under the new administration there is fear that we would abandon some best practices in pursuit of an expanding oil infrastructure. The unintended consequences being the environment.

The EPA is a corrupt, has crafted regulations to harm business (something that the courts caught them doing), is guilty itself of polluting, and regularly passes regulations all on their own even if they don't have the power to make law.

Tualcoloop said:

If we can all agree that we prefer clean air and water, to the air pollution found in China, why not let EPA continue their work?

Click to expand...

NOW you've done it :mrgreen:

The answer is that despite its non-partisan origins, it's become a major punching bag for the right-wing. In their eyes, the EPA is a regulator that can do nothing right -- despite its role in keeping the US as one of the cleaner nations in the world, and environmental regulations preventing cities like Los Angeles from hazardous levels of smog.

There are also lots of posters here who are rabidly against the very idea of climate change, and will attack anything and everything even remotely linked to fighting it -- alternative energy, basic recognition of climate change science and statistics, and of course the regulators who are trying to stop it. You've been warned.

You may also want to read Arlie Hocschild's new book, Strangers in Their Own Land. She spent 5 years talking to Tea Party activists / Trump supporters in Louisiana who deeply oppose government functions that often benefit those communities, and focused on environmental protection as a way to look at this "Great Paradox."

The arguments against regulations by the EPA are the cost and time required to meet the clean energy mandates. Further, the overall regulations suppress growth creating a barrier to entry that reduces potential job makers. I realize these are significant costs, but they would pail in comparison to moving backwards with environmental regulations if future catastrophes like rising oceans prove to be true.

Click to expand...

Actually, research indicates that regulation doesn't actually kill jobs. Rather, it shifts some jobs.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/regulations-jobs/513563/

Why rely on old technology to fill our demand for middle America jobs.

Click to expand...

Because they are reacting mostly to emotion and common-sensical ideas about the economy that largely turn out to be wrong.

Plus, fossil fuels are an incredibly wealthy and powerful special interest, very thoroughly entrenched, huge war chest, with established lobbyists and relationships to legislators.

We could be the world leader in green energy technologies, creating a manufacturing and installation industry rivaled by none.

Click to expand...

We could... but we are already behind China, and will be even further behind in another 4 years. China is likely to dominate the international market in green energy. #MAGA!

Tualcoloop said:

Very well put Longview, thanks for the link. At a base level is too much media focus placed on global warming in your mind? They talk about Mr. Pruitt not agreeing with science in their understanding of the human impact towards global warming. EPA's mission from their website is to protect human health and the environment. Should the potential of global warming fall under their oversight, and how do we effectively limit/ focus the EPA so they don't overreach? From my perspective, if global warming is only a cyclical warming trend and we are unable to control it, the downsides in trying to take measures to reduce our impact are minimal. The end result would still be an improvement to our emission standards, development of new tech, and reduced dependency on oil.
under the new administration there is fear that we would abandon some best practices in pursuit of an expanding oil infrastructure. The unintended consequences being the environment.

Click to expand...

Plenty of actual climate Scientist do not agree with the full suite of the IPCC predictions.
Judith Curry has one of the best collections, itemizing the poor quality of the IPCC's case,
https://judithcurry.com/
Adding CO2 can indeed cause some warming, but likely not the catastrophic warming predicted by the IPCC.
People tend to get pessimistic about climate change, but the reality is that our understanding of the entire field is weak,
and the scientist shouting the alarm (and getting paid to do so) are not helping the science.
Our use of fossil oil for fuel is coming to an end, not because of what the government does or does not do,
but because market forces will price it out of the market.
Recent innovations will allow refineries to make their own feedstock for about $90 a barrel.
Audi has successfully made diesel fuel from carbon dioxide and water - ScienceAlert
this places a ceiling on the price of fossil oil the market will support.
The cheap/easy oil has been found and is already in production.
Fracking speeds up the oil reservoir depletion, but is not economically viable at lower prices.
The refineries can make carbon neutral fuels, that look just like our current fuels, distribute and sell them
through their existing channels, to be used in existing vehicles.
To do this we need a lot more energy, for the US, roughly 1300 new nuclear plants, or a whole lot of solar roofs.
The Government could unify the home solar grid tie process, so electrical utilities would welcome home solar.
This is the sustainable path forward, that could allow the entire worlds population to attain first world lifestyles.
Since the transition would be transparent to the end users, the economic disruption would be minimal.

I don't want to sound picky but "Global Warming" is a media term. Climate Change is more correct since WHEN it happens different parts of the environment will react differently. Some areas will actually get colder.

Now one thing you are going to hear a lot is that "Not all scientists agree that global warming is real" Well in a way that's true I know a dentist who doesn't and I know a physical chemist who doesn't. But the fact are out there. About 10 years ago a poll was taken of 10,000 scientists all over the world in various disciplines that are directly involved in climate research, change or its effects. 98% said that climate change is real and that we are a major contributor. A similar poll was done here in the US and the poll was even more dramatic. Only 2 of the scientists asked said Climate Change was not real.

Another tactic is for some people to use terms and references which no one understands except themselves.

The basic facts are simple there is a point at which the atmosphere of the earth cannot handle the amount of CO2 being added. That point was reached in 2012 and it has almost doubled since then. With "Duck" in office there is little or no hope that that will change.

We are already seeing the effects. The melting of the Greenland Ice Shelf and the polar ice cap which is adding fresh water to the oceans currents causing dramatic changes in our weather patterns and the currents themselves. Not to mention the glaciers.

One thing that many people are not talking about but is critical is the temperature of the soil. This is the best real time measure of current changes in our environment. Since World War II the temperature of he soil has gone up 15 degree which may not sound like much but any ecologist or soil scientist that didn't get their degree from cracker jack U will tell you that this is unprecedented and dramatic. Soil temperatures are one of the first measurements to determine the health of any ecosystem.

The stupidest argument is "if its real why don't I see it?" That is a "Duck" comment and I won't even bother.

The facts are real and 98%+ of REPUTABLE SCIENTISTs agree as does the DOD that Climate Change is real and ongoing.

Tualcoloop said:

First time poster, I just found this site and am excited to have an actual discussion. I have a few questions related to global warming.
If we can all agree that we prefer clean air and water, to the air pollution found in China, why not let EPA continue their work?
The arguments against regulations by the EPA are the cost and time required to meet the clean energy mandates. Further, the overall regulations suppress growth creating a barrier to entry that reduces potential job makers. I realize these are significant costs, but they would pail in comparison to moving backwards with environmental regulations if future catastrophes like rising oceans prove to be true. What short term gain we make nationally with oil and natural gas will be obliterated by property damage insurance claims and lawsuits in the ocean level cities in the US.
Why rely on old technology to fill our demand for middle America jobs. We could be the world leader in green energy technologies, creating a manufacturing and installation industry rivaled by none. Due to the potential employment growth in the energy sector, I naively don't see this debate as a partisan issue. We can create jobs, protect the environment for future generations, and if we plug back in to global carbon cutting agreements worldwide, we could export our new energy all over the world.

I know I am missing several keys including the power of American oil companies, the strength of the union fitters working on the pipeline etc, but I honestly believe it should be a win win for both sides of the aisle.

Click to expand...

Get rid of all the people, problem solved.

Tualcoloop said:

First time poster, I just found this site and am excited to have an actual discussion. I have a few questions related to global warming.
If we can all agree that we prefer clean air and water, to the air pollution found in China, why not let EPA continue their work?
The arguments against regulations by the EPA are the cost and time required to meet the clean energy mandates. Further, the overall regulations suppress growth creating a barrier to entry that reduces potential job makers. I realize these are significant costs, but they would pail in comparison to moving backwards with environmental regulations if future catastrophes like rising oceans prove to be true. What short term gain we make nationally with oil and natural gas will be obliterated by property damage insurance claims and lawsuits in the ocean level cities in the US.
Why rely on old technology to fill our demand for middle America jobs. We could be the world leader in green energy technologies, creating a manufacturing and installation industry rivaled by none. Due to the potential employment growth in the energy sector, I naively don't see this debate as a partisan issue. We can create jobs, protect the environment for future generations, and if we plug back in to global carbon cutting agreements worldwide, we could export our new energy all over the world.

I know I am missing several keys including the power of American oil companies, the strength of the union fitters working on the pipeline etc, but I honestly believe it should be a win win for both sides of the aisle.

Click to expand...

You mention rising sea levels.

How high do you think they are predictedto rise? and by when?

wolfman24 said:

I don't want to sound picky but "Global Warming" is a media term. Climate Change is more correct since WHEN it happens different parts of the environment will react differently. Some areas will actually get colder.

Now one thing you are going to hear a lot is that "Not all scientists agree that global warming is real" Well in a way that's true I know a dentist who doesn't and I know a physical chemist who doesn't. But the fact are out there. About 10 years ago a poll was taken of 10,000 scientists all over the world in various disciplines that are directly involved in climate research, change or its effects. 98% said that climate change is real and that we are a major contributor. A similar poll was done here in the US and the poll was even more dramatic. Only 2 of the scientists asked said Climate Change was not real.

Another tactic is for some people to use terms and references which no one understands except themselves.

The basic facts are simple there is a point at which the atmosphere of the earth cannot handle the amount of CO2 being added. That point was reached in 2012 and it has almost doubled since then. With "Duck" in office there is little or no hope that that will change.

We are already seeing the effects. The melting of the Greenland Ice Shelf and the polar ice cap which is adding fresh water to the oceans currents causing dramatic changes in our weather patterns and the currents themselves. Not to mention the glaciers.

One thing that many people are not talking about but is critical is the temperature of the soil. This is the best real time measure of current changes in our environment. Since World War II the temperature of he soil has gone up 15 degree which may not sound like much but any ecologist or soil scientist that didn't get their degree from cracker jack U will tell you that this is unprecedented and dramatic. Soil temperatures are one of the first measurements to determine the health of any ecosystem.

The stupidest argument is "if its real why don't I see it?" That is a "Duck" comment and I won't even bother.

The facts are real and 98%+ of REPUTABLE SCIENTISTs agree as does the DOD that Climate Change is real and ongoing.

Click to expand...

temperature of he soil has gone up 15 degree

Click to expand...

Only if you have had a fire over that spot in the last day.

Put another way, what is the downside for combatting global change? I see none. The downside to perpetuating our impact if the majority of scientists are right, inconceivable.

Tualcoloop said:

Put another way, what is the downside for combatting global change? I see none. The downside to perpetuating our impact if the majority of scientists are right, inconceivable.

Click to expand...

What is the downside, and you see none, of course, you ignoring the people and jobs and feeding one's family is inconceivable.

Born Free said:

What is the downside, and you see none, of course, you ignoring the people and jobs and feeding one's family is inconceivable.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm suggesting creating new jobs based on new technologies. The global demand for green technologies will be greater than our domestic demand for oil and gas. Not easy to retrain and have infill jobs immediately, but progress would be the goal.

Tualcoloop said:

Not at all. I'm suggesting creating new jobs based on new technologies. The global demand for green technologies will be greater than our domestic demand for oil and gas. Not easy to retrain and have infill jobs immediately, but progress would be the goal.

Click to expand...

Yeah that is the same BS that Obama has preached for the last 8 years. Not to mention all the billions of taxpayer money he's lost. First there is not one green anything that can complete with natural gas. In Fact there would not be one green anything if not subsidized by the tax payer.

Tualcoloop said:

Put another way, what is the downside for combatting global change? I see none. The downside to perpetuating our impact if the majority of scientists are right, inconceivable.

Click to expand...

It really depends on what is involved in "combatting global change".
It is like the doctor saying , they think you may have some type of cancer, but they are not sure of the type or how
severe it is, but want to start several types of chemotherapy! What is the down side?

According to everything I have read the sea level COULD rise as much as 50 ft and the Great Lakes would rise considerably less.

There is a documentary called Carbon Nation that you should see. It goes at this issue from a more economic side that Gore's was. As I wrote in another area in the 1980's Reagan said that the environmental cleanup industry would fail because it had no profit value today MINUS lawyers and government it is a multi-billion dollar international industry. I was an environmental regulator for 21 years and I can tell straight up there at a lot of industries and companies that are and have been doing this for some time. Two of the best in my experience were Kraft Foods (believe it or not) and British Petroleum.

Now a lot of people are going to whine about the disaster in the Gulf a few years ago but what they do not know and the Press did not bother to explain was that Standard Oil/Amoco actually built that rig and did their customary half ass job at putting it in. In the early 1990's British Petroleum bought much of Amoco on the condition that if anything happened in the future Amoco could not be held liable. Although this sounds like a stupid idea it happens all the time in the petroleum industry. So when the gasket blew in the Gulf, BP was left holding the bag.

I am quite sure based on personal experience with Amoco and Exxon that BP was given written assurances of the reliability of the off shore platforms. We were given similar assurances all day long from Amoco who does seem to mind spending millions in litigation.

The interesting thing is that the Exxon CEO got religion about 10 or so years ago and has slowly begun to clean up his act. He has also bought into the idea that Climate Change is real and this may be because some smart boy on his staff showed him the profits to b made.

Hell, even DOD has bought into it.

Now if you are going to complain about the Coal Miners remember two things, coal has been dying for sometime and the miners have been dying for a lot longer. Every conversion plan I have seen takes into account re-training the miners who can still work into the new industry where they will be safer, healthier and better paid plus have health insurance. Anyone who thinks that is a bad thing has a problem.

The technology is there in place, it works and it is growing albeit slowly. Just take a drive from central Illinois to the Iowa line or up towards Madison Wisconsin. When I was on a job in California I saw an entire hilly area outside San Fran that was wall to wall solar panels. The more people see the profit in it the faster it will grow.

The only people that can still whine about it are people who wear blinders or live in a bubble.

And this makes sense How?