Well there’s the Post Office and then there’s Obamacare, HUD, the Department of Education and…oh wait…
If you’re referring to coal mining: As has been pointed out several times, coal was killed by natural gas and automation, not regulations. Take every coal regulation off the books, and those once-plentiful jobs still aren’t coming back. But per the people who study these issues (I’m thinking of the Science article I posted upthread), the ongoing environmental damage in the current regulatory environment is severe, and at least some of it will be permanent. (I’m glad to hear it hasn’t significantly altered the environment in your neck of the woods, BTW.)
If regulations are rolled back further, the economic benefit will accrue largely to the coal-company owners, not the coal-country citizens. What will accrue to the citizens is the despoiled environment. If this is Trump’s plan for MAGA, count me out.
1 Like
I don’t have “faith” in anything remotely Governmental.
What I DO expect governments (Local, State and Federal) to do is to exert reasonable oversight and regulation.
Yes, but if we take to a logical extreme your stance about global warming it would mean we shouldn’t worry about nuclear safety because in case of a radioactive fallout the animal population would eventually recover.
As far as personal experience goes - I’m an avid skier and I see with my own eyes the effects of global warming - warmer, drier winters with less snowfall and much more instances of extreme weather events.
Sure, whenever a snowstorm hits a specific area global warming deniers start yelling “explain this” but the overall trend is visible not only through the application of the scientific method on available data but through personal experiences as well.
1 Like
This fact can’t be emphasized enough.
Environmental disasters tend to affect the ones that can afford it the least.
It certainly is faith because you haven’t presented any evidence as to why you expect the above to be true.
By the way I remember reading with respect to climate change that for every $100 spent on governmental protection, we see $3 of benefit
Expect what to be true?
I’m confused.
My position is that of a skeptic. That being said, on the last nuclear power project I worked on, I made absolutely certain that my work was impeccable. So I’m all in on nuclear safety.
To clarify- I’m not for the wanton destruction of the environment. Or the careless application of scientific methods.
But when people start citing glaciers that have been melting since the last ice age as proof the we’re destroying the environment, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.
I mean, if you look at this stuff from a geological time scale, because it is a planet we are talking about, some of this hand wringing looks a little silly. At least to me.
Why do you lack faith? If you merely trust that Ze/Zer must do SOMETHING, you will see the United States of America take care of problems the same way this preacher knocks down his congregation.
Because of the posterity problem. The economics don’t suit the private sector, which is looking for payout on investment in a shorter time frame than environmental quality can produce. Businesses will struggle to get an ROI to preserve some beautiful natural place for multiple generations. Doesn’t work that way.
And while this is heresy to the there-is-no-higher-human-good-than-consumption crowd of libertarians, some things are far more important than profits, so we remove them from the market.
The government doesn’t operate by those economics. And governments may manage it imperfectly, but it’s better than the alternative - it being run by businesses looking to produce cash in the short term for its shareholders.
6 Likes
Misleading headline from Forbes. The article is NOT about a fabrication of a warming globe–which is real–it is about a terrible person who engineered leaks of information, fabricated documents, and tried to smear the “other” side.
Gleick is a scumbag, and his position as a senior scientist is evidence for my argument towards violent politicization and bad behavior of departments and researchers geared towards shutting down debate and discussion that I talked about in the other thread. This is a worse case than normal but not unique.
What this is NOT, however, is a fabrication of the physical phenomenon of global climate change. Not in any way, and it is misleading of Forbes to headline it that way to boot.
3 Likes
While I don’t necessarily disagree with you, running thru the government creates an equally challenging problem in that politicians seek power at all times and in all ways. Handing them an equally large Pythagorean lever in that pursuit is highly dangerous in my opinion. We see parts of it now “we have to save the planet–give me more tax money”, “we will put them out of business” erc.
Again, not disagreeing that public sector is better suited to some things than the market. I’m not an AnCap by any means. But there are dangers there too
1 Like
I could be referring to mining coal or any other type of mineral extraction, steel production, farming, or any other industry that has an environmental impact. When we can point to some sort of impact or effect on the environment it doesn’t matter what industry. The only thing that matters is the environment. When that button gets pushed, minds get lost, then jobs and the people who have them follow shortly thereafter.
Its freakin nuts. But we don’t need those jobs because automation, overseas production, the environment etc.
Do you use paper, electricity, various chemical compounds? Well those impact the environment. We don’t need that.
How many people die from anesthesia? What happens to all of that medical waste?
We don’t need that. Because The Environment.
See how that works?
1 Like
Again, you’re engaging in hyperbole. No one (with any actual political power, that is) is staking out the position you’re describing. (Any pol proposing legislation outlawing paper, electricity and/or anesthesia?)
Yes, a healthy dose skepticism is great, especially in dealing with the government and the media, but empiricism on a personal level only takes you so far.
Let’s use another extreme example to illustrate the limits of empiricism - the Flat Earth theory.
Let’s assume that you haven’t made a round-the-word trip going either eastwards of westwards and that you haven’t been to space or climbed high enough to see the curvature of the Earth with your own eyes - this means you have not personally verified that the Earth is indeed round. You have alleged proof from pictures, videos, scientists (including Eratosthenes who correctly calculated Earth’s circumference 2300 years ago down with a margin of error of less than 30 miles) and the cornucopia of other people but your “skepticism” prevents you from accepting this “alleged fact” and you “believe your own eyes”, ergo you believe that the Earth is flat.
That’s why one the the greatest achievements of the homo sapiens sapiens is the scientific method (sadly, it seems we’re regressing on this one) It enables us to move past our personal experiences into (somewhat more) objective perception of the Universe. Therefore, we have to refer to those recently much-maligned experts and scientists. These aren’t the polls or social sciences who sometimes use statistical analysis to quantify occasionally subjective beliefs.
This is mathematics (more precisely, predictive modeling) and we as a species don’t have another go at this. “Well, it seems the liberals WERE right. Too bad we fucked up the planet”
If you’d say something along the lines “Hey, they say the economy’s bad but I’ve just gotten a raise” you’d be laughed at for conflating your narrow personal experience with the economy as a whole whose condition is determined by relying on quantifiable data.
Yet logically absurd arguments such as these are perfectly acceptable when talking about Global Warming, for some reason.
2 Likes
Are there any regulations regarding their production or use?
Of course. And thank gawd for 'em.
And the government operates under an equally heinous principle- implement policy that will get them the most votes in the short term regardless of the effects of policy in the long term.
How many time have we seen big businesses influence politicians to implement regulation which only serves to keep out competitors from entering market, while being completely ineffective in it’s stated purpose?
How about sticking to the old way of doing things where if the pollution from my factory kills all the plants on your farm you can sue me for damages and leave the waste of taxpayer money out of it?
As is the practice of people who wouldn’t know a polynomial from a pancake to yell about the destruction of the earths eco system.
And I thought that the Egyptians calculated the circumference of the earth first?
That’s what my geometry for dummies book said.
Ok. Now my misunderstanding of this may be laughable, so cut me some slack.
But lets say that the eyeball is really hard to anesthetize. Through some happening or circumstance, the production of best one for the job is found to be marginally affecting the environment, but because of popular sentiment- is made illegal to produce, making your job much harder.
But the common sentiment about your job is “Well my eyes are fine and I don’t like that anyways. And there are a lot of developments in robotic microsurgery, so we don’t need ophthalmologists either.”
Because that is what a lot of people are experiencing with these industries that have become the target of these regulations.