Obama’s new climate change regulations

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It's not a switch that gets flicked and suddenly the job the guy had on friday doesn't exist on monday. It will take a decade or more to begin to start phasing in serious alterations to the power infrastructure of the country.

Many of these jobs are artificial anyway and exist because of societal support and a real, definable underwriting of the cost of doing business.

There used to be an ice exporting industry in the north east. Huge blocks of ice carved up and shipped all over the world. It employed nearly 100 000 people!

Now though, we have machines that dispense fresh ice for us in a manageable size whenever we want.

I get what you're saying about people won't vote for something that kills their job, but that sort of goes into the whole social fabric thing which we've been destroying for decades. It's more efficient to pay to retrain someone than have them collect paltry assistance cheques.

Why can't a power engineer work for a public transportation company or a geothermal generation plant instead of on a SagD site?

I can't think of many careers that would be too adversely affected from a switch from one kind of power generation into several kinds. Geoscientists, maybe?

It's all a big 'won't somebody think of the children' that comes across more like "I fear change".

No, but it starts with some plants here and there.

The government of the US can't even stop buying tanks they don't need because of a few thousand jobs that are affected. What do you think happens when it comes to a few mines and a few coal fired plants?

This is the reality, nothing is going to get done unless those people are accounted for. Their government is practically a holy war as it is, imagine adding this?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by nik-

No, but it starts with some plants here and there.

The government of the US can't even stop buying tanks they don't need because of a few thousand jobs that are affected. What do you think happens when it comes to a few mines and a few coal fired plants?

This is the reality, nothing is going to get done unless those people are accounted for. Their government is practically a holy war as it is, imagine adding this?

Not really related, but I think you are giving a lot more clout to the working man than he actually gets.

Neither side really cares about the guys punching the clock in that tank factory. It's probably got more to do with campaign contributions, defense lobbyists, pork spending, and greased palms than it does keeping people employed.

[nik-]

How is that different from the Fossil Fuel lobby?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by nik-

How is that different from the Fossil Fuel lobby?

Umm, I guess it's not.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by nik-

No, but it starts with some plants here and there.

The government of the US can't even stop buying tanks they don't need because of a few thousand jobs that are affected. What do you think happens when it comes to a few mines and a few coal fired plants?

This is the reality, nothing is going to get done unless those people are accounted for. Their government is practically a holy war as it is, imagine adding this?

Well, you get what you vote for I guess.

We can agree the system is undemocratic, but if you check out some of the political threads on here, you'll find that in the end that might not mean much anyway.

People that vote for a candidate will often parrot what the candidate says even if they disagreed with it prior to voting. You have to support your guy. That's how the relevant political spectrum changes over a given generation. The electorate parrots the political direction and not the other way around. It's like a kind of aristocracy.

Edit #2:

The tendency of people to favor a group that includes them, at the expense of outsiders and even at the expense of their own self-interest, has been called parochialism (Schwartz-Shea & Simmons, 1991). We may think of parochialism as an expression of both altruistic and moralistic goals. It is altruistic toward co-members. It may be moralistic in its effects on outsiders. The outsiders are being asked to help achieve the goals of insiders, in effect, whether this is consistent with their own goals or not. (What is not clear whether they are being asked to do this voluntarily, or whether coerced behavior would suffice, in which case the values are not truly moralistic.) More likely, though, parochialism is moralistic in its application to insiders, who are expected to be loyal to the group.

A prime example is nationalism, a value that goes almost unquestioned in many circles, just as racism and sexism went unquestioned in the past. Nationalists are concerned with their fellow citizens, regardless of the effect on outsiders. Nationalists are willing to harm outsiders, e.g., in war, for the benefit of co-nationals. This sort of nationalism is moralistic to the extent to which nationalists want outsiders to behave willingly in ways that benefit their co-nationals, e.g., cede territory, stop trying to immigrate, allow investment, etc. Nationalists typically want others in the group to be nationalist as well. The idea that one should vote for the good of humanity as a whole, regardless of the effect on one's own nation, would make total sense to a utilitarian (and it would require little self-sacrifice because voting has such a tiny effect on self-interest). But it is considered immoral by the nationalist.

An experiment by Bornstein and Ben-Yossef (1994) illustrates the parochialism effect. Subjects came in groups of 6 and were assigned at random to a red group and a green group, with 3 in each group. Each subject started with 5 Israeli Shekels (IS; about $2). If the subject contributed this endowment, each member of the subject's group would get 3 IS (including the subject). This amounts to a net loss of 2 for the subject but a total gain of 4 for the group. However, the contribution would also cause each member of the other group to lose 3 IS. Thus, taking both groups into account, the gains for one group matched the losses to the other, except that the contributor lost the 5 IS. The effect of this 5 IS loss was simply to move goods from the other group to the subject's group. Still the average rate of contribution was 55%, and this was substantially higher than the rate of contribution in control conditions in which the contribution did not affect the other group (27%). Of course, the control condition was a real social dilemma in which the net benefit of the contribution was truly positive.

Similar results have been found by others (Schwartz-Shea and Simmons, 1990, 1991). Notice that the parochialism effect is found despite the fact that an overall analysis of costs and benefits would point strongly toward the opposite result. Specifically, cooperation is truly beneficial, overall, in the one-group condition, and truly harmful in the two-group condition, because the contribution is lost and there is no net gain for others.

This kind of experiment might be a model for cases of real-world conflict, in which people sacrifice their own self-interest to help their group at the expense of some other group. We see this in strikes, and in international, ethnic, and religious conflict, when people even put their lives on the line for the sake of their group, and at the expense of another group. We also see it in attempts to influence government policy in favor of one's own group at the expense of other groups, through voting and contributions of time and money. We can look at such behavior from three points of view: the individual, the group, and everyone (the world). Political action in favor of one's group is beneficial for the group but (in these cases) costly to both the individual and the world.

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron/pap...m/ratsymp.html

[photon]

Good to see the response is fair and measured. Oh wait..

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by photon

Good to see the response is fair and measured. Oh wait..

You might find this interesting: The difference between 'Climate Change' and 'Global Warming'.

When asked if climate change was a good or a bad thing, 63 percent of Americans said it was a bad thing, while 76 percent perceived global warming as a bad thing, a 13-point difference.

Global warming also conjured stronger negative responses in an open-ended question, especially among self-identified political moderates. Similarly, in another question, 60 percent of Hispanics said global warming would harm them personally, compared with 30 percent who said climate change would hurt them personally. One exception was self-identified Republicans; most are unconcerned about the issue, and their views do not change significantly based on the language used.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/up...ters.html?_r=0

[Vulcan]

A lot of overreaction buy big business and the Republicans but it's good to remember Lee Iacocca's reaction to the tailpipe emissions rule.

For example, one of the examples cited in the report concerned a forecast by legendary auto industry executive Lee Iacocca that a 1970s tailpipe emissions rule would cause Ford Motor Co. to shut down and would cost 800,000 jobs. In that particular instance, the industry was able to solve the problem without economic upheaval, and polluting emissions were dramatically reduced almost overnight.

In another case, industry said that a rule to protect workers from cancer-causing fumes from the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) would be impossible to meet and would cost 2.2 million jobs. But in that instance, industry was quickly able to develop a new system that both ended the cancer threat and increased efficiency.

In another case, industry representatives warned that a 1990s clean air law would cost up to 2 million jobs. But complying with that law ended up being far less expensive than expected, and the resulting cleaner air is credited with preventing about 200,000 premature deaths a year.

In another case, the petrochemical industry said that banning lead in gasoline would jeopardize up to 42 million jobs. But suitable substitutes for lead were easily adapted, and the removal of lead from the atmosphere is credited with preventing 1.2 million premature deaths every year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor...b_4270024.html

[nik-]

I feel like my argument kinda made me the bad guy here. I agree it's a major major problem, I believe it's greatly accelerated by man, I agree we need to do something, I'm not a denier.

I just think it's going to be a god damn nightmare to actually get things to change which is why I think the economic replacement will need to be ready.

[Flash Walken]

I hope I didn't sound like I was jumping down your throat, nik-. I think we have a pretty similar pessimistic outlook on things.

One area where I am positive though is the belief that like a lot of other social policies, climate change mitigation will soon be looked at as self-evident by the majority and within a decade of that adoption, those who stubbornly stood in the way of progress are too embarrassed to remind anyone of their previous stance.

Edit: It's unfortunate that it is coming to people losing their homes to come to terms with the reality of the situation, but hopefully that's an eye opener.

[Tinordi]

Some people will be acutely affected by climate change mitigation efforts, like those in the coal industry. A much much larger number of people will benefit by avoiding huge future economic costs. This is why we have representative government, to make the tough decisions that are clearly needed. But Rouge's point is pretty bang on. We've known about this problem for 30 years now, we've known that it's been a serious problem. We've continued to invest in productive capital as though it wasn't a serious problem. We're now whining that it's going to be more expensive to do something about climate change even though we've known that these investments were short sighted and ill advised. Alberta is pretty much the definitional example of that fact. It's a bit rich to cry poor when you've known about the problem for so long and have made short term riches in the interim regardless.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by SebC

Yes, and the complete cost of pollution can't be included in the market price if polluters can just shift their business to other parts of the world - or worse, to other forms of pollution.

Face plant:

A whole day after the U.S. announces it's most stringest GHG regs to-date China announces it's most stringest GHG regulatory framework

Canada better not do anything until the Philippines and Bangladesh enact GHG regs though right?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...rbon-emissions

[Azure]

Is coal going to really be affected, or will the industry find a way to burn the coal in a much cleaner way? I wouldn't be surprised.

Either way I actually don't have a problem with pushing for stronger regulations. It is a good way to drive economic growth in the clean energy sector.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Azure

Is coal going to really be affected, or will the industry find a way to burn the coal in a much cleaner way? I wouldn't be surprised.

Either way I actually don't have a problem with pushing for stronger regulations. It is a good way to drive economic growth in the clean energy sector.

Well either way energy costs are going to be a lot higher and with a lot of people probably losing their jobs having higher energy cost isn't going to help either. if we have a cold winter like last it's going to be scary

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Is coal going to really be affected, or will the industry find a way to burn the coal in a much cleaner way? I wouldn't be surprised.

Either way I actually don't have a problem with pushing for stronger regulations. It is a good way to drive economic growth in the clean energy sector.

Yeah, that's the funny thing - of course they will. The Republican good old boys never tire of telling everyone how America is the greatest country in the world, driving the world's economy, innovation, hardest working, nobody can do it like us bla bla bla...

And they freak out about a 2% annual reduction in emissions. And it's not like they had to start yesterday either. They've got years to figure this out. I guess they don't really believe they can do it anymore.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Well either way energy costs are going to be a lot higher and with a lot of people probably losing their jobs having higher energy cost isn't going to help either. if we have a cold winter like last it's going to be scary

Nobody will lose their job.

The move away from coal has been happening a while. If anything, the shale gas push and the subsequent move away from coal has created even more jobs in the US.

Kinda hilarious how people are freakin' out. Sometimes you demand something from an industry, and after all the pissing and moaning is over, they sit down and figure out how to do it.

30% isn't even enough. I would have gone for 30% in half the time, and 50% in the same time. No reason why they can't burn coal a lot cleaner.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah, that's the funny thing - of course they will. The Republican good old boys never tire of telling everyone how America is the greatest country in the world, driving the world's economy, innovation, hardest working, nobody can do it like us bla bla bla...

And they freak out about a 2% annual reduction in emissions. And it's not like they had to start yesterday either. They've got years to figure this out. I guess they don't really believe they can do it anymore.

Its a lot like Obamacare. I still don't agree with it, or how it was implemented, but it has driven a lot of capital into healthcare spending. Thousands of startups in the healthcare sector.

Once people get past bitching about something, they figure out how to deal with the issue and they find solutions.

[Flash Walken]

Fully 70 percent say the federal government should require limits to greenhouse gases from existing power plants, the focus of a new rule announced Monday by the Environmental Protection Agency. An identical 70 percent supports requiring states to limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions within their borders. (Read everything you need to know about the EPA's proposed rules).

Democrats and Republicans are in rare agreement on the issue. Fifty-seven percent of Republicans, 76 percent among independents and 79 percent of Democrats support state-level limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Strong tea party supporters are most resistant to limits on emissions by states and power plants; 50 percent say the federal government should impose caps, while 45 percent say they should not.

The cross-party agreement extends to a willingness to pay for such limits with higher energy bills, a flashpoint for debate and a key area of uncertainty in new regulations. Asked whether Washington should still go forward with limits if they "significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly energy expenses by 20 dollars a month," 63 percent of respondents say yes, including 51 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of independents and 71 percent of Democrats.
Americans living in coal-heavy states are supportive of limiting greenhouse gas emissions in the poll, even as their states will be forced to make bigger adjustments to meet the EPA's new emissions targets. Among those in states where a majority of electricity is produced by burning coal, 69 percent say the government should place limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Support is a similar 71 percent in states where less than half of electricity comes from coal.*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...t/?tid=rssfeed

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...t/?tid=rssfeed

It reads like the majority of Americans are in favour of this bill. It also looks like the only way the will of the people gets enacted is when the President can use his authority. If it was left up to congress, big business would prevail.

[DuffMan]

I love this kind of stuff





Jim Bridenstine ✔ @RepJBridenstine Follow
Obama's War on Coal equates to a War on the Poor because the poor suffer the most from higher energy prices. #tcot