2016 Presidential Horse Race

[wizards8507]

That's not logically equivalent. Forcing smoke into other people's lungs would make you a bad person.

I agree.

However, to continue your analogy, what Rubio argued last night is that there's no point on America cutting down from a pack-a-day to half a pack-a-day when India and China are chain smoking cigars and piping Hummer exhaust into the room.

 

[Cackalacky]

The bolded is logically contradictory.

You say regulation isn't the problem, yet my example shows regulation causing more pollution by causing the business to uproot and move to Mexico where they don't have the same regulations.

You're a civil engineer, so you took some enviro classes in college. Accordingly, you know that there are an abundance of chemical manufacturing plants in Mexico because they have lesser regulations and can pollute more while paying less.

So, in essence, if we consider the world as a single entity, enacting really tough regulations in the United States => businesses move to places where they don't have the regulation => they pollute more there than they did before in the United States. So in the end, the net result in global pollution is actually worse by enacting stronger regulation in the United States. And that's not even considering the carbon footprint associated with transportation of those goods.

When Rubio says "America is a country, not a planet" he's 100% right... the only way something effective gets done on climate change is if a coalition of the "consumers" puts says they aren't playing ball anymore with global polluters.

It's not contradictory. Moving to Mexico where they don't have regulations leads to the same or more pollution just in a different place. Is that what you at arguing? If regulations were in place all over earth then companies would have no need to move. It amounts to valuing business Over the welfare of the human race. I say human race because our businesses are multinational now and are equally unconstained by national boundaries or policies.

 

[Cackalacky]

Global warming is a problem, but it's not an issue of morality. Smoking is bad for you, but it doesn't make you a bad person.

Instead of enacting fossil fuel regulations that will directly kill jobs and hurt families, let's figure out ways to make people shift to nuclear, wind, solar, etc. Basically the right thing is to encourage innovation and fix the root of the problem. Putting a band-aid on a bullet hole isn't going to solve anything.

The only way this stops being a problem is when it makes more economic sense for companies to invest in clean energy. That's it. As Lax has been saying, if the US enacts tough regulations on fossil fuels, the only result will be companies killing American operations and moving to other areas in the world where they can continue business as usual.

The welfare of the only known bastion of humanity in the universe is a moral issue. It is completely a moral issue. Not sure that is even arguable. And doing harm to the by your actions is a moral issue as well.

 

[gkIrish]

It's not contradictory. Moving to Mexico where they don't have regulations leads to the same or more pollution just in a different place. Is that what you at arguing? If regulations were in place all over earth then companies would have no need to move. It amounts to valuing business Over the welfare of the human race. I say human race because our businesses are multinational now and are equally unconstained by national boundaries or policies.

The point is that causing businesses to move to Mexico or China or wherever could have a net negative effect on the global environment along with a guaranteed negative effect on the U.S. economy. I don't think your post responds to that assertion. You are essentially talking about a utopia, not reality.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

You can chicken-and-egg this thing to death. But the bottom line is that 1) it's an economic thing 2) it's a moral thing 3) it's a global thing. It's important for all countries to band together and address this in a way that is pragmatic from an economic AND moral standpoint.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

The point is that causing businesses to move to Mexico or China or wherever could have a net negative effect on the environment along with a guaranteed negative effect on the economy. I don't think your post responds to that assertion. You are essentially talking about a utopia, not reality.

I believe it's only a current reality because countries haven't all agreed to put morals ahead of profit-margins. That in itself is perhaps a utopia, but that's not a reason to shy away from the attempts to achieve said environment. There has to be a compromise somewhere.

 

[dublinirish]

carson endorsing trump now

 

[IrishLax]

It's not contradictory. Moving to Mexico where they don't have regulations leads to the same or more pollution just in a different place. Is that what you at arguing?

Ummm... yes? That's clearly what I've been saying this entire time?

If regulations were in place all over earth then companies would have no need to move.

Uh huh.

 

[wizards8507]

The welfare of the only known bastion of humanity in the universe is a moral issue. It is completely a moral issue. Not sure that is even arguable. And doing harm to the by your actions is a moral issue as well.

My God, the hypocrisy on this issue is astounding. Cack lectures us about the "moral" issue of environmental degradation while sitting in a climate controlled room, clicking away on a petroleum-based keyboard, using electricity from a coal plant to power his lithium batteries. Environmentalists are like the rich kids at Ivy League schools who decry their own "white privilege" but sure as shit won't go down to the registrar and take their name off the Dartmouth rolls so that the position can go to an "under served minority group." When you start shitting in a hole in the ground out in the woods with your hand-sewn hemp clothing, hand-hewn log cabin, and your subsistence farm, then I'll take your "this is a moral issue" argument seriously. Throwing your Coke bottle in the blue bin and voting for politicians who promise to heal the planet's wounds while flying around in their private jets does not give you the moral high ground on this issue.

You can chicken-and-egg this thing to death. But the bottom line is that 1) it's an economic thing 2) it's a moral thing 3) it's a global thing. It's important for all countries to band together and address this in a way that is pragmatic from an economic AND moral standpoint.

That's a wonderful sentiment in a John Kasich-y kumbaya sort of way. You can't just say "it's important for all countries to band together" because the fact is that all countries WON'T come together. It's like Donald Trump saying he's going to sit down and work out a peaceful negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians. That doesn't work when the stated goal of the Palestinians is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

 

[gkIrish]

I believe it's only a current reality because countries haven't all agreed to put morals ahead of profit-margins. That in itself is perhaps a utopia, but that's not a reason to shy away from the attempts to achieve said environment. There has to be a compromise somewhere.

I have no faith that countries like India are going to agree to do what is necessary to fix the problems with the environment. Until big players like that are willing to do something then I have no problem with the United States electing to follow that path as opposed to hurting our economy.

The United States should do everything it can diplomatically to convince other countries that we need to take global warming and all that seriously but until those countries play ball then there's not much we can do.

 

[woolybug25]

My God, the hypocrisy on this issue is astounding. Cack lectures us about the "moral" issue of environmental degradation while sitting in a climate controlled room, clicking away on a petroleum-based keyboard, using electricity from a coal plant to power his lithium batteries. Environmentalists are like the rich kids at Ivy League schools who decry their own "white privilege" but sure as shit won't go down to the registrar and take their name off the Dartmouth rolls so that the position can go to an "under served minority group." When you start shitting in a hole in the ground out in the woods with your hand-sewn hemp clothing, hand-hewn log cabin, and your subsistence farm, then I'll take your "this is a moral issue" argument seriously. Throwing your Coke bottle in the blue bin and voting for politicians who promise to heal the planet's wounds while flying around in their private jets does not give you the moral high ground on this issue.

Oh spare us the hypocrisy rant. There is an ocean of space between being a zero footprint human and a polluting slob. Just because someone types on a laptop doesn't remove their right to want to make changes in the environment.

Rants like this piss me off. Because they not only do not add to the conversation, but also belittle the argument to the point of childish banter. Everyone that wants to invoke tangible changes in the future of our environment doesn't have to live in a straw hut to satisfy your unrealistic expectations.

Also... where's your solution? Where is your point of emphasis? You are just blasting others while not actually offering any opinions on the matter. Typical of you.

 

[woolybug25]

If no one ever does anything, then how do we expect anything to ever get done?

 

[palinurus]

Yes, but passing regulations that will be avoided completely, if the polluters move elsewhere to produce more pollution, net, makes the advocates feel better about themselves, and feeling better about their guilt complexes is what some people are really all about, imo.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

My God, the hypocrisy on this issue is astounding. Cack lectures us about the "moral" issue of environmental degradation while sitting in a climate controlled room, clicking away on a petroleum-based keyboard, using electricity from a coal plant to power his lithium batteries. Environmentalists are like the rich kids at Ivy League schools who decry their own "white privilege" but sure as shit won't go down to the registrar and take their name off the Dartmouth rolls so that the position can go to an "under served minority group." When you start shitting in a hole in the ground out in the woods with your hand-sewn hemp clothing, hand-hewn log cabin, and your subsistence farm, then I'll take your "this is a moral issue" argument seriously. Throwing your Coke bottle in the blue bin and voting for politicians who promise to heal the planet's wounds while flying around in their private jets does not give you the moral high ground on this issue.

I'll give you points for creativity because I did LOL while reading, but overall, I disagree. The reason it's a moral issue is because it requires a person to act on the betterment of humanity versus the betterment of their company's bottom line. Simple as that.

I don't see the hypocrisy in being an environmentalist who lectures about global warming, especially in today's world, where thanks to technology, there are plenty of green/clean options available for one to choose. Recycling matters, using battery powered equipment instead of gas matters, getting a hybrid instead of a Hummer matters. You see it all the time where people make the moral choice to perhaps spend extra money on the cleaner product versus the one that is cheaper but is worse off for the environment. What's wrong with wanting massive fossil fuel companies to act in the same manner?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Curious why I always hear "America is a leader. America doesn't follow others. America should set the tone." Yet when it comes to this topic, all I'm hearing is "Well the others don't do it so why should we." Quite convenient from the crowd backed by the fossil fuel lobbyists, eh?

 

[wizards8507]

Oh spare us the hypocrisy rant. There is an ocean of space between being a zero footprint human and a polluting slob. Just because someone types on a laptop doesn't remove their right to want to make changes in the environment.

Rants like this piss me off. Because they not only do not add to the conversation, but also belittle the argument to the point of childish banter. Everyone that wants to invoke tangible changes in the future of our environment doesn't have to live in a straw hut to satisfy your unrealistic expectations.

My rant wasn't directed at everyone who wants to make environmental changes. My rant was directed specifically at Cackalacky for framing this as a one-sided issue of morality. He refused to acknowledge that there are trade-offs, many of which support an argument that climate change regulation actually has immoral implications. Specifically, I think economic growth and giving the poor a path out of their poverty is a far superior moral imperative than making sure they don't get too warm in summer time.

Also... where's your solution? Where is your point of emphasis? You are just blasting others while not actually offering any opinions on the matter. Typical of you.

My point of emphasis is job creation. You and Cack have argued that the poor stand to suffer the most from climate change. I counter that industrialization has done tenfold more to help the poor of this world than any negative environmental externalities they may face. Answer me honestly, would you rather be a poor person in 2016 America or pre-industrial China? The answer is pretty easy even if the 2016 American has to deal with marginal effects of climate change.

Curious why I always hear "America is a leader. America doesn't follow others. America should set the tone." Yet when it comes to this topic, all I'm hearing is "Well the others don't do it so why should we." Quite convenient from the crowd backed by the fossil fuel lobbyists, eh?

It's not that simple. It's not like America passing climate regulations would result in a small improvement even if China and India don't play along. If America passes climate regulations, China and India will get worse and more than offset whatever decreases we contribute.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I believe it's only a current reality because countries haven't all agreed to put morals ahead of profit-margins. That in itself is perhaps a utopia, but that's not a reason to shy away from the attempts to achieve said environment. There has to be a compromise somewhere.

I think it is much more complicated than profits vs environment. To the US, sure that is probably fair. But to other countries with less developed economies and completely different government structure, it can be more about governmental stability and preservation of societal norms.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I have no faith that countries like India are going to agree to do what is necessary to fix the problems with the environment. Until big players like that are willing to do something then I have no problem with the United States electing to follow that path as opposed to hurting our economy.

The United States should do everything it can diplomatically to convince other countries that we need to take global warming and all that seriously but until those countries play ball then there's not much we can do.

Lame.

How about be a leader and pave the way? Spend money on clean technology. Spend money educating people on said technology so they have a job. People have a way of adapting. Teach them and guide them into new fields/careers. For fuck sake, do something. Just saying, well others don't do it and we'll lose business is such a pussified cop-out.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

We talk about vocational programs all the time and how there's a market for these kids who don't want to go to college. Make those programs geared towards the new and improved technology. Car mechanic --> Electric car mechanic, complete with an internship for the nearest Tesla dealer. I don't know. Just spit balling. I just refuse to sit back, cross my arms, and say "Welp, nothing we can do."

 

[wizards8507]

Lame.

How about be a leader and pave the way? Spend money on clean technology. Spend money educating people on said technology so they have a job. People have a way of adapting. Teach them and guide them into new fields/careers. For fuck sake, do something. Just saying, well others don't do it and we'll lose business is such a pussified cop-out.

It's not a cop-out it's fucking reality. Saying "WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING" isn't saying anything. It just makes you feel better, even if the things we do result in zero improvement and billions of dollars down the drain.

Here's the secret that the Democrats don't want to talk about. The big oil companies are investing in clean energy research in tremendous amounts. They see the writing on the wall. They know that their business model won't last forever and that whoever comes up with a way to make solar efficient and affordable is going to make a bazilliondy dollars.

 

[gkIrish]

Lame.

How about be a leader and pave the way? Spend money on clean technology. Spend money educating people on said technology so they have a job. People have a way of adapting. Teach them and guide them into new fields/careers. For fuck sake, do something. Just saying, well others don't do it and we'll lose business is such a pussified cop-out.

I will sleep soundly at night considering the goal of my position is to avoid a net negative effect on the environment and simultaneously preventing our citizens from losing jobs. You are operating entirely on theories and living in a fantasy world if you think government spending is going to stop global warming.

 

[gkIrish]

I'll give you points for creativity because I did LOL while reading, but overall, I disagree. The reason it's a moral issue is because it requires a person to act on the betterment of humanity versus the betterment of their company's bottom line. Simple as that.

I don't see the hypocrisy in being an environmentalist who lectures about global warming, especially in today's world, where thanks to technology, there are plenty of green/clean options available for one to choose. Recycling matters, using battery powered equipment instead of gas matters, getting a hybrid instead of a Hummer matters. You see it all the time where people make the moral choice to perhaps spend extra money on the cleaner product versus the one that is cheaper but is worse off for the environment. What's wrong with wanting massive fossil fuel companies to act in the same manner?

You don't see a problem with Leo DiCaprio using his Oscars speech to talk about the environment while riding around on a "superyacht" with two massive diesel engines?

 

[IrishLax]

Curious why I always hear "America is a leader. America doesn't follow others. America should set the tone." Yet when it comes to this topic, all I'm hearing is "Well the others don't do it so why should we." Quite convenient from the crowd backed by the fossil fuel lobbyists, eh?

Lame.

How about be a leader and pave the way? Spend money on clean technology. Spend money educating people on said technology so they have a job. People have a way of adapting. Teach them and guide them into new fields/careers. For fuck sake, do something. Just saying, well others don't do it and we'll lose business is such a pussified cop-out.

Man, level of pseudo-hippie "say something that sounds flowery and good but makes zero sense once you break it down" is at an all-time high in this thread right now. The only "pussified cop out" is the idea that there are no consequences to the feel-good idea of SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT! when taken on as unilateral policy.

You cannot "be a leader" without followers. I've already explained - and frankly, it's not even arguable to anyone with even the most basic concept of global economics or environmental science - how unilateral regulation in the United States leads to net more global pollution as a result.

Second, when people want the US to be a "leader" in other fields it's because they don't have a tangible negative cost. Pushing jobs out of this country creates more pollution and costs money. It hurts literally everyone. It hurts the environment, it hurts our citizens, it hurts our Government revenues, and it hurts our overall economy.

There is only one effective way to combat pollution and climate change, and it's the "consumer" countries standing up to the "producer" countries and forcing them to meet certain global standards. There is literally no strictly domestic policy that the United States can pass that is going to have any kind of tangible effect on global emissions, pollution, or climate change over the long run.

It's a modified "problem of the commons" for anyone who has taken logic or game theory or social strategy courses... one person recognizing that "this is bad, I should limit the amount my cows graze on the commons" does absolutely fucking nothing to solve the overall problem of the other people's cows eating all the grass. All it means is that your cows will starve. You need global laws (or a coalition of countries to enact laws/sanctions/taxes) in order to make sure China, India, etc. feed their cows less.

 

[IrishLax]

It's not a cop-out it's fucking reality. Saying "WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING" isn't saying anything. It just makes you feel better, even if the things we do result in zero improvement and billions of dollars down the drain.

Here's the secret that the Democrats don't want to talk about. The big oil companies are investing in clean energy research in tremendous amounts. They see the writing on the wall. They know that their business model won't last forever and that whoever comes up with a way to make solar efficient and affordable is going to make a bazilliondy dollars.

I will sleep soundly at night considering the goal of my position is to avoid a net negative effect on the environment and simultaneously preventing our citizens from losing jobs. You are operating entirely on theories and living in a fantasy world if you think government spending is going to stop global warming.

I'd like to thank you both for restoring my faith in humanity this morning that some people are capable of common sense rational thought.

 

[Cackalacky]

Ummm... yes? That's clearly what I've been saying this entire time?



Uh huh.

There are apparently muddied waters here. Lets try and clean them up. Pun intended.
You are correct about my engineering background. I had over 10 years as an environmental engineering consultant, specializing in air modeling, site remediation, site evaluation, cleanup producing Voluntary Cleanup Contracts of public and private entities and have worked on two of the most polluted sites in the state (Magnolia and the Charleston Naval Base)

I even guest lectured at the Citadel for the engineering department (faculty and staff) while I was a student in the evening program while working full time as an consultant. I lectured on the local issues in Charleston and engineering solutions. So I have lots of experience, in identifying, quantifying, and proposing sensible solutions, both for private and public businesses and I made money doing it.

That being said, regulations did not exist at all until the Guilded Age ran amok (which is basically what China is doing right now) and we started to get minor rules here and there. The First federal environmental laws occurred in the late 1950s. Every regulation since then has been legislated as a RESULT of poor business practices and behaviors that have casued large scale public health and environmental damage such as Love Canal and the Cayahoga River (which for all intents and purposes was a dead river)

Regulations were designed to force better practices or inhibit those that are damaging. The regulations WOULD NOT HAVE EXISTED if business did things in a manner that did not cause damage or pollute outside of the confines of the business. If there had not been regulations, the conditions would have worsened because if companies have shown anything ever it is that they will do the bare minimum to make a buck. If we do not want to have regulations, companies need to make the decision to make environmental responsible products in responsible manner.

What I think you are saying is...companies are leaving because they don't want to do what is right, but what is easy and cheapest. They blame the regulations. When in fact it could be said that they don't want to change the way they do things, and instead move to a place where they can continue doing what they have been unfettered.

None of this negates the damage they are still doing because they refuse to adopt practices that do not create pollution. What is perplexing is you blame the mere presence of the regulations as detrimental to businesses when they are in fact there for our protection. For company to move its ops to another country in order to pollute is not a net change with regards to the earth. You day they pollute more in Mexico because they have less regulations as that somehow should render regulations pointless or harmful? I dont get this at all. It does not matter where they are. These companies will always pollute because they fail to see the value of maintaining a responsible niche in the environment and instead put maximized profits above all else. This is a terrible POV. If companies did things in a manner that was not damaging to the environment and not shown a longterm history of it, regulations would cease to be necessary or required.

 

[Cackalacky]

My rant wasn't directed at everyone who wants to make environmental changes. My rant was directed specifically at Cackalacky for framing this as a one-sided issue of morality. He refused to acknowledge that there are trade-offs, many of which support an argument that climate change regulation actually has immoral implications. Specifically, I think economic growth and giving the poor a path out of their poverty is a far superior moral imperative than making sure they don't get too warm in summer time.


My point of emphasis is job creation. You and Cack have argued that the poor stand to suffer the most from climate change. I counter that industrialization has done tenfold more to help the poor of this world than any negative environmental externalities they may face. Answer me honestly, would you rather be a poor person in 2016 America or pre-industrial China? The answer is pretty easy even if the 2016 American has to deal with marginal effects of climate change.


It's not that simple. It's not like America passing climate regulations would result in a small improvement even if China and India don't play along. If America passes climate regulations, China and India will get worse and more than offset whatever decreases we contribute.

First of all I did not do that. I said in my first post today that conservatives should have a slam dunk policy on environmental pollution from a moral standpoint. It should be a core "CONSERVATIVE" position to maintain and have. I even provided a great paper on it. You should read it.

I chose to pursue that with some of the self described GOP'ers to see if they had the same concepts. I am not railing against morality in pollution, rather trying to get some of the Conservatives here to see that it actually is one of the best conservative policy claims to be staked but it is constantly undermined by the amoral business practices and maximizing profits.

Spare me your hypocrisy feint.

For the love of god, We all stand to lose due to the destruction of our only home in the universe. FFS. This is not a country issue. Its a global one. The fact that Rubio said "America is not a planet, it is a country" underlines just how dumb a position he holds and also indicates his level of understanding. Pollution and climate change in particular are GLOBAL GLOBAL GLOBAL GLOBAL issues.

 

[wizards8507]

Love Canal

Love Canal was caused by government intervention. The land was sold by the local board of education to Hooker Chemical with a limited liability provision. Without that provision (i.e. a government-created market inefficiency), then Hooker would have been sued into oblivion and the lawsuits would have been clear-cut. Companies tend not to do things that will bring about their financial ruin.

 

[wizards8507]

The fact that Rubio said "America is not a planet, it is a country" underlines just how dumb a position he holds and also indicates his level of understanding. Pollution and climate change in particular are GLOBAL GLOBAL GLOBAL GLOBAL issues.

THAT'S RUBIO'S POINT! You AGREE with Rubio but you're either deliberately twisting or simply misunderstanding what he said. His exact POINT is that it's a GLOBAL GLOBAL GLOBAL issue so the United States, a country, can't fix it.

 

[gkIrish]

FOr the love of god, We all stand to lose due to the destruction of our only home in the universe. FFS. This is not a country issue. Its a global one. The fact that Rubio said "America is not a planet, it is a country" underlines just how dumb a position he holds and also indicates his level of understanding. Pollution and climate change in particular are GLOBAL GLOBAL GLOBAL GLOBAL issues.

I think you are hearing what you want to hear rather than actually listening to what he said. He said America is not a planet, it is a country because America cannot end pollution and climate change by itself. He is AGREEING with you that it is a global problem and must be addressed globally. He doesn't think America can fix the problem by itself. He doesn't think fixing pollution problems in America is going to repair the planet. And he's right.

 

[gkIrish]

THAT'S RUBIO'S POINT! You AGREE with Rubio but you're either deliberately twisting or simply misunderstanding what he said. His exact POINT is that it's a GLOBAL GLOBAL GLOBAL issue so the United States, a country, can't fix it.

Get out of my head.