States Set to Sue the U.S. Over Greenhouse Gases

dnormant writes to tell us The New York Times is reporting that more than a dozen states are gearing up to sue the Bush administration for holding up efforts to regulate automobile emissions. "The move comes as New York and other Northeastern states are stepping up their push for tougher regulation of greenhouse gases as part of their continuing opposition to President Bush's policies. On Wednesday, Gov. Eliot Spitzer's administration is to issue regulations requiring power plants to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions, part of a broader plan among 10 Northeastern states, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, to move beyond federal regulators in Washington and regulate such emissions on their own."

Comments

One problem with this plan

[Dachannien]

Gov. Eliot Spitzer's administration is to issue regulations requiring power plants to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions We're being taxed and surcharged into oblivion, and we're passing the savings on to you!

Re:One problem with this plan

[Simple-Simmian]

Yea all these "charges" are passed on to the consumer. Folks like Spitzer may be able top afford it, I can't California (where I live) Should be breaking ground on 50 Reactors today. That will clean up the air in a huge way and allow us to remain a economic power house. All moves to clean up the air are good and badly needed but only if you are not cutting off the nose of every regular guy like me in the process and putting us into poverty.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a bad thing? Companies being forced to pay the full price of the pollution they cause and users being forced to absorb that price on the sticker of the choices they make. That's the free market at work.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Jeremi]

All moves to clean up the air are good and badly needed but only if you are not cutting off the nose of every regular guy like me in the process and putting us into poverty.

Why should there be an exception for "regular guys like you"? To the extent that you are contributing to the problem and enjoying the benefits of the power produced, it seems only logical that you should be required to help fund the solution. With any luck, requiring power companies to pay for the costs of the pollution they create (and presumably pass that cost on to their consumers) will motivate both the power companies and the consumers to switch to cleaner (and hence cheaper) methods of power generation... which is of course exactly what we want to have happen.

Re:One problem with this plan

[dosius]

It's not a free market when you can't walk with your feet. Around here there is ONE electric company, ONE natural gas company, ONE phone company, ONE cable company. You don't have choice.

(BTW, Upstate New York. We get fucked up the ass hard because of those dinks down in the big city.)

-uso.

Re:One problem with this plan

[alan_dershowitz]

We're being taxed and surcharged into oblivion, and we're passing the savings on to you! You're already being charged for pollution, in fact everyone is, in the costs of having to deal with the problems of pollution. What sucks is that a company can socialize the costs of pollution while privatizing the benefits. Currently I pay less as a polluter by not having to build a new plant, while everyone pays for the pollution cleanup. On the other hand, assessing a penalty according to the amount of pollution coming out of any particular plant has the twin effect of disincentivizing pollution and more fairly distributing the costs of dealing with that pollution (providing the assessed taxes are used for that purpose, which they should be.) This is cheaper and fairer, unless you are looking at it from the perspective of a heavy polluter.

Re:One problem with this plan

[zonky]

Whether or not you break ground and build reactors depends on honest costings at time of construction. Ask British taxpayers about this one.

Re:One problem with this plan

[geminidomino]

With any luck, requiring power companies to pay for the costs of the pollution they create (and presumably pass that cost on to their consumers) will motivate both the power companies and the consumers to switch to cleaner (and hence cheaper) methods of power generation... which is of course exactly what we want to have happen. Luck has nothing to do with it. That's the same sort of naive thinking that comes up with ideas like this. As long as the power company can recoup most/all of the added expense from the customer, they won't have any impetus to switch anything at all.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Eliot Spitzer is a certfied whack job. He used state troopers and IRS against political opposition. He is giving drivers licenses to illegals and now these costs will just be passsed on to citizens - a reason Michael Bloomburg stated he wont fine utilities. This sort of dysfunctional personality is characertistic of the emotion based irrational thinking that is like an auto-immune disease on the left. New York is in serious trouble.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Kenrod]

This is a bad thing? Companies being forced to pay the full price of the pollution they cause and users being forced to absorb that price on the sticker of the choices they make. That's the free market at work.

It's a good thing if examined in a vacuum (assuming the ludicrous notion of CO2 being a pollutant, or that you could accurately figure out the damage caused by climate change within trillions of dollars).

When you consider China and India doing nothing to pass those costs on to their users, you don't have a free market. You have the US destroying their competitiveness (and their ability to innovate) while doing little to solve the problem on a global scale (it is called "global warming").

Guys like Spitzer are always the first to attack private business. A better solution would be to offer tax incentives to companies that want to replace coal plants with clean power sources, including nuclear. But you won't see Spitzer proposing that because it's a truly innovative idea. Suing the Feds and attacking business is the easy way out.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Kenrod]

Spitzer knows that and he knows consumers are going to pay the higher costs. Thus it's unlikely that the power companies will have incentive to replace coal plants with cleaner sources of electricity, which is what we really need.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll not be laughin' when Bush claims the lawsuit, if allowed to be open to the general public, would impose a national security risk.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Kenrod]

I don't think you are disincentivizing pollution from the producers standpoint if their bottom line remains the same. If they just raise their rates to cover the costs of polluting, they have no incentive to replace coal plants with something cheaper. The end user will likely not reduce the amount of energy they use unless the cost increase is sizable (consider the fact that gasoline usage has not fallen even though gas is much more expensive now than several years ago).

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

The use of these utilities is creating external costs. Who do you think should incur these costs? The people that use the utilities that create the external costs, or everyone else?

Why is it that people that are always sucking the balls of corporations always wish to alleviate them from the burden of the costs that their operations incur on everyone else? Jeez, their fuel costs get passed onto their consumers too, so I guess they shouldn't have to pay for that either? The difference is that in order to obtain property you have to pay someone for it, but it's trivial and un-billed when you dump your shit into everyone else's lap. Maybe someday after years of lawsuits you'll be able to make them pay for a small fraction of this garbage, but good luck with that. Personally I'd rather not have to wait for catastrophic results from these externalities before assholes have to pay for them themselves.

Re:One problem with this plan

[porcupine8]

How does it act as a disincentive when they can pass the cost directly to the consumer with no worry of losing business??

Re:One problem with this plan

[Original Replica]

As long as the power company can recoup most/all of the added expense from the customer, they won't have any impetus to switch anything at all.

Do you have the option on your power bill to purchase "clean energy"? Now if there is some oversight of the power company that prevents them from passing the pollution costs on to people purchasing the electricity from solar and wind farms, then you have a strong economic incentive for the consumer which is the fastest way to create any large scale change. If if doesn't hurt people in the wallet, then everything will stay status quo.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

NY already has the largest debt of any state, had it's budget grow by 10% this year, is bleeding business away due to overtaxation, is losing the 20 and 30 somethings to the southern and western states, spends more on Medicaid than California and Texas combined, is growing more geriatric and the biggest growth sector is government. NYC might be sitting pretty but the rest of the state is dying pretty fast. The last thing upstate needs is an even more hostile environment for businesses and families. Hey, I know, lets throw $50 million at a company to move 10 miles and another $250 million to create a combination bus terminal/performing arts theater/college campus. Why, the uppity theater goers will just love mingling with the bums and the college already has a campus downtown that nobody wants to use.

We really need some more idiotic tax and spend ideas so that the last of the private industry leaves and NYC can foot the bill statewide for it's policies.

Re:One problem with this plan

[geminidomino]

Reading comprehension FTW.

Where did I say they shouldn't pay for it? I simply said they won't let it hit them where it counts: in the profits. The more it costs them, the more they pass on, and thus they have no reason to change anything until too many people decide that power is just too expensive.

Thus, the cost of power goes up, the pollution doesn't go down. Thus, the "Everyone else" keep paying for it anyway.

It's a non-solution.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Fry-kun]

That's actually part of the long-term strategy. Another part of it is the consumer's ability to choose the power supplier.
In short, what this new plan does is, it increases the cost of running non-environment-friendly power plants, while staying away from the costs of "green" alternatives. The coal-burning company will raise their rates - and thus lose more customers to cleaner alternatives.

Granted, this will have a big effect on low-income households - but that can be helped with tax breaks & such.

Re:One problem with this plan

[iluvcapra]

Except suddenly nuclear, wind and solar will have a competitive advantage over coal, oil and gas; there's no luck involved. Energy providers have to compete to provide the lowest cost per kWH, and if carbon costs money, energy producers have incentive to cut it.

Free CO2 in the air is gonna cost somebody a lot of money someday. Collecting a fixed amount for it at the time of origination is a way of containing the risk, since climate change is liable to be more expensive and less predictable.

Re:One problem with this plan

[dosius]

That despite living down the road from a hydroelectric plant. :/

-uso.
(Niagara Falls, NY mind j00)

Re:One problem with this plan

[emok]

If the cost of energy increases, consumers have a greater incentive to conserve. It happens all the time with gasoline prices: when the price rises, people drive less and buy more fuel efficient autos.

You could argue that consumers aren't currently paying for the total cost of energy anyway, since the government is often responsible for cleaning up pollution.

Re:One problem with this plan

[geminidomino]

What part of the country do you live in that has competition for power? Everywhere I have ever lived (including on Long Island, to remain ontopic), if there was going to be Nukeclear, solar, or wind power (barring personal power generators), it would have to come from the same provider already polluting.

Re:One problem with this plan

[geminidomino]

And how the hell did I slaughter the word "nuclear" even worse than Texans do?

Re:One problem with this plan

[E 99]

There's a minor flaw in that argument: CO2 isn't pollution and there is no cost to "cleaning it up." (Actually there is a NEGATIVE cost to cleaning it up, as the world's food crops, forests, and other vegetation consume it faster the greater ts concentration, which results in more food, forests and vegetation for everyone.)

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have the option on your power bill to purchase "clean energy"?

Actually, I do (though I'm not the person you were asking). Thanks to "deregulation" (they called it deregulation, but they basically passed a law forcing the electric company to operate as a utility connecting N generating companies and M users. Same idea as the regulation that used to force phone companies to share their lines with other people at cost) I can now purchase units of electricity from companies that run wind farms or nuclear plants or coal or whatever else.

One of those companies offers wind power. For $x, they add $x worth of their wind-generator power onto the grid, which I then take out of the grid on my end, and some fraction goes to the old electric company who now maintains the grid.

Now, is there a way to guarantee that my money is buying wind power (no, the electrons could come from anywhere...) or that the company is actually producing wind power (well, I could take a tour of their wind farm but nothing's actually plugged in and they run 10 coal plants) but that's just part of the problem with the market.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

If the cost of energy increases, consumers have a greater incentive to conserve. It happens all the time with gasoline prices: when the price rises, people drive less and buy more fuel efficient autos. And for lower income people who don't live in a 30,000 square foot mansion that is fully lighted 24/7 and who might not even own a car? Raise their prices 100% too, screw 'em. Oh, what, we need more subsidies? Lets make a new tax on some people to relieve the guilt from our other tax.

You could argue that consumers aren't currently paying for the total cost of energy anyway, since the government is often responsible for cleaning up pollution. And just where does the government get it's money from again? Oh yeah, the people via taxation. So you could argue that people are already paying for the clean up of pollution prior to adding another layer of bureaucracy and inefficiency on it.

Re:One problem with this plan

[E 99]

Free CO2 in the air is gonna cost somebody a lot of money someday. Collecting a fixed amount for it at the time of origination is a way of containing the risk, since climate change is liable to be more expensive and less predictable.

No. No it's not. If America proves to be stupid enough to fall for this crap, then we deserve what we get -- which is the end of our superpower status. Currently there is still more freedom and rationality in America than in China, but the trend looks better for China in the long term. I think I might have to switch host countries down the road.

Re:One problem with this plan

[geminidomino]

If the cost of energy increases, consumers have a greater incentive to conserve. It happens all the time with gasoline prices: when the price rises, people drive less and buy more fuel efficient autos. You must be joking... the roads are crawling with SUVs and other vehicles that consider 24MPG to be EXCELLENT gas mileage.

Re:One problem with this plan

[cdrguru]

Near term, the answer is to turn off the coal plants. Period.

Sure, over the next 20 years or so other types of electric generation can be tried out. Nuclear doesn't appear to be an answer because of the hippy protests. Wind is basically unreliable over long periods - there are few places that have the wind blowing 24x7. Solar is interesting, but outside of Arizona and Nevada solar isn't very reliable either - and it is environmentally very expensive.

Doing something with the carbon emissions seems to be also unpopular and unlikely to get much support. It allows the generators to keep turning and keep putting out electricity. The answer right now is to turn them off. Darken the cities at night. People can go back to reading by candlelight. Or go to bed like they did on farms in the 1800s.

Re:One problem with this plan

[kf6auf]

First of all, companies will maximize profits. When they have to build a new plant, they will build the one that provides what they need for the cheapest amount even if they can supposedly pass on the added expense to the consumer. The problem is that as rates go up, people will use less electricity from the grid (whether by running air conditioners less or buying rooftop solar for homes or businesses), and reduce the profit of the companies.

Second, with sanctioned monopolies, they often cannot raise prices without showing the government that it is necessary, and choosing the build expensive plants when they could be building cheaper ones is not going to convince people that they are trying to keep costs down.

Finally, you're not looking at the electricity industry correctly because demand for electricity peaks based on the time of year and the time of day. Plants with low variable costs always operate whenever they can while plants with high variable costs only operate when there is high demand. By taxing pollution, they are raising the variable costs of plants based on the pollution they generate. This means that plants that pollute more will have to charge more and therefore be on less. Furthermore, this will mean that the return on investment will be lower for high-pollution plants and so in the long run more low-pollution plants will be built.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Coryoth]

When you consider China and India doing nothing to pass those costs on to their users, you don't have a free market. You have the US destroying their competitiveness ... while doing little to solve the problem on a global scale On the other hand it is rather hard to ask India and China to do much of anything in the way of reducing emissions, or making polluters pay the costs, if you don't do anything yourself. Either you just spiral down into a lose lose situation for everyone, or someone decides to stand up and take the first step. As long as the US, which is by far the largest source of CO2 on a per capita basis, is doing nothing to curb emissions it is rather hard to put much pressure on China to step up to the plate. If the US is serious about being a world leader then they'll be brave enough to step up and do what is right, rather than cower with paranoia.

Re:One problem with this plan

[jav1231]

Actually, this one is easy. The U.S. has cleaned up industrial pollution every decade since the 70's. Even global warming alarmists will tell you that its underdeveloped nations that are the big problem. That doesn't stop environmentalists from capitalizing on the chaos they are themselves inciting. Just the other day I heard a reporter comment to an interviewee "Some say that global warming doesn't exist." That's inflammatory. Why? Because if you don't believe it's being caused by man then you are "guilty" of not thinking it's real at all. You're thrown in to bed with those who deny the holocaust. The U.S. and our industry isn't the problem and we shouldn't be bearing the brunt of the so-called "solution." I got news for you: the Earth is getting warmer with or without us. It's called a cycle. And if we go meddling with this process why aren't we just as guilty of disturbing mother nature as those the environmentalist want to keep out of ANWAR?

Re:One problem with this plan

[Valdrax]

When you consider China and India doing nothing to pass those costs on to their users, you don't have a free market. You have the US destroying their competitiveness (and their ability to innovate) while doing little to solve the problem on a global scale (it is called "global warming").

The fewer countries that fail to make an effort to solve the problem, the less people the remaining bad actors will have to point to and say that they don't need to do anything.

What, you didn't think that the Chinese and the Indians don't point to us when people claims that they need to do better?

The problem is people like you who seem to think that our country doesn't need to act until everybody else has acted first. With that kind of attitude, no one ever will.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Dachannien]

Disincentivizing pollution from power plants won't work. Coal plants represent a great deal of base power production, meaning that they are always on even during non-peak hours. There's not a lot of slop to play around with, so pollution won't actually decrease as long as the power plants can just raise their rates instead of installing pollution-reduction equipment. With coal in such a dominant position in the US, there's not enough competition to prevent that from happening.

The right way to go about this is to offer positive incentives to companies that are developing alternative power sources into cost-effective solutions. One could argue that the revenues from pollution disincentives could be piped directly into alternative energy incentives. However, one should also realize that the left wing would have an easier time of soaking the rich by doing it themselves through taxes, instead of going through the energy industry (since poor people have to pay their electric bills, too). The only explanation for the left wing not doing it that way is that fining the power companies makes for better headlines.

Re:One problem with this plan

[iluvcapra]

No. No it's not.

Nobody's forcing you to like Al Gore; Insurance Companies are quite convinced they see a lot of downside risk in climate change going forward, and they're the ones that are going to see the bills first.

we deserve what we get -- which is the end of our superpower status

That was going to happen regardless of anything.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Ironsides]

As long as the US, which is by far the largest source of CO2 on a per capita basis, is doing nothing to curb emissions it is rather hard to put much pressure on China to step up to the plate.

Tell you what. Calculate CO2 per capita based on where the consumers are and not by where the producers are and then tell me that. The EU has essentially been exporting its manufacturing to the US and China. Except that in China more CO2 is produced per product than when it was in the EU due to the lax environmental regulations and lower factory efficiency.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, electric utilities require state/local approval to raise prices. If the state is suing them to clean their shit up, odds are they aren't going to easily pass that on to the consumer.

Re:One problem with this plan

[iluvcapra]

In this glorious deregulated California market you can specify green power, just don't complain about the rolling blackouts (which hit you regardless of where you buy your electricity.) :P In theory power grid deregulation was supposed to allow you to choose where you got your electricity from, but in practice it meant "as long as you bought it from Enron."

OTOH, It's not just about choosing who runs their lines to you. If you install solar panels on your roof, you'll essentially be buying around 50% of your power from yourself (carbon-free), depending on where you live and how much power you use during the day, though the initial cost is still pretty high. Same goes for a ground-loop air-conditioner, good insulation, really any technology that helps keep the energy you buy on your property. THAT stuff is where the big incentives should be.

Re:One problem with this plan

[geminidomino]

If that holds true, then there may, just may, be some redeeming value in this.

Not gonna hold my breath though. Been a cynic for too long.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Weirsbaski]

It's a good thing if examined in a vacuum (assuming the ludicrous notion of CO2 being a pollutant, or that you could accurately figure out the damage caused by climate change within trillions of dollars).

When you consider China and India doing nothing to pass those costs on to their users, you don't have a free market. You have the US destroying their competitiveness (and their ability to innovate) while doing little to solve the problem on a global scale (it is called "global warming").

Guys like Spitzer are always the first to attack private business. A better solution would be to offer tax incentives to companies that want to replace coal plants with clean power sources, including nuclear. But you won't see Spitzer proposing that because it's a truly innovative idea. Suing the Feds and attacking business is the easy way out.

That's a good thing if examined in a vacuum (assuming the ludicrous notion of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury not being pollutants, or that you could accurately figure out the cost of not polluting within some range of dollars).

When you consider US corporations generating the pollution but taking no responsibility for it, you don't have a free market. You have the corporations with their inability or unwillingness to innovate to solve the problem on a global scale (it is called "global warming").

A better solution would be to make the companies generating the pollution be responsible for cleaning them up. But you won't see Bush proposing that because it's a truly obvious idea. Putting your fingers in your ears and doing nothing is the easy way out (even easier than your idea of taking our tax dollars and funneling them to the polluters).

Re:One problem with this plan

[nomadic]

because of those dinks down in the big city

Those "dinks'" tax dollars are carrying you. Upstate receives a lot more in benefits than you pay out in taxes. And the laws regarding the makeup of the legislature insure that each upstater gets more of a voice in state politics than each city dweller.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Maestro485]

We're talking about companies who receive nothing but tax breaks from this administration. Tax incentives are a joke. The only effective means against this administration is legal, and even the law has been marginalized in recent years.

Don't kid yourself, both methods are a pipe dream, but at least a lawsuit has a shot.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most gas and oil companies favor the existing tax subsidies to keep prices artificially low over any future tax incentives to reduce pollution.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

President Jintao and the national party in China have enshrined in guiding doctrine the Scientific Development Concept that pushes for this same goal of genuine sustainability as a key part of ensuring future growth. You are simply ignorant if you truly fail to see the problems wasteful pollution of national environment cause for long term growth.

Re:One problem with this plan

[alan_dershowitz]

How does it act as a disincentive when they can pass the cost directly to the consumer with no worry of losing business?? I can think of a few reasons, but keep in mind that I am not an expert in this area.

* Businesses are large consumers of energy, and they definitely consider power costs when they decide where to locate. Excessive power costs can prevent power company growth.
* As populations grow, outlying townships/suburbs/whatever will decide to incorporate. At that point they could choose instead of that power company, to form a municipal power company or join a co-op.
* The city can decide to dump the power company and form a municipal power utility. I am not sure how this works legally, but my community has put this to a vote a few times over the years.
* Additional plants are being built all the time, at which point profit margin comparisons come into play. The more you charge to cover expenses, the less you can take for profit because there is an upper limit to how much you can charge before there is a human cost and the community fights back.

Re:One problem with this plan

[geekoid]

sales of those vehicles has dropped. Contrary to what some people think, vehicles don't just disappear. People need to keep driving the car they bought 5+ years ago.

Re:One problem with this plan

[bberens]

Reading comprehension FTW.
Thus, the cost of power goes up, the pollution doesn't go down. Thus, the "Everyone else" keep paying for it anyway. Where are the free market republicans when you need them? When the price of a service or good goes up, people will buy less of it. Energy consumption is not magically different.

Re:One problem with this plan

[jcr]

Not only that, Spitzer is going to spend a shitload of local taxpayers' money litigating it, and the feds will spend another pile of money defending the federal government from the suit, and no action will actually be taken on any of the issues at hand for a decade or more.

Spitzer is a fucking attention-whoring son of a bitch.

-jcr

Re:One problem with this plan

[Trogre]

I thought that was because SUVs qualified as light trucks under US law and were therefore exempt from fuel taxes?

Re:One problem with this plan

[geminidomino]

Not in my area. Anecdotal, sure, but the vast majority of "temporary tags" (those paper license plates you get when you buy a vehicle) are on SUVs

Re:One problem with this plan

[Ambitwistor]

CO2 isn't pollution Whether CO2 is "pollution" is semantics; what matters is its ultimate effect on the environment, which is arguably a net negative. If you don't want to call that "pollution", fine, but it doesn't change the point.

and there is no cost to "cleaning it up." False. Carbon capture and sequestration has costs; so does abatement.

Actually there is a NEGATIVE cost to cleaning it up. Also false, since you're focusing on the benefits CO2 fertilization and ignoring all the other negative effects of CO2 via its climate impacts.

(Not that CO2 fertilization is such a huge benefit anyway; commonly plants are limited by nitrogen or water, not CO2, so extra CO2 doesn't necessarily help much; C4 plants don't benefit from CO2 fertilization in the first place; and agriculturally CO2 fertilization may lead to bigger plants but sometimes less nutritious ones. Elevated CO2 helps plants some, but not as much as people think — and that's before factoring climate change into the mix as well.)

Re:One problem with this plan

[Original Replica]

then we deserve what we get -- which is the end of our superpower status.

Looking at the greatest threat to our super power status right now, I would have to say that a severe reduction on fossil fuel reliance would benefit us greatly in the global superpower sense. If we have an renaissance of green tech in America two important things will happen: 1. We will have a new major tech export, reestablishing the strength of the dollar. 2. When oil loses it's supremacy then Middle Eastern countries will be economically and politically powerless until they transform into more globally harmonious cultures.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Vancorps]

Could have fooled me, because of all of that, Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa began creating a light-rail system and required taxis that go to the airport to be alternatively fueled. Also, newer cars have better mileage than older cars.

That's the problem with all this talk about consumption, the number of gallons consumed is still rising but the number of people on the road is also rising and very rapidly spreading the increased cost of fuel across a larger population. You've also seen the cost of goods such as milk and bread go up in price because truckers have to charge more for delivery.

Combine that with inflation and the fact that the Canadian dollar, once a joke in the U.S. is now worth more and for good reason. Make no mistake, the cost of energy has had impacts all over the country and in pretty much every aspect of our lives.

Sure, I can afford it, I can afford it if it doubles again as well. Does that mean less consuming? Probably at that level I'll only drive when necessary for my income, but at that level I know my sister wouldn't be able to afford to drive as she is struggling as we speak. She only drives now when she absolutely has to.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do it now. I'll buy the ticket. Be sure to renounce your citizenship at the consulate whenever you get wherever you're going, otherwise the offer is no good.

Of course you're full of shit, and you'll just spew the same tired nonsense on the Internet until you get too old to keep at it. No one else wants you either, after all.

Re:One problem with this plan

[JWW]

Doing something with the carbon emissions seems to be also unpopular and unlikely to get much support. It allows the generators to keep turning and keep putting out electricity. The answer right now is to turn them off. Darken the cities at night. People can go back to reading by candlelight. Or go to bed like they did on farms in the 1800s.

This suggestion is totally irresponsible. With the lights, and alarms!! off all night, the crime rate in major cities would skyrocket. It would be chaos.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Socguy]

I understand what you're saying, and it may be true where you are. I'm not sure what the rules are in your area but many places allow you to purchase power from a number of companies who generate it. Under these rules, power companies are free to charge whatever they want and pass on any cost they want but consumers are free to switch to a different company if they feel that they can get a better deal.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Socguy]

You must be joking... the roads are crawling with SUVs and other vehicles that consider 24MPG to be EXCELLENT gas mileage. Then the price point is not high enough.

Go to the UK where the cost of fuel is roughly 2-3 times the cost in America and compare the number of personal vehicles that get 24MPG.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

and their policies are drowning us. Something that benefits NYC isn't necessarily good for the agricultural and rust belt that makes up the rest of the state even if they throw money at us. The #1 thing destroying upstate? Medicaid mandates from Albany. As the younger, educated crowd flees upstate, they leave behind a plethora of old, retired people with a ton of medical bills and poor people with large families who are on the public dole with nobody to pay for them (local taxes are going up, up, up because of unfunded mandates from NYC (via Albany)).

As for the make up of the state government, it's three guys. Sheldon Silver (from NYC and who refused to let the assembly vote to denounce the recent illegal immigrant drivers license issue), Joe Bruno (RINO that is from just outside Albany as is almost as bad for the rest of the state as Silver) and Eliot Spitzer (again, from NYC). Don't fool yourself into thinking the other 61 Senators (33R-29D) and 150 Assemblymen (107D-42R-2 vacant) have any real say at all. Even then, 13 of those 62 senate seats and 64 of the 150 Assembly seats are held by one city. That HARDLY gives upstate a disproportional vote in the legislature.

Try living upstate for a few years before you tell us how good NYC is making things for us. Tell that to the tens of thousands of people who've lost jobs, the families that had to move away from each other to find a living and to the victims of the skyrocketing crime levels that have made Rochester the murder capital of NY. But hey, everything is peachy down in Manhattan so the rest of the state must be just as well, right?

Re:One problem with this plan

[scatters]

Reuters would seem to disagree with your second statement; ranking the US as the fifth highest per capita emissions. I'd have no problem believing that the US has the highest total emissions, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

http://www.reutersinteractive.com/CarbonNews/73074

BTW, thanks for raising the quality of this thread.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Score Whore]

You need to get off the CO2 bandwagon. It's not CO2 that is a problem. It's any high concentration of greenhouse gases. European ethanol emits more NOX than they thought it would by a factor of 2 (like 4% instead of 2% of the fertilizer they put on the crop makes its way into the fuel) and thus that little bump causes more greenhouse gas problems that just burning straight oil would. NOX being 300 times more of a greenhouse gas than carbon. I point out European because that's the article I read.

Re:One problem with this plan

[jav1231]

Anonymous Coward:
Getting drunk on the cool-aide are we? I have the luxury of being right. It's a curse because there's always someone who wants to gun you down (ie thinks that you're wrong). Frankly, if the best you can do is "you're an idiot" then I'm doing just fine. Since most of your rhetoric is right out of the playbook I'm guessing responding is futile.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Sure, a plant will sequester more CO2 in a more CO2 rich atmosphere, ceteris paribus. The problem is that with GW/Climate Change, the other conditions don't stay the same and the result may often be a net decrease in CO2 absorption. See recent studies that indicate that higher heat could cause droughts that would overall decrease the amount of growth by plants and limit their effectiveness as carbon sinks in spite of an increase in CO2.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Planesdragon]

We're being taxed and surcharged into oblivion, and we're passing the savings on to you! Yes, exactly.

The only way greenhouse gases will ever be corrected for is by the market. And that will only work if the cost of polluting power rises to reflect the ecological cost. Anything else is, well, pseudo-socialism destined (and possibly intended) to fail.

Re:One problem with this plan

[SeaFox]

As long as the power company can recoup most/all of the added expense from the customer, they won't have any impetus to switch anything at all.

As long as they don't wish to ever expand or build new power plants, no. But when they're trying to get approval to build new plants (especially that all important property tax break) they'll have a lot harder time getting residents to go along with them if they're planning to build coal plants that are going to generate big pollution bills the power company will be passing on to consumers.

If there's one thing preventing the adoption of green/renewable energy, it's that it's still cheaper to do things the old way. The government is offering tax breaks for people buying hybrid cars, a better idea is adding a pollution tax to the sticker price of regular cars. When the price of a hybrid sedan begins to match that of a standard sedan more (the initial price, not the "after the 15 year life total cost of ownership"), then you'll see more people pick them.

Re:One problem with this plan

[E 99]

False. Carbon capture and sequestration has costs; so does abatement.

Except that there's no need to do it.

Also false, since you're focusing on the benefits CO2 fertilization and ignoring all the other negative effects of CO2 via its climate impacts.

Which would be a fantastic argument if only those alleged impacts were based in reality, which they are not.

Re:One problem with this plan

[DigitalWallaby]

The crime rate isn't the only thing that would skyrocket. So would the birthrate!

Re:One problem with this plan

[TapeCutter]

Bio-fuel (from plants) simply shifts the problem from one place to another. Even disregarding the NOX issue the EU's "green target" for bio-fuel is encouraging Indonesia and Brazil to cut down their forest and replace it with palm oil plantations.

I think trees are important to save for many reasons but there is no need (or sense) in trying to attach carbon credits to something that is very difficult to measure, it simply opens the door to scam artists.

Re:One problem with this plan

[sumdumass]

Looking at the greatest threat to our super power status right now, I would have to say that a severe reduction on fossil fuel reliance would benefit us greatly in the global superpower sense

No, we have enough fossil fuel to last us for quite some time. We can supply our own needs for several hundred years. We can even go without importing it from the middle east or even from any country off this continent. We would however have to tel the tree huggers to kiss it and drill in the areas that are protected right now as well as use our high sulfur coals.

If we have an renaissance of green tech in America two important things will happen: 1. We will have a new major tech export, reestablishing the strength of the dollar. Most people don't want the dollar to regain strength. A low dollar basically means an elevated currency exchange for other countries meaning our exports are cheaper and more affordable in those countries. Which means we will start exporting products instead of jobs. It is all part of the free trade economics that Clinton was a big supporter of. We benifit in the long run, but eventually the dollars even out and we can freely move products to other countries as they can do the same and sell these products at the same costs. The EU will see a crash in about 5-10 years similar to the Asian and Mexican markets in the 90's with the Euro coming down to about the same levels as we have.

2. When oil loses it's supremacy then Middle Eastern countries will be economically and politically powerless until they transform into more globally harmonious cultures.

Actually, this is more likely to need a large scale war before this happens. we are dealing with religious fanatics who are creating the problems in the middle east. They don't give up because they can't sell oil. It will mean that we don't need to interact with the countries hostile to us. Unfortunately, that also means that when their economy's collapse, they will be looking to invade their neighbors that we find more friendly so we will have the war anyways. (we won't just disassociate with the entire middle east, we have interests there long before oil and will have interest long after oil.)

All I have to say is that I hope that the power companies will be smart enough to keep the extra charges separated from the regular charges so the public knows who and why their electric bills skyrocketed. I'm willing to bet that people will cross party lines at the ballot booth when gas prices are already are soaking up most discretionary income of working families and now they will have to fork over a decent portion of what is left to the power companies because their elected officials didn't think anyone would find out. And I'm already envisioning the campaign commercials claiming that if the costs of the "law suite" against our own government by governments where spent on developing cheaper cleaner sources of energy, the problem would have been fixed by now.

Re:One problem with this plan

[absoluteflatness]

global warming cult memebers, you have no facts to back that up

...

the hard fact is, C02 doesn't dictate climate on earth

Facts to back that up?...

Re:One problem with this plan

[sumdumass]

The problem is that as rates go up, people will use less electricity from the grid (whether by running air conditioners less or buying rooftop solar for homes or businesses), and reduce the profit of the companies.

Actually, you hit the nail on the head more then you want to realize. If everyone reduces their consumption by 30% because of this, then that means the utility companies can service about a third of a third more people on the existing infrastructure. If the existing infrastructure already has an expansion capacity built into it, then something like this could mean waiting a lot longer for newer/cleaner generating facilities to be built. I mean why build it if it isn't needed.

This scheme could have the exact opposite effect that is anticipated. It may also cause the utilities to forgo expanding and rely more on existing facilities purchasing power from places outside the effected areas. I remember an interview with a guy from some trade group supposedly representing big oil companies and the question was asked about why we aren't seeing more refineries being built or even the plans for building them. His answer was, it will take 5-10 years to get the designs made, the location picked, the necessary permits, and fight off lawsuits from environmental activists. Then when it starts being build, it would take another 5 to 10 years to be completed along with the pipelines and so on feeding it and taking products away, and all this at a costs of billions of dollars while at the same time, we are being told that we are to be off oil in 25-30 years. There won't ever be a chance to recoup the costs of building a new refinery let alone make a profit from it. Along this same principle, the "forcing them to pay" is probably more likely to result in no newer generating stations being built.

I know it isn't exactly what some people would want to hear, but that is what happens with cooked up schemes to punish people into compliance without them knowing it. You end up with unintended consequences.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Score Whore]

No. If you can make fuel from vegetation without adding in something extra (like the NOX I mentioned previously) then it's a good idea. Because every plant on the surface of the earth today took all the carbon in that plant from the atmosphere. The problem without is that all that carbon wasn't in the atmosphere, it was instead locked away "safely" underground.

But, people like Al Gore who emits more carbon in one month from just one of his multiple homes and then says it's all ok, he's neutral because he's paying his own company to pay someone to plant eucalyptus trees in Africa. He's a complete dick. He's trying to get into the business of selling indulgences to the rich allowing them to live profligate lifestyles while subjecting the middle class to burdensome carbon taxes. And of course those considered "poor" wouldn't be required to pay that particular tax because it wouldn't be fair to them.

Re:One problem with this plan

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure how you can consider a monopoly market a free market. This scheme might work if someone could easily buy cheaper electricity from another source but chances are, most of them are locked into a single public utility.

Something I don't think your considering is that electricity is a regulated utility, not a commodity. Well, it is considered a commodity within the market itself but not as far as people outside the market is concerned. and as being a utility, there is a general need for it above and beyond a desire. Firefighters and police are utilities too, you might like to go without them but you can't get around paying for them and not having them.

With electricity, for the average person, it is a necessity. I know people who have had the state take their children away because the electric was turned off more then 2 days. So acting like anyone could do without it similar to how they did it in the old days is a bit absurd. When there is a need like this, there cannot be a free market at all. There can be the resemblance of a free market, but on average, it is only a portion of the mechanics that would be free. Not the entire market anyways.

Now I have to question the intents of raising fees on a utility like this when they very same people imposing the fees know full well how people are dependent on it. It is like spending 10 years to convince the public that smoking is addictive and bad then funding new projects on tobacco taxes because it offends very little people at once but they know the addictive nature will keep revenue coming in. If they were going to take the money collected and develop cleaner, more efficient production processes and then use it to equipt the power companies, I would see it another way. But just like the tobacco taxes, this will go to other projects and never see anything close to cleaner air if it is allowed to go through.

The majority of people are taxed to death. It isn't really that taxes are so high, it is more the the costs of everything else is high and people are nickeled and dimes to death by every pet project and unneeded item the state has. If any and all fees are allowed to be passed on to the consumers separated from the normal fees on the bills, I'm willing to be that anyone approving this won't be in office long after the first year when people realize how bad it will effect them.

It used to be that we said In russia, the communist tell you how much of something you can do or use. Now russia is free and it is going to be on the east coast, they tell you how much you can use. And of course this only benefits the rich who can afford to pay the extra where the poor are stuck with no options. Well, there is a saying. Something about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Maybe it is time for more poor people.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Simple-Simmian]

I pretty much can tell you that you make more money than I do since I have not held job since 2000 and no one will hire me. Why should I who already has cut back to the marrow pay more for this than you do? The Government doesn't give me anything all and never will. All the Government does is take, It's governments stupid laws,rules and regulations are the biggest reason I am unemployed to begin with. Jacking up the cost of energy isn't going to do anything anyway but screw folks like me. Try getting by on one meal a day like I do and tell me I shouldn't get an exception. Build 50 reactors her in California we can be as green as we would like then and actually make rather than import much of our own power. This law suit is stupid and will only cost more people like me their jobs while lawyers, lobbyists and, politicians still live the good life.

Re:One problem with this plan

[heinousjay]

On the other hand, no one wins when the utilities go bankrupt. I know it's all fun to stick it to the man, but every last one of you on here depends on him to do your daily do.

Re:One problem with this plan

[sumdumass]

That is the initial point of the Kyoto accord. Whether you buy into global warming or not, you should remember that there was a push to relive the dept of the third world countries about the same times that global warming became an issue. It paralleled it for a long time then all the sudden this Kyoto accord was produced that supposedly cured global warming and the movement to forgive the third world debt disappeared. Call it coincidences or calculated procedure, I think they are connected.

Anyways, Knowing that the worlds populations increase by 1-2 percent every year, they decided to place an unrealistic goal of reducing emissions for developed countries to pre 1990 levels knowing that the world has or will have increased in population by about 15%. This means that it would be almost impossible to achieve and maintain Co2 emissions standards at that pre 1990 rate. So as a solution, you could either buy credits from developing countries or more your pollution to those countries. Either way, this means that those "other" countries, the third worlds under developed china's and India's of the world who signed onto the Kyoto accord but aren't limited by it's emissions quotas would be invested in by first world countries and they debts would be paid off by our investments to comply with Kyoto. Ever think why so many third world countries signed up? It is because you don't get the investment benefits or the ability to sell credits without being part of the program.

So if you want to know why everything was shipped to china or india or some other third world country that of gladly polluting instead of Europe or America, you now have a good reason why. And if you ask me, if something that was supposed to save the world is this corrupt and obvious, what does it say about the problems of global warming that it was presented to fix. It may be that global warming it real or it may be that it is faked in order to trick people into supporting other goals that they wouldn't normally support.

In any case, to the observant, there will always be a shadow of doubt on anything connected with it. Just like this scheme seems more like a way to sneak taxes in on people that literally have no way of avoiding it. They know it won't fix anything just like the tobacco taxes on a product they spent the last decade proving it is addictive. They know that funding won't go away either. Except now instead of telling a few people they are taxing them to save their lives, they are claiming to be taxing people to save the lives of future generations and the investments of rich people who own ocean front property.

Re:One problem with this plan

[pipingguy]

Good post.

Re:One problem with this plan

[sumdumass]

What are you talking about. We have reduced our increases in emissions more then some members of the Kyoto accord have over the last 7 years.

It isn't like we aren't doing anything. It might not be enough or as much as you would like but it isn't as if we aren't doing anything. The DOE is actively working on cleaner technologies and we have offered millions in grants each year to research cleaner ways of doing things. We have increased the cafe standards and even included a few formerly exempted vehicles. In a free world I would think it would be on businesses to make the changes to reduce emissions and not on the government to impose changes that is has no or little sound science backing the necessity of up or even showing it would help.

To say we aren't doing anything is a little self serving.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Marty200]

Luck has nothing to do with it. That's the same sort of naive thinking that comes up with ideas like this. As long as the power company can recoup most/all of the added expense from the customer, they won't have any impetus to switch anything at all. The trick to that plan is to make cleaner technologies more profitable. Ideally there would be competition in the market so you could choose a cleaner, and therefore cheaper, power company.

MG

Re:One problem with this plan

[jklappenbach]

I don't think it can be stressed enough that our greatest strength will come from our greatest perceived weakness. How do you think we can possibly compete in an international market where most competing economies are pennies to our dollar in terms of relative scale? Certainly not making textiles or steel, or even automobiles. Our strategic strength is our sense of individuality and freedom. With the current attack on civil liberties, one might get the idea that the current administration would have you believe otherwise. But a review of the history of invention and discovery that has originated from our country, just over the last 100 years, should put things back into perspective. We have produced the airplane, the telephone, the computer, walked on the moon, the internet, and on and on. What I'm getting at is that our self expression, freedom of thought, and innovation are our greatest strengths. When applied to energy, our capacity for innovation promises to remake our economy from one of the greatest energy dependents to a leader in energy production. This should be our target for the future. The best way to spur this on in a short time table is to encourage innovation through economics.

Besides, if you think modest increases in energy costs will be "cutting off the nose of every regular guy", imagine what the complete annihilation of every major coastal city will do for our economy if glacial meltdown occurs within 100 years as projected from global climate change studies. In fact, I don't even think we have 100 years...

Re:One problem with this plan

[absoluteflatness]

Well, since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, while it may not itself cause the greenhouse effect, it certainly would alter its intensity. I'm aware that humanity's contribution is on the order of something like 5% of total CO2 emissions per year, but atmospheric CO2 has increased by about 33% since the 1800's.

Accepting that the greenhouse effect exists and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one would logically conclude that a large increase would cause at least some effect on global temperatures. One of the real problems is that the CO2 levels are not only consistenly increasing, they are doing so at an increasing rate and with no signs of abating.

I'm sorry that someone who uses a zero when spelling "CO2" and can't correctly use the words "you're" and "humanity's", thinks poorly of my intelligence, but I guess I'll just have to deal with that. I'm not even going to tackle your awesomely accurate "the sun heats the oceans which forms water vapor" description.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

In this glorious deregulated California market you can specify green power, just don't complain about the rolling blackouts

So when was the last rolling blackout you experienced?

In theory power grid deregulation was supposed to allow you to choose where you got your electricity from, but in practice it meant "as long as you bought it from Enron."

Deregulation accomplished exactly what the private power producers wanted - a market where they could legally rob the citizens of California without fear of the Public Utilities Commission. You can't simultaneously be sane and claim to believe that the way to improve competition is to remove all of the rules from the game.

Re:One problem with this plan

[TapeCutter]

I'm not saying plants don't take carbon from the atmosphere, what I am saying is that it won't scale without doing incredible environmental damage (that has nothing to do with GHG). Not to mention that making fuel from food on a large scale is morally disturbing if you really are intrested in the poor.

The reason I don't agree with carbon credits for trees is that nations will claim plantations are trees, ero replacing native forrest with palm trees will garner even more profit than it does now. Also it is not simply a matter of calculating C02 extraction potential from the size of the plant, there are a miriad of other factors and in some circumstances plants can produce more C02 than they consume. All this uncertainty and potential profit will lead to people doing exactly what you accuse Gore of doing.

I think your wrong about Al Gore, he is not proposing a 'tax' rather he is promoting the IPCC's proposal of a 'rationing' scheme for emmisions, ie: auction the right to pollute by the ton and limit the amount of tons emitted globally to match what the biosphere can physically absorb (~2.5Gt/pa). The idea is commonly known as "cap and trade", unfortunately it looks like the powerfull polluters such as US, India, Russia & China want the "cap" based on GDP (as opposed to the actual physical limit that exists in nature).

BTW: Gore doesn't carry the same political baggage here as he does in the US and you are entitled to an opinion.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Dachannien]

Businesses are large consumers of energy, and they definitely consider power costs when they decide where to locate. Excessive power costs can prevent power company growth. If anything, this simply means that businesses will locate outside of states that adopt these regulations. If there is an effect on the utilities, it will simply be that utilities will locate power plants in states more amenable to their presence in order to dilute their exposure to the regulations. Those plants will have a higher profit margin due to upward pricing pressures in the states with these regulations. In other words, environmental disincentives equal lost jobs.

Your other reasons are flawed as well. Ultimately, somebody is going to buy coal-generated electricity, if for no other reason than because that's all the power that's left to buy. Since coal plants make up the bulk of the base generation capacity in the US, most, if not all, of that capacity will always be used. That means that any pricing pressure on coal-generated power (and gas/oil generated power, for that matter), such as increased cost to produce, will ultimately be passed on to the consumer living in the area where the cost to produce has increased, regardless of whether that customer is buying their electricity individually or as part of a co-op.

By the way, it took rolling blackouts, intense price-gouging, fraudulent and other illegal business practices, and demolished retirement accounts to result in public outcry over electricity in California. Sharply increased gasoline prices still have yet to produce true public outcry. The community isn't fighting back in any meaningful fashion over energy prices, and the price increases that will result from Spitzer's plan aren't going to change that. The public will simply weather the storm, regardless of whether they're paying for improved technology or for keeping today's per-plant emissions levels.

Incentivization of alternative energy sources is the way to go, although it won't make Eliot Spitzer seem like the mighty slayer of the evil power companies.

Re:One problem with this plan

[alan_dershowitz]

Because of everything you just said is precisely the reason this should be done at the federal level. Then businesses cannot play states against each other in a race to the bottom. I'm aware that coal is about all we have, the goal here is to replace the coal plants one day because they are a problem.

Re:One problem with this plan

[OrangeTide]

We're being taxed and surcharged into oblivion, and we're passing the savings on to you!

Yes. Let's sue the evil power companies so that consumers can foot the bill. And if they can't increase their rates, what will that do put the power companies out of business?

Seems like peaceful compromise and cooperation is the solution. You'd think liberal politicians would try and work together with the power companies to yield results for the common good. Oh well. Seems like liberal and conservative politicians both follow the philosophy of 'my way, or the highway.'

Seems better to sit down with the power companies. Discuss some options. Set some goals. And pitch in to help the power companies meet those goals. The point of the exercise isn't to shut down the power company, the point of the exercise is to have cheap clean energy. Maybe this has been tried and I'm not not aware of it, but I find it hard to believe that power companies would have refused to cooperate to the point that they need to be beaten over the head.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

The sun heats You can't use the sun as a scientific variable of climate and temperature models according to the fraudulent politicized "scientists" (really these are whacko religious fundamentalists masquerading as "scientists") of socialist environmentalist fear mongers. These are MORONS who think the "planet's" temperature can be controlled by fiat like they were adjusting the temperature of cars or houses by turning AC and heat knobs.

They are still formulating their religious explanations for why it is warmer during the "Day" and colder during the "Night", warmer during "Summer" and colder during "Winter", warmer at the "Equator" and colder at the "Poles". They pretend like they have stuck a giant thermometer into the Earth. Well not really, since temperature at the center of the earth isn't anywhere near the temperature at the surface of the earth, and the surface temperature of the earth isn't nearly everywhere on the surface "average" (it varies massively depending upon when and where you are measuring). You don't see Temperature Models specifically and openly published showing variables like S=SUN and GT=Geothermal Activity (like volcanoes) accounting for 95% + of the weight on T=Average Earth Temperature precisely because the global warming fear mongers are FRAUDS. Have you ever seen anything near such a basic temperature model published upfront in these fear mongering studies? Of course not! Because then absurd claims on human activity having as little as a 10% effect on climate would too easily stand out as ridiculous an absurdity as all people jumping up and down simultaneously on the earth would effect the distance from which the earth orbits the sun. There hasn't been such wide-scale attempted perpetuation of fraud to use as justification to rule the masses since the days of the Egyptian Pharaohs and their religious ruling castes. And there are plenty of sheepish fools to repeat the "man-made global warming" FRAUD. In reality, all the man-made fossil burning doesn't register as the tiniest data blip in comparison to the heat power of the Sun and geothermal activity. These are the same fraudsters that call jungles "rain forests", the Earth "the planet", the atmosphere a "greenhouse ceiling". CNN is now using terms like "environmental racism".

Frankly, they can fuck off with their power and money grabbing schemes fueled by perpetrating "delicate balance" and fear. These fuckers fly around in helicopters at the poles shooting wildlife to conduct scientific experiments on them. They fly around on airplanes to conferences. They are far and away the biggest polluters. And they are starting to lose more and more credibility.

Re:One problem with this plan

[cliffski]

did you seriously just suggest there is 'little science' to back up the need to reduce C02 emissions?
holy fuck, where have you been?
with that attitude, your country is fucked, in terms of being anywhere but last to market with efficient vehicle designs and renewable energy industries. Don't expect the rest of the world to wait for you to catch up.

Re:One problem with this plan

[cliffski]

"which is the end of our superpower status"

if you lose your status through economic means, trust me, that's the good way. I'm from England, and we fought a lot of wars as we lost ours, so did the French, the Italian/Romans, the Greeks and pretty much everyone that was a major world power.
Empires don't last, their fall is inevitable. if you can let go of yours without losing thousands or even millions of lives, you did well.
Sensible nations act like the swiss, they stay out of wars, and trundle along happily as other peoples empires come and go.

Re:One problem with this plan

[timmarhy]

"I'm sorry that someone who uses a zero when spelling "CO2" and can't correctly use the words "you're" and "humanity's", thinks poorly of my intelligence, but I guess I'll just have to deal with that. I'm not even going to tackle your Before attacking my spelling and punctuation i suggest you check your own, dumbass. i use "your" because i can't be arsed with the stupid 're, but i certainly don't sink to retarded spelling nazi troll tactic's when losing an argument, and i would certainly make sure i didn't make the same mistake in the same fucking paragraph.

atmospheric CO2 can increase from many sources, such as the ocean which is THE storehouse for CO2, and will release it when heated. CO2 release in this way has been documented to lag heating cycles of the earth for up to 800 years.

CO2 increases were occuring pre industry, so please explan just how that happened? you state it yourself, "since the 1800's". the industrial revolution only occured in the early 1900's.

How do you explain the fact OTHER planets are also warming? http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html are you going to dream up some way to try make us feel guilty for that to?

yeah thats right - i'm such a rightwing bastard for using facts and figures to prove my points.

Re:One problem with this plan

[timmarhy]

"I'm sorry that someone who uses a zero when spelling "CO2" and can't correctly use the words "you're" and "humanity's", thinks poorly of my intelligence, but I guess I'll just have to deal with that. I'm not even going to tackle your".....

Before attacking my spelling and punctuation i suggest you check your own, dumbass. i use "your" because i can't be arsed with the stupid 're, but i certainly don't sink to retarded spelling nazi troll tactic's when losing an argument, and i would certainly make sure i didn't make the same mistake in the same fucking paragraph.

atmospheric CO2 can increase from many sources, such as the ocean which is THE storehouse for CO2, and will release it when heated. CO2 release in this way has been documented to lag heating cycles of the earth for up to 800 years. CO2 increases were occuring pre industry, so please explan just how that happened? you state it yourself, "since the 1800's". the industrial revolution only occured in the early 1900's. How do you explain the fact OTHER planets are also warming? http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html Are you going to dream up some way to try make us feel guilty for that to? yeah thats right - i'm such a rightwing bastard for using facts and figures to prove my points.

double post, because /. fucked up my brackets somehow

Re:One problem with this plan

[timmarhy]

ROFL i had a hard time following all that.

it's true though, these same assholes were campainging against global cooling in the 70's.

unfortunately they've fooled a lot of people this time around.

Re:One problem with this plan

[squiggleslash]

It's not a competitive market, but it's still a market. You choose how much energy to buy. In particular, you have the choice of whether or not to spend your money on energy, or on products and services that use less energy. Given there is no truly green power source at the moment that can deliver significant amounts of power (no rebuttals from the Nuclear lobby please, you haven't dealt with the waste issue yet), the reality is that reduced power consumption is the only true way to reduce greenhouse emissions.

The OP's contention that this is a problem with the plan shows an amazing degree of willful ignorance. Passing the costs of power consumption on to the energy consumer is not the problem with the plan, it's what the plan hopes to achieve. It's how the plan will work.

And virtually every economist will tell you it's fair and the way the market is supposed to work. You're supposed to pay for the costs of the consequences of the choices you make. Any economic system that doesn't pay for the costs of consumption is doomed to failure.

Re:One problem with this plan

[cliffski]

that's true, some cars here have great mileage, but there is a growth in recent years of people driving big SUVS and jeeps, especially on the school run. The problem is that such items are seen (insanely) as some kind of status symbol, despite the fact that they are impractical in every possible way. parking them is hell, navigating them through narrow streets is hell, and filling them with fuel can go over £80 (approx $160).
Their safety record is also appalling, but people are such sheep, they continue to buy them because they are cynically marketed as manly, butch and safe. There are some moves to reduce their numbers though, one London council is charging 4x4 drivers more for parking, there is talk of a higher London congestion charge for them, and they already pay slightly more in Car Tax.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Dachannien]

I agree, although I have to qualify that by prefacing it with an "if you're going to disincentivize carbon emissions/pollution". The arbitrage situation created between states by these regulations is similar to one of the two failures of the Kyoto Protocol: it didn't hold some producers/polluters to the same standards as others.

Of course, the other failure of Kyoto - the sham of carbon credits - is also played out in the scenario we've been talking about, although it's not actually called carbon credits here. Carbon credits are just a veiled attempt to redistribute wealth without having a significant impact on carbon emissions.

Really, this whole situation is just a minicosm of everything that was wrong with Kyoto.

Re:One problem with this plan

[hidave]

Nuclear has a competitive advantage of lower cost and cleaner. the fuel is nearly inexhaustible. The industry is just prevented from building new plants because of the environmental movement, which is still apparently of the belief that nuclear energy is the work of the devil. Nuclear energy is produced (even using the technology of the older plants) for about $0.01 per kilowatt hour. The rate you pay on your utility bill is so high because of the other forms of producing electricity. Solar and Wind are not yet competitive, but are getting closer to being so. One of the few things Jimmy Carter ever did as President that was worth anything was to push this technology by providing real fiscal incentives to the consumer. If it weren't for that, we'd still be in the "dark ages" LOL. If everyone were REQUIRED to have their hot water provided by solar collectors, we wouldn't have an energy problem in the US, period (well, at least not a problem with lack of electricity). AND we wouldn't need any more energy generating plants, renewable or not.

Re:One problem with this plan

[nosferatu1001]

Exactly - in the UK we had a fuel (petrol, diesel) tax "escalator" for a few years, that dramatically raised the price of fuel. In order to compete, car companies had to create better, more efficient cars. The same thing would happen here - if all get taxed on an equitable i.e. what they waste basis, then there will be the same economic pressures to provide a benefit (lower cost to customer) through lowering their own costs.

it is a definate, provable solution. it really hurts for a few years though!

Re:One problem with this plan

[Ambitwistor]

Except that there's no need to do it. A position you have utterly failed to support and which disagrees with the vast majority of climatologists, economists, etc. who have seriously studied the issue. I am sure you are familiar with these conclusions so there is no need to link to the IPCC reports.

Which would be a fantastic argument if only those alleged impacts were based in reality, which they are not. Proof by assertion doesn't cut it.

Re:One problem with this plan

[An Onerous Coward]

The problem is that as rates go up, people will use less electricity from the grid (whether by running air conditioners less or buying rooftop solar for homes or businesses), and reduce the profit of the companies.

That's why enlightened states like California decouple the profits of the energy providers from the amount of energy they deliver.

Ask your state legislature if Decoupling is right for you.

Re:One problem with this plan

[An Onerous Coward]

no action will actually be taken on any of the issues at hand for a decade or more.

Read the article. Several of the states involved in the suit have already passed specific pieces of legislation, which the EPA is keeping from taking effect. The moment the EPA approves the waiver, these states will be "taking action."

Attention whore or not, don't argue that this lawsuit would accomplish nothing.

Re:One problem with this plan

[BBandCMKRNL]

FYI, electric utilities require state/local approval to raise prices. This is incorrect. Some states have deregulated their utilities.

If the state is suing them to clean their shit up, odds are they aren't going to easily pass that on to the consumer In every state where the utility rates are regulated, the utilities are guaranteed a certain rate of return. If their costs go up, the regulaters allow them to raise their rates to maintain their guaranteed rate of return. If their costs go up due to being required to add additional pollution control equipment, their rates will be increased and the customer will pay for the cost of those pollution controls.

Re:One problem with this plan

[BBandCMKRNL]

What part of the country do you live in that has competition for power? Actually, you answered your own question in your reply to yourself. Some markets in Texas are degregulated and you can buy your power from one of several producers.

Municipal owned utilities, such as in Austin and San Antonio, were exempt from deregulation and they tend to have the lowest consumer retail power prices in the state.

Re:One problem with this plan

[N3WBI3]

This is why I left NY, It was bad enough under Cuomo but Spitzer literally *hates* business... If not for the critical mass of NY City the entire state would be a wasteland for jobs...

Re:One problem with this plan

[N3WBI3]

They will when there are blackouts... Seriously.. Short of NYC pretty much everything in NYS is powered by Coal fire all the power of Niagara falls bypasses upstate and western NY... So those folk in the most economically depressed areas of the state will be the ones with power problems..

Re:One problem with this plan

[Rolgar]

You're not following through to the next step. Alternative energy sources seem cheaper in comparison. Currently, various technologies are less costly and pay for themselves once they've been installed for 8-20 years at current prices. If the cost difference between carbon and the alternatives doubles because of carbon taxes (say from 2 cents per KWh to 4 cents), then the time to recover the investment in cleaner alternatives drops to 4-10 years. End users will decide to switch. Large companies will decide to jump into the market, costs drop further with better economies of scale dropping the time to recover the investment to 1-3 years, then it's a slam dunk of a decision, and almost everybody switches. Will this put a hurt on the pocketbook? Sure, for a while. That's what it will take to force us out of complacency. Once the taxes are in place, we'll adjust and we'll work with the new rules.

Disclaimer: I'm not a 'human activity causes global warming' believer, but I think there are better ways of producing energy than putting carbon dioxide and other substances in the air. I also don't like how much I currently pay for power, and wouldn't like it when my bill goes up, but I would definitely try to do something to get alternative power (wind probably), which is what this is supposed to encourage.

Re:One problem with this plan

[N3WBI3]

Except, in principle, we should not be social engineering through taxes..

Re:One problem with this plan

[kabocox]

You must be joking... the roads are crawling with SUVs and other vehicles that consider 24MPG to be EXCELLENT gas mileage.

Heck, I have a hand me down family vehicle that I got for $2K. It gets usually 16-18 MPG and is a small car. My wife's Tarus can get 24 MPG, but only on the highway. I'm not sure what she gets in town. Show me cheap (below $8K) cars that get more than 35 MPG. I'd love it if my vehicle got 50-60 MPG, but some one would have to sell it to me for $2-3K. Can you show me cars like that? I occasionally look at new small cars. Heck even the newest Honda Civic was only showing as getting 25 mpg city/36 mpg highway starting at $15K according to their website. I was hoping that there exists some vehicles that get 40-50 MPG or 50-60 MPG, but I can't find them.

It'll take the government strong arming the vehicle makers to basically just not make or sell anything that gets less than what ever your magic number MPG is for me to eventually get higher MPG vehicle.

Re:One problem with this plan

[alan_dershowitz]

Totally agreed, none of this stuff will work unless its done even-handedly, which I am not sure is even possible in our system anymore. Carbon credits bug me as well. I can forsee a point where rich people, wanting to keep flying their jets and heating their enormous houses, end up valuing carbon credits so high that it is financially infeasible for anyone else to hold onto them. Sure you get money for selling your allotment, but what it ends up is that the super-rich can live however they want while everyone else takes a massive lifestyle cut, because only the super-rich can afford to buy extras.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is apparently NOT "By far" the biggest source of CO2.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews

Re:One problem with this plan

[Jeremi]

Except, in principle, we should not be social engineering through taxes..

Why not?

Re:One problem with this plan

[Coryoth]

The relevant words were per capita.

Re:One problem with this plan

[N3WBI3]

Because the government is not mommy and daddy. I may give my daughter a treat if she behaves well (entitlement / subsidy) or put her to be early if she throws food on the floor ( Taxes ). Its a parents job to shape the behavior of their kids...

Unless Government is mommy and daddy they have no business doing anything out side of protecting our basic rights.. The leftist cry of 'it takes a village' might have a nice ring to it but its really nothing but using the 'Its for the children' logic to interfere with peoples day to day lives.

Now if the states want to set standards for emissions I'm all in favor of that regulation *especially at the state level* can be a good thing but taxes for the purpose of 'making people behave better' is really no different than sending around the gestapo to make people behave better... Its just putting the IRS (or state tax agency) as a middle man.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Jeremi]

Because the government is not mommy and daddy.

No, but that doesn't mean it can't try to solve the nation's problems -- especially the problems that the public want it to solve. If the people want the government to solve our energy problems through tax incentives, and they vote accordingly, then who are you to say that they shouldn't get the government they asked for?

Re:One problem with this plan

[ravenshrike]

Although I doubt this would be true if you would count any taxes that went to the upkeep of said power stations. For instance, are the employees paid strictly from the profits from the power stations, or from city taxes?

Re:One problem with this plan

[Blahgerton]

Because the government is not mommy and daddy. Government brought the corporation into this world, and government can take it out just as quickly. As far as power generation goes, I'm sure the power companies want to bring clean, cheap power to its customers. However, NIMBY takes over when new generation schemes are being devised. From what I can recall, utilities across the country (world?) were building nuclear power stations until Chernobyl & TMI.

Re:One problem with this plan

[ravenshrike]

How about, none of the computer models are remotely accurate and are attempting to rely on chaos theory to explain their results even though chaos theory, while not expecting you to know the exact values of the variables present, at least expects you to be able to IDENTIFY said variables or be able to monitor said environment for a period of time related to it's complexity(of which the 40 years we've had weather sats is considered a damned fucking small period of time). None of the computer models that I'm aware of can properly account for the effects of cloud formation, albedo change from cities(A much greater and greater problem as time goes on, especially if it ends up being a significant variable), etc... etc... Many of the signatories to the IPCC studies were in fact not signatories at all, but just worked on one or two separate parts of the project, and a whole host of other problems. Not to mention that even the basic data trends from the 1900's tend not to back it up assuming the models were correct.

Re:One problem with this plan

[dmatos]

Do you have the option on your power bill to purchase "clean energy"?

Yes.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

So your great plan involves me paying more for energy and I get to pay for more of some deadbeat scumbag's energy too? What a deal!

Where do I sign up?

Re:One problem with this plan

[dmatos]

Most of the time, you are better off (environmentally) purchasing and running a lower-efficiency used car, if you assume the car would have been scrapped had you not purchased it. The environmental cost of manufacturing a new car is not insignificant. Perhaps once the energy used in automobile manufacture becomes more green, this will change, but for now, used cars are an environmentally conscious choice.

For the same reason, it's better to wait until your appliances wear out before replacing them with more energy-efficient ones. The longer you can amortize the manufacturing costs over, the better it is.

Re:One problem with this plan

[N3WBI3]

If the people want the government to solve our energy problems through tax incentives, and they vote accordingly

We are *NOT* a mob rule nation and we should not endow the federal government with the power and habit of punishing us to 'solve our problems'. Later on in the end it, with regards to our civil liberties, it will bite us in the butt. This is not a 'tax incentive' this is a tax punishment! This is like calling income taxes 'revenue' or 'investment' its a nice play on words but its not accurate. We need to invest more in education, its for the kids means 'The 10K per kid per year were spending is not enough so were going to take more of youre money and hope, for once, well do better with it this time'

Im all for regulation in regards to the environment and real fines for breaking regulations.. It may seem like semantics today but the long term differences are significant.

Re:One problem with this plan

[N3WBI3]

Government brought the corporation into this world, and government can take it out just as quickly. As far as power generation goes

No at all, the Government does not create corporations, they may license them but I dont see senators and congressmen putting their life savings and loan debt on the line to start a new company. When a friend of mine started a service master company not one government official gave her a dollar towards the investment nor did they even pick up a broom to help with the work. But yes they were quite happy to take her money for registering as a corporation. BTW the government can take you out of this world with ease does that mean they should?

As far as power generation goes, I'm sure the power companies want to bring clean, cheap power to its customers. However, NIMBY

Of course, look at Kennedy..

Re:One problem with this plan

[drsquare]

Luck has nothing to do with it. That's the same sort of naive thinking that comes up with ideas like this. As long as the power company can recoup most/all of the added expense from the customer, they won't have any impetus to switch anything at all.

You mean other than being able to offer cheaper prices than competitors?

Actually I think the main benefit of this is that if the costs are passed on, consumers might stop wasting so much electricity. Maybe they'll think twice about leaving the 48" TV on 24/7.

Re:One problem with this plan

[drsquare]

Unless Government is mommy and daddy they have no business doing anything out side of protecting our basic rights.

I'd consider being able to live in a non-polluted environment a 'basic right', and it is the government's job to stop you wrecking the world's climate for other people.

Re:One problem with this plan

[jcr]

The moment the EPA approves the waiver, these states will be "taking action."

And with litigation in progress, how much time do you think it is before that "moment" happens? I give it ten years, easily.

-jcr

Re:One problem with this plan

[N3WBI3]

"I'd consider being able to live in a non-polluted environment a 'basic right'"

Even if "being able to live in a non-polluted environment a 'basic right'" You're helping my argument. The government does not tax punitively to protect our rights, they regulate. There is no government tax aimed at 'protecting my free speech' there are regulations telling me what the limit of my expression is and telling others what they must respect. If the government wants to protect the environment through reasonable regulations *especially at the state level* I'm fine with that but when they decide they are going to make 'the kids' behave better 'or else they'll take away our toys (money)' your marching towards totalitarianism... Have a nice walk..

Re:One problem with this plan

[smellsofbikes]

Cheap, high-MPG used cars listed in order from model years 1995-1990. Average blue book price under $4k.
My 1984 Nissan Sentra got 38 mpg. If you find a diesel one it got 50mpg. I bought my last Sentra in 1996 for $1700: I assume it'd be lower now. My 1971 Datsun 1200 got 39 mpg. I bought it for $200 in 1989.

Re:One problem with this plan

[sticky_charris]

I think you a quite right. It is not a monopoly market at all. Power comes from various sources - some cleaner than others. I would impose larger fines for power derived from coal powered stations and smaller fines for cleaner sources. In Scotland (where we are leading the way in renawables) when I choose my energy company I can choose to have all my energy from renewable sources; turbines, wave machines, solar panels (although these are ineffective in Scotland). Choosing this option is only slightly more expensive, but if the gov't taxed all other options, the clean way would become the cheapest way. The energy companies pay for electricity generated by personal rooftop turbines and solar panels too. There is no other option - except choosing to put on a jumper rather than heat your house like a furnace, insulating properly and switching off lights.

Re:One problem with this plan

[k8to]

I'm unclear on a few things.

What New York state government policies are causing the economic climate in upstate new york that in turn causes businesses (and young people) to depart?

How does the rust belt situation of New York differ from say Lowell, MA, or Bethlehem, PA? Washington State is similarly dominated by Seattle, politically, and similarly there is a strong cultural divide, but yet that state seems relatively healthy overall.

I guess my gut feeling is New York State was built up as an industrial center for a few hundred years, along with much of the rest of the northeast, and has fallen along the same lines. The economic climate disfavors areas with heavy infrastructure expenses which are not undergoing growth or expansion into new areas. Hartford is a sad place, and so is Syracuse. You could not pay me enough to live in Wilkes-Barre. I think patterns of development have certainly added to the economic downturn, but I would put blame on the extreme overvaluation of new development, edge cities, and suburbia which turns past development (significant in a hundreds-of-years-old industrial center) into an economic boat-anchor. The age old city-folks vs country-folks seems like forest for the trees.

But maybe I'm just way underinformed. Give us some meat.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

When the price of a service or good goes up, people will buy less of it. Energy consumption is not magically different.

While partially true, keep in mind that some level of energy consumption is almost a requirement for most of us. I commute to/from work in order to provide from my family. I can't easily change my need to put fuel in my vehicle. During the winter, I do need to provide heat for my family so there again, I need fuel. I can reduce the number of trips (and already have) and look for ways to conserve, but I can't eliminate my need for fuel entirely without a radical change in my life. I'd like to think I'm living on a minimal amount of energy now so I don't believe I can affect the price by consuming less if I'm already at that point.

Jim

Re:One problem with this plan

[Socguy]

Except, in principle, we should not be social engineering through taxes.. Why not?

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand (not trolling, actually). If the government gives a tax break for less polluting activities, then the tax break subsidizes the less economically efficient but cleaner technologies. But that is still passed through the economy, and reduces the efficiency of the overall economy. So the same competitive disadvantage would exist, overall.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Socguy]

Good work smacking the industry troll around!

Re:One problem with this plan

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

You do realize that Rochester has Ginna and not too far away in Oswego, there is Nine Mile Point and Fitzpatrick? All are nuclear plants (NY's 4th nuclear plant being Indian Point, outside NYC).

My bill from National Grid breaks down my (standard) power as:
Biomass <1%
Coal 11%
Gas 9%
Hydro 32%
Nuclear 41%
Oil 6%
Solar <1%
Solid Waste 2%
Wind <1%

Air emissions relative to NYS average:
Sulfur Dioxide 62% of average
Nitrogen Dioxide 62% of average
Carbon Dioxide 59% of average

Again, those numbers are for standard National Grid with their default power source. The mileage of those who want green power or who choose a different provider may vary. You'll also see that NG covers a pretty good chunk of the area you're talking about.

I have no clue what NYC's power is like (minus Indian Point), but if my area is around 60% of the average pollution, I'd have to say NYC is probably much closer to the average.

We're definitely the most economically depressed, but right now, power generation isn't our problem... taxes are. And new taxes (passed on from the state via the electric companies) will definitely make things even worse than they are now. What we need is to force more businesses, recent grads and young families to move to another state due to a hostile economy.

Re:One problem with this plan

[sumdumass]

Lol.. No I didn't say that. I guess that is what you wanted to hear so you could make your damn rant. What I said was that there is little to no science supporting the minute amounts of reductions that everyone is pushing onto us would actually amount to a change great enough to make a noticeable difference.

It isn't a supper hidden secret that the amounts of Co2 they are claiming is in excess and causing the global warming problem is far greater then any purposed and practical fixes would take care of to date. In our best efforts we are only touching a fraction of the amounts supposedly causing the problem and along these rates, including the growth of the world population, there will be little to no noticed effect on the claimed problem. Or at least there is little to no science supporting a positive effect based on these minor amount adjustments.

It is almost like claiming that you are losing weight when you only stick to your diet one day a year.

Re:One problem with this plan

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

What New York state government policies are causing the economic climate in upstate new york that in turn causes businesses (and young people) to depart?

The worst of it comes down to unfunded mandates. The state's Medicaid costs are being shifted more and more onto the shoulders of the counties. For someplace like Rochester, who already lost Kodak and Xerox to foreign countries being cheaper to operate in, that means higher sales and property taxes. Higher sales tax means your dollar doesn't go as far (and when you've switched from a nice job at Kodak to a retail/service job, that really hurts) and higher property taxes means it's harder for families to stay here and it's another increase in expenses for businesses wanting to operate here. No business = no jobs = no 20 or 30 somethings sticking around = a further eroding tax base.

The same goes for schools. My school district had a budget of $14 million back in 1995. This year's budget was $30 million. $250,000 of it was optional spending. If we voted no, we'd get the exact same budget minus a couple new buses. Why? Pretty much everything is mandated by the state and the local school board has no real control. My house is assessed around $80k (3 bedroom, 1 bath, 2.5 car garage on an acre of land... values are so cheap since nobody wants to live here and nobody can afford to spend too much on a service job salary anyway). My school taxes were $1013 for school (with a $660 STAR discount) and $1371 town/county. That's $2400 a year ($3000 if I didn't actually live in my house) in just property taxes for a place with a median income of $31k and my house is still about $40k under the average house value. That puts the average house around $4500 a year. On top of that, there's a 4% state sales tax and a 4% local sales tax cutting out another good chunk of that meager income.

Factor in the highest gasoline (just try to get around without a car. My nearest grocery store is 2.2 miles away, nearest general merchandise store is 14 miles away and nearest speciality stores are 25 miles away) taxes in the nation (63 cents/gallon if I remember the story in the paper about a year ago right). Insurance (car/health/home owner)? Some of the highest in the country due to the mandates of the NYS Insurance Board. I dropped my single policy (health) last year when mandates drove it up to $1432/3 months as a 29 year old.

So, you need businesses to have an economy, right? That minimum wage increase a couple years ago cost a third of the people at the restaurant I managed their job (ok, so we did it via attrition as they left for college rather than firing them directly). In their place, everyone has to work that much harder (well, as hard as you can get an uneducated 17 year old to work even though they just got a 40% raise). Oh, we had to raise prices to make up for it too, which, in turn, is an inflative pressure, especially since the long term employees (read adults) who made more than the minumum wage didn't get a 40% pay increase with it. Let's not forget the ever-rising costs of workers compensation (with the benefit of having some of the lowest payout rates in the nation). Actually, we could spend hours on business problems created by Albany/NYC.

Ultimately, what it all boils down to is the size government is always growing (10% growth this year) while more and more people are fleeing. Over the next 10-15 years, as the baby boomers (those people who are most likely to be earning the prime money in the economy right now) retire and the tax base erodes even more (since the 20-45 crowd will be gone at that point based on current trends), good luck having any kind of economy. Who's going to pay the bills, the kids in high school and college and the handful of 45-60 year olds who didn't get out? Businesses? hah! The rest of them who can flee to less taxed and regulated states will. All we'll be left with is retail and government jobs... and government is a net drain on the economy.

New York State is $50 billion in d

Re:One problem with this plan

[Jaeph]

"As long as the US, which is by far the largest source of CO2 on a per capita basis..."

So for grins I googled this statement, and found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Looks like the US is only tenth. So are you going after luxembourg and qatar (to name two) first?

As a resident here in the US, I personally would love to clean things up, starting with the lake that turns green every spring near my house. But let's not go overboard with the US hate. There are many countries just as bad. If I were a true "green", I would be watching China and India first. The US is done - they aren't going to change all that much. But China and India are going to skyrocket in terms of environmental emissions.

-Jeff

Re:One problem with this plan

[absoluteflatness]

I know I shouldn't bother, but I can't resist.

Tackling your least important point first, "you're" is a contraction, and is a shorter replacement for the words "you are." "Your" is also a word, it's the possessive form of "you." Strangely enough, these different words can be appropriately used in different places.

As just a small point, if, as you say, the ocean will release CO2 when heated and is THE storehouse for CO2, wouldn't small increases in temperature caused by say, otherwise unimportant human-based CO2 sources thereby cause the ocean to release even more CO2, increasing temperatures further? It's not a great idea to mess with a system that's at a delicate stable state.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

(BTW, Upstate New York. We get fucked up the ass hard because of those dinks down in the big city.)


If you actually look at the numbers, you'll find that the city folks are subsidizing most aspects of your existence. You should be a little more grateful to the people making your welfare payments (subsidies) for you.
  Lord knows you'd hate to actually pull your own weight for once.

Re:One problem with this plan

[geminidomino]

Strawman. Maybe you can't afford an efficient vehicle (I can't either. I too drive a hand-me-down... a Kia, man, a KIA!)

That doesn't have anything to do with the matter at hand, though, unless you're going to claim that those monstrous SUVs are Sub-$8k...

Re:One problem with this plan

[geminidomino]

Assuming there ARE competitors. Power is a utility monopoly in a great many places.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

LEARN ENGLISH OR GO HOME, YOU DUMB FUCKING WETBACK.

Also, I don't know what kind of science they taught you in Mexico, but CO2 isn't really a debate in actual scientific circles. It's well-proven. So go back to fucking Mexico, learn English, then science, then try again, you awful fucking bean-eating waste of life.

I hope you die of rectal cancer.

Re:One problem with this plan

[toddestan]

They went down when the sticker shock from gas prices was still in effect. Now that people are used to $2.999 being the new $1.249, sales seem to be back up in my area. Also, don't forget the status symbol part of it too, the more expensive it is to own that SUV, the more desirable it is as a status symbol.

Re:One problem with this plan

[fataugie]

Sure, no problem.

When we're all poor as fuck because of the huge increase in costs and living in a box under a bridge, that will really curtail the emissions, eh? Great plan. Using the phrase "with any luck" always turns out they way they expect....right? Social Security anyone? Welfare? WIC? Workers Comp?

There is no reason why the market can't be allowed to come up with it's own solution. Force feeding some bullshit 10% reduction in 12 year plan down our throats isn't the way. Although, with the flight of people from NYS, the reduction may be reachable because of the drastically fewer households needing power. The only ones left will be assholes in NYC and illegals picking apples and milking cows.

Re:One problem with this plan

[toddestan]

There are lots of choices out there. As a matter of fact, it seems that in the past few years, the entry-level cars have been getting larger, heavier, more powerful, but thirstier. Your best bet is to look at late 80's to early 90's cars like the Civic, CRX, Sentra, 200SX, Corolla, Metro, Prism, Storm, Fox, Swift, and Fiesta to name a few off the top of my head. Many of those cars will get 30-40MPG stock, which is getting tough to get nowadays without springing for the hybrids. Of course, you do have to make sure the car is still in decent running condition. Bad tires, fouled spark plugs, and stuff like that will destroy your mileage.

Re:One problem with this plan

[pimpimpim]

Me too! Sometimes this actually ends up by the company using nuclear power, I think this happens in Germany a lot. Not much CO2 costs come from a nuclear plant... Any good provider will tell you where the energy in their 'green energy' plan comes from, though. Point is you have to trust them complying to these rules, maybe there is government control even.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Jeremi]

There is no reason why the market can't be allowed to come up with it's own solution.

I agree -- as long as the externalities are factored in to the cost of all energy technologies. Currently, most polluting technologies get a "free ride" as far as pollution goes -- that is, they incur costs that other people have to pay. When the costs of the pollution are accurately factored into the price of the polluting energy, then the market will react appropriately. Currently the market is skewed towards polluting energy sources because the pollution is "free" to the polluters.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Jeremi]

The Government doesn't give me anything all and never will.

Quit your whining and self-pity already. The government gives you roads, protection against crime and fire, emergency medical care, protection against foreign invasion, and any number of other services that you completely take for granted.

Try getting by on one meal a day like I do and tell me I shouldn't get an exception.

Okay: you shouldn't get an exception. But since you're so poor, you won't need one, since you won't be using much energy anyway. If you're terribly poor AND buying lots of energy, then maybe it's time to make some changes to your lifestyle so that you won't need to use so much energy in the future.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Score Whore]

I interpreted "the problem" to be green house gases/CO2 not other environmental damage. Burning plants leaves a net zero CO2 in the atmosphere if averaged over the lifespan of the plant. Burning oil increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But if you are worried about anthropogenic global warming you need to worry about green house gases, not about CO2.

I think your wrong about Al Gore, he is not proposing a 'tax' rather he is promoting the IPCC's proposal of a 'rationing' scheme for emmisions, ie: auction the right to pollute by the ton and limit the amount of tons emitted globally to match what the biosphere can physically absorb (~2.5Gt/pa). The idea is commonly known as "cap and trade", unfortunately it looks like the powerfull polluters such as US, India, Russia & China want the "cap" based on GDP (as opposed to the actual physical limit that exists in nature).

I don't understand that at all. In a democratic sense everybody has the same right to emit CO2. If you want to limit the total CO2 emissions to some arbitrary amount (i.e. the amount the environment can handle) then everybody should get a particular fraction thereof and if they choose to sell it great. However it's complete bullshit to auction it off to the highest bidders. That would lead to increased costs for everything as the "noble" class who purchased up tons and tons of indulgences resell them to actual businesses that create products. It's not terribly complicated to see that the very idea is just bad.

Al Gore however personally lives too profligately to be taken seriously by anyone who is willing to apply some critical thinking to both his lifestyle and message. I notice that I left off part of my statement in a previous post. Al Gore uses more energy in a month at one of his houses than the average American household uses in a year. And his response is that he buys indulgences, I mean carbon offsets from himself. Which means the various organizations that are paying him to go somewhere and give a speech, such as the film company that he worked with for the development and promotion of his film, give money to his company that sells carbon offsets. Which company then turns around and gives some small fraction of that money to organizations in africa for the purpose of planting non-indigenous vegetation. Of course this doesn't sequester the carbon away. When the tree dies in a few years it will release all that CO2 back into the atmosphere. Gore is basically putting the problem onto the shoulders of the next generation so he can act pious and sell carbon credits and making a tidy profit for himself.

I'm not sure where I gave the idea that people are not entitled to opinions.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Dun Malg]

I thought that was because SUVs qualified as light trucks under US law and were therefore exempt from fuel taxes?

No they're exempt from CAFE standards for gas mileage. How the fuck would they be exempt from fuel taxes, which are added in automatically at the pump? Think, man, THINK before you speak!

Re:One problem with this plan

[Trogre]

Thank you for clearing that up. I don't live in America and am not entirely familiar with many aspects of their economy.

Re:One problem with this plan

[MillionthMonkey]

I'd love it if my vehicle got 50-60 MPG, but some one would have to sell it to me for $2-3K.

But I thought techie pay was approaching an all-time high.

Re:One problem with this plan

[k8to]

I'm well aware that upstate new york reguarly tops the nation in terms of worst economic outlook.

I was hoping to get some idea of how the city of new york's policies were causing this. I didn't get that from this text. Are you sure they are? Sure a fat government sector doesn't help, especially when many of the positions aren't terribly productive (some sure are!), but the high costs of an older-heavy population are real. Not to mention your self-described situation of being tens of miles from your commerce centers, that's a HUGE economic inefficiency.

I'm just not seeing how these ills are being caused by state policy, rather of being insufficiently resolved by same. They're not really the same. A problem caused by state policy is consequently resolvable. Insufficiently addressed may well not be.

Re:One problem with this plan

[TapeCutter]

I don't want to get bogged down in an argument about Al Gore's (alleged) political hypocricy, nor do I care if you trust him, or for that matter me either. What I and am saying is that his movie was (at the time of release), a faithfull representation of the IPCC reports. I am not the only one who claims this, the IPCC scientists who wrote the reports reviewed the movie. follow the "original assesment" link in this otherwise interesting story.

"I interpreted "the problem" to be green house gases/CO2 not other environmental damage."

That's the diffrence between reductionist science and engineering, right there in that sentance. The "environment" is the system thats stops us all from looking like the poor bastards in Sudan, "capitalisim" and "environmentalisim" are not seperate things...stay with me here ... I assure you I am not a raving hippie and I do hold a BSc in computer science with a major in operations research. "Systems" have been my bread and butter for 20yrs and prior to that I had 15 years of low paid work on sawmills, fishing trawlers, farms, building sites, and several depressing factories.

The "problem" is that the industrial revolution is making our one and only biosphere unsuitable for civilization at such a rate that system will crash in a catastrophic manner rather than a "gracefull" degredation that can be adapted to with ease, humans (as opposed to life) can't reboot from a blue globe of death. Some of the major symptoms of this impending system crash are know by the following reductionist soundbites (in rough order of importance)...

Sixth great extinction.(#0 - The "problem" in a nutshell)
Climate change. (#1 - For it's observable impact on our agriculture)
Collapsed fisheries. (#2 - No grain OR seafood)
Peak oil. (#3 - The global economy fighting itself.)
Deforestation. (#4 - Way too fast for anything to adapt.)
Desertification. (#5 - A symptom of #1 & #4.)
Oil wars. (#6 - A symptom of #3)

I don't hold out a lot of hope for human nature either.

"I don't understand that at all."

That's why the tradgedy of the commons is ...well... a tragedy. Exluding the noble nations, pollution and non-renewable depletion do not factor as costs of doing bussiness, google for texaco and bolivia, BHP and Papua, Shell and Nigeria and just about anything that happens in Asia. The tragedy of the commons is - the - major bug in our current version of capitalist system.

"In a democratic sense everybody has the same right to emit CO2....everybody should get a particular fraction thereof and if they choose to sell it great."

Still reading? - I agree with you and I think the majority of mankind are on our side.

That would lead to increased costs for everything as the "noble" class who purchased up tons and tons of indulgences resell them to actual businesses that create products.

So (in a capitialist sense) how is that different to any other service side industry, eg: a bank loan? The English civil war, the French revolution and the war of independece were all reactions to the excesses of nobility - on a modern global scale we are "the nobility". At the end of the day no amount of politics will change a physical limit of nature, politicians generally refuse to acknowledge any kind of limit that they themselves have not set. If they set that limit according to GDP then the "buying of indulgences" is meaningless because the indulgences are as limitless as GDP.

If our leaders suddenly started using logic, then the difficult part of a demoractic cap and trade scheme is how to credit everyones individual "C02 account" when a large chunk of the population have never seen a letter box. The pra

Re:One problem with this plan

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

NYC (and the entire Hudson Valley corridor up to Albany) control the state government. The big three: Sheldon Silver, Joe Bruno, and Eliot Spitzer all hail from that area, as does virtually every other state-wide politician (Andrew Cuomo, Thomas DiNapoli, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton (ok, she's never actually spent a day in NY but bought a house near NYC so she could run for the Senate), etc).

It is the state that sets policy for things like Medicaid. Those policies are some of the primary things drowning upstate right now. Every year, the cost of Medicaid exceeds inflation and taxes are raised yet again to make up for it. The same can be said with school budgets growing by 6-15% every year due to mandates from the NYCers in Albany. Meanwhile, programs like ELP (Extended Learning Program) which are focused on gifted kids are being cut because they aren't mandated (while special ed for the slow kids is) to free up more money for the mandates. The taxes, required by the governments that don't know how to stop creating more spending, are driving businesses out and with the businesses, the young people who will make up the future of the economy. The aging population retiring isn't the only problem - losing tons of people from future tax rolls is just as big, if not bigger.

Even prior to their fall in the digital age, Kodak was busy shipping jobs to other states/countries in the early 90s to try to shed some of the costs of doing business in NY. My grandfather was one of three film cutters in Rochester and watched his job go to Canada before digital cameras ever landed on a retail shelf. It's not like the jobs were being outsourced to China to avoid pretty much any regulation then (that came later), Canada was seen as a much cheaper place of conducting business than NY and it was still just a hop away on a plane (or a couple hours by car). The state is driving business out, NYC is just the last to see it because of it's long entrenched state as the economic capital of the world. However, that's eroding too. Spitzer set the trend of suing everyone on Wall Street that he didn't like and Andrew Cuomo appears to be following suit. How long before those companies start moving to NJ, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Connecticut or London to avoid NY's overzealous squad of lawyers?

As for how far I live from the economic centers, I live in a rural county, so it's par for the course. I assume you want your dairy, corn, potatoes, apples, etc. You need space to grow that kind of stuff. My point was simply that the high gasoline taxes weigh more heavily on upstaters who have to drive than people in NYC who walk or hop on the subway... and again, NYC needs us to grow their food, so we don't really have a choice about having a bunch of farm land between our houses and various stores. Because they (NYCers and the politicians in Albany (many of whom are from NYC)) largely don't have to deal with it, they don'y really see the problem.

State level taxes, mandates, etc are the policies hurting us (and what originally started driving business out of upstate) and can only be resolved by the state.

I had forgotten about them, but check out Unshackle Upstate for at least one group's (composed of 60 trade groups from upstate) study/opinion on what the state needs to do to help fix upstate.

Re:One problem with this plan

[BBandCMKRNL]

Although I doubt this would be true if you would count any taxes that went to the upkeep of said power stations. For instance, are the employees paid strictly from the profits from the power stations, or from city taxes? I don't know about Austin, but in San Antonio, the power company is a separate legal entity from, but owned by the city. It has its own CEO, etc., and the employees are not paid out of taxes. In fact, it returns a rather large profit to the city.

From the CPS Energy web site http://www.cpsenergy.com/content_listInternet.asp?sect_id=2593&elmt_id=12 "CPS Energy bills rank the lowest of the nation's 20 largest cities and the company has earned the highest financial ratings of any electric system in the country. Proceeds from CPS Energy remain in San Antonio and account for more than one-fifth of the city's annual operating budget."

Six Month Notice

[eldavojohn]

I submitted this story a while ago for California. Something I found interesting from that article is at the bottom:

California is required to announce its intention to sue the federal government six months before it does so. I assume this is true of all the states so you should note that this isn't something that's going to happen today unless they announced it six months ago.

Re:Six Month Notice

[PopeRatzo]

The move comes as New York and other Northeastern states are stepping up their push for tougher regulation of greenhouse gases as part of their continuing opposition to President Bush's policies.

Notice how the writer dismisses the efforts as being part of the states' "continuing opposition to President Bush's policies"? It couldn't be because they are sick of nothing being done about greenhouse emissions. No, it has to be liberal vs. conservative, Right vs. Left, Good vs. Evil, The USA vs. Bush. It just goes to show miserable the state of reporting is today. Instead of looking for the truth, every issue has to have "two sides", and every problem has to be framed as some sort of 50/50 battle. Fortunately, the real numbers don't break down that way. By far most Americans believe that greenhouse emissions caused by humans are causing global warming. Most Americans want the War in Iraq to end now and the troops brought home. Most Americans believe George Bush has done a terrible job. But the Media insists on portraying everything as an evenly balanced fight.

It's because the Media has been mau-mau'd to death and is now afraid to look for the truth. Whenever they try to get to the heart of a matter, they are attacked for being "liberal".

I can understand that the Right has beaten the Media to death, but it doesn't excuse them losing their courage completely.

The good news is I have a feeling the BS isn't working as well as it used to. More and more, people I encounter from all walks of life and all ends of the political spectrum are ignoring the talk radio goons and Fox News and can see through the crap. Despite their best efforts, the assault on the middle class in America is bringing a lot of former political enemies back together.

Re:Six Month Notice

[pilgrim23]

Me thinks California needs to submit a few forms to some non compliant forests in terms of greenhouse emissions the last few days...

Re:Six Month Notice

[ArcherB]

As for states suing the Feds to force auto manufacturers to decrease emissions, why don't they just do it themselves? California has strict emission control policies. Why can't the rest of these states.

Better yet, they can just stop repairing their roads.

By far most Americans believe that greenhouse emissions caused by humans are causing global warming
Because that is exactly what they are told.... over and over and over again. Many scientists, geologists and meteorologists disagree. Those are the ones that don't get grants and do get fired. No wonder they don't speak out.

Most Americans want the War in Iraq to end now and the troops brought home

Unless you know "most Americans" or run a polling company, you probably shouldn't be making such claims. Maybe you should know the facts before you spout off.

From HERE:

"From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?" Only 29% answered "remove all". This was before the news that violence has been reduced 70% since the surge. If that gets reported, who knows what that number will be.

The good news is I have a feeling the BS isn't working as well as it used to.
Not as long as there are people like me who gladly look up your BS and call you out on it.

Re:Six Month Notice

[rrkap]

As for states suing the Feds to force auto manufacturers to decrease emissions, why don't they just do it themselves? California has strict emission control policies. Why can't the rest of these states.

That isn't how air quality regulations work. Under the Clean Air Act, setting auto emissions standards is the exclusive responsibility of the Federal Government. However, because California had stricter emissions standards in place when the Clean Air Act was first passed, California (and only California) was granted a waiver to set its own standards which can be adopted by other states if they choose. This waiver doesn't apply to vehicular CO2 emissions. California (with other states) has already won a suit saying that EPA must grant such a waiver, however EPA has not done so. Thus, they are suing again, this time asking the court to order EPA to do so immediately.

As things currently stand, no state can regulate tailpipe CO2 emissions. When California wins their lawsuit, then states will be able to choose weather to follow CA CO2 regulations or to follow the Federal do-nothing approach.

Re:Six Month Notice

[ArcherB]

That isn't how air quality regulations work. Under the Clean Air Act, setting auto emissions standards is the exclusive responsibility of the Federal Government. However, because California had stricter emissions standards in place when the Clean Air Act was first passed, California (and only California) was granted a waiver to set its own standards which can be adopted by other states if they choose. This waiver doesn't apply to vehicular CO2 emissions. California (with other states) has already won a suit saying that EPA must grant such a waiver, however EPA has not done so. Thus, they are suing again, this time asking the court to order EPA to do so immediately.

As things currently stand, no state can regulate tailpipe CO2 emissions. When California wins their lawsuit, then states will be able to choose weather to follow CA CO2 regulations or to follow the Federal do-nothing approach.

Thank you. Very informative.

Re:Six Month Notice

[Attila Dimedici]

The good news is I have a feeling the BS isn't working as well as it used to. More and more, people I encounter from all walks of life and all ends of the political spectrum are ignoring the talk radio goons and Fox News and can see through the crap. Despite their best efforts, the assault on the middle class in America is bringing a lot of former political enemies back together. You do realize how incredibly short sighted that sounds? For example, 30 years ago there was no Fox News or talk radio. Fox News has only been around since 1996, two years after the Republican Party took control of Congress on a conservative agenda. As far as Fox News being "crap", I have yet to hear of a story about Fox News comparable to the NYT Jason Blair fiasco, or the CNN "we knew about Saddam Hussein's torture chambers, but if we'd reported anything he didn't like he would have kicked us out, so we didn't", or numerous other cases of where various news outlets blatantly reported falsehoods in order to make conservatives look bad.

Re:Six Month Notice

[AK Marc]

Because that is exactly what they are told.... over and over and over again. Many scientists, geologists and meteorologists disagree.

What, five of them?

Those are the ones that don't get grants and do get fired. No wonder they don't speak out.

Ah yes, it's the great conspiracy. So tell me, when Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress, were these same scientists being denied federal grants? It seems to me that it's the Conservatives complaining about the silencing of critics, but they were being silenced by officials of an all-Republican run government.

This was before the news that violence has been reduced 70% since the surge.

I haven't heard that. Perhaps it was hidden by the Liberal Media Conspiracy. Could you tell me the number of US soldier deaths in that time frame compared to before, as well as Iraq civilian deaths? "Violence" is a term that has some ambiguity. The piles of dead bodies are hard to hide.

Re:Six Month Notice

[c6gunner]

Notice how the writer dismisses the efforts as being part of the states' "continuing opposition to President Bush's policies"? It couldn't be because they are sick of nothing being done about greenhouse emissions.

Exactly, it couldn't! That's why you'll never see democrat dominated states suing a democrat president. It simply wouldn't happen.

My guess? Now that Iraq is starting to look better, they need something new to hammer Bush with, lest he actually start to make gains in his approval ratings.

Fortunately, the real numbers don't break down that way. By far most Americans believe that greenhouse emissions caused by humans are causing global warming. Most Americans want the War in Iraq to end now and the troops brought home. Most Americans believe George Bush has done a terrible job.

Most Americans think Oswald didn't assasinate JFK. Almost half of Americans think UFO's visited the earth. And the vast majority of Americans beleive in God, Heaven, Angels, Miracles, Hell, and the Devil, and not in a figurative sense.

You know what? Most people are fucking stupid. There's a reason why "most Americans" don't get to make policy.

I can understand that the Right has beaten the Media to death, but it doesn't excuse them losing their courage completely.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh God...

*wipes tear*

Thanks, man, up to that point I thought you were serious :) Now I realize you're just a really gifted parodist. You rock!

Re:Six Month Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all thanks to the fairness doctrine and ratings. It started out harmless enough... broadcasters should present both sides of an argument. Sounds reasonable enough. But in the case where there's not really an argument, they still felt compelled to show the "other side" lest they be sued by some lunatic fringe. Once broadcasters discovered you could get America's blood boiling and thus ratings by presenting everything as a evenly matched two sided contest... well, game over. Now everything in the news a damned battle royale with a cliffhanger ending. Plus, the more it scares people, the more they run it because it's a ratings grabber. It doesn't matter if the news has factual basis anymore. Examples of these "Won't somebody do SOMETHING!!" scares are global cooling, global warming, WMD's, and Saddam's role in 9/11 to name a few. All these things have been or still are widely believed to be true even though the factual evidence is weak, if it exists at all.

Re:Six Month Notice

[ArcherB]

Because that is exactly what they are told.... over and over and over again. Many scientists, geologists and meteorologists disagree.

What, five of them?

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.

Also, JunkScience.com is offering $125,000.00 to anyone who can PROVE that humans are causing catastrophic global warming.

Those are the ones that don't get grants and do get fired. No wonder they don't speak out.

Ah yes, it's the great conspiracy. So tell me, when Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress, were these same scientists being denied federal grants? It seems to me that it's the Conservatives complaining about the silencing of critics, but they were being silenced by officials of an all-Republican run government.

Sorry, but Republicans do not rule the world.
From HERE:
Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding."

and HERE:
In a paper issued Jan. 3, 2007, UCS accuses ExxonMobil of funding "front groups" opposed to the climate-alarmist agenda of groups such as UCS and of former Vice President Al Gore. The company, said the UCS report, had distributed $16 million to 43 advocacy groups from 1998 to 2005 "to confuse the public on global-warming science."
Let's leave aside the fact that $16 million over eight years can't match the $2 billion that the federally funded Climate Change Science Program spends each year on global warming, or even the $4 million annual budget of just one of the many well-funded global-warming advocacy groups, Strategies for the Global Environment (the umbrella organization for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change). Moreover, the UCS document is hardly an investigative breakthrough. ExxonMobil itself publishes its philanthropic contributions to nonprofit organizations online.

And HERE is where the state climatologist in Oregon gets fired for questioning global warming:
In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.

Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist...

So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

Then there is THIS one where a scientist was fired for correcting bad data:
University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was dismissed on March 12 from his position as associate state climatologist, just weeks after exposing false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade Mountains...
Cliff Mass, a professo

Re:Six Month Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ignorance makes me smile.

Re:Six Month Notice

[E 99]

Ah yes, it's the great conspiracy. So tell me, when Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress, were these same scientists being denied federal grants? It seems to me that it's the Conservatives complaining about the silencing of critics, but they were being silenced by officials of an all-Republican run government.

Yes. All the climatology grant money has been for "showing the effects of global warming" since before the Republican majority. I suppose next you're going to tell us that NPR was right-wing radio during the Republican majority.

Re:Six Month Notice

[E 99]

That isn't how air quality regulations work. Under the Clean Air Act, setting auto emissions standards is the exclusive responsibility of the Federal Government. As things currently stand, no state can regulate tailpipe CO2 emissions. When California wins their lawsuit, then states will be able to choose weather to follow CA CO2 regulations or to follow the Federal do-nothing approach.

That is just not true. If it were, CA would just pass their own tougher law and let the Federal government sue THEM if they didn't like it. And the Federal government would have no constitutional power to do so. CA's only gripe is that they can't adopt their own tougher standards within the federal framework of the Clean Air Act and its permit system without a waiver. And that makes sense -- it's not their program. They have no case -- the granting of a waiver is at the discretion of the Administrator of the EPA, according to whether or not in his judgement doing so is conducive to the goals of the act (among other things). Whatever those CA's interest is, they are free to pursue them with their own programs, at their own expense. They have no possible basis for a suit.

California (with other states) has already won a suit saying that EPA must grant such a waiver, however EPA has not done so. Thus, they are suing again, this time asking the court to order EPA to do so immediately.

There is no such lawsuit. The only ruling I can think you could possibly be referring to is the ruling by the Supreme Court that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Re:Six Month Notice

[ArcherB]

I see a moderator has called this previously unrated post, overrated (isn't that like saying that a plane on the ground is flying too high?). I'm sure he chose that particular mod because he knows that "overrated" mods are not subject to meta-moderation. This usually happens when they disagree with the post, but are unable to refute any of the points made. It's a classic example of the tactics used by the Brownshirts in 1930's Germany. Silence the opposition at all costs. This was done through protesting events or simply shouting down the opposition.

If you read my post (the parent of this one), you will see how this is also a classic example of how Global Warming skeptics are treated. They are not given grants when their research does not jive with the group think, or they are simply fired because the organization they work for can not afford to lose the grants. Sometimes, when they work for a government agency, they are let go because their science does not support the political views of whoever is in charge. Either way, their views are silenced in order to make it seem as if they don't exist, and Global Warming alarmists appear to have a consensus. This helps give credence when they say things like, "The debate is over." Sure it's over, but only because you've silenced the other side to the point where you are the only one talking!

Re:Six Month Notice

[misanthrope101]

Now that Iraq is starting to look better

Don't be a sucker. The govt has revised the way it tracks sectarian violence, and re-revised it again, until the numbers went down. When you can redefine all the terms to suit your agenda, you can paint any picture you want. The Iraqis, including the Prime Minister, think things are going horribly, and it's the Saudis, not the Iranians, who are the problem. The gist of this is that Iraq is not looking better--the US media is just continuing to uncritically report the White House talking points as news. You need to watch less TV, and read more New Yorker, Harper's, Atlantic, and so on.

If you were being ironic, never mind. Sometimes it's hard to tell.

Re:Six Month Notice

[FleaPlus]

Don't be a sucker. The govt has revised the way it tracks sectarian violence, and re-revised it again, until the numbers went down.

Since when is iraqbodycount.org the government?

Re:Six Month Notice

[tfoss]

My guess? Now that Iraq is starting to look better, they need something new to hammer Bush with, lest he actually start to make gains in his approval ratings. First of all, wtf are you smoking that's making iraq look better? Whatever it is, the majority of the country sure doesn't have any. Second, Bush has net disapproval ratings in the -30s for the past year, I don't think anything is new is needed (though he continues to provide them with SCHIP, DOJ and FISA shenanigans, and an Iran war drumbeat). Third, hammering Bush on environmental issues is a perfectly legitimate avenue, given that the League of Conservation Voters has labeled him as the most anti-environmental president in the country's history.

Most Americans think Oswald didn't assasinate JFK. Almost half of Americans think UFO's visited the earth. And the vast majority of Americans beleive in God, Heaven, Angels, Miracles, Hell, and the Devil, and not in a figurative sense. And nearly half of the republicans running for president don't believe in evolution, at least one democratic hopeful believes he had an alien encounter. Our president thinks god talks to him (and apparently god thought we should preemptively invade a country who posed no threat to us). What is your point? Oh, right: You know what? Most people are fucking stupid. Since politicians are people too, aren't they mostly fucking stupid to?

There's a reason why "most Americans" don't get to make policy. Yeah, they are too poor.

-Ted

Re:Six Month Notice

[WilliamX]

It is interesting that almost all the states are Democratic led, and that we are in an election cycle as this all comes about....

That said, they are actually suing because the EPA was supposed to grant an exemption to California, that also would allow the states to adopt California's standards in place of the less restrictive federal ones. This is an area where the Federal government has claimed absolute authority, not allowing states to regulate beyond the federal rules even if they pass stricter ones. The law in question included a provision for the exemption to grandfather California in, and to be fair to the other states, give them the option of adopting California's standard. The EPA has dragged its feet on this exemption, and that is what is at the heart of this alleged lawsuit.

I wonder how they plan to get around Sovereign Immunity though. The tort claims act requires a federal employee to have acted in a manner in which he knew he was causing damages to the injured party, and the Tucker Act requires that the US be a party to a contract that is in dispute in the case. Absent that, the Congress has to grant permission through passing a bill, that then must be signed and approved by the President (or have his Veto overriden) to authorize lawsuits of a particular type/subject matter (referred to as Abrogating Immunity).

But...our current Surpreme Court may actually be very sympathetic to the principles behind this suit. Already they have handed down a series of decisions dramatically curtailing the power of the federal government to compel the states to observe laws passed by Congress or agency regulations implementing them under the banner of states' rights. In Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority, Justice Thomas affirmed a virtually boundless proposition that the states are sovereign powers, absolutely coequal with the national government. States's Rights can only be expected to be strengthened by the current court, not weakened.

So it will be interesting to see how all of this plays out. The Government may see the way the court has been moving with regard to States' Rights decisions, and act to curtail this case from getting there to prevent a further erosion of the government's ability to use the big stick to get the states in line.

Re:Six Month Notice

[psychophil.com]

As things currently stand, no state can regulate tailpipe CO2 emissions. When California wins their lawsuit, then states will be able to choose weather to follow CA CO2 regulations or to follow the Federal do-nothing approach.

Except that many states already have:

States Poised to Adopt California Vehicle GHG Standards
http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/vehicle_ghg_standard.cfm

Many of these states regs are in effect now or scheduled to start in 2008/2009. Nobodies waiting on a CA lawsuit.

Re:Six Month Notice

[Bob-taro]

As things currently stand, no state can regulate tailpipe CO2 emissions. When California wins their lawsuit, then states will be able to choose weather to follow CA CO2 regulations or to follow the Federal do-nothing approach.

So how does this work, exactly? If I decide to drive to (or through) a state that has tougher CO2 laws, and my car is non-compliant, could I get a ticket?

Re:Six Month Notice

[Red Flayer]

Not only is your knowledge of the US legal process off, but your knowledge of history is

Exactly, it couldn't! That's why you'll never see democrat dominated states suing a democrat president. It simply wouldn't happen.

First off, the states don't sue the president...

Second, some democratic states have sued the federal government when a democrat was president. Washington State, for example, sued in 1998 to force the EPA to clean up a superfund site... who was president in 1998?

Re:Six Month Notice

[rrkap]

Many of these states regs are in effect now or scheduled to start in 2008/2009. Nobodies waiting on a CA lawsuit.

Then why are all the states that are planning to adopt these regulations party to the suit?

Re:Six Month Notice

[rrkap]

That is just not true. If it were, CA would just pass their own tougher law and let the Federal government sue THEM if they didn't like it.

And the federal government would win the suit since federal law prohibits states from setting tailpipe emissions standards outside the framework of the clean air act. California has restricted power plant

There is no such lawsuit. The only ruling I can think you could possibly be referring to is the ruling by the Supreme Court that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency (in this case, California was one of the several states suing, led by Massachusetts) was a much broader decision than that. It didn't only say that EPA could regulate CO2 emissions, it said that "EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change" and that it was required to "treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants." If EPA has to regulate it, then California can as well.

Re:Six Month Notice

[Socguy]

Also, JunkScience.com is offering $125,000.00 to anyone who can PROVE that humans are causing catastrophic global warming. Allow me to post the 'rules' of this 'contest'. I'm sure they have no intention of paying anybody....
(bolding mine)

By submitting an entry to the contest, entrants agree to the following terms and conditions:

1. Entrants agreed to be bound by the UGWC Rules.
2. Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.
3. JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries. All determinations made by JunkScience.com are final.
4. The winner, if any, will receive $125,000 in a single, lump sum payment. JunkScience.com does not promise or guarantee that the UGWC will have any winner.
5. All entries must represent the original work of an entrant that has been produced specifically for the UGWC.
6. All data used in an entry must be publicly available and readily accessible to the public.
7. Entries will be accepted starting August 7, 2007.
8. A fee of $15 is required for each entry submitted. There will be no refunds of entry fees.
9. No entries will be accepted after December 1, 2008.
10. The results of the UGWC will be announced on February 1, 2009.
11. All entries must be submitted in MS Word or PDF format.
12. Entries must include a summary or abstract of no more than 700 words for each hypothesis.
13. Entrants consent to their entries being posted on the contest web site for public review and comment.
14. Entrants waive all rights and claims against JunkScience.com related to, or arising from the UGWC.

Re:Six Month Notice

[PopeRatzo]

Do you know how few of those oism.org "scientists" are actually meteorologists or climate experts?

I had a nice chat with the head of one of the physical science departments at the Univ I work for about this "oism.org". He looked at the list of names and picked out the ones he recognized. Most of them were doing "applied" research for industry, especially the energy sector.

The best overall study of all of the science that's been done on global warming was undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They conclude, using probabilities like good scientists do, the likelihood that humans are causing global warming. It is highly probably, they said. They used only peer-reviewed research in their survey.

They won the Nobel Prize. I'm sure you consider the Nobel Committee to be a bunch of dirty hippie leftist Islamocommies, though.

Re:Six Month Notice

[c6gunner]

Thanks for that correction. You're right, there have been precedents of states suing the federal government even when both sides belonged to the same party, and you're right, I wasn't aware of the legal process in question. Therefore, with your corrections in mind, I'll add a disclaimer to my earlier comment:

Although the likelihood that this action is politically motivated remains high, there is also a slight possibility that the politicians in question are simply stupid. Maybe the really do believe that they are "doing the right thing for future generations".

Is that better?

Re:Six Month Notice

[c6gunner]

Initially I didn't intend to reply to your comment. Some things are too absurd to be taken seriously. But it's a slow day, so I'll throw you a bone.

For the record, I don't even own a TV, although I am looking at buying a nice 50" LCD to hook into my computer. If you will permit me to return your criticism in kind: you should perhaps stay away from Al Jazeera, Michael Moore, and Code Pink, and find yourself some slightly credible sources. Even Pravda would be an improvement.

As for your "revisions" foolishness, it's a matter of record that death rates in Iraq have plummeted to something approaching those of a nation at peace. Just because your buddies at KOS aren't reporting it, doesn't mean it's not happening. And no, George W. Bush did not personally brainwash the Iraqi Morgue employees, Iraqi Government, and the members of the mass media who ARE reporting on the improvement.

Lastly, I find it rather amusing to be accused of being "a sucker" by someone who thinks that not watching TV makes him an intellectual. If you want to avoid looking ignorant, stop being so pretentious.

Re:Six Month Notice

[toddestan]

Unless you know "most Americans" or run a polling company, you probably shouldn't be making such claims. Maybe you should know the facts before you spout off. ...

Only 29% answered "remove all". This was before the news that violence has been reduced 70% since the surge. If that gets reported, who knows what that number will be.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. From your own link, 27% of Americans favor keeping troop levels the same or increasing them, while 68% of Americans favor reducing troop levels or pulling out entirely. Gee, sure sounds people want to the troops brought home to me. Glancing at the rest of the responses, I would put ratio of Iraqi war opposers to supporters at about 2:1, perhaps a tad higher, which seems about right.

Re:Six Month Notice

[misanthrope101]

We seem to have misassessed one another. I don't know what code pink is, I've seen one Michael Moore movie, and so on, so I'm not the raging liberal you may have taken me for.

The "nation at peace" comment is interesting, considering the dozens (down from 100+) killed each day in sectarian violence by death squads, suicide bombers, revenge killings, etc. Over half of Iraqis support (at least ideologically) attacks against US personnel. I'm curious how we'd view it if, say, California or Texas had suicide bombers, private militias, government-backed death squads, Saudi-backed foreign fighters, and Iranian-backed foreign fighters vying to tear each other apart while occasionally working together to target a 150K-strong foreign military occupation.

But if it'll let us leave (as the majority of the US population, Iraqi population, and even US military population want) I'll call it victory so we can get the hell out.

I've long said that, since we don't seem to have a well-defined mission, Pres. Bush can declare victory any day he wants and shower confetti on the military as they leave. He could have declared victory on the day he declared victory, and left then. We've "broken" Al Queida how many times now? We won, we won, we're great, whatever....can we leave now? I'm glad that fewer Iraqis are dying (I love being wrong about something so negative), and I would hope that shining, happy conclusion would intimate that we're not needed there anymore.

Re:Six Month Notice

[Red Flayer]

Although the likelihood that this action is politically motivated remains high

This is not a bad thing. Bringing attention to the negative actions of a party in power will increase the likelihood of that party not remaining in power... it's an effective way to initiate change. A representative government depends on voter awareness in order to operate effectively.

That said, politics is a tricky business, and self-promotion is very important to the goals of gaining power and holding it. It's likely that the personal publicity is a motivating factor in bringing the suit. It's important to note, however, that lawsuits between states and between states and the federal government are not uncommon, and serve a useful purpose in mediating disputes when other methods have failed.

Re:Six Month Notice

[ArcherB]

They won the Nobel Prize. I'm sure you consider the Nobel Committee to be a bunch of dirty hippie leftist Islamocommies, though.

Well, YEAH! Let's see, Al Gore gives a slide show on global warming. He lives in several mansions and takes private jets to speaking engagements. He uses produces more carbon by himself than a family of four does all year. He wins the Nobel Prize. A woman saves 1500 children from the Nazi's, gets captured and through years of torture, never gives the kids up. She loses the Nobel Prize to Al Gore.

Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini, more commonly known as Yasir Arafat, is a known terrorists who stole billions from the people he claimed to support wins the Nobel Prize.

Jimmy Carter also won the Nobel Prize for his work with North Korea. North Korea tested a nuclear device recently and is still starving the population.

Need I go on? I'm sorry, but the fact that these guys won the Nobel Prize is a negative as far as I'm concerned. The Nobel Prize committee is about as trustworthy as the UN, who started the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Unconstitutional?

[mastershake_phd]

While the federal government routinely, and with the blessing of the Supreme court, passes laws that blatantly violate the commerce clause I would think CO2 emissions are clearly interstate commerce making this suit baseless.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[moderatorrater]

I was thinking the exact opposite, that I just wish the federal government would step back and let the states deal with it. The constitution was intended to keep the federal government from being the end all authority and keep the states as the primary governing body for most cases. From a stricter constitutional perspective, the EPA should allow all the state restrictions the states want to put on as long as they still fulfill the restrictions of the EPA.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[MightyMartian]

The problem here is that green house gases haven't yet learned how to stop at state and national borders; which seems to put them in the Interstate Commerce clause of the the Constitution. The states have only limited power to legislate the greenhouse gases produced within their borders.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[SydShamino]

Rivers in most states eventually flow into a different state, too, but that doesn't mean that states can't restrict or ban water pollution. The CO2 can be defined a pollutant as soon as it leaves the vehicle, while it is still wholly contained within the state of the car (or power plant or factory) that emitted it.

Now if they tried to apply this ruling to vehicles merely crossing through their state, as opposed to those registered to drivers in that state, with state license plates, then yes, I agree that the courts could intervene. Pretty soon belching trucks from Mexico will be all over the US, and I bet there's nothing any state can do about those.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[ad0gg]

Umm isn't that what they are doing? Passing laws about pollution generated in their states? I can't see how that falls under interstate commerce And If it does fall under interstate commerce, would that invalidate smog laws in california and other states that have implemented similiar type of laws?

Re:Unconstitutional?

[MightyMartian]

The problem is that when the pollution and greenhouse gases are from out of state, then the states are screwed. If Nevada builds a big motherfucking coal-burning plant three inches from the border, California is pretty much powerless unless the Federal government gets involved.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[InvalidError]

I think the point was more like: states can pass all the environment quality improvement laws they can dream of, they will still be adversely affected by neighboring states that have lesser (if any) standards. Since a state cannot force environmental standards on its neighbors, the next best thing they can do is petition the feds for improved national standards to nudge dissident states one step closer to the greener states' standards.

You can ban atmospheric lead all you want in your state, you will never reach your target of 0ppb if anyone within 500km (interstate) uses leaded gasoline or incinerates leaded electronics.

CO2 might not be particularly dangerous but if one state makes efforts to reduce its carbon footprint, I think it would have a legitimate reason to be somewhat cheezed off that its neighbors are increasing theirs. High environmental standards in one state are impossible to achieve if neighbors have ridiculously low standards since they share the same airspace and rivers... sounds interstate enough to me.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is you are still breathing and exhaling carbon dioxide. Do the environment a favor and STFU and die.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[Valdrax]

While the federal government routinely, and with the blessing of the Supreme court, passes laws that blatantly violate the commerce clause ...

Logical error. The government does not pass laws that violate the commerce clause if the Supreme court says they don't. That's how our government works.

Besides, I think you need to read up on Massachusetts vs. EPA. This suit is probably going to be very similar considering that it was over much the same thing. MS v. EPA was an attempt to force the government to perform its duties to regulate CO2 emissions as a pollutant in absence of Congressional instruction to or not to do so.

The new lawsuit will be a similar attempt to compel the EPA to perform its mandated duties to grant CA and other states permission to create stricter regulations than the Congressionally mandated minimums. The EPA has dragged its feet for years in signing off on this, claiming that they didn't think they had the authority to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act. Fortunately, MS v. EPA has cleared that up.

Assuming that the SCOTUS doesn't decide to reverse itself unexpectedly or attempt to wiggle out under jurisdictional issues such as interfering with the powers of the executive or such as the doctrine against getting involved in political decisions, it's probably a slam dunk case.

Then again, I'm not as familiar with the CAA as I'd like to be. The decision might be a discretionary power of the EPA at which point the SCOTUS would simply pass the buck.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[bigdavex]

Logical error. The government does not pass laws that violate the commerce clause if the Supreme court says they don't. That's how our government works.

That's nonsense. The Supreme Court is made of humans who can make mistakes.

Why go to all the trouble of picking candidates with law backgrounds and the confirmation hearing and all? However they interpret the constitution will be correct by definition, right?

Re:Unconstitutional?

[mastershake_phd]

Logical error. The government does not pass laws that violate the commerce clause if the Supreme court says they don't. That's how our government works.

Growing pot in your backyard is interstate commerce? When the federal government tells your state it needs to change a law or they will withhold federal funding, thats interstate commerce?

Sure their interpretation of the constitution is the law, but I suspect that those lap dogs are intentionally and knowingly subverting the constitution. Politics should be no consideration of the supreme court. The constitution is the law, it is not a list of suggestions.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[AusIV]

As sibling posts have stated, gases don't stop at state borders. If one state wants clean air, but is surrounded by states that don't have such laws, they're pretty much out of luck. Additionally, if one state tries to have harsher laws than neighboring states, those industries will simply move to the next state, so the state trying to have clean air loses business to its immediate neighbors, and continues to get the pollution from its neighbors.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[JWW]

The wafting of CO2 over the border is not "commerce" its just a gas moving. Thats a weak argument.

In all honesty the States should control emissions standards from power plants. All powers not expressly granted to the Feds in the constitution were relegated to the States. Of course the federal government continually oversteps its bounds here. The EPA included, in my opinion.

There is no reason for the states to be suing the feds. Also, this whole lawsuit thing is utter bullshit. Until significant effort is made in this country is made to replace coal plants with nuclear plants all of this posturing over coal power plants is just petty politics.

C'mon Spitzer, do something real! Start building nuclear plants in New York to replace the coal plants and then shut the coal plants down!! THAT is what its going to take to stop global warming. Taxes, regulations, and fees don't have a damn thing to do with it!!

Re:Unconstitutional?

[ad0gg]

California has the some of the strictest air pollution laws in the country. We also have stricter industry laws, stricter labor laws, better consumer protection. In other words, California isn't business friendly as other states and errors on whats best for the Citizens of the California. The social morality/values of California is what attracts some of the most talented people in the world to California This in return attracts businesses. Only issues we have is that Bush is not allowing us to regulate greenhouse gases as per California state law.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[CaptainZapp]

Being a neighboring state I'm not sure that New York is too keen about a new nuclear power plant.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[Valdrax]

The constitution is the law, it is not a list of suggestions.

So's everything that Congress passes and the President signs off on until someone says otherwise. Just because the Constitution is a higher level of law than that passed by the legislature doesn't mean that it's not fundamentally a construct of man, subject to the foibles and fashions of the ages.

It's not like the Constitution is some holy writ or platonic ideal that rigidly defines the government. The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is -- just like any other law.

Before Brown v. the Board of Education, segregation was Constitutional under the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson. After Brown, segregation wasn't Constitutional. Note that this has no effect on whether or not segregation was morally right. Constitutional does not always imply "good" or "sensible." It merely implies that it conforms with the Constitution.

The idea of subverting the Constitution is silly at face value. The idea of subverting the America values that were present at its writing though... That's something to be upset about potentially. Besides, after reading Raich v. Gonzalez, I'm not really sure the court could've reasonably ruled any other way without completely destroying the commerce clause. If you don't like Stevens' opinion, at least look at Scalia's concurrence on the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[Erioll]

Up in Canada where the Kyoto wealth transfer plan (that's what it is, make no mistake) was ratified, we had a quite simple statement told to us: if we stopped every train, plane, and automobile in the entire country tomorrow, we STILL wouldn't meet the Kyoto targets (which is something like 30-40% below where we are now).

So yes, cars are a part of it, but they are NOT the "things holding you up" here.

And if somebody could provide links on this, I'd be grateful.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[Original Replica]

I think to get improvements in the 30-40% range you need to make serious changes on all fronts. Buildings seem to be the largest consumer of energy, at least in the US, I'm assuming the same is true for Canada.

current energy use in buildings represents 39 percent of all energy use in the U.S. -- more than industrial or even transportation usage. It concludes that by 2020 building energy use can be reduced by 14 percent and total national energy use could be cut by 5.6 percent through the implementation of short-term, realistic energy policies.http://www.nirs.org/alternatives/factoid11.htm

But I think the more drastic changes that will help meet Kyoto targets are in the area of where power comes from. When the wealth redistribution costs to a country outweigh the cost of installing solar panels on every rooftop, then there will be change in that country. The same holds true for making more efficient cars or mass transit or wind farms, they will only ever be "the norm" when they cost less than just burning more fossil fuels. That Kyoto-carbon-tax is helping to push that day a little closer.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly I'm not too well informed about the specifics about Kyoto, but I do know that you guys produce more CO2 than we do per person, and I've been told that Canada's terrain and location has some effects that make it tougher for you to get it under control than it would for us.

Also, fuels like coal make up a third of CO2 production, whereas fuels like gasoline also make up a third.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[WinterSolstice]

Dude - you need to get back on the meds! We don't shoot people or jail them for treason when they attempt to follow or amend the law in this country. Try China if you like governments that run that way.

This is a simple state's rights/federal rights issue. The states want to *cough* create additional revenue streams *cough* improve the air quality and the feds don't want to screw with the free flow of commerce. (That commerce clause has frequently been used as a federalist beat stick)

However, if you don't like the laws the state you live in passes? Move! You're free to, any time you like.
If the fed takes up the standards, then it becomes a much nastier issue.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[Adambomb]

Depends on where in canada you are referring to. Hydro-electric conservation wouldnt exactly help emissions, despite reducing consumption of power.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[Jorophose]

Well, IANARI*, but I was reading an article on Highly Hon. Mr. Chretien's "memoires", where he mentioned that if he wasn't busy being stabbed in the back by Paul Martin (yes you read that right) Canada could have made it into the Kyoto Protocol's upper limits. (IE, just barely making it) But of course, Chretien was more or less forced to move his focus elsewhere, Mr. Martin effectively pushed him out, they abandonned the Protocol, and then Harper was sworn in by a bunch of morons, so he just couldn't bring up the balls to stick with it for a few more years than normal (IE: Goal at 2018 rather than 2012) so he dropped it officially.

Of course, we've got a bit less room to work with than in Europe. Canada's huge, cities are mostly horizontal. Except in Toronto, and possibly Ottawa, public transportation is just not that great nor ideal. And then there's the heating issue. (Doesn't get very cold in France.) Of course, I bet a TGV from Halifax to Windsor would kill most emissions. =)

(*I Am not Remotely Intelligent)

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[Penguinisto]

When the wealth redistribution costs to a country outweigh the cost of installing solar panels on every rooftop, then there will be change in that country. The same holds true for making more efficient cars or mass transit or wind farms, they will only ever be "the norm" when they cost less than just burning more fossil fuels. That Kyoto-carbon-tax is helping to push that day a little closer.

Would that not be self-defeating theft?

An example: Here in Oregon, we have a punitive tax measure on the ballot - an initiative to tax the unholy hell out of tobacco and use the dough to fund health care for kids... problem is, first off there's already taxes taken that fund such a program, and second, if everyone stopped smoking (or even if the numbers dropped appreciably on in-state consumption and population), those kids' parents are still going to demand free medicine and doctor visits... but how does it get paid for by then?

Same story in this case - states will sack energy companies for money, claiming that these companies pollute too much. Energy companies respond by leaving the aforementioned states and selling power from cross-border (see also California's perennial "rolling blackouts" for a good idea of what that will look like). States not only lose the punitive dough they initially got, they also lose corporate tax revenues and jobs by the bucketload, from companies that decided to simply HQ themselves and their power plants away from the tax-happy New England governments. Someone else gets all that growth. Wanna tax any company that sells you energy if they're out-of-state? Fine... but the costs will be directly transferred to your states' per-kWH price. Your own citizens end up eating the costs, and if you don't like it? Buy a great big generator and lots of gasoline kiddo, because they don't have to sell you power.

All you'll have left are the (by then incredibly overloaded) hydro plants, since they are obviously not transportable. Think they'll keep their prices low with such demands? Probably not.

/P

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[WillAffleckUW]

That has more to do with you living in Canada.

Canadians use far more energy per capita than Americans. FACT.

Canadians use most of their energy for heating.

The second highest usage is for industry (which includes it's own heating).

Thus, for Canada it's not just cars, trucks, planes, and trains.

You actually have to get more insulation in your homes and use solar where it makes sense. And switch your fuel sources from coal and heating oil to hydro, wind, tidal, geothermal, and other sources. For example, like the two Columbia River Treaty dams you're now building at Waneta BC and the one near Revelstoke BC.

Of course, if you could just nuke Alberta, your major problems would go away. Too bad you have such an energy-inefficient province like Alberta.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[ppanon]

A huge portion of Alberta's carbon consumption comes from burning gas to heat water and extract oil from tar sands. I heard some rumours of research on using nuke power to supply the heat for the tar sands project but I guess our equivalent of the DoE has been reluctant to give the go ahead. The oil companies involved in tar sands projects also aren't too keen on the idea because natural gas is a heck of a lot cheaper to burn compared to running nuke thermal plants.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[AK Marc]

The morons suing in these states should be taken out and shot, or at the very least disbarred and jailed for treason.

Yes, because a state fighting to improve air quality (and make no mistake, the poor air quality in many states is not controllable by that state, but the one next door) is treason, while the gross abuses of the constitution, like the 55 mph speed limit, national drinking age, and nearly everything controlled as "interstate commerce" is simply ignored. If states fighting for their rights to clean air is treason, I'd hate to see what you'd do to a woman that wanted to vote.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[WillAffleckUW]

Canada has a long tradition of operating safe non-breeder nuclear fission plants, actually.

But, as someone who lived along the Columbia River in BC for years, and bought his first software package in Alberta (up in Edmonton), I can attest that there is a lot of untapped potential hydroelectric and wind power in both British Columbia and Alberta.

Try arguing the pro-oil-sands extraction argument with someone who didn't spend seven years in the Canadian Armed Forces (Army) ... you might be more successful. And you might also want not to choose someone who did an eight-part cable program on energy that was broadcast in BC ...

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[Socguy]

Depends on where in canada you are referring to. Hydro-electric conservation wouldnt exactly help emissions, despite reducing consumption of power. Yes and no. If you are on an isolated grid where your sole source of power was from a hydroelectric dam they, yes you would be correct. However, many electrical markets are interconnected and derive their power in a number of different ways. In this model, conserving power would still be cutting GHG's

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[VVelox]

Yo jackass, if you don't like something your state or country is doing, it is wrong to leave. It is then your job to stick around and fight it and not be such a fucking whiny bitch.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[ppanon]

First, the oil sands extraction is more for export to the US than for domestic consumption. It plays a big part in our trade balance with the US, but it's something we could sell to China too. But you certainly got the wrong idea if you think I'm pro oil sands. From what I hear, CO2 generation is the least of the pollution produced by oil sands operations.

I brought up using nuke plants to extract oil from oil sands because you had joked about nuking Alberta. However, while it's certainly feasible, the costs involved with operational and security protocols for fissile materials make it much more expensive than burning natural gas. That's why the oil companies invested in tar sands (and the Alberta government) are so adamantly against it. Such a change would eliminate a lot of their profit.

It's also why the Canadian federal government isn't doing anything. A large portion of the power base of the Conservative party currently in power is the old Canadian Alliance voters located primarily in Alberta and other plains provinces. They aren't going to alienate their loyal voters by doing anything that could damage the booming Alberta economy. We'll see how long it takes for the rest of Canada to figure that out and put the Liberals back in power again.

Electrical production in BC is mostly hydro now, apart for Burrard (natural gas) Thermal. Most of B.C.'s coal goes to japan/other asian markets, and a substantial portion of our natural gas goes down to the US. We do use natural gas for heating a fair bit; if we were to phase out natural gas heating, we would have to substantially increase electrical production. BC Hydro's Power Smart program has been useful in limiting the growth in energy consumption from an increasing population. Otherwise, while Gordon Campbell talks a good game because he knows the B.C. population is quite concerned about GW/CC, we've yet to see some serious money being put into effective initiatives.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

You call Kyoto a wealth transfer plan, yet you provide no support for your allegation or even explain where this wealth is being transfered to.

You allege that even if you stopped motor vehicles you wouldn't meet the target, and because of that seem to suggest that car emissions are not important which is clearly an unsupported conclusion.

For one thing, pollution is not just bad because of global warming, we actually still have to breath the air. Improving cars is a part of the solution. I'm of the opinion that our best bet right now to reduce pollutants and green house gasses is a switch away from coal to nuclear power including at least some reprocessing and such to insure we don't run out of fuel anytime soon. You get rid of all the coal pollution, not just CO2, then given that a nuclear plant can in theory run full tilt 24/7 you can use the spare capacity during off peak times, not to mention the spare heat, to generate hydrogen for vehicles. Yes, I know it is not the most efficient process in the world, but it is clean, and as far efficiency goes, it seems our current ethanol technologly is also not very efficient.

Of course I'm not opposed to wind, solar, tidal, ethanol, etc. The ultimate solution is likely a mix, but for base power, I just don't see a feasible alternative right now than nuclear, and if we have to reprocess the waste, deal with it forever, or eventually send it crashing into the sun, well its better than the alternative of destroying our environment and our health now.

In other words, for those who say we have to figure the cost of storing the waste through the end of time, well, to be fair you also have to compare that against the cost to our economy and our lives of coal pollution through the same period of time. How many cancers and diseases will that cause? Also, while you always want to find the ultimate solution that will work forever, you have to keep the planet in good shape long enough to reach that solution.

With a bit of luck maybe fusion plants would start to replace the fission ones we build in the next years as they approach the end of their life cycle. The point is you want everyone to be healthy and the planet's environment not to be too drastically altered when you finally do come up with a better solution.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[afabbro]

An example: Here in Oregon, we have a punitive tax measure on the ballot - an initiative to tax the unholy hell out of tobacco and use the dough to fund health care for kids...

Well, now really, it's just for the general fund. If they're spending $100 million today on "the children!" and this new tax brings in $100 million, then they'll simply use the tax's $100 million "for the children!" and put the $100 million they were spending back in the general fund. What's far more likely is that the Bush administration won't give them a waiver (yes, they need a waiver to do what they want to do and they're not routinely given) and the tax will just flow directly into the general fund without the shell game.

BTW, for non-Oregonians, the really amusing thing about all of this is that it's not just a tax...it's a constitutional amendment designed to get around rules about raising taxes. Yes, our Oregon constitution will now enshrine the right to free speech, the description of our bicameral legislature, and...a cigarette tax.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[Adambomb]

I was referring to Quebec specifically.

Hydro-Québec's total installed capacity in 2005 was 35,190 MW, approximately 97% of which is from hydroelectric sources. In this model, i doubt the remaining 3% is going to be impacted by overall reductions (except perhaps independant generators for companies with emissions).

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

"The same holds true for making more efficient cars or mass transit or wind farms, they will only ever be "the norm" when they cost less than just burning more fossil fuels."

The wisdom of the market's "invisible hand" strikes again.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[More_Cowbell]

Your premise here is that if you:

stopped every train, plane, and automobile in the entire country

you would NOT REDUCE emissions by 30%?

I tried reading all the responses to your comment, and one made some interesting points about coal use (among other things) in Canada. These seem like valid points, and I'm sure this was at least part of the point of whomever "quite simply told you" this.

My point would be this: whoever thinks 100% of the cars trains and planes don't make up 30% of the emissions in Canada is smoking CRACK.

--
Thank you, I'm here all week.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[LarsWestergren]

Up in Canada where the Kyoto wealth transfer plan (that's what it is, make no mistake)

Any facts to back up that statement, or is an urging to "make no mistake" evidence enough to get +5 these days?

we had a quite simple statement told to us: if we stopped every train, plane, and automobile in the entire country tomorrow, we STILL wouldn't meet the Kyoto targets (which is something like 30-40% below where we are now).

Who said that, and did THEY have any facts to back that up?

Besides, this article is about the US, not about Canada. As others have already pointed out, you drive more energy efficient cars than the US population do on average, and more energy goes to heating.

In the US, transports are a major contributing factor, and, I believe, the one sector where emissions are growing fastest.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[l-ascorbic]

We managed it in the UK. We just stopped using coal-fired power stations.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[mwvdlee]

And yet most of the civilised world CAN and ARE meeting Kyoto standards with even MORE trains, planes and automobiles than when they agreed to it.
The USA is pretty much the only country that keeps spreading this FUD whereas the rest of the world is proving the opposite.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[ifwm]

I get it, when YOU like how they violate the Constitution, it's ok, but when you don't like it, it's not.

How long have you been a Democrat?

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[eugene ts wong]

I'd like to add to what you say.

Even if we all used only hydro, then we can still waste energy and impact the environment. We'd still have to build more dams and what-have-you to create that wasted energy. Imagine what would happen if every stream and river were dammed.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[Socguy]

Canada has a long tradition of operating safe non-breeder nuclear fission plants, actually. Very true. Personally, I'm not aware of a single issue with the Candu ever leaking radiation. The problem with the atomic energy industry in Canada has always been one of massive cost overruns.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[WillAffleckUW]

We weren't talking about that.

We were talking about whether or not Canada has the means to accomplish this goal.

Given oil at $100 a barrel, it's not that hard.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[WillAffleckUW]

As I said, BC is building two large hydroelectric dams, one is about 20 miles from where I lived (Kaslo BC) - the other is about 4 miles from where I lived (Trail BC).

I wouldn't call that doing "nothing".

In addition, solar energy continues to contribute, as does wind energy and tidal energy.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[AK Marc]

I get it, when YOU like how they violate the Constitution, it's ok, but when you don't like it, it's not.

Where did someone violate the Constitution and I didn't complain? States have the right to sue the federal government. The Constitution even explicitly mentions "Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;" This seems to be one of those such controversies. Since the constitution declares such controversies might come to exist and an outline of what to do, you think that someone exercising their Constitutional rights as stated in the Constitution is somehow in violation of it? I think you've been smoking too many copies of the Constitution. Perhaps you should try reading it sometime and stop burning it.

It's usually the other way around...

[Dzimas]

The telling thing is that the various northeastern states are pushing the Bush administration for tighter emission regulations. Usually, it's the other way around - local politicians seek to fend off draconian federal policies that might cripple local industry. The amazing thing is that they're suing the EPA itself, and my professional experience is that many scientists associated with the EPA are incredibly concerned about the impact of greenhouse gases on the environment. They're forced to keep quiet and follow the mandate passed down by a perplexingly out-of-touch executive team in the White House.

Re:It's usually the other way around...

[Anonymous Coward]

> The telling thing is that the various northeastern states are pushing the Bush administration for tighter emission regulations

Tip: How many of these states have industries geared towards (carbon-neutral) ethanol, (boondoggle-capable) "clean coal" and (the only one that's net carbon-negative) nuclear? Or have large industries (metal smelting, particularly aluminum) that have huge electrical power bills?

Nuclear's the only one that actually makes economic and environmental sense, but I don't pretend for a nanosecond to think that if you're a nuclear-generating electrical utility, it's in your best interest to make sure that your fossil-fuel-based competitor gets bankrupted out of business through cap-and-trade.

Likewise, if you're in the electricity-consuming business, it's in your best interest to see that the nuclear-based utility company gets to scale up -- because they'll decouple the cost of your biggest expense (electricity to run your plant) from the cost of oil.

Re:It's usually the other way around...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're forced to keep quiet and follow the mandate passed down by an executive team in the White House which have such close ties to the oil industry (given past involvement in that industry as CEOs and other executive roles and ongoing financial interest) that they may as well be considered as having being bought by the petroleum industry. The petroleum industry is, of course, one of the industries that stands to lose the most profit from carbon-reduction measures.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:It's usually the other way around...

[Black-Man]

Spitzer is doing nothing but making enemy's. And you know why congress can't pass legislation... the dem's from Michigan will stop any stringent emission standards cold.

But I really love the staes of NJ, NY, PA, etc. suing the EPA over pollution coming from midwestern states. What a bunch of hypocrites. I hope the UK sues them for their pollution.

Bwahahahahaha!

[MightyMartian]

Is there any special meta-meta-mod points out there for reading this with "Chevron... the power of human energy" above it? I wasn't aware humans consumed petroleum-based hydrocarbons and shit out CO2.

Re:Bwahahahahaha!

[thatskinnyguy]

Considering most of the things we eat are carbon-based and the composition of our farts... To some extent, yes. Drop the petroleum-based part and it is conceivable.

Re:Bwahahahahaha!

[Sunburnt]

I wasn't aware humans consumed petroleum-based hydrocarbons

Essentially.

Re:Bwahahahahaha!

[dido]

Well, in a very real albeit indirect sense, the modern industrial human consumes petroleum-based hydrocarbons as food. A typical meal in the developed world had seven calories of fossil fuel-based energy (in the form of fertilizer, fuel for farm equipment, transportation, irrigation, pesticides, refrigeration, etc.) go into it for every calorie that the eater receives from it.

Re:Bwahahahahaha!

[erKURITA]

That made it sound like they were burning human bodies.

They aren't, amirite? .... ._.

NIMBY

[overshoot]

Works for me. Clamp down on all greenhouse gas emissions, for that matter. Tax CO2 emissions at something like a dollar per kilogram and we could have a budget surplus for the first time in living memory.

What's more, it makes for a great prosperity plan for developing nations, who can build economies around providing power (etc.) to countries like the USA.

Re:NIMBY

[grilled_ch33z]

Absolutely! And think of all the additional revenue the states will receive through sales tax when the prices of goods triple!

Re:NIMBY

[AxemRed]

Yes, that's a great idea! Move the pollution to other countries where we can't regulate it at all...

Re:NIMBY

[jamstar7]

Works for me. Clamp down on all greenhouse gas emissions, for that matter. Tax CO2 emissions at something like a dollar per kilogram and we could have a budget surplus for the first time in living memory.

Hate to be a killjoy, but as human beings, we expel carbon dioxide as a part of daily life. Want to rethink that?

Re:NIMBY

[whoop]

I think I'm coming down with a rough cough. I have commissioned a panel of my house's top scientists (myself, and my Boston Terrier Daisy). After reviewing the data, the panel has come to the consensus that my condition is due entirely to excessive greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Since noon, January 20, 2001, I have been forced to breathe from the atmosphere of the Bush administration. To make matter worse, they have done NOTHING to fund research for alternative atmospheres. Clearly, Bush wants me to die. Since I consider myself young-at-heart, I am part of the children. Think of the children! I need to sue Bush too. How's about just a couple billion for my trouble. Oh, and it'll be for medicine for my condition, mmmm ... menthol.

Re:NIMBY

[G-funk]

Duh. That's the whole point of Kyoto. Move pollution (and money) to second-world countries where it's out of sight out of mind. That and they're "doing something for the planet" when it's sound-byte time.

Stupid Slashdot NYT submission. Again.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the h*** is it with all of these stupid NY Times article submissions that require a login? Gawd, these are annoying.

hmmm

[nomadic]

Now watch all the states-rights conservatives suddenly jump to the other side of the divide and argue the federal government should get its way.

Re:hmmm

[MightyMartian]

I honestly don't think there are that many real States Rights types around. The Republicans aren't, they just mouth it (along with other nonsense like "fiscally conservative" and "family values") because a lot of their base are religious mental retards who are capable of recognizing little past sloganeering. "Look, let's dump shit in this river because that's STATES RIGHTS!" to which the religious mental retards will go "Uh duh, yeah, Jeebus loves shit in rivers" or "Let's ban federal money for stem cell research!" to which the religious mental retards will go "Uh duh, yeah, 'cause Jesus hates cripples!"

Re:hmmm

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I honestly don't think there are that many real States Rights types around. The Republicans aren't, they just mouth it

Ron Paul is a Republican representative with a (farfetched) presidential bid, but he certainly seems to be a staunch supporter of states' rights.

Re:hmmm

[Sunburnt]

Now watch all the states-rights conservatives suddenly jump to the other side of the divide and argue the federal government should get its way.

Of course. "States rights" isn't some sort of coherent ideology. It's the convenient political pose of whoever happens to be on the losing side of the votes. There's no such thing as a "states rights" conservative with any practical influence in Washington, and the ones you meet in everyday life or read on the Internet generally seem to miss the forest for the trees. Or, at least, they fail to remember that we tried operating as a loose confederation of states once before, and it sucked seven ways to Sunday.

Re:hmmm

[tsm_sf]

The trend is always towards larger government. State, national, continental, global... It continues to happen because the artificial borders we place between us and them are growing increasingly irrelevant. Too many people, too close together, too interconnected.

We'll have a single global government sooner or later. Either that or chaos.

Re:hmmm

[pauljlucas]

"States rights" isn't some sort of coherent ideology. ... Or, at least, they fail to remember that we tried operating as a loose confederation of states once before, and it sucked seven ways to Sunday.

I'm not saying I'm a "States Rights" person, but I've been thinking about this more lately. The basic principle of my thinking is that anything that doesn't affect the nation as a whole has no compelling reason to have a federal law regulating it. Just as a silly example (I currently am blanking on a better one): why should there be a federal law that says the first seats in a bus must be vacated for the elderly or disabled? I'm pretty sure that if there were no such federal law that each state would enact it's own. And, for example, yet there's no federal law prescribing a minimum drinking age. Which laws are federal seems rather haphazzard.

Comments?

Re:hmmm

[Sunburnt]

Which laws are federal seems rather haphazzard.

Well, yes. The courts are very inconsistent in their application of the commerce clause (the perceived source of federal authority in many laws.) Throughout history, judges have often decided the federal / state power question based on their own political inclinations, and then written court opinions creatively interpreting the commerce clause in support.

You can find examples of this in recent history. The Rehnquist court overturned the Gun-Free School Zone Act (U.S. v. Lopez, 1995)and the Violence Against Women Act (U.S. v. Morrison, 2000) in the name of states rights, and then decided that California did not have the right to determine its own cannabis policy in Gonzales v. Raich (2005).

It's nothing new in history, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. The commerce clause's ambiguity has enabled the judiciary to slowly increase or decrease the scope of the federal government in response to social and political change. The originalists might not like it, but that's the way it is.

Re:hmmm

[Abcd1234]

Well, to be clear, Ron Paul is a libertarian who joined the Republican party because he knew he wouldn't have a chance as a third party representative. Unfortunately, as a consequence, his a little extremist for most Americans, and there's very little chance of him being nominated, let alone elected.

Re:hmmm

[N3WBI3]

As a states rights person:

Well the law suit is crap NY has no place telling the federal government (and thus 49 other states) what their fuel efficiency levels should be.

But a group of states getting together saying *this is what we require for fuel efficiency for cars sold in NY, MA, CT, PA, NJ, NH, VT, and ME is a great idea. I honestly think you confuse NeoCons for states rights folks. I have a pretty good conservative pedigree and I am defiantly a states right guy but Im disgusted with the GOP of all the candidates running I might be able to pull the lever for two of them and only be mildly happy with one of them.

I feel the same way with 'universal health care' let each state find a solution that works for its population demographics. States that find a really smart way will be imitated. The worse ideas will dies off.

If a state goes overly to the right or left its allot easier to move to another state than another country..

Show Pony

[pwykersotz]

Oh yes, this is sure to work. Get a few legislators in a minority of states to sue the president's administration. Nothing could possibly go wrong with this! This is a stunt, and a ridiculous one at that. Why not put energy into doing something real instad of wasting time like this? It won't even get people on the side of the activists...people who agree with the suit are already driving hybrids and eating out of their back garden, people who don't aren't going to even care.

Re:Show Pony

[Anonymous Coward]

people who agree with the suit are already driving hybrids and eating out of their back garden

Unless you're planning to buy me a nice house with a back garden and a hybrid in the garage, please don't be so quick to judge. In case you haven't noticed, people can't all afford to live their ideal lives these days.

Re:Show Pony

[Daniel Dvorkin]

They are doing something real: imposing tighter emissions regulations. Or rather, they were going to, until the federal government told them they couldn't. Now they're suing so they can get back to, you know, doing something real again.

News flash: not every political conflict is just showboating.

Re:Show Pony

[pwykersotz]

I never claimed every political conflict was for show. I said this one is. You don't sue in politics, you get enough people in the house and senate on your side and pass proper legislation. This lawsuit has no legal ground to stand on.

Re:Show Pony

[Daniel Dvorkin]

They did pass proper legislation. In the states. Then the EPA, a.k.a. a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of BigEnergyCo Inc.(r)(tm), overstepped its bounds and told them they couldn't. They're suing to enforce their rights.

This lawsuit has no legal ground to stand on.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Re:Show Pony

[mwvdlee]

People who aren't on the "activists" side don't NEED to start caring, since the states will do the caring-about-others for them.

Re:Show Pony

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your point? The suit is to CHANGE the law, how can that be a stunt? IF they win, they can change and enforce the law, and even those who don't agree with the lawsuit will have to abide by the law.

Thou fartest not?

[ackthpt]

Is there any special meta-meta-mod points out there for reading this with "Chevron... the power of human energy" above it? I wasn't aware humans consumed petroleum-based hydrocarbons and shit out CO2.

Perhaps you are the one person in the world incapable of passing wind. Congrats. Perhaps we do not directly consume petroleum-base hydrocarbons, but we consume a great many things which would not be produced, or at lease in quantity at low cost, without the benefit of relatively inexpensive petrol. The beans you eat, the beer you drink, well, they are produced with heavy reliance on petrol and are transported to your local seller by vehicles using petrol.

Smog is slowing global warming!

[Anonymous Coward]

Smog is slowing global warming according to this PBS http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html and other studies. We need to prevent solar radiation from hitting the ground until the green house gases are lowered. If humans are really causing global warming, then the temperature will slowly go down. Once the temperature begins to lower AND statistically can be proven, then the smog can slowly be lowered over decades.

We have to keep our smog emissions up or we'll cause more global warming, not less by reducing green house gases!
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/PBS_show_asserts_greenhouse_gases,_atmospheric_pollutants_dimming_future

As usual, the masses get an oversimplified solution to a complex problem when the science is inconclusive. None of these problems or solutions will ever be discussed or provided in enough detail outside a conference setting to not be dumbed down. Certainly don't completely trust a movie, newspaper article, or even a magazine article. Heck, it they can't spell every name correctly in the article, why would you expect them to get the science correct within the word limit too? A scientist will provide an upper and lower estimate for an outcome and document the assumptions that go into those predictions. Sadly, a journalist will condense that into the "could" phrase paired with the worst case possible, because that will get your attention. They will use alarming headlines EVEN if those headlines are the best guess, but simply the worst case.

Politicians will grab onto either the worse or best case dependent on their goals, who lobbies and contributes the most. If they can't discuss both sides at length and only say their sides talking points, hold onto your wallet, it is going to cost you money and may be really bad for us all.

And don't discount that scientist don't get publicity without always saying that "more study is needed" to determine other unknowns. That's a trick I used in grad school to get grant money with my adviser. More study is always needed ... so he could make mortgage payments next semester and I could afford new jeans.

Be a critical thinker and reader.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

[GruntboyX]

I am all for improving the environment, but this is only going to come at the cost of public. The power companies are only going to have to install more equipment to filter emissions, in drastic cases they will have to spend lots of capital to implement renewable technologies. This will result in the PUC authorizing a rate increase, because lets face it, This stuff isn't free. In the end, the average joe will pay for higher power. Since everyone shares the same goal of reducing carbon emissions i doubt anyone will complain /sarcasm

Re:Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

[MidnightBrewer]

Of course it's going to cost money; this is something that's intended to benefit everybody, so everybody gets to pay. Seems fair. Unfortunately, something as intangible as environmental protection simply isn't going to be popular, so people complain. I agree that there are bound to be problems with attempts to regulate pollution, and people will point fingers and say how one cock-up is exactly why this is a bad idea, even if we manage to succeed somewhere else. In the end, it's all a matter of "you gotta start somewhere." Contrary to popular belief, it's not going to get better on its own.

Re:Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

[turing_m]

What's your point? It's not as if there aren't more efficient options out there, they just have a longer payback time. Increase the variable cost of resource usage, and suddenly buying more efficient appliances and vehicles makes good economic sense.

And really, this is just putting the negative externalities back on the producer. Source control is a lot cheaper than everyone purchasing a million air purifiers.

Re:Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

[entrigant]

Your reasoning holds up brilliantly so long as you ignore the alternative...

Why is this even on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Politics?

Think about this...A coalition of states want to sue the Federal government for not writing a law telling them not to pollute... when they've already turned around and built a state's coalition to write laws so that they won't pollute.

Inarguably one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of.

But hey, it's against BOOOOSSSHHH!!! And we're starting the election season... EARLY.. So up on the front page it goes...

Re:Why is this even on Slashdot?

[Todd Knarr]

No, it's about the states wanting to write those laws, and the administration saying they can't because the Feds haven't.

Re:Why is this even on Slashdot?

[iknownuttin]

No, it's about the states wanting to write those laws, and the administration saying they can't because the Feds haven't.

And to add, our Federal Gov. has a tendency to strike down the state laws when a lobbying group, such as the auto manufacturers, doesn't want it. The states, by suing, are more apt to get a real law as opposed to some water downed law written by the auto, oil, etc... industries.

I really think we need another State's rights movement in this country. It's too bad that state's rights has become equated with slavery.

Arrrrgh!

[rindeee]

This kind of crap drives me batty. Qualifier: I'm not a hippie. I don't like the Prius. I vote conservative (do NOT confuse this for Republican). Anyway, if you want to make a difference, park your damn car and ride your bike. Don't own a bike? Take a months worth of gas money and buy a really REALLY nice one. Live too far to commute? You probably don't (you'll get used to the distance), but if you really do, move closer to work. Winter too harsh? Buy studded tires (as in studded car tires for snow and ice) for you bike and wear winter riding clothes. We in the US are a bunch of whiny, bitchy cry-babies. We want to fix things by making others do something about the problem of our own causing (make the engines pollute less, not me). I'm all for efficient engines and such, but alternatives already exist. Each one of us has the ability to make changes TODAY that will have an enormous impact. Not only that, but I AND the hippies will be happy. I'll have the pleasure of not seeing bazillions of dollars go to oppressive middle-eastern countries that would just assume we all die and some communist jackass in South America, and hippies will stop crying about inconvenient truths and whatnot and go back to eating $8 double-dip cones at Ben and Jerry's. Keep your car, but use it only when you really need to, not when you're too lazy not to.

Re:Arrrrgh!

[WillAffleckUW]

Amusing. The party of "State's Rights" arguing against the right of states to make their own tougher regulations.

Ironic.

Re:Arrrrgh!

[E 99]

Here's a better idea. Drive your car wherever you want to go; drill in Alaska; deport Gore.

Re:Arrrrgh!

[geminidomino]

Glad you don't work in my office. We don't have a shower.

Re:Arrrrgh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a job.

Re:Arrrrgh!

[nleaf]

During the counterculture movement in the US, a lot of people gave up cars entirely, and decided to live simpler lives in self-sufficient rural communities. Ironically, the people who did that would be labeled hippies, a label which you so strenuously try to avoid.Anyway, if you dislike people overusing their cars, then you must also dislike people overusing electricity at their homes, so you try to minimize your own electricity use? If that's the case, then these policies shouldn't affect you very much.

The thing is, no matter how much you call everyone else whiny for not living closer to work or riding their bikes, its not likely to change their behavior. If we want to change our energy use, we have to do something as a society.

Re:Arrrrgh!

[Repossessed]

A months worth of gas (~120 USD) wouldn't even buy the bike I have, let alone a nice one.

Re:Arrrrgh!

[grylnsmn]

States rights are not absolute in all areas. They only exist in areas outside what the Constitution has granted to the Federal government and outside what the Constitution has prohibited to the states.

This, however, would fall under interstate commerce, which under Article I Section 8 falls under the Federal government's jurisdiction, not the states. This simply isn't a matter of states' rights.

Re:Arrrrgh!

[turing_m]

What's so wrong with having your cake and eating it too, if you can figure out how? I'm just not a fan of doing arbitrary work. I'd rather do a bit more work once, up front, so I won't have to do the same monotonous bit of work day after day for the rest of my life.

It's not as if the possibilities aren't there. Even stuff that is cheap isn't done - insulation on new houses, and basic things like flat disc rims on cars, rear wheel skirts, deflectors, undertrays, most of the grille blocked etc. The payback period is measured in months, not some stupid 10 year period like a new prius. And half of those basic modifications aren't even done on the Prius! This is stuff that was known approximately 100 years ago! It's ancient technology, and the fact that it is not implemented en masse is just ****ing pathetic.

Part of the problem is that the bulk of the bell curve are too stupid to buy something more expensive even when the payback period is a year or two. The other part of the problem is that there is ample money to be made in parting these fools from their money and comparatively little profit in helping them save it. Make flat racing style disc rims mandatory, and watch the entire wheel rim industry dries up. Etc. etc.

It just shits me that we are burning through perfectly good resources, and once it's too late we'll see that we were in fact bundling dollar bills together in bales and throwing them on a bonfire.

Re:Arrrrgh!

[Hawke666]

Where will I find a really REALLY nice bike for $45?

Seriously, I already do this most of the time. (bike-commuting). But even when I wasn't, my monthly gasoline costs were only about $65.

Re:Arrrrgh!

[Socguy]

BRAVO! I live in Calgary and as far as I'm concerned the number one impediment to the quality of my life was a stupid commute. So I moved closer to where I work. Now I laugh at the fools who have to spend hours a day getting to work, fighting traffic and rushing to beat the next light!

I get it though. Everyone wants to live in a big house in the suburbs... it's drilled into us (or the wife).

Re:Arrrrgh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Amusing. The party of "Federal Government" arguing against the right of the federal government to impose their will on the states.

Ironic.

Re:Arrrrgh!

[kisak]

Actually, there is nothing amusing at all about the republicans wanting states to be over-ruled by the Federal Government when it comes to being polluted. What is somewhat amusing is how naiv people in general (not necessarily the GP) are when discussion what the republican party actually stands for.

Wikipedia explains: States' rights as "code word"

The term "states' rights" has been used as a code word by defenders of segregation, and was the official name of the "Dixiecrat" party led by segregationist presidential candidate Strom Thurmond. George Wallace, the Alabama governor, who famously declared in his inaugural address, "Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!", later remarked that he should have said, "States' rights now! States' rights tomorrow! States' rights forever!" Wallace, however, claimed that segregation was but one issue symbolic of a larger struggle for states' rights; in that view, which historians dispute, his replacement of segregation with states' rights would be more of a clarification than a euphemism.[5]

On the opening day of the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan declared, "I believe in states' rights" in a speech at Neshoba County fairgrounds near Philadelphia, Mississippi. Philadelphia was the site of the murders of three civil rights workers in 1964. Andrew Young, Bob Herbert and others believed that Reagan's choice of this location to give his states' rights speech constituted a veiled appeal to southern segregationists.[6][7]. Reagan's campaign staff, however, denied any connection.[8] At the same event, Strom Thurmond (who was by then a Republican senator from South Carolina), declared: "We want that federal government to keep their filthy hands off the rights of the states." Thurmond had been an ardent segregationist, although he publicly opposed segregation after 1970.

Re:Arrrrgh!

[Alioth]

You don't have to stink - you can make yourself acceptably clean and odor free without a shower; just don't ride like a lunatic - use a slower pace, and you can usually get adequate cleaning of that using a handbasin and flannel.

Re:Arrrrgh!

[Alioth]

Unless you drive an immense distance on your commute, a month's gas money won't buy you a bike, it will buy you a BSO (Bike Shaped Object) which will be not very pleasant to ride, and unreliable, and likely a mountain bike which really doesn't make for a very good road bike. Cycling will suck on such a BSO, and the cyclist will soon give up.

It's far better to spend at least $600 on a bike - the bike will be enjoyable to ride, and therefore you're more likely to keep riding. I've had my $600 bike for 10 years and 6 months, and my expenditure on it since buying it has been a fraction of its value. The only major repair I've had to make was this year after being rammed by a car doing 50 mph. Fortunately, *I* didn't need repair.

I see people on Slashdot all the time waiting and waiting and waiting for the next innovation in solar power (which will hit the market no sooner than 20 years from now) that they can use to save energy in the home... when just cycling to work two or three times a week instead of driving will probably save more energy than completely turning off everything in the house at the main breaker. And then they spend four hours a week in the gym. They could have saved themselves a gym membership by getting a bike. Unfortunately, people say they are for saving energy, but the reality is that for most people, in the list of priorities, having a nice haircut is more important to saving energy (I can't cycle, it'll mess up my hair!)

Re:Arrrrgh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, these all sound like simple solutions to a complex problem. Let's take a look at them.

Anyway, if you want to make a difference, park your damn car and ride your bike. other factors in our lives have much more impact than driving

Don't own a bike? Take a months worth of gas money and buy a really REALLY nice one. see above... unless you buy enough gas in a month to buy a REALLY nice bike. Also, most people I know who ride bikes don't do it because they have "REALLY nice" bikes, and vice versa.

Live too far to commute? You probably don't (you'll get used to the distance), but if you really do, move closer to work. 30 miles for me. Since I live in the city and work in the suburbs, moving out to the suburbs would mean that I need a car to get everywhere. What if you're Handicapped? Sick?

Winter too harsh? Buy studded tires (as in studded car tires for snow and ice) for you bike and wear winter riding clothes. Not really sure if you've ever tried to ride a bike on ice, but studded tires are useless on it.

We in the US are a bunch of whiny, bitchy cry-babies. Like when 'liberals' start talking about reform?

We want to fix things by making others do something about the problem of our own causing (make the engines pollute less, not me). Like making other people commute on bikes so your conservative pride isn't hit with increased regulation on the oil industry?

I'm all for efficient engines and such, but alternatives already exist. Well, you could get a PZEV if you lived in... well, you probably don't

Each one of us has the ability to make changes TODAY that will have an enormous impact.

Not only that, but I AND the hippies will be happy. well, at least you'll be happy... but there's still a hell of a lot more to climate change than going for a bike ride.

I'll have the pleasure of not seeing bazillions of dollars go to oppressive middle-eastern countries or corporations in oppressive north american companies?

and some communist jackass in South America who happens to be providing the heavily discounted heating oil to some cold parts of the US because our poor can't afford it. (I can hear the traditional conservative couter-points now... Well, it's their fault! They shouldn't have gotten so poor! They can all just buy wood stoves (wood isn't much cheaper)! They can make their own heating oil!)

and hippies will stop crying about inconvenient truths and whatnot You really think that your bike ride plan is going to *solve* this problem?

Keep your car, but use it only when you really need to, not when you're too lazy not to.

I've never seen anyone oversimplify this problem so much while entirely missing the mark with their 'solutions'. I know that even the implication that businesses not be allow to freely romp all over the country and do as they please is sac religious to you're type, and I've repeatedly heard the 'it's in their best interests to play nice with the environment... if you'd release your regulation choke hold you'd figure that out'... well I can tell you that it's simply not true. It's just not. I grew up across the street from a chemical factory owned by ICI, they got sued and eventually were forced to close down the factory because they were knowingly dumping about 30,000 lbs per month of hazardous waste chemicals into a small local brook which fed into a sizable local river, both of which are densely lined with residential properties. Why didn't the government do anything about this you ask? Well, because it was legal. That's right, dumping in the way they were doing it was unregulated, so they were allowed to literally poison dozens of households with impunity, knowingly, and perfectly legally for 50 years.

There are great conservative minds in this country. Read the editorials of the wall street journal... although I might not always agree, they're out there. This, though is the problem with the armchair 'trad

Re:Arrrrgh!

[drsquare]

And then they spend four hours a week in the gym. They could have saved themselves a gym membership by getting a bike.

Really, where can I get one of these new bikes that comes with a complete set of weight-lifting equipment, as well as changing and shower facilities?

Re:Arrrrgh!

[Anonymous Coward]

They ARE for state's rights...as long as States do what they state is right.

Duh!

Re:Arrrrgh!

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of regulating this is so that people don't just make cars and don't give a shit about what they do to the environment. The argument that cars' emissions should be regulated should still stand even if there's 1 car in the entire USA.

Re:Arrrrgh!

[theminionofgozer]

"We in the US are a bunch of whiny, bitchy cry-babies."

Obviously you are speaking for your self, but please for the sake of sanity, stop bashing the US!!!

This notion that responsibility for maintaining and protecting shared resources, i.e. the air we breath lies on the individual acting individually is absurd. I'm not explicitly trying to call your character into question but frankly I don't trust you to get on your bike tomorrow morning and "do the right thing" nor should I be expected to. It would be irresponsible. That's the purpose of government in a democracy, to pool together the resources of all the individuals and enforce equitable and responsible civic behavior. Right now the oil and gas corporations and their extensions in the white house and congress in cohort with the auto industry are forcing us to harm ourselves for their profit. There is no other recourse but collective action. A 2 second googling shows that some of the same manufacturing companies that sell 30 mpg cars in the US and call them "efficient" are selling cars in Europe that get 60 mpg!

  God! I wish I could "unstuck" you, there really is no "conservative" or "hippie" they're just hypnotic identities, cleverly crafted marketing schemes.

Typical sue-ing mentality ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, bear with me since I'm not from the US and as such I'm probably biased as well as unfamiliar with some things. But having said that I cannot help wonder.. Whenever I see some detectives on TV or talk to friends who happen to be American I'm always confronted with the issue of the states. To me the closest thing resembleing this are Germanies "Bunds" (Bundesrepubliek Deutschland).

If I'm not mistaken you can have different laws across states. One state can have a more closer or looser regulation on gun control. And ofcourse this is also fed by the classic car chases where the culprit races to the state border and once he gets across he's basicly home free. So different states, different laws, different approaches on how to run things.

Now having said that I cannot help wonder here. If you're so worried about the environment why don't you simply put your efforts into "cleaning up" your particular state instead of (more easily ofcourse) blaming it all on one man and start the (to me:) typical selfish American approach of sueing? To me this looks like the classic example of "I wasn't hired to do that" and so you also don't take any responsibility for your own actions and instead start blaming others over it. Like that woman in the McDonalds; appearantly she wasn't aware that coffee should be hot and as such McDonalds was responsible when the stupid -censored- spilled her coffee. How was she supposed to know coffee would be hot?

I'm not a fan of the Bush administration at all. To me this is the worst president the US has ever got and it saddens me that so many people don't even seem to realize this (yet?). Still, I think you're going too far by simply blaming everything, including your own shortcomings, on him. There is a difference (to me) between "Bush threatens the free world" (which, IMO, holds much truth) or "Bush ate my hamster" (I could be mistaken but iirc he isn't visiting Europe... or is he?!!) :-)

Re:Typical sue-ing mentality ?

[LukeCage]

Actually your famous "dumb lady coffee cup story" is not as ridiculous as it appears at first glance. Perhaps you could check out this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case ...which makes several excellent points.

Highlights for the lazy:

That "dumb old lady" was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed.

She sought to settle with McDonald's for US $20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000, but the company offered only $800.

During the case, attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 F (that's almost boiling temperature, FYI). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burnt by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

The MILLIONS part of the suite was PUNITIVE; that means: designed to PUNISH McDonald's, not to award the plaintiff. Jurors apparently arrived at this figure from attorney's suggestions to penalize McDonald's for one or two days worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.

In other words, this case was not as ridiculous as it first appears.

Re:Typical sue-ing mentality ?

[t0rkm3]

Meh, I love how people comment on the heat of the coffee without actually thinking about how coffee is made... I'll give the short form, you pass extremely _hot_ water (optimally somewhere between 195F and 204F) through ground coffee beans. This generally results in a very hot beverage that some people find very enjoyable. Of course this assumes that the beans are of a reasonable quantity relative to the amount of water, and not some extremely low temperature themselves.

So, the case was ridiculous period. I have enjoyed Extra-Hot coffee (intentionally served at 205+) on many a road trip and managed not to spill it because I am very cautious with an extremely hot liquid that could boil my balls...

Captcha:vomited

Re:Typical sue-ing mentality ?

[Ambitwistor]

If you're so worried about the environment why don't you simply put your efforts into "cleaning up" your particular state instead of (more easily ofcourse) blaming it all on one man and start the (to me:) typical selfish American approach of sueing? The states that are suing generally are the ones putting effort into cleaning up their own state. The problem is that the Bush administration is keeping the states from passing laws requiring cleaner cars. As TFA says,

"The legal move by the states to sue the Environmental Protection Agency is aimed at prodding the Bush administration to remove obstacles to more than a dozen states seeking to regulate global warming emissions from cars and trucks. In 2005, California sought a waiver from the E.P.A. that would allow it to implement the first regulation in the United States requiring reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from cars. The E.P.A. has not yet granted the waiver, keeping the regulation from taking effect.

New York, Massachusetts and a number of other states have since moved to adopt California's measure. They cannot proceed until the E.P.A. moves on the waiver."

Furthermore, even if the states could pass the laws they wanted, the other states which don't are still a problem: CO2 produced in "dirtier" states still affects the welfare of people in "cleaner" states, through climate change. This is Hardin's infamous "Tragedy of the Commons". Arguably your neighbor doesn't have an unlimited right to create environmental hazards which affect you, just because they're on the other side of some political boundary.

Re:Typical sue-ing mentality ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the case was ridiculous period. I have enjoyed Extra-Hot coffee (intentionally served at 205+) on many a road trip and managed not to spill it because I am very cautious with an extremely hot liquid that could boil my balls... Yeah, and you could say that it's ridiculous for an employee to sue his employer for unsafe working conditions, because he should have been more cautious around hazardous machines. Responsibility is a two-way street. You have a responsibility to be careful, and companies have a responsibility to not create undue hazards. McDonald's had received many reports of injuries in the past; they knew it was hazardous, and they knew that those injuries could be reduced by serving coffee at a lower temperature. They chose to ignore the problem instead.

Re:Typical sue-ing mentality ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. is a federal republic with what is supposed to be a somewhat weak central authority (the federal government). The Constitution specifically enumerates the (very little) authority that the federal government has, and says that all other authority is vested in the States.

However, the politicians have found a "beautiful" way around this: they literally buy state laws. A good example is the drinking age. The Constitution very clearly gives such authority to the various states, and thus there is no actual national law establishing a drinking age. Yet, you won't find a single state in the U.S. that does not abide by the "federal guideline" on drinking age (21). Why? This is because the Federal government doesn't provide federal dollars (money collected from the citizens of the States mind you) for highways if States have a drinking age less than 21.

The federal government also abuses the one non well defined power they have, which is to regular intra state commerce. Basically, if there is any way that something could potentially be considered intra state commerce (even if considering it so would require you be be a total whack job), the Feds step in under that clause.

Re:Typical sue-ing mentality ?

[Nimey]

That's *inter*state, as in between-the-states. Intrastate means within one state.

Re:Typical sue-ing mentality ?

[tfoss]

If you're so worried about the environment why don't you simply put your efforts into "cleaning up" your particular state instead of (more easily ofcourse) blaming it all on one man and start the (to me:) typical selfish American approach of sueing? The problem with this logic is that even if I manage to make my state pristine in terms of energy use/pollution control/etc, the state next door can still spew all the pollutants it wants into the air I will be breathing. This was a classic issue for the acid rain issue a couple decades ago, where the polluting states were not the ones reaping the negative environmental consequences. But even more to the point in this case, the issue is that certain states want to require lower limits on allowable emissions, but the federal gov't is not allowing them to. In this case, the states are *trying* to clean up themselves, but are being circumvented by the federal govt. It is these kinds of impasses that are actually very appropriate for legal venues, and using the 'lawsuits are bad' heuristic is often inappropriate, as in this case.

To me this looks like the classic example of "I wasn't hired to do that" and so you also don't take any responsibility for your own actions and instead start blaming others over it. I don't think that is the case here. This is a "we're trying to do something, but are being blocked from doing it" situation.

Like that woman in the McDonalds; appearantly she wasn't aware that coffee should be hot and as such McDonalds was responsible when the stupid -censored- spilled her coffee. How was she supposed to know coffee would be hot? I wish everyone who cites that case as an example would actually look into the details of it. McD's coffee is not just hot, it is kept hot enough (190F) to cause 3rd degree burns in 2-7 seconds. It is 20-30 degrees hotter than most other restaurants serve. During the years prior to that case there had been 700 complaints to McD's about the coffee causing burns (which McD's settled for $500,000). The company testified that they were aware of the danger and chose not to change, nor warn about the risks associated even though most customers are unaware of how serious and how quickly burns would occur. The woman tried to settle for $800 for medical bills (she was in the hospital for 7 days with third degree burns on her inner thighs, groin, and butt) but McD's refused. This case is not nearly as clear cut tort as everyone seems to believe. There are plenty of outrageous and unreasonable cases in our litigious country, but this is not a very good example of one.

To me this is the worst president the US has ever got and it saddens me that so many people don't even seem to realize this (yet?) His approval rating is somewhere in the low 30s to mid 20s...I think people have finally figured out that he is a disaster. He might very well achieve the lowest rating ever, eclipsing even Nixon. The problem is that in our system of govt, the only time the populace could've done anything about it happened 3 years ago. Normally the lame duck president still has some need for public approval, either to support his party, or set up his VP for the nomination. Bush doesn't seem to care about the party, and Cheney isn't running for jack, so we get to see what an executive with nothing to lose who thinks he's doing god's will can accomplish in a presidential republic for the next 15 months. I fear for this country.

-Ted

Re:Typical sue-ing mentality ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"How having said that I cannot help wonder here. If you're so worried about the environment why don't you simply put your efforts into "cleaning up" your particular state"

They are suing the for the right to clean up their particular state. How hard is that to understand?

Re:Typical sue-ing mentality ?

[Asic Eng]

Well when it comes down to it: it's boiling water. Some beverages are made with it - for tea it's a must IMO for coffee it should be close, at least. Yes, handling boiling water is a little bit dangerous - I have a kitchen and occassionally boil water there. Yes, burning yourself with hot water must really hurt, I sympathize. However I don't want any company to be punished for serving hot drinks. I want to be able to continue buying hot drinks - and I'm ok with the minute risk that comes with it. Sometimes if you make a mistake you hurt yourself. That's no reason for everybody to be treated like a little child - if you need that much protection, maybe you should hire a guardian and pay for him yourself?

Re:Typical sue-ing mentality ?

[NereusRen]

Now, bear with me since I'm not from the US and as such I'm probably biased as well as unfamiliar with some things. No problem. I wouldn't expect people from another region of the world to know US History, since it really wouldn't be relevant for you. After all, how much do you think I know the origin and organization of the Bunds? Not much. Heck, just by knowing English fluently and conversing on a mostly US-centric website, you've already reached out more than I have. Given that, I'm more than happy to tell you all about the States, if you're interested:

Whenever I see some detectives on TV or talk to friends who happen to be American I'm always confronted with the issue of the states. To me the closest thing resembleing this are Germanies "Bunds" (Bundesrepubliek Deutschland). The closest thing resembling this will perhaps be Germany itself--250 years from now. Allow me to explain.

The United States began like the European Union: formerly independent entities, where the only thing managed and enforced on a centralized basis was a single currency and a few overarching laws of human rights that each state agreed were universal, along with an agreement allowing (and requiring) the states to all fund the same army/navy if a war came up. Of course I'm simplifying an unbelievable amount, but this is a Slashdot post, not a series of 1000-page history books :-).

Nobody was a "United States citizen" for almost a century following the founding the Unification of the States. Instead, someone was considered a citizen of "the republic of Virginia," for example. This is why each of the States (still) has its own constitution, legislature/parliament equivalent, central executive (governor), laws, courts, ID cards, and so forth, and they can all be different from each other.

The national government (aka "federal" government, as in "federation of otherwise-independent states") has gradually taken more and more power and unified more and more laws across the states, until the average person doesn't know that "state" is a generic synonym for "government," or even a sovereign country as in "nation-state." The lines between the United States keep blurring as time goes on, as the federal government regulates more and more things even though the constitution was written to prevent it.

Getting back to your detective example of a criminal running for the state border: would it make more sense for you if he fled from Germany to France, because German police wouldn't be able to cross the border and arrest him outside their jurisdiction? They'd have to get the help of the French police instead. That's why I say Germany itself might be a more apt analogy for our states.

250 years from now, citizens of the UCA (the newly-formed Unified Countries of Asia) will wonder how the heck the EU's "Germany" subdivison is allowed to have different laws than its "France" subdivision, even though they are both part of the EU and are right next to each other. How long do you think it will be before the term "EU citizen" is defined, and the only valid passport/international ID is issued by the EU, rather than your own country? 75 years? Maybe by 2100?

In that case, your centralization will be right on track with that of the United Governments (states) of America. Maybe you, too, will have the old guys who long for the "good old days" when Germany got to make its own laws without the meddling of the French, and are always talking about "nations' rights," whatever that means... but everyone will make fun of them as old-fashioned conservatives. And maybe you will also have half the members deciding they'd be better off leaving the EU, and the other half invading them and fighting a war to prevent them from leaving. But I guess I'm drifting a bit far afield, so I'll leave it here.

Re:Typical sue-ing mentality ?

[t0rkm3]

You totally missed the point. Coffee is a food item best served at the temperature given as the temperature that caused the injury.

According to you, and the jury in this case, the food should not be served at the optimal temperature for brewing and serving but at the temperature least likely to cause injury. Considering that every person in their right mind knows that coffee is hot and can burn you, don't you find that odd? Or are you the sort of person that would insist that pizza should also be served cold, so that you don't scald the roof of your mouth?

If you really think hot beverages are that dangerous and you can't handle it, please don't ever pump your own gas ever again, and when you order a coffee, ask for it over ice.

Actually, it is California that is filing

[WillAffleckUW]

In the initial claim, California is filing suit, with Oregon, Washington, and Vermont joining, so it's more that the Northeastern states are following the West's lead on this issue. You can see that in the Seattle PI lead editorial today.

However, due to the fact that we're kind of distracted by more than one million internal refugees from the global warming enhanced wildfires in California, we didn't file today so the Northeast jumped the gun.

Regardless, this represents more than 60 percent of the US economy filing suit, and most of the US population.

Re:Actually, it is California that is filing

[Anonymous Coward]

However, due to the fact that we're kind of distracted by more than one million internal refugees from the global warming enhanced wildfires in California, we didn't file today so the Northeast jumped the gun.


OK. Reality check.

I was one of those refugees this week. Just got back to find my house still standing today. I think Al Gore has done good and that we SHOULD try to devise policies to mitigate our impact on the environment (for economic as well as aesthetic reasons)

However.

Blaming the wildfires on global warming is nuts. The west (especially the southwest) always has burned, and it always will burn. It is the nature of the place. When the Santa Ana winds blow in a dry year, it can't do anything BUT burn.

Look into the history of any town in California that has been around for a while and you will find that it burned at least once (probably several times)

The impact of the fires in the west are aggravated MUCH MORE by housing developments in the canyons and hills (which WILL burn, it is just a matter of time) than by global warming.

Just as after Katrina, we should have given more thought to NOT rebuilding in the most vulnerable areas, we should give thought to NOT rebuilding the most vulnerable areas in California, but money will say otherwise and money will win.

The problem here is short sighted development.

Blaming everything bad that happens on global warming just makes it easy to laugh at.

Re:Actually, it is California that is filing

[ArcherB]

Regardless, this represents more than 60 percent of the US economy filing suit, and most of the US population.

Then wouldn't it be safe to assume that this is where most of the pollution is coming from?

Re:Actually, it is California that is filing

[WillAffleckUW]

That would be a statistic altered by a number of factors.

One: Unlike the Northeast, we don't have a publicly-financed high speed passenger rail system. So we have to fly.

Two: Unlike the Northeast, we don't have commuter rail systems mostly paid for by federal taxes. So we have to drive.

Three: Unlike the Northeast, we live in wide open spaces. Sometimes the next town is 100 miles away or more. So we drive further.

I could go on.

But, at least we're trying to do something, instead of sticking our heads in the sands.

Re:Actually, it is California that is filing

[WillAffleckUW]

I'm just going off of the weather simulations of what happens when you pop a few more degrees into the system, and thus reduce snowpack which reduces water flow, while increasing the base temperature of the much-drier wood.

Something about physics - it has a truthiness to it no amount of anti-evolution anti-reality arguing will fix.

Re:Actually, it is California that is filing

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, the snowpack has been this low several times in recorded history, most recently in 1988. Sorry, the world isn't ending tomorrow, and this series of blazes wasn't caused by lack of precipitation. It was caused by jerks who wet the bed and like to start fires.

Re:Actually, it is California that is filing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just going off of the weather simulations of what happens when you pop a few more degrees into the system, and thus reduce snowpack which reduces water flow, while increasing the base temperature of the much-drier wood.


THAT'S where you went wrong!

So, the thing that most of the country doesn't understand is that, for the most part, these are BRUSH fires, not forest fires. There is no wood involved. The vast majority of the burnt acreage is dry brush. (on hillsides and valleys that receive no runoff from anywhere unless it is raining at the moment, so forget about snowpack) There is no need for global warming to dry the brush. It dries completely every year. Always has. That's what the southwest is like.

As a matter of fact, there was some rain in the area just last week, so it was, if anything, wetter than usual.

Look up Santa Ana winds. They are a natural occurrence in this area and have nothing to do with global warming. They do, however, make firestorms a sure thing.

There are human actions that make these fires more destructive. (putting development into areas that WILL burn) but global warming is noise compared to the natural forces which make firestorms a regular feature of the landscape.

There is no doubt that global warming is impacting the world we live in. But the southwest has always burned. Finding something that has always been as it is and blaming it on global warming make global warming look like a crackpot theory.

Re:Actually, it is California that is filing

[Copid]

Then wouldn't it be safe to assume that this is where most of the pollution is coming from?

Sure. So doesn't that make preventing them from curtailing that pollution kind of counterproductive?

Re:Actually, it is California that is filing

[ArcherB]

Sure. So doesn't that make preventing them from curtailing that pollution kind of counterproductive?

No, it means they want to force the government to pass laws so that all of America has to live the way that they want them to live. Take for example the types of restrictions that would make your typical LA'er who is suffering from eco-guilt feel better. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that they put a weight limit on cars for all who do not require trucks to do their jobs, like farmers. Well, I am not a farmer. I work on computers. But because I live in an environmentally sensitive zone, rivers are not disturbed by re-routing and bridges that may put an endangered rice at risk are not built (seriously... the endangered rice part is true!) That means when it rains, I have to cross a low water crossing to get to work. Even though it's only a few feet of rushing water, a Prius simply won't make that trip! Is my small town an ecological disaster? No, but we would have to abide by the rules set by people sit in traffic for four hours a day with their engines idling! What works for them doesn't exactly work for everyone else in the country. Unfortunately, these people are too blinded by their conceit and self-centered thinking that they can't understand that the best way for them might be a disaster for someone else. The type of car that works great in LA may not cut in the outskirts of Louisville KY or Springfield IL. But notice how these lawsuits are coming from the left and right coasts, where nearly all roads are paved and well maintained. These are places with public transportation systems, parking garages and paved driveways. You can get around better in Manhattan without a car than you could with one! That does not apply for Findlay OH.

So let the people in LA and Manhattan make the rules for LA and Manhattan and leave those of us that live between the two cities make our own damn rules and live how WE want to live. We shouldn't have to suffer when we are neither the ones making the pollution nor the ones complaining!

Re:Actually, it is California that is filing

[Copid]

No, it means they want to force the government to pass laws so that all of America has to live the way that they want them to live.

These are state laws. They're not suing to get the implemented nationwide. They're suing to be allowed to pass laws within their own states.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that they put a weight limit on cars for all who do not require trucks to do their jobs, like farmers.

Your thought experiment involving a law that doesn't really resemble anything that's actually being debated here is fascinating, and I agree that the law you suggest would probably be a bad thing.

So let the people in LA and Manhattan make the rules for LA and Manhattan and leave those of us that live between the two cities make our own damn rules and live how WE want to live. We shouldn't have to suffer when we are neither the ones making the pollution nor the ones complaining!

Are you saying that a truck owned by somebody outside a city pollutes less per mile than a truck owned by somebody inside a city? Your argument seems to be that certain special people shouldn't have to pay for the marginal costs of their externalities. I know that anything that smells remotely like environmental regulation makes some people foam at the mouth, but there's a harsh reality that you're missing. You don't pollute less than the city folks you dislike so much. There are just fewer people like you than there are of them. A regulation that effectively taxes the marginal pollution produced by an individual is perfectly equitable. "I shouldn't have to worry about how much I pollute, because if only I and a few of my friends do it, it's not a big deal," isn't exactly a devastating argument to show the self-centeredness of those crazy environmental nuts in LA.

Re:Actually, it is California that is filing

[ifwm]

"Something about physics - it has a truthiness"

At least you admit you don't care about evidence or facts, that's progress for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

"Truthiness is a satirical term that U.S. television comedian Stephen Colbert popularized in 2005 to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts."

So yeah, it does have "truthiness" but I prefer truth. Different strokes I guess...

Re:Actually, it is California that is filing

[ArcherB]

These are state laws. They're not suing to get the implemented nationwide. They're suing to be allowed to pass laws within their own states.

You're right. I misread it. At first read of both the TFA and the summary, it appeared that these states were suing to force the Feds to regulate emission standards to the automakers. Although now it has become the citizens of LA telling the citizens in the Mojave what they can and can't drive, it's still a state issue.

Are you saying that a truck owned by somebody outside a city pollutes less per mile than a truck owned by somebody inside a city?

This depends. A truck that takes a ten mile non-stop trip at 40 mph pollutes less than a truck that travels ten miles sitting in stop and go traffic averaging 8 mph. Of course, both these trucks would be equal at 3:00am when traffic considerations are removed. Unfortunately, that is not when most people do their driving (thus the lack of traffic). So it's not the location of the vehicle, but the driving conditions.

Much of the pollution that is going to come from a big city like LA, Chicago, Houston, and NY comes could be reduced by either reducing traffic congestion during peak times of day by:
1) staggering the times of day so that not everyone is trying to get to the same place at the same time
2) build better/more freeways so that there are several alternate routes to get to same place (could be paid for by taxes on gasoline for example)
3) build better transit systems that allow people not just to get downtown, but also the business areas on the outskirts of downtown
4) give incentives to business for allowing work-at-home employees
5) and/or encourage businesses to build closer to where the people live through tax breaks and easing zoning restrictions

Not every business needs to be located downtown and have a 9-5 hours of operation.

Cute!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so cute how you come up with funny nicknames for everything instead of forming a rational argument. Keep up the good work.

Senate

[TechwoIf]

This is one reason I though the senate part of congress should be elected by the states so they have a bigger part and say in the federal government. And much to my surprise, there is one candidate that support this. Ron Paul.

Re:Senate

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah Ron Paul, because who wants rights for women?

Re:Senate

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you think elects the members of the Senate? Or do you mean that you wish to nationalize the election of my senators? Yeah, no. Why don't you and the rest of Middle America secede and do whatever you want with your coalition of mediocre states? The Northeast and the West don't want you, and while I imagine you want us so that your country can have an economy, maybe the denizens of Kansas can pay for their own nuclear weapons and foreign wars for a change and elect their own Senate however the fuck Ron Paul feels like doing it?

Please, Confederate States of America, rise again and leave the Union. Take President Bush and Guantanamo Bay with you when you go. You won't be missed.

Re:Senate

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

Who do you think elects the members of the Senate? Or do you mean that you wish to nationalize the election of my senators? Yeah, no Once upon a time, prior to the 17th Amendment in 1912, Senators were chosen by the state legislatures, not popular the popular vote in the state. The Senate was to be the chamber that protected the concerns of the states to balance out the whims of the House. These men were often referred to as "Statesmen" and were generally the least political and most civil legislators in Congress. That is why it is up to the Senate to ratify treaties, approve political appointments, etc...

Why don't you and the rest of Middle America secede and do whatever you want with your coalition of mediocre states? The Northeast and the West don't want you, and while I imagine you want us so that your country can have an economy, Where do you plan to get your food, electricity, steel, cars, etc from? I've got nuclear, coal, wind, solar and hydro power within 50 miles of me. There's a dairy farm with 150 cattle across the street. There's thousands of acres of corn, potatoes, beans, wheat, etc grown in my county. The salt the northeast uses to melt the ice off their roads comes from a mine on the other side of my county.

You can sit there in your smog filled city feeling smug about yourself, but the fact is, you need us more than we need you. We're self-sufficient as far as the necessities of life go. Have a nice riot when you guys figure out that you can't grow enough food to feed yourselves and can't get enough electricity to provide your air conditioning, heating and subways. I'm sure your centers of commerce will thrive under those conditions.

Please, Confederate States of America, rise again and leave the Union. Take President Bush and Guantanamo Bay with you when you go. You won't be missed. /cough just remember, there's not much value of a terrorist attack on a silo. Foreigners who dislike Americans have a mental picture not of some hillbilly in Kansas, they picture the decadence of NYC or LA.

Why won't the EPA let them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, what am I missing? The states want different (stricter) regulations regarding the greenhouse gas producers (autos and power plants). Why does the EPA have an issue with that? Shouldn't the state be able to decide their own policies? As long as they meet EPA minimums where's the problem? The EPA doesn't even have to change whatever they are currently doing to ensure compliance. There could just be an additional set of steps the power company/auto manufacturer has to go through to verify they are meeting state standards...

I can certainly see how the power companies/auto manufacturers would hate this idea, but the EPA? What's going on here?

Re:Why won't the EPA let them?

[Anonymous Coward]

ohh ... that whole constitution, interstate commerce thing. The automobile industry and the electrical power industry are clearly interstate industries.

Re:Why won't the EPA let them?

[T.E.D.]

Ok, what am I missing? The states want different (stricter) regulations regarding the greenhouse gas producers (autos and power plants). Why does the EPA have an issue with that

The EPA, like all federal agencies, is run by Presidental appointees. Let's take a look at who those appointees have been...

We started with Christine Todd Whittman, republican governor from (relatively liberal) New Jersy. She resigned in protest when the VP's office insisted on allowing power plants to be built w/o pollution controls, in violation of US law that he and the President swore on their bibles to uphold.

She was replaced with Mike Leavitt, a far-right wing governor of deep-red Utah. His main qualification for the job was making his state the country's second largest producer of toxic waste (while being 37th in population), and of course a demonstrated antipathy towards federal environmental regulation.

When Mr. Leavitt was promoted to HHS, the next (and current) appointee was Steve Johnson, a longtime EPA employee known chiefly for his warm relationship with the pesticide industry. He had a pet study advocating, I shit you not, testing pesticides on toddlers. In a rare show of its elusive backbone, congress held his nomination until he killed it. He did so only when it became clear he wouldn't get the job otherwise. They should have spiked his nomination anyway though. He pushed through a similar pro-pesticide study, over objections of his own staffers, as soon as he got the job.

So, I ask you, who does this EPA really serve? Given a choice of carrying out an environmental law or helping out a bunch of power companies, which do you think they are going to pick?

Nice

[JustNiz]

I'm REALLY pleased to see this.
Its a great indicator that the American people are more intelligent, responsible and honest than their leader.

Not just out of touch

[yo man]

This administration is not merely out of touch with scientific reality. They are *actively* opposed to any kind of environmental progress. The recent "conference" that Bush had with various nations was intended to undermine the UN, not to make any kind of progress. Like lunatics that have taken over the asylum, they are actively pursuing an agenda of destroying the planet as fast as they can. Either they are the kind to cut of their noses (= the planet) to spite their faces (= the environmentalists) or they really do believe that driving a Hummer is their birthright and they can go and get what resources the need by building more weapons and starting more wars. F*cking retards.

Nice.

[JustNiz]

I'm REALLY pleased to see this.
Its a great indicator that the American people are more responsible, intelligent and honest than their leader.

Why the Global Warming debate is important

[Teancum]

From both a liberal as well as conservative viewpoint, is precisely lawsuits like this.

For those of a conservative viewpoint, this is precisely the kind of thing that has been the worst of nightmares regarding the debate, where this is an attempt to broaden the power of the federal government and to enact legislation through judicial case law rather than through a body like the U.S. Congress.

From a strict constitutionalist viewpoint, state regulations are precisely what was envisioned by the founding fathers for issues like this. When faddish things like Global Warming (and concern about Global Warming is a fad right now, at least from a political perspective) come up, they should be debated by individual states and citizens of those states.

If left to develop on its own, without somebody crying "fowl" and demanding federal intervention, this "laboratory of American states" is precisely what is envisioned by the founders to see how political ideas like regulation of industries for CO2 gases was intended to develop. Legislation based upon the current wind of political thought was something the early founders of the American Republic feared the most, and it was intended to be a long and difficult process for a good reason, particularly when it governed the actions of individual citizens in relationship to each other, such as this sort of regulation is doing.

From a politically conservative viewpoint, you can still suggest environmental legislation. There is common ground that can come from this sort of debate and help us to genuinely protect the environment. But you need to frame it from a conservative viewpoint in terms of stewardship, liability, and responsibility. Cut the emotional garbage out about rising sea levels, rising temperatures, and a fear of the future. If you produce pollution, you need to clean up your own messes and be nice to your neighbors. You also shouldn't be wasteful of those resources that God has given to you, because ultimately you will be held responsible for your actions before HIM. Even if you dismiss God as a human construct, there is still the more vague "being held responsible by humanity as a whole" that still applies on some sort of level. I certainly don't mind government regulation that helps to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources and lowering of a trade deficit.

I also realize that some of this is about legislation that has already been through the meat grinder of Washington D.C., and these states are "merely" asking for those laws to be enforced. A problem here is that the legislation was deliberately vague, and the actual enforcement of these laws left to such broad interpretation, that nearly anything could be suggested in terms of what they really meant or how they can be put together. This lawsuit is a political move to force these national regulations (which arguably may not even be constitutional) to conform to a specific viewpoint that runs counter to the current presidential administration. A U.S. President shouldn't have even had this sort of authority delegated to him in the first place, but of course those pushing in support of this lawsuit already knew that, didn't they? So why should it be moved to the authority of nine men in black robes?

It is poor law and shouldn't have been enacted in the first place, no matter how lofty the goals were made. Going to the courts is just going to make an awful law even worse. It would be far better to go to the national legislature (aka Congress) and get new legislation passed that deals with this issue, if that is the ultimate goal.

Re:Why the Global Warming debate is important

[KudyardRipling]

[kassandra]

Oh, my Gaia! The above used the following profanities: conservative, strict constitutionalist, laboratory of American states, founding fathers, and the ultimate no-no that is worse than all other profanities imaginable combined: God (Abrahamic_view). Downmod the above! Downmod the above! Censor! Censor! Always remember, holding man as the measure of all things is the sole province of the enlightened!

[/kassandra]

When they come for your hybrid, then it will be too late. Once they are thus empowered, believe me they will come.

Re:Why the Global Warming debate is important

[Anonymous Coward]

"...If left to develop on its own, without somebody crying "fowl" and demanding federal intervention,..."

These would be Government Chicken Sexers you're talking about...?

Re:Why the Global Warming debate is important

[An Onerous Coward]

The EPA is unconstitutional?

Pollution knows no borders. Pollutants dumped into the river in Ohio can harm the people in Louisiana, sulfur dioxide emitted in Nevada can cause acid rain in Virginia.

There is nothing in your "laboratory of American states" utopian fantasy that allows one state to control the actions of another, even when one state is clearly harming another. Or do you suggest that pollution be regulated by a blizzard of state-on-state lawsuits?

The need for a regulatory body like the EPA should be obvious. Anyone suggesting that the EPA itself is unconstitutional -- unless they propose in the very same breath that we pass a constitutional amendment to remedy the situation -- should be considered dangerous, because no reasonable person would want to disband the EPA merely for the sake of constitutional purity.

The fact that the Founding Fathers didn't make such allowances in the Constitution shows that they either didn't have the wisdom to foresee the need, or they didn't believe they could ratify the Constitution if they included such allowances. In either case, the Constitution is an imperfect document that hardly warrants the sort of reverence that you strict constructionists give it.

Re:Why the Global Warming debate is important

[Teancum]

I said nothing explicitly about the constitutionality of the EPA, but the same logic that you are applying here could also be extended substantially further.

Does sulfur dioxide produced in Chinese power plants affect Hawaii or even Oregon? Does toxic waste dumped into the Ganges River affect Australia?

You know the answer to that one, and certainly these issues are something that have a broader scope to them than can even be addressed by a single nation, even one as large as the United States of America.

But I do have a strong opinion about somebody extending the constitution way beyond its intended limits and trying to impose legislation through judicial action, which is precisely what is being suggested by this lawsuit. And I do believe that some actions that are performed by the EPA may in fact be deemed unconstutional, and certainly EPA interference in local matters.... when good faith efforts are being done to help improve the local environment by local governments... is often counter productive to the overall goal of having a clean environment for everybody.

It is far and away much better for elected officials to make major policy changes than to rely upon unelected bureaucrats who don't have any accountability to anybody other than themselves and some bribed officials above them. And that is often what I've seen the EPA do far too often.

Re:Why the Global Warming debate is important

[PhxBlue]

If left to develop on its own, without somebody crying "fowl" and demanding federal intervention ...

Hey, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, someone should call "fowl."

Give the man a see-gar!

[overshoot]

Hate to be a killjoy, but as human beings, we expel carbon dioxide as a part of daily life. Want to rethink that?

Yes -- which makes tax evasion really tough!

If you think people are major emitters, though, you should have a look at farmland.

This sucker is a freaking gold mine!

Re:Give the man a see-gar!

[jamstar7]

Depends on what you're farming. If you're running a beef outfit, definitely. Somebody had done a study on the impact of cow farts on greenhouse gasses once, dunno where, but I'm sure it's Googleable. But if you're just growing a couple square miles of wheat, other than the emissions from your tractor, you're converting that CO2 into useable plant protein and taking it out of the atmosphere.

Re:Give the man a see-gar!

[jc42]

Somebody had done a study on the impact of cow farts on greenhouse gasses once, ...

Actually, although cow farts are great for humorous comments on the issue, it's been known for some time that cattle produce most of their greenhouse gasses (methane and CO2) from their front end. The methane mostly comes from their complex stomaches, which are marvelous digesters for plant material, but also produce significant quantities of methane as a byproduct. Their large intestines do produce methane, as do ours, but in lesser quantities.

Another fun story on the topic was the study a few years ago that identified the other major source of atmospheric methane: termites. They also digest cellulose, using bacteria similar to those in cattle, and they produce lots of CO2 and CH4 as byproducts, too. They're small, but you wouldn't believe how many termites there are in the world. Imagine a trillion little termites, each continuously burping and farting while chomping their way through wood and other plant material. Try not to grin at the thought.

It turns out that large grazing animals and termites each produce roughly 1/3 of the atmospheric methane, and the remaining third is from zillions of small sources. Human agriculture and industry are high on the list, but a very distant third to ungulates and termites.

As for CO2, though, all animals produce it by necessity, proportional to their metabolism. But we've been augmenting this by mining the planet's storehouses of hydrocarbons (coal, oil, natural gas) and burning it. The amount is pretty well understood, and easily explains the roughly 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last couple centuries (primarily the last half century). Production and consumption of CO2 was more or less balanced until recently, but we've radically upped the production without doing much to increase CO2 consumption. It really doesn't take great genius to understand what this might lead to. It just takes a lot of scientific sleuthing to document the details to the level that we've done in recent decades.

Costs...

[Savage-Rabbit]

But I think the more drastic changes that will help meet Kyoto targets are in the area of where power comes from. When the wealth redistribution costs to a country outweigh the cost of installing solar panels on every rooftop, then there will be change in that country. The same holds true for making more efficient cars or mass transit or wind farms, they will only ever be "the norm" when they cost less than just burning more fossil fuels. That Kyoto-carbon-tax is helping to push that day a little closer. Hmmmm.... define cost... what is meant by cost? Is it purely the monetary cost of using fossil fuels vs. building wind farms/putting solar cells on our roofs/building hybrid cars/using renewable energy sources wherever possible? Or are we allowed to count the extinction of entire species of animals and the environmental devastation caused by massive pollution and climate change as some of the costs of using fossil fuels? As far as I am concerned the cost of our fossil fuel addiction isn't just measured in money.

Just my 2c.

Re:Costs...

[DrEldarion]

Don't forget the extinction of entire species of animals and environmental devastation caused by massive pollution and climate change as some of the costs of using alternative fuels, too.

What, you think those solar cells and batteries are made cleanly? Hmm...

Re:Costs...

[Original Replica]

What, you think those solar cells and batteries are made cleanly?

The best way around the pollution caused by chemical batteries is to stop useing them for stationary power supplies. Flywheels are so far advanced as a form of energy storage as to make using batteries for home power look almost laughable. Here's a nice comparison between the two technologies: http://www.activepower.com/solutions/cleansource-systems/flywheel-technology/flywheel-vs-battery.html

It's a shame that the gyroscopic effects make them unsuitable for transportation power.

Re:Costs...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right. Flywheels have been studied to death and it never panned out. One article on a pro-flywheel site isn't proof of anything.

It's a shame that the gyroscopic effects make them unsuitable for transportation power.

This problem was solved ages ago. You need two counter rotating flywheels. Even a chainsaw uses this principle.

This should help explain

[synonymous]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&q=zeitgeist&total=1807&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Of course

[AutoTheme]

This has been predicted for a long time. This "sham" will cost all people with above world average income (virtually all of America).

The UN speaker on the environment cited that America was the biggest contributer of green house gases and had the highest per capita income. Hmmm.... sounds like taxation coming our way. Hopefully the UN can't do it (and hopefully they'll disappear in a ball of fire), but the American politicians looking for more $ to fund their crap will worm their way in.

I think we should tax heat production, the "consensus" of scientists believe that CO2 increases as the temperature increases, not the other way around.

This new generation "scam" will be the downfall of the industrialized world... Watch.

A major problem I haven't seen mentioned yet

[andytrevino]

The reason why Spitzer and this group are suing the government is that the Feds have established pollution control standards and Spitzer wants them made more restrictive. I am normally in favor of states' rights, but the issue in question here is more of a standards debate for me -- were each state given the ability to mandate their own efficiency requirements for cars, the result would be a broad range of such standards and car companies would have to meet the most efficient denominator, with a drastic (skyward) impact on the price of cars. The federal government sets the national standard, and now you don't have the purchasing power of 4 million Oregonians determining that the rest of us have to pay a premium for a super-efficient hybrid car we can't afford.

The single biggest problem I have with this bogus lawsuit is this: it's the government suing the government, with all the included lawyer fees. Let the tax dollars fly. With a lawsuit at this level, as well, those fees will not be trifling, and who will pay them but the lowly taxpayer. Residents of the states filing suit are taxed twice on this -- first by their states for their legal fees, and second by the federal government for its defense. Those of us living in states who aren't signed on only get to pay for a lawsuit we disagree with once at the federal level.

Residents of these states who support this: the proper way to get the EPA to change its guidelines is to have your federal legislators introduce legislation to change those guidelines. Then, those politicians get to convince a majority of their house of the legislature to sign on, which is absolutely necessary for a change with such a huge impact as changing EPA efficiency requirements. This underhanded lawsuit crap is the same tactic that generates so much scorn for SCO, the MAFIAA and other legal trolls -- why is it now okay?

One of the purposes of the Attorney General's office is to protect the rights of the consumer. The rights of the consumer are NOT being trampled in this situation. Everybody in America has the opportunity to buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle. The government's purpose in the matter should be to establish a baseline of efficiency on which people who can afford it, and innovation by car companies, can improve.

Re:A major problem I haven't seen mentioned yet

[tfoss]

One of the purposes of the Attorney General's office is to protect the rights of the consumer. I think the rights of citizens are supposed to come before rights of consumers.

The federal government sets the national standard, and now you don't have the purchasing power of 4 million Oregonians determining that the rest of us have to pay a premium for a super-efficient hybrid car we can't afford. Yup, but the federal government hasn't changed CAFE standards substantially in more than two decades. And as noted in TFA: If implemented, the measure would first affect 2009 models; automakers have said it would make it harder to sell the largest and least fuel-efficient sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks in states that adopt the rules. So the 8 mpg H2s would take a sales hit in New York and California. Bummer.

Residents of these states who support this: the proper way to get the EPA to change its guidelines is to have your federal legislators introduce legislation to change those guidelines. Actually the Supreme Court said the EPA is *supposed* to regulate greenhouse gases, and the states in question are trying to get the EPA to allow them to enact greenhouse gas standards. The EPA has been dragging its feet since the ruling 6 months ago, so the lawsuit is to try and force the EPA to do, or allow states to do, what the Supreme Court said the EPA should do.

-Ted

Re:A major problem I haven't seen mentioned yet

[An Onerous Coward]

were each state given the ability to mandate their own efficiency requirements for cars, the result would be a broad range of such standards and car companies would have to meet the most efficient denominator, with a drastic (skyward) impact on the price of cars.

What you're basically saying is that, you're in favor of states' rights, except when they make it more difficult for corporations to make money.

The "problem" you cite (individual states forcing higher standards on the country as a whole) is actually a blessing. California's hard-assed energy efficiency requirements have made all sorts of big appliances more energy efficient (and I defy you to show that they've added significantly to the cost of your fridge).

But that's not the way it would play out in this case. At least when it comes to the transportation sector, the states involved in the suit want to jack up the CAFE standards for their own states. CAFE standards describe properties of the auto fleet as a whole, not individual cars. Car companies wouldn't have to build a separate, more fuel efficient Hummer for California; they simply wouldn't be able to sell as many Hummers in California (as a proportion of the overall fleet). The real expenses come when manufacturers are forced to have two separate manufacturing processes for a given product, which is why so many just give up and make all their products according to the most stringent standards. Instead, these laws give them the option of complying by increasing the number of smaller cars they sell in California, which wouldn't require any change to any individual car or manufacturing process.

You seem to be forgetting that, the last time CAFE standards were raised, American auto manufacturers threw a hissy fit, claiming that the new regs were huge burdens and would put them out of business. If anything, 1980-1984 (the years when the CAFE standards went into effect, and started ratcheting up) marked the recovery of the American auto industry from the doldrums of the 1970's. Our country has fuel efficiency standards that are half those of the EU or Japan, and lower than China's. Raising the standards would help our car companies compete in some huge foreign markets.

One of the purposes of the Attorney General's office is to protect the rights of the consumer. The rights of the consumer are NOT being trampled in this situation. Everybody in America has the opportunity to buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle.

Pop quiz: Which logical fallacy are you committing here? Just because one of the purposes of X is to do Y, that doesn't mean that X can't have other purposes. The Office of the Attorney General is tasked with conducting the legal affairs of its government. Nothing requires that an AG office to have a "consumer rights" justification for every suit they bring.

Here's how it went down: in the last round of litigation, these states looked at the laws governing the EPA, which gave them the job of controlling the emission of pollutants. The EPA claimed that CO2 was not a pollutant, so they didn't have to regulate it, and could forbid state governments from regulating it as well. The states' position was that CO2 was clearly a pollutant, and that the EPA needed to grant the states a waiver to regulate it if they weren't going to do it themselves.

The Supreme Court sided with the states. Despite this, the EPA has been dragging its heels on actually issuing the waivers the states need. So the states are taking them back to court.

This is where your "analysis" of "the proper way to get the EPA to change its guidelines" falls down. The states aren't trying to force a change in the EPA's guidelines; they're simply asking the EPA to enforce the law as it exists now. If it weren't for the ability to bring suits exactly like this, there would be almost no way to compel the executive branch to follow the laws of the legislative branch. According to your "proper" system, the only way to effect change at the EPA is to have the legislators change the EPA's guidelines. But how does that help when the EPA isn't living up to existing guidelines?

Your rule against "the government suing the government" is senseless.

Re:A major problem I haven't seen mentioned yet

[Asic Eng]

The single biggest problem I have with this bogus lawsuit is this: it's the government suing the government

It's annoying because it ought to be avoidable. On the other hand, if there is supposed to be some balance between state and federal power, and if there is a conflict in that balance - what other mechanism would there be to force a resolution? Of course, if the federal government agrees that they've not fulfilled their obligations, they can much reduce the costs by fixing the problem now. It seems like in this particular case they are clearly in the wrong, so I don't see the need to wait for a court decision.

So much for democracy...

[suitepotato]

If at first you can't succeed in the constitutionally proper venue, use the courts to get your way.

If NY is so serious about wanting to improve the environment, let them shut down NYC and if it is global warming, then let Albany be shuttered to stop the hot air.

What a load!

[WheelDweller]

Somehow they got someone at the EPA to consider CO2 a "pollutant". That means each and every one of us are polluters. No, not just while farting, any more. So: we all need to hold our breath. Not very long, just 10 minutes or so. Then, we will be in compliance.

Honestly, you guys, with your education, cross-checking, rules-lawyering and all that time on your hands actually *believe* this crap? Maybe you missed the ozone hole that didn't kill us all (or seem to have an effect on anything but the HVAC industry, for that matter, "healing" before the ink was dry!) Or maybe you've forgotten the coming ICE AGE of 1977 that froze over NYC and encased it in a block of ice? Right- that never happened, either.

How about "Sam" from "Cheers", what's his name? He said, "by 1980, school children will no longer be permitted to play outside, thanks to acid rain." Well that was a huge, city-killing unstopable monster, now wasn't it?

Could you guys just take the time to look at a *single* chart on CO2 as it relates to global heat, not the two separate graphs Algore brought out, and notice that CO2 _cools_ not _heats_ the atmosphere, about 800 years after the heat comes?

It's yet another parlor trick of the left; you need to be paniced; you need to send all your money to members of a single party or we're all gonna DIE! Think of the children!

(Please; look at the chart, it's about as clear as a turd in a punchbowl.)

Re:What a load!

[geekoid]

I think you missed the part where we stopped producing the chemicals that were causing the hole to expand. Chemicals that had been experience a slight decrease in use before the outright ban, BTW.

"Or maybe you've forgotten the coming ICE AGE of 1977 that froze over NYC and encased it in a block of ice?"
Who said that? no credible scientist said that, ever.

"How about "Sam" from "Cheers", what's his name? He said, "by 1980, school children will no longer be permitted to play outside, thanks to acid rain." Well that was a huge, city-killing unstopable monster, now wasn't it?"

So actor comes out and says something stupid, and you are using that as some kind evidence? Are you really that stupid?

"
Could you guys just take the time to look at a *single* chart on CO2 as it relates to global heat, not the two separate graphs Algore brought out, and notice that CO2 _cools_ not _heats_ the atmosphere, about 800 years after the heat comes?"

Actually, I have seen many, the science works and the significant increase in CO2 does effect the climate.

You're understanding of the science is..at best, laughable and your reasoning is clouded by a belief that doesn't hold any weight.

Sorry, but after30+ years of data gathering and science, consensus is in.
Yes, some speculation when the science was new was wrong, big deal.

Excess CO2 is a pollutant.

Re:What a load!

[WheelDweller]

"Or maybe you've forgotten the coming ICE AGE of 1977 that froze over NYC and encased it in a block of ice?"
Who said that? no credible scientist said that, ever.

Sorry, but yeah. Bunches of them, and about fourty years apart, over the last century. My first encounter (which is 'stuck' in the 'amber' of television history) was an episode of Barney Miller. There was much talk, and much fear.

(And ok, not a *block* of ice, I was using hyperbole) But Algore's prediction of 22-foot waves are just a little out-of-whack with the UN's estimation of 6-7 centimeters, don'tcha think?

The point is, this is group-think. And when you're ten years down the line, you'll feel just like me: another pointless hoax. How many more will people buy? Aren't they scared enough?

Obviously not. Each of these things had no relavance to anything- that's why I said "healed before the ink was dry". It's all a money scam. You chose to believe it, or question it, but when people around you are scared, you'll be scared, too. Remember Y2K?

Follow the money, and find those who seek ultimate power. You might be surprised.

Re:What a load!

[arbie]

You seem to be well versed in this topic. Could you please point me to peer reviewed work that proves the fundamental scientific underpinnings of the greenhouse effect. This should be a pretty simple assignment for someone as knowledgeable as you. I await your reply.

Re:What a load!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you as inarticulate outside of the confines of the Internet as you are here? It's difficult to understand what you're saying because 1. you're bad at quoting others 2. your grammar is awful 3. your ideas are all over the place. To add to the problem you also 1. keep talking about fictional people 2. keep conflating issues, as if there's a singular conspiracy connected to multiple events (including television fiction) that somehow discredits peer-reviewed science.

In short when I can understand what you're actually saying it's stupid, and the rest I can't comment on because you suck at communicating.

No, there is no money to be made in being a scientist. It seriously pays jack squat for the intelligence required to participate. Any competent scientist could be an investment banker and make four or more times as much money, without a fraction of the scrutiny involved in peer review (outside of journals of theoretical physics, anyway).

The concern over global warming isn't a conspiracy to make money. The only conspiracy involved in any of this is the conspiracy between the oil and tobacco lobbies to discredit peer-reviewed science through concerted propaganda efforts. For example, through Steven Milloy and his ilk. Maybe you should look into him if you want to see conspiracies. Of course that would require you to first accept that you don't know it all already.

Re:What a load!

[Socguy]

Good job on the rebuttal; looks like everyone gets a turn to beat up on the troll, (or more likely a paid industry shill.) In this day and age, I have a hard time believing anyone with the ability to form words into sentences is still seriously trotting out these brain dead arguments.

Re:What a load!

[Dunbal]

I think you missed the part where we stopped producing the chemicals that were causing the hole to expand.

      And I think you missed the part where the "hole" in the ozone layer is shrinking, for the SECOND time (it did the same thing about 6-7 years ago). Wow, a natural cycle.

      Also please note, there used to be glaciers everywhere. Now they're not everywhere. Hey look, the earth gets warmer all on its own!

      While I agree that we humans MUST respect our environment and minimize damage, that's still not an excuse to spout bullshit.

Re:What a load!

[Socguy]

Here you go:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Re:What a load!

[momfreeek]

Just because there's a cycle doesn't mean its natural. The atmosphere is hardly a static system and as complicated balanced systems lose control they rarely do so in a simple static way. The earth gets warmer and cooler on its own yes.. but over a period of how many million years does this slowly happen? Right now, countries are claiming the land under ice masses because they are melting at a visible rate.

Re:What a load!

[An Onerous Coward]

Despite whatever you might believe, or whatever hyperbolic excesses might or might not have been uttered by B-list celebrities, acid rain was a serious problem. You seem to think that, because the world still stands, and because fresh-faced children are still able to skip through meadows covered with wildflowers, that the danger of acid rain was illusory.

But the reason you don't hear such doom and gloom over acid rain these days is because we started regulating sulfur dioxide emissions. SO2 is actually one of the big regulatory success stories, and good evidence that such regulations don't significantly harm industry. When the regulations were being proposed, the energy lobby claimed it would cost industry $1200 for each ton of SO2 prevented. It turned out to be closer to $100.

Re:What a load!

[Dunbal]

but over a period of how many million years does this slowly happen?

How do you know? We ASSUME that it's a gradual thing, but maybe it's not.

Re:Chemestry 101

[Technician]

We're being taxed and surcharged into oblivion, and we're passing the savings on to you!

Chemestry 101.. When Carbon is burned completely you get Carbon Dioxide. When it is not burned completely, you get Carbon Monoxide. When you burn Hydrogen completely you get water. The not in my backyard states have kept nukes out of their states.

WTF?? What would they like? Shut off the power? Ban the use of AC and heat in the home? In the guise of saving the planet, this is nothing more that a money grab. Follow the money. The money can't stop the formation of CO2 from burning hydrocarbons. Unburned carbon is unburned fuel.. Let me repeat that... Unburned carbon is unburned fuel.

Oh, lets capture the emissions... Let's start with your car.. The kettle calling names is what this is. The states suing still have roads and permit the use of heating oil and gas heat. What a bunch of pots...

Re:Arrrrgh! (the specious commerce counterarg)

[WillAffleckUW]

This, however, would fall under interstate commerce, which under Article I Section 8 falls under the Federal government's jurisdiction, not the states

LOL.

How could a regulation on emissions fall under an interstate commerce clause?

No one is stopping you from importing or selling a vehicle.

They just won't license it to operate in their state if it doesn't meet air emission requirements.

Which California and all the other signatory states using California's emissions standards are entitled to choose.

Sigh.

You twist yourselves in knots - one day it's "states rights!" - the next day it's "you can't do that!"

At least be consistent.

I call BS

[bussdriver]

There is no such thing as a free market except perhaps total anarchy. Anything less is shades of gray. Government defines and enforces the rules of any market therefore making it NOT a free market.

The USA can NOT compete with China and India. Americans need to wake up now before they end up too far behind and can no longer lie to themselves; how BAD will it have to get before people admit the truth? When the USA is 3rd world be enough?

Its NOT ludicrous treating CO2 as a pollutant. Animal shit is a pollutant. Just because you can't see or smell it does not mean too much of it is a bad thing. I suggest you sit in your garage with the engine running and post your comments. May your neighbor's dogs visit your lawn... You pay to dispose of shit and there are health regulations that control that-- in your free market corps and people could just 'dump' where it was cheapest. Do we provide services to prevent that? NO. We pass laws for proper disposal which end up resulting in most people paying for disposal.

Innovate? Anybody sick of that over-used word yet? Its used as much as revolutionary and both have become meaningless.

Necessity is the mother of invention. "The market" will compete for the cheapest most profitable solution: bribing officials and suckering people like yourself to deregulate them.

Soylent Green is people.

That's why...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly why we get our news from professional comedians these days rather than the mainstream media.

Given their success, I think I might actually vote for Colbert, even if I have to put him on the ballot as a write-in.

Hell no!

[c6gunner]

I'm a "states rights conservative", even if I'm not a Yank, and I say let 'em do it! If the blue states want to be stupid and regulate and tax the shit out of power companies, automobile manufacturers, and heavy industry, let them! The only ones bearing the brunt of it will be the blue states. The companies in question will either move to red states, thereby creating jobs for republicans and taking tax revenue from democrats, or will hike up their prices. Either way, the only ones who suffer are the politicians who were stupid enough to come up with the idea, and the citizens who were crazy enough to elect them. That's what "states rights" is all about!

Re:Hell no!

[nomadic]

The companies in question will either move to red states, thereby creating jobs for republicans and taking tax revenue from democrats, or will hike up their prices.

Yeah, the red states have been relying on that philosophy for decades. Funny thing, though, hasn't really worked overall.

Either way, the only ones who suffer are the politicians who were stupid enough to come up with the idea

The funny thing is you're going to suffer, too. I wonder how much you're going to be complaining about limiting pollution when it reaches you.

Re:Hell no!

[N3WBI3]

"eah, the red states have been relying on that philosophy for decades. Funny thing, though, hasn't really worked overall. " Are you kidding, the past 10-20 years has seen growth in the south far out pace growth in the north both in terms of population and wealth. In 1971 NY had 41 Electoral votes the about the same same as the sum total (42) of GA (12), NC (13), AL (9), SC (8). In 2004 NY had 31 compared to 47 for the four states listed above. of the kids in my family (7) 4 moved away from NY for better employment opportunities (in NY if you don't live down state your in trouble). Thw moved to the south TX / SC, one moved west CA, and one moved the the mid west MN. "The funny thing is you're going to suffer, too. I wonder how much you're going to be complaining about limiting pollution when it reaches you." No the way this will affect him is because when auto makers start making changes for higher emission standards in the NE they are not going to make a second set of cars for the south.. He will have to buy the same, more expensive, vehicle that you do..

Just wait

[Anonymous Coward]

The crunch isn't large enough yet. Compare to the 1970s oil crisis. THAT spurred demand for better gas mileage.

Should be Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States

[jmrea]

The article says Northeastern States. Maryland and Delaware are not in the Northeast. Mid-Atlantic or Southern would be correct. Please don't lump us in with those Yankees.

Re:Should be Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. We don't want to be lumped in with you ignorant beaufords.

Re:This FP is not a troll..

[Daniel Dvorkin]

That's interesting ... to me it reads like a list of states that actually contribute more money to the federal coffers than they take in, unlike the red states which whine about Big Gub'mint while sucking up other people's tax dollars.

A little bit teched in the head, eh?

[WindBourne]

Yes, it will raise the price. That happened back in the 60's.

1. And when we forced the lead to not be in paints or used in gas, that also raised prices.
2. Likewise, it raised car prices when we first forced cars to get above 5 mpg.
3. Or when we said no dumping of pollutants in the ground (love canal?).
4. Or how about when we stopped manufactuering plants from polluting in the air.

Or we can accept minimal controls, and keep your prices real low.
If you are looking for really low costs, consider moving to one of these lovely places:
* Linfen, China;
* Haina, Dominican Republic;
* Ranipet, India;
* Mailuu-Suu, Kyrgyzstan;
* La Oroya, Peru;
* Dzerzinsk, Russia;
* Norilsk, Russia;
* Rudnaya Pristan, Russia;
* Chernobyl, Ukraine; and
* Kabwe, Zambia.

Well this should work great

[Anonymous Coward]

States suing feds... so my state tax dollars suing my federal tax dollars. I love suing myself!

Poor choice of words

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of cars: "Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, in a statement on Tuesday, said, "New York State is moving forward on all cylinders". A bit ironic! Perhaps he could get a car-pool seat in the Governator's Hydrogen Humvee?

Re:Simple answer

[WindBourne]

Let me guess, you are a republican. Nucs are starting to be built again. While wind is not a reliable power source all over, there are loads of places throughout the world where the wind will blow about 90% of the time.

Finally, saying that we should turn off coal plants is obviously a joke. You know that will never happen. But what is happening is where coal plants were planned, those are being stopped. For example, Texas power had plans for MAJOR coal plant expansions. They were going to quadruple their plants, and it was going to be all coal. But they were bought by new yorkers who has stopped that. Now, they are expanding with alternative and they are on the fast track for a nuke (and I believe that they are looking at doing a buynch of nukes).

Global Warming is a fiction...

[Prototerm]

..And if you disagree, the terrorists win. Bush says so, and I believe him.

Re:This FP is not a troll..

[nexex]

Because the Gub'mint owns the vast majority of the land in those states? 60% of the land west of the Mississippi River is federally owned.

Re:I'd shut off all the power in New York...

[Tsuki_no_Hikari]

Cause God forbid we place some standards on our industries' environmental impact.

If you don't place an incentive for big energy to use less dirty fuel and more clean alternatives, they likely won't move an inch. Course, not that any of that matters, it's all a damn liberal plot to destroy the country. Pass it in 50 states and they'll just build the plants in Mexico and ruin the economy more, eh?

I'm curious as to what you think would change industry emissions.

Re:This FP is not a troll..

[jasonjacks0n]

60% of the land west of the Mississippi River is federally owned.

Do you have a source/reference for this statistic?

Thanks.

Re:This FP is not a troll..

[DaedalusHKX]

Your evidence is quite visible. Quite a few of the big "nature parks", "national monuments", etc are in the midwest. Most of the megalopolis style sprawls are near military bases or near coasts. Take, for example, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, you've got Yellowstone taking a HUGE chunk out of that tri state area, add to that all the Minuteman staging areas in Montana (talking about the missiles, not the militia styled group).

Also, take Virginia, they've recently installed a 1000.00 - 1900.00 USD extra ticket "law" solely for residents. Not visitors, just us living here. What do we have in office? A socialist democrat (Tim Kaine) who wasted the entire state funds completing the DC interchange on I95 and claimed he spent the money so "Bush wouldn't use it to fund the war in Iraq"... little did he tell anyone that he planned to spend FAR more and would get it by extracting blood from rocks... or at least his subjects... AHEM... "constituents".

Nice idea but wrong approach.

[Solr_Flare]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improving the emission situation, but there are two major problems with the approaches by lawmakers. First, as others have stated, cars only account for a very small portion of the emission problem, but they are also the most visable. Thus, cars are frequently targeted by lawmakers to make it appear like they are doing something about the problem, when in fact they are really doing very little at all.

The second problem is there is *no* real solution to the emission situation unless we change the fuel source we use to power our vehicles. No solution at all. Why? Because improving emissions on vehicles results in either: A) a reduction in performance by a vehicle, which results in higher fuel consumption, which makes the majority of the changes moot. Or B) Improving fuel efficiency, which results in people driving more often because it's cheaper. Again making the majority of the changes moot.

Quite frankly, outside of a massive investment by this country on the scale of projects like the interstate system and electrifying everyone's homes, or a sudden and surprising leap forward in technology, nothing is going to change significantly for some time to come. Money spent on improving emissions in the short term would be better spent on educating the populace so they make more informed decisions/alter their habits, and serious investment in long term alternatives like Fuel Cell technology.

Re:Nice idea but wrong approach.

[dusanv]

Because improving emissions on vehicles results in either: A) a reduction in performance by a vehicle, which results in higher fuel consumption, which makes the majority of the changes moot. Or B) Improving fuel efficiency, which results in people driving more often because it's cheaper.

It's true that more efficient cars tend to be less powerful but it's utter nonsense to say that causes higher fuel consumption. Example: a diesel Jetta (1.9 tdi) spends less fuel than gasoline one (2.0 or 2.5). It'll never spend more, under any circumstances because, well, it just spends less fuel. And your B point is also equally nonsensical.

Re:I'd shut off all the power in New York...

[cdrguru]

Incentive? Oh, you mean that by taxing electricity generation - and allowing them to pass those costs on to consumes - they will voluntarily do something to reduce those taxes.

Why would they do that? The costs just get passed on. The consumer get get their electricity from either company "A" or company "B" with pretty much equal costs. Or, they could get their power from company "C" which has no distribution agreements and is 100% wind power - so they have to buy (at a premium) power from company A or B.

Suing people or passing laws doesn't change how things work. Just who pays for them.

Economists say NO: Stern Report

[zahl2]

Read the Stern report done by a UK economist who figures out the amount of GNP it would take to prevent/reduce climate change vs. cleaning up after the fact.

It won't be free, but nothing in life is.

Re:Simple answer

[StarfishOne]

Instead of wind mills, we could get more power for more time by taking things to the sky. E.g. the "Laddermill":

http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=8d16d19a-e942-45aa-9b52-48deb9312e92&lang=en

You have imaginary scientists!

[zahl2]

For one, junkscience.com is run by a non-scientist who used to do it-isn't-so-bad-for-you PR for tobacco companies. Many of the basic facts and theories used are accurate, but the conclusions drawn are misleading unless you've just had an actual class in the stuff and can see just what he's scientifically leaving out.

As to the prize? Carnivals offer "prizes" too. I'm sure you win them all the time.

Let's see what else you point to:

A "petition" which turns out to be a list of names, without and indication of where these people got their degrees, where they are currently working, and if they have any actual peer-reviewed (ie other scientists) papers published.

There isn't any indication of how to get on this list, or if you get paid money to allow your name to be used, but there is an interesting disclaimer at the bottom:

Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.

But nowhere on the site do I see any indication of where they actually receive their money from. Perhaps they are self-funding, since the top-level portion of the site is a link farm, with searches on "females" and "nuclear bomb shelters". If I don't just go to the top domain page, I find out this is sponsored by "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine". Maybe someone can tell me if they are reputable.

But oh, even better!

Qualification to be a signatory requires that the individual have a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS, or PhD. Those with MS or PhD degrees are so designated. Those with BS degrees are undesignated or sometimes designated as MD if appropriate.

It seems like 1/3 are MD. I like how they don't explicitly note BS degreed people. So apparently, if I could figure out how, I could join this esteemed list. Even though in my 4 years of undergrad physics, I never once took a class that had anything to do with climate or weather. And I'm sorry, but having a physics degree doesn't give me instant knowledge of even "the summary for policymakers" section of the UN's climate report, the IPCC, or even guarantee I've read it.

Re:You have imaginary scientists!

[ArcherB]

Fine, throw the Junk Science link out. What about the rest?

McDonald's hot coffee

[Anonymous Coward]

So much misinformation has been spread about the McDonald's hot coffee case that it's practically reached the status of an urban legend.

The woman who sued was a 79-year-old grandmother who received third-degree burns in her groin (think about that for a minute) and had to be hospitalized for eight days and undergo medical treatment for two years afterwards. She was simply trying to recover money to cover her treatment costs. McDonald's coffee is served at 85 degrees Celsius and there have been hundreds of other cases of burns and scalds caused by their coffee. The court decided that she was 20% liable and McDonald's 80% liable and divided the damages accordingly.

odds and ends

[zahl2]

Oh, should I go through the rest?

none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science Presumably they did, or they wouldn't have gotten rid of him. Wikipedia has him listed as a active "skeptic", and apparently he is the head of a lab. So much for not getting any research money. If he's right, then it would be revolutionary, and trust me, oil companies would be very happy to fund him.

If I had 16 million, I could do some very effective PR. I wouldn't have to do anything BUT PR here, putting me at a fiscal advantage to the real organizations.

I too would want to fire anyone who made me a laughingstock. Remember the state that wanted to make pi equal to 3? Would you appoint the author of that proposal to State Math Board?

False claims of shrinking glaciers? You mean all those images of then and now are forgeries? I suggest a goggle image search.

And didn't you start out saying that Republicans don't rule the world? But then you bring up Gore? Because Bush has certainly had a very strong gag order on his scientific staff. He even had people change scientific reports.

If you're going to go world-wide, I would bring up the OPEC countries who contributed to the UN's IPCC report.

I don't think you tried very hard. You could have used wikipedia's list of questioners and skeptics (it is very short!), which actually gives names, quotations, and credentials, but I suspect it is also out of date. I know that at least one past skeptic publicly recanted. The evidence has gotten much, much stronger over the past 5 years.

Re:odds and ends

[ArcherB]

If I had 16 million, I could do some very effective PR. I wouldn't have to do anything BUT PR here, putting me at a fiscal advantage to the real organizations.

Sure you could do some PR. You could also do research, although very little of it. You could not do both. Of course, this 16 million doesn't go to one GWSkeptic-Czar, it is spread out among many scientists, research firms and universities.

When put up against the billions that the GW alarmists receive you wouldn't stand much of a chance. First, not only do these guys NOT have to buy their own PR (see and Inconvenient Truth, CNN's Planet in Peril show that was on all night last night, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, any typical news show such as 60 minutes, daily talk shows like The View and the list goes on and on and on). Not only do they not have to pay for their own PR, but they are actively teaching this stuff to kids as fact in schools and the taxpayers pay for it! So GW Alarmists receive all 16 billion and use it pay for "research studies" that back up their claim. Now if you work for a university and your dean asks what you are doing to get grants, what do you think he'll sign off on? Do you think he wants you trying to get a piece of whatever is left from that 16 million or do you think he'll want you going for the billions that are being handed out by any number of groups that won't pay unless you come up with something alarming?

False claims of shrinking glaciers? You mean all those images of then and now are forgeries? I suggest a goggle image search.
The claim that was false was due to the a mathematical error. All he did was correct the math and show that the problem was not nearly as dire as the original projection had spelled out. Also, it's really easy to take pictures of a mountain in summer and compare it a phone taken in February. It's also not very hard to find images of growing glaciers either.

Besides, few are arguing that GW is taking place. What is being argued is why, what can be done, and IF anything should be done.


I don't think you tried very hard. You could have used wikipedia's list of questioners and skeptics (it is very short!), which actually gives names, quotations, and credentials, but I suspect it is also out of date. I know that at least one past skeptic publicly recanted. The evidence has gotten much, much stronger over the past 5 years.
I try to steer clear of Wikipedia. Too often you see agendas injected into the page that really puts the credibility of the whole site in doubt.

Why California is doing this.

[zahl2]

Yeah, obviously the poster doesn't know how expensive the cost of housing is in California. Especially if you want to actually live in a city.

It isn't a "stunt". Nobody thought it up yesterday, it's been snaking through the courts for a long time. It's also for California's own economic self-interest. Apparently if you considered us as our own country, we'd be number 11 or something in terms of top greenhouse gas producers in the world. Which means we're poised to actually make a difference.

What hasn't been turned into dot.com wasteland, is still fertile farmland. We have a very strong agriculture industry here. We also have lots of wineries. These all stand to be devastated by changes in temperature and precipitation, not to mention pests.

Rumor also has it that LA air isn't very good.

(The USA has a ridiculous low fuel economy requirement, compared to the rest of the world, so it should be cheap for auto-manufacturers to increase it. Plus then they could legally export their cars to foreign markets!
This isn't one where "the free market" can help you, as I can't do a very good job of telling auto companies that I won't buy their cars unless they have a decent milage. I can try, but they'll just decide to ignore me, figuring that I must not really need a car anyway. (They have, and I don't.))

Where's your Messiah now!!

[krygny]

I wonder who Elliot Spitzer will sue when unemployment goes to 23% in NY.

Oh that's right, he'll be in jail.

Violation

[Dausha]

This suit is a violation of separation of powers. One branch cannot compel another branch to act when the latter branch has the Constitutional authority. The lone exception of this involves the Supreme Court when it tells another branch that it has exceded its Constitutional authority.

Of course, with the Political Doctrine so weak now, SCOTUS has begun telling the other branches what to do. Congress has exceeded its Spending Power to tell states what to do. Now, the states think they have the right to force the Federal Government to act within its authority.

I think now would be a good time for SCOTUS to correct the record and set the rules for what is a Constitutional exercise and what is usurpation.

Re:Violation

[Abcd1234]

WTF are you talking about? These aren't different branches of government (in case you've forgotten, and it appears you have, those would be the legislative, executive, and judiciary). They're completely separate levels of government, you tool. And of course a state can sue the feds. Why not?

Re:Violation

[Dausha]

You can't force a different branch of government to enact legislation. You cannot sue the state legislature to change the speed limit. You cannot sue Congress to make them change the tax rate. the Federal Government cannot sue the state legislature to change state sales tax. You can't sue the President to not veto legislation. While the states are not a part of the three branches of Federal Government, they are still bound by the Constitution and the concept of sovereign government. I oversimplified my original answer because I figured a rational person would get the point.

The whole Marbury v. Madison case, which SCOTUS cites to give it jurisdiction to determine constitutionality, involved a man who sued the Secretary of State to compel him to allow the man to occupy his office (D.C. Justice of the Peace). The Court said the issue was political in nature and not an issue of law; and therefore the remedy was in the political branches (Congress & President).

The reason why this lawsuit is the wrong answer is because the fundamental issue is political in nature; not legal. Political issues are resolved via the legislative process and political efforts. Some believe that when politics fails then lawsuits can be used to force the issue.

Re:Violation

[Abcd1234]

You can't force a different branch of government to enact legislation.

Umm... that's not what's happening here. To quote the article you obviously didn't read:

"The legal move by the states to sue the Environmental Protection Agency is aimed at prodding the Bush administration to remove obstacles to more than a dozen states seeking to regulate global warming emissions from cars and trucks."

So the federal government is overstepping it's bounds, preventing the states from enacting laws to tighten pollution regulations within their borders, and so the states are suing. I fail to see what's unconstitutional about that.

Re:Violation

[Dausha]

This is /.. I don't need to read the article. :-)

This is the same situation as Marbury v. Madison, which I mentioned before. Congress enacted legislation allowing the Executive to enact regulations to enforce the legislation. These regulations probably affect interstate commerce, which allows Congress to legislate. States cannot sue the President to compel him to act.

Remember, in Marbury, a man sued the Secretary of State to have the letter allowing the man to take office as Justice of the Peace for DC. The previous Secretary of State (a Federalist) neglected to send the letter. The incoming Secretary of State (Anti-Federalist by the name of James Madison) chose not to send the letter so the President could appoint one of his cronies instead. So, there was a defect in presentment of the letter and the President's office could not be compelled to act.

Here, the states are suing another Secretary, right? They are trying to get the Secretary to take action by enacting regulations. Just because the current regulation prevents a state from doing something does not mean they can sue so they can do something. This is a matter of Interstate Commerce (manufacture of automobiles), which is the sovereign authority of Congress.

Re:Violation

[Abcd1234]

Here, the states are suing another Secretary, right? They are trying to get the Secretary to take action by enacting regulations

No, they're suing the EPA to get waivers under the existing regulatory structure (which they were told they would get, and still haven't) so that they can go forward with their policies. California, as it happens, already has such a waiver, and the states participating in the suit are now demanding they be granted one, too.

And they will lose the case and your money as well

[elkto]

As no one can illustrate how a addition of 500 ppm of CO2 (.05%) since the forties/fifties into our atmosphere has effected anything. All the while..... Ignoring that the northern hemisphere's winters will shrink till the year 3088. That the burning of all this fossil fuel creates heat. Lets talk about how the "Greens" land mismanagement created the environment that that has the State of California now burning.

Very Sad Events

[BECoole]

Just when you think the Global Warming Idiocy is losing steam, it gets even crazier. :(

Re:Very Sad Events

[BubbaJonBoy]

Who gives a shit? Less crap is the air is a win-win no matter *what* they use as an excuse.

Re:Chemestry 101

[An Onerous Coward]

I'm glad you took Chemistry 101, so you could enlighten all the morons involved with this suit. If it weren't for you, the states suing for the right to regulate CO2 wouldn't have the foggiest idea how they were going to carry it out.

Seriously, what insight are you adding to this conversation? There is no need to speculate about how these states could ever possibly hope to control CO2 emissions, as though they had announced their intention to overthrow the laws of thermodynamics. The article goes into specifics about what steps they intend to take, and -- surprise of surprises -- they're not banning air conditioning or cars or warm houses. Yeah, yeah, I know you didn't read it, and hardly anyone does. That's a pitiful excuse for injecting this sort of ill-informed noise into the debate.

Polluting does not have an apparent cost.

[jotaeleemeese]

Nevertheless every time you pollute, you so oink, there is a tangible economic loss in the form of environmental damage.

Derided people like you don't want to make people accountable for this in the only possible way: taxing somebody.

It may be you, the oh so poor regular person sliding into poverty (if you will not have access to food, water, clothing and a roof on the top of your airy cranium then you will sliding into poverty, if you will not have money for gadgets or a car, well sorry but that is not poverty) or it may be a company, passing the cost to you, but polluting costs us all and it the cost of cleaning has to be met somehow.

My opinion on the matter aside...

[kannibul]

What do they really think they'll get out of this, other than lining the pockets of a few lawyers?

Re:Arrrrgh! (the specious commerce counterarg)

[Anonymous Coward]

"How could a regulation on emissions fall under an interstate commerce clause?"

Do emissions cross state lines?

Yeah, that's how.

Honestly, you knew that, what's with the stupid trolling?

"At least be consistent."

Fine, as long as you stop pretending you know what the fuck you're talking about.

I'd STILL shut off the power to New York

[tjstork]

Cause God forbid we place some standards on our industries' environmental impact

Were that true, I would agree with you, but you don't understand the people up there. If New York wanted clean power, they could build plenty of it. The state is mountainous and windy, there's ample tidal and offshore power, and plenty of rivers and oceans to build nukes on. The Northeastern USA has plenty of places to site solar, water, wind, and nuclear, all of which have no carbon impact.

But, no one there wants any power plant of any kind built near them, so, rather than retire older, inefficient infrastructure, they just raise taxes (either legislative, or via lawsuit) to make it look like they are doing something, but nothing changes, except that the taxpayer gets screwed.

The classic example is off the coast of Massachussetts. None other than the likes of Ted Kennedy and Walter Conkrite and the braintrust of the Democratic Party are fighting tooth and nail to keep a windmill project being built in the water a few miles away from them. Mind you, this could power the whole area they are living in. But, they don't want it near them.

Seriously. Just look at the power grid. The northeastern USA is a bunch of old coal plants, a bunch of gas turbines, a smattering of nukes and a couple of hydro facilities, and very little of it is newer than 1970. All the coal plants were built in the 1950s and OLDER. The hydro stuff dates back to the 1920s, although, they did drop in more efficient blades into one to make it better - but only after using the existing set for almost 80 years!

As soon as you try and build something in the northeastern USA, you get a bunch of people suing you, saying, not in my back yard. Then, they bitch about not have electricity. It has to come from somewhere, and they just want to -steal it-, and make somebody else do the dirty work of having the solar fields and windmills and what not. It's imperialism, pure and simple.

Simple solution, force everyone to use Solar

[Anonymous Coward]

When the states sue the US over greenhouse gasses they should force the US to force everyone to switch over to solar. Nuclear will eventually kill us with all of the waste involved. Any that involve burning fossil fuels is the biggest part of the greenhouse gasses and must be used for the so-called "renewable fuels" such as ethanol. Wind kills wildlife so it should never be used.

Another thing the states should do is force the US to ban [b]all meat[/b], people should become vegans since eating meat/cheese or drinking milk, or anything that has to do with anmal cruelty is adding to the greenhouse gasses as they must be bred in bondage for canibalistic practices.

  $hrub and the repugs are holding solar back since they get the biggest return from the over use of fossil fuels and bondage of other life forms.

Where is the separation of church and state ?

[jacekm]

Could anuone, please, notify ACLU, that the Chruch of Global Warming is again attempting to create state funded religion.

JAM

Re:Hell no! (Formatting is our friend ;)

[N3WBI3]

"yeah, the red states have been relying on that philosophy for decades. Funny thing, though, hasn't really worked overall. "

Are you kidding, the past 10-20 years has seen growth in the south far out pace growth in the north both in terms of population and wealth.

In 1971 NY had 41 Electoral votes the about the same same as the sum total (42) of GA (12), NC (13), AL (9), SC (8). In 2004 NY had 31 compared to 47 for the four states listed above.

of the kids in my family (7) 4 moved away from NY for better employment opportunities (in NY if you don't live down state your in trouble). Thw moved to the south TX / SC, one moved west CA, and one moved the the mid west MN.

"The funny thing is you're going to suffer, too. I wonder how much you're going to be complaining about limiting pollution when it reaches you."

No the way this will affect him is because when auto makers start making changes for higher emission standards in the NE they are not going to make a second set of cars for the south.. He will have to buy the same, more expensive, vehicle that you do..

.....said the man from New Zealand

[BigChigger]

BC

We are suing ourselves!

[vecctor]

If we say the government is just a representation of the people, you essentially have people in these states suing people in the the whole country, which includes them. We are suing ourselves, and paying for it (potentially) twice!

Just thought it was funny :D

Continue your regularly-scheduled discussion.

Re:Hell no! (Formatting is our friend ;)

[nomadic]

Are you kidding, the past 10-20 years has seen growth in the south far out pace growth in the north both in terms of population and wealth.

Growth rates may be higher, but actual wealth and population is still significantly higher in the north. There wasn't a huge flight of businesses down south; the south got a few more manufacturing plants, but not much else.

No the way this will affect him is because when auto makers start making changes for higher emission standards in the NE they are not going to make a second set of cars for the south.. He will have to buy the same, more expensive, vehicle that you do..

But the plants in the less regulated areas will produce more pollution, that's my point.

Re:Hell no! (Formatting is our friend ;)

[N3WBI3]

Growth rates may be higher, but actual wealth and population is still significantly higher in the north.

But its not trending that way... No people are not going to pick up and leave the north *all at once* but you are seeing allot of yanks and half backs in the Carolina these days... Far more than you are seeing Carolinians in the NE.

In 1997 the states mentioned above had a GDP which was about 1.7% higher than NY, in 2004 that difference had risen to about 3.1% higher! In 7 years there was a nearly 50% increase in that gap

But the plants in the less regulated areas will produce more pollution, that's my point.

Look I grew up in Buffalo NY and the plants today are a ton more clean than the plants 30 years ago. If you think the folks down there will be upset that they are taking jobs from you youre way off the mark..

Re:Unconstitutional? Kinda Troll - stupid parent

[Anonymous Coward]

If the states waited until the winds reversed and released Sarin that wouldn't be commerce either. Mod me down, I deserve it for being rude, but that is a stupid argument.

What about the Constitution?

[Bob Uhl]

From the US Constitution, Article I, Section 10:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

In other words, such a regional association is blatantly unconstitutional unless Congress permits it.

I know, the Constitution isn't perfect--but it's a damned sight better than what we have now.

Slashkos doing a story on Dolphins in a Tuna net

[Anonymous Coward]

This site has become such a steaming pile of liberal poo... its funny. Scuttle Mokey's fear mongering "YOU WONT BREATHE AIR IF BUSH WINS" is just about as pathetic and libtard as a person can get. What a bunch of whiney babies....

How do you sue an administration?

[nurb432]

So this means once Bush leaves office the suit is null and void?

Only in the United States ...

[zen-theorist]

... can united states sue the United States!

Re:Chemestry 101

[Technician]

Thanks for the accusation.

Now from the article that I didn't read

On Wednesday, Gov. Eliot Spitzer's administration is to issue regulations requiring power plants to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions, part of a broader plan among 10 Northeastern states, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, to move beyond federal regulators in Washington and regulate such emissions on their own.

See any sign of capturing greenhouse gas? Requiring a change in fuel to one that doesn't produce CO2 and H2O? This is a tax and nothing more.

Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, in a statement on Tuesday, said, "New York State is moving forward on all cylinders to take aggressive action to curb global warming from both power plants and cars."

This is an SUV tax. There is not a catalytic converter made to break down CO2 into something else safer. The push would be for underpowered SUVs, Hybrids, and limited sales of large vehicles. If you tow a boat, camp trailer, horse trailer, utility trailer, etc, it's simply going to get harder to get vehicles. Discouraging the use of big trucks as a commuter vehicle is a good thing and should have happened a long time ago.

Our insurance program is to blame for much of the problem. Instead of buying an extra vehicle for towing the boat, you have to make the decision instead of what vehicle you want. Instead of insuring each driver, they insure each vehicle. This runs up the cost of having a part time use vehicle at home for the summer boating trips and the winter snowmobiling trips. Now the tow vehicle doubles as the daily commute car. Look around. How many SUV's on the road have a hitch and are not towing anything? This should be a clue that a decision was made for one universal vehicle instead of a commuter vehicle and a utility vehicle. My wife and I are members of this class. Instead of 2 small cars and a utility vehicle, I drive the Prius for my commute and she uses the van for local errands. Registering and insuring a 3rd vehicle is not cost effective.

These states instead of suing, should look internally and change the registration and insurance requirements for utility vehicles as a non-commuter vehicle. Start by insuring the drivers of the vehicles instead of insuring the vehicles. 2 drivers and 4 vehicles should be 2 policies instead of 4. Can we counter-sue the states for not doing their part in reducing the greenhouse gas by not encouraging the USE of fuel efficient commuter vehicles? Taxing an extra fuel effecient car is counter productive. My wife would love to drive a Prius most of the time, but buying and insuring another one is not an option. Instead we drive the van and bite the bullet on $50 fill-ups. Burning less hydrocarbon fuel will reduce greenhouse gas creation. DUH!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The review by the IPCC

[TapeCutter]

should read ... The review by the IPCC scientists

Re:Chemestry 101

[An Onerous Coward]

Argue all you like over the merits of "an SUV tax". I'd favor it, myself.

If you had read the article, and understood that their proposals included things like taxing coal-fired plants and raising CAFE standards, why the hell were you scare-mongering about shutting off peoples' heat and electricity, and sounding like you thought they were being hypocritical because "The states suing still have roads and permit the use of heating oil and gas heat"?

I'm sorry, but your original essay did not demonstrate understanding of the material that was presented, and deserves an F. If you want a make-up exam, see me after class on Monday.

Re:Chemestry 101

[Technician]

If you had read the article, and understood that their proposals included things like taxing coal-fired plants

AND

why the hell were you scare-mongering about shutting off peoples' heat and electricity

Do you know where your electricity comes from? Shutting down the use of high carbon fuel such as coal, fuel oil, and diesel will put the crunch on the limited natural gas supply. How many ways do you want to spell SHORTAGE?

If you want a make-up exam, see me after class on Monday.

I would love one. Please do your homework and adjust the curriculum. I lived through the gas shortage of the 1970's. The prices sky rocketed so they enacted price controls. The price controls stopped delivery. Gas stations limited purchases to $2.00. Lines went for blocks. Stations ran out of fuel as the price fixed fuel was a loss to deliver. Stations low on fuel went to a flag system. Green = we have gas. Yellow = emergency services only.. Police, Fire, & ambulance. Red was are out of gas. Moving everyone onto natural gas, and then trying to control the price will put the lights out. We have been there and done that.

In the 1970's diesel fuel was price regulated. Home heating oil was not. Farms had the priority on diesel deliveries. The smart smart farmers didn't take home heating oil that year, they had diesel oil delivered instead. It was much cheaper even though it was a higher quality fuel. Truckers were running out of fuel and farmers were using it for home heating oil. The price fixing to prevent price gouging the trucking industry failed on two accounts. Supply dried and other demand on the cheaper fuel diverted supply. I know this personally as my dad did it along with his neighbors.

Cutting off the high carbon fuel will cause an overload on low carbon fuel. Demand spike and fixed supply will equal shortages, rationing, and high prices. My understanding of the material presented takes in the material not presented. Supply and demand of the remaining limited sources of fuel and economics 101. See you Monday for the make-up class. I hope you learn something about limited resources and our energy demand.

Before the make-up exam, find out how much coal is burned each year in the US to generate electric power and how many therms of natural gas it will take to replace it. Then find the production capacity of the US and Mexico natural gas. When you discourage the use of a fuel, please provide some alternatives with enough capacity to take up the load. Natural gas will do the same thing the price of corn is doing right now only worse because the size of the load is much larger. If you think the price of corn is high, move half the cars to E85.. We can't grow enough corn. Mandate all the cars use E85 and there will be rationing and shortages was well as super high prices. Now throw into the mix that the price of electricity is regulated. The price of fuel is not. When the price of fuel is too high, there is no profit in producing electric power. During the fuel price spike, plants will take the time to shut down high to cost plants for maintenance. Remember California and the electric price fixing? Does the name Enron mean anything?

Any questions? See me after the make up exam on Monday. Been there done that. Those who don't learn from history is condemned to repeat it. How do you propose preventing rolling blackouts California style?

Re:Chemestry 101

[An Onerous Coward]

Shutting down the use of high carbon fuel such as coal, fuel oil, and diesel will put the crunch on the limited natural gas supply. How many ways do you want to spell SHORTAGE?

Now that you've revealed your secret logic, I can't begin to describe my disappointment. In the face of a penny per kilowatt tax on coal plants, the entire country would immediately shut down all the coal plants and switch completely to natural gas? THAT is why you felt justified in claiming that these states would be banning air conditioning, and that they were hypocrites for having roads and cars?

Nobody is talking about immediately pulling the plug on coal. Nobody. Anyone who pretends otherwise is scaremongering. You are scaremongering. You are pathetic, and I no longer care what you have to say.

Those who do not learn from history

[Technician]

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

You are scaremongering. You are pathetic, and I no longer care what you have to say.

Suit yourself.. If you would like to peek at recent history where we decided something else was bad and taxed it to discourage it's use, look no further than the tax on a 35 cent pack of cigarettes.
http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/cigarett.html
http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/prices/

Higher carbon tax on coal will discourage use and put pressure on other energy resources. Seen the price of corn and corn products lately?

Again, those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
and I no longer care what you have to say.
Ignoring it won't make it go away.

One does not have to give up much. Just relocate!

[jotaeleemeese]

I was commuting 1:20 each way every day.

What I did?

I moved one tube (underground) station from my place of work.

When I factor the time saved, the savings on transport costs against the hassle of relocating, on balance I still obtain a benefit. And have regained a couple of hours daily to do whatever I want (while helping to save the World!).

The insistence of people doing long commutes thes do not necessarily need to make is madness (I know, there are some of you out there that must commute, but there are many people with relatively stable jobs that want to have the countriside house will working in town, that is ecological madness that may be also destroying their family and stressing them beyond what is really needed).