Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
We are all just people.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
... so he could make mortgage payments next semester and I could afford new jeans.
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
Be a critical thinker and reader.
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
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...
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.
I'm REALLY pleased to see this.
Its a great indicator that the American people are more intelligent, responsible and honest than their leader.
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.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I'm REALLY pleased to see this.
Its a great indicator that the American people are more responsible, intelligent and honest than their leader.
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.
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.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
- And when we forced the lead to not be in paints or used in gas, that also raised prices.
- Likewise, it raised car prices when we first forced cars to get above 5 mpg.
- Or when we said no dumping of pollutants in the ground (love canal?).
- 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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
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.
This is my sig.