Another crime against humanity by this gang of criminals. If we compile a list of all the criminal activities that these parasites have committed I think we can get them thrown in jail. We'll have to wait till they're out of office so that pardons can't be issued.6/25/2008

avoiding class assignments

Today's students want to emulate the president and achieve the same kind of success he has.

Can't get more 1984 than that.

Bush*t Administration: all reports will say what we wanted them to say before we undertook the study reported on.

It's fair to criticize the Bush Administration for avoiding reality, but we're all avoiding reality. Unfortunately we don't know how to solve the global warming threat. Yes, the US can reduce our greenhouse gases, but our potential reduction is chickenfeed compared to the increases taking place in China, India and other emerging economies. No matter what the US does, man-made CO2 will increase substantially over the next 50 years.

McCain has moved beyond the CheneyBush denial of anthropogenic global warming, which is clearly no longer supportable and has become a matter of ridicule rather than "controversy".

Having accepted the reality of anthropogenic global warming, McCain has already moved on to exploiting the crisis to enrich his cronies and financial backers in the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, with his phony baloney BS "energy plan" which, along with actually increasing the use of oil (i.e. off-shore drilling to increase supply), consists of nothing but huge taxpayer handouts for "clean coal" and nuclear power, gimmicky "prizes" for developing new battery technology rather than mandates to build the 100MPG cars that Detroit could easily make with existing technology, etc.

None of which will do anything to mitigate global warming pollution within the critical time-frame of 10-15 years (and probably never).

Irony alert: neocon tool "ex-liberal" wrote: It's fair to criticize the Bush Administration for avoiding reality, but we're all avoiding reality.

News flash, "ex-liberal": sure you're avoiding reality, as it's a prerequisite for your bad-faith repetition of neocon propaganda.

In the real world, though, it isn't necessary to have a complete solution in order to take palliative steps -- no matter how they may disadvantage the Republican agenda and power base -- and it's deeply dishonest of you to suggest...oh, wait, it's "ex-liberal"; he only ever posts here to be deeply dishonest. My bad.

David

Pacts and Treaties that might help the problem world-wide cannot take place if the United states(the worlds worst emitter) does not take the lead. We can't have the high-ground in negotiating a solution with India or china if we can't take the major first step. Also, one major effect of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions through developing new green technologies is the benefit of being able to sell/share those techs with other emerging industry-heavy economies. Imagine of the US auto industry got off its collective ass and developed the next generation of hybrid. Not only would that reduce our own emissions and reduce our oil consumption, but we could then turn around and sell those vehicles all over the world, helping alleviate the massive trade deficit we operate under. Hell, it even helps fight terrorism a bit because reducing oil consumption denies some money to middles eastern oil producing countries. Al Gore has it right, despair is our enemy. This is not an insurmountable problem. If Hillary Clinton showed us anything, it's that nothing is truly inevitable.

SecularAnimist, 100MPG cars? It would be tough to build a soap box racer that gets 100mpg. Few motorcycles get > 100MPG so what automobile could manage it?

David wrote: "Unfortunately we don't know how to solve the global warming threat."

On the contrary, I think that you are avoiding reality: of course we know.

We need to phase out all fossil fuel use as rapidly as possible, which is entirely achievable within the necessary time frame if we (1) fully apply existing technologies for generating clean, limitless electricity from wind and solar energy, supplemented with other sources such as geothermal energy and sustainably produced agricultural biofuels; and (2) make maximum use of existing efficiency technologies.

Technologically and economically, it isn't even a particularly difficult challenge. The obstacles are political -- namely, the death-grip of the vastly wealthy and powerful fossil fuel industry on energy policy -- not technological or economic.

David wrote: "Yes, the US can reduce our greenhouse gases, but our potential reduction is chickenfeed compared to the increases taking place in China, India and other emerging economies."

In fact China and India are already doing more than the USA to develop clean renewable energy sources. China, in particular, is rapidly becoming a world leader not only in the deployment of wind and solar energy technology within China itself, but is also poised to become one of the world's top exporters of solar photovoltaic panels and wind turbines to a world market for this technology that is growing at double-digit rates year after year after year. China already has automobile fuel economy standards that are higher than those in the US.

The US is mired in backwards technology and about to be left behind in the new industrial revolution of clean, renewable, limitless wind and solar energy. And the ludicrous policies proposed by John McCain (offshore oil drilling, phony "clean coal", and billions of dollars in taxpayer handouts to the failed nuclear power industry) will guarantee that the USA becomes an economic and technological backwater, while continuing to spew FAR more global warming pollution per capita than any nation on Earth.

I hope there is a caucus of secure Democratic Senators and Representatives that is already planning how to 1)work on holding this administration accountable and 2)expose the political hacks that have been placed in professional positions. They need to run the clock out on this administration and get to January as soon as possible.

For all those brilliant state lawyers who filed suit against the EPA, let me remind them of the basis for the suit.

They claim that the EPA has eminent domain over GHG via the Clean Air act. So, they sue because the EPA refused to grant a waiver over the eminent domain allowing states to regulate GHG.

What was the logical basis for the suit? Everyone think very clearly on this. The basis of the suit was that since the federal had eminent domain, their suit was invalid, and the EPA had the right to refuse waivers and to allow states the right of enforcing stricter GHG.

Think this through. The Supreme Court ruled, for the states. The federal government does have the right to set GHG levels, states do not. The court then left it up to the EPA to determine what levels, at the national or state level they should apply.

In essence, the entire basis of the suit was to pass the buck up to the EPA and validate that states do not have legal recourse. Why did they sue? To get state legislature off the hook.

Is there any other interpretation? The suit was nonsense and self-contradictory. All other hypotheses should be ruled out, the net effect was to get the states out of the GHG business.

As a result, you now have the other half (the state and local 19% of the economy) will rely on central authority to determine energy allocation, a far worse position.

The state legislatures, if they were serious, would have filed suit to remove eminent domain, not grant eminent domain. The states screwed this and set back GHG amelioration by 16 years.

Why do states want off the hook on this? Because states can get a much better deal on emission credits by going to congress than the free market. Legislatures get subsidizes GHG emissions and can still say it is the federal governments fault.

From the article: "a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years."
____________________

I'd certainly like to read the details of that finding.

Consider this new case:

"Now, a member of the influential Madison Wis. Plan Commission wants to ban the restaurant drive-through -- or at least restrict the ubiquitous symbol of America's auto-centric lifestyle.

"Given the concern about all the carbon going into the atmosphere, I'm not sure we should be building more places for people to sit idling in their cars," says Eric Sundquist, who was appointed to the citizen panel by Mayor Dave Cieslewicz this spring.

A former newspaper reporter in Atlanta now working as a researcher at the UW-Madison's Center on Wisconsin Strategy, Sundquist notes that several cities in Canada have recently moved to ban the drive-through coffee shop or stand-alone fast food restaurant"

I won;t argue whether this is the way to go or not, but I point out that Madison Wis does not have the basis to regulate business for GHG emissions reduction because of what their fellow states won in Supreme Court. If Madison want to ban drive thus, then they have to go to the federal congress and lobby.

This problem will be repeated in a million ways. Each time a small idea comes up to deal with some aspect of GHG, the advocates will endure millions in lobbing costs.

re: 100MPG cars

No problem and a number of companies are working on them. Either all electric (battery) or plug-in hybrid. The 100MPG refers to the blended mileage in a hybrid. While battery storage density is still not near replacing a tank of gas it's just gotten to the point where it can handle commutes in the 40 mile round trip range - which nicely covers my commute...

And actually many motorcycles and scooters get 100MPG. My little Honda 50 back in 1965 got that with far more primitive IC tech than we have today.

No matter what the US does...

Instead of throwing up your hands and accepting the inability to solve complex problems requiring cooperation with others, relax, take a deep breath and jingle the keys in your pocket. Remember the jingling sound? It reminds you of the optimism you had to solve problems with others way back when. The next time you hear about global warming it will be accompanied with a jingle, and the warm sensation you feel will be knowledge from the past that problems can be solved with the help of others. You will reduce your energy consumption to become a contributor to the solution, filling you with a sense of joy and wonder for the potential of life in the future.

I believe that all Madison would have to do is change their zoning laws. They don't even have to say it's because of global warming or anything else. It could be for aesthetics. No need to go to Congress or anywhere else.

Well, Julene,

The way it worked before environmentalists removed the solution was the following:

Open air, pedestrian restaurants, restaurants which have no expectation that their businesses encourage driving would be able to sue in a public nuisance suit. They would sue because of the 10% increase in bad weather is harming their business.

As a result of misplaced environmentalism, that suit possibility no longer exists. So, no matter how small of a carbon footprint my property has, I am unable to get damages.

The environmentalists retort:

We do not car how much us conserve our atmosphere, we want all the power, and that is the essential fact, power over environmentalism. Power they will never have, because in the federal legislature, both emissions savers and emission wasters vie for government emission credits, on an equal basis.

Matt wrote: "The environmentalists retort: We do not car how much us conserve our atmosphere, we want all the power ..."

That is incoherent, nonsensical drivel.

I don't care if you post incoherent, nonsensical drivel. I must admit, however, that I became annoyed with you the other day, when on a thread discussing a related topic you chose to attribute to me views that I had not expressed and do not hold.

I guess in your mind, I am an "environmentalist", and therefore, regardless of what I actually write, I must hold the views that your one-dimensional cartoon comic book stereotypes of "environmentalists" hold.

I should learn not to get annoyed at the blithering of idiots.

I love this place! All name calling and zero logic.

That $500 billion to $2 trillion, is that before or after taxes? Is that after paying the expenses of making those changes?

And there is no guarantee that these measures will stop global warming.

The church of global warming thinks you need to repent and confess your ozone sins!

Jeffrey Davis>> 100MPG cars? It would be tough to build a soap box racer that gets 100mpg. Few motorcycles get > 100MPG so what automobile could manage it?

Actually the current record for the Shell Eco-Marathon is 2,843mpg. Admittedly, that's for a soapbox type vehicle. Some claim 10,000 mpg is within reach.

More in the realm of a useful vehicle, Aptera among others has a working 120mpg 2+1 seat hybrid (the say 300mpg, but that's with a charged battery at the start of a long road trip).

It is absolutely possible to have affordable >100mpg hybrids. The problems are cultural, not engineering. Such light vehicles just look "weird" and are hard to make safe with SUVs on the road.

I should learn not to get annoyed at the blithering of idiots.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 25, 2008 at 3:14 PM

You should, keeping the stress levels down is good for your health and longevity.

>In fact China and India are already doing more than the USA to develop clean renewable energy sources...

They're also working on building dozens of pebble bed reactors, and already have a working demo.

Also forgot to post: Aptera is on track for putting their car on the market at the end of this year, for $30k

Wow orwell!! Maybe a better a solution is to do nothing at all. We know the logic of that course in sterling examples(Katrina,etc.).

Green Vehicles Inc. is also working on a commuter vehicle called the Triac. They already build a couple of lines of Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (max speed 35 MPH).

The Triac is spec'd for 80MPH top speed and 100 mile range. Just around $20K estimated price.

They're also aiming for end of this year. CA only release on the first round. I think the Aptera is the same.

SecularAnimis,

Your claim, if I recall, was that collective action by the federal legislature was what we needed.

My claim, if you recall, was that we have had collective action by the legislature ever since the clean air act, reaffirmed by the supreme court.

Yet, there is no redress. Collective action by the legislature will not stabilize for 16 years, if that. Remember the federal legislature has had 10 years of power in this matter, at least.

Your solution says, let us wait until global warming is worse. Well global warming is bad enough to force nuisance suits alread. But energy conservers do not have the right to get redress. You took that power away, why did you do that?

What is it that your mix of progressive and conservative legislatures plan to do with the global warming money that you are willing to wait?

I know what the conservatives are going to do with their legislative windfall, they are going to spend it on emission slips for their favorite constituents. I suspect you plan the same.

Had you kept out of the picture all together, then bicycle commuters in San Francisco could already be receiving their checks for conservation. Instead, they are saying, screw this, I am going to get a car.

It is the environmentalists refusing to solve the GHG problem that is the cause of the problem.

"Orwell" wrote (as his namesake once again rolled over in his grave): I love this place! All name calling and zero logic.

We acknowledge your contribution, "Orwell."

SecularAnimist forgot to mention 'tidal dams' as a limitless source of pollution free energy wherever there are tides. Tidal energy is being developed in NYC near Rikers Island so the Bush Administration can read the bible in their cells.

Deep (5 miles) geothermal energy is available everywhere and the drilling technology to make it happen is rapidly being developed.

In response to Matt at 1:56 PM:

Please go back and re-read Massachusetts, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.. Better yet, try to get a clue generally. Massachusetts v. EPA came about because a coalition of 19 citizen groups acting pursuant to Section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act petitioned the EPA to issue a rulemaking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. After EPA denied the petition in 2003, the 19 organizations appealed the decision to the DC Circuit (per the Clean Air Act), which upheld the EPA's decision on a 2-1 vote. The 19 groups appealed the decision to the Supreme Court and, at that point, 12 states intervened on their side, and 10 states intervened on the EPA side.

With that clear, let's consider what issue was decided in Mass. v. EPA. The issue was NOT whether EPA has some mythical "eminent domain" over greenhouse gases. It was 1) whether the plaintiff-intervenor states had standing to join the suit, 2) whether EPA had authority under the CAA to regulate greenhouse gases, and 3) if it had authority, whether it was required to make an endangerment finding as part of a rulemaking.

The Supreme Court answered each of those questions in the affirmative. First, it concluded that Massachusetts had standing under existing standing jurisprudence. Second, it concluded that Section 202(a)(1) gives EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide. Third, it concluded that, having been petitioned to conduct a CO2 rulemaking and having the authority to regulate CO2, the EPA does not have the discretion to avoid regulating CO2 until it conducts an endangerment assessment and concludes that there will be no endangerment. Thus, the Court ordered EPA to conduct such an assessment.

In summary, this was not a preclusion case. This was not a waiver case. This was not a case of states seeking to shirk some duty. This was a case of private citizens petitioning (and then suing) the EPA to force it to take action to regulate CO2. Sure, states intervened to ensure that a plaintiff had standing and thus to ensure that the case was heard, but I think it's pretty clear the impetus for the case came from citizens, not states.

In response to Matt at 2:54 and again at 4:30:

Perhaps you could explain the causal chain by which individuals pursuing tort suits (i.e., nuisance claims) against other individuals in state court are going to reduce carbon dioxide emissions sufficiently to impact global warming? I'm sensing a serious collective action problem here (not to mention a profound misunderstanding of tort law).

Suppose the owner of a cafe in Madison decides to sue someone for the weather effects of global warming that adversely impact him. Who is he going to sue? How will he prove the defendant's actions caused that impact? What will the remedy be? I think I can say without reservation, that you are effing clueless on this point. Private nuisance claims will never, ever be the proper form by which to address global warming.

In response to Orwell at 3:46:

Your understanding of the impact of tropospheric heating on the accelerating destruction of stratospheric ozone layer is impressive. Your skepticism about the importance of that issue, however, leaves something to be desired.

This chart shows projected CO2 emissions by region. Between 2010 and 2030 worldwide CO2 emissions are projected to grow by a hefty 36%. About 85% of the growth, will come from the non-OECD countries. In particular, CO2 emissions will grow 3.1% per year in China, but only 0.7% in North America.

Also, see China contributing two thirds to increase in CO2 emissions

I fully support the idea of controlling our CO2. In fact, I just spent $7,000 to install solar heating. However, the reality is that controlling the increase in CO2 in the US and other OECD countries will not be nearly enough to prevent a big increase in worldwide CO2. We really to find some other method to fight global warming.

Matt wrote: "SecularAnimis, Your claim, if I recall, was that collective action by the federal legislature was what we needed ... Your solution says, let us wait until global warming is worse."

I have "claimed" no such things. You are simply making things up and attributing them to me. Not surprising, since it is increasingly obvious that you have little connection to reality. Moreover, whatever point it is that you are trying to make is certainly not being communicated effectively by your rambling, incoherent comments.

David wrote: "... the reality is that controlling the increase in CO2 in the US and other OECD countries will not be nearly enough to prevent a big increase in worldwide CO2 ..."

And no one has suggested that "controlling the increase" of CO2 emissions ONLY in the OECD countries will be sufficient to prevent a large increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Everyone who recognizes the seriousness of the anthropogenic global warming crisis recognizes that preventing the worst effects of global warming will require ALL nations, both the developed world (which is responsible for the vast majority of GHG emissions to date, and thus primarily responsible for the current crisis), and developing nations like China and India, to slow, halt and reverse the growth in their emissions.

As the nation that is historically responsible for the largest part BY FAR of the cumulative emissions that have created the current crisis, and the nation that has the largest per capita emissions BY FAR of any nation in the world, the USA has a special responsibility to take a leadership in reducing emissions -- instead of working to block any progress as the CheneyBush administration has done. Saying that the USA has a responsibility to take a leadership role does NOT in any way suggest that India, China or any other nation ought to do nothing at all.

You are committing a classic strawman fallacy.

You may or may not be the same person who used to comment as "ex-liberal", as Gregory has suggested you are; but your comments certainly are characterized by the same dishonesty as those of "ex-liberal".

SecularAnimist, I am indeed the person who used to post as ex-liberal. It's no secret. I pointed out the change in several posts.

I agree that the US has a special responsibility to take the leadership in moderating global warming. It might be fair, as you say, for the US to take the leadership in reducing CO2 emissions. I'm in favor of reduced use of fossil fuels for several reasons. I've held my fuel use down by installing solar heating and driving a high-milage vehicle.

However, I still believe the world needs to do more than just focus on CO2. The most favorable projections today show that even if the US and other OECD countries fully comply with Kyoto (which the signees are not doing), there will be big increases in global CO2 emissions for several decades.

"ex-liberal" wrote: I am indeed the person who used to post as ex-liberal. It's no secret. I pointed out the change in several posts.

Don't be so modest, "ex-liberal"; you point out the lack of change in your bad faith repetition of neocon talking points in your every post. Despite your tacit admission that your 'ex-liberal' handle lacked any credibility, no one takes you seriously as an honest commentator. No one believes what you claim to support or what you claim to have done to reduce your carbon emissions. Your emissions of bullshit in these forums prevent any such possibility.

David/ex-liberal:

However, I still believe the world needs to do more than just focus on CO2. The most favorable projections today show that even if the US and other OECD countries fully comply with Kyoto (which the signees are not doing), there will be big increases in global CO2 emissions for several decades.

I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding you. Are you suggesting that the solution to GW is to concentrate on someting other than CO2 emissions? I understand that GHG involves more than just oxidized carbon emissions, but that is our chief problem in this area, no?

And pointing out that CO2 emissions will inevitably rise over the next several decades does nothing to minimize this problem, it simply adds support to those who argue the need to take immediate and forceful steps to solve it.

But again, I'm confused as to what your point is...?

David wrote: "I still believe the world needs to do more than just focus on CO2."

Why do you believe that, given that human emissions of CO2 are the overwhelming cause of global warming?

What specifically do you believe "the world" needs to do, instead of or in addition to slowing, halting and reversing the growth in CO2 emissions as quickly as possible?

The EIA data that you linked to is a projection of emissions growth in a "business as usual" scenario. The entire point of taking urgent action to reduce CO2 emissions is to prevent that "business as usual" scenario and its consequent growth in emissions, and the consequent global catastrophe, from unfolding as the EIA projects.

Red Right Hand -- The cure for a disease is not necessarily reversing the cause. E.g., near-sightedness is caused by the curvature of the eyeball. It can be cured without fixing the eyeball by wearing glasses or contact lenses. Impotence caused by prostate problems can be cured without fixing the prostate by taking Viagra.

If the world could and would immediately reduce our CO2 emissions, that would be great. However, the willingness to do so is not there.

You say, "GHG involves more than just oxidized carbon emissions, but that is our chief problem in this area, no?" I look at it differently. In my opinion, our chief problem is global warming. We need to find some method to reduce global warming. Even with efforts to control CO2, worldwide emissions will continue to increase a lot over coming decades. Hopefully the world can reduce emissions below current levels, but could take 50 to 100 years at best.

If our only method of fighting GW is to reduce CO2 emissions, the world will continue to heat up at an accelerating rate for the next 50 to 100 years. I think we need lots of research to find methods to cool the world that will work more quickly.

Also, it's certain that the world is warming. It's not as certain that CO2 emissions are the main cause. Some new method of cooling the globe might work even if CO2 emissions are not the primary cause.

David wrote: "It's not as certain that CO2 emissions are the main cause."

That's a lie and you know it. Just as when you posted as "ex-liberal", you are a deliberate liar.

It's clear that your comments support the CheneyBush agenda of doing nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, in the interest of enriching their cronies and financial backers in the fossil fuel corporations by ensuring that every last drop of oil and every last crumb of coal is extracted and burned.

Your claims that you drive an efficient vehicle and have installed solar heating are no doubt cynical lies, just as your claim to be a former "liberal" is a cynical lie.

You have never contributed anything to this forum except deliberate lies.

SecularAnimist - if you're ever in Northern California please come visit. You can see the solar panels and the Toyota Corolla with your own eyes.

"ex-liberal" wrote: SecularAnimist - if you're ever in Northern California please come visit. You can see the solar panels and the Toyota Corolla with your own eyes.

Oh, well, then -- never mind "ex-liberal"'s lengthy history of bad faith argumentation, lies and bullshit -- this assertion on an Internet thread is convincing!

Not.