Obama unveils new climate crackdown amid Trudeau visit
Ahhh more Obamanation/Democrap manipulation, regulation and effort to make us a more docile controlled serf population. Don't tell them ways to do it, or engineer workable solutions, just say "make it so". Imperial might flexes its er...
We have created them as a monster.
Jan
Yes.
Jan
The problem with western societies is that we've not been taught nor understand the natural cycles. The truth is: It's the Sun Silly.
Of course we know, it's another ploy to control technology, resources and the amazing conscious human beings on our planet...not one of which wishes to rule anyone but himself.
Food stamps and Demonstrations.
Whose to say no?
If he can use them to do away with Civil Rights and The Bill of Rights the only way out is a massive swing to the right which does not include a socialist corporatist.
Or the military upholding it's oath of office
.
So I support that they're doing something about the problem, but I think the something should not involve hard limits.
You could make them revenue neutral.
"form of economic punishment"
It has nothing to do with that. We want people to pay for the harm they cause others. In the case of pollution, our economy runs on burning stuff and burning stuff is creating huge costs. It's not possible to have a court case to make everyone pay for the tiny bit of damage their activities cause to farmers and people in coastal regions. Since we already have taxes (although I love experimental notions of funding gov't through voluntary contributions), it makes sense to tax activities that cost others rather than taxing work or general spending. It makes everyone whole, obviates the need for some complicated court process, and it makes business models unprofitable if they just steal from others in the future without creating net value.
I do not see that this should be a matter of taxes. I do not think that AGW is valid (I think it is the pipe-dream of a power elite) so there is no cost to coastal dwellers. Since I do not see the 'harm' I do not see the 'fee'; if I did see a 'fee'...it would not be a tax.
Jan
Jan
While this hypothetical rule would be aimed at 'no dumping of waste' it would include 'the guy playing music too loudly' and 'the person who paints their house with pornography'. Mind you - playing music loudly and painting whatever you like wherever you like is your right, but if the 'stuff' constitutes 'output' into the environment, then it involves other folks too.
I appreciate your phrase "...impacts other with their activity...".
Jan
Jan
.
The ecosphere is extraordinarily complex and if a model is to accurately reflect the behavior of the thing being modeled it must take that complexity into account. Fundamentally there are two kinds of models that are used by scientists; static and dynamic. A static model assumes little or no interaction between components of the system while a dynamic model takes, or at least attempts to take, these interactions into account. Most AGW models are, unfortunately, static in nature.There are several reasons for this but for the most part it is because static models are easier to understand and evaluate. Dynamic models tend to be exceptionally complex, just like the thing being modeled. Here is an example. Vegetation responds to increases in the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere by collecting the carbon and releasing oxygen into the environment. This carbon is one of the main building blocks of a plants cellular structure so this process forms part of a natural carbon sequestration mechanism. So an increase in atmospheric CO2 is met with a corresponding increase in vegetation. Carbon is plant food. The exact dynamic of this process is poorly understood so it is difficult to model. As a result vegetation response plays a minor roll in atmospheric CO2 growth models, not because it is insignificant but simply because it is hard to do. This is one of many such instances of AGW alarmists "cherry picking" data to support their contention that we face a dire threat. The worst part of all this is that in the fog of confusion about climate dynamics real issues are given little attention. It's the old KISS principal, "Keep It Simple Stupid". But unfortunately simple solutions to complex problems don't work no matter how attractive they may be cosmetically or politically.
They probably don't teach that anymore.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic...
The carbon cycle is shown here:
http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/carbo...
The mixing of other things makes the process more acidic than in the past, raising the overall acidity in the ocean. This has been proposed as a cause for coral reef die offs.
My takeaway impression is that so much of the projection of what is or is not happening is dependent on the models. Models of incredibly complex interactions. But the IPCC models are notoriously suspect for deliberate gerrymandering of predictive results. They have tried to demonstrate rapid warming of climates and oceans, constantly citing that this last year is the hottest ever, and then this is all contradicted by satellite data that shows no warming for almost 20 years.
The other thing that surprises me is that climate change politics focuses on carbon and carbon dioxide and not the role of increased nitrogen and sulfur also because of alleged anthropogenic sources. The first article really focuses on the role these elements and compounds have on ocean acidity.
A search on coral reef die offs returns a lot of contradictory articles. Many say that coral reef die offs are due to El Nino events warming ocean temperatures. But El Nino has always been around and the non El Nino years would have the opposite effect. And back to the complex models we go with some having dire predictions that coral reefs will be completely gone by 2100. Sounds familiar. The ice caps were supposed to have been gone by now, but have actually been increasing.
Politics and science don't mix well.
As for the things about farmland and compounds that wash into rivers, it is possible that it could happen on a limited basis but I don't buy it on a regular basis. Not in America. Farmers are business people and they would not make money long term if they are washing things down the river or over farming the land. I believe that is mostly environmental propaganda very similar to the climate change garbage.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/nu...
http://science.time.com/2013/06/19/th...
http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/...
Do not let your frustration with the politicizing of an issue blind you to what data is available. That is their way of getting the sheeple to comply, you tell the "X is going to kill you next week", they panic, and elect those who will say they will save them. That does not change the fact there is indeed a well documented issue with fertilizer and it's impact. There are several initiatives that are trying to address it, such as fertilizers that will bond to organic molecules in the soil making them much harder to wash out. It is a real issue but not one that should be escalated to DefCon 1. A rational government would identify the issue as such and try to get people to voluntarily address it. The engineering skill of America is rarely engaged by the political machines, it seems to be too much effort for them.
I believe these organizations are doing just as you say, trying to scare people into believing there is a fertilizer problem. Just like the 90% of CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere is naturally generated, I'm certain that 90% of the nutrients washed into the water system are naturally occurring. A law passed in Wisconsin to reduce phosphorus is costing taxpayers millions of dollars and there has been no change to the problems that people were complaining about, which was algae growth in the popular boating/swimming lakes. These people don't like dealing with weeds but fish like the oxygen producing plants for many reasons.
Of course there is much more to this but I believe these organizations are leading people down the wrong path.
too much -- it might be because I thought too hard!
the postulate that human emissions are causing harm
has not been established;;; cause-and-effect is a
tough thing to prove. . first, let's prove it. -- j
.