• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

67 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,128
563
1,605
USA
They're very wrong. They are paid large sums of money to come to these "conclusions". Modern day science is just like everything else......all about the money.

Who is going to pay large sums of money in favor of climate change? There's very little money to be made promoting climate change. You think green energy companies are paying off 95% of scientists when they are just getting off the ground?

If you are jumping immediately to baseless conspiracy theories, wouldn't it make infinitely more sense that Oil/Gas/Coal, big companies with massive reserves of cash, lobbyist firms, and footholds in society, would be influencing science to bury climate change?

Finally, how are you going to pay experts large sums of money? Experts are not a collective. They are different people in different scientific fields with different funding sources coming from different countries. It's often very hard to get these people to agree on anything. The barrier to acceptance via peer review is precisely why science works as well as it does. And these experts would be risking their status in the scientific community if anyone found out they'd been bought

Contrawise, all it takes to convince people online that the science behind this isn't real is a bit of propaganda. It's infinitely easier
 
Last edited:

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,408
47,516
1,610
He/him
It is clear you have no interest in engaging in a reasonable discussion and instead are going to rely on crazy conspiracy jargon. I shouldn't need to explain the fact that "scientists" are not one group dedicated to one nation or one political party. They can be republican, democratic, socialist, fascist, as well as from a variety of nations that have no interest in the going's on of the American people. However, I am sure you know this and you are being purposefully ignorant - possibly to troll or maybe you are just truly believe what you say. If it is the latter, then I hope you learn better. If it is the former, well then you got me good.

Have a nice day.

Lol I’m gonna assume it’s a troll account and save myself the effort.
 

SLoWMoTIoN

Milk Connoisseur
Feb 2, 2018
21,983
27,678
1,015
I refuse to believe the climate change fairy tale. Just another tactic used by the left to garner fear and gain control over the average person. Thank God for President Trump cleaning up dumbama's mess.
Does the left control the weather?
 
Mar 18, 2018
4,249
4,988
570
We’ve been coming out of an ice age (small? Can’t remeber the scientific word for it but a spike in cooldown) for what the better of 7000 years and we are accelerating it. The amount of which and the results in the future are the only things in debate.

I’ve heard some scientist say we better grow gills cause we will all be under water. I’ve heard some scientists say Canada will become a tropical paradise while the Caribbean will become a desert.

Maybe politicians give more money to one camp over another maybe not. Maybe they chose a side with more convincing models and the need to pick something to show they take it serious. Maybe they want a specific outcome to get votes a certain way. Who cares?

Either way many of Trumps policies that can be seen as terrible by both parties are his policies that affect the national forests. I can see a very infrastructure oriented goal for the future I just don’t think it’s worth it. His MAGA rhetoric should definitely include our forest and wild lands best interests in mind.

Edit Whoops missing a zero
 
Last edited:

Blood Borne

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,613
2,773
505
No, the scientific community embraces the fact that it doesn’t know many/most things with any kind of certainty. This is literally what the scientific method is about.

Scientists continually test, re-examine, refine and reaffirm, or completely rethink existing assumptions and build them into general theories (like relativity, evolution, etc). All based on a steady stream of newly collected evidence and observations. Nothing is taken for granted as “certain”. The best we can get is a general consensus when dealing with and attempting to model complicated and sophisticated systems.

Also it’s interesting that you chose gravity as an example, considering all that we’ve learned in recent years about dark matter, gravitational waves and gravitons that have challenged our existing assumptions and generated alternative theories of how gravity works and behaves in the universe.
Nothing in your longwinded post made any sense.

Science is about fact. Climate change is NOT A FACT. There was a time when the census was that the earth was flat and anyone who says otherwise was literally persecuted. Census does not mean fact.

How gravity works might be up for debate, but there's no debate that there's gravity. If you jump up, you must fall down. The debate with climate change is how much human activities affects the climate or if it affects the climate at all. It's still up for debate and not a fact. Seriously, go and learn what the meaning of FACT is.

Until climate change becomes a fact, it is immoral and ridiculous to enact life altering policies based on probability. This is the main issue people have with climate change activists. Because so far, the solution to climate change is more tax, wealth redistribution and heavy regulations. Policies that greatly affects people's livelihoods and behaviour.
 

404Ender

Member
Jun 17, 2006
3,839
300
1,385
Nothing in your longwinded post made any sense

I would suggest doing your homework then, and reading the other posts related to it in this thread. It’ll make more sense once you educate yourself.

You could go with the conspiracy theory route, but that didn’t work out so well for the other guy...

Also damn, if you consider that post to be “long winded”...lol

Maybe suggesting you do some more reading isn’t the best idea.
 
Last edited:

luigimario

Banned
Apr 3, 2018
1,336
607
250
Nothing in your longwinded post made any sense.

Science is about fact. Climate change is NOT A FACT. There was a time when the census was that the earth was flat and anyone who says otherwise was literally persecuted. Census does not mean fact.

How gravity works might be up for debate, but there's no debate that there's gravity. If you jump up, you must fall down. The debate with climate change is how much human activities affects the climate or if it affects the climate at all. It's still up for debate and not a fact. Seriously, go and learn what the meaning of FACT is.

Until climate change becomes a fact, it is immoral and ridiculous to enact life altering policies based on probability. This is the main issue people have with climate change activists. Because so far, the solution to climate change is more tax, wealth redistribution and heavy regulations. Policies that greatly affects people's livelihoods and behaviour.

So 99% of climate scientists, who say man has an affect on the climate, they are all wrong and you and Trump are the only ones who are right? Can I see some credentials please about what makes you an expert in this field? Atleast an undergraduate degree or something? Any papers you have published? Data you have collected?

I mean, if we are now dismissing experts in their own field, then why stop here? Let's stop listening to experts all together! Have cancer? Just do what you FEEL is right, and forget what the experts tell you, because ofcourse, they have a LIBERAL/LIBTURD/CUCK AGENDA!!!11! Jesus christ.......
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
5,733
10,370
910
Nothing in your longwinded post made any sense.

Science is about fact. Climate change is NOT A FACT. There was a time when the census was that the earth was flat and anyone who says otherwise was literally persecuted. Census does not mean fact.

How gravity works might be up for debate, but there's no debate that there's gravity. If you jump up, you must fall down. The debate with climate change is how much human activities affects the climate or if it affects the climate at all. It's still up for debate and not a fact. Seriously, go and learn what the meaning of FACT is.

Until climate change becomes a fact, it is immoral and ridiculous to enact life altering policies based on probability. This is the main issue people have with climate change activists. Because so far, the solution to climate change is more tax, wealth redistribution and heavy regulations. Policies that greatly affects people's livelihoods and behaviour.

404Ender 404Ender is 100% correct with their post. Science is not about fact. It is about gathering data and making educated hypothesis'/theories on how things work within our universe. Open any textbook from 100 years ago and open a textbook today. While we may have some idea of what Gravity was as a concept back then, the actual information, data, and hypothesis' have changed dramatically in such a short time span. The fundamental idea of gravity is changing.

This has been explained multiple times throughout the thread, that you seem intent to ignore.
 
Last edited:

Blood Borne

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,613
2,773
505
404Ender 404Ender is 100% correct with their post. Science is not about fact. It is about gathering data and making educated hypothesis'/theories on how things work within our universe. Open any textbook from 100 years ago and open a textbook today. While we may have some idea of what Gravity was as a concept back then, the actual information, data, and hypothesis' have changed dramatically in such a short time span. The fundamental idea of gravity is changing.

This has been explained multiple times throughout the thread, that you seem intent to ignore.
Science is about VERIFYING hypothesis. Climate change has NOT been verified. Making and enacting life altering policies on the basis of a hypothesis/theory is asinine.
 

gohepcat

Banned
Jul 12, 2004
3,134
282
1,525
I can’t speak for many of those regulation repeals but the coal one is a good thing. I can actually speak on this with some authority since I’m in the mining industry.

How would that make you an authority on anything to do with this? You are peripherally attached to the science at best and you have a vested interest in it NOT being as bad as it's portrayed. That's why you are playing the "measured reasonable approach" card. That's a much more valuable stance to take in your position. If you were taking the "It's all a hoax" angle than you would be ignored by all but the fringe.

Don't get me wrong. I think you actually believe what you are saying because the alternative would be calamitous for you. You are trying to reason your way out of an unfair situation, and I would probably do the same, but you are simply wrong. I see the agri-business end of the science every day of my life.
Nothing in your longwinded post made any sense.

Science is about fact. Climate change is NOT A FACT. There was a time when the census was that the earth was flat and anyone who says otherwise was literally persecuted. Census does not mean fact.

Oh Boy. That old chestnut
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
 

LordPezix

Member
Feb 7, 2017
1,000
686
455
We keep this up and it wont be us that has the last laugh.

It'll be like the great Atlantis, space travelers will come visit the planet and see relics of our civilization and wonder what happened to the society that built these things.

You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you.
 

Arkage

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
2,947
1,906
885
That's a very simplistic view of it. I work in mining and waste/tailings management is one of the biggest operating costs. To suggest that mining corporations want to pollute streams and the environment in general is just wrong. Most of the worst environmental disasters such as Samarco, Ok Tedi, etc. are a result of getting the engineering design wrong rather than willful negligence. Engineering natural materials is no easy task. If you want to keep driving your car and living in any building with steel in it (i.e. all of them), you need to accept that mining is necessary to modern society.

Companies never "want" to do unethical things outright. But they will often do them if it's cheaper for their bottom line.
 
Last edited:

Tumle

Member
Jul 12, 2014
1,026
419
565
Denmark
Companies never "want" to do unethical things outright. But they will often do them if it's cheaper for their bottom line.
Yep.. there morality and ethics is guided by the bottom line(which is understandable).. but they need guidelines to keep them in check.. also a lot of sociopaths and psychopaths at the top of the hirachy.. so better be safe than sorry with those guidelines :p
 

Kamina

Golden Boy
Jun 2, 2013
7,574
6,371
905
34
Austria
The debate is not whether climate change is real. Climate has been changing even pre-industrial revolution. The debate is if human activities affect the climate and if so, how much does it affect it. No one has proven this.
Studies have shown that greenhouse gases have warming effects on the climate.
CO2, which is a popular greenhouse gas, is released in masses by industry and society.
Ergo we are causing ‘climate change’.
“2 + 2 = 4”

Now i agree that the extend of our influence is somewhat vague, but certainly the negative development would not be as fast as it is if we were not supporting.
 

Arkage

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
2,947
1,906
885
The debate is not whether climate change is real. Climate has been changing even pre-industrial revolution. The debate is if human activities affect the climate and if so, how much does it affect it. No one has proven this.

Well in that case.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.
The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.
The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf.

Notice the trend of there being ever more certainty, consensus, evidence, and models year after year after year for the past 40+ years. It's not like one year they think it's a man made problem and then the next year they think it's the fault of birds and radiation. The conclusion is clearly leading in an incredibly clear direction, to the point where not taking action has a much steeper risk for the future than saying "but there's a 5% chance we're wrong!" Especially when, even if we're wrong, the worst that happens is that coal jobs turn into green energy jobs, and earth is generally cleaner from less pollution. I mean it's really not that bad in comparison to, say, the ice caps melting and destroying coastal cities in the next few decades because humanity wants to take a dumbshit gamble on the future stability of civilization all because we need to protect those precious fucking coal and oil jobs rather than retrain people for other jobs that don't fuck up our environment.
 
Last edited:

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,128
563
1,605
USA
The debate is not whether climate change is real. Climate has been changing even pre-industrial revolution. The debate is if human activities affect the climate and if so, how much does it affect it. No one has proven this.

Even claiming there is a debate is dishonest. 97% of the experts in the field are in agreement. That's as good as science gets. Yes there's no perfect understanding of the degree to which human's are affecting climate, but it's certainly been proven both that human activity is the cause and that without behavioral changes things will get much worse

By your logic, we still can't confirm that smoking causes cancer, or that HIV causes AIDS, or that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. People have denied these and many other scientific facts and in some cases continue to do so. They employ the same techniques as climate change deniers, insisting that nothing is known until it's proven 100%, while constantly moving the goal for 100% proof. The difficulty of proof in these situations stems from our inability to setup repeatable experiments that perfectly represent these complex systems. We can't create 100 Earths and blast 80 of them with different levels of CO2 to see what happens, much like we can't force living humans to smoke 100 packs a day. As a result, the science has to evolve from the observations we make in the experimental settings available to us. We do understand the effects of CO2 on smaller scales, as well as on other planets. And we have decades of data from our own atmosphere

Every major scientific organization supports the notion that climate change is caused by human activity: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...g-happening-humans-primary-cause#.Wzp9qXXwZhE

Can you find a single scientific organization that refutes these claims? I'm not that invested in this, but I'm only finding political organizations working against this consensus when I do a quick survey online. I'd be interested to know if there is an actual debate

Why you would want to undermine experts in these fields is beyond me. These people dedicate their lives to truth and understanding, which is a constant and difficult challenge. Their tenacity is what helps us progress forward as a species, and their salaries are rarely glamorous
 
Last edited:

404Ender

Member
Jun 17, 2006
3,839
300
1,385
Well in that case.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/



Notice the trend of there being ever more certainty, consensus, evidence, and models year after year after year for the past 40+ years. It's not like one year they think it's a man made problem and then the next year they think it's the fault of birds and radiation. The conclusion is clearly leading in an incredibly clear direction, to the point where not taking action has a much steeper risk for the future than saying "but there's a 5% chance we're wrong!" Especially when, even if we're wrong, the worst that happens is that coal jobs turn into green energy jobs, and earth is generally cleaner from less pollution. I mean it's really not that bad in comparison to, say, the ice caps melting and destroying coastal cities in the next few decades because humanity wants to take a dumbshit gamble on the future stability of civilization all because we need to protect those precious fucking coal and oil jobs rather than retrain people for other jobs that don't fuck up our environment.

 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,408
47,516
1,610
He/him
How would that make you an authority on anything to do with this? You are peripherally attached to the science at best and you have a vested interest in it NOT being as bad as it's portrayed. That's why you are playing the "measured reasonable approach" card. That's a much more valuable stance to take in your position. If you were taking the "It's all a hoax" angle than you would be ignored by all but the fringe.

Don't get me wrong. I think you actually believe what you are saying because the alternative would be calamitous for you. You are trying to reason your way out of an unfair situation, and I would probably do the same, but you are simply wrong. I see the agri-business end of the science every day of my life.


Oh Boy. That old chestnut
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

Did you actually read what I said or just snip out that bit and write yet another angry internet response to something I never said?

I know a lot about this subject having worked on numerous feasibility studies for tailings storage facilities and environmental impact statements. So yes, I am an authority on it, at least relative to the average NeoGAF user (i.e. you).
 
Last edited:

chaos789

Banned
Nov 21, 2012
789
370
505
Trump administrations policy on the environment is reason enough to be against his administration. He exposes current and future generations to serious adverse risk in regards to health and environment.

Appointing industry whore Scott Pruitt as head of the EPA, was telling of where he stood on environmental protections.
 

Maedre

Banned
Jul 29, 2014
1,680
80
325
Ruhr Area/Germany
No, climate change is definitely real, but the proposed solutions are generally awful and politically motivated. We can’t just release mass amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and expect nothing to happen. Action-reaction, etc. I don’t believe the rate of change is as urgent as reported though.

Coal needs to be phased out over time but the idiot politicians who want to turn the tap off overnight are looking for political points, not sustainable solutions. The most sustainable approach would be to invest in carbon capture technology so we can continue to burn coal in the short term while renewable energy technology improves in the long term. I’ve asked this question to some of the loud activist environmentalist types and none of them can give me a reasonable answer because they’re ideologically motivated. If we can burn the coal and stop the carbon from releasing into the atmosphere, is coal still an environmental issue?
Coal has more problems then Carbon.
So it still would be an environmental issue.
Carbon Caption simply does not work the way many hope it would. It is only possible to reduce the carbon emissions slight with worsening the efficiency of the plant massive.
I had to work with the numbers of a test plant in western Germany. It just don’t work to have an useful impact.

Most activists can’t answer to this topic because they fight for a cause without knowing the detail. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t right in the core.

As someone who works with companies to reduce their footprint on carbon and by using new technologies (renewable and fissile solutions), I can tell you that it’s not that complicated to move to a complete renewable energy production. The technology is there and the price per MWh is lower than in a coal plant. The states just have to move their subsidies away from coal.
The policy’s of trump are just plain dumb.
Beside the many other things he is destroying right now he destroys the work of many many years of trying to reducing the carbon (etc.) emissions. This doesn’t just affect the USA. It affects the whole planet. Its just sad to see. Obama was on the right way. Trump is moving in the wrong direction with full throttle.

To everyone here saying the climatechange isnt real. Please learn the difference between weather and climate. Please try to look over the borders of your country. This is not some liberal lie or fake news.
 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,408
47,516
1,610
He/him
Coal has more problems then Carbon.
So it still would be an environmental issue.
Carbon Caption simply does not work the way many hope it would. It is only possible to reduce the carbon emissions slight with worsening the efficiency of the plant massive.
I had to work with the numbers of a test plant in western Germany. It just don’t work to have an useful impact.

Most activists can’t answer to this topic because they fight for a cause without knowing the detail. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t right in the core.

As someone who works with companies to reduce their footprint on carbon and by using new technologies (renewable and fissile solutions), I can tell you that it’s not that complicated to move to a complete renewable energy production. The technology is there and the price per MWh is lower than in a coal plant. The states just have to move their subsidies away from coal.
The policy’s of trump are just plain dumb.
Beside the many other things he is destroying right now he destroys the work of many many years of trying to reducing the carbon (etc.) emissions. This doesn’t just affect the USA. It affects the whole planet. Its just sad to see. Obama was on the right way. Trump is moving in the wrong direction with full throttle.

To everyone here saying the climatechange isnt real. Please learn the difference between weather and climate. Please try to look over the borders of your country. This is not some liberal lie or fake news.

Which carbon capture technologies were you working with, specifically? I did some work with CSIRO around tailings management that was also tangentially related to CCS as they both require underground storage. The CCS guys were claiming 90%+ emission reduction, so what has changed/not worked? Granted, this was several years ago.
 

Maedre

Banned
Jul 29, 2014
1,680
80
325
Ruhr Area/Germany
The went from 800g/kWh to 450 g/kWh but in the some time the efficiency of the plant went 25% down.

Now the language barrier is kicking in!

It was an end of pipe collection, compression and storing in a caverns underground. (done by Siemens) But the needed room was limited very fast. We have many mines here in west Germany (coal) but many of them are flooded now and not stable enough to store the needed volume.
The process itself is expensive thou.
Just look at Schwarze Pumpe here in Germany. It had nice numbers in the past but the whole process hasn’t been able to get practical.

I really don’t know how the CCS guy gotten his 90% number maybe this is fraction of the whole process. There are so many factors you have to consider.

The dangers are also not mentioned to this point. Cold water Geysirs and generell problems with the used underground are worth mentioning.

The next point is that the cost per Mhw exploding when this technology is used. Which makes renewables even more interesting. Flow batteries are so much more practical.

I‘m sorry if there are parts that are not understandable. It’s not that easy to talk about such a complex topic in a non native language.
 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,408
47,516
1,610
He/him
The went from 800g/kWh to 450 g/kWh but in the some time the efficiency of the plant went 25% down.

Now the language barrier is kicking in!

It was an end of pipe collection, compression and storing in a caverns underground. (done by Siemens) But the needed room was limited very fast. We have many mines here in west Germany (coal) but many of them are flooded now and not stable enough to store the needed volume.
The process itself is expensive thou.
Just look at Schwarze Pumpe here in Germany. It had nice numbers in the past but the whole process hasn’t been able to get practical.

I really don’t know how the CCS guy gotten his 90% number maybe this is fraction of the whole process. There are so many factors you have to consider.

The dangers are also not mentioned to this point. Cold water Geysirs and generell problems with the used underground are worth mentioning.

The next point is that the cost per Mhw exploding when this technology is used. Which makes renewables even more interesting. Flow batteries are so much more practical.

I‘m sorry if there are parts that are not understandable. It’s not that easy to talk about such a complex topic in a non native language.

I dunno why but the people with the best English tend to apologise for it the most haha.

Maybe it’s a storage issue? I don’t know anything about the geology of Germany, but in Australia we have some very large geological formations typically ~1k depth with low transmissivity that make for good carbon storage. There’s more info here in the geosequestration section: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia.../ClimateChangeold/responses/mitigation/carbon

On costs:

“The IPCC estimated in its Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage that a new coal-fired power plant with modern efficiency standards (see Clean coal) employing CCS would use about 20 per cent more energy than an equivalent plant without CCS. Capital cost for a CCS plant would be about 40 per cent more, and the cost of electricity produced would increase by 20–55 per cent. However, with Australia's plentiful coal reserves and well-established supportive infrastructure, deployment of CCS is likely to become viable as carbon emissions become constrained by policy measures (especially the introduction of an emissions trading scheme) and carbon permit prices increase.”

You have made me re-think my assumptions because I realised I was thinking in terms of Australia and extrapolating that elsewhere. CCS is seemingly not a one-size-fits-all solution.
 

Maedre

Banned
Jul 29, 2014
1,680
80
325
Ruhr Area/Germany
I dunno why but the people with the best English tend to apologise for it the most haha.

Maybe it’s a storage issue? I don’t know anything about the geology of Germany, but in Australia we have some very large geological formations typically ~1k depth with low transmissivity that make for good carbon storage. There’s more info here in the geosequestration section: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia.../ClimateChangeold/responses/mitigation/carbon

On costs:

“The IPCC estimated in its Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage that a new coal-fired power plant with modern efficiency standards (see Clean coal) employing CCS would use about 20 per cent more energy than an equivalent plant without CCS. Capital cost for a CCS plant would be about 40 per cent more, and the cost of electricity produced would increase by 20–55 per cent. However, with Australia's plentiful coal reserves and well-established supportive infrastructure, deployment of CCS is likely to become viable as carbon emissions become constrained by policy measures (especially the introduction of an emissions trading scheme) and carbon permit prices increase.”

You have made me re-think my assumptions because I realised I was thinking in terms of Australia and extrapolating that elsewhere. CCS is seemingly not a one-size-fits-all solution.

That's an interesting Point. I think the time of one size fits all solutions is gone. Isn't Australia the perfect place for wind and solar? You have plenty of sun and enough space to generate energy for the whole world. With a mix of lithium and iron batteries, Australie could generate enough electricity and 100% renewable.
 

TheShadowLord

Member
Jan 7, 2018
2,700
1,223
565
Yep, but there's a long way to go and there is no easy solution. Plastics are just one part of the bigger picture.
I think it should at least say something China wants to do something. Whereas Trump has no intention. IMO, Trump looks into the past because he is pro-oil. What he should be doing is embracing things Like solar,wind, and electrical cars instead of oil. Those tariffs on solar panels is going to hurt those who want them because they are coming from China for example.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
11,397
19,188
675
There are thousands of environmental regulations in this country, but I am supposed to cry over 67?

Getting desperate...
 

Kamina

Golden Boy
Jun 2, 2013
7,574
6,371
905
34
Austria
There are thousands of environmental regulations in this country, but I am supposed to cry over 67?

Getting desperate...
Did you even read some of them?

This alone makes me grind my teeth:
2. Rejected a proposed ban on a potentially harmful pesticide
Dow AgroSciences, which sells the pesticide chlorpyrifos, opposed a risk analysis by the Obama-era E.P.A. that found the compound posed a risk to fetal brain and nervous system development. Mr. Pruitt rejected the E.P.A. analysis, reversing the Obama-era efforts to ban the compound, arguing that it needed further study. In December of 2017 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a biological opinion that chlorpyrifos — along with two other pesticides, Diazinon and Malathion — are harmful to endangered salmon.
*Study shows substances is poisonous*
*Trump buddy states it needs further study*
“Yes, lets continue using a likely poisonous substance for food growth meanwhile we investigate. What’s the worst that could happen?”
 
Last edited:

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
6,370
6,000
850
trump does not give one shit about the environment, the only thing he cares about is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
are people really surprised?

Maybe because of the impact those 67 have.

i hope you're joking. please look at the thousands of peer-reviewed studies by other scientists showing that, despite the natural ups and downs of the climate on the earth, humans are contributing a great deal to the changes in the climate and it's affect is much greater than the natural cycle. the coral in the ocean is dying at a staggering rate and they are very important for the ecology of the ocean--all of this is directly tied to our influence of the climate due to what we dump into the ozone layer. don't tell other people to wake up when you're so ignorant about this because 1) you're too lazy to look up actual information or 2) you don't want to be convinced otherwise.
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
11,397
19,188
675
Did you even read some of them?

This alone makes me grind my teeth:
*Study shows substances is poisonous*
*Trump buddy states it needs further study*
“Yes, lets continue using a likely poisonous substance for food growth meanwhile we investigate. What’s the worst that could happen?”
Posinous like how Starbucks gives you cancer? Let the government continue to investigate it.

Maybe because of the impact those 67 have.
And the other thousands of regulations on the book are what..worthless? what makes these 67 rules so pristine they can't be criticized.
 

Maedre

Banned
Jul 29, 2014
1,680
80
325
Ruhr Area/Germany
And the other thousands of regulations on the book are what..worthless? what makes these 67 rules so pristine they can't be criticized.
Oh now we start the whatsboutism. I didn’t say the others are worthless. What makes those 67 so pristine is the content and what they are regulating. Context is king.
 

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
12,055
4,194
860
Nothing is taken for granted as “certain”.
Coulda fooled me, anytime I read about global warming, or vaccines, and so on. The vaccine one particularly interests me because while in every other arena pharmaceutical companies are typically shat on relentlessly, this one aspect of their business gets sacred cow kid gloves treatment. That's not to say I think for example that global warming is definitely an elaborate hoax, or that vaccines definitely do more harm than good.

But don't tell me "nothing is taken for granted as 'certain' " in any of these controversial areas. "Follow the money" apparently no longer applies for some reason.
 
Last edited:

404Ender

Member
Jun 17, 2006
3,839
300
1,385
Coulda fooled me, anytime I read about global warming, or vaccines, and so on. The vaccine one particularly interests me because while in every other arena pharmaceutical companies are typically shat on relentlessly, this one aspect of their business gets sacred cow kid gloves treatment. That's not to say I think for example that global warming is definitely an elaborate hoax, or that vaccines definitely do more harm than good.

But don't tell me "nothing is taken for granted as 'certain' " in any of these controversial areas. "Follow the money" apparently no longer applies for some reason.

I think you’re twisting my words. I didn’t say that we aren’t extremely confident about these things. I said science rarely gets a chance to say something is 100%, unrefutable fact
 

Kadayi

Probable Replicant & GIF PIMP
Oct 10, 2012
11,988
15,151
1,225
Discord : Kadayi#0650
Hypothetically speaking, even if climate change is a fairy tale, we still need clean air and clean water. We still need regulations on this sort of thing.

^This.

There's a lot of factors to weigh up with global warming itself, but the issue of pollution and its impact on the world doesn't hinge on that alone.
 

RiccochetJ

Member
Jan 5, 2010
12,772
1,112
1,265
Denver, USA
I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on all of these rollbacks, but I can put my 2 cents in about the pipelines:
Good. Those blocks were idiotic and reactionary to placate overzealous environmentalists who have no idea about pipelines.

Shipping oil by pipeline is the safest method for this kind of product. It will create a ton of jobs not just only during construction, but for the maintenance as well.

I remember there was a GAF thread (my google fu is failing me) where someone was showing pictures of an open mine and trying to play it off as what pipeline construction does to the environment.

I also remember getting dogpiled on for apparently being a shill because I previously worked in the industry and actually know what happens in the pipeline industry.
 
Last edited:

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,408
47,516
1,610
He/him
I'm not knowledgable to comment on all of these rollbacks, but I can put my 2 cents in about the pipelines:
Good. Those blocks were idiotic and reactionary to placate overzealous environmentalists who have no idea about pipelines.

Shipping oil by pipeline is the safest method for this kind of product. It will create a ton of jobs not just only during construction, but for the maintenance as well.

I remember there was a GAF thread (my google fu is failing me) where someone was showing pictures of an open mine and trying to play it off as what pipeline construction does to the environment.

I also remember getting dogpiled on for apparently being a shill because I previously worked in the industry and actually know what happens in the pipeline industry.

Sounds familiar. We can’t know anything because we are just shills with “vested interests”.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
11,397
19,188
675
Oh now we start the whatsboutism. I didn’t say the others are worthless. What makes those 67 so pristine is the content and what they are regulating. Context is king.
What context is that? Many environmentalists ideas were allowed to run completely unpoosie during Obama's tenure, and now they are seeing some pushback. Bo hoo. These relatively recent regulations are being repealed or tasked to justify their existence is not exactly a harsh ordeal.
 

Exotic intellectual

Neo Member
Jul 3, 2018
3
1
80
I can’t speak for many of those regulation repeals but the coal one is a good thing. I can actually speak on this with some authority since I’m in the mining industry. US thermal coal is generally a lot cleaner and subject to tighter processing regulations than alternative producers like Indonesia. Reducing US coal production does nothing to address climate change because all you’re doing is tinkering the supply end. The demand remains the same, so other producers pick up the supply slack and the US misses out on an enormous source of taxes and royalties.

It’s global warming, not local warming. If you truly want to address it, you need to target the demand end of the system (China and India). Also part of why the Paris climate deal was awful for the US: even more penalties and regulations while China and India go untouched. Trump was 100% right on that.

Well in India , the government has penalized a lot of thermal coal companies and themselves have reduced reliance on them . They have started one of Asia’s largest hydroelectric power plants projects and have pushed 12 more in other areas . They are pushing nuclear energy as 8 new major projects have started .

They have started a major initiative called swachch Bharat ( Clean India ), which has a separate tax too.

I think they are tackling this way better than USA.
 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,408
47,516
1,610
He/him
Well in India , the government has penalized a lot of thermal coal companies and themselves have reduced reliance on them . They have started one of Asia’s largest hydroelectric power plants projects and have pushed 12 more in other areas . They are pushing nuclear energy as 8 new major projects have started .

They have started a major initiative called swachch Bharat ( Clean India ), which has a separate tax too.

I think they are tackling this way better than USA.

There are good things because they are addressing the demand end of the system. This is in agreement with my original posts if people read/understood them. The US coal regulations targeted the supply end and were just cutting the nose off to spite the face.
 

RiccochetJ

Member
Jan 5, 2010
12,772
1,112
1,265
Denver, USA
Sounds familiar. We can’t know anything because we are just shills with “vested interests”.
It's infuriating. You're just a number in a company of 100,000 employees. But all of a sudden you have complete and utter insider knowledge because you're part of the evil corporation. You immediately grow a thin mustache (guy or girl) that you can twirl evilly and laugh. You're no longer an individual with separate thoughts and you feel that there's some things that you're not on board with that the company thinks is a good idea.

Shit. I have a bit of respect for environmentalists that make a career out of protesting due to the fact that they bring attention and awareness, but I have more respect for the environmentalists that I've worked with whom decided to get educated, get a career in the industry, and make changes from the inside. One foreman I reported to got an entire roadway to a pump station re-routed to avoid a marshland that housed dozens of nests. To the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. He barely had to fight. The only thing he had to argue about was the time delay and how to make up for it. Usually it meant that we were working overtime and got paid accordingly.
 
Last edited:

Kamina

Golden Boy
Jun 2, 2013
7,574
6,371
905
34
Austria
Since when has the government ever needed to prove anything to justify a regulation being enacted?
So there is no study then, got it. However, there was a previous governmental study on the poisionous insecticide which caused it to be previously forbidden already.
Show me the people getting poisoned. Until then, bye bye regulation
So previous evidence is not enough? Take a risk until, once again, proven?
Sorry but this is just bullshit. A governemnt should not play with the health of the citizens like this.
 

rokkerkory

Member
Sep 2, 2013
16,511
616
490
Do people argue against the idea that humans can have a huge negative affect on their surroundings?
 

RiccochetJ

Member
Jan 5, 2010
12,772
1,112
1,265
Denver, USA
Do people argue against the idea that humans can have a huge negative affect on their surroundings?
I think I understand what you're saying, but yes, people have a immediate response when someone else tells them, "It's for the greater good."
 
Last edited:

GrizzleBoy

Banned
Jul 25, 2013
5,377
325
575
England
lol

Donald Trump has called the fight against asbestos, a substance (of which Russia is the worlds biggest supplier) responsible for thousands and thousands of yearly deaths worldwide, a "mob led hoax".

~15,000 Americans die from asbestos related diseases every year.

Donald Trump calls it "100% safe".

His EPA will not consider the health risks and impacts of asbestos already in the environment when evaluating the dangers associated with it.

There is a lot of legacy asbestos all over the place, a lot of people don't know that, will disturb it and will expose themselves to cancer causing spores.

Many regulations exist so that people like Trump cant make people closer to the dangerous stuff like tradesmen and miners, expose themselves. To protect them. They've somehow been convinced that the generic big boss of a major corp who treats them like replaceable cattle to maximise his wealth, that they all talk shit about in their own companies, is the best guy to look out for people like them.


There are so many things people can disagree about in this life.


Why does protecting Americans against asbestos related disease and whether or not companies should dump waste into American water systems have to be on the list of those things?

Because if you cant even agree on that, what can you ever agree on?
 
Last edited: