Trump picks climate denier to head EPA transition

[apacheguy]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-senate.html

 

[deonb]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-senate.html

Fun:

In response to a question by Mr. Carper asking him to name a single E.P.A. regulation that he supports, Mr. Pruitt responded, “I have not conducted a comprehensive review of existing E.P.A. regulations.”

 

[voyager]

Oceans will rise.
Remember the Beach Boys' " If everybody had an ocean / Across the U.S.A. / Then everybody'd be surfin' / Like California"...

 

[Skotty]

Something I've said before that I would like to hear some Republicans respond to. So many of them support gutting regulations at the EPA for financial benefit of business. To me, this seems irresponsible, and a display of greed and gluttony, something that you would expect would matter to the religious Right. Perhaps more strikingly, it is easy to make the case that this attitude is an endorsement of the ultimate welfare state, where today's Republicans want to rack up an enormous environmental debt that future generations across the entire world will have to pay heavily for.

This would seem to suggest that Republicans are not true to faith and are only against welfare when they are not the ones receiving it. Worse, it would seem they are for welfare for self even when that welfare is not justifiable, as Americans are not suffering as compared to the rest of the world and the history of mankind. How do you reconcile this with Republican ideology?

This is important, because it's the single biggest reason I can't side with Republicans. Democrats can be annoying helicopter social justice warriors, but when you pit that against greedy goblins of environmental destruction, I'm going to side with the annoying helicopter social justice warriors every time.

 

[Vitold]

Something I've said before that I would like to hear some Republicans respond to. So many of them support gutting regulations at the EPA for financial benefit of business. To me, this seems irresponsible, and a display of greed and gluttony, something that you would expect would matter to the religious Right. Perhaps more strikingly, it is easy to make the case that this attitude is an endorsement of the ultimate welfare state, where today's Republicans want to rack up an enormous environmental debt that future generations across the entire world will have to pay heavily for.

This would seem to suggest that Republicans are not true to faith and are only against welfare when they are not the ones receiving it. Worse, it would seem they are for welfare for self even when that welfare is not justifiable, as Americans are not suffering as compared to the rest of the world and the history of mankind. How do you reconcile this with Republican ideology?

Here's from Independent channeling Republican:
It's not fair for American businesses to pay costs of strict environmental regulations while competing in global economy. For as long as externalities are not accounted for in imported goods this inequality will persist hurting our domestic production. This could be solved by tariffs and taxes such as Carbon Tax. Since taxes are not what we stand for - we prefer to lower our standards to level of our international competitors such as China.

 

[RichardC]

Here's from Independent channeling Republican:
It's not fair for American businesses to pay costs of strict environmental regulations while competing in global economy. For as long as externalities are not accounted for in imported goods this inequality will persist hurting our domestic production. This could be solved by tariffs and taxes such as Carbon Tax. Since taxes are not what we stand for - we prefer to lower our standards to level of our international competitors such as China.

To which any climate scientist would reply "The atmosphere has a known and finite ability to absorb CO2, which can be expressed as a carbon budget, per person, if we are to have a reasonable chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. North Americans have already vastly exceeded their carbon budget (by a factor of three to four times over) and would have raised global temperatures by around 10 degrees F if everyone else emitted as much as they have. In addition, they still emit more than three times the global per capita average."

Despite have much lower cumulative and ongoing per capita emissions, China is doing vastly more than North America, and is spending a greater percentage of its lower GDP on renewables and combatting global warming, thereby imposing a much higher cost on itself than is North America. The same is true in Europe. Consider, for example, that the UK cut emissions by 35% from 2009 to 2014, while Canada increased its emissions by 20% over the same period.

There is no plausible excuse for our (North Americans') disgraceful performance. Rampant corruption (in the broadest sense, including through all forms of persuasion, advertising, astroturfing, campaign contributions, lobbying, etc.) to persuade the public to enable politicians to act against the public interest is the only plausible explanation.

 

[Vitold]

To which any climate scientist would reply "The atmosphere has a known and finite ability to absorb CO2, which can be expressed as a carbon budget, per person, if we are to have a reasonable chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. North Americans have already vastly exceeded their carbon budget (by a factor of three to four times over) and would have raised global temperatures by around 10 degrees F if everyone else emitted as much as they have. In addition, they still emit more than three times the global per capita average."

Despite have much lower cumulative and ongoing per capita emissions, China is doing vastly more than North America, and is spending a greater percentage of its lower GDP on renewables and combatting global warming, thereby imposing a much higher cost on itself than is North America. The same is true in Europe. Consider, for example, that the UK cut emissions by 35% from 2009 to 2014, while Canada increased its emissions by 20% over the same period.

There is no plausible excuse for our (North Americans') disgraceful performance. Rampant corruption (in the broadest sense, including through all forms of persuasion, advertising, astroturfing, campaign contributions, lobbying, etc.) to persuade the public to enable politicians to act against the public interest is the only plausible explanation.

A Mexican standoff is a confrontation between two or more parties in which no participant can proceed or retreat without being exposed to danger. As a result, all participants need to maintain the strategic tension, which remains unresolved until some outside event makes it possible to resolve it.

 

[RichardC]

A Mexican standoff is a confrontation between two or more parties in which no participant can proceed or retreat without being exposed to danger. As a result, all participants need to maintain the strategic tension, which remains unresolved until some outside event makes it possible to resolve it.

This is no Mexican standoff.

On one side you have the dying fossil fuel industry taking down the world's largest economy in an effort to squeeze out a few billion dollars in short term profits, at an incredibly high cost to both the local economy and the global environment. On the other side, the Chinese (and others) are investing in the exponential industries of the future, are driving down their costs to the point where North America will be unable to compete effectively and will become comparatively economically marginalized in the future.

At this point there can be no doubt that exponential technologies (computing, solar, EVs, battery storage, etc.) are going to win the war to provide the energy systems of the future, and that those who are now focused on fossil fuels are going to lose. Big time!

The current course of action seems guaranteed to make China great again.

 

[RichardC]

Further on the contrast between China and North America.

See: China Solar Capacity Doubled In 2016 −

"China may have had one of the world’s dirtiest energy grids, but it has turned that around. In 2016, China installed more solar panels than any nation on earth, more than doubling its solar energy capacity in just one year. It is now the world’s biggest producer of solar energy by capacity, the National Energy Administration announced recently. China is now closing hundreds of coal fired generating plants every year. ...

At a time when Donald Trump’s fondest wish is for America to return to the days when coal powered most of our electrical plants, China has its face firmly oriented to the future while The Donald is anxious to throw the majority of Americans under the ecological bus to benefit a few of his business pals. He is utterly dismissive of China, when in fact many of the techniques needed to combat global warming are originating in the country.

America is positioned to be a leader in clean tech, but thanks to ignorance and feckless leadership, it is in danger of being swept aside by more progressive nations and left to languish in a global economic backwater. Never has so much been squandered to benefit so few."​