Republicans to block EPA on regulating Greenhouse Gases

For some reason I'm having an easier time seeing McCain PO'd. Bush I just see burying his face in his hands and sighing deeply.

—R.J.

^^ Radioactivity =/= toxicity. Most of the waste products are highly toxic and will remain thus after decay. But they were pretty toxic when we mined them out of the ground too, we can usually use them for other things once they cool off, and fossil fuel produces assloads of toxic waste too.

edited 3rd Feb '11 4:02:04 PM by Pykrete

If you're worried about radiation, I recommend against coal power. That shit dumps more radioactive matter into the atmosphere than a nuclear plat will short of getting blown up.

I think most people who are against nuclear power are already against fossil fuels.

So, they're against electricity?

No, they just only like energy sources that we haven't figured out how to make practical yet.

So they're utopians. Which makes them dumber I guess. I can understand the primitivists, even if I consider them to be completely wrong, but believing everything will work out just because? How the hell does that work?

They believe we should at least make the effort to find better fuel sources?

Most environmentalists don't really constrain their policy ideas within the tenets of reality. And they really don't have to. You don't have to posit a constructive solution if job losses in the energy sector or electricity shortfalls, don't affect your upscale neighborhood in San Francisco or Manhattan.

and

Wow. Are we having a straw competition here or something?

The EPA has nothing to do with alternative energy sources. It's merely a bludgeon used by the state to extort money from the industrial, mining, and manufacturing sectors.

I could see an argument if something like the research tax credit, certain Do E loans, or certain NSF programs, were threatened, but the EPA really doesn't anything for energy. Elites merely like programs like the EPA because it makes them feel socially conscious (and good about themselves), while in actuality strengthening their power base by depriving others.

Working-class environmentalists are, unsurprisingly, very very rare.

And the FDA doesn't do anything about alternate food sources, they're just a bludgeon to use against companies that put rats in their meat.

You are continuing to be astoundingly straw and uncharitable. Please make at least a slight effort to bend your mind around the idea that people other than yourself might do things for anything other than the worst possible reasons, with anything other than the worst possible results.

edited 4th Feb '11 11:33:57 AM by jewelleddragon

Where? Almost everybody here, tories and liberals, are environmentalists even if the parties that represent them are not. That's just because they're in the hands of corporations but that's quite usual as far as capitalist governments go. The EPA sounds a bit redundant to me because I imagine the US Gov already has a department that specifically handles the environment, but I may be mistaken in my assumption.

Putting in tough regulations against pollution makes perfect sense for a government to do. Corporations don't care about secondary costs and most are too short-sighted to see the benefits of energy-efficient machinery that only pays out in the long run. The point of government is put in this type of long-term foresight to business.

I wouldn't call say... forcing a company like GE to stop dumping toxic waste into a river as extortion.

You are indeed mistaken in that assumption, unfortunately. We've got the Department of the Interior for national parks, wildlife, etc, the Department of Energy for, well, energy, and so on.

The wonderful thing about common law is that it has made corporate actors considerably more environmentally accountable than governments. As much as American popular culture, usually dominated by the same cultural elite who espouse all these terrible ideas, like to paint this image of Captain Pollution dumping AIDS into the river, anyone with real business or legal experience can tell you why that doesn't work.

Bureaucratic agencies are above the law. They make the laws. But corporations are generally restricted by liability rules and even profit motives. If I decided to dump toxic waste into the bay, it wouldn't be long until every fisherman, tourism company, water utility company, random citizen group, and etc. started piling the lawsuits on.

The legal system forces people to consider secondary costs, because anyone who incurs costs from their actions will want recompense.

The only thing the EPA can really do is use the threat of government thuggery to extort campaign contributions and all of that from industrial groups who don't want to be in the line of fire of the state.

edited 4th Feb '11 11:45:33 AM by Tsukubus

You know, for all the American hate of bureaucracy, you guys sure excel at creating the biggest government in the world. "Socialist" Canada has barely a dozen departments and a strong hand to regulate with. The places where we don't have that become utterly corrupt and crappy (CRTC is an example, though I think only fellow Canadians will know what I'm talking about and fume with anger about them).

EDIT: I think that lawsuits are not a good measure for secondary costs. You've one primary problem:

• In America, each side pays their own legal fees. In Canada, loser pays ALL legal fees.

If I'm rich and you're not, you instantly lose for much less than it costs to dumping all that toxic waste into the river. It's better to simply tackle a problem dead on. If you pollute, I place a giant fine on you. Conspiracy theories about extortions on poor ole corporate entities doesn't work. It's quite obvious, the corruption runs the total opposite way. Industries fund political candidates who then attack the EPA for them so they don't have to pay a dime in concerning themselves about pollution. If lawsuits worked so well, then why does America consistently get these terrible environmental disasters that nobody else does?

edited 4th Feb '11 11:48:57 AM by breadloaf

You're still strawmanning people who disagree with you. Take a moment to think about why they might do what they do before you talk.

The issue with legal fees actually stacks the deck against corporate interests. If I wanted to dump toxic waste into the bay, just the legal fees would probably overwhelm the amount of money I would save, even if dumping the the waste was the most economically efficient action I could take.

People have been taught how to think by those who control the mass culture. America is especially vulnerable because of how narrow and pervasive their native cultural elite are. Falsehoods like that only seem "obvious" because of this paternalistic good vs. profit motive-evil narrative that Western cultural elites try to indoctrinate into every child. People don't necessarily take facts into consideration, especially considering that most people understand neither business nor law.

edited 4th Feb '11 12:07:14 PM by Tsukubus

But historical evidence does not back your claim. If it were more costly then why do all your companies continue to break environmental laws and have no regard for pollution? And you're being extremely specific with the case of pollution being that of dumping toxic waste into a river.

• Greediness. Corporations aren't going to care if 10 years down the line they get hit by a stack of lawsuits if the CEO is already gone to another company anyway. Leadership has no liability.

• Damage is already done. Slapping lawsuits on a company is fantastic and all but what about preventing something from happening in the first place? Are you satisfied that after bp destroyed your entire coast line and killed all your fish and then dumped ten million litres of toxic chemicals into the water and made everything inhabitable there okay because they got hit by a billion dollar lawsuit that'll take 10 years to resolve?

• Secondary costs. I'll repeat this one because you tried to circumvent it with the toxic waste in river concept. However, what about carbon dioxide in the air? Think someone is going to sue the coal plant over that? What about tax dollars spent to combat forest fires or flooding caused by general environmental degradation? It's hard to make lawsuits to link those events to a corporation's actions. What of using CF Cs? Nobody got sued over that. And this thread started about global warming, not a single greenhouse gas is a lawsuit generating issue. Can you sue car companies for inefficient vehicles?

edited 4th Feb '11 12:13:21 PM by breadloaf

@breadloaf:

re: Loser pays all legal fees.

That's actually quite interesting. It would certainly cut down on frivolous lawsuits, but the fact of the matter remains that the corporations can hire better lawyers, since I'm assuming they want some money upfront.

Still, that seems like a good way to get high caliber lawyers who might be less itnerested in crusading to work for the occasional underdog.

But yeah, I'm seeing some pretty far-out conspiracy theories here. Yes, there are insane greens who want to power the infrastructure with positive energies from yoga classes that cost ten thousand dollars a month, but there are also companies with CE Os who are only concerened about the bottom line and know that for their tenure a good lawyer will be cheaper than cutting emmisions.

edited 4th Feb '11 12:15:03 PM by HungryJoe

The wonderful thing about common law is that it has made corporate actors considerably more environmentally accountable than governments. As much as American popular culture, usually dominated by the same cultural elite who espouse all these terrible ideas, like to paint this image of Captain Pollution dumping AIDS into the river, anyone with real business or legal experience can tell you why that doesn't work. Bureaucratic agencies are above the law. They make the laws. But corporations are generally restricted by liability rules and even profit motives. If I decided to dump toxic waste into the bay, it wouldn't be long until every fisherman, tourism company, water utility company, random citizen group, and etc. started piling the lawsuits on. The legal system forces people to consider secondary costs, because anyone who incurs costs from their actions will want recompense. The only thing the EPA can really do is use the threat of government thuggery to extort campaign contributions and all of that from industrial groups who don't want to be in the line of fire of the state.

...wow, there's a lot of assumptions in there. Let's start taking them apart, shall we?

First off, who do you think makes the regulations companies have to follow, i.e. the common law you say keeps corporations accountable?

Second off, if you actually knew anything about the justice system, you would know that due to the high cost and time associated with legal battles, completely legitimate grievances are often buried by those who are rich enough; i.e. the plaintiffs do not have the time or money to sue them. Often such cases are ignored outright or settled out of court for far less than the damage done.

Thirdly, seeing how companies still operate in such a way that they consider a certain number of safety infractions/environmental damage as "acceptable" because of the lower cost associated with this decision...they are accountable to nothing but profits, and don't forget it.

Finally, bureaucratic agencies are no more "above the law" than members of congress. They make laws, but they don't get to go around having all their members commit murder with no penalty. You don't get to show police officers your bureaucracy badge and they just hand-wave it and say "oh, that's fine then, move along." Out of all the things you just said in that quote, this is the dumbest.

Edit:

would probably overwhelm the amount of money I would save

Then why does it keep happening? Are companies just worse at cost assesments than you are? Somehow I doubt it.

edited 4th Feb '11 12:21:42 PM by deathjavu

Tsukubus, most liberals/progressives don't think that profit motive is inherently evil, like you seem to claim. It is amoral which is not the same as evil–it works without regard to good or evil. There are some, especially those who are more socialist-inclined, who think that excessive profit is evil, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that there are some cases, for example environmental issues, where certain means of profit are at odds with public interest. Does that make those means of profit "evil"? I don't pretend to know that. However, when this happens and we conclude that the public interest is sufficiently harmed, we pass laws restricting that means of profit.

@Hungry Joe

Yes, you can get very high calibre lawyers working for total nobodies. Obviously the rich still have an advantage but it is significantly less pronounced. The one very large consequence in this are criminal cases. If you know you are innocent, and only a defendant can know this, spend as much money as you possibly can because the government will reimburse all costs. This helps to mitigate somewhat poor people being convicted for crimes they didn't commit.

Quite frequently, if a company is able to capture excess profits, it means that something is preventing economic competition from working as it should. In a highly regulated nation like the US, that cause is fairly often the government. Note that I didn't say "well regulated" there. There are generally many ways to get regulatory agencies to make it very hard to start up a business in competition with established players; this is (one part of) the process called "regulatory capture". Many ways to end up with a de facto monopoly involve using the government to help create it, under a variety of pretexts.

"I think most people who are against nuclear power are already against fossil fuels." - Filby

Yet this seems to be more of an obstacle to nuclear power than to fossil fuels. It seems like there was a gap in consistency somewhere along the line.

edited 4th Feb '11 2:55:49 PM by neoYTPism