The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

...I've read the wiki and the editorial at least 5 times now and for the life of me I don't see anything that says "The AEI wrote the WSJ editorial".

Oops, you are right. I missed the conjunction. The wikipedia article does not say the AEI wrote the WSJ editorial.

You may not like what they do, but the Sierra Club uses the same kinds of tools in their bag and I assume you're okay with that.

No, I suspect the Sierra Club and the AEI both have agendas. I would listen to the arguments from both groups and then search for research from impartial sources.

bkelly

[ScratchMonkey]

If dumping in the river harms someone, then that's a form of trespass. As Squid says, you can sue over that. Or you can assign property rights for the river and the owner can sue.

The problem here isn't ecological, its an economics problem, namely, how to internalize externalities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

[USN_Squid]

Mmmmm....CAFE:

New fuel rules will hike GM vehicle prices by an
average $6,000

That's the equivalent of 2,000 gallons of gas I'll have to buy in order to save 10,000 over the life of the car. (assuming 25mpg on my current car, 100k miles life of car, no finance charges and no change in gas prices).

[Guardianx11x]

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

Mmmmm....CAFE:

New fuel rules will hike GM vehicle prices by an
average $6,000

That's the equivalent of 2,000 gallons of gas I'll have to buy in order to save 10,000 over the life of the car. (assuming 25mpg on my current car, 100k miles life of car, no finance charges and no change in gas prices).

Thats why the american car companies are going down in flames....see fords stock lately?

[ScratchMonkey]

From the linked article:

The industry veteran said GM supported the Environmental Protection Agency decision to deny California and 16 other states to impose a 30 percent reduction in tailpipe emissions by 2016. If the rules did take effect, he said, GM would have to stop selling 80 percent of its current models in California.

"We cannot deal with a world where every state in the union has different fuel economy mandates -- just can't do it."

Another case of the Feds getting involved in something they shouldn't be. Was this an Interstate Commerce issue? If the same rules apply to all products coming from within and without the state, it shouldn't trigger that.

Too bad that GM can't sell 80% of its line in California. I'm sure that number is even bigger for many products made overseas that don't meet various US and state regulations. But why should GM get a free pass?

[Guardianx11x]

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

From the linked article:



Another case of the Feds getting involved in something they shouldn't be. Was this an Interstate Commerce issue? If the same rules apply to all products coming from within and without the state, it shouldn't trigger that.

Too bad that GM can't sell 80% of its line in California. I'm sure that number is even bigger for many products made overseas that don't meet various US and state regulations. But why should GM get a free pass?

I disagree entirely. It's the EPA that is limiting emissions, because the air quality is getting very bad in some major cities (check out san fran or LA). Also, we arent talking about the states having various quirky rules that limit the selling of cars, we are talking about simply raising the bar and forcing GM to put out a better product. American car manufacturers have been sitting of their ass for years. Speaking strickly about cars, you're wrong about "that" number being greater for overseas autos. Almost all overseas car manufacturers far exceed emission and safety regulation that are standard here in the united states.

[Kerostasis]

You two agree completely but you're talking past each other, I think. I have no idea which way I lean on this issue at the moment.

[ScratchMonkey]

Thanks, Kero, I must have botched my post as it sounds like Guardian is agreeing with me.

My understanding of the article was that California and some other states have even stricter standards than the Feds, and the EPA blocked their enforcement. GM is whining that it couldn't sell much of its product here with those stricter standards in force. (I'm a Californian. Not that I agree with what the State does, but the Fed shouldn't interfere unless the Constitution grants it that power, hence my speculation about the Commerce Clause.)

My comment about "other products" is saying that non-car stuff often can't make it past our border because it fails to meet various regulations (like lead content in toys). If California wants to set arbitrary (but not preferential) limits on what gets sold in the state, GM should abide by those rules, not call in the Fed to protect its business.

[Kerostasis]

Yeah, I think I'm pretty much gonna go with Scratchmonkey on this one. The state's regulation is (to me) fairly stupid, but completely legal, and the Feds have no real business interfering with the State's right to regulate its own commerce. The Feds overstep their bounds an awful lot these days, but people have gotten so used to it nobody really worries about it anymore, especially when the Fed is forcing through a policy they happen to like.

[Guardianx11x]

Ha, I need reading lessons....

[bkelly]

GhostintheShell, I am confused about your position.

On one hand, you say fairly open-minded things like "...I am interested in reading what both sides have to say about these questions" and "[you should try] to accept that there are different and valid sides to every argument." But you've also posted statements from the global warming skeptic side that are misleading if not simply false and said "I suspect that [GW not adding up] is generally occurring in other [scientific] areas as well."

In putting together my posts for this thread, I've been amazed at how deep the global warming science has gone and how weak the counter-arguments have been. There have been questions raised about a few pieces of research but it's about as relevant as throwing a bucket of water on a forest fire. I would like global warming to be false but I've seen nothing that really supports that position.

So I'm curious, what makes you so certain that global warming is false and the theory is falling apart?

bkelly

[Guardianx11x]

Originally Posted by bkelly

GhostintheShell, I am confused about your position.

On one hand, you say fairly open-minded things like "...I am interested in reading what both sides have to say about these questions" and "[you should try] to accept that there are different and valid sides to every argument." But you've also posted statements from the global warming skeptic side that are misleading if not simply false and said "I suspect that [GW not adding up] is generally occurring in other [scientific] areas as well."

In putting together my posts for this thread, I've been amazed at how deep the global warming science has gone and how weak the counter-arguments have been. There have been questions raised about a few pieces of research but it's about as relevant as throwing a bucket of water on a forest fire. I would like global warming to be false but I've seen nothing that really supports that position.

So I'm curious, what makes you so certain that global warming is false and the theory is falling apart?

bkelly

You're ruining my efforts to refocus this argument. Let me just go ahead and read the future....

-More data gets cited strongly opposed to eachother.

-Each side will claim that the other sides data is invalid or inconclusive.

-More data will get cited......same result.

I was hoping some of the environmentalists around here would get the clue. Yes there is a lot of evidence to support global warming, yes there is a lot of evidence that opposes it. I don't know how ANYONE could conclude ANYTHING about this yet people are becoming highly polarized because of it. GW is environmentalists fault, we should have picked our battles better...but now we have this beast to deal with.

Look at my arguments above, I changed it from..."I'm right, you must be wrong" to "If good can be done...why not do it?...the latter is MUCH harder to argue against (see how quickly the thread got almost died). So lets all stop talking globaly, and start talking locally


A good place to start...california is a progressive state, largely thanks to their poor air quality (some their fault, some china's fault). They are also starved for power. If we were to build an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant ouside of SF or LA...it would actually CLEAN the air and water around it--while of course providing cheap reliable power to areas that need it. Why hasn't this been done, can anyone venture a guess?


(Note: By law the water exausted from power plants is about 5 times the quality of tap water)
(Note2: I'm aware it runes on "coal" (coke) however did you know we have more BTU's of coal under the state of IL than all the BTU's of oil in the middle east? I've read several journals that project US coal reserves lasting another 200-300 years. If we can burn it clearly...why not?)

[ScratchMonkey]

Any idea what the contribution is from each power source for electricity in California? I believe a fair chunk is already from hydro and geothermal, but I guess we're importing a bunch from out of state.

I'd never heard of IGCC before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integra...Combined_Cycle

[ScratchMonkey]

Is Big Oil blocking IGCC? It sounds like it's a coal-based technology, and, where I live, oil refineries are everywhere.

[Guardianx11x]

Yea, Cali imports the vast majority of their power...Also, oil can coal to no really have a conflict of interest--that I can see. Oil is not used in power plants.