Sen. Schumer gas for electric car trade in program?

[Brett327]

I know I was being hyperbolic, but what risk are we mitigating here? Harp seals losing their iceburgs? Global warming?

The public debate over climate change largely seems to revolve around whether or not it exists. I'm not really sold on what dangers to people, near or long term, we're really concerned with outside of making sure we don't give planet earth a boo boo.

I don't think it's necessary to review all the possible negative outcomes of climate change, but I think the impact of sea level rise is pretty easy to understand. If you're "not really sold" on that, then I'm not sure what the point of this discussion would be.

 

[Swanee]

We're making a bet that we're not hurting the next generations because the science isn't 100%?

Remember when smoking was healthy for expectant mothers to lower their blood pressure? How well did that turn out?

We seem to be pumping a lot of stuff into the atmosphere that we don't want to breath. Sure, other things do too. But was LA or Phoenix smoggy before it was settled by people? Was London smoggy before the industrial revolution?

We're pissing in the stream we drink from. But it doesn't taste like piss yet, so we're good...

 

[Treetop Flyer]

We're making a bet that we're not hurting the next generations because the science isn't 100%?

Remember when smoking was healthy for expectant mothers to lower their blood pressure? How well did that turn out?

We seem to be pumping a lot of stuff into the atmosphere that we don't want to breath. Sure, other things do too. But was LA or Phoenix smoggy before it was settled by people? Was London smoggy before the industrial revolution?

We're pissing in the stream we drink from. But it doesn't taste like piss yet, so we're good...

Can you do a blind taste test on air that has 300ppm CO2 vs 400ppm

 

[wink]

Let's start here? We're a major consumer in the world (as the 3rd largest country by population) and while we don't have the numbers that India and China do, we'll have a better impact that Norway and Sweden.

I wasn't questioning whether the US should be ecologically mindful. The question is how aggressive to meet what goals. Anyone outside of 8 to Greta on the scale of existential crisis knows most mitigations and Big Green programs will eventually cause pain. How much can you tolerate hurting our society vs how much waste you want to reduce and resources saved?

Me, if I can dig a whole and safely bury it in a modern landfill that will become a golf course or airport, fine. I don't care what it is. So what if that plastic toy broke in one year instead of the 4 a similar one did in my childhood. My kid was bored with it. If I can recycle something using less energy and money than it takes to manufacture from scratch, better still. But few of the items in my neighbors recycle bin meet that requirement.

 

[wink]

. ..But was LA or Phoenix smoggy before it was settled by people? Was London smoggy before the industrial revolution?

No, but the industrial revolution was a huge net positive for earthlings. And pollution in these places has gotten way better and continues so. I breathed 1970 LA smog. It made your throat raw. Oh, and most of what you see in Phoenix air is dust. It is a desert.

We are getting better every day in many ways. I think the trade offs have been mostly very worthy. Having improved life for billions and developed better technology, ironically by generating pollution in the process, we are now reducing pollution. We should not have to give up the gains of industrialization to clean up some of it's byproducts. Just how idiotic would that be?

 

[Swanee]

Can you do a blind taste test on air that has 300ppm CO2 vs 400ppm

So why do historical trend analysis if we aren't going to use it? We're well outside of the normal cycle, and we can correlate that to certain things that have happened, and continue to happen, that we can control if we really wanted to. It's easy to be lazy. So we do that.

It's like when we start crashing a lot more airplanes in a short amount of time, and our mishap rates go outside of norms. Are you the General who says, "This isn't a problem, just keep flying" or are you the sensible pilot who says, "Wait a minute, what's going on here?"

Again, you're betting that we're not fucking things up for the people who will inherit this Earth from us. "Hey, it won't be our problem."

 

[Swanee]

I wasn't questioning whether the US should be ecologically mindful. The question is how aggressive to meet what goals. Anyone outside of 8 to Greta on the scale of existential crisis knows most mitigations and Big Green programs will eventually cause pain. How much can you tolerate hurting our society vs how much waste you want to reduce and resources saved?

Me, if I can dig a whole and safely bury it in a modern landfill that will become a golf course or airport, fine. I don't care what it is. So what if that plastic toy broke in one year instead of the 4 a similar one did in my childhood. My kid was bored with it. If I can recycle something using less energy and money than it takes to manufacture from scratch, better still. But few of the items in my neighbors recycle bin meet that requirement.

Perhaps it starts there- we become a net zero waste country. We take care of our own, safely, and we ensure it doesn't end up in the Pacific garbage patch, or the Great Lakes, or the James River.

 

[wink]

But why does it have to be a measurable reduction?

Because science and economics. If you could not measure the performance of a financial investment, would you keep pouring money into it? The only way you could do so was pure unadulterated hope. Not a good basis for science or economic policy.

 

[Spekkio]

We're making a bet that we're not hurting the next generations because the science isn't 100%?

Remember when smoking was healthy for expectant mothers to lower their blood pressure? How well did that turn out?

We seem to be pumping a lot of stuff into the atmosphere that we don't want to breath. Sure, other things do too. But was LA or Phoenix smoggy before it was settled by people? Was London smoggy before the industrial revolution?

We're pissing in the stream we drink from. But it doesn't taste like piss yet, so we're good...

Pollution is a red herring to climate change here. It's entirely possible to have localized areas of high pollution that harms people yet aren't large enough to impact the global climate. If we can show data that certain emissions standards and waste disposal standards lead to lower incidence of adverse public health effects, then great. Let's do that.

But we're not talking about that. We're talking about climate change. How does the Earth being x degrees warmer or cooler inherently cause adverse health effects? Why is this a problem worth spending $2,000,000,000,000 to fix?

 

[wink]

Perhaps it starts there- we become a net zero waste country. We take care of our own, safely, and we ensure it doesn't end up in the Pacific garbage patch, or the Great Lakes, or the James River.

Why net zero waste? Laudable goal, but not realistic. Why not responsible production with corresponding responsible waste management. Recycle domestically, where necessary and safer, burn for regeneration, and bury shit. Can't say it enough. I am a big fan of big deep holes.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

So why do historical trend analysis if we aren't going to use it? We're well outside of the normal cycle, and we can correlate that to certain things that have happened, and continue to happen, that we can control if we really wanted to. It's easy to be lazy. So we do that.

It's like when we start crashing a lot more airplanes in a short amount of time, and our mishap rates go outside of norms. Are you the General who says, "This isn't a problem, just keep flying" or are you the sensible pilot who says, "Wait a minute, what's going on here?"

Again, you're betting that we're not fucking things up for the people who will inherit this Earth from us. "Hey, it won't be our problem."

We know that certain things we do will affect the mishap rate. We do not know that about climate change.

 

[Swanee]

Pollution is a red herring to climate change here. It's entirely possible to have localized areas of high pollution that harms people yet aren't large enough to impact the global climate. If we can show data that certain emissions standards and waste disposal standards lead to lower incidence of adverse public health effects, then great. Let's do that.

But we're not talking about that. We're talking about climate change. How does the Earth being x degrees warmer or cooler inherently cause adverse health effects? Why is this a problem worth spending $2,000,000,000,000 to fix?

So why isn't the argument to fix the localized air pollution in those places? What if we can fix the smog issues in LA for 200,000,000? Is that worth it?

Why is everyone acting like it has to be all or nothing?

Why net zero waste? Laudable goal, but not realistic. Why not responsible production with corresponding responsible waste management. Recycle domestically, where necessary and safer, burn for regeneration, and bury shit. Can't say it enough. I am a big fan of big deep holes.

I think we're on the same page here. By net zero waste I mean let's not send it to other countries who will just dump it in the ocean (which is what most of our recycling plan is). Let's deal with our own waste. If we can find a deep dark hole, that doesn't connect to the water table it can be a solution.

We know that certain things we do will affect the mishap rate. We do not know that about climate change.

I suppose so. But I think some of the things that people want to do to fix climate change will have a net positive on local (air) pollution in certain places.

Is it just because no one cares unless they live there?

 

[Spekkio]

So why isn't the argument to fix the localized air pollution in those places?

Because we already have through legislation that implemented more strict emissions standards. Do you have any evidence that the current standards aren't good enough?

The point I'm making is that whether LA's smog changed the climate in Germany (notional example) is irrelevant here because the small change to Germany's climate isn't going to harm anyone. What's relevant is whether the concentration of airborne contaminants is dangerous to the local population.

 

[Swanee]

Do you have any evidence that the current standards aren't good enough?

The SMOG in LA and Phoenix....

 

[Jim123]

The SMOG in LA and Phoenix....

Those are also local geography problems (Salt Lake City is another one, just not as bad). Anywhere there's a giant bowl then the bad air gets trapped there.

It's funny to me how much of the smog in LA came from their car culture in the 1950s and 60s, then all of a sudden they got religion out there and went full opposite on pollution controls and environmentalism, but also kinda dragged the rest of the country along even though the rest of the country weren't the ones who'd made a mess out of California's air quality.