The New York Times and HuffPost and many others report on EPA abruptly blocking three agency scientists from giving talks on climate change - specifically in the context of a Rhode Island event, with the subject of discussing a report on current conditions in Narragansett Bay and future threats that include climate change.
The New York Times (the origin)
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency has canceled the speaking appearance of three agency scientists who were scheduled to discuss climate change at a conference on Monday in Rhode Island, according to the agency and several people involved.
John Konkus, an E.P.A. spokesman and a former Trump campaign operative in Florida, confirmed that agency scientists would not speak at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed program in Providence. He provided no further explanation.
Scientists involved in the program said that much of the discussion at the event centers on climate change. Many said they were surprised by the E.P.A.'s last-minute cancellation, particularly since the agency helps to fund the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, which is hosting the conference. The scientists who have been barred from speaking contributed substantial material to a 400-page report to be issued on Monday.
...
Monday's conference is designed to draw attention to the health of Narragansett Bay, the largest estuary in New England and a key to the region's tourism and fishing industries. Rhode Island's entire congressional delegation, all Democrats, will attend a morning news conference. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, an outspoken critic of Mr. Pruitt, will be among the speakers.Scientists there will unveil the report on the state of the bay, which E.P.A. scientists helped research and write. Among the findings will be that climate change is affecting air and water temperatures, precipitation, sea level and fish in and around the estuary.
The HuffPost article provides some context:
The researchers were booked to appear Monday in Providence at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed workshop, an event highlighting the health of New England's largest estuary, where temperatures have risen 3 degrees Fahrenheit and water has risen up to seven inches over the past century.
...
The move comes days after the EPA scrubbed dozens of links from its website to materials that helped local governments deal with the effects of climate change. Administrator Scott Pruitt has said he does not believe greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels cause climate change, and has scrapped or proposed eliminating numerous regulations to reduce emissions. Two weeks ago, he proposed repealing the Clean Power Plan, the federal government's primary policy for slashing utilities' output of planet-warming gases.
...
The sudden cancellations on Sunday inflame concerns that the agency is muzzling scientists to further the White House's political interests.
I have a hunch Rhode Island isn't included in Trump's list of American places to be "made great again".
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:24PM (19 children)
Suppose you run a company called FooCorp. Some of your employees go off to speak at a conference, being billed as FooCorp insiders, and they intend to speak about all sorts of things that conflict with what the FooCorp marketing materials and shareholder materials say.
It would be the height of stupidity to allow that. Probably you should fire them for even considering it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:34PM
You're analogy does not apply. You work for trump or something? Or just another dedicated ancap fool?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:38PM (10 children)
Sounds like the problem is the shareholder and marketing materials in that case, not what the scientist has to say.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:50PM (8 children)
Two problems there:
First of all, you're engaging in the inappropriate trust of somebody who is supposedly a scientist. Scientists are not inherently unbiased, free of fraud, expert in all fields, and unable to make mistakes. You simply assume that the scientist is correct, and that this can not be questioned.
Second of all, yes it is a problem when employees publicly go off-message in opposition to the organization while being known as employees of that organization. Such people have the option to NOT be employees, and some may need to be assisted in becoming non-employees. I assure you, Wells Fargo doesn't have lawyers or accountants going off to talk about how the company rips off customers and ought to be sued out of existence.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:53PM
Annnd we just found out why pyramid structures are bad, congrats. Employee owned businesses are the way of the future, Hoping that King Fuckhead at the top of the pyramid is 100% competent in all things is the opposite end of what you are complaining about. Also, EPA != private business.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:03PM
There is no "message" to go off of. The EPA's message is to follow the science, not for science to follow their message. If the science turns out to be bad, well, that's the whole reason you present it to other scientists, so that they can rip it apart. Muzzling science results from an agency that does scientific research is grounds to get your ass fired.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:33PM
I assure you, Wells Fargo doesn't have lawyers or accountants going off to talk about how the company rips off customers and ought to be sued out of existence.
They don't, but they should. Why do you think people should be punished for speaking the truth?
If the company doesn't like it, they should stop ripping off customers. Is that really so hard to do?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @06:02PM
Based on decades of Dilbert I think putting your trust in somebody who is supposedly in marketing is problem here.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @07:43PM (1 child)
As a taxpayer, they work for me and I expect them to tell the truth.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Thursday October 26 2017, @09:27PM
a. Need a +1 delusional mod.
b. Wrong people have been put in charge, then.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @10:51PM
They're certainly more trustworthy than ACs.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday October 27 2017, @01:56AM
Nobody, or nobody besides you, is saying this. I think you need to just sit down and shut up for a bit, while the adults discuss the unwarranted interference with science by the Trump Administration, and the Republican Party in general.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 26 2017, @05:48PM
Sounds like the problem is the shareholder and marketing materials in that case, not what the scientist has to say.
Also, it's illegal to lie to shareholders in the first place.
A scientists telling the truth shouldn't be a problem.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snow on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:46PM (5 children)
And who exactly are the shareholders of the EPA? The taxpayer. The EPA is supposed to work in the public interest.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:12PM (1 child)
We want the federal government working in our interest. The EPA is but a tiny little part of that.
We have demanded that the federal government make America great again. Some EPA employees would rather not. It sounds like they need to find employment elsewhere.
Outsourcing our carbon footprint to 3rd-world countries was doing exactly nothing for global warming anyway. All it did was take away our greatness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:49PM
Go back under your bridge.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @05:56PM (2 children)
And the public has pointedly demonstrated where its interest is, by electing Trump. Do grow up and deal with that at last.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @10:42PM
Lol, yeah the public decided to elect Hillary, but our fucked up system gave us a fucked up president. I'm not complaining too much, the downfall of the US is preferable to the end-stages of empire building. Let us skip the invasion by barbarians bit and just go to "no longer the biggest shark". Also, let's just skip WW3 while we're at it.
But don't forget, the majority of voters wanted HRC but some fucked up idea from 200 years ago gave us the great cheeto in chief.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday October 27 2017, @01:59AM
What interests the public, and what is in the public interest are not the same thing. In fact, they may most often be diametrically opposed. The American public elected Trump for the entertainment value, not so that he could actually enact completely stupid Republican policy!
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday October 26 2017, @07:53PM
Thanks for the information. I'll be identifying the employees in question, and taking this up with HR and their direct managers.
-- Krishnoid
E-mail: ceo@foocorp.com
http://www.foocorp.com [foocorp.com]
"Bringing the Foo directly to you."
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:39PM (12 children)
Yes, I'm going to laugh at the idea that this is global warming. These 3 people are probably smart enough to know it, which makes them evil political hacks who would gladly fuck up public policy for a bit of funding, infamy, or leftist praise.
3 degrees is silly big. This is not a global issue. You need to look at local things. Is there now a power plant dumping waste heat? What is the temperature of water exiting the sewage plants? Have the local rivers been cleared or obstructed, changing the amount of time that water sits in various places? Is something rotting? Has road salt, which darkens the land and directly creates heat, somehow involved? Are storm drains now more quickly draining water from asphalt streets and asphalt-shingled roofs?
7 inches is silly big. This too is not a global issue, and again you need to look at local things. Has the land itself subsided? If this happened prior to GPS, could we even know? Is there any change in water flow obstruction, such as dredging or a sand bar forming?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:00PM (11 children)
The above post was made in error. Such blatant anti-science propaganda should not appear here. It is already settled that the climate is changing, even the die hards of a few years ago have switched to "but we can't say if humanity has caused it, it could be a natural cycle!" On the face of it your post appears to be a claim to rationality, but I suspect it is simply more of the same burying-head-in-sand behavior. You may have a president that supports your shaky beliefs, but the rest of the world is laughing at us so don't get too smug.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:16PM (10 children)
We're making America great again.
The rest of the world is welcome to laugh, nervously or otherwise. They are welcome to be pissed, whatever... their opinions don't matter. We truly don't care. Engaging in a worldwide popularity contest would be a distraction from making America great again.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snow on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:24PM (8 children)
Oh, the world is laughing. It's a nervous laugh.
What exactly does making America great again look like? The USA is rapidly losing influence on the world stage. The USA is no longer being looked to as a moral leader. This is creating a power vacuum. Who will fill that void?
The world is looking at America, and it's not getting great.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:39PM (3 children)
The USA is no longer being looked to as a moral leader. This is creating a power vacuum. Who will fill that void?
China and Russia. The EU has been trying, but they're too disorganized and incompetent, so they're failing. (It doesn't help that Spain is reverting to Francoism, and the EU is all too happy to voice support for authoritarianism.) China is definitely looking like it'll be the next superpower and world leader in 50 years or less.
Great times ahead....
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 26 2017, @05:15PM (1 child)
China wants to be, but they'll have to do it with raw, physical dominance because they won't do it by winning hearts and minds. African nations that were briefly relieved to invite Chinese interests in because they're sick and tired of America and Europe have already come to realize that the Chinese have no interest in their well-being at all either. ASEAN, too, which initially welcomed China to its gatherings, has grown quite wary thanks to Beijing's moves in the South China Sea. Vietnam (!) has offered to re-lease Cam Ranh Bay to the US. Japan, thanks to Kim Jong Un's antics and China's refusal to rein him in, just gave conservatives the majority they need to revise Japan's pacifist constitution to respond to the threat.
At China's landward elbow India is jostling below, Russia above. Neither of those countries is China's friend and will not come to its aid in a conflict. China in fact has no defensive pacts with anybody but North Korea, really. Russia would be stupid to enter into one with China because Beijing would wind up absorbing Moscow, and I suspect Putin knows that.
So clockwise from north to west, it's surrounded by hostiles. From west to north are rivals, if not hostiles.
War with them would be a doozy though, no doubt about it. Europe, America, Japan, and South Korea would probably prevail against China, but they'd all be so badly bloodied that India or Russia would probably be able to walk in and take over afterward if they managed to stay out of the fray. Maybe Mercosur would assert itself more in the western hemisphere. Who knows? But it would be a very different world from this one.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 26 2017, @06:37PM
China wants to be, but they'll have to do it with raw, physical dominance because they won't do it by winning hearts and minds.
Yeah, but no one else is going to "win hearts and minds" either these days. The US gave that up, and there aren't any other big players out there that can offer that. Obviously China can't, but neither can Russia. It does seem like some regional blocs are trying to vie for more power on the global stage (ASEAN, Mercosur, EU), but all of them are too hobbled by huge internal issues to be really effective. Mercosur can't even keep its members straight, as it keeps suspending them, Paraguay's mad that Argentina is there, etc. And the EU has Spain looking like Francoism is returning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @06:04PM
China now seems to be intent on going where Soviet Union went. I guess we'll see in a decade if the warning signs are for real... but I won't put any of my money on them long-term.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @06:01PM (2 children)
The USA isn't losing influence due to any actions it has taken recently. Actions taken decades ago have helped China to rise, and that of course makes the USA lose influence. Blame Nixon.
Has the USA ever been looked to as a moral leader? Perhaps, seven decades ago, from the perspective of Europe only. The rest of the world sees us via our decadent movies and TV, glamorizing all sorts of things prohibited by cultures all around the world.
There was, perhaps, a slight power vacuum when Obama was being all agreeable and trying to purchase friends. Europe and China enjoyed taking advantage of us then.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 26 2017, @06:39PM (1 child)
The rest of the world sees us via our decadent movies and TV, glamorizing all sorts of things prohibited by cultures all around the world.
Interesting how these people all clamor to watch Hollywood movies, so much so that Hollywood gets more money from foreign sales than they do domestically. Chinese in particular love American movies, and they love American cars (esp. Buicks--why, I cannot fathom).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @07:30PM
Marketing most likely for the Buick fandom. Movies get a ton of money from product placement, John Wick and Transformers are the two blatantly obvious car commercial movies.
Humans want tech, humans want life improvements. It takes some serious education to teach humans about limits and environmental considerations. No we shouldn't all have private vehicles, we should have a communal vehicle pool along with drastically improved public transit. Of course actual people are jealous of the US where you can easily purchase all manner of helpful crap, but they lack the wisdom we've developed where that crap is an anchor around your neck. Avocado slicer? Are you kidding me? Spend the extra ten seconds and use a knife and spoon.
The world wants the open culture we've developed in the US, people are tired of being oppressed by religious institutions and other backward thinking bullshit. Let them be warned however, it comes at the cost of cultural nihilism and a massive exploration of the more extreme edge cultures.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @06:07PM
Based on the rising seas and the location of my soon-to-be beach-front property, I'd say America will look great again in about 1º celsius.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:51PM
Being a troll helps no one at all either.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ilsa on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:40PM (1 child)
This would only be a surprise to anyone who hasn't heard about Trump's position on Climate Change and the way he's gutted the EPA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:50PM
Political solutions are as ephemeral as a fart in the wind, and just as pleasant.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 26 2017, @05:26PM (31 children)
Fossil Fuel industries fully control the federal government, and many of the most powerful statehouses. That will continue until the underlying economic reality of the energy sector has reached the tipping point toward renewables. You can already perceive some of what's that like in the changing tune of representatives from mid-western states where wind farms have been a boon to local economies that had stagnated for generations. Suddenly, they're pro-wind.
That is to say, it is entirely the fossil fuel lobby that has pushed climate change denialism. Their dollars fund the thinktanks that question the scientific consensus of 90% of the world's climate scientists. Their dollars fill the campaign coffers of congressmen on committees that control legislation on the environment. They employ the lobbyists who are constantly subverting all progress on the national level, acting as surrogates on news programs, etc.
All that will continue until suddenly they can't afford it anymore. And then the oil industry will quickly deflate to a rump sector; The infrastructure they have built and must maintain to extract, refine, and distribute their product is very expensive and will eat them alive when the margins disappear.
Look at the news out from this year's auto shows: the hot newness was all about EVs. Look at the news about major cities banning ICEs. Look at yesterday's headline about Saudi Arabia trying to diversify their economy away from oil. The tipping point is very near now.
So people like me concerned about climate change and focused on a green future can take heart from that. Whatever Trump does on this topic is the last gasp of a modality on the brink of extinction.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Thursday October 26 2017, @06:43PM (29 children)
Then where's the evidence? I'll note to the contrary, the one-sided propaganda spending against fossil fuels and the subsidies to renewables.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @07:36PM (28 children)
Do we need a scarlet letter for you" A big "S" for shill? You're asking for evidence of a blatantly obvious truth, then claim some persecution by "one-sided propaganda"? You really are a tool, a douche, a one legged moose.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Thursday October 26 2017, @07:48PM (27 children)
Then, of course, we have the accusations of "shill" from an AC because obviously, reason, logic, and evidence are tools of the evil fossil fuel corporations. Can't have that without a warning label, right?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @09:31PM (8 children)
No, reason logic and evidence are the tools of everyone else. Fossil fuel corps have been using the exact opposite along with a bunch of marketing drivel in order to safeguard their profits. You are 100% a shill, whether they pay you or not.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 26 2017, @09:43PM (7 children)
How much are they spending on that marketing drivel?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @10:46PM (4 children)
khallow you're intellectually bankrupt, get a life. I know you're a shill based on your other intelligent posts and how they contrast with the bullshit you shovel at all other times. To address your question I'll respond with another: are you blind deaf and dumb? You need citations for oil companies pushing bad science to minimize public outcry about global warming? Bankrupt is your mind.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:06PM (3 children)
Let's hear a dollar amount of what the oil companies put in while you get those cites? Meanwhile, here's a single example [leftexposed.org] of federally funded, climate change junk science which will outspend (at least $81 million since 1991) the examples you come up with.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:56PM
from an opinion piece in the New York Times [nytimes.com]:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:59PM (1 child)
according to Greenpeace [greenpeace.org]:
The Koch brothers are in the oil business, among others.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 27 2017, @03:11AM
In addition, most of these are advocacy groups who don't do actual research. I was thinking of research like that of Wei-Hock Soon [washingtonpost.com] who actually is documented as receiving over a million dollars to research his peculiar stuff.
Meanwhile the $81+ million I mentioned was explicitly for climate change research that just so happens to propagate a particular alarmist point of view.
And let us note that Greenpeace International gets 240 million Euro [wikipedia.org] a year (as of 2011) to say things like that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday October 27 2017, @02:04AM (1 child)
Calm down, khallow. You are being provoked. This is not a serious argument. Everyone already knows you are a petro-shill, so the only reason to bring it up is to get a rise out of you. Do not feed the troll, khallow. I know how this works, I have done it to you many times myself, though with a bit more finesse. So stop, before you embarrass yourself any further. We're pulling for you, bro!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:26AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @09:33PM (1 child)
You can lose full control of a few congressmen and still have nearly full control of the federal government.
Come up with a better argument.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 26 2017, @10:53PM
Classic moving the goalposts. It's not just a few congressmen tilting at windmills. It's the considerable federal funding for these renewable energy projects.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:51PM (8 children)
You're not aware of the push-back against renewable energy in state governments? Here are a couple of stories that made it to SoylentNews (quotes are from the original articles at the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor):
Koch Brothers Attack Solar Energy [soylentnews.org]
Wyoming Bill Would Fine Alternative Electric Generators [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 27 2017, @03:20AM (7 children)
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday October 27 2017, @05:33AM (1 child)
So if I attempt to kick you in the head and miss, no harm no foul since I didn't actually give you a skull full of steel-toed workboot? Pretty sure that's not how it works.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 27 2017, @11:37PM
Assault is a crime and further, you have no justifiable reason to kick me in the head. Meanwhile lobbying is legal (and should be legal by the First Amendment which explicitly grants the right to petition government for redress!), and they have a justifiable interest in these things that they have lobbied for.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @06:37AM (4 children)
The original claim was: "Fossil Fuel industries fully control the federal government, and many of the most powerful statehouses." The discussion was about the fossil fuel lobby, not about climate change. The quotes that were offered concern state measures to hamper renewable energy. They speak directly to the original claim.
The quote which uses the word "tax" comes from a New York Times opinion piece [nytimes.com] which in turn refers us to NewsOK [newsok.com]:
The governor did sign that into law [npr.org]. You're correct when you say it's not a tax. It's a charge requested by the electric utilities and imposed by the state government. The money goes from the ratepayers to the utilities, not to the government. However, you've ignored the pertinent fact that the state government approved the charge, which favors the operators of fossil-burning stations over small producers that are often wind or solar. Whether it's a tax or a fee is irrelevant.
That New York Times opinion piece also cites a story [bizjournals.com] about Ohio Senate Bill 310 [ohiomfg.com], introduced by Troy Balderson. Ohio had mandated that 2.5% of electricity come from renewable sources, including 0.12% from solar energy, with those amounts increasing over time. Balderson's bill sought to freeze those amounts for two years. The governor had said he would veto it.
It isn't the best example, because it didn't have enough lobbying support to pass. That's not the same as having none. Another article [theguardian.com] mentioned in that NYT opinion piece says ALEC "sponsored at least 77 energy bills in 34 states" in 2012. They're still active in that area. For instance, at their 2016 meeting, John Eick [alec.org] gave four speeches to four meetings of the Energy, Environment and Agriculture subcommittee.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 27 2017, @11:32PM (3 children)
You have a very broad definition of "fossil fuel industry". The electricity utilities also have renewable sources as well (hydro and wind power in particular). What is missed here is that it is the distributed nature of these sources not that they are non-fossil fuel that is the threat to the utilities. And the utilities would still have this interest and influence even if they were purely non-fossil fuel sources. Thus, it is in error to attribute this to fossil fuel industry when instead it is a typical threat of a distributed system to a more centralized one with political influence.
Quite the exercise of fossil fuel strength there. A bill that would slightly favor fossil fuel use isn't getting anywhere.
I'm not sure how we've gone from "fossil fuel industry fully controls" to "fossil fuel industry lobbies", but I have never claimed that they don't lobby for their interests. Instead, it's the pretense that the fossil fuel industry fully controls the federal government and various state governments that I called in question. I believe these examples you give provide further support since lobbying failures in particular are a strong bit of counterevidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @08:47AM (2 children)
>I'm not sure how we've gone from "fossil fuel industry fully controls" to "fossil fuel industry lobbies", but I have never claimed that they don't lobby for their interests.
You wrote of "an indication that it didn't have lobbying support," that's how.
>Instead, it's the pretense that the fossil fuel industry fully controls the federal government and various state governments that I called in question.
The secretary of state worked for Exxon from the time he graduated from college until taking his current office.
The president has moved to lift limits [donaldjtrump.com] on carbon dioxide releases from coal power plants:
A moratorium on new leases for coal mining on federal land has been lifted [denverpost.com].
The Congressional Research Service recently wrote of [archive.org] "a long line of attempts by
Members, primarily in the House, to limit EPA’s authority to implement GHG emission requirements for power plants." The same report says:
Yes, 27 states actually sued to prevent cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases, and the Supreme Court issued a stay.
"Fossil [f]uel industries fully control the federal government, and many of the most powerful statehouses" was the original claim. The more I look into it, the less exaggerated it seems.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:30AM
And it didn't pass. Meaning it didn't have lobbying support from an entity that "fully controls" the situation, because otherwise that wouldn't have been a possible outcome.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:33AM
Pushback is not "fully control". The EPA abused its power here. Congress should be the ones deciding GHG emission requirements.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 27 2017, @08:18PM (6 children)
I did say the changing tune of representatives from those states is what it will look like as the underlying economics of the energy sector shift. For the moment, though, fossil fuel interests still do control the federal government.
I was describing a state change, while you were casting it as more of a static binary, where it can only be "on" or "off." I thought i was clear about that, but maybe i wasn't.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 27 2017, @11:53PM (5 children)
Sounds like that statement doesn't mean much then.
No, I was pointing out that the fossil fuel interests aren't that powerful. After all, the reason those congress people are interested in renewable energy is because there is a lot of federal money to be had in government subsidies and other funding. That comes from the lack of control over the situation by fossil fuel interests. Just because Trump is an ally of various fossil fuel interests doesn't mean that they control things "fully". And once Trump goes away, where's even their current limited influence going to go?
It's a ridiculous narrative to spin. Fossil fuel industries "fully control" the federal government, but somehow can't manage simple stuff like blocking renewable energy subsidies or the EPA's machinations. And the federal government has a $3 trillion cash flow. Full control would mean being able to loot the biggest cash hog on the planet. I don't mean with the little crap that they do. I mean things like setting up and filling a strategic oil reserve three orders of magnitude larger than present and a price floor on what US oil is sold for. But instead we see things like, lobbying for lower payments for net metering and not getting the votes to make it happen. That's not full control in any sense of the word.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:58AM (4 children)
If you want to view it through the lens of government subsidies, then here you go [cleantechnica.com]. See that giant grey 67% share of the pie of federal subsidies? That's oil & gas. See the tiny green wedge that's 0.9%? That's the renewables.
What is ridiculous is to try to spin the narrative that that's anything less than a solid lock on government when it comes to the energy sector. It's commanding. By any definition in any economics course for any industry, that's market power.
It's understandable that you might be tempted to compose apologia for the fossil fuel industries because you associate burning dinosaurs with manly men or real Americans or something, and that you might likewise be tempted to savage and disparage renewable energy at every turn because you associate it with libtards or SJWs or something, but acknowledge that's why you're doing it rather than that you're partisan about where your electrons come from. I mean, otherwise, what do you do, stop each electron wanting to enter your home and run your flatscreen TV and interrogate each one to find out if it's a red-blooded American electron born from pappy & mammy dinosaur, and turn away all the illegal immigrant ones that come from--pfah!--the sun, or the wind, or some damn dam?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @05:16AM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:08AM (2 children)
The depletion allowance for geothermal sites is limited to 15% of gross income [cornell.edu]. For oil and gas wells it's limited to 100% of the income from the property or 65% of the income from all sources [irs.gov] and carrying over from one year to the next is allowed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:23AM (1 child)
Anything past a threshold of 1000 barrels is considered not depletable.
In practice, I imagine the oil businesses have figured out how to get 15% as much as possible, but it probably involves some impressive accounting games which cut into the depletion allowance return.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:55AM
There are some other constraints, like being related business-wise to a large refinery that in theory can void the depletion allowance as well though I bet those are at least as toothless as the above constraint.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @08:12PM
So we need to increase government handouts (taxcuts) to green energy companies so they afford to buy more congress critters?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday October 26 2017, @10:36PM (3 children)
Really, nobody noticed that the silenced speeches were meant to detail the impact global warming is having on a specific local community?
What exactly is the interest of those who'd want to keep you uninformed? How well that interest aligns with yours?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:30PM (2 children)
The 3-degree and 7-inch changes are clearly unrelated to global warming. The only tie here is that scientists face strong pressure to suggest a link to global warming.
Well here you go:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=22241&commentsort=0&mode=threadtos&threshold=0&highlightthresh=-1&page=1&cid=587846#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
If you have a bunch of dishonest employees who are purposely trying to cause trouble for your organization, you fire them. Well here we have exactly that, with the organization being the US federal government, except that they haven't even been fired!
These aren't scientists "who'd want to keep you uninformed". They are participating in a disinformation campaign. It's like negative information. The more you get, the more uninformed you are.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:51PM (1 child)
[Citation needed] (and no, a link to a post on S/N does not count as citation).
How do you know it was dishonest?
Have you seen the data and reports. Have you seen their arguments?
Have you seen any arguments of how much of those 3 degrees and 7 inches are attributable to global warming and what proportion to other causes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:48AM
What is "climate change"? How can you attribute an actual change in climate to it in a non-circular fashion? I gather the rhetoric is supposed to mean local climate change attributed in large part to global warming. But it is remarkably unspecific as used.
[...]
Moving on...
Exactly. Where are those arguments and why didn't they appear in the two news stories?
Having said that, I believe this act of censorship by EPA leadership is not only wrong, but will backfire badly. The authors will give the talk elsewhere and it will receive a great deal of publicity that the paper wouldn't have received at the conference.
(Score: 2) by Some call me Tim on Friday October 27 2017, @05:39AM (4 children)
At this point the warmers are nothing more than Evangelists when they claim the science is settled. I call bullshit! The global climate is so fucking complicated that these frauds don't have 1% of it figured out, yet they've claimed all sorts of horrible things are going to happen for the last 20 years that haven't materialized. When they have a model that matches what is happening instead of a model that matches 'adjusted' data then I'll give them another look. As far as I'm concerned, if they're convinced the science is settled, then they don't need any more funding for further research.
Questioning science is how you do science!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by etherscythe on Friday October 27 2017, @06:08PM (3 children)
This kind of thinking is what has left us with a potentially toxic chemical C8 in our drinking water. "I don't see it, therefore it isn't a problem."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html [nytimes.com]
See also: this year in hurricanes. Yes, the science is complicated. The world is big. But it's not so big that it's immune to wildly accelerating industrial processes and other human behavior. The ozone layer was the first example I'm aware of, and while we largely corrected that issue, we had the benefit of the offending chemicals being used in markets still in their infancy. With much greater entrenched commercial ecosystems in place now, it will be that much harder to change course. A little humility, at the very least, would be quite advisable as an ecological policy.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:50AM (2 children)
It's also lead to a known toxic chemical, dihydrogen monoxide which is now present in all of our drinking water.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Monday October 30 2017, @02:14PM (1 child)
Cute. I say "potentially toxic" because the effects are not fully proven, but it's a major world of difference between water on the one hand and the documented-but-suppressed severely increased rate of birth defects and miscarriages, previously docile and healthy cows charging and collapsing, coughing up blood on the other. And those are just the short-term effects. They no longer use this chemical in the manufacture of Teflon and Scotchgard, but it took a lot of work by concerned and/or materially harmed citizens to achieve this goal, and commercial hubris or downright greed are the reason.
And the worst part is, other citizens in a one-major-company town, even though they may themselves be at risk of the same kinds of problems, are hostile and aggressive to those who try to bring these issues to light simply because it threatens their employment gravy train.
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 30 2017, @05:17PM
Water kills orders of magnitude more people than the scary, dangerous chemical du jour does.
Now let's consider your first post in this thread.
We still have two things to consider: 1) is there a serious problem? and 2) Are the proposed solutions better than doing nothing at all? Climate change has problems on both fronts. The harm is notoriously unproven (it's not enough to show that global warming happens). And the solutions are notoriously bad such as globally higher food prices (due to US corn ethanol subsidies and gasoline mandates) and higher electricity prices (in Europe, such as Germany's Energiewende program). More people have probably died from the fixes than from the initial climate change problems.
Now, let's consider your story of "C8" (or perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOA). The last time I heard this particular story, it struck me that the story was describing ethylene glycol poisoning [nih.gov] (commonly referred to as "antifreeze" in the US automotive industry). The symptoms fit as does the presence of green dye (a common coloring of commercially sold ethylene glycol) in the animals' organs (which incidentally indicates a lot of the chemical was consumed in order for the dye to be so visible in the farmer's autopsies). There apparently was some genuine problem with PFOA since Du Pont has paid out significant amounts [usatoday.com] in a large number (roughly 3500) related PFOA exposure lawsuits. But this particular story doesn't fit that profile since it was acute poisoning rather than the long term cancer risks and such of these other cases.
Of course, the problem is that if it is antifreeze poisoning, then anyone, including the farmer himself, could have done it (most likely unintentionally) since the chemical is rather easy to come by. Not good for the lawsuit.