SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the I've-heard-enough-and-won't-take-it-anymore department, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39024648
The BBC reports that former Congressman Rush Holt, now part of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), is the spokesman for a movement "standing up for science".
His remarks reflect growing concern among researchers that science is disregarded by President Trump.
Scientists across the US plan to march in DC on 22 April.
[...] "To see young scientists, older scientists, the general public speaking up for the idea of science. We are going to work with our members and affiliated organisations to see that this march for science is a success."
Mr Holt made his comments at the AAAS annual meting in Boston as President Trump appointed a fierce critic of the Environmental Protection Agency as its head. Scott Pruitt has spent years fighting the role and reach of the EPA.
(Score: 3, Informative) by meustrus on Tuesday February 21 2017, @08:02PM
At least there have been some good things. Not trumpeted of course - the Democrats are absolutely terrible at taking credit for their own achievements. But solar energy has come a long, long way in the past 8 years, and electric cars are finally becoming available. The Paris agreement may not be perfect, but you are forgetting the reason the USA didn't sign on to Kyoto: China didn't either. Paris was about making the agreement weak enough that China and other rapidly industrializing countries would agree to it so we can have a deal that would include the most likely sources of new pollution.
You can say that a lot - maybe even all - of these advances came about purely because of market forces, not the government. But the Obama administration worked through market forces more than it did through authoritarian regulation. They gave out special green technology loans that helped many of these industries get off the ground, and despite specific well-publicized setbacks (Solyndra) the program actually ended up making the government a profit. If this sounds strange for liberals, that's because it is. Obama's policies, up to and including his much derided health care law, are all based on Republican principles and in many cases are based on state laws crafted by Republicans, like the Massachusetts health care law passed by Mitt Romney.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @04:41AM
China ratified the Kyoto Protocol more than a decade ago. They've also been pushing hard for renewable energies in the years since and are now the biggest source of solar power in the world - which is also an industry they're taking over globally. Increase the US population about 450%. How much do you think our carbon emissions would increase? Because that's China's position and they've managed to keep it to 'only' twice as much. Their pollution per capita is about half the US and their changing attitude towards their environment (as well as their economic slowdown and a generally modernizing economy) gives good reason to think that they are near if not at their peak pollution levels.
As for support, the biggest renewable energy subsidy, by a landslide, is the Solar Investment Tax Credit [seia.org]. This 30% consumer tax credit on solar installations came under Bush's administration. Far from trying to meaningfully extend this subsidy (which Obama's administration has done for various oil subsidies) the Obama administration changed the subsidy to decrease each year and ultimately expire in 2021. This of course isn't to suggest Bush had any love for renewables or the environment. The reason this subsidy passed (and was renewed) is because solar was dead in 2005 and giving 30% to solar while giving massive handouts to fossil fuels was more or less the same as just giving massive handouts to fossil fuels. However that's the same reason that Obama's administration has worked to cripple this subsidy while seeing the expansion and growth of the various oil related subsidies. Solar has started to become a very viable near future replacement for fossil fuel generation and that, in turn, is seen by establishment politicians as a major risk to the US economy because of our unique relationship with oil and the petro dollar.
What I'm getting at with all of this is that I think protesting against something, that is ostensibly not partisan, has a far greater impact when you do it against an establishment that is, again ostensibly, politically aligned with you. Can you imagine how much of a wakeup it would have been for America if there was a "Science March" on DC when Obama was doing these things? Even though I am ideologically aligned with the ostensibly purpose of this march, I can't help but roll my eyes at this in the same way I would roll my eye at most republican protests against Obama's actions. It's blind partisanship (eg - Obama come Romneycare as you mentioned) nearly all the time whose goal is to politically damage the opposition as opposed to get any sort of meaningful regard or consideration for the views being represented. One side will love them because they think they're 'on their side', one side will hate them because they see them as not 'on their side', and in the end nobody will listen. American politics in a nutshell.