The Global Warming Thread

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:11 am

The fire issue is overstated and the media reporting is terrible:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 3439795bde

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:16 am

Grifman wrote: Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:11 am The fire issue is overstated and the media reporting is terrible:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 3439795bde

This makes me feel better but I also fear that he is playing on my ignorance as well. He uses comparative stats from times when things were at their worst without providing specifics. A 70% decline is still 3000 square miles per year. 3% for soy farming gives hope but what of lumbering and cattle and to a lesser extent mining? (I assume soy is easier to grow than corn so the soy farmability would extend to the corn farmability)

That said, what do you? Brazil and neighbors deforest because the people want to work to live and the people of the world want stuff to live. I'm firmly against hyperconsumerism and yet I've put my "farm" into investments trying to get to a spot where I can support myself when I can no longer work and investing is founded in grow or die economics, aka hyperconsmerism.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:43 am

LordMortis wrote: Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:16 am
Grifman wrote: Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:11 am The fire issue is overstated and the media reporting is terrible:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 3439795bde
This makes me feel better but I also fear that he is playing on my ignorance as well. He uses comparative stats from times when things were at their worst without providing specifics.

i think this guy is pretty credible. If you look at who wrote it at the bottom of the article, he has pretty good environmental street cred. I don't think he's trying to fool or manipulate anyone.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:32 pm

WaPo

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday that it will loosen federal rules on methane, a powerful greenhouse gas linked to climate change.

The proposed rule will reverse standards enacted under President Barack Obama that require oil and gas operations to install controls on their operations to curb the release of methane at the well head and in their transmission equipment, including pipelines, processing and storage facilities.

Just as important, according to an EPA document obtained by The Washington Post, the proposal will challenge the agency’s earlier position that the federal government has the authority to regulate methane without first making a determination that it qualifies as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The Trump administration has taken several steps to limit the government’s ability to regulate climate pollutants in the future, including in a recently-finalized rule curbing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
...
A senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the announcement was not public, said Trump officials were confident the oil and gas industry had an economic incentive to limit methane because capturing it allows companies to sell more gas. The agency estimates the proposed changes, which will be subject to public comment for 60 days after they are published, would save the oil and natural gas industry between $17 million and $19 million a year.

But several of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies, including Exxon, Shell and BP, have opposed the rollback and urged the Trump administration to keep the current standards in place. Collectively, these firms account for 11 percent of America’s natural gas output.

In a statement Thursday, Shell U.S. President Gretchen Watkins reiterated the company’s support for national limits on methane, noting Shell has pledged to reduce its methane leaks from its global operations to less than 0.2 percent by 2025.
...
The agency will continue regulating volatile organic compounds, which are also released during oil and gas operations, rather than methane directly. Such limits could cut down on the amount of methane released in the process. Milito noted that by 2023, 90 percent of oil and gas facilities will have to install technology curbing volatile organic compounds.

Last September, the Interior Department eased requirements that oil and gas firms operating on federal and tribal land capture the release of methane.
...
Ben Ratner, a senior director at the advocacy group Environmental Defense Fund, said in an interview that rolling back the regulations could reward bad actors in the industry. Given the fact that many major players had embraced limits on methane, Ratner said, it made little sense for Trump officials to ease such restrictions.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Aug 29, 2019 4:48 pm

Freedom Gas yearns to be free.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Aug 29, 2019 4:54 pm

Emperors, Pharaohs, and other despots sometimes despise the fact that their subjects will live after them.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Aug 29, 2019 5:14 pm

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Sep 05, 2019 4:01 pm

WaPo: We watched all 7 hours of CNN’s climate town hall so you didn’t have to

What will a future historian in the 22nd century learn about our country, our age, by unearthing video of CNN’s town hall on the climate crisis? She will learn that candidates for our highest office, centuries after the Enlightenment, still had to declare publicly that they believe in science. She will learn that these candidates also believe that climate change is a paramount threat that must be confronted immediately, but in an incremental way. She will learn that the “global war on terror” unleashed 1.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases, that a senator named Cory Booker was a Trekkie and that a businessman named Andrew Yang wanted to dole out “democracy dollars,” and that a cable news network — for all its turbulence and theatrics — devoted a workday’s worth of its programming, on a Wednesday in September, to the issue that shaped her reality.

coopasonic · Post by **coopasonic** » Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:21 pm

We are striving to ensure there are no people in the 22nd century.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:12 pm

WaPo

The Trump administration plans this week to revoke California’s long-standing right to set stricter air pollution standards for cars and light trucks, the latest step in a broad campaign to undermine Obama-era policies aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change, two senior administration officials said.

The move threatens to set in motion a massive legal battle between California and the federal government, plunge automakers into a prolonged period of uncertainty and create turmoil in the nation’s auto market.

The Environmental Protection Agency declined to comment on the matter. But in a speech Tuesday to the National Automobile Dealers Association, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler made his intentions clear.

“We embrace federalism and the role of the states, but federalism does not mean that one state can dictate standards for the nation,” he said.

Fuck this timeline.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:17 pm

The good news is they have about a snowball's chance in the Arctic of winning..

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:56 am

Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:12 pm
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler made his intentions clear.
Fuck this timeline.

Truth.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:05 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:17 pm The good news is they have about a snowball's chance in the Arctic of winning..

I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, so I may be missing something. As I understand it, though, CA was granted an exemption from EPA pollution standards way back in the day. The exemption permitted CA to require lower emissions standards. Unless there's something that would prevent the EPA from revoking that exemption (for example, it's actually statutory so it would require an act of Congress to revoke), I'm not sure why they can't. It's a longstanding principle of American federalism that federal laws and regulations can supersede conflicting state laws and regulations where there is some kind of compelling federal rationale. A classic example is the FAA - you don't want a whole new set of regulations and processes every time a plane crosses state lines. In this case, it should be quite easy to make the case that having multiple sets of emissions standards has a negative impact on interstate commerce by requiring manufacturers either to build to different specifications or to use the lower standards overall. The lower standards can probably be shown to be more expensive and having them frustrates the federal purpose of having the EPA's desired standards across the country.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:15 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:05 pm
Zaxxon wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:17 pm The good news is they have about a snowball's chance in the Arctic of winning..
I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, so I may be missing something. As I understand it, though, CA was granted an exemption from EPA pollution standards way back in the day. The exemption permitted CA to require lower emissions standards. Unless there's something that would prevent the EPA from revoking that exemption (for example, it's actually statutory so it would require an act of Congress to revoke), I'm not sure why they can't. It's a longstanding principle of American federalism that federal laws and regulations can supersede conflicting state laws and regulations where there is some kind of compelling federal rationale. A classic example is the FAA - you don't want a whole new set of regulations and processes every time a plane crosses state lines. In this case, it should be quite easy to make the case that having multiple sets of emissions standards has a negative impact on interstate commerce by requiring manufacturers either to build to different specifications or to use the lower standards overall. The lower standards can probably be shown to be more expensive and having them frustrates the federal purpose of having the EPA's desired standards across the country.

There is actually no method for the EPA to revoke a waiver once granted. At least that's what all the so-called experts I've been reading tell me. This is one of the less-credentialed articles, but I'm not having immediate success finding the others I'd seen recently. Basically, once the EPA grants a waiver, it's set in stone.

But really, I was referring more to the fact that this will be tied up in court for years (hopefully until we have a D President who drops the whole farcical thing), and if by some stroke of ridiculousness CA loses, they have numerous other ways to effectively cause the same end result of higher-economy vehicles (gas tax increases, registration surcharges, manufacturer fees). And if *that* were to fail, there's still the fact that China and the EU have even stricter regulations coming into play. There's a reason manufacturers came to their own agreement with CA, and it's that they do not want a split market in the US.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:28 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:05 pm In this case, it should be quite easy to make the case that having multiple sets of emissions standards has a negative impact on interstate commerce by requiring manufacturers either to build to different specifications or to use the lower standards overall. The lower standards can probably be shown to be more expensive and having them frustrates the federal purpose of having the EPA's desired standards across the country.

That doesn't make sense to me. (Which is not to say you are wrong, just that I don't understand). Wouldn't that argument throw out "boutique fuel" mixtures

https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/state-fuels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Stat ... _Standards

Or recycling programs and probably tons of other things on the EPA side of things alone.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:31 pm

Here's another method CA could use, should it be needed. (Betteridge's Law of Headlines be damned!)

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:45 pm

Thanks for the link. It sounds like a court case may come down to whether or not the court determines that the EPA has the inherent right to revoke a waiver once granted. It's not an implausible argument, but I really don't know where a court would fall out on that. It may well rely in part on scouring the congressional record from the time the right grant waivers was first implemented, plus whether there's any precedent with similar types of waivers and revocations from other agencies.

As for what delaying effect a lawsuit might have, the federal standards might go into effect during the pendency of the suit. The court would likely consider the likelihood of CA's success and the harm that permitting split standards to remain in effect would have. I don't think it's a slam dunk either way, but I'm just spitballing. I do agree with the article's take that the issue likely becomes moot if Trump is deposed by a D in 2020.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:50 pm

LordMortis wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:28 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:05 pm In this case, it should be quite easy to make the case that having multiple sets of emissions standards has a negative impact on interstate commerce by requiring manufacturers either to build to different specifications or to use the lower standards overall. The lower standards can probably be shown to be more expensive and having them frustrates the federal purpose of having the EPA's desired standards across the country.
That doesn't make sense to me. (Which is not to say you are wrong, just that I don't understand). Wouldn't that argument throw out "boutique fuel" mixtures

https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/state-fuels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Stat ... _Standards

Or recycling programs and probably tons of other things on the EPA side of things alone.

Just because the feds can overrule the states doesn't mean they have to. If Iowa and Illinois want to put corn in their gas, who in DC wants to piss off the farmers who are growing that corn by saying they can't?

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:03 pm

I read an article (can't find it at the moment) that said CA could also fight that the waiver is necessary because it has to meet "compelling and extraordinary conditions" to fight for it's climate.

42 U.S. Code § 7543.State standards
(a)Prohibition
No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part. No State shall require certification, inspection, or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.

(b)Waiver
(1)The Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, waive application of this section to any State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that—
(A)the determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious,
(B)such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or
(C)such State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 7521(a) of this title.
(2)If each State standard is at least as stringent as the comparable applicable Federal standard, such State standard shall be deemed to be at least as protective of health and welfare as such Federal standards for purposes of paragraph (1).
(3)In the case of any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine to which State standards apply pursuant to a waiver granted under paragraph (1), compliance with such State standards shall be treated as compliance with applicable Federal standards for purposes of this subchapter.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:04 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:50 pm
LordMortis wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:28 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:05 pm In this case, it should be quite easy to make the case that having multiple sets of emissions standards has a negative impact on interstate commerce by requiring manufacturers either to build to different specifications or to use the lower standards overall. The lower standards can probably be shown to be more expensive and having them frustrates the federal purpose of having the EPA's desired standards across the country.
That doesn't make sense to me. (Which is not to say you are wrong, just that I don't understand). Wouldn't that argument throw out "boutique fuel" mixtures

https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/state-fuels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Stat ... _Standards

Or recycling programs and probably tons of other things on the EPA side of things alone.
Just because the feds can overrule the states doesn't mean they have to. If Iowa and Illinois want to put corn in their gas, who in DC wants to piss off the farmers who are growing that corn by saying they can't?

Can't tell if serious...

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:09 pm

LordMortis wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:04 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:50 pm
LordMortis wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:28 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:05 pm In this case, it should be quite easy to make the case that having multiple sets of emissions standards has a negative impact on interstate commerce by requiring manufacturers either to build to different specifications or to use the lower standards overall. The lower standards can probably be shown to be more expensive and having them frustrates the federal purpose of having the EPA's desired standards across the country.
That doesn't make sense to me. (Which is not to say you are wrong, just that I don't understand). Wouldn't that argument throw out "boutique fuel" mixtures

https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/state-fuels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Stat ... _Standards

Or recycling programs and probably tons of other things on the EPA side of things alone.
Just because the feds can overrule the states doesn't mean they have to. If Iowa and Illinois want to put corn in their gas, who in DC wants to piss off the farmers who are growing that corn by saying they can't?
Can't tell if serious...

About which part? I guess it doesn't matter, I'm being serious about both. First, the federal government doesn't have to regulate everything if they don't want to. Second, gas blended with ethanol made from corn is available in IL and IA (among other states).

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:10 pm

The stupidest part of all this is that many car manufacturers don't want looser gas mileage regulations. This is all about Trump rolling back anything Obama enacted and trying to stick it to California.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:36 pm

The thing is, until it is set in stone one way or another, the automakers will continue to observe the stricter regulations. Otherwise they're gambling, and if California wins, they have a line of unsellable vehicles.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:14 am

naednek · Post by **naednek** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:09 pm

I work for ARB, and today is a board meeting. I'm sure it's gonna be quite lively.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:37 pm

https://twitter.com/_DaniBeck/status/11 ... 24448?s=20

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:28 am

Has Trump weighed in yet? I’m sure he won’t be happy if anyone thinks that crowd is bigger than his inauguration crowd.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:00 pm

I cannot imagine being this collected at the age of 16.

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1176159504288886785

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:10 pm

Srsly. And amid the trolls on every video I've seen raging on about how she's a puppet, entitled, etc.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:27 pm

When I was 12 I wanted to join the IRA. It was a very misguided fit of righteousness and justice. I think it's common for that age.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:30 pm

And in other news, this is largely symbolic, but very symbolic. And highly offensive to anyone who spent time in summer childhoods (or adulthoods even) on the island.

Vice President Mike Pence scored a first when he took a motorcade to a speech on Michigan's picturesque Mackinac Island, drawing some criticism on social media.

Pence took an eight-vehicle motorcade to the island's Grand Hotel for a speech to the Republican Leadership Conference Saturday. He flew to Michigan, took a helicopter to the small island airport and transferred to vehicles brought by boat the night before.

The Detroit Free Press says it was the first ever motorcade on the island, which has prohibited [motor] vehicles since 1898 except for snowmobiles, emergency and service vehicles.

Total show of power/force and giant fuck you.

Lagom Lite · Post by **Lagom Lite** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:23 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:27 pm When I was 12 I wanted to join the IRA. It was a very misguided fit of righteousness and justice. I think it's common for that age.

She's sixteen. And sorry to tell you this, but most people never consider joining a terrorist organisation.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:27 pm

Student activism

Student activism at the university level is nearly as old as the university itself. Students in Paris and Bologna staged collective actions as early as the 13th century, chiefly over town and gown issues. Student protests over broader political issues also have a long pedigree. In Joseon Dynasty Korea, 150 Sungkyunkwan students staged an unprecedented remonstration against the king in 1519 over the Kimyo purge.

Youthful idealism coupled with free time and no economic limiting factors make for the salad days.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:17 pm

I try not to be dismissive of youths attempting to make the world a better place.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:21 pm

hepcat wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:17 pm I try not to be dismissive of youths attempting to make the world a better place.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:24 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:21 pm
hepcat wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:17 pm I try not to be dismissive of youths attempting to make the world a better place.

403
Forbidden
Access to this resource on the server is denied!

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:25 pm

hepcat wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:17 pm I try not to be dismissive of youths attempting to make the world a better place.

I'm not trying to be dismissive, either. Those of use that have houses and jobs usually do not have the time, energy, or risk tolerance to try and change the system.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:26 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:21 pm
hepcat wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:17 pm I try not to be dismissive of youths attempting to make the world a better place.

Is this what you were shooting for?

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:29 pm

It is. Weird--I didn't get the 403 even in another browser. Maybe they OK the hotlinking by IP once you've visited the page. Thanks for the assist.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:35 pm

Lagom Lite wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:23 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:27 pm When I was 12 I wanted to join the IRA. It was a very misguided fit of righteousness and justice. I think it's common for that age.
She's sixteen. And sorry to tell you this, but most people never consider joining a terrorist organisation.

In the US this was a time of Noraid and churches collecting for the "poor oppressed" Irish. But paint it black and white all you want. My point was that at that age (early to mid teens) there is an idealistic, self-righteous streak in a lot of kids. Thunberg may be 100% on the mark but it's not like no one has thought of this before.