I predict Trump will be re-elected in 2020 !

Post Reply New Topic

Silly me, how could I have forgotten????

I'm sure he's already made a deal with the Russians to have Bears Ears specifically turned into a giant refinery with a strip mall and a golf course.

How I see this thread, is it must be great for another American Gold rush, but not for Climate Change.
World pollution is a real threat to all natural and man made resources, so if you want to maintain all your national wildlife parks and beautiful forest trails and such, you need to start campaigning subjectively for Preserving
Antarctica
and helping the World Effort to recycle and cut out carbon diesel emissions. What goes into the food chain all ends up in our guts, so being world famous marine biologists as you are, science being your thing, you can understand why Trump needs to rethink his options which will have an impact on trade, and will undoubtedly, lead to climate change being set back on the rest of us.
There is widespread chaos and disaster of air pollution in Beijing and China and the worlds seas being polluted by oil tankers and it is a ticking time bomb that bears havoc not for now, but for world centre stage.
It doesn't look good for the U.S if we're all doing it and your president is digging his heals in, its the one good thing Obama did, alongside us Europeans and for the G20 summit.

I agree.

I'm all for national parks and preservation. But at the same time if you look at satellite views of certain areas like bears ears, what you'll see is a vast expanse of hundreds of miles of desert wilderness.

A lot of times, there can be quite a bit of life in the desert.
The life that's present there often takes a long time to develop and a very short time to disappear.
Where I live, and have for the last ten years, I've watched it get hotter and drier and less foggy and rainy. It's really, really sad.

Has anyone done a cost-benefit analysis on the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions vs the cost of the damage that might be prevented by reducing greenhouse gases?

I know, I was raised in the desert. But how would 50% of bears ears being reduced (which is like 0.1% of the Utah desert), going to affect the climate?

To my knowledge yes. I can't remember the scientists name but I'm sure he was American. Now, professors of Scientology say that now, it won't matter if we try and reverse the effects by cutting down on our waste and depollution by deforestation, and reducing emissions because the human partnership has been deserted by years and years of diesel cars etc and, apart from trying to tax people higher to regulate their usage, its not working.
Even palaeontologists are fuming over wildlife resources being poisoned by it, it was the U.K who forced the E.U into doing something back in 2012, trading with other countries to harvest and protect bio fuel and power stations along with solar panelled greenhouse blocks. This might interest Americans on their clean water Act based in Washington.

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-an ... rs-us-rule

The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme and National Emissions Inventory (Amendment Regulations 2013) was made and laid before Parliament in 2013.

[email protected] That's for the email in Whitehall.

The CCA is the core UK statutory basis for climate change mitigation measures. It commits the UK to a target of lowering GHG emissions by the year 2050 to 80 percent below 1990 levels (which translates to 160 MtCO2-equivalent emissions). From 2008 to 2012, the UK was capped at 3,018 MtCO2, decreasing to 2,782 MtCO2 between 2013 and 2017. This will further decrease to 2,544 MtCO2 between 2018 and 2022, and it provides mechanisms by which this target can be achieved. Specifically, it confers powers to establish trading schemes for the purposes of limiting GHG emissions and encouraging activities that reduce emissions or remove GHG from the atmosphere. In theory, therefore, the UK could participate in any, or multiple, emissions trading schemes worldwide.

It was the state of New Jersey that got pulled out of the carbon emissions programme in 2011.

On the federal level , signs are pointing to lighter regulation of GHG emissions. This results from a combination of factors, including the actions of the Trump administration and pending legal challenges to the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s plans for regulation of GHG emissions. Therefore, individual states—rather than the federal government—are expected to take the lead with the development of GHG emissions regulation over the next four years.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (the "EPA's") October 10, 2017, proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan (the "CPP") will hinder prior federal efforts under the Obama Administration to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The CPP would have regulated greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal, oil and natural gas-fired power plants, but would have mainly impacted existing coal power plants. The CPP repeal proposal will now go through a public comment period, which could take months. Environmental groups and some states have announced that they plan to challenge the CPP repeal proposal in court. Meanwhile, state and local efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change will continue, in spite of the EPA's decision to repeal the CPP.

Clean Power Plan, set out by Obama https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/c ... plan_.html

Your environmental protection agency's plans to withdraw from cleaning the air act
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/fi ... laimer.pdf

Evan Goldenberg is who you should contact if you are interested, based in Miami. Seth Kershner, clearly works for Trump on environmental transactions and is not a guy you should take seriously.

It won't. Conservation and climate change are two separate problems.

I believe they are "separate"---but inter-related as well.

Good conservation measures leads to less "greenhouse gases," which leads to less "climate change" of the nature which we are experiencing these days.

Not much less.

I wrote a long post on this a few days ago but forgot to submit it.

Long story short - this isn't a particularly sensible request because the assumptions inherent in CBAs aren't suitable for major issues which span nations and generations. They could be used for "should we build a new railway line here?" but not "should we try to tackle climate change?"

However, we can look at the cost effectiveness of policies to tackle climate change, as well as cost-benefit analyses for individual policies.

The most cost-effective policy is reforestation, closely followed by preventing deforestation. Another is providing family-planning services in poor communities and also improving infant mortality in those places. Directly cutting carbon emissions might not provide the same bang for buck, but may be more effective due to greater practicality.

Many individual policies have strong cost-benefit analyses behind them, and some are even happening just with the market. If you want to read them, then pick a policy and Google it. Try "vehicle electrification cost-benefit analysis" or something.

I think the election outcome in Alabama is perhaps a turning of the political tide.

The Alabama result combined with last months state and local elections is probably helping sales of immodium in locales near where Republicans office holders and strategists live and work.

Now, that brings up a funny image!