9 N.E. States Breaking with Bush on Carbon Emissions Cuts.

[achilles]

WASHINGTON - Nine northeastern U.S. states are working on a plan to cap and then reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, the first U.S. deal of its kind and one that would see the region breaking with President Bush.

The move comes as California, Washington and Oregon are considering a similar pact -- a dynamic environmentalists say could pressure the federal government to adopt a national law. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, the greenhouse gas reduction plan already adopted by over 150 countries.

Under the plan being worked on, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont would cap carbon dioxide emissions at 150 million tons a year -- roughly equal to the average emissions in the highest three years between 2000 and 2004.
Starting in 2015, the cap would be lowered, and emissions would be cut by 10 percent in 2020.

State laws needed
Each state legislature would have to approve the caps, said Dennis Schain, a spokesman for Connecticut’s Department of Environmental Protection.

“This is a process that would be an agreement among states and to really implement it and have a firm commitment, the states will each have to approve legislation and regulations to meet these conditions,” he told Reuters.

The draft is being circulated among industries, power companies and environmental groups for feedback, he said. The group hopes to reach a final agreement in September.

Phil Cherry, policy director at Delaware’s Department of Natural Resources, also confirmed details of the pact.

Many scientists believe carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases cause global warming that is affecting coastal areas and wildlife. Around 40 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions come from fossil fuel power plants.

The United States is the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide. The Bush administration wants cuts to be voluntary and resists mandatory measures it says would hurt economic growth.

In the absence of national control on emissions, Schain said: “This seems to be the appropriate course of action.”

Cap-and-trade system
The so-called Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative would explore a market-driven cap-and-trade system where businesses must trim emissions under set limits or buy credits from companies that have complied with the limits.

Environmentalists praised the proposed plan.

“It moves the United States further toward doing something about the problem,” said Kert Davies of Greenpeace in Washington, D.C. “That eventually allows us back into the global solving of this problem.”

The deal was brokered by New York Republican Gov. George Pataki, who is weighing a White House run in 2008.

Pataki spokesman Andrew Rush said no final deal had been reached but, “We’ve made a lot of progress and we look forward to reaching a final agreement.”

Political experts note such a plan brings Pataki national attention. “This is another clear signal that George Pataki is positioning himself on the national stage to run for president,” said political strategist Hank Sheinkopf.

A regional emissions control program would likely cause higher energy prices for power company customers in the Northeast, but Delaware’s Cherry said the states had not yet decided on a method to combat rising costs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9058665/

[nognig]

That will probably work as well as the Kyoto Accords. From what I've read, none of the European countries who signed the accord are anywhere close to meeting the small reductions promised.

It laughable to think a country like China would actually hold themselves to such an agreement anyways. China signed the Montreal Protocol on reducing CFC production to help the ozone layer (more bunk science). 5 years later they claimed they reduced output to meet the agreement but in fact had produced more than ever!

Most wasted time.

NN

[von_Moo142]

Good.


reducing CFC production to help the ozone layer (more bunk science)

Would you care to explain your idea here?

Are you contesting the role of CFCs in ozone depletion?

There'll be a paper in a good journal for you if you write up your findings...

:lol:


Not that HCFCs and HFCs are without problems, but they are better than CFCs in the context of ozone depletion.

[achilles]

That will probably work as well as the Kyoto Accords. From what I've read, none of the European countries who signed the accord are anywhere close to meeting the small reductions promised.

It laughable to think a country like China would actually hold themselves to such an agreement anyways. China signed the Montreal Protocol on reducing CFC production to help the ozone layer (more bunk science). 5 years later they claimed they reduced output to meet the agreement but in fact had produced more than ever!

Most wasted time.

NN

Really? Where exactly did you read that EU countries are far from meeting the Kyoto CO2 emissions levels? Even if they are...why does that have to be catastrophic for the effectiveness of the Protocol?
Its best to first find out what the Protocol is all about, and then post things that have very little to do with reality...

The fact that country A or country B cheated on some agreement does neither reduces the significance nor discounts the effectiveness of the agreement itself. International environmental agreements are, by their nature, bound most of the times to provide incentives for the participants to cheat.

As for the Montreal Protocol, the Ozon layer problem appeared to be so compelling and scientific evidence was more than consolidating that we are moving fast towards a disaster if we didnt change our practices. The USA was one of the leading countries in ratifying Montreal. Make no mistake that the first satellite photos that were released depicting the huge hole in the ozone layer made many American officials, among others, to actually **** their pants. Too bad the US does not, perhaps it cannot given its current CO2 emissions, show the same willingness to ratify Kyoto and do whatever possible in order to cut down on anthropogenic emissions.

Back to Kyoto. For your information, the Protocol provides the following two essential flexibilities:
1) A country that cannot meet its emission target can purchase permits from other countries with low emission rates.
2) A country can emit more if it helps another country reduce its own emissions, through technological innovation or other techniques. This is more plausible between a developed and a developing country.


Of course anyone can remain stuck to the anthropogenic global warming denial...just like many insisted that there was no ozon layer problem 20 years ago...

[Roaming East]

Wow, states acting like they have their own government and choices in their future like was ALWAYS expected....bout time they stopped expecting the federales to baby step them through the future

[achilles]

Wow, states acting like they have their own government and choices in their future like was ALWAYS expected....bout time they stopped expecting the federales to baby step them through the future

You are not annoyed every time democracy is working are you? p-)

[nognig]

Good.


reducing CFC production to help the ozone layer (more bunk science)

Would you care to explain your idea here?


CFCs and the ozone layer and global warming are both weak science.

Sure, you can postulate theories as to why CFCs or CO2 might be responsible, but that isn't conclusive proof that they are a problem.

Both the ozone layer and the temperature of the planet are long term changes that are occuring to the plant. Both are known to be impacted by a huge number of variables.

What ends up happening is the G8 nations devise a plan to stop <insert problem here>. They get the other major countries of the world to sign it. The G8 countries are the only ones who put a real effort into solving the "problem". Countries like China continue to do what they please.

So in the end, nothing is accomplished except the spending of a whole lot of money and a lot more gov't intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens.

See the problem? It's "feel good" politics. Nothing is accomplished.

NN

[von_Moo142]

Good.


reducing CFC production to help the ozone layer (more bunk science)

Would you care to explain your idea here?


CFCs and the ozone layer and global warming are both weak science.

Sure, you can postulate theories as to why CFCs or CO2 might be responsible, but that isn't conclusive proof that they are a problem.

Both the ozone layer and the temperature of the planet are long term changes that are occuring to the plant. Both are known to be impacted by a huge number of variables.

What ends up happening is the G8 nations devise a plan to stop <insert problem here>. They get the other major countries of the world to sign it. The G8 countries are the only ones who put a real effort into solving the "problem". Countries like China continue to do what they please.

So in the end, nothing is accomplished except the spending of a whole lot of money and a lot more gov't intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens.

See the problem? It's "feel good" politics. Nothing is accomplished.

NN

Of course there's a "feel good" political aspect to environmental issues. This is a problem, I agree, especially as it often leads to irrational polarisation (as other political issues do also). But it is as irrational to insist that we are destroying the world as it is to stick ones head in the sand and say that we cannot possibly be contributing to global warming (or ozone depletion).

But the case for CFC induced damage to the ozone layer is pretty clear from a scientific point of view. It has been demonstrated that CFCs do reach the upper stratosphere (NASA, who are certainly not a bunch of bleeding heart tree-huggers, have made measurements of the partial pressures of some CFCs in the stratosphere), and the rest is basic organic chemistry.

I'm not an environmentalist, nor do I hug trees or protest inanely about anything. I detest pseudo-science. I'm a qualified chemist though, and I am quite convinced that CFCs were, and are, depleting stratospheric ozone. Not because some environmentalist or politician tells me so, but because I believe in the scientific process (and it doesn't hurt that I understand the chemistry of CFC breakdown and ozone depletion, and the basics of how CFCs actaully reach the stratosphere in the first place).

Our societies increasingly blur the line between science and politics (and science and pseudo-scientific BS or mystic/hippy type ideas). There is sound scientific proof of CFC induced ozone layer damage, and decent work has been done to suggest that synthetic global warming will occur to some unknown extent. The fact that politicians (and soap dodgers) hijack and distort such work is bad, but this doesn't void the reality of the science behind their ideas. However, it's not just the enviromentalists who are distorting or ignoring scientific discovery as they see fit: their political oppponents are often just as bad.

[ViktorNavorski]

Wow, states acting like they have their own government and choices in their future like was ALWAYS expected....bout time they stopped expecting the federales to baby step them through the future

You are not annoyed every time democracy is working are you? p-)

You might have miss the point.

[toad]

Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts. But a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.

[nognig]

Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts. But a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.

Well put. Just because CFCs reach the ozone layer and CFC can be shown to destroy ozone, doesn't mean the CFCs are contributing to the destruction of the ozone layer.

Like the climate of the earth, there are huge fluctuations in the ozone layer. The scale at which things occur on earth are huge compared to human contributions. For example, when Mt. Pinatubo erupted, it spewed the equivalent of 2-3 years worth of CO2 into the atmosphere (from fossil fuel burning). And that is only one eruption.

I'm not saying that humans can't damage the environment, I'm saying that spending billions of dollars to stop human activity that might be hurting the environment is a waste of resources.

NN

[von_Moo142]

Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts. But a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.

Well put. Just because CFCs reach the ozone layer and CFC can be shown to destroy ozone, doesn't mean the CFCs are contributing to the destruction of the ozone layer.

Like the climate of the earth, there are huge fluctuations in the ozone layer. The scale at which things occur on earth are huge compared to human contributions. For example, when Mt. Pinatubo erupted, it spewed the equivalent of 2-3 years worth of CO2 into the atmosphere (from fossil fuel burning). And that is only one eruption.

I'm not saying that humans can't damage the environment, I'm saying that spending billions of dollars to stop human activity that might be hurting the environment is a waste of resources.

NN

It's not that CFCs can destroy ozone, they do. It has been experimentally verified.

CFCs do end up in the stratosphere, where the ozone layer is. There is no maybe about this, it happens. We can use a variety of analytical methods to detect them and measure their partial pressures (i.e. concentration).

Under the conditions present in the stratosphere, CFCs are broken down by UV radiation: Carbon-Chlorine bonds are cleaved homolytically by UV, resulting in the production of free radicals *. This cannot be disputed, it's been verified experimentally countless times, and the process was know before we had any idea of what CFCs were doing. In fact similar processes are used every day in organic sythesis.

The radicals produced from the decomposition of CFCs in this way will react with ozone in the stratosphere. So these compounds will deplete the ozone layer. There is no might or can about it. So any CFCs in the upper stratosphere will contribute to the decompostition of ozone.


We can argue about how significant this mode of decompostition is in constast to natrual occuring decomposition. This is a problematic area, and there can be no precise quantitative solution. However, some political groups have taken rational scientific disagrement over this and used it to try and argue that the contribution of CFCs to ozone depletion is minimal. This is simply wrong. Those who advocate such things are out of their depth or deliberately lying. Some may have a tame "scientist", but I can find any number of cranky groups with such "experts" (look at the anti-depleted uranium cranks, for example).

All reasonable studies have show that CFCs are a significant or major contribution to current rates of ozone depletion. The 1995 chemistry nobel prize was awarded to the researchers who discovered the effect. If there was any serious dispute in the scientific community about CFCs depleting the ozone layer this would not have occured.


* This isn't a mode of reactivity unique to CFCs, most Chlorine containing orgain compounds react in this way. CFCs are fairly unique in that the end up in the upper stratosphere.

[nognig]

We can argue about how significant this mode of decompostition is in constast to natrual occuring decomposition. This is a problematic area, and there can be no precise quantitative solution. However, some political groups have taken rational scientific disagrement over this and used it to try and argue that the contribution of CFCs to ozone depletion is minimal. This is simply wrong.

You just contradicted yourself. You say there is no precise quantitative solution to the impact of CFCs. Then you go on to say that those that say the impact is minimal are wrong.

If you can't say how much ozone depletion is due to CFCs, how can you say they are a major contributor to the problem?

Oh and concerning the Nobel Prize in Science, that entire organization has become more and more political over the years. I can't remember the exact people involved, but the Nobel Prize in physics a few years back was a major political decision. Instead of picking the best science, they picked a "multinational" team to push their social agenda.

NN

[achilles]

Wow, states acting like they have their own government and choices in their future like was ALWAYS expected....bout time they stopped expecting the federales to baby step them through the future

You are not annoyed every time democracy is working are you? p-)

You might have miss the point.

I dont think so. Lets cut federal support to certain States that disagree with the central government? C'mon...

[achilles]

You just contradicted yourself. You say there is no precise quantitative solution to the impact of CFCs. Then you go on to say that those that say the impact is minimal are wrong.

Sorry about my intervention, but i see no contradiction there. We know that there is a significant anthropogenic impact on the ozon layer but we don't know the precise magnitude of that impact. Yet, we know that it is not minimal. Perfectly reasonable....


If you can't say how much ozone depletion is due to CFCs, how can you say they are a major contributor to the problem?

Have you ever said that 'hey, item X is big, very big, but i dont really know exactly how big it is?'. Thats exactly the kind of rationale that answers your question.

Regression analysis, for instance, can yield statistically significant correlations among variables, but those correlations can be small. And vice versa. Loosely speaking, we might know that variable X affects variable Y, yet we might not be sure about the precise degree of that impact.



Oh and concerning the Nobel Prize in Science, that entire organization has become more and more political over the years. I can't remember the exact people involved, but the Nobel Prize in physics a few years back was a major political decision. Instead of picking the best science, they picked a "multinational" team to push their social agenda.

Agreed. And lets not mention the Nobel Peace Prize. p-)

[von_Moo142]

We can argue about how significant this mode of decompostition is in constast to natrual occuring decomposition. This is a problematic area, and there can be no precise quantitative solution. However, some political groups have taken rational scientific disagrement over this and used it to try and argue that the contribution of CFCs to ozone depletion is minimal. This is simply wrong.

You just contradicted yourself. You say there is no precise quantitative solution to the impact of CFCs. Then you go on to say that those that say the impact is minimal are wrong.

If you can't say how much ozone depletion is due to CFCs, how can you say they are a major contributor to the problem?

Oh and concerning the Nobel Prize in Science, that entire organization has become more and more political over the years. I can't remember the exact people involved, but the Nobel Prize in physics a few years back was a major political decision. Instead of picking the best science, they picked a "multinational" team to push their social agenda.

NN

I don't see this as being a condradiction. We cannot pin a precise contribution of CFCs in ozone depletion down here, but we can give a range of values which is accurate. I've yet to see a study that gives a precise value for the contribution, but the reasonably accurate ranges of values given are significant. A lack of precision doesn't imply a lack of accuracy, but if you shoot you'll already know that I guess *.


Here's another problem with how society interprets science: We tend to expect neat, precise solutions to complex problems. It isn't the failure of the idea that CFCs cause ozone depletion that is to blame for the lack of such a neat solution, it's the complexity of the problem. However, we do understand the magnitude of this depletion mode well enough to be able to say that it is significant.


There was no political fallout that I'm aware of amoung chemists or other scientists about the '95 prize. That doesn't mean that plenty of scientists won't try and nitpick at studies and their conclusions in this field, just as they do in any other area. If it was politically motivated BS, based on dodgy findings then there would be no covering it up. I've met and worked with plenty of good chemists, many of whom are well known internationally. None of them seem to think that there is much wrong with the core idea that CFCs (and some othere compounds) cause damage to the ozone layer.


* Here's what I mean: http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/sci122/SciLab/L5/accprec.html

[achilles]

We tend to expect neat, precise solutions to complex problems

Very good posts, mate, thanks for contributing.

Let me add, that even if the scientific evidence at hand is far from being neat and accurate, we cannot risk remaining inactive in terms of doing whatever we can to tackle environmental problems, especially global ones. The greatest example of that is global warming.

Even if the atmosphere and our oceans are capable of fully assimilating anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the impact of global warming can be so big that we cannot afford NOT to do whatever we can, that is cap our own emissions. Global warming or not, moving towards cleaner forms of energy will be good whatsoever.

Risk is the key word here, and those who deny Global Warming (motivated mostly by political opportunism rather than pure science), fail to realize the risk involved and hence fail to comprehend the compelling character of the Kyoto Protocol.
The question regarding Kyoto is not whether we should do too much, too early, but whether the Protocol itself is doing too little, too late.

Having said that, we do not need to be 100% reassured by scientists in order to take measures. The precautionary principle might have its flaws, but when high risk enters the picture it's actually the only way to go.

[achilles]

A computer simulation of the Earth's climate 250 million years ago suggests that global warming triggered the so-called "great dying".
A dramatic rise in carbon dioxide caused temperatures to soar to 10 to 30 degrees Celsius higher than today, say US researchers.

The warming had a profound impact on the oceans, cutting off oxygen to the lower depths and extinguishing most lifeforms, they write in the latest issue of Geology.

The research adds to the growing body of evidence that higher temperatures, rather than a giant space rock hitting the planet, led to the greatest mass extinction in history.

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4184110.stm)

[ViktorNavorski]

Wow, states acting like they have their own government and choices in their future like was ALWAYS expected....bout time they stopped expecting the federales to baby step them through the future

You are not annoyed every time democracy is working are you? p-)

You might have miss the point.

I dont think so. Lets cut federal support to certain States that disagree with the central government? C'mon...

Nope, you did miss the point then.

[achilles]

Nope, you did miss the point then.

Perhaps. Would you bother enlightening me?

[ViktorNavorski]

Nope, you did miss the point then.

Perhaps. Would you bother enlightening me?

Perhaps, when you find out how "federal's support" got anything to do with this. Is there something unconstitutional and abhor by the federal governments about states' legislatures proposing environmental measures for their respective states in the hope of procuring enough national support for an eventual federal legislation?

[achilles]

Nope, you did miss the point then.

Perhaps. Would you bother enlightening me?

Perhaps, when you find out how "federal's support" got anything to do with this.

If you are willing to discuss, please go ahead, otherwise make sure you treat that severe constipation

[ViktorNavorski]

Nope, you did miss the point then.

Perhaps. Would you bother enlightening me?

Perhaps, when you find out how "federal's support" got anything to do with this.

If you are willing to discuss, please go ahead, otherwise make sure you treat that severe constipation

What, is the age old balance between the state vs. the federal government too hard a concept to grasp by some foreign wannabe of U.S. domestic politics. If you are willing to be less ignorant, I will gladly help you pull out that stick stuck up your ass for you.

[achilles]

What, is the age old balance between the state vs. the federal government too hard a concept to grasp by some foreign wannabe of U.S. domestic politics. If you are willing to be less ignorant, I will gladly help you pull out that stick stuck up your ass for you.

Thats was one catchy line. Do you rehearse those words of profanity or you actually improvise? Since its constipation we are talking about, perhaps you SHOULD give me a hand to remove that stick stuck up my ass and shove it up yours, just in case this helps you step down your throne of enlightement and say something more than just 'you missed the point'. Its a good thing that you edited your post even with a slight delay.

Its always appreciable to explain WHY someone might have missed the point but i am sure you knew that already. ;) Back to the point.

I dont know to what extent it is unconstitutional for indivudual states to enact their own laws and legislations regarding certain issues. Is environmental policy dictated strictly by the central government? (Please diminish my ignorance)If this is so, then there is indeed a problem. A political, or technical if you like, one. Thats does not necessarily mean that what those states are trying to do is wrong.

I am referring to the practical benefits of the issue, given that i am an advocate of cutting down CO2 emissions on a local scale, and consequently ratifying the Kyoto Protocol at a global level.

I see two benefits from this story:
---The fact that certain agents are trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
---The fact that an act that might even be unconstitutional, promotes democracy within a country. Specific groups of people proceed with what they consider to be right, and the way i see it, it is right.

[Vorian]

What, is the age old balance between the state vs. the federal government too hard a concept to grasp by some foreign wannabe of U.S. domestic politics. If you are willing to be less ignorant, I will gladly help you pull out that stick stuck up your ass for you.

Nice, nice, very civilised.

Anyway, what I can not understand is, what harm would cause to USA the sign of Kyoto. I don't think that it was created to harm you or anything. I don't know about you, but I hate the fact that in 30 years, my country will look like Sahara, because US is too proud to accept that others might have a point.
Have you seen 'The day after tomorrow' ? Usually when such movies appear, the governments of industrial countries go on public and say that it's just fiction. In this case, they said nothing, cause scientists say that those things can happen soon (though not as fast as the movie shows).
The pentagon created a project in February 2005 telling about catastrophical phenomena by the end of the year. Guess what. Half Europe is drawned by the rain, other half is hot as hell. Things won't stop there.

[Vorian]

[quote]What, is the age old balance between the state vs. the federal government too hard a concept to grasp by some foreign wannabe of U.S. domestic politics. If you are willing to be less ignorant, I will gladly help you pull out that stick stuck up your ass for you.

Nice, nice, very civilised.

Anyway, what I can not understand is, what harm would cause to USA the sign of Kyoto. I don't think that it was created to harm you or anything. I don't know about you, but I hate the fact that in 30 years, my country will look like Sahara, because US is too proud to accept that others might have a point.
Have you seen 'The day after tomorrow' ? Usually when such movies appear, the governments of industrial countries go on public and say that it's just fiction. In this case, they said nothing, cause scientists say that those things can happen soon (though not as fast as the movie shows).
The pentagon created a project in February 2005 telling about catastrophical phenomena by the end of the year. Guess what. Half Europe is drawned by the rain, other half is hot as hell. Things won't stop there.

I messed up here. Plz delete the first post I made a mistake.

[achilles]

You can do it yourself Vorian. Just click the edit button and change your post anyway you like.

Welcome aboard!

[ViktorNavorski]

That is nice, you missed the point and don't know anything, sorry for mistaken your head for a stick. Now you got me just all excited and giddy to see how Washington is going to phrase this little initiatives on my ballot this coming election. God know they wasted enough money for the monorail, lets see how much our treehugging voters like this one.

[achilles]

That is nice, you missed the point and don't know anything, sorry for mistaken your head for a stick.

This is getting better and better. Have you ever thought of putting your wisdom on paper? Or will you just stick to your pseudo-lectures on Keynesian economics, Pr. Spearman? :lol:

It is true that i was not aware of the constitutional aspect of the issue, but that does not cripple my argument.

Irrespective of what i have missed or not, you certainly have serious problems of paying a minimal attention to my point. Personally, i never claimed you are wrong, yet it is more than certain that you are a prodigy in vomitting sarcasm and irony, of the 'you missed the point' like...you are almost funny...

Now, tell me how much i missed the point and put me to sleep...no hard feelings, but you do owe me 5 minutes of my life Professor. ;)

[Syncmaster]

Agree, this was one strange summer here in Europe... Portugal and Spain are reminiscent of Sahara more and more, while Eastern and Central Europe resemble the Everglades area... Central Europe two years ago was hit by an unprecedented drought and high temperatures, while this year we had just a few sunny days with over 30°C in all... This year we had to change the drainage system around our house, since the amount of rainfall is just huge... Last week here in Slovenia in a nearby area of just 50 sqkm approximately 200 new land slides emerged over night due to extremely heavy rainfall and 300 out of 400 km of existing roads was destroyed or heavily damaged... Something strange is going on that's for sure :| I rather live in a desert than face a new ice age, hope the scenario about the Gulf stream stopping isn't to happen in near future :|

[ViktorNavorski]

This is getting better and better. Have you ever thought of putting your wisdom on paper? Or will you just stick to your pseudo-lectures on Keynesian economics, Pr. Spearman? :lol:

Actually, the correct theory would be Hayek's free market, Keynesian been dying for a decade or two now. Get with the time, please.

[Roaming East]

wish i never made that original post...I still believe in states rights. I just think my country has a bad habit of forgetting that the concept of the Union and its overall power was more of a contractual agreement between individual nation state. The ACW kinda changed that but the basic formula still remains. Individual states still have a say in what economic principles they undertake. What is the amount of funding the states get from the federal government anyway in regards to enviromental protection and how bad is it if the states choose more stringent regulations that the federal allows for?

[ViktorNavorski]

wish i never made that original post...I still believe in states rights. I just think my country has a bad habit of forgetting that the concept of the Union and its overall power was more of a contractual agreement between individual nation state. The ACW kinda changed that but the basic formula still remains. Individual states still have a say in what economic principles they undertake. What is the amount of funding the states get from the federal government anyway in regards to enviromental protection and how bad is it if the states choose more stringent regulations that the federal allows for?

From what I gather in Washington, seeing that we are the land of treehuggers with more stringent environmental standards than what the federal government set, the state is allow to legislate their own environmental standard to a certain degree. I am not sure the specifics, but considering most industries are interstate and that the boundary are blurry, then you are going to get into that whole turf war between states' rights vs. national government deal when it come to imposing regulations.

Beside federal revenues shared with state and local governments, everything else coming out of Congress's wallet come with string attach. The federal government wants to ensure uniformity of policies and programs across the nation, and is constitutionally empowered to pass laws that overrule state policies. Under new federalism initiatives, many programs were decentralized in the belief that control over a program should be placed at the level closest to the people to be served, whether on the state or local level. The most common federal aid is block grants. Unlike the old categorical grants, states have more flexibility in speding federal's money. Instead of requiring that specific sums be spent on reducing car emission, the states could decide on spending for specific programs as long as that entire block of money was spent on things related to environmental improvement.

[nognig]

I don't see this as being a condradiction. We cannot pin a precise contribution of CFCs in ozone depletion down here, but we can give a range of values which is accurate.

Could you please provide me with a scientific article that specifically states the contributions of CFCs to the ozone destruction. By that I mean actual measurements or calculations. No computer models or theories please.

From what I've read, there is no way to accurately measure the destruction cause by CFCs. There is a constant flux of ozone destruction and regeneration that naturally occurs. It's like pouring water in the ocean and after the fact trying to measure how much was added.

NN

[achilles]

wish i never made that original post...I still believe in states rights. I just think my country has a bad habit of forgetting that the concept of the Union and its overall power was more of a contractual agreement between individual nation state. The ACW kinda changed that but the basic formula still remains. Individual states still have a say in what economic principles they undertake. What is the amount of funding the states get from the federal government anyway in regards to enviromental protection and how bad is it if the states choose more stringent regulations that the federal allows for?

Its a good thing that you posted it, for two reasons:
1) It seems to have sparked an interesting chat.
3) It gave the chance to style-over-substance scholars to come up to the surface. :lol:

Most of the times, a discussion proceeds smoothly when participants elaborate a bit more than just 'you have missed the point' while displaying a preposterous inclination towards not analyzing why this may be the case. *gasp*

On a more serious note, i objected to your post because i was not really aware, never said i was, of the degree to which individual states are allowed to modify their environmental policy.
In retrospect, the way i objected was a bit overstretched.

To the point. I dont think its bad for individual states to apply their own environmental regulation, even if this questions the authority of the central government. Not all states confront with the same environmetal problems and, in turn, not all states suffer from certain forms of environmental degradation and depletion to the same degree. That, on its own, justifies a certain degree of limited autonomy to states-ANY states or provinces of ANY country that is- as regards to how much they are allowed to pollute.

Plus, i tend to see that as a unique form of decentralization of the decision-making process. We both know that the less centralized countries are, the more prudent the decisions tend to be. Simply, certain groups of people are allowed to define by themselves what they think is best, FOR themselves. And that applies to our case here, although the decision by those states seems to not stem solely by their enhanced environmental awareness, but also by politics.

That, as a general note.
Cheers.

[California Joe]

I live in Vermont and I can tell you that there is a reputation for being anti industry/business here that is all based on it's agrarian/farming history and preserving the environment. Lets face it, the only reason tourists come here is to look at all the pretty trees during leaf peeping season. If the environment goes to **** in this little state it will have nothing.

[ViktorNavorski]

Its a good thing that you posted it, for two reasons:
1) It seems to have sparked an interesting chat.
3) It gave the chance to style-over-substance scholars to come up to the surface. :lol:

Most of the times, a discussion proceeds smoothly when participants elaborate a bit more than just 'you have missed the point' while displaying a preposterous inclination towards not analyzing why this may be the case. *gasp*

On a more serious note, i objected to your post because i was not really aware, never said i was, of the degree to which individual states are allowed to modify their environmental policy.
In retrospect, the way i objected was a bit overstretched.

Well, it doesn't change much even when the parrot repeat the same thing for a piece of cracker. Speaking of "style-over-substance," the whole "In retrospect, the way i objected was a bit overstretched" is a better euphemism than I could stylishly put it, "you still did missed the point." In retrospect, shouldn't have deleted that very stylish paragraph from my previous post about how you missed the point (great, look what you done, now i become repetitive in my writing), but I guess children these day can't stop their trantrum in the sandbox. If you wish, we'll continue with this little banter then.



Under the federal Clean Air Act, California is allowed to set pollution standards for cars and trucks that are more stringent than federal standards. I know Washington, Oregon is going to adopt the same standard as California, so will the NE states in the original article. Though I thought, without the federal act, how far will California and these states pursue the tougher standards. The government have payments to regional commissions and organizations and research and development that is an integral part of the provision of public services. Like the California Air Resources Board in 2002 that develop rules to reduce vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases. The conditions behind those funds without the Clean Air Act would probably hamper any attempt to produce a higher standards than the federal standards. The auto industry is suing California over the new tougher standards, saying the state lacks authority to implement such regulations.

[achilles]

Well, it doesn't change much even when the parrot repeat the same thing for a piece of cracker. Speaking of "style-over-substance," the whole "In retrospect, the way i objected was a bit overstretched" is a better euphemism than I could stylishly put it, "you still did missed the point." In retrospect, shouldn't have deleted that very stylish paragraph from my previous post about how you missed the point (great, look what you done, now i become repetitive in my writing), but I guess children these day can't stop their trantrum in the sandbox. If you wish, we'll continue with this little banter then.


I am afraid this nonsensical vicious circle of repetitions, which you are still nurishing (inadvertently or not), is the result of your style-over-substance approach that, in your case, dictated nothing but sarcasm and unwillingness to cut to the chase.
You have even sunk to the depths of accussing me, humorously or not, about your null and void repetitions. If anything, your approach towards me is amusing, after it surpassed the stage of being annoying and empty of any actual substance.

This very latest post of yours, goes even further with the repetition: you restated what i had already done, long time ago: admit that i responded to Roaming East's post while having assumptions on my mind, different than those of the poster under consideration *gasp*

Had you dropped the enlightened style right from the start and said something like 'you missed the point for reasons A, B and C', none of this babbling would have taken place.

As a true Professor, you should know that Chaotic Theory suggests that certain phenomena are sensitively dependent on initial conditions. Having said that, i can claim with a significant degree of certainty that the gibberish we have been posting all along depend, in a very sensitive fashion, on your initial refusal to elaborate. *gasp*.

I could go as far as calling you a goober, if it werent for those other parts of your posts that can be easily characterised as specific, informative, well-researched and to-the-point. Other than that, your attitude towards me resembles a huge pile of ****. Plain and simple. Even if you were right. ;)

I could go even further and ask for an apology, if it werent for my comments on your attitudinal
constipation. I remain entitled to that very latest assessment of mine.

[ViktorNavorski]

Polly want a cracker...Polly want a cracker

[Durandal]

Science is facts

Actually Science is NOT fact. That is why SOOOO much of is theoretical.

I am a VERY large proponent of Science, but you are quite, quite wrong.

[Durandal]

I live in Vermont and I can tell you that there is a reputation for being anti industry/business here that is all based on it's agrarian/farming history and preserving the environment. Lets face it, the only reason tourists come here is to look at all the pretty trees during leaf peeping season. If the environment goes to **** in this little state it will have nothing.

AND

If they adopt a stronger emissions policy State-wide it would do less harm to an Industry base then. ;)

Gots to love politics.

In the end run its smart, I think, we should have been working on it years ago to take out the sting of doing it at once, but people are certainly right to label Kyoto a toothless joke.

Rant rant rant....just woke up, sorry.

[achilles]

Polly want a cracker...Polly want a cracker


That reminded me of school days...*sigh* Nirvana *sigh*