That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://octopusoverlords.com/forum/
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)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
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.LordMortis wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:16 amThis 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.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
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.
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.
Fuck this timeline.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.
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.ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:05 pmI'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.
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" mixturesImLawBoy 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.
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?LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:28 pmThat 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" mixturesImLawBoy 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.
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.
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.
Can't tell if serious...ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:50 pmJust 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?LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:28 pmThat 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" mixturesImLawBoy 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.
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.
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).LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:04 pmCan't tell if serious...ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:50 pmJust 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?LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:28 pmThat 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" mixturesImLawBoy 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.
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.
Total show of power/force and giant fuck you.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.
She's sixteen. And sorry to tell you this, but most people never consider joining a terrorist organisation.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.
Youthful idealism coupled with free time and no economic limiting factors make for the salad days.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.
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.Lagom Lite wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:23 pmShe's sixteen. And sorry to tell you this, but most people never consider joining a terrorist organisation.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.
