Trump

[SB Shock]

I think in general the primary complaint against global warming is economical, not practical or scientific. The idea being even if global warming exists, is caused by humans, and can be stopping by human means it will cost trillions and bankrupt the USA. So maybe the "real" discussion we need to have is about economics, not science or politics.

The basic points for combating global warming would go something like this:

• The costs of not addressing climate change could exceed the cost of fixing it (e.g. a study showing a potential loss of 20% of global GDP)
• Addressing global warming is an investment that will spur the creation of new jobs, new industries, and new supporting industries
• There are substantial side benefits to combating global warming; the worst that could happen is creating a better world "for nothing"

Addressing global warming now is a planning for the future, moving to a economy that can handle long-term economic growth rather than sticking with one reliant on limited, consumable resources and obsolete industries.

And it isn't even a foregone conclusion that investments in our infrastructure and populace will be a net negative in the short term. The simplest, easiest solution is a revenue-neutral carbon tax which would not cost taxpayers a dime while still producing new technologies and industries. This would raise GDP in every region of the country but the Oil Basin (Texas/Oklahoma/Louisiana/Arkansas).

If there is a cheap or even net-positive method of fighting climate change that also future-proofs our economy, why shouldn't we use it?

The global climate change crowd have already said (many times in fact) that we have went beyond the point of return. Where they right? Where they wrong? Or where they fear mongering? If we have passed the point of return - does it make sense to fight something you can't change or do you move on to mitigation.

[wufan]

I think in general the primary complaint against global warming is economical, not practical or scientific. The idea being even if global warming exists, is caused by humans, and can be stopping by human means it will cost trillions and bankrupt the USA. So maybe the "real" discussion we need to have is about economics, not science or politics.

The basic points for combating global warming would go something like this:

• The costs of not addressing climate change could exceed the cost of fixing it (e.g. a study showing a potential loss of 20% of global GDP)
• Addressing global warming is an investment that will spur the creation of new jobs, new industries, and new supporting industries
• There are substantial side benefits to combating global warming; the worst that could happen is creating a better world "for nothing"

Addressing global warming now is a planning for the future, moving to a economy that can handle long-term economic growth rather than sticking with one reliant on limited, consumable resources and obsolete industries.

And it isn't even a foregone conclusion that investments in our infrastructure and populace will be a net negative in the short term. The simplest, easiest solution is a revenue-neutral carbon tax which would not cost taxpayers a dime while still producing new technologies and industries. This would raise GDP in every region of the country but the Oil Basin (Texas/Oklahoma/Louisiana/Arkansas).

If there is a cheap or even net-positive method of fighting climate change that also future-proofs our economy, why shouldn't we use it?

First, I still believe through my readings that man made global warming via CO2 is not factual, but is a reasonable hypothesis worth continued exploration. To me, the negative impact of human CO2 production on temperature is still in debate and I can't get on board with the proposed solutions above until that is settled. I do agree that the earth is warming and that humans do things which contribute to that phenomenon. I don't agree that our impact is so great as to put us in danger, but there is certainly a point at which hot is too hot. We should be mindful of that. With my skepticism (which I have put much effort towards, whether fruitful or otherwise), if I would switch my conclusion based on the understanding, I would jump on the "let's fix this thing" bandwagon. I do disagree with bullet #3. In our pursuit of creating a better world, we do risk (certainly not inevitably) economic issues. Economic issues lead to fewer jobs, less access to healthcare, and less access to food/education. I think the worst that could happen would be a recession/depression, which scares me more than CO2.

I am already on board for minimizing pollution (and CO2 isn't a pollutant) and renewing resources/renewable sources of energy. Sign me up!

[wufan]

Addressing global warming now is a planning for the future, moving to a economy that can handle long-term economic growth rather than sticking with one reliant on limited, consumable resources and obsolete industries.

Im also not sold on this as I feel that many people use the threat of global warming as a way to force the world into renewable resources before it is ready to handle it from an economic standpoint. As oil gets more scarce it will increase in price and other options will become more economically viable. We should start developing the technology now (we have) so that the transition is as smooth as possible. Let's not forget all the oil workers we will put out of business, not to mention a collapse of the Middle East economy should oil become a tertiary commodity. About 15 years ago a lot of effort was put into H fuel cells as the next great thing. The only output was water vapor. Water vapor accounts for 95% of the green house gasses, so what would we do if we had converted everything to fuel cells? Before the combustion engine, we were killing whales for blubber at a rapid pace. The market drove the change (although it was almost too late). Why can't we plan for the future without acting as though global warming is the main concern?

[CBB_Fan]

Why can't we plan for the future without acting as though global warming is the main concern?

Because the market is fundamentally terrible at planning for the future, especially when the costs aren't normally paid by the people that actually manufacture the given product/resource/service. We don't even have to go into global warming to see this, just plain old environmentalism is enough to make the point.

Just to pick the first news story I found while Googling: 35 million pounds of toxic chemicals released into Virginia’s environment in 2015

Summarized:
Factories, power plants and other facilities in Virginia released about 35 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the state's water, air and land in 2015, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.


The Radford Army Ammunition Plant, located along the New River in Montgomery County, emitted more toxic chemicals into the environment than any other facility in Virginia.


The plant, the U.S military's primary gun and rocket propellant provider, released more than 10 million pounds of pollutants, mostly nitrate compounds going into nearby waters.


MeadWestvaco's paper plant in Covington - 3 million pounds of chemicals. The MeadWestvaco plant in Covington released more than 20 chemicals into the environment. The paper plant also released into the air more than 370,000 pounds of hydrochloric acid and about 221,000 pounds of ammonia, the TRI data indicated.


Statewide, on-site releases have fallen from more than 49 million pounds in 2010 to about 38.5 million in 2014 and 35 million in 2015.

The free market doesn't just condone cutting costs and letting others deal with the effects of pollution, it actively encourages it! The Radford Army Ammunition Plant, for example, doesn't pay the costs of any sicknesses caused by its pollution. That means that the best business practice is always to let others pay the cost so to eke out the largest margins at the lowest cost. Being responsible, polluting less, actively hurts the business.

This means businesses that pollute more probably succeed more, not less. They have fewer costs, and the same or greater profits. This is true whether we look at carcinogens or CO2. In essence, this is the economic theory known as "The Tragedy of the Commons" were people acting in their economic best interests (Companies maximizing profit, consumers buying the best value) act against the common good.

These sorts of events are known as negative externalities, and climate change is THE example used in pretty much every economics textbook. To go further, in The Economics of Climate Change The Stern Review Nicolas Stern says:

"Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen."

[wufan]

I'm in agreement with you on planning for our future! We need to do it. It doesn't have to be because of CO2 for goodness sake...plants love that stuff.

As to your Virginia article. That number sounds really big, but most of the companies were in compliance and those that weren't were fined and made to remediate. That's the way it's supposed to work. Set the safe standard and hold people to it. Also, Kudos to Virginia on cleaning up their act! From the article, "Overall, facilities in Virginia have made progress in reducing toxic emissions. Statewide, on-site releases have fallen from more than 49 million pounds in 2010 to about 38.5 million in 2014 and 35 million in 2015. That is a 29 percent drop during the five years – and a 9 percent reduction from 2014 to 2015." Kinda interesting that the news chose to lead with that title rather than, "Virginia reduces pollutants by 29% over 5 years."

[shocka khan]

Comey released his opening statement for tomorrow's hearing. It specifically states Trump asked him in indirect terms to end the investigation into Flynn. This is testimony under oath. This is obstruction of justice. He must be impeached. We will find out soon if the repulicans will choose party over country. This way bigger then watergate.

I read his statement and I couldn't get over the fact that President Trump tried (but failed) to get him to make a loyalty pledge, too.

I also noted an article (can't provide an attribution) that a Swiss bank (maybe Credit Suisse) was asked by congress if Trump owed money to the Russians, I think Credit Suisse was a conduit. They refused to honor the request.

And then the whole thing with Jared Kushner having a F2F with the Russian bank executive to discuss real estate developments.

Could be Trump borrowed money from the Russians and somehow has compromised himself. Could also be that Flynn knew so he pressured Comey.

Could also be another explanation for this as well. We won't know until the investigation moves further forward.

If they ever give Flynn a proffer and he rolls over, then we will have a much better idea that Russia somehow compromised Trump.

Until then, I would not make overly broad statements about anything being bigger than Watergate. I'm the kind of guy (in my profession you have to prove an assertion with solid evidence) that waits to have some sort of proof until making conclusions.

Strange things can happen in life. And remember the old saying about ass u me.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I haven't seen anything in Comey's statement that actually qualifies for obstruction of justice in strict terms, and I say that with gritted teeth because I can't stand Trump and am counting the days until he's out of office.

Anyway, he asked Comey indirectly to end the Flynn investigation, not the Russia investigation. He did not ask him outright to end it, and he did not force him to end it. The only way this moron is going to get impeached is if the prosecutors can prove the decision to fire Comey was an actual attempt to end or disrupt the Russia investigation. With what we've seen so far, they can't do that. However, I do believe Mueller is putting together a team that will find that proof if it exists.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/872532952055513088

Read this and tell me if this is an accurate description of obstruction of justice. If you arent twitter fluent, look below this tweet and read his "thread" of other tweets about
this

OK, I read the twitter thread and I'm still not on the bandwagon. The question seems to be, does asking Comey to drop the Flynn investigation constitute obstruction? I get that intent doesn't necessarily matter, so I stand corrected on that. I get that it doesn't matter if the investigation was actually obstructed, that makes sense. So obstruction exists if an attempt was made, whether or not it was Trump's intent to actually obstruct? That is a very broad definition.

[SB Shock]

So Trump wasn't lying and CNN got it wrong with their anonymous sources - Comey did tell him 3 times they were not investigating him.

[SB Shock]

Comey said for a counter intelligence investigation. He made sure he stated that and stated the difference between criminal and counter intelligence investigations. There is a criminal investigation going on but we dont know who it involves. Also, Comey said he wouldn't say it publicly cause it could change. Guaranteed Muller is investigating trump after Comey was fired. Interesting quote from today's testimony:
Reed: BUT GETTING BACK TO YOUR RATIONALE FOR NOT COMMENTING ON THE INVESTIGATION BETWEEN YOU AND MR. COMEY, THERE'S -- IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHAT YOU SAY IS EITHER THAT IS PART OF A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OR LIKELY TO BECOME PART OF A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND MR. COMEY, AND, THEREFORE, YOU CANNOT PROPERLY COMMENT ON THAT. IS THAT ACCURATE?

McCabe: THAT'S ACCURATE, SIR.

Sorry for the all caps. The place I copied it from did that

[SB Shock]

This way bigger then watergate.

Must be watching a lot of MSNBC. CNN own byline admits nothing there. Unless there is something ground breaking, there is no impeachment.

[Aargh]

End the Flynn investigation and swear loyalty to Trump or get fired might be grounds for obstruction of justice.

[wufan]

End the Flynn investigation and swear loyalty to Trump or get fired might be grounds for obstruction of justice.

Was that said? I missed that.

[wufan]

Comey released his opening statement for tomorrow's hearing. It specifically states Trump asked him in indirect terms to end the investigation into Flynn. This is testimony under oath. This is obstruction of justice. He must be impeached. We will find out soon if the repulicans will choose party over country. This way bigger then watergate.

This is only because you already assume guilt, thus his actions are that of a desperate guilty man. Is it possible that this didn't happen and there is another reason for this?

[jdshock]

What if Comey just likes trolling political parties? In November, he trolled Republicans (and dems I guess) by saying there was tons of new emails and then saying "yeah, nothing here."

Now he's got democrats all excited, and he's going to show up tomorrow and say just kidding again.