Poor LBJ

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I never once said there weren't rollbacks.  I did push back against notions of what the international manufacturing climate is actually like.

Its totally ok to expect more from the US.  But Jesu started with saying, essentially, with the "right" leadership, the US could be no better than places like China or the like with truly deplorable working conditions and environmental destruction.

I think you read way more into what Jes said than what Jes actually said. There was no reference to what other countries do or international standards, only that (I paraphrase) the U.S. could easily go backwards...which frankly we see happen everywhere and every time a certain side takes power.

In my reading at least, jes didn't say or imply we'd become a China, Russia, etc.

[jesmu84]

I never once said there weren't rollbacks.  I did push back against notions of what the international manufacturing climate is actually like.

Its totally ok to expect more from the US.  But Jesu started with saying, essentially, with the "right" leadership, the US could be no better than places like China or the like with truly deplorable working conditions and environmental destruction.

Then he walked back to "lol the EPA is defanged".

Then when dgies correctly pointed out regulations or water quality standards here...he responded with "do you think there hasn't been any backtrack".  Which is exactly what he's been doing.

I'm very pro-environment.  While I'm very pro-business/free market, I'm not in favor of unchecked environmental damage, pollution, dumping, etc...  However, Ive spent the last 6-7 years seeing manufacturing and industrial in places like China, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, and others.  The US looks like a Green Party wet dream compared to the places where the US loses manufacturing to.  That doesn't mean the US can't be better and should be working from a much different standard...but it does mean pretending or insinuating the US's issues or standards are in anywhere near a similar realm means you're entirely ignorant in order to push an agenda.  Hence why I asked if he has any experience.

Dgies implied he didn't think there had been any environmental regulation rollbacks/backtracking. I asked a question to clarify.

Slippery slope, much like discussed about gun control, can be used here. The same politicians I distrust roll back some environmental regulations. Who's to say they won't want more later on?

[JWags85]

I think you read way more into what Jes said than what Jes actually said. There was no reference to what other countries do or international standards, only that (I paraphrase) the U.S. could easily go backwards...which frankly we see happen everywhere and every time a certain side takes power.

In my reading at least, jes didn't say or imply we'd become a China, Russia, etc.

I guess my point would also be, as has been stated, I don't think people realize how far backwards we'd have to go to not be WELL in front of the great majority of the manufacturing world.

[Pakuni]

I guess my point would also be, as has been stated, I don't think people realize how far backwards we'd have to go to not be WELL in front of the great majority of the manufacturing world.

Relative to the countries we see as our peers, i.e. Western Europe, Australia, Japan, we rank pretty low when it comes to environmental protection. Relative to China and the developing world, we're doing a bang-up job.


https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2022/component/epi

[rocket surgeon]

Relative to the countries we see as our peers, i.e. Western Europe, Australia, Japan, we rank pretty low when it comes to environmental protection. Relative to China and the developing world, we're doing a bang-up job.


https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2022/component/epi

  the environmental studies come out of yale and columbia??  puh leeez...can't see anything the matter there...i wonder how they are funded?? 

don't know if i should laugh or cry, but come on man

[Pakuni]

  the environmental studies come out of yale and columbia??  puh leeez...can't see anything the matter there...i wonder how they are funded?? 

don't know if i should laugh or cry, but come on man

So, rocket, what specifically do you take issue with here? The methodology? The categories? How they weigh the data? The calculations? 
Or are you just saying "Derp ... Yale ....derp derp."

And am I not correct that while you question scientists from Yale and Columbia, you have touted the work of a doctor who claims that  gynecological diseases arise from "demon sperm" transmitted during sex dreams with supernatural beings?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

  the environmental studies come out of yale and columbia??  puh leeez...can't see anything the matter there...i wonder how they are funded?? 

If you would click on a couple of links, you would find that the EPI is funded by the McCall MacBain Foundation, which is a pretty sizable private foundation founded by this guy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_MacBain

[MU82]

  the environmental studies come out of yale and columbia??  puh leeez...can't see anything the matter there...i wonder how they are funded?? 

don't know if i should laugh or cry, but come on man

Buffon.

[rocket surgeon]

So, rocket, what specifically do you take issue with here? The methodology? The categories? How they weigh the data? The calculations? 
Or are you just saying "Derp ... Yale ....derp derp."

And am I not correct that while you question scientists from Yale and Columbia, you have touted the work of a doctor who claims that  gynecological diseases arise from "demon sperm" transmitted during sex dreams with supernatural beings?

  i have no idea what doc or study you cherry picked, but i do have issues with advocacy groups giving money to schools who espouse the very study they are researching.  mcbain is nothing but a flat earth, tree hugging zealot with money he made from his auto trader magazine.  might as well have a daughter named greta

  oh and back atcha 82 you sweetie you

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

  i have no idea what doc or study you cherry picked, but i do have issues with advocacy groups giving money to schools who espouse the very study they are researching.  mcbain is nothing but a flat earth, tree hugging zealot with money he made from his auto trader magazine.  might as well have a daughter named greta

  oh and back atcha 82 you sweetie you

Let’s face it, you had no idea who he was until I told you.

[Hards Alumni]

Let’s face it, you had no idea who he was until I told you.

His daily routine, honestly.

[Pakuni]

  i have no idea

99 percent of your posts can stop right here.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

  i have no idea what doc or study you cherry picked, but i do have issues with advocacy groups giving money to schools who espouse the very study they are researching.  mcbain is nothing but a flat earth, tree hugging zealot with money he made from his auto trader magazine.  might as well have a daughter named greta

  oh and back atcha 82 you sweetie you

Sometimes I think the stupidity is so unfathomable that this must be some genius long-running troll, because nobody can possibly be this intentionally unnatural carnal knowledgeing stupid.

[Uncle Rico]

Sometimes I think the stupidity is so unfathomable that this must be some genius long-running troll, because nobody can possibly be this intentionally unnatural carnal knowledgeing stupid.

I’ve read he was the inspiration for Dr. Leo Spaceman

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I’ve read he was the inspiration for Dr. Leo Spaceman

I had no idea who that was so I had to Google it. Which lead me to this quiz: https://newrepublic.com/article/164872/rand-paul-dr-leo-spaceman-30-rock-covid-science

[dgies9156]

With regard to the U.S. going "backward," the question must be asked on what?

If you're asking whether the U.S. will be part of the Paris Climate Accords should a Republican become President in 2025, the answer probably is "no!" Does it mean the U.S. is suddenly going to become A much more polluted, dangerous place? Absolutely not.

Different administrations emphasize different things. We may not be as forceful on some issues at certain times. But emphasis and retreat are two very different things.

When we are compared to our Western Europe and Asian compatriots, the question has to be asked what the benchmarks are. For example, many cite the commitment of Europe and Asia to high-speed rail and compare its relatively favorable environmental impact to our commitment to airplanes and cars, which has a potentially much more debilitating impact than rail. Yet, because of population density, high speed rail works in Europe and parts of Asia but outside of the East Coast and, soon, Florida, Texas and LA, it doesn't work here.

Likewise, in France, for example. more than half the electricity produced comes from nuclear power. No emissions. No greenhouse gases and if cooling towers are used, no debilitating waterway impact. We have not initiated a new nuclear plant since Three Mile Island in 1979 and, unlike France, have made no commitment to spent fuel storage. So we look worse on power generation... but are we?

Try to build a nuclear plant anywhere in the US and watch what happens.

I could go on but unless your taking air and water measurements of contaminates per liter or something like that, the studies are opinions and quite subjective.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

With regard to the U.S. going "backward," the question must be asked on what?

If you're asking whether the U.S. will be part of the Paris Climate Accords should a Republican become President in 2025, the answer probably is "no!" Does it mean the U.S. is suddenly going to become A much more polluted, dangerous place? Absolutely not.

Different administrations emphasize different things. We may not be as forceful on some issues at certain times. But emphasis and retreat are two very different things.

When we are compared to our Western Europe and Asian compatriots, the question has to be asked what the benchmarks are. For example, many cite the commitment of Europe and Asia to high-speed rail and compare its relatively favorable environmental impact to our commitment to airplanes and cars, which has a potentially much more debilitating impact than rail. Yet, because of population density, high speed rail works in Europe and parts of Asia but outside of the East Coast and, soon, Florida, Texas and LA, it doesn't work here.

Likewise, in France, for example. more than half the electricity produced comes from nuclear power. No emissions. No greenhouse gases and if cooling towers are used, no debilitating waterway impact. We have not initiated a new nuclear plant since Three Mile Island in 1979 and, unlike France, have made no commitment to spent fuel storage. So we look worse on power generation... but are we?

Try to build a nuclear plant anywhere in the US and watch what happens.

I could go on but unless your taking air and water measurements of contaminates per liter or something like that, the studies are opinions and quite subjective.

they are building a nuclear plant in Georgia right now.  There are cost overruns and the US Government is helping to foot the bill (I believe).  They are a slightly different design and safer using molten salt.

[Hards Alumni]

they are building a nuclear plant in Georgia right now.  There are cost overruns and the US Government is helping to foot the bill (I believe).  They are a slightly different design and safer using molten salt.

Nuclear power is perfectly safe, and should be widely adopted by the US to replace all of the carbon plants and to stabilize the grid when renewables are not available.

Keep building more!

[lawdog77]

Nuclear power is perfectly safe, and should be widely adopted by the US to replace all of the carbon plants and to stabilize the grid when renewables are not available.

Keep building more!

On a semi related topic, why don't we have more desalinization plants?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

On a semi related topic, why don't we have more desalinization plants?

Getting water other ways is cheaper.

[Uncle Rico]

Nuclear power is perfectly safe, and should be widely adopted by the US to replace all of the carbon plants and to stabilize the grid when renewables are not available.

Keep building more!

I agree with this analysis

[lawdog77]

Getting water other ways is cheaper.

We are almost at a point in many areas where "getting" water is not an option

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

We are almost at a point in many areas where "getting" water is not an option

Yep. So eventually the cost is going to be worth it. Probably still need to look more at water reclamation projects first.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

I agree with this analysis

Hards, Rico and I agree on something!

[Uncle Rico]

Hards, Rico and I agree on something!

It took awhile to come around on nuclear power but I grew up in the 80’s when we lived post-Three Mile, through Chernobyl and the constant threat of nuclear war being debated.  There are inherent risks, however, it’s the most sensible to me and most sustainable.