Global Cooling. The sky is falling.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Are we going to force every congressman, senator, president and government official to produce records to support what's on their minds or what they say on FOX or MSNBC? 

FOIA only applies to official actions of government agencies, it does not apply to Congress.  https://www.foia.gov/faq.html

[Alan Klein]

FOIA only applies to official actions of government agencies, it does not apply to Congress.  https://www.foia.gov/faq.html

You missed or deliberately ignored my point and the whole discussion regarding FOIA. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

You missed or deliberately ignored my point and the whole discussion regarding FOIA.

No I didn't.  I just pointed to the FAQ page.  As a point of fact I pretty much agree with what you wrote.  I just wanted to add some clarification!  Only official Agency activities are subject to FOIA.  Any speech or public appearance is not.  Meetings with representatives of the regulated industry and various affected public citizens are. 

[Tim Lookingbill]

Tim, We did discuss FOIA in previous posts.  I had two reasons why I didn't think it was enforceable or adviseable.  First, Pruitt gave a public opinion on TV.  His statement was not official EPA policy any more than Trump's tweets are official US policy.  Are we going to force every congressman, senator, president and government official to produce records to support what's on their minds or what they say on FOX or MSNBC?  On the other hand, when the EPA changes official procedures that effect people in real life, then people can sue the EPA.  Then, the EPA would have to furnish papers to the courts supporting rule changes.  Of course, it's perfectly acceptable now to use FOIA to request any information regarding rules and policies.  But an official shouldn't have to support his personal statements every time he says what's on his mind.  That's turning FOIA into a political game of "gotcha". 

Second, you don't want to use FOIA to force politicians or government officials to support their public opinions.  Pretty soon, they will stop talking to newspapers, TV stations, etc about what they think to avoid nuisance FOIA requests.  Democracy will suffer because we will know less about what our government is thinking and doing, not more.  The proper approach is to have other people who have differing views express their views publicly.  That way the public is informed of the contrarian views on a particular issue and we can believe what we want to believe. 

Enjoyed that Carlin link.  Miss him.

I agree with your statements though I didn't know that much about how FOIA is implemented. It's used locally here in my town quite a bit in getting info hidden behind closed door dealings with contracts and public meetings between developers and city regulatory departments. I understand it's importance in speaking truth to power and in helping those become citizen scientists/investigators.

I just liked the fact the plaintiffs used FOIA as a strategy to get Pruitt's attention on what appears to be a misguided agenda with the EPA.

My favorite point and perspective made by Carlin is his view on endangered species protection in comparison to whether we're next. We're just a rash on this planet compared to the billions of years of its existence. We seem to have no concept or perspective on the amount of time it takes to fix big world problems when we are selves only existed around 100,000 years.

And in that time we still can't feed all the poor, but we certainly believe we can control the weather on a molecular level.

Carlin made it simple...Don't pollute the land, air and water and we'll make out just fine.

[LesPalenik]

.Don't pollute the land, air and water and we'll make out just fine.

+100

[Ray]

Carlin made it simple...Don't pollute the land, air and water and we'll make out just fine.

No sensible person could disagree with that. The problem is with the definition of pollution.

When large numbers of people, and government agencies, seem to believe that a clear and odorless gas called Carbon Dioxide, which is essential for all life, is actually a pollutant, then we have a problem.

Misidentifying or mischaracterizing a substance can be disastrous. There are many problems that mankind faces, unrelated to small increases in the atmospheric levels of CO2. Addressing those problems not only requires sensible and practical policies, at both an individual level and a governmental level, but also cheap and affordable energy.

The shift towards renewables increases the basic, unsubsidised cost of energy, which makes it more difficult to address problems of the infrastructure which is historically vulnerable to floods and storms, build flood-mitigation dams, desalination plants, tow icebergs from the Antarctic to dry areas in Australia, raise highways above previous floods levels, strengthen houses against the force of previous storms, and so on.

The cost of energy is at the core of all human activity in a modern civilization. The price of energy has been steadily increasing in Australia during the past few decades, as a result of a shift towards renewables. There are reports in the Australian media that many poor people cannot afford to heat their homes during the current winter, because of rising electricity prices, which are forecast to continue rising as a result of the closure of coal-fired power plants.

It's a very sad and rather stupid situation. 

[Robert Roaldi]

When large numbers of people, and government agencies, seem to believe that a clear and odorless gas called Carbon Dioxide, which is essential for all life, is actually a pollutant, then we have a problem.

You know, I am not aware of anyone (credible) calling CO2 a pollutant. Are you putting words in people's mouths?

The concern about climate change is that human action is causing an imbalance in atmospheric gases. That we may also be putting chemicals in the environment that don't belong there and that harms life (including ours) is a different (but related) issue.

[Alan Klein]

No I didn't.  I just pointed to the FAQ page.  As a point of fact I pretty much agree with what you wrote.  I just wanted to add some clarification!  Only official Agency activities are subject to FOIA.  Any speech or public appearance is not.  Meetings with representatives of the regulated industry and various affected public citizens are. 

I'm sorry I was tough on you.  Thanks for the clarification.  So your point raises a question.  Why did the judge do what he did if Pruitt was only making a public appearance?  The judge should be overturned on appeal.  FOIA requests for those purposes the judge agreed too are not allowed. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You know, I am not aware of anyone (credible) calling CO2 a pollutant... The concern about climate change is that human action is causing an imbalance in atmospheric gases...

Potato, potahto.

[LesPalenik]

Walmart has been installing solar panels on their stores throughout the US.

It looks like the things are moving in the right direction - Ikea, Walmart, Apple, Amazon, Target. All these corporations combined and many other smaller companies, it really adds up. On my last trip to Florida, I saw many more solar roof panels on all kinds of buildings than in the years before. If they generate and sell back excess electricity to the power grid, that would reduce appreciably amount of coal used by electric utilities.

Also many new opportunities for architectural photographers.

[Alan Klein]

I agree with your statements though I didn't know that much about how FOIA is implemented. It's used locally here in my town quite a bit in getting info hidden behind closed door dealings with contracts and public meetings between developers and city regulatory departments. I understand it's importance in speaking truth to power and in helping those become citizen scientists/investigators.

I just liked the fact the plaintiffs used FOIA as a strategy to get Pruitt's attention on what appears to be a misguided agenda with the EPA.

My favorite point and perspective made by Carlin is his view on endangered species protection in comparison to whether we're next. We're just a rash on this planet compared to the billions of years of its existence. We seem to have no concept or perspective on the amount of time it takes to fix big world problems when we are selves only existed around 100,000 years.

And in that time we still can't feed all the poor, but we certainly believe we can control the weather on a molecular level.

Carlin made it simple...Don't pollute the land, air and water and we'll make out just fine.

One  current appropos "joke" Carlin made on that link was his comment how people in Hawaii build homes next to a volvano and then are surprised when they find lava in their living rooms.  So here we are years after his "joke" facing that very problem.  I see it here in New Jersey with people re-buidling after Hurricane Sandy wiped out their homes on the Jersey shore.  Some of them at least are re-building on stilts.  But the whole thing is kinda silly because we know there's a storm coming that will be worse.  Stilts aren't going to do the job.

None of us want dirty water to drink or air to breathe.  We all want to be safe from the quirks of nature, whether man-made or natural.  But we are part of nature just as much as beavers for example who change major portions of the environment with their dams.  We have to live too.  And our actions do effect the earth. There's no way around that.   Trying to be good stewards of the environment yet take care of ourselves and family are hard to balance at times.

For example, who am I to say the people on the Jersey shore are crazy, stupid and environmentally insensitive.  Well, I live 12 miles inland at an elevation of 160 feet, immune to high tides and storm surges.  So it's easy for me to point my finger.  Meanwhile, those are their homes.  Would I give up my home?  Why should I expect them to give up theirs?  Do you tell a poor person he can;t use carbon based fuels to heat his home when he can't afford to install let's say solar.  Should his family freeze because other richer people would deny him oil?  Should we spend trillions over the next 50 years trying to help people living in low lying areas.  Or let them move so we can use the funds for other things like cancer research and feeding the poor?  The whole argument about climate change is whether it is or isn't.  We seem to be rather short-sighted.  We should be discussing these other factors but somehow we're stuck with the validity issue.

[Alan Klein]

Tim, I wasn't directing my last post to you.  Just spouting off in general.

[Alan Klein]

It looks like the things are moving in the right direction - Ikea, Walmart, Apple, Amazon, Target. All these corporations combined and many other smaller companies, it really adds up. On my last trip to Florida, I saw many more solar roof panels on all kinds of buildings than in the years before. If they generate and sell back excess electricity to the power grid, that would reduce appreciably amount of coal used by electric utilities.

Also many new opportunities for architectural photographers.

Walmart's commitment: "Walmart’s commitment to solar energy is nearly a decade old — a decision we made for many reasons. For one, using the power of the sun and installing solar panels lowers our energy costs and is clearly good for the environment, but another benefit is that it keeps prices low for our customers."

 You can be sure their accountants have messaged the numbers and see a savings for them.  It all comes down to making more money.

https://blog.walmart.com/sustainability/20140509/walmarts-commitment-to-solar

[Alan Klein]

One note about Walmart.  They're in a rare situation.  Their super-sized, one-story,  big-box stores have huge, flat roofs for simple solar panel installation. They're equal in area to the sales store itself below the roof allowing them to provide all the store's electricity requirements.  They need no new real estate for solar farms.  They can easily tie into their electric distribution in the building.   Most businesses would have much more costly installations or not be able to do it at all regardless of cost.

In addition, they already have in their sales department snow shovels, brooms, and solvents to keep the panels clean.

[LesPalenik]

Walmart's commitment: "Walmart’s commitment to solar energy is nearly a decade old — a decision we made for many reasons. For one, using the power of the sun and installing solar panels lowers our energy costs and is clearly good for the environment, but another benefit is that it keeps prices low for our customers."

 You can be sure their accountants have messaged the numbers and see a savings for them.  It all comes down to making more money.

https://blog.walmart.com/sustainability/20140509/walmarts-commitment-to-solar

There are quite a few other examples where the adoption of new clean technologies or alternative methods resulted in a more productive operation. From the water consumption digital remote readers through optical voting scanners to picking robots in Amazon warehouses.
And not only in the dirty industries. According to the latest news, some 70 percent of women with early-stage breast cancer and an intermediate risk of cancer recurrence can now safely skip chemotherapy after their tumors have been removed. Good for patients, and tremendous savings in insurance costs and doctor's times.

[Robert Roaldi]

Yes.

On reflection, I understand your point. Best to hear what the fools actually think.

[Robert Roaldi]

Potato, potahto.

I know that you understand the difference between lead in the air or mercury in the fish, and changes in levels of CO2. Stop trolling, it's undignified.

[Ray]

You know, I am not aware of anyone (credible) calling CO2 a pollutant. Are you putting words in people's mouths?

Really! I suppose we now have to get into the definition of 'credible'. 

I used to accept the alarm about the potentially disastrous consequences of rising CO2 levels, until I began investigating the issue for myself, in search of what I considered to be relevant facts which were never or rarely mentioned in the media, such as the actual pH of the oceans, and the significant, natural variabilility of the pH of the oceans, and the actual percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the existence of previous warm periods which were generally beneficial for past civilizations, and so on.

A few years ago in Australia, we had a Labour Government which attempted to introduce a carbon tax. They called the legislation the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Fortunately, the legislation was blocked.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/respect-the-science-and-dont-call-co2-a-pollutant/news-story/f57a6e32001efc9328826eb903f89329?sv=98508ccab5c8bdcc51a4339a998be3a4

"WHY do we allow our political leaders and the commentariat to refer to carbon dioxide as a pollutant instead of a greenhouse gas?
Some time ago, politicians or their advisers decided a clever way to frame the climate change debate was to label carbon dioxide as a pollutant: hence the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme."

Even the National Geographic magazines has described CO2 as a pollutant.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution/

"THE LEADING POLLUTANT
Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth. Though living things emit carbon dioxide when they breathe, carbon dioxide is widely considered to be a pollutant when associated with cars, planes, power plants, and other human activities that involve the burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline and natural gas. In the past 150 years, such activities have pumped enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to raise its levels higher than they have been for hundreds of thousands of years."

And here's another more rational and detailed article on the issue.
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2365&context=journal_articles

"Pollutants must be registered under the CAA, and there has been a huge dispute-which I shall explain later on-about whether or not carbon dioxide should be registered as such under the Act. After much internal debate, the Bush Administration said no. The states, led by Massachusetts, thought that the answer ought to have been yes. They forced the issue to the Supreme Court, which held in Massachusetts v. EPA3 that, although the EPA was not necessarily bound to make that "endangerment" determination, it was nonetheless authorized to do so because carbon dioxide fell within the CAA's definition of an "air pollutant." Under the CAA, an "air pollutant" is "any physical [or] chemical ... substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air."

Currently, all we can say with confidence is that some amount of carbon dioxide is too much, some amount is perfectly safe, and some too little. But just how does any one, either separately or collectively, decide exactly where to draw the line that separates these three categories?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Stop trolling, it's undignified.

Stop personal attacks, it devalues your position.

[LesPalenik]

More about the ticks moving northwards.

It looks like Lyme disease isn’t the only thing Canadians need to worry about contracting from ticks. A bite from the Lone Star tick can trigger an allergy to red meat, and the tiny bug is making its way into Canada. For decades, scientists kept a watchful eye over the Lone Star tick and its potent bite. The tick that’s widespread in the East, Southeast and Midwest United States got its nickname from the small white “star” that’s on the back of the female bugs. In the past few months, the tick – and its victims with newfound meat allergies – have cropped up not just in the Midwest and southern states, but farther north into Minnesota, New Hampshire and Maine.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3556940/lone-star-ticks-that-cause-red-meat-allergies-are-on-their-way-to-canada/