pop corn while watching Waterworld, dear netherlands citizen

Cam.. This topic is about the environment and how a country ought to deal with it.


do you care for any of that? because we can bash Trump and defend him in any other topic.
This thing is happening while we argue about what is and what isnt a lie.

Trust me, we will do great with global warming..
Water management is our primary expertise ! ^^ I'll leave the door open for french friends.

When the thread's premise is based on lies and fallacies they should be pointed out.
Thats not separate from discussing environmental policy. Cutting through the lies is essential for reality based policy prescriptions and discussion.

I undermined the attempted justification for EPA expansion/business as usual by refuting the claims made.

so not to derail your style of offense by defense but do you have any ideas of what specifically should be done?

I support slashing unnecessary regulations.
In lieu of abolishing the EPA, i think freezing new EPA grants and expansions, and examining what the EPA is doing that could be cut is on the right track.

The REINS act we discussed in a different thread is another good step to keep massive bad regulations in check.

I also think there needs to be a major overhaul opening up peoples ability to sue for damages and pollution, and reducing/eliminating the special protections granted to corporations.
When they aren't shielded from consequences they are much less likely to engage in risky behavior and have to pay when they do.

The patent system also needs reform. Its inhibiting innovation in better tech.
Bad regulations and taxes inhibiting the development and open competition of energy should also be slashed.

Eliminate eminent domain.

Human life and our ability to flourish and survive should be prioritized over doomsday pseudo-science and ecofascism.

i think i agree on the whole with a lot of that. i just cant set aside some of the scientists, admittedly not all, who claim we're already past the point of no return and are only in prevention mode. i sincerely hope my grand children have a stable environment to live in.

the thing i think is missing in your post is some way to actually verify where we are at. a way to make the big pile of science out there tell us something more objectively. because to me sitting on our hands and letting the market play its way out seems potentially irresponsible. i hope we're not known as the society that could have made it better but didnt because we couldnt get a clear answer.

i fully expect you to set aside these concerns as fear mongering pseudo science. but to be quite frank unless you have a way to bring the science together, and be willing to accept any and all tax money required to fix the problem the would verify, your stance still reeks of "muh taxes" and "lol no one can agree so that means its all pseudo science so economy > until they can convince me" .

Good post.

I have to add that we are past the point of being able to call it pseudo science.. There is more proof for human caused global warming than for getting cancer from smoking.
It's effects are already playing out.. (for instance:) Droughts in Syria and India. We are far past the point to not take responsibility for our behavior.

This post was edited by Knaapie on Jan 25 2017 07:30am

again, by that standard your claim is a "lie" as well. no proof for it, no facts. you made a positive claim to support trump without any proof when in fact the last time there was actual proof, it supported MY claim not yours.
we both agree that at least until some point in late 2016, trump held stock in said energy company, right? the only "source" for what you base your dismissal of my statement on, is one of HIS spokespersons claiming he sold it. the public, however, has no way of verifying this (i wonder how you feel about that) - so where you get your "likelihood" that my claim is false and yours is correct from, is mysterious to say the least. do you really trust him to tell us the truth concerning his business ties after all the "alternative facts" he spread? that sounds rather naive to me...




sorry, but you must be incredibly deluded if you honestly expect ppl to still believe your cute little "i don't even support him" story to prove your "objectivity". your passionate defending of his actions and your whole avoiding the topic while trying to make it sound like i was just lying is just further proof of that, not that any more was needed.




there we go again, implying anyone said "all the EPA does is great" / "the EPA is awesome" in order to reject any criticism of trump's executive order concerning it. i bet you don't even see the hypocrisy in your line of argument while at the same time criticising me for lying, do you? oh, and i wonder how you'd explain the fact that in countries where the oil, gas, and coal industry don't have quite as big of an influence on politicians and lawmaking, alternative energy sources are much more relevant and huge job creators too. i'd like to hear your take on that...

So unless I support unlimited theft in pursuit of stopping climate change, which you think is impossible, you accuse me of writing off everything as pseudo science. Interesting.

There are large problems with government trying to dictate what the science says, and mandating very unscientific and costly "solutions" and impoverishing people in the name of helping.
Giving government free reign and impoverishing mankind and stifling technological advancement is far more irresponsible than opening up competition to find better technology and energy solutions, and making us wealthier and more capable of surviving potential changes.

I'm not sure there is a great way to "verify where we are at". Declaring the science is settled and closing off conversation doesn't seem to be it.
Do you have one?

also I forgot to mention Nuclear specifically as a form of energy that is viable and can reduce the need for fossil fuels.