2 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

Anything goes? Like what? Cutting out the ridiculous red tape? Where is this hatred? Why can't we just use common sense and reality to make infrastructure projects feasible and affordable? Just because we see through the over the top regulatory system does not mean hatred. Where are you getting this? 

 

You mean the red tape that would have prevented Love Canal and hundreds of other Superfund sites?

 

Is signing some treaty supposed to magically put out this fire?

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Yes it limits the chances of it happening.

 

Thats if you cared to study the reasons.

what caused the co2 spike 1851 ?

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

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Yes it limits the chances of it happening.

 

Thats if you cared to study the reasons.

Tell us more when you win an Oscar.

6 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Leave US alone with polluted air and water which will not improve their already low life expectancy. They deserved Trump. 

 

The irony of living in Thailand and calling the USA polluted. lol When I came home from Thailand the most impressive thing was how clean the land and air are here. 

Inflammatory post reported and removed.  

 

10 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

Great news. Cut the ridiculous amount of red tape and build infrastructure. The leftists will hate it, which is even more important. 

I'm far from left and hate it. I defended the bloke when folk got on the hating bandwagon, but he's got it completely wrong here and deserves to be called an idiot for it. Not to generalise, but climate/pollution issue debunkers do tend to be of the a g e d persuasion and, it seems, lacking in the logic/intelligence department. Sad, though, as it'll all end in tears (for the young). 

 

Post and reply without a source have been removed.  

 

8 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

In case you weren't aware, climate change impacts don't limit themselves neatly to national borders!

 

What impacts are you talking about?

2 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

<SNIP>

 

It seems to me that adherents to the climate change scenario would be better off worrying about the effects on climate by what goes on in China and India, as opposed to worrying about rules in the USA that do nothing to affect climate.

US is the second largest emitter of CO2

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=usa+co2+emmissions+ranking&oq=usa+co2+emmissions+ranking&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.11862j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

The OP also refers to environmental impact investigations being reverted to the remit of the developers which surly will contribute to corrupt practices and comes across as a conflict of interest for trump due to his business interests. In addition trump has reversed a number of other laws to protect the environmental in favour of 'big business' due to his petty and bitter enmity to any laws Obama put in-place for the greater good. 

3 hours ago, daveAustin said:

I'm far from left and hate it. I defended the bloke when folk got on the hating bandwagon, but he's got it completely wrong here and deserves to be called an idiot for it. Not to generalise, but climate/pollution issue debunkers do tend to be of the a g e d persuasion and, it seems, lacking in the logic/intelligence department. Sad, though, as it'll all end in tears (for the young). 

What evidence do you have to back up this opinion that cutting red tape for infrastructure projects will damage future generations? Explain the ridiculous claim that somehow you are more intelligent than those who disagree with your opinions. 

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

US is the second largest emitter of CO2

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=usa+co2+emmissions+ranking&oq=usa+co2+emmissions+ranking&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.11862j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

The OP also refers to environmental impact investigations being reverted to the remit of the developers which surly will contribute to corrupt practices and comes across as a conflict of interest for trump due to his business interests. In addition trump has reversed a number of other laws to protect the environmental in favour of 'big business' due to his petty and bitter enmity to any laws Obama put in-place for the greater good. 

Quite a bit of unfounded rhetoric here. Why is it that we can't build infrastructure using common sense and engineering practices without having to jump through dozens of unnecessary hoops? You are making an assumption that things are done to destroy the environment. 

17 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

Quite a bit of unfounded rhetoric here. Why is it that we can't build infrastructure using common sense and engineering practices without having to jump through dozens of unnecessary hoops? You are making an assumption that things are done to destroy the environment. 

Many things we take for granted that would not have been built under today's regulations. I imagine the US interstate network might fall in that category.

15 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

Great news. Cut the ridiculous amount of red tape and build infrastructure. The leftists will hate it, which is even more important. 

That is a major in most Western Countries Red tape and Lefties, however there needs a general vacuuming of the atmosphere especially over dear China

4 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Wow that is truly a childish playground style insult. Cant you Trump hating folks give it a rest and try discussing issues instead? 

I must admit a person of your intelligence defending Trump does baffle me. I can only conclude he appeals to your hip pocket and sense of anarchy. Oh, and the sacred Second Amendment, of course.

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I must admit a person of your intelligence defending Trump does baffle me. I can only conclude he appeals to your hip pocket and sense of anarchy. Oh, and the sacred Second Amendment, of course.

Fortunately, you don't get to decide who, what or why someone chooses to support. More importantly, you don't get to determine the intelligence or morals of others who disagree with your opinion. 

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

I must admit a person of your intelligence defending Trump does baffle me. I can only conclude he appeals to your hip pocket and sense of anarchy. Oh, and the sacred Second Amendment, of course.

You forgot my happy broker. Oh yes, and the uneducated dudes we employ that are now making fat cash and aint getting laid off from time to time. They love the Man. They even work harder and show up on time.

 

Now philosophically, the Man is not quite my crowd ducky, but I cant have everything. At least at this point, there is nothing better over on the other side.

 

Hope all of your friends and families are OK Oz dude!

13 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

Anything goes? Like what? Cutting out the ridiculous red tape? Where is this hatred? Why can't we just use common sense and reality to make infrastructure projects feasible and affordable? Just because we see through the over the top regulatory system does not mean hatred. Where are you getting this? 

And again avoiding your own words, the ones I reacted to " The leftists will hate it, which is even more important.  ". The hatred is in your own words.

Edited January 8, 20206 yr by stevenl

3 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

Quite a bit of unfounded rhetoric here. Why is it that we can't build infrastructure using common sense and engineering practices without having to jump through dozens of unnecessary hoops? You are making an assumption that things are done to destroy the environment. 

What good for the environment has been created by reversing environmental protection laws? From the OP:

 

environmental groups have successfully blocked or delayed a dozen big polluting projects in courts by arguing that Trump agencies failed to weigh climate impacts in their reviews, a requirement created under the Obama administration.

 

Again what facts, not rhetoric,  do you have confirming the net benefit for enabling major polluting projects?

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Earlincalifornia said in post # 8

So, try getting it right next time!

Try getting what right?

 

i quoted earls comment from post 8... acknowledged it... included it in my argument.... and pointed out that he was being honest by saying it, when his honesty was being questioned for saying it.

 

I will try to get it right.... but your post fails to demonstrate how I did not get it right.... perhaps you could try to explain yourself next time. I don’t mind if you use words.

On 1/7/2020 at 7:48 AM, webfact said:

"President (Donald) Trump promised a more efficient process to provide Americans timely decisions on permits for vital infrastructure projects that provide good jobs, reduce traffic congestion, and enhance the quality of life in neighborhoods across our great country," CEQ spokesman Daniel Schneider said

Trump: "One question, Danny Boy. Will doing away with these regulations help transportation stocks? They've been lagging in the indices."

 

Schneider: "Should do, Donny."

 

Trump: "Scrap'em then."

Edited January 8, 20206 yr by zydeco

Numerous off topic posts and off topic replies have been removed.  This topic is not about the fires going on in Australia. 

2 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

As I said, blaming this disaster on climate change is wrong. 

 

There will always be ways to improve the environment using common sense without calling people deniers or some other cult like nonsense. 

 

There will be droughts, floods, lightning and other unfortunate events that we have little control over until the end of time. 

 

Insulting people who disagree with your opinion on it will not help them agree with you. Subscribing to a totalitarian response that will tax them out of existence while imposing draconian restrictions that would not make any difference is also a severe mistake. 

The difference is his opinion is backed by facts.

22 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

No, just common sense improvement of vital infrastructure without having a 4 year study to see if a toad may be harmed in any way. Get it? 

In my experience, the people calling for “common sense”’ to prevail in order to simplify complex problems, are usually seriously lacking both common sense and the expertise needed to solve the problems. The fact that you don’t understand the reasons for the process or sympathise with its intentions doesn’t mean it’s pointless. It just means you don’t understand. 

More off topic and a reply removed

More off topic posts and off topic replies have been removed.  This particular topic is not about the  brush fires going on in Australia. 

2 hours ago, androokery said:

In my experience, the people calling for “common sense”’ to prevail in order to simplify complex problems, are usually seriously lacking both common sense and the expertise needed to solve the problems.

That is one of the best summings-up of Green activism I have seen.

 

The Green/Left repeatedly says it's obvious that CO2 emissions are to blame for droughts, floods, fires, blizzards, and that the easy solution is to power everything by solar and wind power.

 

In fact, to say they lack both common sense and the expertise needed to solve the problems is probably understating the case.

2 hours ago, androokery said:

In my experience, the people calling for “common sense”’ to prevail in order to simplify complex problems, are usually seriously lacking both common sense and the expertise needed to solve the problems. The fact that you don’t understand the reasons for the process or sympathise with its intentions doesn’t mean it’s pointless. It just means you don’t understand. 

In your experience? What would that be precisely? 

 

It is exactly your arrogant condescending tone that turns people away from the "only my theory can be right" attitude of the climate nazi cult. 

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

That is one of the best summings-up of Green activism I have seen.

 

The Green/Left repeatedly says it's obvious that CO2 emissions are to blame for droughts, floods, fires, blizzards, and that the easy solution is to power everything by solar and wind power.

 

In fact, to say they lack both common sense and the expertise needed to solve the problems is probably understating the case.

No, the Greens don't say it and what's more important scientists don't say it. What they do say is the rising CO2 levels make droughts and fires more likely to occur.

And it's the free markets which are turning away from fossil fuels to renewables. The cost of renewables is still plummeting as are storage costs in the form of batteries and other technologies. Investors don't want to be left with stranded assets in the form of coal and gas power plants. But I guess if you don't like free markets and prefer big government subsidies, then fossil fuels are the way  to go. Generally speaking, the more corrupt a country's governance is, the more likely it is to stick with fossil fuel generated power.

According to the IMF the fossil fuel industry effectively is subsidized to the tune of 5 trillion dollars per year.

10 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Generally speaking, the more corrupt a country's governance is, the more likely it is to stick with fossil fuel generated power.

That reads like a lame activist effort to conflate 'fossil fuels' with 'corruption' and help paint fossil fuels into the 'evil' category. Playground stuff.

 

The common link, of course, is poverty. Poverty invites corruption and corruption perpetuates poverty, a cycle which has been a concern to international bodies for decades.

 

Similarly, poor countries desperately need reliable cheap energy, and that means fossil fuels. Only the wealthy West can ask its citizens to pay twice or three times the necessary price of electricity by foisting wind and solar power on them.