POLITICS Random Political/Legal

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by fl0at_, Jun 7, 2021.

  1. zehr27

    zehr27 8th's VIP

    Solid choice. Allows your toes to help out.
  2. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    You need to watch more TV man. It's well documented that anyone of Eastern European decent operating a TV repair shop has the equipment necessary to generate a valid fake passport on time and on budget.
    NorrisAlan likes this.
  3. Ssmiff

    Ssmiff Thick like Quaker Oats. AKA chubby.

    He is right. Or in the back of any Chinese restaurant on a side street downtown
  4. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    It’s more related to the type of emission and whether it makes “dirty” air. We each emit CO2 but we aren’t polluting. It is such a different molecule, ubiquitous in nature, and at the heart of how we derive energy. I always believed it required a different mandate that enables market based reductions without labeling it directly as a pollutant because we know it can be and also can’t be. I prefer policy not to be stretched to allow regulation of items outside of the mandate - particularly when it comes to leveling things as pollutants or toxic items.
  5. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I don't believe any of those acts apply to people, though.

    So using us off gassing CO2 as a reason CO2 isn't a pollutant ignores that when it isn't biological, it is.
  6. IP

    IP It's just business.

    The semantics of "pollutant" are meaningless. The point is that the concentration in the atmosphere needs to level out and/or decline, but much of our energy source releases CO2 that otherwise would be in the Earth and outside of the carbon cycle. Label it pollutant or not, we have to quit releasing it from hydrocarbons as a byproduct.
  7. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    I don’t think that the mechanisms built in the clean air act nor the authority to regulate under the clean air makes sense for CO2. I was never a fan the act being used in that way.

    I’ve seen worse stretches of policy but the ruling wasn’t a surprise.
  8. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Do you think a clean water act shouldn't enforce emptying a RV shitter in the water table, simply because poop is also a fertilizer, so not always a pollutant?
  9. IP

    IP It's just business.

    The CWA is more expansive than the CAA, and specifies nitrates and phosphates from human and animal waste, as well as even water at a warmer temperature being discharged if it will affect ecology. The CAA is mostly geared towards specific pollutants identified in the NAAQS. And it has been very effective at controlling those. These laws are 50 years old and don't address our current environmental catastrophe.
  10. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    Does the presence of shit from a RV make the water dangerous to drink?
  11. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    Bottom line and the Supreme Court decision is case in point. If you want to regulate something - including establishing emissions trading systems - establish a clear congressional mandate rather than shoehorning it into existing legislation.

    CO2 doesn’t make the air unhealthy. It’s presence isn’t a problem at all until it exceeds certain thresholds and then not until many years later. It is also a material at the heart of our lives. Energy is life and we haven’t broken CO2 from energy. As such it needs specific climate legislation with a clear mandate. Otherwise it will live and die with changes in presidents.

    You have to codify regulation into law. We need that clear line of sight on regulations otherwise corporations are frozen in acting because you do so in the US today means you likely bang yourself.
  12. VolDad

    VolDad Super Moderator

    Got Damn; she is going to lose to one of these people....

  13. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Not always.
  14. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    No, the bottom line is that we have abandoned reason for semantics.

    CO2 must be regulated, even if the problems are years in the future. That's reason.

    What specific law governs that is semantics. Americans want to play semantics because they've abandoned reason.

    The Supreme Court has made that abundantly clear this cycle.
  15. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    I still disagree.

    There are limits to what the Clean Air Act enabled the federal government to do. Setting up emissions trading systems isn’t contemplated there. Or a carbon tax. And trying to do it without it being addressed in the act becomes pretty sticky.

    It’s bad policy to shoehorn regulation into existing laws because you don’t have the votes to get a new law on the books. I come back to the point around regulatory clarity. If you don’t put the key on the books and instead just rely on establishing regulatory standards beyond traditional interpretation of the law then you are inviting the next administration to simply reverse or not enforce them. And for something like CO2 that is horrible. You need long-range line of sight and clarity on CO2 regulation to enable the type of investments required to solve that problem.
  16. IP

    IP It's just business.

    I can only disagree in shades. The ruling wasn't as batching on this as others. But it is more existential significant
  17. zehr27

    zehr27 8th's VIP

    If we stay the current course how many years will it be before we start seeing major change in the climate? Also when that happens how long would it take to reverse those changes or is that even possible?
  18. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    You need both. But you don't throw out the only protection you have because you don't have full protection.

    Deal with the "if" when it is no longer an if, and, put it on the books cleanly before it becomes an if.

    "Well we don't have the votes to stop nuclear war, so, *launch*."

    What a supremely great form of government that is.
  19. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Supposedly a 10 year old rape victim in Ohio had to travel to Indiana for an abortion, since Indiana's trigger laws hadn't quite triggered...

    Meanwhile, Ohio state legislator says even a baby due to rape has a right to life. Which creates a great opportunity for a discussion on... "does it?"

    Who owns their genetic material? If @Indy, I traumatically stole your DNA, and started making clones of you in test tubes, that might one day track you down and confront you as "Dad," about how many weeks do you have before you have to ask for them destroyed? Is it 23? Or 6? Or ... at any point up to birth of the clone who will call you "Dad," forcing you to re-live your trauma?
    SetVol13 likes this.
  20. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

Share This Page