Trump admin. proposes rollback of methane rules to save industry $484 million

a reply to: roadgravel

It's all about the dollars. No doubt.
I just hope when all these tax breaks for energy industry go away people will understand why their utility Bill's double.

Actions have consequences.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: intrepid

Implement global standards that any country is penalized for not following. If you want to pollute to get cheaper goods produced those goods will have an export tax put on them to remove the entire benefit of the pollution with an extra tax on top as punishment. Otherwise if China pollutes we have to as well to maintain competitiveness.

So you want to jack the price of goods to the world? Do you think Martha is going to want to pay more for her "whatever"? Their products are in just about everything. Not going to fly. Not to mention that that would spur inflation.

a reply to: Fallingdown

When is it a something burger?

If we can keep emissions down shouldn't we?

Big picture

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Get the world to force China to reduce emissions so the rest of the world can do it as well without being unable to compete.

We are the nations who have been crapping in our bowl for the last couple of hundred years China are newcomers to the game , this is another short sighted move by Mr Magoo forsaking the health of American citizens in the pursuit of more riches for industry.

Make America Grimy Again.

a reply to: Bluntone22

And I hope all the fraud enabling people who bend over for the oil and power industry every chance they get, understand that price rises will be ideological, not necessary in nature.

A company which cannot exist without effectively holding nations hostage, should not exist at all.

a reply to: underwerks

Pruitt resigned in July.

a reply to: TinySickTears

We don't need to keep our missions down to the point of where it hurts our economy. The same type of articles come out every time there's a EPA change. All screaming it's the end of the world. Obama overregulated The EPA. It's about time somebody brought those regulations back to reality .

And unlike most climate change enthusiast. I didn't watch a Al Gore movie then make up my mind about climate change .

In the 70s there was the population bomb . ( I fell for it )

In the 80s there was the coming Ice Age . ( I fell for it )

With the 90s came man made global warming . ( not this time )

This is another reason I am riding the blue wave in November.

a reply to: dug88

Well, to be fair, the government isn't "subsidizing" anyone, they just give tax breaks. The only reason that anyone would consider tax breaks a "subsidy" is if you believe that corporations' profits are the property of the government first and the business second.

I disagree with that approach.

Secondly, while I have no interest in writing a thesis on the topic, here is a story from 2016 that notes exactly how and why CH4 is so different from CO2 in regards to man's effect on the global temperature, and how it's of a much lower priority if long-term fixing of human-effected temperature rise is the goal. With that in mind, it would make sense to remove what could be seen as burdensome over-regulation of an industry based on the ever-changing opinion of the AGW theory, specifically in regards to methane.

Climate policies often assume that the peak will come in the next 20 to 40 years, but it could come a lot later. Allen said the solution may be to think about methane in terms of global temperature change potential, which better captures methane’s small climate impact on temperatures over the long term.

If policy makers intend to prioritize combating long-term global warming, temperature change potential is the best metric, Allen said.

“We make a specific recommendation in the paper, which is to keep them separate,” he said, referring to carbon dioxide and methane. “Don’t regard these things as equivalent. Recognize that you need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero in order to stabilize temperatures.”

This seems like an appropriate thing for the EPA to do, IMO, but I'm sure it's not a popular one. I just tend to err on the side on non-alarmism.



a reply to: TinySickTears

Hey man.
We'll give you a pass.

Some people like logical discussion.

Who cares if we have an actual real discussion without alarmist hyperbole.

P.S.: The planet is going nowhere because of some excess CH4, and man isn't going to perish off the face of the earth because of what we produce from our industry, either.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: roadgravel

It's all about the dollars. No doubt.
I just hope when all these tax breaks for energy industry go away people will understand why their utility Bill's double.

Actions have consequences.

I’d much rather have a higher utility bill than flammable water coming out of my tap. As a lot of my friends who live in eastern Kentucky and West Virginia have had to deal with.

a reply to: Fallingdown

We don't need to keep our missions down to the point of where it hurts our economy.

The banks hurt your economy not emission caps , is rich people getting richer more important than clean air ?

a reply to: Bluntone22

Based on the up and down price of oil instigated for profits. It's a big game.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: underwerks

Pruitt resigned in July.

Yep. And now we have a coal lobbyist as head of the EPA.

Andrew R. Wheeler is an American lawyer, former lobbyist and since July 9, 2018 Acting Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).[2] He previously worked in the law firm Faegre Baker Daniels, representing coal magnate Robert E. Murray and lobbying against the Obama Administration's environmental regulations.

Link

Seriously, what’s next? Appponting the head of a Mexican drug cartel to director of the DEA?

a reply to: gortex

Employees having jobs is my principal motivator. Would you rather have more people on welfare or working ?

I'll give an example in my line of work. We use both residential and commercial window installers. Several of my ex employees asked for sub work if they formed their own businesses.

I was happy to help them out it kept my labor cost locked in place with no surprises and benefited those that were motivated .

It went along happily for years. And then in 2010 the Obama administration implemented lead exposure regulations on houses before 1976 . Rooms had to be sectioned off and plastic barriers put in place for airborne dust . The thing is very little if any airborne dust is released. All these guys generally do is take off window moldings . But it added so much labor that the little guys couldn't compete.

One by one they went out of business over a bull# feel good rule .


Regulations hurt the economy and the workers .

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: dug88

Get the world to force China to reduce emissions so the rest of the world can do it as well without being unable to compete.

I guess you didn’t get the memo explaining that that’s exactly what the Paris climate agreement did.

Each participating country pledged to make a best effort to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an amount that they themselves thought they could achieve without wrecking their economies. Those are called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).

The INDCs were posted in 2015. China’s INDC was 60 to 65%. Europe’s was 40%. The US INDC was 26 to 28%.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: dug88

Well, the right wing have all the three branches of the US government in their fist, and yet this is a STUNNING example of short term thinking, with long term, damaging repercussions.

No, it's not--you just think that it is based on your belief in the AGW theory. CH4 is not a lasting culprit in the warming of the globe, anyhow.


But, you know: Alarmism for all! That'll teach us to believe.

The right: Climate change is a lie!

Well, you're starting off your silly dialogue on a false premise, but way to generalize a group of people. That's STUNNING logic. Then you finish your dialogue claiming that these (oft-proven false) conjectures and predictions of...how did you put it...oh yeah, that "in a few decades ... we will all die as a result of these policies" and then you compare the AGW theory to the laws of gravity.

Neat little fact: Did you know that, when polled, a majority (although a slim majority) of "the right" acknowledges that the earth is getting warmer (Gallup Poll)? So, how do you make the dramatic leap in logic from that reality to generalize "the right" as being climate-change deniers? That's a serious question, if you're interested in answering--although I think that I know the answer already.

You are being silly: No, the AGW branch of climate science theory is not "proven beyond any doubt," and to claim so is absolute asininity and a blatant disregard for all climate science that exists.

But, you know: Yay alarmism! Yay hyperbole! Everyone else is an idiot who doesn't believe you! Huzzah to saving the world from destruction in "a couple of decades"!

a reply to: intrepid

Depends. What do you want. Cheap goods or a better environment. If you want stuff cheap then cheer for this move.

a reply to: gortex

China is a newcomer doesn't make them any less a polluter. Remind me again where China stands as a world economy?

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: dug88

Get the world to force China to reduce emissions so the rest of the world can do it as well without being unable to compete.

I guess you didn’t get the memo explaining that that’s exactly what the Paris climate agreement did.

Actually no it didn't. It let some countries pollute. China is part of the Paris agreement and is increasing emissions, get educated.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: TinySickTears

We don't need to keep our missions down to the point of where it hurts our economy. The same type of articles come out every time there's a EPA change. All screaming it's the end of the world. Obama overregulated The EPA. It's about time somebody brought those regulations back to reality .

And unlike most climate change enthusiast. I didn't watch a Al Gore movie then make up my mind about climate change .

In the 70s there was the population bomb . ( I fell for it )

In the 80s there was the coming Ice Age . ( I fell for it )

With the 90s came man made global warming . ( not this time )

Hmm never seen any al Gore movies. I do have a degree in ecology and ecosystem restoration and a diploma in natural resource management. A bunch of first hand experience working on contaminated and polluted sites and first hand experience watching obvious problems and dangers to local communities go ignored, after extensive testing, because it would the profits of resource extraction companies. But ya...Al Gore...