Jump to content
BigSqwert

The environment thread

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 11:03 AM)
Awesome! See, they didn't need to sign any piece of paper to do good. They didn't have to send $7 billion to foreign entities to waste to do good. keep it up. But when the electric bills triple and you have occasional power blackouts, just remember, your choice.

 

WASHINGTON — The Government Accountability Office said Thursday that it could not complete an audit of the federal government, pointing to serious problems with the Department of Defense.

 

Along with the Pentagon, the GAO cited the Department of Homeland Security as having problems so significant that it was impossible for investigators to audit it. The DHS got a qualified audit for fiscal year 2012, and is seeking an unqualified audit for 2013.

 

The report released by the GAO on Friday indicates serious accounting problems at two of the largest government agencies: the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Defense has a net cost of $799.1 billion to the federal budget, while the Department of Homeland Security has a net cost of $48.7 billion.

 

“The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cannot render an opinion on the 2012 consolidated financial statements of the federal government because of widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations,” the agency said. “As was the case in 2011, the main obstacles to a GAO opinion on the accrual-based consolidated financial statements were: Serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense (DOD) that made its financial statements unauditable. The federal government’s inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies. The federal government’s ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/g..._n_2507097.html

 

Mountains versus mole hills.

Yet Trump wants a $64 billion increase, McCain argues $640 billion is more appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 04:12 PM)
WASHINGTON — The Government Accountability Office said Thursday that it could not complete an audit of the federal government, pointing to serious problems with the Department of Defense.

 

Along with the Pentagon, the GAO cited the Department of Homeland Security as having problems so significant that it was impossible for investigators to audit it. The DHS got a qualified audit for fiscal year 2012, and is seeking an unqualified audit for 2013.

 

The report released by the GAO on Friday indicates serious accounting problems at two of the largest government agencies: the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Defense has a net cost of $799.1 billion to the federal budget, while the Department of Homeland Security has a net cost of $48.7 billion.

 

“The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cannot render an opinion on the 2012 consolidated financial statements of the federal government because of widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations,” the agency said. “As was the case in 2011, the main obstacles to a GAO opinion on the accrual-based consolidated financial statements were: Serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense (DOD) that made its financial statements unauditable. The federal government’s inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies. The federal government’s ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/g..._n_2507097.html

 

Mountains versus mole hills.

Yet Trump wants a $64 billion increase, McCain argues $640 billion is more appropriate.

So it's ONLY $100 billion, no big deal. Got it. You are absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 05:14 PM)
So it's ONLY $100 billion, no big deal. Got it. You are absurd.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/dav...il_topeditorial

Try responding to Gergen, who's actually a Republican.

 

So if the US constitutes only 4% of the world's population but roughly 25% of GDP and 33% of carbon-based emissions, how in the hell are we not responsible for protecting the children and grandchildren of those currently living in the least developed most poverty-stricken regions of the world today??? Countries that have absolutely zero to do with the problem, but are victims of the US, China, India, Europe, Brazil, etc.

 

So then you agree we should have even more stringent standards than Paris, even though Nikki Haley claims “We have got a president who is going to look out for the environment. It’s what we do. Its who we are. We are going to continue to be a leader in the environment. The rest of the world wanted to tell us how to do it and we’re saying we will do it, but we will do it under our terms.” (Maybe I'm missing something here, but Obama and the US were the driving force to get every country in the world but Syria to join...also, Nicaragua thought it didn't go far enough, fwiw.)

 

She later acknowledged that the US set its own emissions targets under the Paris agreement, which is voluntary and non-binding, but blamed the Obama administration for setting goals that were not attainable (or that that harmed business competitiveness). In the excerpts of the interview released on Saturday, Haley did not explain why the US did not stay inside the accord and amend US targets.

 

 

 

Made a mistake. $640 billion was the baseline, not increase, he only wants increases of $430 billion over five years. ONLY.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/McCain-De...1/17/id/768922/

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg I'm no expert. If that was sarcasm then funny funny. I just meant by Mr. Environment that I'm one of the many that really cares about the issue.

 

I just always thought this whole deal was a big f***up waiting to happen. As someone above mentioned, without the battery technology this is a giant waste of time and money. And it was like a free pass to wait 5-10 years to address the issue, because Nicaragua is right, there's no accountability.

 

The $100B slush fund (as a baseline i believe) was basically going to line the pockets of major energy companies because obviously many countries that would "benefit" from the money haven't the technology or infrastructure to do it themselves or utilize any of the money properly. So BigBoyOil and BigBoySolar and BigBoyFilter were going to travel the world "helping" these countries but running out of money immediately to do anything substantial. "We need trillions more".

 

All this money needs to go to research IMO, all of it.

 

I mean all these countries are agreeing to limit emissions already, why does the world need to shell out trillions on something that doesn't work like bandaids without adhesive. Or using chewing gum to help the titanic float for another minute.

 

If we all figure out a way to harness and store the sun correctly then that is the time to invest and save the planet. Meanwhile, everybody do what you can and share what you discover.

 

I think what Trump did was bring more attention to an issue that needed it. It's pointless without policing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Jun 4, 2017 -> 02:28 AM)
Greg I'm no expert. If that was sarcasm then funny funny. I just meant by Mr. Environment that I'm one of the many that really cares about the issue.

 

I just always thought this whole deal was a big f***up waiting to happen. As someone above mentioned, without the battery technology this is a giant waste of time and money. And it was like a free pass to wait 5-10 years to address the issue, because Nicaragua is right, there's no accountability.

 

The $100B slush fund (as a baseline i believe) was basically going to line the pockets of major energy companies because obviously many countries that would "benefit" from the money haven't the technology or infrastructure to do it themselves or utilize any of the money properly. So BigBoyOil and BigBoySolar and BigBoyFilter were going to travel the world "helping" these countries but running out of money immediately to do anything substantial. "We need trillions more".

 

All this money needs to go to research IMO, all of it.

 

I mean all these countries are agreeing to limit emissions already, why does the world need to shell out trillions on something that doesn't work like bandaids without adhesive. Or using chewing gum to help the titanic float for another minute.

 

If we all figure out a way to harness and store the sun correctly then that is the time to invest and save the planet. Meanwhile, everybody do what you can and share what you discover.

 

I think what Trump did was bring more attention to an issue that needed it. It's pointless without policing it.

Thanks for the post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 4, 2017 -> 08:25 PM)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/al-gore-trumps-d...-171821203.html

 

Al Gore: Trump’s decision to withdraw from Paris Agreement ‘threatens the ability of humanity to solve the climate crisis in time’

Isn't Bloomberg saying he's going to pay the exact amount the USA used to pay? So what's the big deal? Bloomberg has the back of the US environmentalists and all is well. Trump hate is rampant. He's not gonna last over a year, people, so relax.

Edited by greg775

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate Science Meets a Stubborn Obstacle: Students

 

WELLSTON, Ohio — To Gwen Beatty, a junior at the high school in this proud, struggling, Trump-supporting town, the new science teacher’s lessons on climate change seemed explicitly designed to provoke her.

 

So she provoked him back.

 

When the teacher, James Sutter, ascribed the recent warming of the Earth to heat-trapping gases released by burning fossil fuels like the coal her father had once mined, she asserted that it could be a result of other, natural causes.

 

When he described the flooding, droughts and fierce storms that scientists predict within the century if such carbon emissions are not sharply reduced, she challenged him to prove it. “Scientists are wrong all the time,” she said with a shrug, echoing those celebrating President Trump’s announcement last week that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate accord.

 

When Mr. Sutter lamented that information about climate change had been removed from the White House website after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, she rolled her eyes.

 

“It’s his website,” she said.

 

Gwen, 17, could not put her finger on why she found Mr. Sutter, whose biology class she had enjoyed, suddenly so insufferable. Mr. Sutter, sensing that his facts and figures were not helping, was at a loss. And the day she grew so agitated by a documentary he was showing that she bolted out of the school left them both shaken.

 

“I have a runner,” Mr. Sutter called down to the office, switching off the video.

 

“It was just so biased toward saying climate change is real,” she said later, trying to explain her flight.

 

After fleeing Mr. Sutter’s classroom that day, Gwen never returned, a pragmatic decision about which he has regrets. “That’s one student I feel I failed a little bit,” he said.

 

As an alternative, Gwen took an online class for environmental science credit, which she does not recall ever mentioning climate change. She and Jacynda had other things to talk about, like planning a bonfire after prom.

 

As they tried on dresses last month, Jacynda mentioned that others in their circle, including the boys they had invited to prom, believed the world was dangerously warming, and that humans were to blame. By the last days of school, most of Mr. Sutter’s doubters, in fact, had come to that conclusion.

 

“I know,” Gwen said, pausing for a moment. “Now help me zip this up.”

Edited by StrangeSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a recent, exclusive interview with Truthout, we asked Noam Chomsky about his take on climate change and the state of the planet. Here's what he said:

 

"Every part of [the world] is trying to do something. The United States alone is trying to destroy it, and it's not just Trump, it's the whole Republican Party. You just can't find words for it. And it's not reported. It's not discussed."

 

He forgot to criticize Syria!!! And applaud the other Central American country for arguing it didn't go far enough to make an impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Times has now obtained the final draft of the climate report awaiting approval by the Trump administration

 

The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases emitted globally and on the remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth’s climate to those emissions (very high confidence). With significant reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases, the global annually averaged temperature rise could be limited to 3.6°F (2°C) or less. Without major reductions in these emissions, the increase in annual average global temperatures relative to preindustrial times could reach 9°F (5°C) or more by the end of this century (high confidence).

 

 

We're boned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, that's not actually a finalized draft as far as everything I've read, there are still comments included, it's been circulated widely, and the final draft wasn't supposed to be available until August 18. The results are going to look a lot like that though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 03:16 PM)
So, that's not actually a finalized draft as far as everything I've read, there are still comments included, it's been circulated widely, and the final draft wasn't supposed to be available until August 18. The results are going to look a lot like that though.

 

The reporting that I've heard is that the Trump admin has essentially been sitting on the report for a bit and there's been no commitment to publicly release it at all. They're already doing what they can to punish climate scientists, run them out of government, and scrub government resources and databases of even acknowledging the existence of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 03:21 PM)
The reporting that I've heard is that the Trump admin has essentially been sitting on the report for a bit and there's been no commitment to publicly release it at all. They're already doing what they can to punish climate scientists, run them out of government, and scrub government resources and databases of even acknowledging the existence of the problem.

This is basically incorrect. The final report was not due yet, it has been out for public comment by other scientists for the last several months. Basically the way it has been described to me is that it was on "auto-pilot", no politician had stepped in to intervene in it yet, including no step in to prevent release. If we had a respectable executive branch, this report would not yet be completed.

 

The Times has attached a "publishing this to make sure it isn't censored" setup to it, and that might well have been the case in a couple weeks, but we weren't there yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huge trade case going on now that could derail the US solar industry. Pretty widespread condemnation of the petitioners, but I still wouldn't be surprised if the ITC sides with them. If the ITC does so, then it goes to Trump for a decision, and he's almost guaranteed to side with the US manufacturers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just happened after Rush spent the week telling his listeners that this hurricane is basically a hoax:

 

Brian Stelter‏

@brianstelter

 

Mark Steyn is filling in on Rush Limbaugh's radio show today, because Rush has had to evacuate his FL home/studio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 8, 2017 -> 12:59 PM)
This just happened after Rush spent the week telling his listeners that this hurricane is basically a hoax:

 

He still didn't actually admit that he was evacuating, just that they couldn't do the show from there tomorrow for "reasons."

 

DJNMN1vUMAIZ8y0.jpg

 

This idiot is going to get people killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 25, 2017 -> 10:41 AM)

 

We get this debate a lot in my hometown as we have an admission price to our beach at lake Michigan and hear this argument a lot. I really don't mind the idea of the people who consume the national parks the most being the ones who pay the most towards its maintenance. It also isn't a bad idea to push the cost to the point where it discourages some amount of visitations as a lot of parks are under pretty high stress levels from human interference and could benefit from a lot less traffic.

 

Personally we have the Dunes National Lake Shore in Michigan City and I am just awestruck at what Mt Baldy looks like today after being closed to the public for about five years ago (remember the kid who fell into the sand hole). For the first time in my lifetime it looks healthy and beautiful. It has also slowed the movement of the dune away from the lake front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2017 -> 09:52 AM)
We get this debate a lot in my hometown as we have an admission price to our beach at lake Michigan and hear this argument a lot. I really don't mind the idea of the people who consume the national parks the most being the ones who pay the most towards its maintenance. It also isn't a bad idea to push the cost to the point where it discourages some amount of visitations as a lot of parks are under pretty high stress levels from human interference and could benefit from a lot less traffic.

 

Personally we have the Dunes National Lake Shore in Michigan City and I am just awestruck at what Mt Baldy looks like today after being closed to the public for about five years ago (remember the kid who fell into the sand hole). For the first time in my lifetime it looks healthy and beautiful. It has also slowed the movement of the dune away from the lake front.

 

I disagree with this a lot. We should be striving to provide greater access to our National Parks - not less. I can tell you that here in Colorado, a town like Estes Park would be really, really hurt if an increase in admission led to fewer visitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were there last weekend! edit: crosspost, we were at the IDNL hiking around last weekend, not Colorado.

 

I definitely get the "ugh, crowds" aspect from both a too-crowded-to-enjoy and a preservation/restoration aspect. Starved Rock and Matthiessen SP here in Illinois have seen huge increases in visitors over the last several years to the point that they get completely full on weekends like Memorial Day.

 

It's a balancing act that NPS (and USFS and state agencies) needs to perform. At the same time, the whole idea of the parks was that they're public spaces of importance and beauty for all Americans to enjoy. Putting a price as high as $70 is going to freeze out a lot of people from being able to enjoy their parks. This proposed fee hike is coming at the same time as the administration is proposing massive funding cuts and ending voluntary programs to limit the waste stream at parks.

Edited by StrangeSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×