RSS Feed Menu
Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment recently released the result of polls suggesting that Republican candidates should reconsider pandering to the most ideologically locked-in Republican voters on climate change.
The numbers suggest there is no downside risk for GOP candidates who accept scientists’ conclusions about the impacts of fossil fuel emissions on climate and who support policies encouraging development of alternative energy resources. Their Republican support would largely hold. Indeed, they could gain, by wooing independents and ticket-splitting Democrats.
Republican candidates are, with a few exceptions, tending toward a groupthink of avoiding any hint that they’re willing to listen to climate scientists, or to support any policy that would cool down the rising heat.
Tim Pawlenty, for instance, has taken with gusto to climate change political correctness. T-Paw, trying a little too hard to be Tea Party, has thrown himself on the mercy of the climate-change-is-a-hoax crowd by disowning the mainstream energy and climate record that he compiled as Minnesota’s governor.
For Republican voters who admired Pawlenty’s past life as a pragmatist, it hurts to watch such unseemly displays of groveling.
Stanford’s numbers don’t seem to support the wisdom of such a strategy. In a national study that included interviews with 1,001 voters, respondents were read issue statements assigned to hypothetical Senate candidates.
One of the statements read to respondents randomly assigned to a “green” group was a “green” climate stance. A “not-green” group heard a “not-green” statement. In a third, control group, the hypothetical candidate said nothing about climate.
Among Republican respondents, the “green” statement resulted in a small decline in voter support for the candidate compared to the control group. However, the “not-green” statement resulted in a slightly greater decline. In both cases, green and not green, the candidate’s GOP support largely held.
Among Democrats and independents, the largest support went to the candidate with the “green” statement, as might be expected. The silent candidate was second, and the “not-green” candidate trailed badly.
Similar results were reported from similar surveys among voters in Florida, Maine, and Massachusetts.
Stanford’s researchers offered a few grains of salt. The survey did not focus on gathering the views of likely voters only, hypothetical candidates took positions on only a few issues, and voters were not questioned on how they would react if hypothetical candidates were attacked by opponents for their climate positions.
Still, the research offers a promising indicator that Republican candidates have some room for maneuver on climate change. Donning a straitjacket that forbids even the slightest deviation from climate denial orthodoxy might not be the smartest general election strategy, for which building a majority requires mastering the art of addition, not subtraction.
Hi Jim?
Ever occurred to you that voters are looking for actual convictions, not talking points?
Republicans could also win votes by offering a genuine jobs program – WPA and CCC style projects that would actually get people back to work.
Goodness! Republicans and Science?? Pretty soon you’re gonna say that its okay that they believe in Evolution! Oh brave new world that has such people in it!
The survey’s GREEN statement was totally bogus:
“Like most Americans and most of the residents of our great State, I believe that global
warming has been happening for the last 100 years, mainly because we have been
burning fossil fuels and putting out greenhouse gasses. Now is the time for us to stop this
by ending our dependence on imported oil and coal to run our cars and heat our houses.
We need to begin using new forms of energy that are made in America and will be
renewable forever. We can build better cars that use less gasoline. We can build better
appliances that use less electricity. And we can make power from the sun and from wind.
We don’t have to change our lifestyles, but we do need to reshape the way our country
does business. We need to end our long-term addiction to polluting the environment and
instead let American genius do what it does best – transform our outdated ways of
generating energy into new ones that create jobs and entire industries, and stop the
damage we’ve been doing to the environment.”
Why is the statement “imported oil and coal” instead of “oil, coal and natural gas”? It’s because the statement has no intention of being a realistic statement of the treehuggers’ intent.
Obama’s desire to raise gasoline prices to high European levels will be fulfilled.
“We don’t have to change our lifestyles”- more garbage- Americans will lose jobs and travel less. High energy usage industries will continue to shift to China and other non-green countries.
Obviously, as recently reported, going green will cost world economies 76 Trillion dollars.
It will cost American jobs. It would make us MORE dependent on global resources as we stop using coal and decide not to use substantially more domestic natural gas because of its “evil” CO2 production.
Unemployment is likely killing many more people than US air population. Certainly, lack of exercise and poor diets are killing more people.
Like every other issue whether it be on abortion, religion or taxes there is no way in hell any Republican is going to go against the “new” grain on climate change and the environment. It is part of the new purity test for the GOP. Tow the party line or you are out (ask Gingrich how it works to think differently).
Jim DiPeso you ideas on the environment are not longer part of your party’s platform. Jim I suggest you start looking for a new party.
Jim you are working against narrow minded short-sighted morons like “nhthinker” above.
One of their new party leaders Bachmann even wants to kill the EPA.
Ad hominem attacks is all you have.
Romney believes in human impact on global warming but he is not willing to trade away US jobs to deal with it.
I would expect most Republicans and Independents will agree with that: Most treehuggers will not.
nhthinker,
Can you prove that even one job would be “traded away” if the country acts more environmentally responsible?
The whole jobs premise of your argument is bullshit.
How about the argument that climate change for example will cost the U.S. much, whether it be economics, health, jobs or security? The Pentagon even went so far to release a report saying that climate change will impact the security of the U.S.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121352495
We can sit around a pick our asses while China and Europe push ahead on a green economy and we lose out in this major new industry for the future.
EPA admits it is killing jobs in high energy use industries. Take cement for example.
http://energyandenvironmentblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/02/texas-republicans-aim-to-stop.html
“But an SMU study performed for the Portland Cement Association says the regulation would force the closure of some plants and cause more than 15,000 jobs to be lost. The EPA’s own analysis found the regulation would cause cement industry employment to fall about 8 percent, or 1,167 workers. Texas is home to 22 cement kilns, more than any other state. ”
Dude – the regulation they’re talking about in that article isn’t the CO2 limiting regulations – but those limiting emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants into the air.
Read for content, please.
nh,
Explain to me how using more renewable energy kills jobs? How about also explain to me how moving fuel efficiency standards to say 60 mpg kills jobs?
There are plenty of other countries around the world that are doing far more than the U.S. with regard to the environment including much more regulation and I do not see any job killing or no economy going off a cliff. If you can show me a country that is doing much more on the environment and show that it has been an economic disaster for them I would like to see it.
The whole jobs argument is bullshit. It has never been proved and is just a faux conservative talking point. If anything, investing in a new environmentally friendly economy and technology will create jobs and is a growth industry.
Don’t give me this “even the Pentagon” stuff.
All senior civilian and military positions there require Senate confirmation. The Senate Armed Services Committee staff is and has for decades been hard-line leftist and dooms the future of any non-PC type. Over time this has the desired effect of enabling what you just did – co-opting and twisting the most trusted and respected institution in America into a weapon against traditional and conservative policies.
Carney,
Did you put on your tinfoil hat to think that one up?
I am not sure what the Senate Armed Services Committee has to do with the Pentagon and CIA for the first time considering climate change a security issue and including it in their analysis of threats to this country?
Senate Armed Service Committee staff is some kind of leftist organization? You are funny!
Romney believes in human impact on global warming but he is not willing to trade away US jobs to deal with it.
I would expect most Republicans and Independents will agree with that
Hey – think of all the firefighting jobs across the Southwest US that might not have been available this summer had America started dealing with Climate Change in 2001, as Gore and Bush both campaigned on in the 2000 elections?
armstp: Like every other issue whether it be on abortion, religion or taxes there is no way in hell any Republican is going to go against the “new” grain on climate change and the environment. It is part of the new purity test for the GOP.
Exactly right.
When Rush Limbaugh changes his stance on Climate Change, then the GOP will be at liberty to consider some of DiPeso’s excellent suggestions.
armstp and balconefault
“Dude – the regulation they’re talking about in that article isn’t the CO2 limiting regulations – but those limiting emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants into the air.”
Keep moving the goal posts… the article was about increased environmental regulation- not only CO2.
“Can you prove that even one job would be “traded away” if the country acts more environmentally responsible? ”
You’ve been pwn’d by armstp’s idiotic claims.
Now do you want to ask:
“Can you prove that even one job would be “traded away” if the country acts more environmentally responsible specifically with regard to CO2?”
I’ll prove you both wrong at that as well if you need me too.
Changes to more environmentally sustainable economies always SHIFT jobs. So of course some jobs will be lost in industries which pollute the worst, but jobs are usually gained in industries having to do with pollution control, and in those which may perform a similar service or produce a similar product without the same generation of pollution.
The problem is that you’re defending the right of jobs to exist solely on the basis of being able to pass their external charges over to the general population. In the case you linked to – we’re not talking about “controversial” climate change science, even … we’re talking about the emissions of mercury into the air. Mercury is acutely toxic. Mercury is a carcinogen. Breathing mercury in your air is really, really bad for you. Even Republicans understand this concept.
You really want to be defending jobs on the basis that making them scrub mercury from their emissions will cost too much?
Sounds like your ideal economy is China, not America, where the mortality rate from breathing polluted air is staggering, and where the rivers run with benzene plumes.
nh,
As I said above, can you name me one country that acts much more environmentally friendly and has much more regulations where there has been job losses or it has had a negative impact on their economy?
For example, are we seeing big jobs losses in Germany for their much more strict environmental policies and regulations?
California has the strictest environmental laws in the country and they are no worse off on an economic impact than say Texas. There is no credible analysis which says California losses many jobs because of its environmental regulations. Find me some to prove your point.
armstp,
“California has the strictest environmental laws in the country and they are no worse off on an economic impact than say Texas. There is no credible analysis which says California losses many jobs because of its environmental regulations. Find me some to prove your point.”
California vs Texas? You are joking, right?
http://chiefexecutive.net/best-worst-states-for-business
Texas is listed as the best state for business… California the WORST…
“California, once a business friendly state, continues to conduct a war on its own economy. According to the Pacific Research Institute, it has the fourthlargest government of all U.S. states, with spending equal to 18.3 percent of GDP. The comparable figure for Texas is 12.1 percent. Survey respondents uniformly say the state’s regulators are hostile. “No one in his right mind would start a new manufacturing concern here,” said one California CEO.
Although California is not unique in pursuing policies that prompt wealth and job creators to expand elsewhere, (New York being a good example), the Golden State seems uniquely oblivious to the effect its labor and other regulations are having on its innovative and growth-oriented Silicon Valley. Job growth in the Valley has flatlined. Firms keep their HQs there, but pursue growth in friendlier states. Google, Intel, Cisco and other companies locate new plants in states such as Arizona, Utah, Texas, Virginia or North Dakota.
Sacramento seems to take perverse delight in job-killing legislation, of which the pair of bills known as California’s “Green Chemistry Initiative” that former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law in September 2008 serve as an example. The regulations mandated that “manufacturers seek safer alternatives to toxic chemicals in their products, and create tough governmental responses for lack of compliance.” When the 92-page final set of commands was issued, the “green community” demanded a rewrite with even tougher requirements. Writing in the Washington Examiner, Chapman University Law professor Hugh Hewitt said that the new rules will mandate testing and labeling changes on tens of thousands of products, likely triggering product recalls. “Take whatever you think is the worst regulatory regime out there, and expand it exponentially.”
Then there is the state’s carbon emission law (AB 32), which the Small Business Roundtable and PRI say will cost half a million in foregone jobs in 2011 and up to 1.3 million jobs by 2020. What’s more, it is by no means certain the law will reduce carbon emissions since it only applies to California.”
nh,
Just showing a survey from a CEO magazine listing best states for business is no proof that tougher environmental laws in California have resulted in significant jobs losses in that state or a negative impact on the economy?
You are really proving nothing. Again prove to me that tougher environmental laws result in jobs losses and a negative impact on economies. Use California as the example. Can you show me some examples where California has lost jobs and where its tough environmental laws have negatively impacted the economy?
Lots of speculation and propaganda by an author who clearly wants business to operate under no regulations in your piece, but no real proof of anything. Again, I will also point out Germany and other countries that have far great environmental regulation. They all seem to be doing pretty good, if not better than the U.S. right now.
“…suggesting that Republican candidates should reconsider pandering to the most ideologically locked-in Republican voters on climate change.”
Translation: “Should reconsider LYING to their most ignorant voters…”. What astounds is that all the rest of republicans are perfectly happy to sit back and listen to all the GOP lies about so many issues today. Why? It truly is a sports game to them I guess. If I had to listen to a dem constantly lying about major issues, nevermind ALL dems lying about major issues, I would have to rethink my support because clearly they’d have no moral pinnings and could not be trusted to speak the truth about anything.
The current GOP is to much like nhthinker to be rational on climate change. They’d rather hand over all the new technology, manufacturing and jobs in green industries to China. They prefer the 19th Century.
valkayec,
China is building another high polluting coal plant every day. Supposedly their sulfur pollution is keeping global temperatures lower.
New technology is being handed over to China by former American companies that have become global companies. Global companies work to shift to the lowest costs and highest margins- No global company is hesitating to move more capital and jobs and intellectual property to China because China is polluting too much.
China runs out of coal and natural gas long before the US does.
US continues to emit smaller amounts of CO2 and a smaller percentage of global CO2 than previous years.
Most of China’s new coal-fired plants are not anywhere near as clean as most existing US coal fired plants.
In other words, lie.
Do you know what else would win the G.O.P votes? Free magic ponies for everyone.
Good article, but it misses the point of Republican climate-change denial. They don’t care about the voters, not even their own. If they agree that climate change is real, they would have a hard time justifying protecting corporations who want to be able to operate without regulation. It’s about corporate money, not voters.
+1
Something that nhthinker has not a clue about. It is not about what is best for humans, it is about making as much money as possible, while pushing off the true costs of their actions to others. It certainly is not about protecting jobs.
If they agree that climate change is real, they would have a hard time justifying protecting corporations who want to be able to operate without regulation. It’s about corporate money, not voters.
Great point.
It’s also about a paradigm. Dealing with climate change requires a comprehensive policy structure within the US aimed at reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, and requires (as nhthinker inadvertently notes) multi-national cooperation.
To the GOP, where comprehensive governmental action on ANYTHING is akin to communism, and where any multi-national relationships that aren’t based on corporate free trade or on expression of force are some kind of one-worldism that must be fought against, accepting the concept of climate change requires accepting two conclusions that they abhor.
Thus – you have the bulk of the GOP who rejects the science so that they’re not faced with massive cognitive dissonance … and those (like Romney) who reject action based on the science because even the right and necessary action for future generations clashes with their ideal of what freedom should mean today.
I agree with 100% with you balconesfault and akindependent. I wonder, too, if the right could deal with making any deal re energy conservation as they will always feel someone else is getting something they are not? It seems to be their natural fall-back position.
nhthinker said… Keep moving the goal posts… the article was about increased environmental regulation- not only CO2.
Yeah. Let’s throw out that mean ole environmental regulation. That whole Love Canal BS probably cost jobs too. Who cares about a spike in birth defects? As the saying goes, two heads are better than one.
nhthinker said… US continues to emit smaller amounts of CO2 …
a) Citation please?
b) Assuming you are correct, how much of of the drop can be attributed to strong environmental regulation like the Clean Air Act?
c) Assuming you are correct, how much of of the drop can be attributed to the closing of businesses due to the country’s recent economic collapse?
nhthinker said… US continues to emit {snip}sa smaller percentage of global CO2 than previous years.
If true, who the hell cares? This is merely a pathetic justification of “even if we’re bad, their worser.”
LFC said:
“Yeah. Let’s throw out that mean ole environmental regulation.”
Red herring straw man: These are NEW regulations, not “mean ole environmental regulation”.
citation:
“Assuming you are correct, how much of of the drop can be attributed to strong environmental regulation like the Clean Air Act?”
your question… you go answer it.
“c) Assuming you are correct, how much of of the drop can be attributed to the closing of businesses due to the country’s recent economic collapse?”
For 2009, it was about half the drop. As shown in the graph, the trend for the past 10 years has been higher GDP for lower energy use and thus lower CO2 use.
Since the 1970s, using energy efficiently has always been a significant consideration of business and residence.
“nhthinker said… US continues to emit {snip}sa smaller percentage of global CO2 than previous years.
If true, who the hell cares? This is merely a pathetic justification of “even if we’re bad, their worser.””
If your economy is losing jobs and their economy is gaining YOUR jobs, then its not a good idea to hamper your competitiveness by introducing even HIGHER environmental cost differential as compared to your competitors.
Bush argued that Kyoto was unfair because China and India were allowed to pollute almost as much as they possibly could.
Now we have liberals that wanted the US to sign on to Kyoto complaining that Bush was not tough enough on Chinese pollution…
hypocrites!
Red herring straw man: These are NEW regulations, not “mean ole environmental regulation”.
So environmental regulation should remain exactly where it is and we should have no new regulation? Straw man is right!
RE: Clean Air Act – your question… you go answer it.
So you make a statement about the evils of environmental regulation, yet refuse to address the beneficial impacts of environmental regulation. Aaaaaaah, yeah.
Here’s how things have gone for other pollutants after the Clean Air Act (which was also supposed to destroy our economy according to the same kind of Chicken Littles as you at the time). You control SO2, NO2, CO, and VOC (Volatile Organic Compound) emissions in several ways; scrubbing / cleaning (can be done for SO2 and VOCs), cleaner burning of the same amount of fuel (no impact on CO2), and greater overall efficiency. I worked in the air pollution monitoring and control industry for years. It’s regulations that moved efficiency forward, often by leaps and bounds. The huge increase in the use of combustion gas turbines for handling peak loads were a direct reaction to the cost of controlling SO2, and it’s turned out to be an excellent solution.
For 2009, it was about half the drop. As shown in the graph, the trend for the past 10 years has been higher GDP for lower energy use and thus lower CO2 use.
Interesting how your graph disproves your statement “US continues to emit smaller amounts of CO2″ when an actual drop is only recent and aligns perfectly with the drop in GDP. And when you compare it to this graph showing the drop in manufacturing as a percent of GDP, it’s actually quite damning to your case.
If your economy is losing jobs and their economy is gaining YOUR jobs, then its not a good idea to hamper your competitiveness with higher environmental costs than your competitors have.
Aaaaaah, the old “race to the bottom” argument. Yes, we could drop our environmental, work safety, minimum wage, and living standards to that of China and then we could compete with them head to head. GREAT idea. I’m sure everybody will be clamoring for the gov’t to turn our nation into China … not.
nhthinker said… US continues to emit {snip}sa smaller percentage of global CO2 than previous years.
If true, who the hell cares? This is merely a pathetic justification of “even if we’re bad, their worser.”
Moreover – that’s largely an indictment of America’s failure to lead on the issue over the last decade.
We could have structured our trade deals with China based on them limiting CO2 emissions, before Bush granted the Chinese permanent Most Favored Nation trade status and American jobs fled there by the millions over the 2000′s. We could have made it very disadvantageous for companies to outsource jobs to India unless India demonstrated a strong commitment to reducing their CO2 output growth.
But we didn’t. Because that wasn’t our goal. Making more money for multi-national corporations was.
We can still take back leadership on this issue – other countries are practically begging for us to do so – but the GOP is too dedicated to protecting the status quo.
LFC,
My graph proves my case. Yours is too large.
So you worked in the industry. .. So you know that investment in natural gas is being stifled by projections in the regulation of CO2, right?
The Pickens plan is on the rocks as long as treehuggers at the EPA and Obama are in charge.
Higher energy prices in the US leads to a less efficient economy and more jobs moving to countries like China that pay lip service to environmental issues while they rape the environment and pollute the world.
Race to the bottom is still the same red herring strawman.
To me, improving environmental protection beyond what we’ve lived thought for the past 30 years is not worth the cost of American jobs while unemployment and underemployment is so high. How many lost American jobs is it worth to you?
So you worked in the industry. .. So you know that investment in natural gas is being stifled by projections in the regulation of CO2, right?
The Pickens plan is on the rocks as long as treehuggers at the EPA and Obama are in charge.
Wow. I don’t like to call names, so I’m just going to have to say that the above statements reflect an amazing amount of ignorance mixed with arrogance.
First, there’s a tremendous amount of investment in natural gas going on around the country. The money being poured into the shale plays in Louisiana and the Marcellus in Pennsylvania and the Eagle Ford in Texas is tremendous right now. Companies are falling all over one another to get wells into the ground.
To the extent that there is any “stifling” in investment in natural gas from the supply side right now – it’s that the success of all these plays has caused the price of natural gas to plummet. So much so that the LNG terminals that were all being built in the early 00′s are now being left idle – supplies of cryogenically liquified gas from abroad not being able to compete with the huge amounts of natural gas coming out of holes all across America in abundance right now.
To the extent that there is any “stifling” in investment in natural gas from the demand side – that’s pretty much completely due to the FAILURE of Congress to pass Cap and Trade or some similar CO2 regulation. Had Cap and Trade passed during the last Congress, we’d see power companies across America rushing to add as much natural gas power plant capacity as they could, given that nat gas produces roughly 1/2 the CO2 emissions per BTU than coal.
TBone Pickens, in fact, was an advocate for the Cap and Trade bill that passed the House (sensing the huge profits it would have generated for this natural gas investments).
I really don’t understand how you can be so cocksure about things that you have such a little grasp of.
You obviously do not understand what the EPA has been doing lately with regard to natural gas…
I’ll forgive your ignorance (because it is so useful to highlight how idiotic treehuggers are)…
http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20110125/NEWS/110129884
“The United States is poised to bet its energy future on natural gas as a clean, plentiful fuel that can supplant coal and oil. But new research by the Environmental Protection Agency—and a growing understanding of the pollution associated with the full “life cycle” of gas production—is casting doubt on the assumption that gas offers a quick and easy solution to climate change.
Advocates for natural gas routinely assert that it produces 50 percent less greenhouse gases than coal and is a significant step toward a greener energy future. But those assumptions are based on emissions from the tailpipe or smokestack and don’t account for the methane and other pollution emitted when gas is extracted and piped to power plants and other customers.
The EPA’s new analysis doubles its previous estimates for the amount of methane gas that leaks from loose pipe fittings and is vented from gas wells, drastically changing the picture of the nation’s emissions that the agency painted as recently as April. Calculations for some gas-field emissions jumped by several hundred percent. Methane levels from the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas were 9,000 times higher than previously reported.
When all these emissions are counted, gas may be as little as 25 percent cleaner than coal, or perhaps even less.
…
But if it turns out that natural gas offers a more modest improvement over coal and oil, as the new EPA data begin to suggest, then billions of dollars of taxpayer and industry investment in new infrastructure, drilling and planning could be spent for limited gain.
“The problem is you build a gas plant for 40 years. That’s a long bridge,” said James Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, one of the nation’s largest power companies. Duke generates more than half of its electricity from coal, but Rogers has also been a vocal proponent of cap-and-trade legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions.”
But those assumptions are based on emissions from the tailpipe or smokestack and don’t account for the methane and other pollution emitted when gas is extracted and piped to power plants and other customers.
Right – and there’s a solution for this.
Investment in extraction and pipeline technology to reduce methane emissions prior to combustion.
Someone burning the natural gas at a power plant will be charged with only the CO2 emissions that are generated when the gas combusts. They don’t get charged for the CO2 emissions from poor well casings, poorly maintained valves, and sloppy work practices in the field.
The extractors and transporters of natural gas will … and as a result they’ll spend money and improve their performance.
And we’ll all be better off because of it. That’s the great thing about environmental regulations.
Because while Chesapeake or Conoco Phillips or some company might be extracting that gas from the ground … in a real sense that gas belongs to all of us. And for them to extract it and in a cavalier fashion allow a significant fraction to escape before it ever gets to an end user … just because they make more money in the short term that way … that’s bad for the rest of us in the long run, as a lot of our valuable natural gas reserves are pissed away to the atmosphere without ever heating a home or driving a power plant.
It is a classic demonstration of why pure libertarianism is pure stupid. We make better decisions on long-term resource use when we make them as a society.
balconesfault,
Your idiocy knows no bounds. You were totally unaware of the changes the EPA made in how they calculated the GHG costs of natural gas and its impacts on the investment to change from coal to NG. You ignore this point and say all we need to do is spend more money on energy to solve the problem.
Changing faster to get off foreign oil would help our national security and our financial security. The US was on that trajectory to go big into NG until the EPA started on its global warming kick.
The EPA’s action has actually stifled this investment in North American energy resource. If the US continues to focus on GHG more than they have for the past 20 years, then jobs with continue to flow to China where they rape the environment.
Again I ask:
How many American jobs is creating more environmental protections worth?
Your idiocy knows no bounds.
Aww … how cute.
You were totally unaware of the changes the EPA made in how they calculated the GHG costs of natural gas and its impacts on the investment to change from coal to NG.
You realize that the EPA hasn’t done anything to effect their CO2 regulations based on their re-assessment? No – you probably don’t. Because you’re in over your head and grasping at straws.
You ignore this point and say all we need to do is spend more money on energy to solve the problem.
No – I’m saying that if extractors and pipeline companies are losing a significant amount of our natural gas to the environment because it costs less to allow natural gas to escape than to contain it, this is the sort of loophole that we need environmental regulations to protect us against. And in this case it’s doubly important, because they’re not only contributing greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere (methane is also one) … but they’re wasting a valuable natural resource that we’ll need down the road.
You’re the one saying “hey, if it costs more money to keep from wasting natural gas, then let’s keep EPA out of the way!”
The US was on that trajectory to go big into NG until the EPA started on its global warming kick.
Again, you are so ignorant that every position you take just makes you look more foolish here. The harder EPA pushes on climate change, the more everyone’s going to move to natural gas.
The EPA’s action has actually stifled this investment in North American energy resource.
What action – you mean the CO2 regulations? If that’s what you mean, you’re so wrong that it’s hard to describe how wrong you are without slurs.
Do a little reading … you can start here:
http://www.cleanskies.org/pdf/12-20AG_MEF.pdf
This white paper looks at how utilities can comply with the new EPA rules by modifying existing facilities or shifting to cleaner generating facilities, such as natural gas-fired power plants and renewable energy. A very large number of gas-fired plants are now underutilized (e.g., idle much of the time), and various analysts have found that switching more generation to these plants in place of higher emitting coal-fired facilities can enable utilities to keep the lights on and meet ongoing reliability needs while reducing pollution.
You’re not just wrong. You’re “sun rises in the west” wrong … you’re “the earth is flat” wrong … you’re “when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor” wrong.
If the US continues to focus on GHG more than they have for the past 20 years, then jobs with continue to flow to China where they rape the environment.
And that’s what it comes down to for the GOP – if we have to rape the environment in order to keep our jobs in an era where we’ve pushed for complete free trade with every nation (no matter how bad their environmental record), then let’s rape the environment!
Race to the bottom. Just like the GOP wants with wages, worker protections, education spending, social security, and everything but the military.
“And that’s what it comes down to for the GOP – if we have to rape the environment in order to keep our jobs in an era where we’ve pushed for complete free trade with every nation (no matter how bad their environmental record), then let’s rape the environment!”
The environment in the US was not being raped for the past 20 years=> the environment in China is being RAPED and will continue to be RAPED.
I will ask you one last time:
How many lost American jobs is creating MORE environmental protections worth?
Are you too chicken to answer one simple question?
How many American jobs is creating MORE environmental protections worth?
Well, I’m glad to see that you’ve abandoned trying to grab Heritage Foundation crap that’s intended to mislead (eg – the idea that climate change regs will suppress that natural gas industry) and use it to persuade anyone but a Limbaugh-devotee with half their brain tied behind their back … and shifted to something that’s a reasonable start at a dialogue, even if the question is extremely poorly phrased.
Because environmental protections have a purpose … and you’ve dislinked that concept from the purpose. If the question is “how many American jobs would it be worth to sacrifice if someone wanted to use a newly developed chemical process that threatened the potability of every water supply in America, and the EPA wanted to regulate that process” … the answer would be one fuckton of jobs.
How many American jobs is creating MORE environmental protections worth?
Balconesfault answer: {total bullshit and scare tactics:”threatened the potability of every water supply in America” }… A fuckton of jobs.
The American electorate would like all tree huggers to give as honest an answer as yours.
Republicans would like to quote you for 2012 election season..
“How many lost American jobs is creating MORE environmental protections worth?”
…a FUCKTON of jobs…
The idea that future EPA climate change regulations will suppress that natural gas industry is very, very real.
You never denied that you were totally unaware of the changes the EPA made in how they calculated the GHG costs of natural gas … typical uninformed liberal…
“How many lost American jobs is creating MORE environmental protections worth?” …a FUCKTON of jobs…
Sure. If you believe that given my example (which you cut out with your cowardly ellipses) jobs in the short term are more important than the integrity of America’s drinking water supplies.
The idea that future EPA climate change regulations will suppress that natural gas industry is very, very real.
It is not. In fact, as I’ve cited references for above, EPA climate change regulations will almost certainly stimulate the natural gas industry.
It seems that you are just far too dense to understand this.
You never denied that you were totally unaware of the changes the EPA made in how they calculated the GHG costs of natural gas … typical uninformed liberal…
Until you tell me exactly what this “GHG cost of natural gas” has to do with the proposed CO2 limits … all you’ve done is expose once again your abject ignorance of how the regulatory process works.
Which is not a surprise. I guess if you regard the government as an evil, there’s no real reason to pay attention in civics class.
You never answered the question straight up: you took the coward’s way: “well if the sky is falling, then a FUCKTON”
Let me ask you an honest question:
If the EPA’s newest science prove out that NG can’t be made to be more than 25% better at GHG than oil or coal, why would you think expensive retooling to NG makes sense when you know the EPA will continue to ratchet down the allowed GHGs?
Let’s see if you will give an honest answer…
Here is another question:
Do you want European style gasoline prices in the US, like Obama said he wanted?
NH babbled… Race to the bottom is still the same red herring strawman.
After that Department of Redundancy Department remark, I doubt you understand what these terms actually mean.
Looking at where this exchange has gone, I can see that Balcone and I will never get anyplace with NH,\ especially since his arguments against further EPA regulation of domestic natural gas production are effectively the same as why we should never have limited SO2 from coal fired plants. “Waaaah! If you don’t let us pollute as we wish, loads and loads of jobs will go away!” It was BS then and it’s BS now. We heard it with the Clean Water Act. And the Clean Air Act. And seat belts in cars. And… It’s become an absolutely predictable right-wing whine.
BTW, I have a close friend who is in a lead environmental position for a company with many nat gas support type contracts (i.e. they aren’t drillers themselves). In PA there are two things slowing development. First, the environmental record (and now seismic activity record!) for fracking is fracking hideous. Can it be done cleanly and safely? Maybe, but that has to be proven first and people who live in the shale areas are scared spitless of having their families poisoned.
Second, the politicians are STILL squabbling over whether or not to charge companies for the extraction of state natural resources and, if they do, how the money will be spent. The EPA rules have nothing to do with this … other than the fact that Dick Cheney got the “Halliburton Rule” (literally what it is called in the industry) stuffed into a bill so the EPA couldn’t interfere with wholesales watershed destruction. It’s now up to the states to protect themselves.
You never answered the question straight up: you took the coward’s way: “well if the sky is falling, then a FUCKTON”
Because without talking about the magnitude of the threat that EPA’s regulation is intended to address – there is no way to answer the question.
Let me ask you an honest question:
Cool!
If the EPA’s newest science prove out that NG can’t be made to be more than 25% better at GHG than oil or coal, why would you think expensive retooling to NG makes sense when you know the EPA will continue to ratchet down the allowed GHGs?
Oops! You fail.
Because the statement “EPA’s newest science prove out that NG can’t be made to be more than 25% better at GHG than oil or coal is either dishonest or ignorant.
In fact, it proved nothing of the sort.
Rather, it noted that given the current status of extraction and pipeline transport by industry, in total natural gas only has a 25% GHG advantage (on a per btu basis) over coal or oil.
I would elaborate on the difference more – but I’ve already elaborated on it at length above. So my only conclusion is that you are incapable of understanding.
BTW, I have a close friend who is in a lead environmental position for a company with many nat gas support type contracts (i.e. they aren’t drillers themselves). In PA there are two things slowing development. First, the environmental record (and now seismic activity record!) for fracking is fracking hideous. Can it be done cleanly and safely? Maybe, but that has to be proven first and people who live in the shale areas are scared spitless of having their families poisoned.
Which is why, btw, there has been no similar slowdown in drilling in the Eagle Ford in Texas – the nature of the groundwater formations in the area is waaay different than in Pennsylvania, and fracking poses little threat to most of the local groundwater supplies.
The bigger problem we’ll run into here in Texas in the future may well be water supply, since fracking is very water intensive, and as folks might notice Texas is having a bit of a water supply problem these days, despite Governor Perry’s proposed solution for the problem (pray!).
Balconesfault,
You’ve admitted you were completely unaware that the EPA changed their view from a 50% GHG advantage of natural gas over coal and oil to only a 25% GHG advantage. (Yes, you are so informed!)
You are unwilling to admit that the EPA will continue to ratchet down the allowed GHGs.
I won’t waste any more of my time trying to reason with you and your intransigent idealism.
You’ve admitted you were completely unaware that the EPA changed their view from a 50% GHG advantage of natural gas over coal and oil to only a 25% GHG advantage. (Yes, you are so informed!)
Once again – there is no regulatory meaning to this.
EPA is regulating emissions of CO2 from power plants. Whether there are losses of methane en route from the wellhead to the power plant affects the greater policy issue if there were Cap and Trade legislation and rulemaking being put into place … but there isn’t.
Rather … there’s a limit being placed on emissions of CO2 from power plants.
I’m well aware of the science involved in the EPA report. But again – it’s not influencing their current legislation that the GOP is raging against. As such, it is not influencing the likely movement of power generation from coal and oil to natural gas.
You are unwilling to admit that the EPA will continue to ratchet down the allowed GHGs.
Are you arguing that methane emissions should not be regulated? That’s even more stupid than arguing that CO2 emissions shouldn’t be regulated.