John Holdren relishing Congress climate opportunity - Polidicks

[b]John Holdren relishing Congress climate opportunity[/b] [release][img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51328000/jpg/_51328301_congressafp.jpg[/img] [i]Congress is about to be "illuminated" on climate change, says John Holdren[/i] The US president's chief science adviser says the nation's current efforts to tackle climate change are insufficient in the long-term. Speaking to BBC News at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in Washington DC, Professor John Holdren said the current US Congress was unlikely to pass new legislation to put a price on CO2 emissions. President Obama's administration's efforts, he said, would instead have to focus on developing cleaner technologies, expanding the use of nuclear power and improving energy efficiency. But he admits that in the long term, these initiatives on their own will not be enough. Professor John Holdren: "We didn't get as much done as the President had hoped for" "Ultimately, we will have to look to a future Congress for the more comprehensive approach that climate change will require," he said. For the time being, Professor Holdren faces a more sceptical Congress than he would like, and one that proposes a series of congressional hearings to assess the science of climate change. Professor Holdren says he is relishing the opportunity. "Any objective look at what science has to say about climate change ought to be sufficient to persuade reasonable people that the climate is changing and that humans are responsible for a substantial part of that - and that these changes are doing harm and will continue to do more harm unless we start to reduce our emissions. "If Congress wants to have a series of hearings to illuminate these issues, they are going to get illuminated." Professor Holdren accepts that confidence in climate science has been dented by recent scandals. But he believes public reaction was temporary and short-lived. "I'm not so sure there's a lot of new scepticism in the climate change debate," he said. "People are seeing the impact of climate change around them in extraordinary patterns of floods and droughts, wildfires, heatwaves and powerful storms. "I think it is going to be very hard to persuade people that climate change is somehow a fraud."[/release] [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12508050][b]Source[/b][/url] There's a video included in the source.

So, a $14 trillion+ Deficit, massive unemployment, and a country falling apart at the seams and they're chatting it up amicably about[I] climate change[/I]. I imagine there are bigger, more immediate problems at the moment...

Wow he is way too optimistic about what he's proposing. Since when has it been easy to change anyone's mind about something ideologically based?

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;28163591]I imagine there are bigger, more immediate problems at the moment...[/QUOTE]Economy is bad, ignore future global weather disaster - that's like, in the future and stuff.

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;28163591]So, a $14 trillion+ Deficit, massive unemployment, and a country falling apart at the seams and they're chatting it up amicably about[I] climate change[/I]. I imagine there are bigger, more immediate problems at the moment...[/QUOTE] yeah because when i walk outside it looks like this [img]http://www.heidibradner.com/galleries/chechnyacolor/images/01-Grozny.jpg[/img] drama queen [editline]20th February 2011[/editline] [quote=pariahking;28163619]economy is bad, ignore future global weather disaster - that's like, in the future and stuff.[/quote] no shut up we can only do one thing at a time unemployment deficit obama rah rha be afraid

Tax people who are doing environmental damage, lower deficit along with helping environment, guide the free market to a more economically friendly stance.

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;28163591]So, a $14 trillion+ Deficit, massive unemployment, and a country falling apart at the seams and they're chatting it up amicably about[I] climate change[/I]. I imagine there are bigger, more immediate problems at the moment...[/QUOTE] What's been done to combat that deficit huh? They've tried to shut down Planned Parenthood for some silly reason.

[QUOTE=Rubs10;28161049] "I think it is going to be very hard to persuade people that climate change is somehow a fraud."[/QUOTE] Good job on being 5 years late to the party. Fuck american politics. They are like the representative of retards. It's like they are trying to be as retarded as possible.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;28163734]Tax people who are doing environmental damage, lower deficit along with helping environment, guide the free market to a more economically friendly stance.[/QUOTE] Or, tax and spend smarter, have a hefty portion of tax revenues go towards incentives and research for building environmentally safe industry. Then you hit three birds with one stone, clean industry, lowered deficit from taxing said industries and jobs for the people.

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;28163591]So, a $14 trillion+ Deficit, massive unemployment, and a country falling apart at the seams and they're chatting it up amicably about[I] climate change[/I]. I imagine there are bigger, more immediate problems at the moment...[/QUOTE] yeah, we should only ever deal with the immediate, if we die tomorrow, who fucking cares as long as we fucked around and did shit all today. Oh wait, there won't be a tomorrow if you don't fucking deal with it now. Seriously? The enviroment? I know you may not realize how important that is, but you're fucked if you fuck it up more.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;28173982]Or, tax and spend smarter, have a hefty portion of tax revenues go towards incentives and research for building environmentally safe industry.[/QUOTE] I think we already do that.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28174108]yeah, we should only ever deal with the immediate, if we die tomorrow, who fucking cares as long as we fucked around and did shit all today. Oh wait, there won't be a tomorrow if you don't fucking deal with it now. Seriously? The enviroment? I know you may not realize how important that is, but you're fucked if you fuck it up more.[/QUOTE] i went out to the environment yeaterday and shot me a squirrel for mah stew. Don't know wut you fuckin' liberals is makin' such a fussa bout

[QUOTE=Devodiere;28163734]Tax people who are doing environmental damage, lower deficit along with helping environment, guide the free market to a more economically friendly stance.[/QUOTE] Yes while there is little to no means to them available right now to realistically do so, what you're talking about here is increasing the cost of all goods that require energy by taxing them, or at least only the companies who do the most polluting (there's a ton of them) as well as causing them to spend more on energy thus making prices rise [i]even more[/i]. Do you not have any concept of what a fucking horrible idea that is? Seriously? What the man says in the article is right, new energy is needed. Government "incentives" like those won't fucking do shit when there is no reasonable alternatives, besides tank the economy. [editline]e[/editline] On the other hand tax [i]breaks[/i] to those companies who attempt to be environmentally "friendly" might be a better solution (if you can make it cost effective, good luck), it sure isn't a be-all end-all solution to the problem by any means whatsoever.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28182216]Yes while there is little to no means to them available right now to realistically do so, what you're talking about here is increasing the cost of all goods that require energy by taxing them, or at least only the companies who do the most polluting (there's a ton of them) as well as causing them to spend more on energy. Do you not have any concept of what a fucking horrible idea that is? Seriously? What the man says in the article is right, new energy is needed. Government "incentives" won't fucking do shit when there is no reasonable alternatives.[/QUOTE] New Energy eh? What do you mean by that? Wait until science comes up with an answer and then give them a way to go? If it wasn't clear I was referring to the companies that create energy, not the ones who use it. Relatively clean energy sources like Nuclear would not be particularly taxed and if anything, they would be subsidised (loosen the restriction on their construction and provide subsidies for starting up new plants to ease the initial cost). Things such as coal would be taxed per emissions depending on how much they use and the methods used. If there are dispersion tactics in place, it would be lessened based on how effective these are. If they emit other harmful chemicals along with the CO2, they would be taxed more. Overall though, as Coal is not renewable it would still be more heavily taxed than other sources. I think there might be things such as this already in place but remaking them would still be a good thing, fine tune it or give larger incentives to certain things. I understand the obvious things of companies pacing on these taxes to their consumers but with equivalent subsidies it should work out even overall and will put a free market aspect on it as companies who are taxed heavily will have to change to something more environmentally friendly to compete.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;28182358]New Energy eh? What do you mean by that? Wait until science comes up with an answer and then give them a way to go? If it wasn't clear I was referring to the companies that create energy, not the ones who use it. Relatively clean energy sources like Nuclear would not be particularly taxed and if anything, they would be subsidised (loosen the restriction on their construction and provide subsidies for starting up new plants to ease the initial cost). Things such as coal would be taxed per emissions depending on how much they use and the methods used. If there are dispersion tactics in place, it would be lessened based on how effective these are. If they emit other harmful chemicals along with the CO2, they would be taxed more. Overall though, as Coal is not renewable it would still be more heavily taxed than other sources. I think there might be things such as this already in place but remaking them would still be a good thing, fine tune it or give larger incentives to certain things. I understand the obvious things of companies pacing on these taxes to their consumers but with equivalent subsidies it should work out even overall and will put a free market aspect on it as companies who are taxed heavily will have to change to something more environmentally friendly to compete.[/QUOTE] I revised my post a couple times as you were posting, sorry about that but in any case no, you're wrong, I'll elaborate. [quote]If it wasn't clear I was referring to the companies that create energy, not the ones who use it.[/quote] Do you think that really matters? Increase the price of energy and you increase the price of all goods which use energy, which is you know, [i]everything[/i] [quote]Relatively clean energy sources like Nuclear would not be particularly taxed and if anything, they would be subsidised (loosen the restriction on their construction and provide subsidies for starting up new plants to ease the initial cost). Things such as coal would be taxed per emissions depending on how much they use and the methods used. If there are dispersion tactics in place, it would be lessened based on how effective these are. If they emit other harmful chemicals along with the CO2, they would be taxed more. Overall though, as Coal is not renewable it would still be more heavily taxed than other sources.[/quote] You do understand how many people would be put out of work, how many reactors would need to be built to replace [i]almost every other form of energy in the united states[/i] (yes, every one, because your plan seems to hinge on getting everyone to switch to Nuclear or be bombarded with taxes) and that this transition would be horribly painful, create false demand, still increase the price of energy and really the list just goes on like that for a while. [quote]I think there might be things such as this already in place but remaking them would still be a good thing, fine tune it or give larger incentives to certain things. I understand the obvious things of companies pacing on these taxes to their consumers but with equivalent subsidies it should work out even overall and will put a free market aspect on it as companies who are taxed heavily will have to change to something more environmentally friendly to compete.[/quote] There really isn't enough detail here in your post to make a proper assessment of the idea but it still isn't a great one. Subsidies aren't a be-all end-all solution either, they require real money from real sources, printed or ejected from the actual competitive market. You might say it could even out with all the taxes but even then that is some shaky ground you're approaching with the nation's most vital resource. It's a tough balancing act which will most likely end in agony. It also isn't really competition when you're forcing all of their hands collectively, just putting that out there. Finally here is what actually needs to happen: An energy source as cheap or cheaper than modern fuels and widely available which doesn't harm the environment, no more and no less will be adequate and forcing companies to sink or go green isn't a realistic, smart or safe solution to this problem.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28182518]Do you think that really matters? Increase the price of energy and you increase the price of all goods which use energy, which is you know, [i]everything[/i][/QUOTE] You could try and get more efficient with your goods then.

[QUOTE=Habsburg;28182542]You could try and get more efficient with your goods then.[/QUOTE] Yeah let them just pull that out of their asses, look, if that hasn't happened yet on its own then i don't know how you expect it to happen? Magic? all companies try to maximize efficiency as it stands right now.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28182518]I revised my post a couple times as you were posting, sorry about that but in any case no, you're wrong, I'll elaborate. Do you think that really matters? Increase the price of energy and you increase the price of all goods which use energy, which is you know, [i]everything[/i][/quote] Obviously it would not be taxed to the point when such things are painfully costly. It is inevitable that the price of energy will rise if the current direction of coal continues, it is better for it to be a controlled process than one of emergency. [quote]You do understand how many people would be put out of work, how many reactors would need to be built to replace [i]almost every other form of energy in the united states[/i] (yes, every one, because your plan seems to hinge on getting everyone to switch to Nuclear or be bombarded with taxes) and that this transition would be horribly painful, create false demand, still increase the price of energy and really the list just goes on like that for a while.[/quote] I am not proposing to shut down all coal reactors, that [B]would[/B] be absurd. My idea however is to encourage a transition so that in the normal process of business, cleaner energy sources seem attractive and worth going out of their comfort zone of coal. I understand the energy needs well, this is no shock but a carrot on a stick, along with a whip at the back of the energy industry. [quote]There really isn't enough detail here in your post to make a proper assessment of the idea but it still isn't a great one. Subsidies aren't a be-all end-all solution either, they require real money from real sources, printed or ejected from the actual competitive market. You might say it could even out with all the taxes but even then that is some shaky ground you're approaching with the nation's most vital resource. It's a tough balancing act which will most likely end in agony. It also isn't really competition when you're forcing all of their hands collectively, just putting that out there.[/QUOTE] The taxes from some energy sources are sent to cleaner ones as subsidies. The levels of these subsidies would need to change frequently but overall, it would not be too financially taxing. Nothing would be too extreme so I doubt it would be under the kind of duress you think. Everything would be lenient initially until it could be assessed, no-one would take action without understanding the implications. It is competition but more of an artificial competition than the standard. Everything is artificial given we have regulations but this has some kind of direction while maintaining the competition. Also sorry if it sounds a bit absurd but the basis for shaping the industry is sound. Lots of advice from financial experts and such would be needed as I am not one. Still, I'm not too concerned about the method as long as the aim of artificially bringing the industry to something more environmentally friendly is achieved. I know there would be costs but think of it as a kind of regulation to prevent hazardous practices like burning all of a non-renewable resource and causing a crash when the price of coal goes through the roof. [editline]21st February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;28182582]Yeah let them just pull that out of their asses, look, if that hasn't happened yet on its own then i don't know how you expect it to happen? Magic? all companies try to maximize efficiency as it stands right now.[/QUOTE] They try to maximise efficiency but they do not take into account environmental factors as they are not included in costs. This is the thing that we hope to achieve by putting a price on pollution, bringing it to their attention.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;28182749]Obviously it would not be taxed to the point when such things are painfully costly. It is inevitable that the price of energy will rise if the current direction of coal continues, it is better for it to be a controlled process than one of emergency. [/quote] [QUOTE=Devodiere;28182749] I am not proposing to shut down all coal reactors, that [B]would[/B] be absurd. My idea however is to encourage a transition so that in the normal process of business, cleaner energy sources seem attractive and worth going out of their comfort zone of coal. I understand the energy needs well, this is no shock but a carrot on a stick, along with a whip at the back of the energy industry. [/quote] These two statements directly contradict each other, if you're taxing people who cause CO2 and other unfavorable emissions then people who do make emissions will have to increase the price... there is no middle ground with this, you will just have to accept it. You say you wouldn't want to let it get "to the point when such things are painfully costly" but that is inevitable under that plan. It [b]will[/b] happen because those who are running nuclear power are unfairly monopolizing the market while the other energy sectors will be struggling to compete (if they can compete at all). I know most people would say, to hell with it all, we want green but that isn't a real solution. Energy is the backbone of our economy, you're talking about taxing big energy (like coal and fuels) and subsidizing nuclear power while at the same time biting the hand that feeds you, it doesn't work that way.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28182903]These two statements directly contradict each other, if you're taxing people who cause CO2 and other unfavorable emissions then people who do make emissions will have to increase the price... there is no middle ground with this, you will just have to accept it. You say you wouldn't want to let it get "to the point when such things are painfully costly" but that is inevitable under that plan. It [b]will[/b] happen because those who are running nuclear power are unfairly monopolizing the market while the other energy sectors will be struggling to compete (if they can compete at all). I know most people would say, to hell with it all, we want green but that isn't a real solution. Energy is the backbone of our economy, you're talking about taxing big energy (like coal and fuels) and subsidizing nuclear power while at the same time biting the hand that feeds you, it doesn't work that way.[/QUOTE] There is no Monopoly. Those who run Nuclear will be more competitive but the changes to the system are not so much that they would cause such a disturbance in which no-one goes for coal. Meanwhile Nuclear is a cheaper way so any company who can go Nuclear, changes a lot of their production facilities to it as it is a better way. Companies slowly move over to Nuclear due to the economic advantages of it with no sudden destruction of the coal industry. Coal can still compete, it's just harder and a more obvious business decision to change to Nuclear when they can. The only reason it would be not a real solution is coals prevalence in the current industry. Nuclear is capable of taking over (unlike Solar and Wind) and such a transition is very possible. There are a few kinks to make sure the changes do not destroy the industry but such problems are solved in the process of creating such an act. The idea itself is feasible. Also about the subsidy/tax break thing, I never really made a distinction because overall it has the same effect of making it more economically sensible to choose environmentally friendly options. I'm not an economist but I don't expect it to be done without the help of one.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28182582]Yeah let them just pull that out of their asses, look, if that hasn't happened yet on its own then i don't know how you expect it to happen? Magic? all companies try to maximize efficiency as it stands right now.[/QUOTE] I'm talking as humans not as companies.