SCOTUS blocks Obama climate change rules

[compuwiz1]

Good. Fuck Barry and his agenda. Maybe we can finally be rid of Al Gore's shit stain on the planet.

 

[brycejones]

the SCOTUS just put a shiv into another Obama plan and did the poor and middle class a huge solid.

Long term, no they didn't.

 

[PokerGuy]

Good, another executive branch overreach has been put on hold.

 

[thraashman]

I'll never understand the conservative war against the environment. Seriously, why do you people hate clean air and water and a sustainable environment so much? I mean, I get that in order to be a Republican you have to be so fucking stupid as to be unable to put on pants without a Youtube tutorial, but I'd think you wouldn't just hate the environment the way y'all do.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'll never understand the conservative war against the environment.

Well duh, of course you'll never understand it because it doesn't exist. You're trying to "understand" a strawman.

Seriously, why do you people hate clean air and water and a sustainable environment so much?

In a world of unicorns where there are no limitations, then of course everyone would want everything to be perfect. However, in the real world, there are limited resources and constraints, so everything you do is a balancing of a multitude of goals and needs. Everything has a cost and an opportunity cost.

At some point you have to strike a balance between conflicting goals, it's not a binary equation.

 

[K1052]

Agreed, but a leader's job is not only to lead, but to show why people should follow. Unless you're positing that people in the northeast are abnormally stupid, sounds like their leaders failed spectacularly.

You obviously haven't met many obstinate new englanders...which is most of them.

 

[dank69]

Well duh, of course you'll never understand it because it doesn't exist. You're trying to "understand" a strawman.



In a world of unicorns where there are no limitations, then of course everyone would want everything to be perfect. However, in the real world, there are limited resources and constraints, so everything you do is a balancing of a multitude of goals and needs. Everything has a cost and an opportunity cost.

At some point you have to strike a balance between conflicting goals, it's not a binary equation.

Conservatives can't grasp the idea that going green would probably create more jobs in the long run, because the fossil fuel industry has been spending billions of dollars drilling it into their heads that it's impossible and that it's actually the government that is paying scientists to tell you otherwise.

 

[K1052]

Good, another executive branch overreach has been put on hold.

At this point the practical effects of stopping this rule are questionable...at best.

 

[Sonikku]

What liberals don't get is that environmental regulations make business less profitable. That's why we're losing jobs while China is taking them. Just look at the capitalism paradise that they have created while Obama kills American jobs.

We need to make America great again... by deregulating environmental policies and letting business thrive in a Capitalism driven environment like China does.

 

[glenn1]

Conservatives can't grasp the idea that going green would probably create more jobs in the long run, because the fossil fuel industry has been spending billions of dollars drilling it into their heads that it's impossible and that it's actually the government that is paying scientists to tell you otherwise.

Oh yes, it's the old "let's make energy more expensive to save money" routine. If only some forward looking politicians would actually test this theory in the real world as a proof of concept. Oh I forgot, they did.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.o...05/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

<snip>

7. The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind industry job.
8. The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created.
9. Principally, the high cost of electricity affects costs of production and employment levels in metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing, beverage and tobacco industries.
10. Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro.
14. The price of a comprehensive electricity rate (paid by the end consumer) in Spain would have to be increased 31% to being able to repay the historic debt generated by this rate deficit mainly produced by the subsidies to renewables, according to Spain’s energy regulator.

 

[dank69]

Oh yes, it's the old "let's make energy more expensive to save money" routine. If only some forward looking politicians would actually test this theory in the real world as a proof of concept. Oh I forgot, they did.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.o...05/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

<snip>

Oops:
http://www.desmogblog.com/gabriel-calzada

Calzada's study was debunked by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which released a report (PDF) in response which came to the following conclusion:
“The analysis by the authors from King Juan Carlos University represents a significant divergence from traditional methodologies used to estimate employment impacts from renewable energy. In fact, the methodology does not reflect an employment impact analysis. Accordingly, the primary conclusion made by the authors – policy support of renewable energy results in net jobs losses – is not supported by their work.”

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/credit_for_trying_spanish_stud.html

5. The study author has clear ties to Exxon Mobil. As the Wall Street Journal noted: "Professor Gabriel Calzada is the founder and president of the Fundacion Juan de Mariana, a libertarian think tank founded in 2005. He's also a fellow of the Center for New Europe, a Brussels-based libertarian think tank than in recent years apparently accepted funding from Exxon Mobil." Additionally, ExxonSecrets.com reports that the "Center for New Europe" - where Gabriel Calzada is a visiting fellow - has received $170,000 form ExxonMobil since 1998. Calzada also is tied into the Heartland Institute, another well-known hub of climate science denial.

Guess you were duped by yet another shitty source.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh yes, it's the old "let's make energy more expensive to save money" routine. If only some forward looking politicians would actually test this theory in the real world as a proof of concept. Oh I forgot, they did.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.o...05/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

<snip>

Glenn: Europe is totally not like the US and we should never compare those countries to the US when it comes to things like health care. The exception to this is Spanish green jobs subsidies, in which case this comparison is totally valid.

That being said, other people have looked at this august study as well! I wonder what they had to say:

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf

The analysis by the authors from King Juan Carlos University represents a significant divergence from traditional methodologies used to estimate employment impacts from renewable energy. In fact, the methodology does not reflect an employment impact analysis. Accordingly, the primary conclusion made by the authors – policy support of renewable energy results in net jobs losses – is not supported by their work.

The whole paper is an amusing read as it basically says your study was conducted almost entirely incompetently.

Looks like you were duped again, glenn.

 

[trenchfoot]

I'll never understand the conservative war against the environment. Seriously, why do you people hate clean air and water and a sustainable environment so much? I mean, I get that in order to be a Republican you have to be so fucking stupid as to be unable to put on pants without a Youtube tutorial, but I'd think you wouldn't just hate the environment the way y'all do.

Besides the point that asking a dyed in the wool conservative that question is like asking a sex maniac why they do what they do, I think many of their folks have had their autonomics re-wired by FOX, Limbaugh, Coulter, Conservative AM radio and their leaders in Congress to oppose anything and everything that Obama The Incarnate wants to rape and kill their children with.

Take a large portion of their middle class and their poor for example; they mysteriously side with those very wealthy elite that are hell-bent on denying them their chances for the same kind of prosperity that these blood-sucking profit-takers have been enjoying for decades now. More for them obviously means less for everybody else. Yet, that awful stench permeates almost every piece of legislation that their conservative leaders in DC pass on a regular basis. But somehow that's OK with them, as well as the fact that their own political leaders are vociferously attempting to get rid of their Medicare and Social Security too?

And then there's the idea that anything and everything that represents an obstacle toward keeping short term planning for huge profits in play is sacrilegious and must be prevented at all costs, even at the expense of our own well-being. Well, that's OK too, simply because all of the conservative sources of information these folks rely on (you know, the ones that are owned and operated by the blood-suckers who are exploiting them? Those guys?) are telling them that that's what they're supposed to believe without question.

A very neat and impregnable fortress/prison that is weathering the test of time and intelligence of the masses.

 

[K1052]

Oh yes, it's the old "let's make energy more expensive to save money" routine. If only some forward looking politicians would actually test this theory in the real world as a proof of concept. Oh I forgot, they did.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.o...05/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

<snip>

The NREL, among other people, didn't think too much of the Spanish study:

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf

Or the WSJ:

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/30/green-jobs-ole-is-the-spanish-clean-energy-push-a-cautionary-tale/

But the study doesn&#8217;t actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed by renewable-energy spending. What the study actually says is that government spending on renewable energy is less than half as efficient at job creation as private-sector spending. Specifically, each green job required on average 571,000 euros, compared with 259,000 euros in &#8220;average capital per worker&#8221; in the rest of the economy.

So how does that translate into outright job destruction? It&#8217;s simply a question of opportunity cost, the paper says: &#8220;The money spent by the government cannot, once committed to &#8220;green jobs&#8221;, be consumed or invested by private parties and therefore the jobs that would depend on such consumption and investment will disappear or not be created.&#8221;

On paper, that makes sense. But Spain&#8217;s support for renewable energy came out of existing tax revenues&#8212;there were no special levies on corporate activity designed to underwrite clean energy.

Edit: also LOL at your linkage from IER.org

 

[fskimospy]

Oops:
http://www.desmogblog.com/gabriel-calzada


http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/credit_for_trying_spanish_stud.html


Guess you were duped by yet another shitty source.

You beat me to it!

It's sad how consistently and how easily some conservatives are hoodwinked but I guess that's what happens when you never venture outside the bubble. What's weird is that this isn't the first time groups like this have lied to them but they keep going back for more. It seems like emotional validation is more important than actually being informed.

 

[1prophet]

I'll never understand the conservative war against the environment. Seriously, why do you people hate clean air and water and a sustainable environment so much? I mean, I get that in order to be a Republican you have to be so fucking stupid as to be unable to put on pants without a Youtube tutorial, but I'd think you wouldn't just hate the environment the way y'all do.

Because it interferes with easy profits for the 1%, and anyone that does that is in league with communists, better to be poor and support the one percent than be a communist.

 

[zinfamous]

Pretty massive thread backfire suffers multiple casualties.

Nice work, OP. :thumbsup:

 

[theeedude]

Agreed, but a leader's job is not only to lead, but to show why people should follow. Unless you're positing that people in the northeast are abnormally stupid, sounds like their leaders failed spectacularly.


AKA "Doing stuff I don't like".

In this case they are merely granting an injunction until they hear the case. There may be legitimate Constitutional issues they see, or there may not be; sometimes an injunction simply recognizes that damage that will occur if something new is begin and then must be dismantled for failing the Constitutional smell test.

What Constitutional smell test? This is SCOTUS legislating from the bench, breaking their own precedent, and displaying that they have already made up their minds before hearing the case themselves.

 

[glenn1]

You beat me to it!

It's sad how consistently and how easily some conservatives are hoodwinked but I guess that's what happens when you never venture outside the bubble. What's weird is that this isn't the first time groups like this have lied to them but they keep going back for more. It seems like emotional validation is more important than actually being informed.

Okay, so let me break this down into smaller pieces for you as seemingly required. Your side claims that green energy will create net-new jobs. Somehow the costs of these jobs need to be paid; what is the causal mechanism for how is this being done? Obviously if you're saying it will boost employment there must be a reason, or if alternative energy was just creating surplus economic value on its own then why would you be attempting to further subsidize it while artificially inflating the cost of fossil fuel competitors?

Do Green jobs pay less than those they replace, thus allowing more of them given the same level of spend? If so, why are we trading quality for quantity?

Do Green jobs inherently cost less than non-green jobs (due to efficiency/productivity or some other means)? Is so, why are the savings going into more jobs rather than being passed along to the consumer?

Do these new Green Jobs simply reflect the higher costs of alternative energy with extra hires scaling in lockstep, thus are additional costs borne by the consumer?

Do these new Green jobs simply reflect the subsidies paid by the government, and if so why should taxpayers be funding this?

 

[Strk]

Or a link from a place that isn't the "world socialist web site":
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/09/25/national-grid-projects-percent-increase-for-winter-electricity-rates/MBl81NGxTljzr56PZCD7QK/story.html

37% isn't 100% and the natural gas shortage is long gone.

Yeah, definitely not 100% for me

 

[fskimospy]

Okay, so let me break this down into smaller pieces for you as seemingly required. Your side claims that green energy will create net-new jobs. Somehow the costs of these jobs need to be paid; what is the causal mechanism for how is this being done? Obviously if you're saying it will boost employment there must be a reason, or if alternative energy was just creating surplus economic value on its own then why would you be attempting to further subsidize it while artificially inflating the cost of fossil fuel competitors?

Do Green jobs pay less than those they replace, thus allowing more of them given the same level of spend? If so, why are we trading quality for quantity?

Do Green jobs inherently cost less than non-green jobs (due to efficiency/productivity or some other means)? Is so, why are the savings going into more jobs rather than being passed along to the consumer?

Do these new Green Jobs simply reflect the higher costs of alternative energy with extra hires scaling in lockstep, thus are additional costs borne by the consumer?

Do these new Green jobs simply reflect the subsidies paid by the government, and if so why should taxpayers be funding this?

You know actually qualified people without an agenda have studied this very issue. Maybe you should go look up some of the results but this time instead of looking for work that tells you what you want to hear you should actually research the issue.

As mentioned in the other thread it is frankly pathetic how incapable you are of admitting you said something stupid and ignorant, even when it is shoved directly under your nose.

 

[glenn1]

You know actually qualified people without an agenda have studied this very issue. Maybe you should go look up some of the results but this time instead of looking for work that tells you what you want to hear you should actually research the issue.

As mentioned in the other thread it is frankly pathetic how incapable you are of admitting you said something stupid and ignorant, even when it is shoved directly under your nose.

tl;dr Eskimospy: "I don't know what the causality is, please research it and tell me the answer when you find out"

 

[dank69]

tl;dr Eskimospy: "I don't know what the causality is, please research it and tell me the answer when you find out"

tl;dr Glenn: "I don't understand that just because I say something will cause something else doesn't mean it will, because in my bubble, the world is a simple place and factors that I am not aware of don't actually exist."

 

[fskimospy]

tl;dr Eskimospy: "I don't know what the causality is, please research it and tell me the answer when you find out"

It's more like I see little point in pulling up research for someone as irrational as you are. If you can't even admit that you pulled your earlier point from a comically inept 'study' promoted by a climate change denial organization why should I have any expectation of your ability to look at other research?

Man up, say three simple words. "I was wrong".

 

[K1052]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-10/obama-s-clean-power-plan-may-be-on-hold-coal-s-fate-is-not

Utilities: Meh...ng prices are super low for the foreseeable future, other regulations already charted this course, and our customers increasingly demand cleaner energy. We'll keep building renewables and ng plants while retiring coal burners thx.

Banks: Low NG prices and existing regulations make coal uneconomical.

Coal producers: Good times are here again since everyone will now want our shitty product instead of cheap NG or increasingly popular renewables.

Which one of these groups is delusional?