Fairly often, I take a peek on the other side of the fence and read articles that are on the opposing side of the environmental debate. The problem with that is that more often than not, it results with me bursting out with laughter. Take this gem from Fox News:
If only EPA stood for | Fox News
Huh? HUH? That is really some fuzzy math work there. I would really be interested to know how they came up with those numbers.
But wait there's more:
Is The EPA Preparing For A Massive Private Land Grab? | The Daily Caller
Control, control, control. How does one jump from the conclusion that mapping waterways and wetlands will inherently bring a massive seizure of private property? Couldn't a dedicated team of students have done the same thing using easily available tools such as Google Maps? And what is wrong with a map, isn't more knowledge a good thing? Couldn't the maps be used for a beneficial purpose such as flood and drought prevention and not inherently a sinister purpose?
And this one from Forbes:
The EPA's Costly 'Clean Power Plan' Power Grab - Forbes
Geez, such hyperbolic and dramatic language, one might wonder if it's a movie script. The Clean Power Plan does indeed mandate states to reduce emissions, but it lets them create their own strategies for doing so and gives a significant amount of leeway. The feds only step in if the states fail to come up with a coherent plan to reduce emissions. And I find it ironic that these people are so worried about a "centralization" of energy. Energy is already centralized in this country. Almost all vehicles you buy run on gasoline. Here in Georgia, you almost have a choice of only Georgia Power or not having electricity at all. The electricity I get comes from big, centralized power plants that I don't have any control over. Isn't this the nightmare scenario? A future with more renewables would be less centralized, not more. That's why we call it the "distributed" grid. Electric cars would give us a choice vs. the oil barrons.
I really don't claim to understand the other side, nor propose a solution on what it might take to bring them to reason. I would really love to put a stop to the 24/7 onslaught of FUD and misinformation, and base our environmental policies solely on reason and science. However, that is clearly not going to happen, and I think you can tell you why: The other side is deeply fearful. Fearful of "control". The popular meme seems to be that if we let "environmentalists have their way", we will be in living in mud huts and riding on a donkey to work, assuming we still have a job that all the "job-killing regulation" has killed. We see electric cars being the future, they see a 1984 style dystopia. We see renewables creating greater human health and prosperty, they see it creating enormous human poverty and need. We see solar and battery electric creating greater energy independence, they see the red flag of Marxism.
Perhaps I'm being a bit silly and satirical, but I don't think I'm far off. I don't really see any hope of compromise or pragmatic solutions as long as the status-quo stays in place. Until we can some how turn off the fear of "control" in the environmental debate, I think we will continue to see a nonstop ferocious fight against reducing carbon emissions and a transition to renewable energy. So what will it take to turn off the fear and embrace reason and science? To paraphrase Sam Harris, what reasoned argument can you use against someone who doesn't use reason? What evidence can you provide to someone who doesn't care about evidence? What science is convincing to someone who's worldview is not based on science? I don't think I know, but I honestly feel like giving up sometimes. Perhaps there are social psychologists on here that might have an idea. And that's what this thread is for, to solicit ideas. If anyone has a good one, let me know.
If only EPA stood for | Fox News
Voters rarely object to such deals, says David Harsanyi of The Federalist, because government hides their real costs. “If people actually paid what a Chevy Volt cost to make, it would probably be around $200,000. Without government -- essentially, government cronyism and all kinds of subsidies -- the Volt wouldn’t exist.”
He says Chevy, even with its government subsidies, loses about $49,000 on every Volt it builds. It’s ironic that, as environmentalists talk about “sustainability,” they create totally unsustainable subsidy schemes.
Huh? HUH? That is really some fuzzy math work there. I would really be interested to know how they came up with those numbers.
But wait there's more:
Is The EPA Preparing For A Massive Private Land Grab? | The Daily Caller
Their proof? The EPA paid private contractors to assemble detailed maps of waterways and wetlands in all 50 states. The EPA maps were made in 2013, shortly after the agency proposed expanding its authority under the Clean Water Act. The maps were kept secret by the agency, but were obtained by Republicans on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
“These maps show the EPA’s plan: to control a huge amount of private property across the country,” Rep. Lamar Smith, the science committee’s chairman, wrote in a letter to the EPA demanding more answers on why they have a detailed map of U.S. waterways.
“Given the astonishing picture they paint, I understand the EPA’s desire to minimize the importance of these maps,” wrote Smith, a Texas Republican. “But the EPA’s posturing cannot explain away the alarming content of these documents.”
Control, control, control. How does one jump from the conclusion that mapping waterways and wetlands will inherently bring a massive seizure of private property? Couldn't a dedicated team of students have done the same thing using easily available tools such as Google Maps? And what is wrong with a map, isn't more knowledge a good thing? Couldn't the maps be used for a beneficial purpose such as flood and drought prevention and not inherently a sinister purpose?
And this one from Forbes:
The EPA's Costly 'Clean Power Plan' Power Grab - Forbes
If the Clean Power Plan is not rejected now by a significant number of resolved states, there may be no other opportunity to stop this wholesale centralization of energy administration. In fact, if the Clean Power Plan stands as a precedent for the federal usurpations states will tolerate, there may be no other time or place that states will reassert sovereign interests beyond this transfer of power.
Geez, such hyperbolic and dramatic language, one might wonder if it's a movie script. The Clean Power Plan does indeed mandate states to reduce emissions, but it lets them create their own strategies for doing so and gives a significant amount of leeway. The feds only step in if the states fail to come up with a coherent plan to reduce emissions. And I find it ironic that these people are so worried about a "centralization" of energy. Energy is already centralized in this country. Almost all vehicles you buy run on gasoline. Here in Georgia, you almost have a choice of only Georgia Power or not having electricity at all. The electricity I get comes from big, centralized power plants that I don't have any control over. Isn't this the nightmare scenario? A future with more renewables would be less centralized, not more. That's why we call it the "distributed" grid. Electric cars would give us a choice vs. the oil barrons.
I really don't claim to understand the other side, nor propose a solution on what it might take to bring them to reason. I would really love to put a stop to the 24/7 onslaught of FUD and misinformation, and base our environmental policies solely on reason and science. However, that is clearly not going to happen, and I think you can tell you why: The other side is deeply fearful. Fearful of "control". The popular meme seems to be that if we let "environmentalists have their way", we will be in living in mud huts and riding on a donkey to work, assuming we still have a job that all the "job-killing regulation" has killed. We see electric cars being the future, they see a 1984 style dystopia. We see renewables creating greater human health and prosperty, they see it creating enormous human poverty and need. We see solar and battery electric creating greater energy independence, they see the red flag of Marxism.
Perhaps I'm being a bit silly and satirical, but I don't think I'm far off. I don't really see any hope of compromise or pragmatic solutions as long as the status-quo stays in place. Until we can some how turn off the fear of "control" in the environmental debate, I think we will continue to see a nonstop ferocious fight against reducing carbon emissions and a transition to renewable energy. So what will it take to turn off the fear and embrace reason and science? To paraphrase Sam Harris, what reasoned argument can you use against someone who doesn't use reason? What evidence can you provide to someone who doesn't care about evidence? What science is convincing to someone who's worldview is not based on science? I don't think I know, but I honestly feel like giving up sometimes. Perhaps there are social psychologists on here that might have an idea. And that's what this thread is for, to solicit ideas. If anyone has a good one, let me know.
Last edited: