backtop


Print 122 comment(s) - last by DominionSeraph.. on Feb 19 at 8:34 PM


  (Source: EL Civics)
Measure passes broadly passes with 56-17 vote, but lacks legal power

Many politicians across the U.S. have already made their mind up about climate change and refuse to consider recent allegations of academic misconduct among prominent climate researchers, or other plausible explanations for climate change, such as sun cycles.  Across the country, there are many folks that haven't blindly accepted the theory, though.

Utah's heavily Republican state legislature has passed a new resolution which condemns climate change alarmism.  The resolution lacks any legal authority, but vocally criticizes the anthropogenic global warming community for ignoring recent developments.

The legislation, which resoundingly passed by a vote of 56-17, originally referred to global warming theory as a "conspiracy", but that term was stricken from the measure in favor of "climate data".  

A small excerpt from the measure is:

WHEREAS, there has been a concerted effort by climate change alarmists to marginalize those in the scientific community who are skeptical of global warming by manipulating or pressuring peer-reviewed publications to keep contrary or competing scientific viewpoints and findings on global warming from being reviewed and published; 

WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a blend of government officials and scientists, does no independent climate research but relies on global climate researchers;

WHEREAS, Earth's climate is constantly changing with recent warming potentially an indication of a return to more normal temperatures following a prolonged cooling period from 1250 to 1860 called the "Little Ice Age"; 

The bill points out that pending warming legislation will earn its proponents "more than $7 billion annually in federal government grants".  Originally those grants were referred to as the "the climate change 'gravy train'", but that language was removed from the measure.

The bill is critical of the U.S. Environmental Agency and President Barack Obama's calls to regulate greenhouse gases nationally.  Representative Mike Noel says the warming scare is an example of profiteers posing as environmentalists and exploiting the public for their own gain.  He states, "Sometimes ... we need to have the courage to do nothing."

Arizona is considering similar legislation.

The only potential downside of the measures, is that they could give local environmentalists means to challenge future nuclear plant construction in the states.  President Obama has championed nuclear plant construction, but says that he's doing it to "combat climate change."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: I don't get it
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 1:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
"Who here can honestly say they haven't changed their habits? We recycle more..."

I disagree that recycling just for the sake of doing it is helpful to the environment. When recycling actually is profitable (such as aluminum), it's a nobrainer...it'll happen on its own, regardless.

But what about recycling other things like paper, things that cost MORE to recycle than it would to just produce more. Does that help? In most cases, no. The 'cost' of a product is a measure of the energy and resources used to produce it. In the case of recycled paper, you expend so much more chemicals and energy on recycling, as compared to raw wood pulp, that you're better off skipping the whole process entirely. And that doesn't even factor in the lower quality of the end product, which can also cost time and energy.

Throw your waste paper in the trash. It'll wind up in a landfill and eventually become trees again...all without a single drop of fuel being burned or chemicals consumed. Ultimately, thats much better for the environment than forced recycling.


RE: I don't get it
By Parhel on 2/17/2010 3:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
things like paper, things that cost MORE to recycle than it would to just produce more


Do you have any links to support that? I'm not sure that recycling paper loses money . . . And, if so, who's paying for it?


RE: I don't get it
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 3:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
Five years ago, recycled paper cost more to purchase and was signficantly lower quality than virgin paper. The situation might be better today...but if it is, the point still stands. If a particular material costs more to recycle than to create afresh, the recycling process is ultimately hurting the environment, not helping. Action groups like The Natural Resource Defense Council would of course disagree.

As for who was paying for the costs? They were partially born by communities who forced mandatory recycling programs on their citizens, and also by businesses who paid extra to incorporate a certain percentage of recycled paper into their products, so they could advertise it to boost a "green" image.


RE: I don't get it
By Donkeyshins on 2/17/2010 3:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But what about recycling other things like paper, things that cost MORE to recycle than it would to just produce more. Does that help? In most cases, no. The 'cost' of a product is a measure of the energy and resources used to produce it. In the case of recycled paper, you expend so much more chemicals and energy on recycling, as compared to raw wood pulp, that you're better off skipping the whole process entirely. And that doesn't even factor in the lower quality of the end product, which can also cost time and energy.


The problem is you are externalizing costs (more crap in landfills, more trees being cut down, etc.). If you could quantify the dollar-equivalence of these externalized costs (and paper quality is also an externalized cost) it would be interesting to see how paper recycling fares.


RE: I don't get it
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 3:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
"Externalizing costs" is by and large a phrase invented to grant a pseudo-economic shine to noneconomic arguments. Today, paper is produced from fast-growing farm trees planted especially for the purpose 20 years earlier by paper companies. There is no "cost" for cutting down those trees. And putting that waste paper back into the ground (where it ultimately came from in the first place) does no environmental damage either.

Now in the case of, say, air pollution from coal plants, external costs are a reality. But that's a different story entirely.


RE: I don't get it
By just4U on 2/18/2010 7:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
I don't disagree with your comments here. There is much that I don't know and have not done my research on in regards to whats the best way to minimalize our over all effect. But as a sceptic of global warming and the reasons behind why interest groups and government bodies want us on board I just felt that it needed to be stated.

We all care about the environment. Don't matter what side of the issue were on.

As a side note since im not commenting in that thread just rating .. Nice comments from you porkpie in U.S. Air Force's Laser Air Armada Nears Combat Readiness. Thumbs up.


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki