61–70 of 95 posts
These sorts of lawsuits are going to be necessary with the rise of Trump's EPA--or what should be called Coal Protection Agency. We're about to enter a brave new world of environmental governance, one that is led by a climate change denier and one that believes "global warming" is a Chinese plot to weaken our economy.
These sorts of lawsuits are going to be necessary with the rise of Trump's EPA--or what should be called Coal Protection Agency. We're about to enter a brave new world of environmental governance, one that is led by a climate change denier and one that believes "global warming" is a Chinese plot to weaken our economy.
It's possible that he believes that global warming is a real phenomenon but that our treaties with the rest of the world place us at a major disadvantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's weird to complain or sue every time that the government doesn't make something you wanted. Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives. You're correct if the government rules/laws are all made by the representatives. But a substantial amount of regulation is established or defined in detail by non-elected government employees. So, in many cases, waiting for a change in re…
> electing the "right" set of congresspeople should fix that, but it hasn't It's much more likely that we haven't elected the right set than it is that the right set is utterly incapable of doing their job. > We've now 2 congressional elections since the first Snowden revelations and congress still seems to be generally in support of the surveillance. If the issue were important enough to the majority of people then…
This assumes the majority of people have the technical capacity to understand the ramifications of the situation.
>We've arranged a global civilization in which the most crucial elements — transportation, communications, and all other industries; agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment; and even the key democratic institution of voting, profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
-Carl Sagan
A carbon tax initiative was on the ballot in (very blue) Washington State, but sadly went down in flames. Which is strange considering how blue the state is. A carbon tax is one of the best ways to address CO2 pollution.
My sense was that the initiative was formulated to appeal to two different groups of voters but in doing so ended up alienating both.
These sorts of lawsuits are going to be necessary with the rise of Trump's EPA--or what should be called Coal Protection Agency. We're about to enter a brave new world of environmental governance, one that is led by a climate change denier and one that believes "global warming" is a Chinese plot to weaken our economy.
It's possible that he believes that global warming is a real phenomenon but that our treaties with the rest of the world place us at a major disadvantage.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's weird to complain or sue every time that the government doesn't make something you wanted. Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives. You're correct if the government rules/laws are all made by the representatives. But a substantial amount of regulation is established or defined in detail by non-elected government employees. So, in many cases, waiting for a change in re…
I think this is a mischaracterization of the way government operates. congressional representatives are not "abdictating" any role. They provide guidance that is all too specific in many cases, because the legal standard requires it. The folks in Congress are right to set the national budget and priorities, but it is a good thing that the details of implementation are left to agencies, because they're the ones with t…
This is true, but only if the laws are passed with enough specificity that the interpretation is reasonably unambiguous. Otherwise it effectively allows agencies to write the law. But, yes, there's a gray area and where that line is drawn is unclear. But the "we need to pass the law to find out what's in it" of the Affordable Care Act is probably not how congress should operate.
> If, after the Snowden revelations, congresspersons in favor of widespread surveillance continue to be elected, that's actually a sign the American people are fine with it.
This is only accurate if people vote based on single-issues and/or if surveillance is one of their top few issues. It's entirely possible for people to be concerned about it but to be more concerned about military policy, the economy, etc., and to vote on those instead.
> If you think a law or regulation violates your rights, the correct avenue to address the issue is the courts.
That was exactly the point I was trying to make to the OP commenter. :)
I am surprised by the very negative ton of the first 10+ comments. These kids are not kids any more. They are between 15 and 20. As a reminder, Lafayette was 16. They see an issue and act on it with the tools they have. When you have an issue with a piece of software, you look at the alternatives and possibly you act on the issue, you fix it. They do what you do as designer/software developer, just in another field.…
Evidence that HN is a right-wing capitalist site (like both US political parties): in a discussion of threats to humanity, an apparently highly-rated comment talks about paying too much in taxes. And fears that solutions to global warming will "completely subvert our entire system of law making." (Both of which are good things: not just markets, but the nation state system itself, are exactly what need disrupting. Th…
You read a different HN than I do.
I am surprised by the very negative ton of the first 10+ comments. These kids are not kids any more. They are between 15 and 20. As a reminder, Lafayette was 16. They see an issue and act on it with the tools they have. When you have an issue with a piece of software, you look at the alternatives and possibly you act on the issue, you fix it. They do what you do as designer/software developer, just in another field.…
> We need more people doing and less people complaining. Some may consider it stupid to sue, but if this is the only solution, why not? Some may consider it stupid to elect Trump, but obviously tens of millions of people felt it was the only solution. I actually agree with you. Whatever you think of this suit or this election, I think we can agree that there are some situations in which you have no "good" recourse, a…
Mostly people who will be dead before climate change becomes a problem.
It seems like the new judge ruled for it because, “[their] action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It alleges that defendants’ actions and inactions—whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty—have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.”, emphasis on constitutional right to life and liberty. Although that may be true, I am having trouble seeing as to how this may pertain solely to the Federal Government; It is possible to amend the constitution with an environmental specific amendment, but it would have to go through the legislative branch; I see nothing wrong with that. But looking at article 1 section 8 of the constitution, I do not see as to how this solely pertains to the Federal Government alone? Keep in mind that this country is a democratic republic and not a democracy; the federal government should be subject to the states rule, not an entity on its own.
A carbon tax initiative was on the ballot in (very blue) Washington State, but sadly went down in flames. Which is strange considering how blue the state is. A carbon tax is one of the best ways to address CO2 pollution.
This. A carbon tax avoids creating a million regulations for every place where we could save energy, because companies who spend too much carbon will just have fewer money to keep going, and you'd just have to compare the price of things to know which ones are less ecologic. Besides, the tax can be used for ecologic projects, or can be used to reduce other taxes. But every time I try to explain it in France, I'm answ…
A good solution to that would be to payout all of the proceeds of the carbon tax split evenly between everyone. That way people with below average carbon emissions will actually end up with more money than they had before, though they would still be incentivized to emit less.