Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 197 posts

Re: EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

#61

Post by namdnay »

GenerocUsername wrote: post #53
fabian2k wrote: post #8

I mean it's entirely obvious from everything that this administration does that it fundamentally opposes the entire purpose of the EPA. They want people to think climate change is a hoax, and environmental regulations are in the way of earning money. Wind power is bad, and "clean coal" is good.

In a way it is? Let me explain. The USA is big, but China bigger. If the USA over optimizes on reducing greenhouse gas today, at the expense of our long term economic and world power, China, who cares for less about preserving the world will continue to destroy the world and claim the most power simultaneously. So while we can reduce OUR footprint by taking ourselves out of the game, the world still loses. So now try…

> prior commitments like the Paris accord were engineered to harm us while allowing China to dominate

Who engineered them to harm us? You’re saying there’s a powerful pro-China cabal that designed the Paris accords on purpose to harm us and benefit China? Come on..

Re: EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

#62

Post by Aurornis »

goku12 wrote: post #18
fabian2k wrote: post #8

I mean it's entirely obvious from everything that this administration does that it fundamentally opposes the entire purpose of the EPA. They want people to think climate change is a hoax, and environmental regulations are in the way of earning money. Wind power is bad, and "clean coal" is good.

> Wind power is bad, and "clean coal" is good. Can somebody explain the psychology behind these beliefs? I'm pretty sure they know how coal is mined. They must surely have heard about the black lung disease and COPD. Where does this 'clean coal' concept come from? And if that's about the products of coal burning, is it too hard to imagine breathing in hot air containing soot, fly ash, some obnoxious oxides, some unbu…

> Can somebody explain the psychology behind these beliefs?

A lot is driven by contrarianism. They see what the other side wants and automatically fight for the opposite.

Among those who actually think deeper, they hold beliefs that putting restrictions on coal will make their energy bills explode or make industries in their town go out of business.

Some come from states with coal mining operations. They see the initiatives as an attack on their state.

There is also a lot of misinformation about clean energy. You can still find people who believe that it’s impossible to build enough solar or wind energy to make a difference so they believe it’s all just a scam to spend their tax dollars on useless ventures.

> I'm pretty sure they know how coal is mined. They must surely have heard about the black lung disease and COPD. Where does this 'clean coal' concept come from?

Modern mines are still somewhat dangerous but they’re not like the Zoolander style pickaxe and black lung operations you might have seen in history books. Modern mining relies heavily on machinery and many coal mines are surface operations. The number of humans involved has decreased every year for a long time while safety improves, much like how farming today doesn’t resemble farming of 100 years ago.

It’s not the safest industry, but arguing that we need to eliminate it to avoid black lung is going to be very unpersuasive to anyone in an area with mining operations.

Re: EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

#63

Post by mothballed »

rectang wrote: post #49
notmyjob wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is what, the world’s sixth largest economy? But we (our political leadership broadly speaking) seem quite inept despite their abundant resources. Gotta to spend dollars on campaigning and gerrymandering instead, or you know losing 50 billion here and there to EDD fraud, or on high speed rail from Visalia to Modesto.

Federal taxes paid by California’s residents and businesses subsidize the budgets of the states who have made retaliatory gerrymandering efforts necessary. Spending money on Prop 50 is rational because California is on the verge of a durable situation of taxation without representation. This same phenomenon shows why California will struggle to replace the federal government for funding basic research.

It never ceases to baffle my why Californians tend to opine towards a strong federal government when the documents authorizing it are structured such that California is virtually guaranteed to get the worst end of the deal. California has 12% of the population and 2% of the senators.

Every time Californians urge to give the federal government more power, even for "good" things, the rules of the game virtually demand it will be used against them. This might be a necessary evil for the bare minimums (military protection, federal court to settle contracts, enforcement of some federal laws), but I don't understand how Californians justify that every positive intention will be turned against them and carry on anyway.

Re: EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

#65

Post by reval »

softwaredoug wrote: post #28

It feels like in the US we need collective, civic organizations independent of the Federal government. I would like to see the Democratic party and other left-leaning / governance institutions / activists on specific issues work to make priorities resilient of the government. Especially since working on many of these issues is popular and not particularly partisan. And many people in upper-middle class would rather d…

Out of curiosity, why does this have to be a left-leaning initiative? I personally don’t use these political labels as I’m often confused by how they are used.

Re: EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

#66

Post by dylan604 »

GenerocUsername wrote: post #53
fabian2k wrote: post #8

I mean it's entirely obvious from everything that this administration does that it fundamentally opposes the entire purpose of the EPA. They want people to think climate change is a hoax, and environmental regulations are in the way of earning money. Wind power is bad, and "clean coal" is good.

In a way it is? Let me explain. The USA is big, but China bigger. If the USA over optimizes on reducing greenhouse gas today, at the expense of our long term economic and world power, China, who cares for less about preserving the world will continue to destroy the world and claim the most power simultaneously. So while we can reduce OUR footprint by taking ourselves out of the game, the world still loses. So now try…

Anyone with a couple of marbles in their noggin can see that depending on a finite resource dug out of the ground for everything is not a good long term plan. Offsetting that dependence with infinitely renewable sources just makes sense. You mention China cares less, yet you fail to acknowledge China by far outpaces the US in its pursuit of renewables. Yes they still use a lot of coal, but they are actively adding more renewables. It’ll just take time. At least they are trying. Also look at their adoption of EVs compared to US.

Re: EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

#68

Post by notahacker »

mothballed wrote: post #46
johnebgd wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great idea. Who pays for it?

[flagged]

> Imagine all the things we could get done if people donated only 1/3 of what our taxes currently are, and we just shit-canned the notion of taxes.

About a third as much, and this is assuming that people actually donate that much, which as a rule they don't, not even where people don't pay taxes.

Re: EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

#69

Post by mikeyouse »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #33
firesteelrain wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, I see where you’re coming from. Personally I’d want to see documents or journal confirmations before calling it outright censorship, but I agree the political track record makes it hard to dismiss the reports.

Indeed, totally losing the benefit of the doubt when it comes to matters of censorship and lying, is one consequences of being the administration historically most infamous for censorship and lying. Normally that is motivation enough for people to choose not to become infamous for censorship and lying. If any evidentiary memos or documents are due, they are due from the administration (with credible independent verif…

The Federal courts have reached this point too. There’s a “presumption of regularity” where the government has historically been seen as a mostly truthful arbiter that would make good faith efforts to follow court orders.

So when a judge would ask, “Do you plan to deport these people tonight?” to a government lawyer, if the lawyer replied, “No”, the court wouldn’t intervene because government lawyers obviously wouldn’t just lie to a judge presiding over a lawsuit. Well it turns out that they’re continually lying and being rewarded for it (Emil Bove for one). So courts are now suspending that presumption and ordering explicit actions with strict timelines for updates for basically the first time in modern history.

It’s astonishing at how little regard this administration has for the norms and structures that make up our government and how much damage they’re doing to the rule of law.

https://www.justsecurity.org/120547/presumption-regularity-t...

Re: EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

#70

Post by mothballed »

notahacker wrote: post #68
mothballed wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Imagine all the things we could get done if people donated only 1/3 of what our taxes currently are, and we just shit-canned the notion of taxes. About a third as much, and this is assuming that people actually donate that much, which as a rule they don't, not even where people don't pay taxes.

Even if they paid private enterprises and didn't donate, they could recreate much of government functions, this time not under a monopoly with a captive buyer. I presume many people would want many of those services even if they chose to buy rather than donate them.
Post reply on HN