Billions for Climate Change

Remember Karl Rove? I watched him on a TV discussion round table over the weekend. He may not go down in history as the wisest, but I appreciated his comments and they seemed relevant to the discussion of regulation vs. volunteerism.

Rove told a Fox News panel on Sunday that the recent climate treaty negotiated in Paris was “B.S.” because it called for slowing the increase in carbon omissions to net zero between 2050 and 2080.
“We’ll all be dead and very few people sitting in Paris will be alive at that point, I suspect, when we get to 2080,” he opined. “The United States has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions. It has done so, not because some international treaty, we have put the focus on energy efficiency, we’re a market economy, we’re a wealthy country that can afford to do this. And we have done it.”

Edited to add, I don't necessarily agree with him, but he has an interesting perspective and it's surprising to find a conservative or "neocon" acknowledging how serious the problem might be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

Remember Karl Rove? I watched him on a TV discussion round table over the weekend. He may not go down in history as the wisest, but I appreciated his comments and they seemed relevant to the discussion of regulation vs. volunteerism.

---

Regarding regulation vs. voluntary activity, I've read that attitude does NOT necessarily result in a change of behavior. On the contrary, changes in behavior results in changes in attitude. This was a big "aha" for me because I assumed that our attitudes result in behavior change. The example that was cited in the source I read this in (which I can't remember, but it might have been Charles Durhigg's book, Habit), used the example of seat belt laws.

We all want to be safe, but if it had been up to us to consistently use our seat belts 20 years ago when it was voluntary , we never would have done it. It took a law to get us to buckle up consistently, and now, they could probably retract the law and we'd still use seat belts because of our change of attitude.

Same thing here.. Sometimes we need to approach a problem from both the attitudinal and regulatory ends of the spectrum in order to really effect change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

Then how do you explain the dismal lack of enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts?

---

I don't have any facts to prove or dis-prove your point, although in recent memory the last notable abuse of an ecosystem came from the EPA itself.

So Rogar, if we believe Karl.....it was a nice symbolic event designed to placate the environmentalists but will have no effect on the day to day living habits and economics of the average American.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

the day to day living habits and economics of the average American.

---

The more important issue is really the future living habits of the Chinese and Indians (dots not feathers). My guess is it won't change that trajectory enough to make any difference in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

Regarding regulation vs. voluntary activity, I've read that attitude does NOT necessarily result in a change of behavior. On the contrary, changes in behavior results in changes in attitude. This was a big "aha" for me because I assumed that our attitudes result in behavior change. The example that was cited in the source I read this in (which I can't remember, but it might have been Charles Durhigg's book, Habit), used the example of seat belt laws.

We all want to be safe, but if it had been up to us to consistently use our seat belts 20 years ago when it was voluntary , we never would have done it. It took a law to get us to buckle up consistently, and now, they could probably retract the law and we'd still use seat belts because of our change of attitude.

Same thing here.. Sometimes we need to approach a problem from both the attitudinal and regulatory ends of the spectrum in order to really effect change.

---

I submit to you that the law did nothing but raise taxes for jurisdictions all across this country. That this law was only passed in every state because it was threatened to withhold federal funding from any state that did not require it. My state never made it a primary violation. You could never be cited for not buckling up without being cited for another violation. In other words, they never allowed failure to buckle up to be probable cause for a stop.

What changed habits was education......high school gore films on traffic accidents.....television spots......and pain in the ass annoying buzzers and noise makers that encourage you to buckle up. Proof? Do fewer people buckle up in the back seats than front seat? YEs absolutely. As soon as they stop putting those noise makers in vehicles....people will start driving without buckling up.

Now whats this say about climat change politics? There will be legal ramifications to not going along with the program in the form of withholding federal funding from states and financial punishment. Once it begins, they will never admit it's too late as long as they are making money through fines and redistribution. It's the ultimate scam because no one knows the outcome until we are all dead and gone for decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

So Rogar, if we believe Karl.....it was a nice symbolic event designed to placate the environmentalists but will have no effect on the day to day living habits and economics of the average American.

---

I don't know that the details of the voluntary goal setting and regulation from the Paris summit will directly have a big impact on our day-to-day lives. I think the relevance of the Paris agreements is more in the message and the unprecedented global recognition of the risks of climate change. And it is a building point for more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler

But I don't think would do it for this kind of thing.

Like, "Okay, populace! Time to force you all to live simply!"

That is a one ingredient recipe for revolt.

---

I have been involved in writing environmental and land use regulations for my county and state for the past 10+ years. It is very much the trend to use governmental force to limit the freedoms of individuals in order to "protect" the environment using "best available science". Even when there is no demonstrated harm, no nexus between the action being regulated and the harm, no proportionality to the proposed remedy, and we *voted* on which of the "best available science" we thought we'd use that day.

I'm also involved in several lawsuits on these matters, the first of which after some years has finally made it through the process to reach the state-level supreme court.

We shall see. The new draft of the shoreline protection regulations for the county seemingly forbid me from walking my dog within several hundred feet of my own beach, to protect native vegetation and wildlife. The nice thing about our regulations here is that they don't apply to everybody, you only get cited and prosecuted if you piss off someone in power. If you keep your head down and till the land and don't step out of line, you get left alone. Mostly.

Quote:

---

We all want to be safe, but if it had been up to us to consistently use our seat belts 20 years ago when it was voluntary , we never would have done it. It took a law to get us to buckle up consistently

---

I couldn't care less about laws and seat belts in fact it's the furthest thing from my mind, however what does get me to buckle up is the annoying beeping cars do nowdays when the seatbelt is not buckled. Laws who cares, but the beeping, make it stop, make it stop!!!! There's probably a law requiring beeping ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

I couldn't care less about laws and seat belts in fact it's the furthest thing from my mind, however what does get me to buckle up is the annoying beeping cars do nowdays when the seatbelt is not buckled. Laws who cares, but the beeping, make it stop, make it stop!!!! There's probably a law requiring beeping ...

---

With my last car, I successfully turned off the seat belt warning beep through an odd series of pressing unrelated buttons a specific number of times and in a particular order. I then enjoyed approximately 5 years of noiseless driving. But, then I was noticed by a young member of the State Police who stopped me for failing to use my turn signal while sitting in a right-hand turn only lane (in my state a driver cannot be stopped for a seatbelt violation only, another violation must be present). The seat belt violation cost me $150.
I turned my seat belt warning system back on that evening. The only thing it protects is my wallet.