4 ms·
Well, that is not to say that states cannot implement their own environmental laws, take for example California. . .the fact that Trump 'will' lift "$50 trillio
by slicktux 10y ago
Well, that is not to say that states cannot implement their own environmental laws, take for example California. . .the fact that Trump 'will' lift "$50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal. . ." does not mean that the states cannot take action; I know it is perceived as for the better if the environmental laws are uniformed throughout the states, but please let us not forget about state rights, 10th Amendment. If you, or whoever reads this comment, is really concerned about the environment than start focusing on individual and local changes; like in California; become a leader, propagate new technology that is good for the environment, and then the rest will follow the example of progressive states, as well as, progressive individuals. Don't sell your self short; Roll up the sleeves and get to work. . .no need for Federal Government Regulations;
Limit The Federal Government Not The People.
- AnthonyMouse 10y agoThe problem is if West Virginia burns coal that causes air pollution and sea level rise in New York, New York can't pass a law against burning coal in West Virginia. Federal laws are needed when a state is externalizing costs and internalizing profits.
- slicktux 10y agoLook we can go back and forward and at the end we are both right. . .example, I can say that we doing something about our environment does not make a difference because of countries like China and India's pollution make it over the pacific into our environment. . .
- AnthonyMouse 10y agoThe mechanism for dealing with this between countries is by signing treaties. The mechanism for dealing with this between US states is by passing federal laws.
- tropo 10y agoThe same goes for the world. If we don't burn the stuff, the price will go down. Some other country will burn it. We might as well have a nice economy while the world burns. There is no stopping this train.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago> If we don't burn the stuff, the price will go down. Not if the tax is on removing it from the ground to begin with. And we could issue sanctions on anyone who doesn't impose the same tax in their own country.
- slicktux 10y agoIf I were a country and another country imposed sanctions on me for not following their exceptional laws, I would take that as a sign of aggression; that is essentially what it is; Instrumental Aggression; Countries rely on different exportation of resources for their economy, the economy their people live off; stop it with this American Exceptionalism approach; be a leader by example not by aggression.
- AnthonyMouse 10y agoContinuing to burn coal when the global consequences are known is the act of aggression. The measured reaction is sanctions instead of missiles.
- slicktux 10y agoThat is an interesting projection of your attitude. I hate to attribute a negative disposition to your comment, but you sound like an environmental extremist. Environmental extremist whom if given the opportunity would indirectly blow the world up, all in the name of the environment! Keep in mind that you have created this slippery slope, I reference to my initial comment; To give context to my reference (if it is not already obvious), I am for progressive laws for which people will adapt to hence given the choice not the forceful option, like sanctions; I am all for change just do not force it on me, and I you believe that a paternalistic government is needed for a positive change than you have already defined paternalist; paternalism through aggressive actions, like sanctions. Good day sir