The SDMB mock election Debate #3: Global Warming, Energy Policy, Green Issues & Tech.

[Liberal]

@Richard Parker

I made no such insinuation. I merely stated that your statement was incorrect. And it is, though not in the way I thought. I mis-read the cite as saying 80, not 80%. It is the case the the feds are connected to 80% of Superfund sites. But the bigger problem remains: Superfund sites account for a very small amount of total pollution.

I would also note that the feds bare primary responsibility, according to your cite, for only 36 sites. The way CERCLA works, the government has indirect liability if it bought property that was previous contaminated.

I don’t think we should underestimate the serious effects that federal pollution has had on American citizens, like those in Berkley, California, so desperate for help with their federally polluted water that they asked a local enforcement agency to issue an order to the EPA to clean up the mess.

But as you say, Superfund isn’t the whole story. In the Congressional Record, October 28, 2000, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin cited a report from Sen. Robert W. Kasten, Jr., and stated the following:

Mr. Kasten writes to remind us of the fact that the Federal Government is the largest polluter in the United States. He brings to our attention anecdotes from the states, which illustrate the states’ difficulties enforcing local environmental laws on the federal government. He writes about the federal government’s lack of accountability in cleaning up its own toxic waste sites and its attempts to push cleanup responsibility and costs to local levels of government and to private landowners.

According to a Boston Globe article last year, ‘‘federal agencies have contaminated more than 60,000 sites across the country and the cost of cleaning up the worst sites is officially expected to approach $300 billion, nearly five times the price of similar destruction caused by private companies.’’ In contrast, private Superfund site clean up is estimated at a fraction of the federal government at $57 billion. The article goes on to say that the EPA Inspector General has found that, federal agencies are increasingly violating the law, with 27 percent of all government facilities out of compliance in 1996, the latest year figures available, compared to 10 percent in 1992.In fact, the federal government has been notoriously anal in blocking states from minding their own affairs, while indemnifying itself from all responsibility. Until 1999, the federal government had immunity from enforcement provisions of the Clean Air Act.

If my esteemed colleague still disagress that the federal government is the largest polluter, I hope he will at least concede that it is a credibly large one. I do not see other campaigns addressing the issue of the federal government taking responsibility for its role in pollution. There’s lots of flowery talk about greening this and helping that, but nothing about the elephant in the room.

[Gukumatz]

@Liberal

I believe, as I said before, that technology is best developed in a free and fair market, where people are rewarded for success and where failure has personal consequences. When central governments have tried to develop technology, they have failed. Soviet technology was notoriously unreliable. They produced a car, the Zaporozhets, that the owner had to grasp and shake from side to side to mix the oil and gas. They produced a nuclear facility, Chernoble, that leaked like a tea bag. Lets untie the hands of our brilliant people and see what they can do.

The Norwegian Foreign Minister for the Labour Party wished to on beforehand apologize to esteemed colleague Liberal for the futher harangue, but he was unaware of the fact that Chernobyl “leaked like a tea bag.” Indeed, the Norwegian minister was under the impression that the Chernobyl accident was the result of darwinistic stupidity on behalf of the management of that particular situation at the time.

Of course, the Norwegian minister is willing to have an open mind about Soviet-era product integrity, having spent three miserable weeks driving through Belarus in a borrowed Zaporoczhet.

[Liberal]

@Gukumatz

Esteemed colleague, would not the interests of the US population be better served by an external QA of these facilities before they went live? As we well know, the judical system can be tied up for a very long time, often to the detriment of the neighbours of such a facility in the meantime.

Further, would you agree with the characterization of your position that the handling of nuclear waste should fall to private contractors? If not, in what part am I in error?

I appreciate my esteemed colleague yielding the floor so that I can answer his question. I do believe it would be in the best interest of those opening such a facility to consider the penalties that my administration would impose upon them — imprisonment and loss of all property — and indeed conduct external QA before risking live operation. It is when there is little or nothing at risk that people are willing to take chances with the lives and property of others, but when their own lives and property are at risk, they tend to take greater care.

As far as the judicial system is concerned, I believe that two factors will assuage your concerns. One, I intend to work with Congress to greatly simplify laws so that their goal is to suppress coercion and fraud while repealing morality laws so that courts have far less junk-justice with which to deal. And two, I will put the whole weight of my Justice Department behind prosecuting any company that risks the lives and property of its neighbors by this sort of pollution.

And yes, I do believe that private contractors should handle nuclear waste, but I would ask Congress to make cronyism (a form of coercion) a crime, and would require of those contractors the same accountability that I would of the facility builders. I believe it is time for the US government to step up and protect the rights and property of American citizens.

[Liberal]

@Gukumatz

The Norwegian Foreign Minister for the Labour Party wished to on beforehand apologize to esteemed colleague Liberal for the futher harangue, but he was unaware of the fact that Chernobyl “leaked like a tea bag.” Indeed, the Norwegian minister was under the impression that the Chernobyl accident was the result of darwinistic stupidity on behalf of the management of that particular situation at the time.

Of course, the Norwegian minister is willing to have an open mind about Soviet-era product integrity, having spent three miserable weeks driving through Belarus in a borrowed Zaporoczhet.

I acquiesce to my esteemed colleague from Norway and his superior familiarity with Soviet technology.

[Richard_Parker]

@Liberal

If my esteemed colleague still disagress that the federal government is the largest polluter, I hope he will at least concede that it is a credibly large one. I do not see other campaigns addressing the issue of the federal government taking responsibility for its role in pollution. There’s lots of flowery talk about greening this and helping that, but nothing about the elephant in the room.

I agree it is a large polluter–as compared to any single corporate entity. That shouldn’t be surprising given the size of the government compared to individual corporations. And I will also concede that, in comparison to many entities, it hasn’t been as compliant as it should be. But in the grand scheme of things, I think it still represents a rather small percent of overall pollution.

On Superfund, as you point out, the federal government is a PRP in more Superfund sites than any other entity. But, of those, it is primarily responsible for relatively few. And of those, most of them are defense-related. Now, certainly we do a better job of dealing with hazardous waste related to our nation’s defense, but in most cases we have indeed already done so. Remember that CERCLA has no statute of limitations and applies retrospectively to before its passage. Many of these sites were polluted when we didn’t understand that you can’t just put radiation in the ground, for example.

Additionally, Superfund sites are of minimal concern not just because they represent a small amount of overall pollution, but because the nature of the pollution is not of great concern–not as great as greenhouse gases or PM, for example. These sites are generally polluted land that isn’t harming anyone except that it is preventing use of those resources. (There are exceptions.) The real concern is the contribution to greenhouse gases, particulate matter, mercury, depletion of fisheries, etc. On these topics, the federal government has some responsibility. Federal vehicles and federal buildings often don’t meet proper standards. And I would commend you for raising that issue–not the least because it is something within the direct control of the executive, so a campaign promise here can be easily kept. But next to the pollution coming from private sources, it is pretty insignificant.

We can, in good faith, disagree about the size of the federal governments responsibility for pollution. But I don’t think the facts will stand behind an argument that federal pollution is “the elephant in the room.”

[Liberal]

It is not only an elephant, in my opinion, but one that is armed to the teeth and writes all the rules. I do appreciate and respect my esteemed colleague’s opinion, however, and I especially appreciate your commendation. As you note, I am striving to promise no more than I believe I can deliver. I would add as well a reiteration of my intention to hold accountable private polluters in a manner far more strict and severe than they have become used to.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

My campaign thread: My Presidential campaign - Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share - Straight Dope Message Board

A statement by Elendil’s Heir, a candidate for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President of the United States.

Global Warming
We only have one planet, and we should be taking much better care of it. The Bush Administration has time and again favored polluters over the public interest; that must change. Industry and polluters should not be writing our environmental regulations behind closed doors. The Vice President of the United States should not mock energy efficiency as a national goal. I favor much stronger environmental protection measures to ensure that clean air and water are available for all. China has now surpassed the U.S. as a producer of greenhouse gases, and we need to more aggressively work with our partners in the international community to address global climate change, which is a genuine threat to us all.

Energy Policy
I favor increased and sustained research in synthetic fuels, nuclear fusion, clean coal, solar power and cogeneration. There is no reason for us to forever be in thrall to unstable oil-producing baronies. The French have been doing fusion research for decades now, and I would hope to work closely with President Sarkozy to see how we can combine our efforts. If fusion power could become commercially viable, it could transform our world for the better.

Green Issues
It seems that most Republicans today would just as soon forget that the first White House Conference was called by President Theodore Roosevelt, and that the topic was conservation. It’s time to return to that tradition. I would like to see the Federal Government become much greener, with reliance across the government on energy efficiency, recycled paper, low-emission vehicles in official automotive fleets, and so on. I will invite major environmental groups, unwelcome for the past eight years, to meet with me in the White House early in my Administration to solicit their ideas. There’s a lot that we can do together.

Technology
This great republic has invented or perfected television, the automobile, submarines, the personal computer, the telephone, the Internet, powered flight and cutting-edge technology in virtually every field. Foreign graduate students still beg to come study here, despite the immigration and visa barriers we’ve erected, not always wisely, since 9-11. We should welcome them; they enrich us and most will choose to stay. I’m boundlessly confident in the capability of American technological know-how to overcome virtually any hurdle, given sufficient time, funding, and political will. I fully understand the law of unintended consequences, however, and will draw upon the best scientific minds in the country - regardless of their own political views - to see that our country maintains its technological edge while striving for the well-being of all humanity.

[Liberal]

Questions for my esteemed colleague of the Democratic Party, Elendil’s Heir.

But first, a comment. As the Libertarian Party candidate, I do not have the good sense or the wherewithall to mount a campaign in MPSIMS as you have so successfully done. I might likely get a 6:30 AM interview on C-Span, but that’s probably about it. My hat is off to you.

Now for the questions. You say that you favor stronger environmental protection measures. What exactly is weak about the ones in place, other than enforcement? And what specific ones do you propose?

You say that you favor increased and sustained research into green energies. We all do. But how do you intend to incentivize it? Through government spending? Through relaxation of regulations? Through more regulations with greater complications? Or what.

Thank you for your kind attention to these matters.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Thank you, Liberal, for your questions.

Although we’ve made great strides in bringing about cleaner water and air in the last 30 years, we can do more. The underlying question should not be, “How much pollution can we stand?” but “Why do we need to tolerate any pollution at all?” In particular, I believe current Federal law is unduly lax in the levels of mercury, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and toxic metal emissions now permitted. Consistent with the need to sustain economic growth, I’d want to work closely with both industry and the environmentalist community to steadily but gradually limit these emissions further. As to water pollution, we could do much more to control agricultural fertilizer runoffs, support cost-effective desalination research, and assist communities as they overhaul decades-old water-treatment facilities. I agree with former Vice President Al Gore that green technology and environmental protection can themselves be job-producing. And you’re right, my new Democratic Administration will be much more aggressive in enforcing the laws on already on the books.

I’m open to encouraging green energy research by a combination of tax incentives, direct government funding, and specific waivers of government regulations, where the gains clearly outweigh the risks in doing so.

[What_Exit]

One last bump, should I bother with the 4th debate or not. I am afraid this experiment failed.

[Phlosphr]

@What Exit?

One last bump, should I bother with the 4th debate or not. I am afraid this experiment failed.

To be honest, I like to format and the mock elections…I think that getting people with enough free time - all the time, is difficult. Perhaps if we had groups of people working for the same party and not just one person. I don’t know, I do know it’s the weekend and I have time to put thought into my answers, but durign the week I am writing something for this thread in snippets, not in a train of throught conducive to a real debate.

Very good effort Jim.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

I’d vote (heh) to have it keep going, but just take a little more time before the start of each thread.

[What_Exit]

@Elendil's Heir

I’d vote (heh) to have it keep going, but just take a little more time before the start of each thread.

Ok.

I will give this thread the rest of today and then start the 4th tomorrow.
Thread 4: Education & Science & Space

[What_Exit]

The 4th debate is open: The SDMB mock election Debate #4,6,8 & 9: Domestic Issues