Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[gwnn]

Can someone translate this to me?

 

We're going to have clean coal -- really clean coal. With today’s executive action, I am taking historic steps to lift the restrictions on American energy, to reverse government intrusion, and to cancel job-killing regulations. (Applause.) And, by the way, regulations not only in this industry, but in every industry. We're doing them by the thousands, every industry. And we're going to have safety, we're going to have clean water, we're going to have clear air. But so many are unnecessary, and so many are job killing. We're getting rid of the bad ones.

So he's introducing clean coal as some kind of a new idea (afaik it's a 100% contradiction but let's say it's not), but doing this by repealing the "bad ones" (bad regulations)? Which ones are those? Worker safety maybe? I understand he repealed already the Clean Air Act, is he trying to be a modern-day Darth Vader?

[nullve]

is he trying to be a modern-day Darth Vader?

Maybe Bannon is? After all, "Darkness is good" and "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power".

 

Btw, what would Vadercare look like?

[Al_U_Card]

Can someone translate this to me?

 

 

So he's introducing clean coal as some kind of a new idea (afaik it's a 100% contradiction but let's say it's not), but doing this by repealing the "bad ones" (bad regulations)? Which ones are those? Worker safety maybe? I understand he repealed already the Clean Air Act, is he trying to be a modern-day Darth Vader?

The "Clean power plan" is what Trump has repealed by executive order. It was installed by Obama's executive order. The Clean Air act is still in force and was legislated into law quite some time ago.

The CPP was part of Obama's legacy. It pretty much ensured that his initial promise to make electricity rates skyrocket would come to pass.

Clean coal refers to modern technologies that make coal much less polluting than as with older thermoelectric power plants. Not cleaner than natural gas but much better than before as well as being more efficient.

Look to Australia to see what happens when wind (and solar) are used to replace reliable electricity sources. Costly disasters. Not to mention the additional costs and pollution associated with wind farms etc.

[gwnn]

But how can he make the coal mines clean if he cuts EPA budget and repeals regulations? Was there a regulation that said "Coal must be dirty!" that he is repealing?

[Zelandakh]

18-year-old Henry Sanchez-Malian arrested and accused of rape. Sanchez is an illegal immigrant who can't speak English. He isn't even fluent in his native tongue. These are the people who should be deported.

This might be your solution but as for so many simplistic ideas it would be against international law. You cannot send an asylum seeker back to their country of origin if doing so would likely result in their death. Instead you go through a two-stage process:-

 

1. Is it safe to return him? If yes, then do so; if no then go to #2.

2. Is there credible evidence that he has committed a crime? If no, then process his asylum papers; if yes then prosecute him.

 

What is allowed is to return him to his country at such a time when safety would be less of an issue. So if he really has done what is claimed - evidence in the public domain is sketchy at present - then lock him up and review the case once a year until he can be deported. If not then your approach might just have resulted in the murder of an innocent man. And sadly, there are many many more cases that go unhighlighted and really do result in unnecessary deaths.

 

Asylum is a complicated issue. It does not work well to try and boil it down to a sound bite in a populist message.

[barmar]

But how can he make the coal mines clean if he cuts EPA budget and repeals regulations? Was there a regulation that said "Coal must be dirty!" that he is repealing?

His general proposition seems to be that excessive regulations makes businesses have to spend lots of money on compliance. If you don't force them to hire a bunch of people to deal with the EPA, they'll invest in technology to clean the power plant emissions.

 

This is the typical GOP fantasy that in a free market, businesses will do good things of their own accord, presumably because consumers will prefer to do business with the ones who do. And if consumers don't do that, it means that this isn't really important to society -- we're more interested in cheap energy than clean water.

 

But as usual, this is misguided. The reason we have a representative government rather than pure democracy is because you can't always depend on the wisdom of the masses. People and corporations make selfish and short-term decisions, we expect our government to be more deliberative and consider the big picture. The majority of Americans probably benefited from slavery, but stopping it was the right thing to do.

[gwnn]

But it's not like people do business directly with the coal power plants anyway (I guess you could do the research and choose your energy provider but I think it's tougher than just buying Nike vs Adidas). So even the fantasy world argument fails here.

[Al_U_Card]

There is little doubt that Trump is following an ideology that is just as senseless as all the others that have been in vogue. Serving the interests and needs of the masses is always last on the list.

In this particular case, the EPA was following the progressive agenda to the extreme with the resultant effects we have come to expect from government involvement. (eg. The 2015 Gold King Mine waste water spill was an environmental disaster that began at the Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colorado, when EPA personnel, along with workers for Environmental Restoration LLC (a Missouri company under EPA contract to mitigate pollutants from the closed mine), caused the release of toxic ...

 

Being partly right is small comfort. Constant vigilance and oversight is better.

[Zelandakh]

The 2015 Gold King Mine waste water spill was an environmental disaster

[...]

Which goes to prove the point that regulation is required. If the mining company had cleared up its mess in the first place, the more difficult clean-up job that the EPA attempted would never have been necessary. Allowing corporations to play fast and loose with environmental considerations just makes another such incident much more likely in the future.

 

Of course this mine was abandoned in 1923 when governments were perhaps not as aware as they should have been of the potential issues and liabilities down the line. In 2017 we have no such excuse. Returning to the regulations of the 1920s would most certainly not be a positive step in this area!

[barmar]

But it's not like people do business directly with the coal power plants anyway (I guess you could do the research and choose your energy provider but I think it's tougher than just buying Nike vs Adidas). So even the fantasy world argument fails here.

It's trickle-down capitalism. You may not do business directly with coal companies, but you do business with other businesses that purchase from coal companies, or it could be several steps away. The free market hypothesis is that each of these links in the chain make purchasing decisions guided by their customers' wishes. So if end users prefer clean coal, they'll gravitate their business toward companies that buy from clean coal suppliers.

 

This is more likely to be effective when there are few links in the chain. For instance, Apple may get more smartphone business if they publicize that they're pressuring their Asian suppliers to provide better working conditions (remember the Foxconn scandal a few years ago?). And it probably only works when the vendor at the consumer end has a hige market share, like Apple, Dell, or Walmart.

 

But in most cases, it's much more of a fantasy idea. And the politicians know this, they know that they're really just greasing the palms of big business.

[barmar]

As far as Trump's "clean coal" pronouncement goes, I think this is really just another example of his lack of understanding of the issues, or just plain BS. One of his campaign promises was to bring back coal jobs, so he has to paint the coal industry with a rosy brush.

[gwnn]

As I say to my friend sometimes, free markets work in the thermodynamic limit: infinite numbers of infinitely well-informed people, in the limit of infinite time. But I don't think this was really what Trump meant. I think he just said two different things that sound good and hoped people wouldn't connect them or never bothered to think it through.

[alok c]

As an ex-power sector Engineer i can say that there is no such thing as "clean coal".Coal is inherently dirty(Ash content).This content varies between 30%(anthracite) to 60%(bituminous) to as high as 80%(lignite).In modern power stations 99% ash can be removed thru' E.S.Ps(Electrostatic precipitators),balance is dispersed thru' chimneys.Though E.S.Ps are very efficient, but as coal volume required is huge (around 400mt/hr-depending upon calorific value of coal used-per 500MW),considerable amount of ash is dispersed into atmosphere thru' chimneys.Generally power stations operate on high ash content coal as low ash content coals which are considerably less available are primarily utilised in steel & non ferrous metals industries.'Clean coal' means reducing of ash in Coal by washing in coal Washeries generally situated near pithead,before supplying to power stations.This simply shifts point of origin of coal ash pollution.There is simply no free lunch when you are generating power.

[Trinidad]

Not only is coal dirty, but anybody who took chemistry in high school can calculate that the CO₂ emission per unit of energy is more than twice as high (2.26 to be more precise) for coal than for natural gas.

 

Rik

 

C + O₂ -> CO₂ = 393.5 kJ/mole of CO₂

CH₄ + 2 O₂ -> CO₂ + 2H₂O = 890 kJ/mole of CO₂

 

890/393.5 = 2.26, so per mole of produced CO₂, natural gas yields 2.26 times more energy, or per given amount of energy, coal produces 2.26 times more CO₂.

[gwnn]

Anyone who took high school chemistry and can look up the enthalpy of combustion for various reactions. :)

[Al_U_Card]

Not only is coal dirty, but anybody who took chemistry in high school can calculate that the CO₂ emission per unit of energy is more than twice as high (2.26 to be more precise) for coal than for natural gas.

 

Rik

 

C + O₂ -> CO₂ = 393.5 kJ/mole of CO₂

CH₄ + 2 O₂ -> CO₂ + 2H₂O = 890 kJ/mole of CO₂

 

890/393.5 = 2.26, so per mole of produced CO₂, natural gas yields 2.26 times more energy, or per given amount of energy, coal produces 2.26 times more CO₂.

Clearly, the source of our riches needs to be ever-improved. The total cost in all terms reveals the trade-offs and requirements for energy sufficiency. Can the ash be "neutralized"? Is CO2 really dangerous? Can oil be safely transported? Is nuclear waste unusable? Compared with intermittent energy sources, consistent and reliable energy is needed for our society to function effectively. The inefficiencies and assorted drawbacks of those intermittent sources need to be included in the calculations as we do for all other energy sources.

[Al_U_Card]

Which goes to prove the point that regulation is required. If the mining company had cleared up its mess in the first place, the more difficult clean-up job that the EPA attempted would never have been necessary. Allowing corporations to play fast and loose with environmental considerations just makes another such incident much more likely in the future.

 

Of course this mine was abandoned in 1923 when governments were perhaps not as aware as they should have been of the potential issues and liabilities down the line. In 2017 we have no such excuse. Returning to the regulations of the 1920s would most certainly not be a positive step in this area!

The point being that the EPA was forewarned several times about the ramifications of their actions. They chose to proceed with the expected result occurring. Clearly, what was okay in 1920 is no longer acceptable, in large part to legislation and enforcement. Restricting bureaucracy to those functions for which it is fit is paramount.

[Zelandakh]

Restricting bureaucracy to those functions for which it is fit is paramount.

Funny, I would say that people's safety is paramount. That difference probably says something about our respective views of the world.

[Trinidad]

Anyone who took high school chemistry and can look up the enthalpy of combustion for various reactions. :)

They can... but they vote for Trump instead.

 

Rik

[Al_U_Card]

Funny, I would say that people's safety is paramount. That difference probably says something about our respective views of the world.

Well, that would make you wrong... since individual well-being is the only thing that really matters. Governing implies replacing individual freedoms with rules and regulations for general well-being. That those rules and regulations get perverted and converted into serving an elite is what is wrong with government and governmental bureaucracy aids and abets this.

[Trinidad]

Funny, I would say that people's safety is paramount. That difference probably says something about our respective views of the world.

Well, that would make you wrong... since individual well-being is the only thing that really matters.

I get the idea that Zel is right... Something is said about your respective views of the world...

 

Rik

[kenberg]

This "philosophy of life" stuff is perhaps the most difficult part of the discussion.

 

David Ignatius has an interesting column (he often does):

https://www.washingt...m=.8533c2673dd0

 

The Academy offers a four-point plan for altering this miserable combination of high cost and poor care. First, providers should be paid for value — for patient outcomes, not for the volume of procedures. Second, incentives should empower people to take better care of themselves through wellness programs or lifestyle changes. Third, better connectivity is needed among doctors, patients and others to encourage data-driven advances.

 

Finally, the Academy argues for community strategies that target the highest-need patients, who are also most costly to treat. The top 5 percent of spenders, often with multiple ailments brought on by obesity or other chronic conditions, account for 50 percent of total U.S. health outlays.

 

 

Sounds good, but I am not sure I agree. Take his second point about encouraging healthy lifestyle. I was talking to a friend in Minnesota last night and he mentioned that he goes to the gym 12 (maybe 13, I forget, but the number was a precise figure) times a month. His health care plan pays him to do so. I go to the Y, and I pay them. I prefer my way. I long ago quit smoking, at a time of my choosing. I once drank too much alcohol. I no longer do. I am overweight, but when I increase my exercise my weight goes down. I don't need someone to tell me that my weight goes down when I exercise, and often choose to I act according. I do not respond well to advice, I never have, and I respond even less well to bribes or orders, however well intention ed. I believe I am far from alone in this. Giving people help is fine, coming on as daddy knows best is, for me, a non-starter.

 

I also am a little skeptical of his first point of "paying for outcomes". How could this be bad? I'll tell you. I have long thought that docs often are too narrowly focused. Patient has complaint X, medicine Y addresses X, so give it too him. Wait. There is no such thing as a medicine that has no side effects, or at least very few. Our current opioid problem is a display of this, but I have seen it again and again in less dramatic form. Doctors do important work, of course they do, but it is a serious error to treat any profession as godlike. If you make pay dependent on doctors solving problem X, you are encouraging the prescription of medicine Y, and often an uncritical encouragement of that medicine.

 

How do we see life? Not such an easy question.

[gwnn]

So people working in guaranteed safe conditions is not a requirement for well being? Did I or you misread something or are you just a blind ideologue?

[barmar]

Sounds good, but I am not sure I agree. Take his second point about encouraging healthy lifestyle. I was talking to a friend in Minnesota last night and he mentioned that he goes to the gym 12 (maybe 13, I forget, but the number was a precise figure) times a month. His health care plan pays him to do so. I go to the Y, and I pay them. I prefer my way. I long ago quit smoking, at a time of my choosing. I once drank too much alcohol. I no longer do. I am overweight, but when I increase my exercise my weight goes down. I don't need someone to tell me that my weight goes down when I exercise, and often choose to I act according. I do not respond well to advice, I never have, and I respond even less well to bribes or orders, however well intention ed. I believe I am far from alone in this. Giving people help is fine, coming on as daddy knows best is, for me, a non-starter.

You have to know that you're somewhat exceptional in achieving all those lifestyle improvements. Most people know that they should do these things, but it's difficult to put it into practice. Smokers mostly say they know it's a nasty habit, but it's an addiction and difficult to stop. Everyone knows they should eat healthy and exercise, but they have busy lives and it's hard to fit these in.

 

If we give these people additional help and incentives, they're more likely to make these improvements. This will cut costs for whoever is paying for health care (insurance companies here, national health services in other developed countries), and these savings get passed on to rate-payers and taxpayers. This is a win-win situation.

[Al_U_Card]

I get the idea that Zel is right... Something is said about your respective views of the world...

 

Rik

Support of a strawman is hardly germane to tbe issue. Opposing or tangential viewpoints serve to broaden our horizons and help to encourage an open mind. Lock-step agreement, like consensus and knee-jerk reactions (on both sides) lead nowhere of interest or importance. I learn much and change my position with each new piece of information and try to discern conjecture and subjectivity when it alters a perception. Different is not always (or even often) worse.