Pilot finally sees RGGI for what it is

Rush to slip RGGI past public view

That is a new way to generate graft under the guise of saving the planet.

24 thoughts on “Pilot finally sees RGGI for what it is

  1. No matter how they dress it up, it is a tax. And I can see where the picking “winners and losers” is anathema to libertarian/capitalism ideals, but we need to start somewhere and regional cooperation could be a start.

    But, yeah, slow down and lay it out to the public honestly.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The Pilot Editorial Board (and Don) seem to overlook the fact that it was a REPUBLICAN delegate from Virginia Beach, the now-disgraced Ron Villaneuva, who sponsored the original RGGI entrance for Virginia. (His proposal had nothing to do with his fraud conviction, so …) What is wrong with taking local action to solve national and worldwide issues? It happens all of the time where a grassroots effort starts and grows into something that WORKS. Doing nothing should NOT be an option.

    And this interview from vox.com with an author of a book on the DOD’s response to climate change related issues is quite interesting.

    https://www.vox.com/2020/2/24/21145687/climate-change-usa-military-book-interview

    Like

    1. If you think that China, India and Africa are going to be inspired by our good example and forgo development using fossil fuels, you are going to be disappointed.

      The RGGI as a whole, not just Virginia, is still negligible as a control of climate. The US as a whole is not the problem, fracking is reducing our CO2 emissions more than any other nation.

      RGGI is nothing but a scam to enrich the Gores and the Steyers of the world.

      Like

          1. “Virtue signaling“ cute.

            So you just stand by and work to find some rationale for doing nothing.

            I have 5 grandsons and am NOT willing to take the head in sand approach to their future. Nothing is free and while resources can always be wasted the cost of the attempt will pale in comparison to the consequences if we don’t try.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. …”more important than my grandkids future.”

            I have a hard time believing that. Resiliency efforts can only go so far. We need to work to reverse, or at least prevent further damage from, the effects of climate change. Otherwise the money we spend on resiliency will continue to increase. And that will be on yours, mine and our progeny.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. What serves your grandsons better? A futile attempt to control climate by appealing to the Chinese dictator’s better angels, or a successful preparation to adapt to what changes occur?

            And what changes do you anticipate that would imperil your grandsons?

            Like

          4. “appealing to the Chinese dictator’s better angels“

            You pose a false narrative (as well as flawed logic). He/they will do as they do. WE must do what we can.

            Your letting your bias control your evaluation of options. Yes, I know you disagree with the science and that keeps you from seeing, and dealing with the true reality.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Again, what is it you think is going to happen that we cannot adapt to?

            What do you think the difference is between continuing as we are and what we could possibly get China to agree to? What is going to happen no matter what we do?

            Like

          6. “going to happen that we cannot adapt to?“

            I don’t know, and neither do you, or ANYBODY else. What we do know is that we are experiencing increasingly violent and unstable weather patterns on a global scale.

            Ignoring threats don’t make them go away and increased efforts to both understand and potentially deal with the negative outcomes now seems prudent.

            Of course, if you continue to believe (in spite of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary) that there is nothing to see here than the point is moot.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Hey! We could build another wall. You know, to keep the water back. And when the water continues to rise, we just build on top of that one.

            Resilience projects won’t change a damned thing and he knows it. But let the market come up with the solutions and he will be all over it like white on rice.

            I wonder how his tune would change if the market came up with solutions for slowing or stopping or even reversing the effects of man made climate change. Then the science will be proven because the market says so.

            Like

          8. How much do you think the water will rise?

            Complete melting of the remaining alpine and coastal glaciers, including around Greenland, plus thermal expansion, could raise sea level by about 6 feet.

            Complete melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet could raise sea level by 20 feet, but under worst case scenarios would take thousands of years. Currently, the central ice sheet is stable.

            The Antarctic Ice Sheets could raise sea levels by 200 feet, but currently the Antarctic is GAINING ice. Melting the Antarctic Ice Sheet is not possible without relocating the continent. Most of the Ice sheet surface is above the snow line and never melts. (interestingly, there is a small portion of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which is being melted from below by volcanic action and might be unstable, but that has nothing to do with climate change. )

            Like

          9. It could never happen here? Resiliency plans are only a band aid and a cherry to pick for those who deny the effects of man made climate change acceleration. Mitigation of what we have done and continue to do is the best way forward.

            Like

      1. That whole idea of leading the world is so bad. They’re not doing it so why should we? Yeah. THAT is a GREAT idea. Global leadership went out the window on January 21, 2017. And they are laughing at us all of the way.

        Like

          1. So now those who believe in the “hoax” are lemmings. That does nothing except make the discussion impossible with science deniers. Yeah, I know 5% of the scientists back your side of the argument. Blah blah blah.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s