What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
Tees as low as $10 view!
threadless.com - Threadless.com's Holiday Sale is full of awesomeness. Snag a deal on t-shirts this week with up to 20% off!
40 Comments
- askantik, on 05/16/2009, -3/+15She says they aren't going to "try to change people's lives or regulate cows." Well, the EPA SHOULD be trying to convince people to change their lifestyles. Sorry, but that's what it's going to take. Technology will not fix all our problems. And the EPA SHOULD be trying to regulate livestock agriculture.
Perhaps Ms. Jackson hasn't read "Livestock's Long Shadow" that talks about how "livestock-related activities account for 8% of global water usage by humans" and that "it [livestock agriculture] currently amounts to about 18 percent of the global warming effect (in CO2 terms) -- an even larger contribution than the transportation sector worldwide." That includes cars, trains, ships, and planes.
Now I know that you can't say these things openly if you are an appointed or elected official of the government, but these things have to change. I'm NOT saying everyone has to be vegetarian or that we all have to start living in caves (referencing my lifestyle change comment), but we can't go on using Styrofoam plates and plastic grocery bags like they're going out of style, driving 15 MPG sport utility vehicles, or having factory farms that contain over 100,000 pigs in one location. We can't expect to not have to change our lifestyles at all and that technology will be like this magic wand that just fixes everything.
It frustrates me to no end when people have this attitude (sometimes even verbally) of: "Well, I'm not worried about it. THEY'LL fix it!" Who is this mysterious "THEY?" AKA, let's not do anything except rely on someone else to come up with a magic solution and I can just keep on keepin' on? - askantik, on 05/16/2009, -1/+10While I don't particularly love her or anything, she does have a Master's in chemical engineering from Princeton and she managed a staff of 3,000 people as Commissioner of Environmental Protection for the state of New Jersey... And I know some people have a problem with Obama's age, too, but in regards to her being so young... she is the same age as Obama.
- antonio97b, on 05/16/2009, -0/+7I have nipples, can you milk me?
- Stavrosian, on 05/16/2009, -0/+7There are only so many ways you can conduct light-hearted interviews with serious people.
- pintomp3, on 05/16/2009, -8/+14Stupid environment and clean air. Who needs that crap?
- idontlikeyou2, on 05/16/2009, -1/+5You're Wrong Paul
- inactive, on 05/16/2009, -4/+8Good for a nice nap.
- Zirdante, on 05/16/2009, -0/+4I loved her voice, I'd totally expect her to be someone reading books to children in a library or something.
- MortalynFlux, on 05/16/2009, -3/+5"I emit carbon dioxide.... will I be regulated?"
- thecoolestguy, on 05/16/2009, -1/+3the EPA employs 18,000 people. There are currently over 240,000 working for US federal regulatory agencies. The EPA should be abolished along with almost every other regulatory agency.
- fury420, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2I kinda want someone in charge of the EPA that is less than 60 years old TBH... A lot has happened during the last 50 years in terms of the environment, I don't know if we really need someone from the previous generation to safeguard the environment
- stuwanker, on 05/17/2009, -0/+1I was really disappointed in Jackson's performance--she didn't seem to understand most of Jon's questions.
- thecoolestguy, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2The EPA should be abolished. EPA and OSHA have been hurting manufacturing productivity growth since they were enacted in the 1970's:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1810223 - thecoolestguy, on 05/17/2009, -0/+1I would think State environmental regulatory agencies would be more responsive to the needs of the local environment than a super agency in Washington DC employing nearly 20,000 people.
- thecoolestguy, on 05/17/2009, -0/+1@Spinninghead, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and sets limits on the power of the federal government.
If a power is not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution, it is implicitly denied and reserved for the States and people.
@askantik,
The theory of global warming is no where near as certain to be accurate as the theory of evolution or the theory of gravity, yet you're giving it the same status of undeniable nearly certain truth.
The man-made global warming theory is a projection of an extremely large system and untestable speculation of the causes of these theorized projections, rather than a model of the behavior of fundamental physical properties of matter, which can be tested in a controlled environment, like the theory of gravity, or a theory that is based a picture of speciation that millions of fossils create, like the theory of evolution.
----And by the way, the Constitution was written even before the Industrial Revolution. There wasn't too much of a reason to think about environmental protection----
Irrelevant. The Constitution can be amended and is the supreme law of the land that every politician swears to uphold when he/she takes office. To ignore it when convenient would lead to the US not being a Constitutional Republic. - Lambent, on 05/17/2009, -0/+1I thought the same thing. I also thought that her comment on how she was briefed on every single issue when she was appointed, made it sound like she she didn't know very much about the issues going in. It leads me to wonder, what are this woman's qualifications?
- inactive, on 05/16/2009, -0/+1Or people who want to laugh. Ever though of that?
And seeing as your jokes aren't funny, he is needed. - fury420, on 05/16/2009, -0/+1global temperatures follow many different cycles, influenced by a wide variety of changes in variables, not simply a "general 60 year cycle"
- thecoolestguy, on 05/17/2009, -0/+1'The Jungle' used the appeal of emotion to compel people to break the rules of a free society. The scenes of the meat packing plant were so horrific, that people just wanted their elected officials to make it stop, regardless of the proper legal procedure of bringing about changes.
Where prosecutors should have charged the meat plant managers with fraud and tried them in a court of law, and consumers should have sued the meat packers for false advertising, instead legislation was used to socialize the cost of inspections.
Forget bringing forth evidence and proving something to a jury of peers, with legislation, you can use emotion and the mob to bring about the changes you want.
It should be noted that it was the big companies that lobbied for a government funded inspection regime:
http://tinyurl.com/ooy797
--
In order to calm public outrage and demonstrate the cleanliness of their meat, the major meat packers lobbied the Federal government to pass legislation paying for additional inspection and certification of meat packaged in the United States. [4] Their efforts, coupled with the public outcry, led to the passage of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which established the Food and Drug Administration.
--
and Upton Sinclair, the man who set in motion the drive to regulate the industry, opposed the final legislation for this reason:
--
This pressure was adequate, although the bill that was finally passed did not include dating cans of meat or charging the packers for inspection costs.[5] Sinclair rejected the legislation, as he viewed it as an unjustified boon to large meat packers partially because the U.S. was to bear the costs of inspection at $3,000,000 a year.[6][7]
--
This is like so many well-meaning socialists, who, in their efforts to bring about positive change, inadvertently cause society more damage, by under-mining constitutional limits on government power, contract law and the judicial process that are so important in protecting the weak from the strong. - SpinningHead, on 05/16/2009, -1/+2There is a body of laws beyond that which is specified in the constitution. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6519923. ...
How can anyone be opposed to regulation of pollution which is making childhood asthma go through the roof and making our lakes and rivers unfit to fish in? - fury420, on 05/16/2009, -0/+1because unbridled corporate interests have an AMAZING RECORD of protecting the environment, cleaning up their own messes quickly, and self-enforcement!
- inactive, on 05/16/2009, -2/+3Of course because its Jon Stewart it gets dugg up no matter how much of a snoozer it is, doubt we will ever see a "Meet the Press" or "Face the Nation" story on the frontpage.
- thecoolestguy, on 05/16/2009, -1/+2That's 264,000 people..
- WallyAnti, on 05/16/2009, -1/+1Heh, here in Austin we bikers are working to make individual motor transport impractical. It thrills me to no end when some fool slows to 30 behind me and blocks all the traffic following.
Once a month I hear (I regret that I have yet to participate) there is an event called Critical Mass. All the bicyclists take to the streets at rush hour and gum up the motor works for the corporate drones leaving from their daily mind numbing. Man I love this town.
Before one of you tightly wound arseholes gets your panties twisted, know that I am completely aware that for the time being this is an amputation of the nose in retaliation to the face. I make the same charge to the so-called "convenience" based mind set of the carbon spewing suburbanite. Eventually you'll realize that your self-imposed condition is inconveniencing everyone around you, and you for that matter, when you tally up more than just the most apparent costs. Move closer to work. It really is that easy.
Forget legislation. Real incentive comes from the routine actions of individuals. - askantik, on 05/16/2009, -1/+1Highly theoretical? You mean, like gravity? Or evolution? People who say something is "just a theory" don't know the first thing about science. Now, if you said something was "just a hypothesis," THEN you might be getting somewhere. Global warming IS happening. And 99% of scientists have interpreted all the data available to conclude that it's because of ***** man has done. And those same 99% of scientists are going, "Oh, *****, we're gonna be ***** if we don't do something." But we never do anything because of asshats like you who are like, "Hahahah, you fools. Global warming is just a theory!!!!11" Bah.
And by the way, the Constitution was written even before the Industrial Revolution. There wasn't too much of a reason to think about environmental protection (certainly not in the ways we think of it today). Please stop acting like the Founding Fathers are gods and the Constitution is the Bible. Yes, it is important, but it is not the only thing in the world. - poitsplace, on 05/16/2009, -0/+0Of course and much of the warming is likely one of those other cycles. The 60 year cycle is the most obvious one in the temperature record though...and that doesn't change the fact that we're talking about spending trillions to stop something that even anthropogenic global warming alarmists say won't provide significant benefits.
- SpinningHead, on 05/16/2009, -1/+1I'm guessing you've never read The Jungle. How dare we citizens expect a government by and for the people to regulate things that endanger we the people.
- Riggaberto, on 05/16/2009, -3/+2Wait global warming is real?
- xgkx, on 05/16/2009, -2/+2Jon Stewart. Great for those people still stupid enough to depend on (corporate) news. (I'm just wild about WAR CRIMINAL Harry). (Meet the new WAR CRIMINAL same as the old WAR CRIMINAL..
- fury420, on 05/16/2009, -2/+0nice, the second part of last night's daily show to make it to frontpage today :)
i still prefer the opening segment over the organic garden segment, but overall a good day - jordanlgta, on 05/16/2009, -5/+4This interview was boring when I watched it on Thursday night. It's still boring. Stop posting every Jon Stewart interview.
- KennMac, on 05/16/2009, -8/+6Blah blah blah, NASA and space exploration is a waste of cash too. Yeah we've heard it all before. Boring.
- poitsplace, on 05/16/2009, -2/+0I love his show. I respect the guy...but 99% of the people have never studied the actual data and most that have aren't able to understand it. Global temperatures follow a general 60 year cycle. There is certainly warming after accounting for that cycle...but about half of the warming started before there was any significant change to atmospheric CO2. The far more rapid rate of CO2 increase we've been experiencing doesn't seem to have had any significant impact on that warming rate...which is at most a mild nuisance at an anemic .5C to .7C per century.
Cap and trade promises to "save us" by limiting us to about 75% of the warming we'd have from CO2 anyway (whatever small amount that might actually be)...at a cost of TRILLIONS of dollars. How is it these trillions in taxes can be levied against the energy source of our entire economy without somehow landing squarely on the shoulders of that economy's foundation...the people? I'm sorry, cap and trade means those trillions of dollars will be paid by consumers...tens of thousands of dollars per person for every man, woman and child in the US. Adaptation to these trivial climate changes is really the only sane option. - thecoolestguy, on 05/16/2009, -4/+1The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate environmental practices.
The States are reserved that right/power, and should be the ones spearheading environmental measures, if there are to be any.
And why are you so concerned about global warming? It amazes me the extremes people go to to try to avert something that is so highly theoretical, both in likelihood of occurring and the effects it could have if it occurs. - FAT_PIGGY, on 05/16/2009, -5/+1Another global warming cult video.
- scaaven2, on 05/16/2009, -9/+5i like jon stewart, but i dont even have to watch this. it will be like, hi im jon stewart, are we all going to DIE? laugh. but really, why dont you support A and B and C and D and why are you a bad person?
- RonPauls, on 05/16/2009, -9/+5EPA more often than not gets in the way of those well intentioned objectives.
- vault, on 05/16/2009, -13/+8The EPA is a bureaucratic do-nothing waste of cash.
- Shogun213, on 05/16/2009, -6/+0mmm head
- Brassbud, on 05/16/2009, -8/+1I turned the show off when she came on. I didn't know Obama had selected a new administrator, but I was shocked when I saw how young she was. Looking on Wikipedia it said she was African-American, too. I'm not sure if this means she's black though, maybe just South African?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is