U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Utah > Salt Lake City area
 [Register]
Salt Lake City area Salt Lake County - Davis County - Weber County
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-20-2018, 11:35 AM
 
Location: East Millcreek
2,540 posts, read 6,363,072 times
Reputation: 3023

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kavm View Post
Kletter1mann -

Back to your original post, I find no real reason for optimism on the environmental topics in general and the pollution / inversions in particular. Unlike some, I do not think that the reason is that insufficient number of people are concerned about it or that they are not talking to each other and thei political leaders. The issue is that the political leadership is more interested in other ‘more important’ issues and does not see a political cost for inaction on this topic. Instead, it sees a cost of (minor) action - and that’s the reason for limiting the wood / solid fuel burning on only the designated air action days.

Forget the CA standards, the politicians gave a 19M tax royalty discount to the largest coal producer in the state recently, and along with WY - the state is funding legal challenge to the West coast coal policies. At the same time, the same politicians successfully lobbied to reduce Utah’s national monuments. That’s what the environmental priorities are in this state.
At the end of the day the political leadership exists at the pleasure of the citizenry. If there's no perceived political cost that's because the citizenry doesn't impose one. IOW, "we" Utards don't actually care enough to install more forward-looking leaders. Or, that in the aggregate, the issue is trumped by others perceived to have greater importance, such as guns, blind hatred of the federal government and similar hatred of all things considered "liberal." The latter includes pretty much anything forward looking such as environmentalism, progressive (vs regressive) taxation and not legislating morality. And it can't be ignored that The Church doesn't hesitate to involve itself in politics on moral matters. Yet the topic of environmentalism is largely ignored.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-20-2018, 02:17 PM
 
Location: SLC
1,962 posts, read 1,276,990 times
Reputation: 5304
Quote:
Originally Posted by kletter1mann View Post
At the end of the day the political leadership exists at the pleasure of the citizenry. If there's no perceived political cost that's because the citizenry doesn't impose one. IOW, "we" Utards don't actually care enough to install more forward-looking leaders. Or, that in the aggregate, the issue is trumped by others perceived to have greater importance, such as guns, blind hatred of the federal government and similar hatred of all things considered "liberal." The latter includes pretty much anything forward looking such as environmentalism, progressive (vs regressive) taxation and not legislating morality. And it can't be ignored that The Church doesn't hesitate to involve itself in politics on moral matters. Yet the topic of environmentalism is largely ignored.
I could not agree more. To the extent the political cost can be managed, for instance, by concentrating it to a narrower geographic area (SLC) - which can be gerrymandered for the elections for the House of Representatives or otherwise drowned out in the State house and senate, or by making rightish noises - the effective political cost is negligent.

As for the typical voter outlook - the first part of the Paul Rolly interview link I posed in post #15 covers the point of view driving it very well. He covers the shift starting with Roe v. Wade, very important role of Ezra Taft Benson and the shift around the Reagan years and the the younger population taking on and furthering the trends since making Mormons the most Republican religion in the US. So, yes - the hatred of all things perceived to be liberal trumps the environmental concerns. He goes on to say: "I just don’t see a path going forward."

As an aside, the people who truly cannot deal with the pollution don't hold their breath and move out. In my 6 years here - I have personally known two families leave SL valley on the advice of their doctors suggesting that their bodies cannot deal with the pollution here. Both were otherwise healthy. Such people are no longer in UT to vote on it. As we approach retirement in the coming decade - the possibility of such a diagnosis upending our plans and forcing a move in the later stage of retirement, should we plan to retire here, is a significant consideration. We, thankfully, have the means to do so, but everyone is not so lucky. And, even we are stuck for the duration of my wife's employment here.

Last edited by kavm; 05-20-2018 at 03:21 PM.. Reason: Added the aside comment
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2018, 02:52 PM
 
Location: SLC
1,962 posts, read 1,276,990 times
Reputation: 5304
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
For example blaming the “mine”. That mine was the largest and now the 3rd largest open pit min in the world. It’s been in operation since the 1800’s and has taken billions of $ of investment to build out to its current state. It provides 1/3 of all US copper demand in this country. I’ll let you lookup the importance of copper on your own.

Now there is the mine itself, a few insllamemts of transport facilities and two large plants to get the raw material to a purified level of the final product. Each component has their own environmental impact and benefit to the eventual output.

Finally the mine itself has a questionable life going forward without even contemplating inversions. There are still significant deposits but the current mine would have to be widened significantly to get down to it. With all of that said the likely will close it in the next 10 years if alternate sources can be brought on.

But my point is the mine took 100 years to develop billions of $ and supplies a vital commodity to this country. It employs thousands and has a significant impact on many other supporting industries here in Utah (boart longyear and dyno nobel are examples). The mine was developed and utilized when no population existed in that area for miles. You might even say the influx of $ and investment caused by the mine helped support growth and development around it. Many of the very same people that assign blame to them for the inversion.

Anyway I think it’s always beneficial for people to have perspective of all sides the history the costs and the benefits before forming an opinion and proposing a solution. We could also go into further detail on the gas plants as well.
Sorry for being slow in responding. I am thankful to you for pointing out the importance of the role of the mine and its history. It improved my knowledge and appreciation in this important business.

It does not, however, change my point of view in a significant way. How I look at it is - there is cost to the environment for operating this very important mine. In the past, for a variety of reasons - this cost was either less (as in fewer people breathing the polluted air) or was not well appreciated or was under charged to the mine. None of that contradicts the fact that there is a surrogate cost to the pollutants contributed by the mine (as well as other sources). If that surrogate cost were passed on to the mine in the form of tax or regulation - the mine operator can decide the best trade-off.

If charged the (higher) cost would have to be reflected in the price of its product and may indeed make the mine untenable. Or, they may innovate and/or find offsetting efficiencies to mitigate the pollution and become more competitive. That's how it goes - in all the industries around the world. I am not clear why this mine needs to be an exception to that.

If the country decides that it needs to subsidize the copper production for strategic reasons - it may do so explicitly so that all current and potential copper producers may partake in copper production and compete in that market place on a fair basis.

My view is that the true environmental costs are not being reflected in those charged to the polluters (including myself who drives an automobile). If we neither charge any significant cost nor significantly reward the reduction / elimination - we shouldn't expect any improvements, irrespective of what the politicians tweat.

Last edited by kavm; 05-20-2018 at 03:04 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2018, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in the Southwest...
335 posts, read 475,003 times
Reputation: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavm View Post
As an aside, the people who truly cannot deal with the pollution don't hold their breath and move out. In my 6 years here - I have personally known two families leave SL valley on the advice of their doctors suggesting that their bodies cannot deal with the pollution here. Both were otherwise healthy. Such people are no longer in UT to vote on it. As we approach retirement in the coming decade - the possibility of such a diagnosis upending our plans and forcing a move in the later stage of retirement, should we plan to retire here, is a significant consideration. We, thankfully, have the means to do so, but everyone is not so lucky. And, even we are stuck for the duration of my wife's employment here.
One of the top reasons why my wife and I chose NOT to relocate our home and business to the the Salt Lake City basin...

Although we are healthy now, as we get older things like out-of-control air pollution are variables that we don't wish to add to the equation.

Also taken into consideration was cultural biases concerning the majority religion in Utah not acting more inclusive in their spiritual views/affiliations et al., as my wife and I both are...

With that said, politically and culturally we're more inclined to look at things from an American perspective, which places liberals on the wrong side of the line.

The following statements, which were/are the legal foundation for the revolt against England and the US Constitution, define our political litmus test:

Quote:
The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, NO ONE ought to HARM ANOTHER in his LIFE, HEALTH, LIBERTY, or POSSESSIONS (ie INCOME & PROPERTY) ~ John Locke 1690
Quote:
Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience. ~ John Locke 1690
The commitment to place God, Country, and individual rights FIRST and FOREMOST was what defined AMERICANS as a UNIFIED CULTURE -- NOT race, creed, color, religion, politics, tribalism, et al.

Last edited by Biz901; 05-21-2018 at 03:25 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2018, 03:23 PM
 
Location: God's Gift to Mankind for flying anything
5,796 posts, read 12,776,540 times
Reputation: 4859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biz901 View Post
Quote:
The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, NO ONE ought to HARM ANOTHER in his LIFE, HEALTH, LIBERTY, or POSSESSIONS (ie INCOME & PROPERTY) ~ John Locke 1690

Quote:
Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience. ~ John Locke 1690

That may be a good point to define a properly governed people, but I do not see any contradiction between those two statements and what the LDS principles of the Church stand for.

Would you be so kind and take your referenced statements apart, piece by piece and show me where the LDS principles are against those ideas?

I am looking forward to your reply.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2018, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in the Southwest...
335 posts, read 475,003 times
Reputation: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by irman View Post
Quote:
The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, NO ONE ought to HARM ANOTHER in his LIFE, HEALTH, LIBERTY, or POSSESSIONS (ie INCOME & PROPERTY) ~ John Locke 1690

Quote:
Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience. ~ John Locke 1690



That may be a good point to define a properly governed people, but I do not see any contradiction between those two statements and what the LDS principles of the Church stand for.

Would you be so kind and take your referenced statements apart, piece by piece and show me where the LDS principles are against those ideas?

I am looking forward to your reply.
I didn't post those statements re: LDS principles per say, it was intended to define a position and criteria regarding Conservative vs. Progressive Liberal politics...

Quote:
With that said, politically and culturally we're more inclined to look at things from an American perspective, which places liberals on the wrong side of the line.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2018, 03:32 PM
 
Location: God's Gift to Mankind for flying anything
5,796 posts, read 12,776,540 times
Reputation: 4859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biz901 View Post
I didn't post those statements re: LDS principles per say, it was intended to define a position and criteria regarding Conservative vs. Progressive Liberal politics...
Aha, Got yah ...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2018, 06:40 PM
 
Location: East Millcreek
2,540 posts, read 6,363,072 times
Reputation: 3023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biz901 View Post
One of the top reasons why my wife and I chose NOT to relocate our home and business to the the Salt Lake City basin...

Although we are healthy now, as we get older things like out-of-control air pollution are variables that we don't wish to add to the equation.

Also taken into consideration was cultural biases concerning the majority religion in Utah not acting more inclusive in their spiritual views/affiliations et al., as my wife and I both are...

With that said, politically and culturally we're more inclined to look at things from an American perspective, which places liberals on the wrong side of the line.

The following statements, which were/are the legal foundation for the revolt against England and the US Constitution, define our political litmus test:

The commitment to place God, Country, and individual rights FIRST and FOREMOST was what defined AMERICANS as a UNIFIED CULTURE -- NOT race, creed, color, religion, politics, tribalism, et al.
I'm not really sure how this is germane to the thread. Regardless the labels "conservative" and "liberal" today have little to do with anything the framers would recognize, and the ideologies of the Democrats and Republicans have essentially switched from what they were in Lincoln's day.

In any case, are you saying that you reject government action to help identify and bring about the actions needed to help improve the environment? Or, more specifically, the inversions? It should be very obvious that not all human problems can be solved by laissez faire capitalism or market-driven action. Many have said that the reason that the Republicans/conservatives have rejected man-made global warming is because the solutions demand broad governmental action. Much easier to deny that the problem is real than acknowledge that govt can be part of the solution.

Perhaps you need to recalibrate your thinking away from using Locke as your model of freedom (or perhaps quoting him on the stuff you like). Locke could scarcely imagine our current state (yeah, I read him too). I sense that your concerns relate to fear of loss of freedoms TO [do whatever you want]. Please consider that many - you'd probably call them "liberals" - are also concerned with freedoms FROM [lack of functioning social safety net, bankruptcy from highest-in-the-world medical costs, having your kids shot in school, having your meager wealth transferred to the 1%, etc etc].
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2018, 01:52 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in the Southwest...
335 posts, read 475,003 times
Reputation: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by kletter1mann View Post
I'm not really sure how this is germane to the thread. Regardless the labels "conservative" and "liberal" today have little to do with anything the framers would recognize, and the ideologies of the Democrats and Republicans have essentially switched from what they were in Lincoln's day.

In any case, are you saying that you reject government action to help identify and bring about the actions needed to help improve the environment? Or, more specifically, the inversions? It should be very obvious that not all human problems can be solved by laissez faire capitalism or market-driven action. Many have said that the reason that the Republicans/conservatives have rejected man-made global warming is because the solutions demand broad governmental action. Much easier to deny that the problem is real than acknowledge that govt can be part of the solution.

Perhaps you need to recalibrate your thinking away from using Locke as your model of freedom (or perhaps quoting him on the stuff you like). Locke could scarcely imagine our current state (yeah, I read him too). I sense that your concerns relate to fear of loss of freedoms TO [do whatever you want]. Please consider that many - you'd probably call them "liberals" - are also concerned with freedoms FROM [lack of functioning social safety net, bankruptcy from highest-in-the-world medical costs, having your kids shot in school, having your meager wealth transferred to the 1%, etc etc].
I won't extend the discussion further off topic than I have already, but what part of NO ONE ought to HARM ANOTHER in his LIFE, HEALTH, LIBERTY, or POSSESSIONS plus That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed is unclear to you?

It was intended from the founding that the US Government's primary purpose would be to protect it's citizenry from ANYTHING that might harm, but clearly We have lost our way from the ideal of the Son's of Liberty...

And yes, that includes wielding government action to deal with threats to HEALTH such as air pollution, among MANY other things.

Moreover, Laissez faire capitalism does not trump Natural Law, although at this time Natural Law is suspended due to 85 years of Emergency Powers (which has recodified Federal and State laws under Admiralty/Equity legal definitions), but as I said I won't be opening any more cans of worms...

Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2018, 08:10 AM
 
Location: SLC
1,962 posts, read 1,276,990 times
Reputation: 5304
I think it is best to return this thread to its original topic before it is consigned to the ignore list.

"NO ONE ought to HARM ANOTHER in his LIFE, HEALTH..."

The pollution is harming the HEALTH of a lot of people in the SL valley. And, the Government instituted among Men (as long as they are real estate developers), deriving their (un-)just powers from the consent of the governed - is more concerned about securing campaign contributions and real estate profits rather than securing these rights.

That's the current state of Utah.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
>
Powered by Foreclosure.com
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Utah > Salt Lake City area

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:04 PM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top