Environmental Policy Feedback- Forward Party

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 19:56:41 -0400

I hear of rolling back climate protecting policies and favoring polluters.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 19:01:02 -0400

Trying to find that middle ground between “Drill, Baby, Drill” and denuding the planet of humans for the cause of animal rights.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 19:00:44 -0400

There is a fine line between over- and under-regulating, and I think there is some of both happening in the country.

At the local level (certainly here in California), there is often over-regulation, with many unnecessary environmental reviews, etc., stymying construction more than necessary. Of course, there are also good baseline environmental laws (like some sort of reasonable limits to pollution from businesses) that may also not be in force everywhere — especially in some states. So it goes both ways at the local level.

At the federal level, which I think was the intended focus of the question, more needs to be done to combat climate change, but that said, it needs to be done pragmatically. I think innovation will go where the money is, so the more the government invests in R&D for cleaner options, the more innovation will happen there. And I think that’d be a good thing. Are subsidies for buying or selling cleaner options also a good thing? Probably, within reason, but I don’t know for sure.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 18:53:32 -0400

Work on renewable energy. The reason why is in the name. It is RENEWABLE! There might be start up and infrastructure costs but those are American jobs and companies that would profit. Once the systems are set up, we’d be in a great spot, economically and environmentally. It would also boost the idea of Americans being on the front edge of scientific ideas that benefit everyone.

New construction should be halted in areas of extreme drought. In south texas they are building apt complexes without end but we are in short supply of water. There are only so many resources and then they are gone. No water supports no people. It doesn’t even make economic sense to do things this way. Environments get harmed with short sighted ideas.

Easy answers often are best. Local solutions provide the most result but promotion and backing of the federal government is what gives these ideas “teeth”.

We should promote love of our LAND in education. It creates better understanding and stewardship. The land is healthier and more beautiful this way. Who doesn’t want that?

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 18:42:22 -0400

We have to stop viewing environmental policy as this sort of false dichotomy choice between lower energy prices or saving the planet. We need brave leaders who understand that policy exists on a spectrum and are willing to speak common sense to the nation and go work on policy that finds balance between all concerns.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 18:32:49 -0400

Simple economics dictates that we cannot continue to ignore the reality of climate change. Multiple annual climate disasters are increasing home insurance rates across the country for which we all pay the price.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 18:18:56 -0400

As a parent I am more concerned with climate change and the social and political unrest that will be caused by large areas of the planet becoming uninhabitable due to natural disasters, rising sea levels, and scorching heat- than nearly any other issue. I haven’t seen our government truly act in accordance with the severity of the issue yet, and now we have an administration that thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax. We have people that have hoarded enough wealth to solve to the problem, but they all seem to be focused on having fun in space instead of dealing with the planet. It is really distressing, and I don’t have any suggestions to help.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 18:10:30 -0400

The problem with the Democrats and the Republicans on this issue is that one party has no ideas and the other has bad ideas. For example, the most effective driver reducing pollution in the US has been the switch from Coal to Natural Gas. The shale revolution began in 2007/2008 and immediately US emissions began to drop. https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states. Instead of building on this victory, the Democrats want to ban the technology that makes it possible.

Forward should look for policies that build on this success. We should advocate for best practices in drilling, look for additional applications of these technologies in geothermal, and work with the industry in order to decrease their emissions even further. There are new designs for power plants set to be commercial by 2030 that capture nearly all the carbon dioxide at the same price as traditional plants that don’t. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2022/11/08/worlds-first-zero-emission-gas-plant-announced-in-texas-00065445. One of the best ways to reduce emissions at the local level is to allow for denser mixed-use development. Hopefully, this series gets to housing, but we can kill two birds with one stone by doing this. Denser development means that resources are used more efficiently. Sprawling out severely limits the financial viability of public transportation & walkability while imposing much longer commutes. https://www.aceee.org/blog-post/2023/03/dense-mixed-use-development-vital-reducing-transportation-emissions. Unfortunately, in many Democratic strongholds, they have essentially outlawed efficient development. The new book, Abundance, by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson highlights many of these issues https://www.vox.com/politics/405063/ezra-klein-thompson-abundance-book-criticism. The Forward Party needs to be the party of Yes In My Backyard.

We need better solutions on this issue than what the Degrowth Democrats offer. Electoral success will never come from asking people to have less—less food, less energy, less children. The Forward Party is well positioned to offer solutions that give us abundance while also addressing the issue.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 18:09:10 -0400

I’d like to see the government take a more proactive stance toward protecting our environment. The current administration’s stance goes against years of moving toward a cleaner, better future.
We need to have real science, not just populist science educating the public. This goes to both pro and anti environmental political agendas.
I’d like to see our government provide the country with real scientists who will give us real scientific evidence, including data to back up their claims. There’s too much “populist claims” which is only divisive.

An example is climate change. Both sides toss their “scientists” into the fray. What I’d like to see are true scientists, not the ones with an agenda that provides “conclusions” which oftentimes are based on cherry picked data.

A true scientist formulates their theory, tests it, and when they find out that their theory is wrong, moves on, rather than spending time trying to find data that “proves” their theory is correct.

Climate change is real, for example. However, there hasn’t rock solid evidence that human causes are the primary reason for the climate change. I think this is why the “climate change is a hoax” people get their ammunition.

We have evidence of fossil fuels, emissions, etc. roles in climate change, but no smoking gun. This is fine. That should be a different argument to the climate change deniers. Get everyone on board that it is happening first.

Then work on causality and all the other important things to make it happen. Right now, it’s just a divisive issue. You can’t solve it until you get enough people on board to believe that it’s a problem to be solved.

The divisive issue here applies to many, many things, not just climate change. Look at what’s happening to our parks service, the dismantling of the EPA, and so on. I simply do not believe our current administration is looking for “fraud, waste and abuse” and better “efficiency”. They are looking to dismantle all these things in favor of a business environment where companies no longer have to worry about polluting our water, our air, our food, etc.

We’re heading back to the days of initial industrial revolution where businesses reigned supreme, but to the detriment to society.

Does no one remember the days of semiconductor manufacture in Silicon Valley? Does no one remember the higher incidences of birth defects in the area? The discover of semiconductor chemicals in the drinking water? We keep being told the manufacturing of semiconductors got moved to Asia for cheap labor. That’s just a tiny fraction of the many reasons, one of which was semiconductor companies didn’t want to pay for the cleanup and modifications necessary to manufacturing facilities to ensure the water supplies weren’t impacted.

The current administration’s business friendly attitude could bring those days back – but it’ll be years before the effects (read – birth defects) could show up.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 18:03:31 -0400

Sadly, nothing is going to happen until Florida is under water and rivers are catching fire again in Ohio. To a certain extent, the environmental movement worked too well — no one really remembers days where the sun never rose because it was hidden behind choking coal smog. Clean air and water are easily put out of mind… until they’re no longer clean.

As for global warming, it’s been proven since 1856 that CO2 drives heat retention in the atmosphere, but heaven forfend you tell that to a die hard proponent of the internal combustion engine. I look forward to endemic malaria, yellow fever and other tropical diseases taking hold in the American South.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 17:56:13 -0400

It has not sunk into the public consciousness what is at stake and what is the root cause. I believe the answers to these two are ‘livable future for complex life on earth for the near geological time frame’, and ‘ecological overshoot as a result of energy surplus sustained by technology and maximum power principle and lack of restraint in our culture’, but there is no majority consensus. Dissipation of authoritative voice fueled by the internet does not help.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 17:51:32 -0400

I have environmental concerns, however, they are not a priority. My main concerns are the lack of green spaces in urban areas. This can improve health and property values.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 17:47:32 -0400

The U.S. has more pressing issues than the environment. Though I believe there is climate change it is not something we seem to be able to address at this time. Individual efforts are admired. However there is not enough political momentum for real change. Week half hearted efforts like promoting train travel by building a train from LA to Vegas. Or planning 9200 charging ports when electric vehicles batteries are only typically in city and suburban use. And the battery technology is inadequate and natural resources for batteries are not easily available.
These are just two examples of political pork that did not advance the environmental cause.
Lets work on repairing our society, the divisions in America. The disparity between the haves and the struggling majority. That should be our focus.
Be well.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 17:20:38 -0400

The actions against the National Park Service has been concerning. It feels they’re cutting instead of refocusing goals within the organization.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 17:07:47 -0400

I agree as well with the other posting. I am very concerned that all of the progress in the last 50 years will be reversed by the current administration. They are ignoring anything to do with the environment and it will be up to the people to force corporations to make progress anyway by applying economic pressure.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 17:07:42 -0400

I am a Veterinary Corps Officer in the US Army since July 2001, with home of record in Sioux Falls, SD. We were on the right track with environmental policy during the Obama and Biden administrations, but it seems to me that the Democratic Party has failed to stay prominently engaged with their constituents. Many private companies are choosing to be more environmentally conscious in how they deal with energy, waste, and other natural resources primarily because the younger generations expect it.
My idea for energy independence is to metaphorically ‘beat our swords into plowshares’ by transforming our vast nuclear arsenal into clean, nuclear energy. I am not a nuclear scientist, but I know a few and they have all, independently from each other, stated that there are safe methods to convert plutonium, uranium, and other isotopes used in nuclear weapons for use in the production of nuclear energy.
To get an understanding of the scale of difference between oil-based fuels and nuclear-based energy for large naval aircraft carriers, the older oil-based ship would have to refuel every 7 days versus a nuclear ship would change its nuclear rods every 25 YEARS!
We’ve got to shift our focus away from fossil fuels and think nuclear – we have already accumulated the ‘raw materials’ in our weaponry. Let’s convert it for humane purposes to fuel our nations into the next millennium!

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 17:03:22 -0400

I live in an area that is seeing an increase in extreme storm activity due to climate change. I am very tired of people insisting it’s a hoax because they’re lucky enough to live in a less affected area. I’m also tired of my homeowner’s insurance going up into the stratosphere because certain large business interests want to continue what they’re doing with impunity. I am not in the least opposed to energy independence. Go ahead and drill where the landowners allow it, and I know plenty who do. What I am opposed to is the glut from businesses that don’t want to even consider solar, wind or other forms of renewable energy. They don’t want the competition and we’re all suffering from that, not just in the form of climate change, which is real, but also from landowners who don’t want the drilling but are being coerced into it when there are alternatives available.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 16:56:52 -0400

I agree with everything that has been said so far. I would add that, unfortunately, our capitalist system allows those who make a lot of money to accumulate the power to create rules and regulations that allow them to make much more, regardless of damages to the environment we all inhabit. Those who make money from contributing to creating environmental problems use their money to accumulate more power to do more of the same. It’s not just government and politics. Private industry needs to reform itself, or be shamed into doing so.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 16:41:16 -0400

Like many controversial topics, I suggest we re-brand the initiative. Let’s stop arguing about whether climate change is real. Clean air is good. Clean water is good. Independence from foreign oil is good. I think both sides can agree with that. Maybe if we concede that climate change could be a hoax, we can stop debating it and get bipartisan backing to clean up the planet. You don’t need people to agree on a philosophy, change the goals to something we can all have an interest in and take action. My college Economics professor had a theory called “Bootleggers and Baptists”. Prohibition passed because the bootleggers wanted to get rich, and the church leaders wanted morality. Opposing factions can come together on a single action for different purposes.

followed Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 16:30:53 -0400

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 16:30:40 -0400

The Trump Administration doesn’t care about the issue; however economics, science and public health will provide the impetus for continued progress. Electric vehicles and renewable energy industry will continue to grow. Overall, the US needs to do more to promote plant based foods and policies that reduce car ownership and usage. See “The War on Cars” Podcast for more on how cars ruin uities and the Plant Based Treaty for why we need to reduce meat, fish, and dairy consumption. Thank you.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 16:28:56 -0400

U.S. Public Transport is embarrassing. This is a problem in its own right but also has a lot to do with the environment.

The largest slice of U.S. emissions comes from transportation. Over 50% of those emissions are light-duty vehicles. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions

There is no excuse, the U.S. is not “too big”, China over the last two decades has built a high-speed rail network connecting essentially every major city. You can take a train directly between beijing and kunming in about 10 hours over about the same distance between New York and LA. In the U.S. that takes 40 hours by car and 3 days by public transit, with the unrealistic assumption of no delays.

Highways are unsustainable, Maintenace on highways is much more expensive than for public transit. Transit corridors promote growth where they are built. Cars are extremely expensive and are a huge burden on the budget of poor people. Trains used to be the lifeblood of the U.S. but now they are just a novelty. The trains we do have are extremely outdated. Research has said that city noise has health detriments, but cities are not loud, cars are, look to cities in the Netherlands that are much quieter because of less cars and because they use “quiet” asphalt.

The U.S. desperately needs to invest in public transport with-in and between population centers, for the economy, comfort, and the environment.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 16:28:49 -0400

We need to keep the public informed about how the climate as already changed since the 1960-70’s. I can remember that national news outlets rarely talked about the weather, that is because many of the catastrophic events we see today were rare then. Many people have a short memory of what it was like, not that long ago. Let’s make America Really Great Again, at least environmentally. Show side by side comparisons of conditions then and now. Does anyone remember what the skies over LA looked like before environmental protection actions were enacted?

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 16:24:23 -0400

I am very worried that the current administration is going to send the US backwards in terms of preparing for advanced climate change

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-22 16:18:30 -0400

I think we WERE doing a 4 out of 5 before the current administration took over and reduced it to 1 out of 5 (they only outlawed wind farms on federal lands.) Renewable energy is the most important issue at which we are currently failing. Renewable energy is the collective for what this world needs to fully embrace. The current administration is totally failing us.

followed Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-21 18:53:41 -0400

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-21 18:53:09 -0400

Rather than write about several unrelated environmental topics, I’m going to write about climate change and its interconnectedness with other issues.

Climate change is caused by the production and combustion of fossil fuels. Our entire economy depends on fossil fuels, with only a small fraction of energy supplied by non-fossil sources.

Our dependence on fossil fuels has forced us to become dependent on the stability of foreign producers. Unfree producers often start wars with great consequences for us and our allies. For example, the USSR, then Russia invaded neighboring Afghanistan and Ukraine when oil prices were high. Oil has funded terrorists, either by funding state sponsors like Libya and Iran or by enriching private contributors in countries like the Persian Gulf states.

Fossil fuel extraction pollutes the environment, sometimes catastrophically when an offshore oil rig blows out or a tanker leaks. Sometimes, this is used as a threat by armed bad actors.

This means that other sources of energy are needed. The feasibility of some like deep well geothermal, white hydrogen and fusion are unknown. Others create their own environmental hazards like large hydro and solar developments that displace plant growth.

Nonetheless, we have to create substitutes quickly. The costs of solar cells have fallen, as have the costs of the batteries needed to store their power. Home solar cells with battery backup have become a viable option in many parts of the US. Increasing the subsidy rate for geothermal power to match that of solar and wind will increase geothermal installations. Simplifying electric interconnection permitting can significantly reduce the 6 year lag between application and issuance and put existing renewable installations online.

On the demand side, we have to reduce car dependence and switch to more efficient EVs. The market is working well for the latter, notwithstanding the union contracts that will slow down the domestic production of EVs and possibly cede the market to foreign producers. Policies that ease the private installation of chargers will help. Mandates have resulted in unusable chargers. Subsidies can delay the adoption of less expensive charger technology.

Car dependence is more difficult. It is largely the result of zoning policies that have reduced housing densities and segregated businesses from residential areas. Remote work is a partial remedy and should be encouraged. The in-person mandate of Biden and Trump have to be reversed. This will have the pleasant side effect of reviving some small towns and rural areas.

Aircraft are a large consumer of fossil fuels. At the low end, electric aircraft promise to break that dependence. High speed rail can replace aircraft in some markets. Florida’s Brightline shows that the private sector should do this. The government can help by easing the creation of rail corridors. We also need more rail replacement of trucks. I-81 in Virginia is an example. Many trucks enter from Mexico only to find no rail to transport their loads to the rest of the US.

Public transportation has shown that it can be an effective alternative to cars, especially combined with plans that favor its use.

As of now, only nuclear fission energy can provide electricity in sufficient quantities to sustain an entire economy. Funding research into small nuclear reactors is needed as these show the most promise of producing large quantities of electricity. Since water moderated SMRs have been shown to be too expensive, molten salt and other nonstandard types need research. They will require reprocessing technology, the newest forms of which emit little to no pollution.

Large nuclear fusion research should be abandoned because the world will never have enough tritium to sustain them. ITER’s first ignition run will be its last due to the small supply of tritium. Private companies have been researching small reactors that produce the small amounts of tritium or helium-3 that they require, often with surpluses that can be used to start new reactors. A grant here and there can make a big difference to these companies.

After we start producing surpluses of clean electricity, we can begin removing CO2 from the atmosphere at scale. Carbon sequestration methods should be investigated. Some geoengineering projects are already on the verge of deployability such as polar sea ice restoration. Other methods like calcite aerosols require a lot more research.

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-20 18:49:51 -0400

We have to move to an electricity based energy infrastructure. Reducing air and water pollution will be reduced. Wind or solar, combined with energy storage is ready to do the work. Moving to a higher technology world can only benefit the United States and the world. Why shouldn’t we participate in the (inevitable) change ?

followed Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-20 18:49:50 -0400

commented on Environmental Policy Feedback 2025-03-20 16:13:01 -0400

The U.S. is uniquely poised to lead the world into a cleaner and greener future. The science is clear that we need it. And even if it wasn’t, being the world leader in clean tech would be incentive enough to invest heavily in it.

Environmental Policy Feedback

Sign in to leave a comment

Recent Activity