Originally Posted by AnthrAxNSB

An executive order can demand funding (if that’s what you meant) both directly and indirectly, particularly when the benchmarks set forth demand federal or state subsidization. But, I’m not sure that’s relevant, as the Executive Order 07-127 commands that Florida adopt California’s emission standards. Those standards do not have to be approved by the state legislature and don’t require the legislature to approve funding measures. And, depending on whether Florida intends to implement California’s standards whole hog or partially as well as the particular interests of the individual, this could cost the consumer directly as well. So, people who are averse to these standards have reason to be concerned.

Further, and as I stated in a previous post, the executive orders are ambiguous and written in broad terms. It is not clear whether Florida is seeking the



or only the recent proposal that is still awaiting



It is a mistake to rely solely on a newspaper article for information. Journalists and reporters alike are fallible, and this shortcoming can result in misinformation being accepted by large numbers of consumers. For example, less than a year ago, a scientific article concerning new discoveries about SNPs and their implication on human genetic variation was published and subsequently reported on by several news outlets and internet sources. Without exception, every source misinterpreted the publishing and reported erroneous information about its implications. I spent several days in the fall contacting these sources and voicing my concerns about their misinterpretations, and it took these sources over a month to correct their previous stories (save for the internet sources, which all corrected their previous story within days).
Another example would be several of the articles concerning the very executive orders we’re discussing. Many of these articles (although not the one we’ve linked to in this thread) mistakenly report that the executive orders call for Florida to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by the year 2050, when in fact the order calls for a reduction of 80% of 1990 levels (i.e. an output of 20% of 1990 levels) by 2050. While I think this mistake inconsequential, it does highlight my point.

Finally, because the order only adverts Title 13 of the CCR and does not limit its scope to the proposal for which the EPA has yet to provide a waiver, it is understandable that people might be concerned about the extent to which Florida seeks to mirror California’s system. Saying simply that Florida seeks to implement California’s emissions standards (which the order and most news articles do) does not provide the necessary information that allows citizens to distinguish between “California’s emissions standards” and “California’s greenhouse gas emissions standards.” Because I’ve read from three reputable sources that EO 07-127 is referring to the latter, I’m confident that this is the case. But, there are several sources that don’t make this distinction. Again, I agree with your conclusion, but I understand why others might be concerned.

So, I do think it’s harsh to call those with concerns stupid, which is what you’re doing. I don’t understand why you would want to be so condescending, particularly considering the way people have treated you historically in this forum. I recall several threads where you’ve been treated unnecessarily poorly, and I would think you would want to avoid doing the same to others. And, of course, there is an obvious difference between “harsh” and “straightforward.” Patronizing people, even if they are mistaken, is hardly the same as being clear and concise.

Originally Posted by theebluecrx

And now I bid this thread farewell with a hardy chuckle...