Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Posted: 4/16/2008 3:44:09 AM EDT
What a sellout!

Bush to outline vision for fighting climate change
afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hVv34tBcOgyQ5Q8kwErW5Af8OHkg
14 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President George W. Bush is to announce his vision for fighting global climate change on Wednesday, in a marked turnaround for a president who has long steered clear of the topic.

The speech by Bush, known for cozying up to big energy-burning industries and opposing mandatory caps on carbon emissions as too costly to the economy, will lay out goals for countering environmental pollution over the next 20-50 years.

Bush's spokeswoman revealed few details, but the leader of one of the world's top polluters was not expected to stray far from the largely voluntary, pro-technology approach he has embraced in the past.

"This speech is not going to lay out a specific proposal," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "It is a speech that will talk about a strategy for a way forward, and principles for dealing with the problem."

The address is scheduled for 2:45 pm (1845 GMT) Wednesday, on the eve of a meeting of the world's major polluters in Paris Thursday and Friday.

Bush's announcement would include "identifying long term and realistic intermediate goals for greenhouse gas emissions," linked to what US representatives would discuss at a meeting of "major economies" in Paris, Perino said.

This process is "important in our strong belief to prevent companies in other countries from gaining a competitive advantage over US companies," she said.

"This will ensure that all major economies like France, Germany, China and India play a role in any international agreement so as to avoid a future Kyoto-like effect," she said, referring to the 1997 treaty which did not require high-polluting developing countries to reduce emissions.

Former president Bill Clinton signed Kyoto but the United States never ratified it and Bush abandoned it in 2001, saying the binding restrictions on US emissions would prove too costly and harmful to US ability to compete.

The Republican president made no mention of the words "global warming" or "climate change" in his first five State of the Union addresses.

Last year he acknowledged that climate change is a "serious challenge," a statement environmental groups welcomed as an important first step, but critics said he could have gone further toward creating incentives for change.

In the sunset of his White House tenure, clean energies have gained popularity amid fears of permanent global damage from pollution, and pressure has mounted for Congress to pass federal legislation to limit the levels of emissions.

"In announcing these goals he will emphasize the importance of incentivizing technologies as an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will talk about his concerns with approaches" scheduled for debate in the Senate in June, Perino said.

Perino reiterated that the president could not support current proposals being discussed in Congress, including a bill that would introduce a European-like system of "cap and trade," because it would harm the already struggling US economy.

A bill sponsored by Republican Senator John Warner and independent Senator Joe Lieberman would set a limit on the level of carbon emissions and introduce economic incentives for cutting back on pollutants.

Legislation under discussion in the Democratic-led Congress includes "approaches that are unrealistic and or would have a dramatically negative impact on our economy," Perino said.

Ministers from 16 economies which together account for 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions have gathered in Paris for the "Major Economies Meeting," the third in a series launched last September by Bush.

A senior administration official declined to say whether Bush would give a target figure on carbon emissions in the next 20-50 years, but said the proposal is "serious, it's thoughtful and it's reflective of our economy and the technological capacities that we believe will be available."

The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. On average it requires nations to reduce their emissions 5.2 percent below their 1990 level between 2008 and 2012. This would represent a 29 percent cut in overall emissions compared to levels expected by 2010.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the only proposal set forth by Bush so far was in 2002, when he set a goal of reducing emissions growth by 18 percent by 2012.

"That is a goal that we are well on our way to meeting," he said.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 3:49:16 AM EDT
You got it. Lame Duck sell out.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:58:26 AM EDT
because, like is obvious with the illegals
with well just about everything

he's a traitor

I can't believe I voted for the traitor.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 5:00:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 5:01:51 AM EDT by david_g17]
The new and improved Republican Party.

Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:20:16 AM EDT
He used the words "global climate change" in a state of the union address more than a year ago.  He is a leftist just like his dad.  One of the left's most deceitful and clever ploys has been to convince both their and our minions that W is a right wing, ultra-conservative, evangelical Christian..... and My God are we ever going to get sick of McCain!!!!
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:23:07 AM EDT
Someone has compared Bush's acquiensence to the global warming hoax as Nixon finally accepting Keynesian economics as economic orthodoxy just as it was phasing out in favor of monetarism.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:23:19 AM EDT
Better than Gore!


Better than Kerry!


shit...nevermind.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:25:43 AM EDT
all part of his grand, machiavellian strategery...
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:29:15 AM EDT
I hear there may be money in combatting imaginary problems...
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:35:40 AM EDT
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:39:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?


Why is teaching my kids not to pee in their beds a bad thing?  Oh, it's not.

Fine then, I'll continue the waterboarding every time they do.

Repeat after me:

Ends do not justify means.

Ends do not justify means.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:39:29 AM EDT
because apparently this particular brand of insanity is infectious


make me want to puke to see the wholesale buy in to the fraud
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:39:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:40:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?


define good earth stewardship and put a price tag of my tax dollars on it
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:42:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


Global Warming or climate change is all about regulation and thus profiting from this regulation. In summation a taxing and revenue generation scheme.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:45:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dedfella:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?


define good earth stewardship and put a price tag of my tax dollars on it


The funny thing is that going green is cheaper in the long run i.e. solar panels and heating your home with a wood fire.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:45:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Storm_Tracker:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


Global Warming or climate change is all about regulation and thus profiting from this regulation. In summation a taxing and revenue generation scheme.


+1

I'd bet 1,000 carbon credits that he's right.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:46:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DiscoBiscuit:

Originally Posted By dedfella:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?


define good earth stewardship and put a price tag of my tax dollars on it


The funny thing is that going green is cheaper in the long run i.e. solar panels and heating your home with a wood fire.


Then what's the worry?  The market will take care of it, if it is in fact cheaper.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:47:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


See.  You jumped to conclusions already.  Being a good earth steward is not fighting an imaginary problem.  Its responsibility.  Taken to an Al Gore extreme is bad, I agree.  But common sense stuff, like lowering emissions, lowering pollutants, taking care of our water systems is simply doing the right thing.

I'm not taking the "global warming is all mans fault" stance, dont get me wrong.  But if you dont think we have some real problems to deal with, youve clearly never been to LA.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:48:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DiscoBiscuit:

Originally Posted By dedfella:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?


define good earth stewardship and put a price tag of my tax dollars on it


The funny thing is that going green is cheaper in the long run i.e. solar panels and heating your home with a wood fire.


Heating your home with a wood fire is a BIG no-no in this movement. Purchasing a solar panel array will cost the same amount that it would to power your home for 10 - 12 years on thew grid. Their lifespan (solar panels) unfortunately isnt much longer than that.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:48:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


Imaginary problem? Pollution is not an imaginary problem. In the city that I live in, the sky on the horizon is brown for about the first 1,000 feet off the ground. I don't believe in Global Warming, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with reducing the amount of pollutants we're putting into the atmosphere. We have to breath that air you know.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:49:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 6:51:04 AM EDT by motown_steve]
.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:52:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DiscoBiscuit:

Originally Posted By dedfella:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?


define good earth stewardship and put a price tag of my tax dollars on it


The funny thing is that going green is cheaper in the long run i.e. solar panels and heating your home with a wood fire.


riiiight


go tell them you want to use wood to heat your home

BTW, we already do

I don't need the .gov telling me how to "be green"

I have been "green" for 20 years

nor do I want my tax dollars subsidizing another BS project for mother earth


taxes and regulation is ALL this is about
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:52:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


See.  You jumped to conclusions already.  Being a good earth steward is not fighting an imaginary problem.  Its responsibility.  Taken to an Al Gore extreme is bad, I agree.  But common sense stuff, like lowering emissions, lowering pollutants, taking care of our water systems is simply doing the right thing.

I'm not taking the "global warming is all mans fault" stance, dont get me wrong.  But if you dont think we have some real problems to deal with, youve clearly never been to LA.


DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:53:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


Imaginary problem? Pollution is not an imaginary problem. In the city that I live in, the sky on the horizon is brown for about the first 1,000 feet off the ground. I don't believe in Global Warming, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with reducing the amount of pollutants we're putting into the atmosphere. We have to breath that air you know.


Unfortunately the smokestacks that are belching this brown shit into our atmosphere will not be the targets of the climate change revenue generation scheme. But the fuel you put into your vehicle will be. The cost of your electricity through burning coal will also be. Other than the revenue generation for the most part it will be business as usual.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:54:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

"This will ensure that all major economies like France, Germany, China and India play a role in any international agreement so as to avoid a future Kyoto-like effect," she said, referring to the 1997 treaty which did not require high-polluting developing countries to reduce emissions."

Former president Bill Clinton signed Kyoto but the United States never ratified it and Bush abandoned it in 2001, saying the binding restrictions on US emissions would prove too costly and harmful to US ability to compete."


I might be going WAY out on a limb here, but perhaps Bush is trying to poison pill the whole thing.  Embracing the premise is a dangerous way to go, but the "green" movement is such a fad right now, it is possible that the President is making the conscious decision to try to push harmful action as far into the future as possible hoping that the "man-made GW crisis" will be a non-issue years from now.

He might also fear that outright hostility to it may generate far more negative electoral results in 2008, than foot dragging.  I can't say if he is right, but that is my theory.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:54:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Myke:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


See.  You jumped to conclusions already.  Being a good earth steward is not fighting an imaginary problem.  Its responsibility.  Taken to an Al Gore extreme is bad, I agree.  But common sense stuff, like lowering emissions, lowering pollutants, taking care of our water systems is simply doing the right thing.

I'm not taking the "global warming is all mans fault" stance, dont get me wrong.  But if you dont think we have some real problems to deal with, youve clearly never been to LA.


DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?


Yes.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:57:36 AM EDT
Why is it asking too much to have a sane, intelligent president  ?

Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:59:36 AM EDT
Typical. Jorge has sold us out on everything elso, why no tjoin Al Whore
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:01:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DiscoBiscuit:

Originally Posted By dedfella:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?


define good earth stewardship and put a price tag of my tax dollars on it


The funny thing is that going green is cheaper in the long run i.e. solar panels and heating your home with a wood fire.


Have you ever heated your home with a wood fire or priced out solar panels?

Heating with wood isn't as inexpensive as one would think.  Land is required, Gas/oil and tools are required, time and lots of effort is required, tree cultivation is required, a truck or tractor and trailer is required...  It goes on and on.  In the end you are committing yourself to a long future of farming/cutting/splitting/stacking/hauling that can cost you in medical expenses as well.

Do it for the sake of the fire.  Not because it is an ideal lifestyle for everyone.

Payback on a Solar Panel installation is greater than 20 years.  By the time they pay for their installation, you had better start saving for replacement.  Economically speaking, a payback of 20 years is only a tad better than 3%, which is about what you would get in a money market account.  Pitiful.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:01:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Myke:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


See.  You jumped to conclusions already.  Being a good earth steward is not fighting an imaginary problem.  Its responsibility.  Taken to an Al Gore extreme is bad, I agree.  But common sense stuff, like lowering emissions, lowering pollutants, taking care of our water systems is simply doing the right thing.

I'm not taking the "global warming is all mans fault" stance, dont get me wrong.  But if you dont think we have some real problems to deal with, youve clearly never been to LA.


DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?


Yes.


Allrighty then.  Absolutely horrible philosophy to take, but your choice.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:02:15 AM EDT
it has nothing to do with the temprature of the planet, or pollution in general.

it has everything to do with redistrobution of wealth and the equaling of the money of the planet.

if you step back and look at the world and the ones that run it. it's like a giant chess game.

imagine the planet as a table, and all the actual people who run  (control) the world sitting around it, tumbler of scotch in one hand, nice cigar in the other, they are discussing their wealth and the ladder of power. one is complaining that he hasn't got enough power to play a certian upcomming game, so he, along with a few colse friends, come up with a stratagy to redistribute the wealth of a couple of countries, start a war, or what ever else that will shift the game to their advantage.

you and I are inconsiquential pawns in the game.

whether we live or die, are happy or not (to the extent that furthers the power brokers game) doesn't matter.

the sooner you work this out in your head, the sooner the world will become clear to you.

this little story was a over simplified version of the facts, but, you get the jist.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:02:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


See.  You jumped to conclusions already.  Being a good earth steward is not fighting an imaginary problem.  Its responsibility.  Taken to an Al Gore extreme is bad, I agree.  But common sense stuff, like lowering emissions, lowering pollutants, taking care of our water systems is simply doing the right thing.

I'm not taking the "global warming is all mans fault" stance, dont get me wrong.  But if you dont think we have some real problems to deal with, youve clearly never been to LA.


LA is a bad example.  Build a huge city in a stagnant air bowl, and you can see what happens.  When the wind blows, all that smog goes away, and dissipates.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:03:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


Imaginary problem? Pollution is not an imaginary problem. In the city that I live in, the sky on the horizon is brown for about the first 1,000 feet off the ground. I don't believe in Global Warming, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with reducing the amount of pollutants we're putting into the atmosphere. We have to breath that air you know.


That brown cloud is NOx.  Not CO2.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:03:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


Imaginary problem? Pollution is not an imaginary problem. In the city that I live in, the sky on the horizon is brown for about the first 1,000 feet off the ground. I don't believe in Global Warming, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with reducing the amount of pollutants we're putting into the atmosphere. We have to breath that air you know.


Drive a half hour outside your city, and enjoy the REST of the world that is pretty damn clean.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:04:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Myke:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


See.  You jumped to conclusions already.  Being a good earth steward is not fighting an imaginary problem.  Its responsibility.  Taken to an Al Gore extreme is bad, I agree.  But common sense stuff, like lowering emissions, lowering pollutants, taking care of our water systems is simply doing the right thing.

I'm not taking the "global warming is all mans fault" stance, dont get me wrong.  But if you dont think we have some real problems to deal with, youve clearly never been to LA.


DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?


Yes.


Wow.

Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:05:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 7:06:12 AM EDT by Torf]

Originally Posted By FlyingIllini:
Why is it asking too much to have a sane, intelligent president  ?



Dumb people vote in large numbers, and smart people are otherwise poorly educated?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:06:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


See.  You jumped to conclusions already.  Being a good earth steward is not fighting an imaginary problem.  Its responsibility.  Taken to an Al Gore extreme is bad, I agree.  But common sense stuff, like lowering emissions, lowering pollutants, taking care of our water systems is simply doing the right thing.

I'm not taking the "global warming is all mans fault" stance, dont get me wrong.  But if you dont think we have some real problems to deal with, youve clearly never been to LA.


LA is a bad example.  Build a huge city in a stagnant air bowl, and you can see what happens.  When the wind blows, all that smog goes away, and dissipates.


Been to the grand canyon lately?  I have.  There are days you have trouble seeing the other side because the haze is so thick.

Chicago.  New York.  All share the same pollution problems.  Quite frankly, to say we dont have an air pollution problem is sticking your head in the sand.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:07:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Myke:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Myke:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


See.  You jumped to conclusions already.  Being a good earth steward is not fighting an imaginary problem.  Its responsibility.  Taken to an Al Gore extreme is bad, I agree.  But common sense stuff, like lowering emissions, lowering pollutants, taking care of our water systems is simply doing the right thing.

I'm not taking the "global warming is all mans fault" stance, dont get me wrong.  But if you dont think we have some real problems to deal with, youve clearly never been to LA.


DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?


Yes.


Allrighty then.  Absolutely horrible philosophy to take, but your choice.



his choice with his money

not with mine
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:09:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By FlyingIllini:
Why is it asking too much to have a sane, intelligent president  ?



Dumb people vote in large numbers, and smart people are otherwise poorly educated?



the smartest people do not go into politics, the ones obsesed with POWER do.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:11:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


See.  You jumped to conclusions already.  Being a good earth steward is not fighting an imaginary problem.  Its responsibility.  Taken to an Al Gore extreme is bad, I agree.  But common sense stuff, like lowering emissions, lowering pollutants, taking care of our water systems is simply doing the right thing.

I'm not taking the "global warming is all mans fault" stance, dont get me wrong.  But if you dont think we have some real problems to deal with, youve clearly never been to LA.


LA is a bad example.  Build a huge city in a stagnant air bowl, and you can see what happens.  When the wind blows, all that smog goes away, and dissipates.


Been to the grand canyon lately?  I have.  There are days you have trouble seeing the other side because the haze is so thick.

Chicago.  New York.  All share the same pollution problems.  Quite frankly, to say we dont have an air pollution problem is sticking your head in the sand.


What EXACTLY is blocking your view, and for HOW MANY days a year?  To say "pollution" in general, and to think that man is causing all of it means you are an idiot.

I have been to the Grand Canyon.  I never ONCE had a day that was less than perfectly clear.  On the other hand, I live in an unpolluted rural area, and there are MANY days that visibility is less than a mile.  Pollution?  I think not!
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:15:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 7:16:14 AM EDT by Torf]

Originally Posted By stormwalker:

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By FlyingIllini:
Why is it asking too much to have a sane, intelligent president  ?



Dumb people vote in large numbers, and smart people are otherwise poorly educated?



the smartest people do not go into politics, the ones obsesed with POWER do.


I don't even care if the President isn't the smartest guy around.  Bush is no dolt, despite popular belief.  All I ask is that the President respects a few things, constitutional rights, property rights, the fact that my money results from my labor and that I should be able to keep it.  Bush is playing fast and loose with our freedoms when it comes to this global warming hoax.

So, yeah, a hunger for power is opposed to those things.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:18:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DiscoBiscuit:

Originally Posted By dedfella:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?


define good earth stewardship and put a price tag of my tax dollars on it


The funny thing is that going green is cheaper in the long run i.e. solar panels and heating your home with a wood fire.


burning wood is NOT going green.
al gore and the rest of the pukes would tar and feather you for suggesting you cut a tree and burn wood.


Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:18:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


See.  You jumped to conclusions already.  Being a good earth steward is not fighting an imaginary problem.  Its responsibility.  Taken to an Al Gore extreme is bad, I agree.  But common sense stuff, like lowering emissions, lowering pollutants, taking care of our water systems is simply doing the right thing.

I'm not taking the "global warming is all mans fault" stance, dont get me wrong.  But if you dont think we have some real problems to deal with, youve clearly never been to LA.


LA is a bad example.  Build a huge city in a stagnant air bowl, and you can see what happens.  When the wind blows, all that smog goes away, and dissipates.


Been to the grand canyon lately?  I have.  There are days you have trouble seeing the other side because the haze is so thick.

Chicago.  New York.  All share the same pollution problems.  Quite frankly, to say we dont have an air pollution problem is sticking your head in the sand.


I have been to the Grand Canyon.  I never ONCE had a day that was less than perfectly clear.  


Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:19:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


See.  You jumped to conclusions already.  Being a good earth steward is not fighting an imaginary problem.  Its responsibility.  Taken to an Al Gore extreme is bad, I agree.  But common sense stuff, like lowering emissions, lowering pollutants, taking care of our water systems is simply doing the right thing.

I'm not taking the "global warming is all mans fault" stance, dont get me wrong.  But if you dont think we have some real problems to deal with, youve clearly never been to LA.


LA is a bad example.  Build a huge city in a stagnant air bowl, and you can see what happens.  When the wind blows, all that smog goes away, and dissipates.


Been to the grand canyon lately?  I have.  There are days you have trouble seeing the other side because the haze is so thick.

Chicago.  New York.  All share the same pollution problems.  Quite frankly, to say we dont have an air pollution problem is sticking your head in the sand.


I have been to the Grand Canyon.  I never ONCE had a day that was less than perfectly clear.  


www.bloodshotgamer.com/guns/grandcanyonhaze.gif



what is the composition of that "haze"?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:19:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By david_g17:
The new and improved Republican Party.



Move along... Nothing to see here...
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:24:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 7:25:40 AM EDT by Torf]

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


See.  You jumped to conclusions already.  Being a good earth steward is not fighting an imaginary problem.  Its responsibility.  Taken to an Al Gore extreme is bad, I agree.  But common sense stuff, like lowering emissions, lowering pollutants, taking care of our water systems is simply doing the right thing.

I'm not taking the "global warming is all mans fault" stance, dont get me wrong.  But if you dont think we have some real problems to deal with, youve clearly never been to LA.


LA is a bad example.  Build a huge city in a stagnant air bowl, and you can see what happens.  When the wind blows, all that smog goes away, and dissipates.


Been to the grand canyon lately?  I have.  There are days you have trouble seeing the other side because the haze is so thick.

Chicago.  New York.  All share the same pollution problems.  Quite frankly, to say we dont have an air pollution problem is sticking your head in the sand.


I have been to the Grand Canyon.  I never ONCE had a day that was less than perfectly clear.  


www.bloodshotgamer.com/guns/grandcanyonhaze.gif


Reminds me of the Great Smoky Mountains.  Too bad I can't right click on the image and have it tell me EXACTLY what I am looking at.

Fog?
Smoke from wildfires?
Haze from evergreen forests?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:29:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 7:29:53 AM EDT by LvFreeRDie]

Originally Posted By dedfella:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


See.  You jumped to conclusions already.  Being a good earth steward is not fighting an imaginary problem.  Its responsibility.  Taken to an Al Gore extreme is bad, I agree.  But common sense stuff, like lowering emissions, lowering pollutants, taking care of our water systems is simply doing the right thing.

I'm not taking the "global warming is all mans fault" stance, dont get me wrong.  But if you dont think we have some real problems to deal with, youve clearly never been to LA.


LA is a bad example.  Build a huge city in a stagnant air bowl, and you can see what happens.  When the wind blows, all that smog goes away, and dissipates.


Been to the grand canyon lately?  I have.  There are days you have trouble seeing the other side because the haze is so thick.

Chicago.  New York.  All share the same pollution problems.  Quite frankly, to say we dont have an air pollution problem is sticking your head in the sand.


I have been to the Grand Canyon.  I never ONCE had a day that was less than perfectly clear.  


www.bloodshotgamer.com/guns/grandcanyonhaze.gif



what is the composition of that "haze"?


Exactly. Just because it's "hazy" doesn't mean it's pollution. It could just be a natural weather event. I'd be curious to know if it really is pollution or just natural weather.

As to the philosophy of the ends justifying the means, that's just ridiculous. Here is an example: What is the root cause of pollution? Humans. Since the ends (a cleaner earth) justify the means. The means I'm going to use to make the earth cleaner is to get rid of the root cause of pollution...by killing off most of the humans on the planet.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:51:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Storm_Tracker:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Why is good earth stewardship a bad thing?



Why is damaging the economy to fight an imaginary problem a bad thing?

Well, I suppose I'm not sure.


Imaginary problem? Pollution is not an imaginary problem. In the city that I live in, the sky on the horizon is brown for about the first 1,000 feet off the ground. I don't believe in Global Warming, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with reducing the amount of pollutants we're putting into the atmosphere. We have to breath that air you know.


Unfortunately the smokestacks that are belching this brown shit into our atmosphere will not be the targets of the climate change revenue generation scheme. But the fuel you put into your vehicle will be. The cost of your electricity through burning coal will also be. Other than the revenue generation for the most part it will be business as usual.


True.  But because most of that pollution is not originating in the US.  Mexico uses inferior lignite coal for power generation.  And they lack the after treatment required by the Clean Air Act.
Top Top