backtop


Print 157 comment(s) - last by matriarch wolf.. on Feb 27 at 3:10 PM


Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger held a press conference in Sacramento Thursday to announce his plans to sue the national government.  (Source: Rich Pedroncelli / AP)
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California try to force the U.S. government to terminate greenhouse gases with a big suit

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) had harsh words for the federal government and President Bush on Thursday over their failure to take global warming seriously enough.  Gov. Schwarzenegger announced that the state of California is pursuing major legal action against the federal government.

The issue heated up when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rejected a proposal by California, Wednesday.  The Californian proposal requested to be allowed a waiver so it could cut its own emissions at a faster rate than the new Federal guidelines, signed into law on Wednesday.  California would need such a waiver to override the national plan and pursue its own more aggressive cuts.  EPA chief Stephen Johnson announced the decision Wednesday, which drew a firestorm of criticism from California's government.

President Bush on Thursday defended the move, arguing, "Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy?"

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger escalated the war of words with the Bush administration, on Thursday holding a press conference, and saying of the decision, "It's another example of the administration's failure to treat global warming with the seriousness that it actually demands.  Anything less than aggressive action on the greatest environmental threat of all time is inexcusable."

The National plan signed into law calls for fuel efficiency to be raised 40 percent by 2020, up to 35 miles per gallon average.  California's plan calls for 30 percent emissions cuts by 2016 and an average fuel efficiency increase to a whopping 43.7 miles per gallon for passenger cars and some SUVs and trucks, and 26.9 MPG for large vehicles.

California's plan was gaining popularity nationwide, with 16 states adopting it or pledging to.

Gov. Schwarzenegger expressed his frustration at lack of discipline in its environmental policies.  He vowed to whip the government into shape with legal action.

The lawsuit was launched Thursday with a 16-page complaint from the Californian Attorney General Jerry Brown's office.  Brown's representative announced that Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington planned to join California in the suit against the feds.  Colorado, Florida and Utah wish to adopt California's plan but have not yet pledged to support the suit.

President Bush and the governor of this nation's highest populous state have long held an icy relationship due to the President's environmental policies and refusal to fund embryonic stem cell research.  An aide described this divide, saying "Even during the re-election campaign for the president, he would come to California and the governor wouldn't always be there to greet him."

California holds special status under the Clean Air Act, as the only state that can specially request the EPA to allow it to enact its own regulations.  However, the EPA does not have to approve these requests, as it demonstrated Wednesday.  As the suit heats up in coming months it should be an interesting bipartisan battle over the issue as it is drudged through the federal legal system.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Bush
By Some1ne on 12/21/2007 2:52:57 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
President Bush on Thursday defended the move, arguing, "Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy?"


His argument doesn't make any sense. It's clearly most effective to let each state make their own decision, with the provision that any legislation enacted at the state-level must be at least as stringent as the legislation applied at the national level. In such a case, you'd be guaranteed to at least achieve the federally mandated goal, and depending upon what the states decided to do, you may even exceed it by a wide margin.

It's win-win if states are allowed to elect to exceed the federal requirements, and the president/his administration are probably just pandering to corporate interests more than anything else (like they usually do) in their efforts to block the California plans.




RE: Bush
By jbartabas on 12/21/2007 3:18:55 PM , Rating: 3
I have a very superficial knowledge of American politics but, isn't the conservative president supposed to think that big centralized government is much less efficient that local governments?? :-D


RE: Bush
By mdogs444 on 12/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Bush
By tdawg on 12/21/2007 4:11:10 PM , Rating: 5
Some of these "outrageous" standards are already being met in other countries. Job losses with the Big 3 are already occurring because these companies can't design a car that anybody actually wants (on a mass scale). As these car companies die, due to their inability to adapt to market forces and consumer desires, foreign companies will take up residence in the United States and supply auto workers with jobs, companies such as Subaru, Kia, and I think Hyundai, all have US assembly plants that give jobs to many Americans.

The freedom of the States to enact more stringent laws and regulations take the power out of the Washington Lobbyists and put it back in the hands of the populace of each state. The fact that the US Congress has been ineffectual at best and horribly negligent at worst for at least the past 7 years makes it even more important for States to actually be able to exercise their rights.


RE: Bush
By mdogs444 on 12/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Bush
By tdawg on 12/21/2007 4:53:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Wow, are you freakin nuts or what? Of course they make cars that people want on a mass scale. The US is the #1 auto industry in the world - and thats who they cater to first. The point is not that they cannot make a car that anyone wants - its that they cannot create a car cheap enough to profit as much as foreign cars due to our extremely outrageous environmental manufacturing laws, labor & health costs, and land value.


The success of the US auto industry, as with any industry, is the ability to sustain profits and make shareholders money, right? Ford's doing a great job of that. You can't honestly look at the Big 3 and say, "Hey, they're doing a hell of a job!" Even with import tarrifs and transport costs of the foreign auto manufacturers, they are doing much better in catering to the desires of the populace as a whole.

quote:
In the case of the auto industry - this would only work if every country had the same CAFE standards, same environmental regulations in terms of manufacturing & emmissions, and the same labor & health costs.

Else, you are giving out freedoms to other countries because they have none or very minimal regulations.
quote>

I'm assuming you mean States where you say Countries? I think it's safe to say that if California forbids auto companies to sell cars in the State if they can't maintain some average fuel economy / CO2 emmissions standard across their entire line, the auto companies will change. Sure, Montana and Rhode Island may have issues trying to influence the directions of companies, but California and New York sure can.

Regarding labor costs and health costs, it's on the shoulders of the Big 3 when they originally began working with the unions (I do have issues with unions, so don't assume I'm a union lover) and negotiating contracts that they now can't fulfill.

quote:
Thats one of the most stupid things I've heard today. So let me guess....because republicans held office for the last 7 years, thats why things havent been effective - in your eyes. It must be all those presidential Vetos...what are there in the last 7 years...7 or 8? And what did Clinton have...40+? For being someone that said he knows about government, it seems all you know is what you read on MediaMatters.


I'm no rocket scientist, but my math (not to be confused with Karl Rove's math) counts from 2000 to 2007 in my 7 years, which means that I hold the democratically controlled congress in just as much fault as the republican controlled congress. The reason we didn't see any vetoes in the first 6 years of Bush's presidency (save for the stem cell veto during the republican rule) is because the republican controlled congress was on it's knees servicing the Bush administration. That's such a senseless point to try to make, mdoggs. For the record, I don't even know what MediaMatters is, though I will "confess" that I listen to NPR.


RE: Bush
By G2cool on 12/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Bush
By zombiexl on 12/21/2007 6:06:13 PM , Rating: 4
Are you serious? Do you vote?

2000 was the election year. The president doesnt take office until the following Jan (Bush took office a little later due to people who were too stupid to vote being allowed to vote in florida). That means in 2008 he will have been there for 7 years. If he was already in office 8 years he would be working on his ninth year.


RE: Bush
By LogicallyGenius on 12/21/2007 11:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
He wants to TERMINATE the power of Local Govt.
Clearly he is working for the secret govt that has also appointed BUSH, what a drama.


RE: Bush
By erikejw on 12/22/2007 12:04:53 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
President Bush on Thursday defended the move, arguing, "Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy?"


I thought that was the problem. US have no strategy at all or should I say the strategy is to ignore it.


RE: Bush
By camped69 on 12/26/2007 10:56:34 AM , Rating: 2
You mean the delay due to the vote fraud perpetrated on the American people by baby bush's little brother?? WTF?


RE: Bush
By ElFenix on 12/31/2007 12:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
bush did not take office later than usual.


RE: Bush
By FastLaneTX on 12/21/2007 7:10:03 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
they cannot create a car cheap enough to profit as much as foreign cars due to our extremely outrageous environmental manufacturing laws, labor & health costs, and land value.

You would have a point there, except those "foreign" car companies are making their cars in the US. The Camry and Accord, the best selling cars in America for the last decade or so, are made here, for instance. In contrast, more and more "American" cars are being made in Mexico and Canada. The highest-paid auto workers in the country are at a Mercedes plant, and the second highest-paid are at a Toyota plant.


RE: Bush
By tmouse on 12/26/2007 10:04:52 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the cars are assembled in the US. All of the foreign car makers use a minumn of 75% to around 90% parts imported from other countries, so the cheap labor rate and no enviormental production laws arguments still apply.


RE: Bush
By eye smite on 12/21/2007 10:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter if they're republican, democrat, or independent, politicians can't save us from themselves. This isn't a country for the people, it's a country for the Corporations. There's no profit in using different fuel, but I say down the tube with the big 3 and the oil companies if they don't find a way to change and fast. Get rid of them.


RE: Bush
By matriarch wolf on 2/27/2008 3:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
too true


RE: Bush
By Alexstarfire on 12/22/2007 1:02:44 AM , Rating: 5
The only thing the US is #1 at is owning the most cars and being the most wasteful. I guess you don't realize that even if Toyota and all the other Japanese car manufacturers made all of there cars in Japan that there land value is MUCH higher than most of the US.

I guess you also forgot that the imported cars still have adhere to the standards in the US. I don't see Toyota cars getting banned from driving in California, now do I? Must have also forgotten that the US has the lowest MPG average out of every country in the world.


RE: Bush
By winterspan on 12/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: Bush
By chick0n on 12/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Bush
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2007 1:07:41 AM , Rating: 3
> "The freedom of the States to enact more stringent laws and regulations..."

If the Federal government has the right to enact environmental legislation, then that right prevails over State's rights. You can't have it both ways. The Constitution is clear. Either the federal goverment can mandate environmental laws for both the states and entities within, or else the EPA and all its related legislation is unconstitutional. Just as the federal government bars states from setting too stringent a standard for voter registration, say, or setting an employment standard based upon ethnicity, race, or religion, it similar has the right to mandate maximum as well as minimum standards for the environment.


RE: Bush
By JustTom on 12/22/2007 12:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
Dead on, the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate trade not the States.


RE: Bush
By ElFenix on 12/31/2007 12:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
and california would say that california's goal in setting CO2 emission levels is regulating health and welfare, which the federal government has no power to do.

oh good, the intersection of the 10th amendment and the rest of the constitution. too bad federalism was effectively killed by the 17th amendment.


RE: Bush
By JustTom on 12/22/2007 10:02:23 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The freedom of the States to enact more stringent laws and regulations take the power out of the Washington Lobbyists and put it back in the hands of the populace of each state.


It is questionable that the States have such power. Congress is the arbitrator on interstate trade and international trade; unless cars sold in California are manufactured solely in California the state does not have a constitutional right to set carbon emission limits. It is a Congressional power:

quote:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


The problem with letting states make such choices is it imposes de facto national limits. It is extremely in efficient for car manufacturers to design one car for the rest of the US and another for the internal Californian market.


RE: Bush
By tastyratz on 12/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: Bush
By omnicronx on 12/21/2007 4:36:52 PM , Rating: 3
Do you really think states in which rely on the auto industry manufacturing plants would impose such legislation?

States like California are in great need of lowering not only green house gas emissions but their energy usage too.

Bush should let the states choose, the states that are worried of economic backlash can choose not to impose such laws, and the states that feel they can safely impose such laws can. (such as California)


RE: Bush
By ceefka on 12/22/2007 4:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bush should let the states choose, the states that are worried of economic backlash can choose not to impose such laws, and the states that feel they can safely impose such laws can. (such as California)


And that will result in no incentive to lower emissions. Everyone should work on this, not only the consumers, also the producers. It will hurt so much more than just economically if we keep thinking that way.


RE: Bush
By smitty3268 on 12/21/2007 5:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is NO reason at all that the state governments should have any say in making independant changes like this

Well, I guess that depends on whether you believe in states rights or not. Is it in the best interest of the nation? Maybe not. But I don't see any reason at all according to the constitution that California shouldn't be allowed to set their own standards for what is going on within their own state. From what I hear, even the EPA's lawyers are saying there's no way they're going to win this lawsuit.


RE: Bush
By JustTom on 12/22/2007 9:16:56 PM , Rating: 2
The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the right to regulate both interstate and foreign trade. It is very arguable that California setting its own emission standards is an infringement of Congressional powers.


RE: Bush
By eye smite on 12/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Bush
By Hoser McMoose on 12/21/2007 11:44:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
GM builds cars called Holden in Aussie that get twice the fuel economy that they do here.

The Holden vehicles are, by most accounts, some of the best cars in the entire GM family, but their fuel efficiency is barely different than North American GM cars. Not overly surprising since most of them use the same engines.

Take the Holden Commodore for example. The most fuel efficient model gets 10.9L/100km, or about 22mpg. Several models use V8 engines at get 14.3L/100km, or about 16mpg.

The most fuel efficient gasoline engine Holden vehicle is the sub-compact Barina subcompact that get's 6.9/7.8 (city/highway) L/100km (34/30mpg). This is quite similar to the (virtually identical) Chevy Aveo that get's 34/24mpg. A lot of the difference is made up in difference between the U.S. and Australian test cycle.

The only Holden vehicle that is substantially better in terms of mpgs is the diesel Astra, and that's because GM doesn't (yet) sell any diesel cars in the U.S.


RE: Bush
By theapparition on 12/23/2007 9:11:40 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed,
Holden uses the same engines as GM, since they are all GM engine designs, including the Diesel. Fuel economy is the same, and any difference has to do with the car it is installed in and differences in government testing.

Another point to make, though, is that the Commodore is the first Holden vehicule that was designed with the American market in mind, and such, meets all safety regulations. The Monaro, aka GTO, had to go substantial safety upgrades to meet the US's more stringint laws. For example, the gas tank in the GTO had to be moved to the trunk. All that extra safety adds weight, so the GTO is actually heavier than the Monaro that it is based on.


RE: Bush
By StevoLincolnite on 12/23/2007 4:33:24 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why the American's stabilize the LPG prices and use that over Petrol, Its cleaner and cheaper.
LPG vs Petrol. (In favour of LPG obviously)
75% less Carbon Monoxide
85% less Hydrocarbons
40% less Nitrogen Oxides
10% less Carbon Dioxide
87% less Ozone forming potentia

That would cut a huge portion of Pollutants, and is a viable alternative for those already using Petrol and don't wan't electric cars. (I rather my car go VROOOM! not EEEEEEE!)


RE: Bush
By pauldovi on 12/21/2007 4:38:07 PM , Rating: 3
Bush isn't a conservative though. He is a neocon. They are no different than the liberals in terms of big centralized government.


RE: Bush
By jbartabas on 12/21/2007 4:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the precision, even if my first statement was a bit of candid joke ;-)


RE: Bush
By andrinoaa on 12/21/2007 7:35:36 PM , Rating: 1
Bush is just another rich-boy-made -good-with-daddy's oil money who just happens to run a country as a business. He is a victim of his narrow ideas and fundamentalist agenda.
Here in australia we just got rid of bush's mate, another career polititian. The modern version of tar and feathering!
Fascist or communist, the end result is the same. I'd say your country is much more inclined to fascism than mine, but hey, we ain't perfect either. Claiming that ideas which will be good for the country in the long term are fascist, shows how far George Orwell was right! Word speak. lol


RE: Bush
By djcameron on 12/21/2007 10:14:14 PM , Rating: 1
Bush is more like a big-government Democrat than a Republican. If he were a true Republican, then he'd be in favor of a State's control of most everything...except for those things specifically outlined in the Constitution.


RE: Bush
By Hoser McMoose on 12/22/2007 12:30:50 AM , Rating: 2
From what I've seen the Republican part is not Republican anymore. Honestly, look at the candidates for the 2008 election, almost to a one they're going to increase government spending and reduce free trade in favor of protectionism. Not that the Democrats are much different in this regard or anything.

I found it rather interesting to read comments a few months back from Alan Greenspan talking about how the Republican Party is no longer a party he recognizes. It seems that fiscal conservatives are mostly a thing of the past. <queue Ron Paul comments here>


RE: Bush
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2007 1:14:05 AM , Rating: 5
> "It seems that fiscal conservatives are mostly a thing of the past. "

Because the citizenry is no longer educated in the benefits of fiscal conservatism. Instead, we've degenerated just as the Romans did, to voting ourselves bread and circuses, until the economy eventually grinds to a halt.


RE: Bush
By gmw1082 on 12/22/2007 6:36:23 AM , Rating: 3
You hit the nail right on the head. There are so many things happening in America today that are very similar to what was happening in Rome before it crumbled. Like the Romans, America will first be destroyed from the inside.


RE: Bush
By Ringold on 12/23/2007 4:58:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Honestly, look at the candidates for the 2008 election, almost to a one they're going to increase government spending and reduce free trade in favor of protectionism.


What kind of bologna is that?

Mitt Romney's speech to the Club for Growth was like a warm bath for an economist, and McCain has the balls to go in front of farmers and unions and denounce ethanol subsidies and back free trade.

If you're going to spin propaganda, then at least pay better attention to your subject matter. Unless of course you were speaking of the Democratic candidates, the top three of which all denounce free trade and have massive christmas lists of new federal programs they want to create.


RE: Bush
By Anonymous Freak on 12/22/2007 7:42:28 PM , Rating: 3
I fully agree. What happened to the Republicans being for less government interference? Yet there is this, Oregon's "Death With Dignity" law being challenged by the Republican-controlled congress a few years ago, as well as the Republican president; Republicans fighting state medical marijuana laws, Republicans making a mockery of themselves fighting to take control away from a private individual regarding his rights relating to his wife (Schiavo).

I used to consider myself a Republican, but the "Republican Party" is nothing like what it stood for a couple decades ago.

I can't stand Reagan's economic policies, but HE was better than the current Republicans.


RE: Bush
By Ringold on 12/23/2007 5:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't stand Reagan's economic policies


Heh, I'm sorry, but if that's the case you haven't been a real Republican since at least probably 1933 (Hoovervilles!), if not even the 1860s (Lincoln, America's first dictator) :P


RE: Bush
By camped69 on 12/26/07, Rating: -1
RE: Bush
By rsmech on 12/21/2007 4:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
How could it be a win-win? Don't you think our gas prices could be a little cheaper if there weren't so many different blends for different states? If only the gov't could set standards on this. It's all about the cost. You are welcome to pay as much as you like for something if it's labeled as green, but I don't like it when someone expects me to pay more for their "good" idea.


RE: Bush
By Netscorer on 12/25/2007 2:10:07 AM , Rating: 2
To your information, the gas prices in US are some of the cheapest in the world and this is a big reason why americans are so in love with big cars and trucks. In other words, Americans like to have their cake and eat it too.
So stop whining already - if you can't afford to gas up your car, then either buy a car that will not take as much gas or switch to bicycle.


RE: Bush
By masher2 (blog) on 12/25/2007 2:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "To your information, the gas prices in US are some of the cheapest in the world "

You've confused "Europe" with "the rest of the world".
Venezuleans are paying around 15 cents/gallon currently, Nigerians about 50 cents/gallon. Most Middle Eastern nations pay substantially less than the US, and most (non-island) Asian nations pay slightly less.


RE: Bush
By Hellfire27 on 12/21/2007 4:53:29 PM , Rating: 1
Whats great about this is that if cut C02 emissions completely, the earth's temperature will still continue to rise. Because global warming is a NATURAL PHENOMENON. So this is all kind of pointless.


RE: Bush
By fake01 on 12/21/2007 5:15:54 PM , Rating: 4
Yes its a natural phenomenon, and the Earths temperature will increase whether we cut CO2 emissions or not. The problem with CO2 emissions is that it ACCELERATES global warming from say 100,000 years or more to a quicker few hundred years.

You see we could adapt to global warming if it took 100,000 years or more. But adapting to something in a few hundred years is well, not easily possible. If we cut CO2 emissions down than we can SLOW down the rate of global warming.


RE: Bush
By dllb on 12/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Bush
By Hoser McMoose on 12/21/2007 11:48:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Yeah, and how about that OZONE hole over the antarctic that is going to END ALL LIFE on the earth. Oh, wait, it closed back up didn't it?

Yeah, amazing how when the entire world got together and DRASTICALLY cut ozone-harming emissions the hole in the ozone layer stopped getting bigger and became much smaller.


RE: Bush
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2007 1:54:30 AM , Rating: 4
> "the hole in the ozone layer stopped getting bigger and became much smaller. "

Actually, the largest ozone hole yet found was recorded in 2006, some 17 years after the Montreal Protocol banned CFCs.

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMQBOKKKSE_index_0.html


RE: Bush
By Spuke on 12/21/2007 8:21:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You see we could adapt to global warming if it took 100,000 years or more. But adapting to something in a few hundred years is well, not easily possible.
Can you back this up with some links or something?


RE: Bush
By baseball43v3r on 12/21/2007 11:17:20 PM , Rating: 1
uhhh it kind of seemed like common sense to me...what exactly did you need a link to? the idea that global warming takes 100,000 years or more? or the fact that we as a human race would suck at adapting to it in a 100 year span?


RE: Bush
By Polynikes on 12/22/2007 3:45:03 PM , Rating: 1
Can you show some hard evidence that global warming always takes ~100,000 years or more? I think common sense would say that there's no definite minimum span of years for it to happen.


RE: Bush
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2007 4:58:27 PM , Rating: 1
There have been several recorded instances of sudden, dramatic shifts in the earth's environment over periods of 1-2 centuries. What we're seeing now is not outside the bounds of natural variance.


RE: Bush
By Gul Westfale on 12/22/2007 1:35:27 AM , Rating: 2
wow. arnold schwarzenegger decided to do something useful. a christmas miracle?


RE: Bush
By Shining Arcanine on 12/22/2007 12:02:51 PM , Rating: 3
You are right that his argument makes no sense. In the United States, there is no national level. There is a such thing as a federal government, but it has no authority to take such actions and the authority to do so lies exclusively with the states. What President Bush is doing is an act of socialism, which is unconstitutional.


RE: Bush
By JustTom on 12/24/2007 11:10:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What President Bush is doing is an act of socialism, which is unconstitutional.


For good or ill national emission and mileage standards are arguably a federal power under the commerce clause. States setting individual standards certainly would impact on interstate trade.

Also, I fail to see where such standards would be socialism, Statism certainly but not socialism.


RE: Bush
By Screwballl on 12/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: Bush
By Screwballl on 12/24/2007 1:11:51 PM , Rating: 1
Thank you for voting me down, we can't let facts get in the way of opinions here.

Fact: GWB is the "greenest" president of the past few decades.

Fact: Clinton was one who initiated and signed into law the very requirements that caused engine gasoline usage to skyrocket causing a 20-50% decrease in MPG, all because he signed in a stricter "pollution control" requirement which took effect on model year 2004 US vehicles.


It's not all about GW
By Steve Guilliot on 12/21/2007 7:10:24 PM , Rating: 4
Renewable energy and conserving resources have other benefits. Energy independence ALONE is justification enough. Nevermind environmental impact like air quality.

Personally, I think GW is likely linked to human activity in a big way, but I also acknowledge that it won't change. CO2 emmission is only part of the equation (as inidicated above, even if we dramatically cut GH gases today, almost no benefit would be realized). Meat production involves tremendous amounts of methane, which is more potent than CO2 by wide margin. Sorry, even the most optimistic among us realizes we aren't going vegan. And with the population growing, it will only get worse.

This needs to be treated as a managable problem, not a solvable one. Global warming is not going away, no matter what we do. Accept it. That's not to say we keep the status quo; simply that we should change for other reasons.

As soon as we focus on the benefits to the US from going green, GW aside, debating GW will be academic at best. Especially true if we accept that GW won't reverse anytime soon, and needs to be dealt with in a constructive way.




RE: It's not all about GW
By Spuke on 12/21/2007 8:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This needs to be treated as a managable problem, not a solvable one.
Interesting point of view. Thanks.


RE: It's not all about GW
By dllb on 12/21/2007 8:34:36 PM , Rating: 2
So in your happy little world, the rich countries with a lot of resources should do what? Spend their wealth to cut off buying the resources other countries are lucky enough to have that they can export?

Let's do that! All the resource rich countries can just say "STFU" to the rest of the world! They can all live in squalor with their oil, or their titanium mines, or whatever single valuable resource they have! Let them try to eat that!

I always find it amusing that rich people that don't have to worry about their next meal, or the parched land they live on just want to wrap a blanket around themselves and ignore the rest of the world.

quote:
Renewable energy and conserving resources have other benefits. Energy independence ALONE is justification enough. Nevermind environmental impact like air quality.


RE: It's not all about GW
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2007 1:28:43 AM , Rating: 2
> "So in your happy little world, the rich countries with a lot of resources should do what? "

Unfortunately, you've equated "rich nations" with "those with a lot of resources". Nothing could be further from the truth. Some of the nations most plentiful in natural resources are in Africa, South America, and Asia. Some rich countries like Japan, for instance, however, have almost none to speak of. Even the U.S is far behind many other nations when it comes to natural resources.

Rich nations became so by embracing certain ideals, such as technological progress, free market economics, protection of individual liberties, etc. If a nation doesn't have those ideals, then no amount of aid checks drawn from US taxpayers are going to solve the situation.


RE: It's not all about GW
By littlebitstrouds on 12/26/2007 10:01:03 AM , Rating: 2
Can we give this guy his own website instead of posting articles for him to hi-jack?


RE: It's not all about GW
By Hoser McMoose on 12/22/2007 12:08:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Energy independence ALONE is justification enough. Nevermind environmental impact like air quality.

If those are so important then why isn't this ABOUT energy independence or air quality?

CO2 can come from MANY sources (and especially greenhouse gases in general) can come from MANY sources, not just ones that are foreign. And CO2 is totally non-toxic and not in any meaningful sense of the word "pollution".

There are several situations where greenhouse gases could go up and air pollution would go down. A perfect example of this is catalytic converters on vehicles. These have DRASTICALLY reduced air pollution being emitted from the tailpipes of our cars, but they also reduce engine efficiency. We burn gas cleaner but need to burn more of it so we generate more CO2.

Similarly CO2 sequestration, if taken all on it's own, will decrease efficiencies and therefore increase air pollution.

If you want energy indenpence, strive for energy independence. If you want to reduce air pollution, strive to reduce air pollution. But don't strive to reduce CO2 in the hopes that you MIGHT get these other side benefits.


Pic
By GeeSussFreeK on 12/21/2007 3:06:30 PM , Rating: 3
I must say, I saw that pic and made me laugh hard enough to get the attention of the rest of the office. Way to go!




RE: Pic
By GhandiInstinct on 12/21/2007 3:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
Haha YA! I instantaneously, uncontrollably burst into laughter, this is by far the greatest most appropriate thumbnail in DT history.

KUDOS!

And I got fired too.

Fired by laughter.


RE: Pic
By JonnyDough on 12/21/2007 6:56:29 PM , Rating: 1
On behalf of all those curious I must ask...did you REALLY get fired? Who do you work for? Captain Vontrap? That bastard. When he's not around you should break into song.

"The hills all have eyes, and Vontrap can go to helllll, lalala...!"


RE: Pic
By T4RTER S4UCE on 12/21/2007 7:05:12 PM , Rating: 4
Ya it's good, but is it better than Firefox girl?


Attention administration
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/21/2007 2:23:06 PM , Rating: 5
We're going to play a wonderful game called..."Who is my daddy and what does he do?"




RE: Attention administration
By FITCamaro on 12/21/2007 2:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
Classic!

IT'S NOT A TUMA!


RE: Attention administration
By cochy on 12/21/2007 2:39:32 PM , Rating: 2
That's a sweet caption up there lol


Humans are such a big factor...
By vhx on 12/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Humans are such a big factor...
By jimbojimbo on 12/21/2007 3:16:29 PM , Rating: 1
Why do all these global warming fanatics never look at what keeps us warm in the first place, the freaking sun. The sun's not some lightbulb in the middle of the galaxy that burns at a constant never changing level. If it fluctuates even minutely it can affect the temperatures on our planet as well as the rest of the solar system. Let's see, what's a stronger force, a few billion people or the sun?

While I will have to agree that there is global warming, although not at the levels the alarmists want people to believe, I'm thinking it's not caused by people, like a lot of evidence suggests.


RE: Humans are such a big factor...
By jbartabas on 12/21/2007 3:31:35 PM , Rating: 3
Please don't tell me that you got a phD in physics with this model of all things of yours :_(

And of course, the average temperature difference on the various planets is only driven by their distance to the Sun (certainly not by the composition of the respective atmospheres) ... The temperature on the Earth is obviously not affected by the clouds cover or the aerosols ... it depends only on the latitude with no regional pattern because obviously it depends only on the Sun's distance and input, and the incidence angle of the radiation ... Gosh, how simple are climate sciences in fact!


RE: Humans are such a big factor...
By dllb on 12/21/07, Rating: 0
By Hoser McMoose on 12/21/2007 11:59:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why do all these global warming fanatics never look at what keeps us warm in the first place, the freaking sun.

Umm right, so like in the IPCC 4th report, Chapter 2, Section 2.7.1 "Solar Variability" doesn't exist?

I'm not in a position to say whether the IPCC report is right or wrong (though it's certainly a LOT better backed in scientific basis than any post I've seen from ANYONE on this forum, for or against anthropogenic global warming), but to say that the effects of the sun are being ignored by those discussion global warming is flat out wrong.


By BladeVenom on 12/21/2007 4:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
Earth first! We can strip mine the other planets latter.


Um, yeeeah
By dllb on 12/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Um, yeeeah
By Spuke on 12/21/2007 8:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If California want's out of the united states just have the guts to do it.
The politicians would LOVE that but the voters feel differently.


RE: Um, yeeeah
By daniyarm on 12/21/2007 9:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
If California left US they could pay for all their natural disasters on their own. They get back only about a quarter of the money they give to federal goverment. California by itself has the 6th largest budget in the world, just think of their population and their taxes. So it would be the feds crying for California money, not the other way around.


RE: Um, yeeeah
By JustTom on 12/24/2007 2:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
get back only about a quarter of the money they give to federal goverment.

Wrong, in FY 2004 California received 83 cents per dollar sent to Washington. If there was a major natural disaster it would probably have a net positive tax situation for several years.

quote:
California by itself has the 6th largest budget in the world, just think of their population and their taxes.


Also wrong, California does not have the 6th largest budget in the world, a cursory look through the CIA factbook found these nations with bigger budgets:

California $145 Billion
Russia $157.4 billion
Brazil $219.9 billion
Australia $257.3 billion
Spain $473.6 billion
China $515.8 billion
Italy $928.2 billion
UK $1.071 trillion
Germany $1.331 trillion
Japan $1.586 trillion
United States $2.655 trillion


It's a big messy issue imo...
By The0ne on 12/21/2007 6:06:28 PM , Rating: 2
I don't like having slavery place back in by states that think they need it :P nor do I like the plan the government has sign. I don't like having to make excuses for GM and others that CAN'T produce cleaner vehicles and argue against others that can and will. If others can do it GM should step up and do it, unless they really want to stick with gas guzzling vehicles. In any case, you can't be complaining about others, foreign or not, taking over "American" jobs when the "American" companies doesn't seem to want to help anyone but themselves.

Having said that I don't want to see a recession of any sort, I was part of the one years back and hard a hard time making a living. But we'll survive, companies will survive. But if there's no change there's no progress. Things has to change whether you see it or not. We shouldn't continue to spew dangerous chemicals and what have you into the environment and not expect it to survive. There are many more ppl now than before and Earth is not unlimited in space.

In the end I like Arnold and I like what he's doing so Go Arnold! :D




RE: It's a big messy issue imo...
By dllb on 12/21/2007 8:28:36 PM , Rating: 3
Yeeeah, GM held a gun to all those people's heads that buy "gas guzzlers". Didn't Aaahnold make a movie about that? Where GM held a gun to his head and MADE him buy a Hummer?

quote:
I don't like having slavery place back in by states that think they need it :P nor do I like the plan the government has sign. I don't like having to make excuses for GM and others that CAN'T produce cleaner vehicles and argue against others that can and will. If others can do it GM should step up and do it, unless they really want to stick with gas guzzling vehicles. In any case, you can't be complaining about others, foreign or not, taking over "American" jobs when the "American" companies doesn't seem to want to help anyone but themselves.


whining is bad
By rika13 on 12/24/2007 8:40:49 AM , Rating: 2
enough whining about bush and republicans and big government and such, this is supposed to be intelligent debate

firstly, most of the states that are pissed about this are ran by democrats, aka the OTHER party

second, california never had a constitutional right to make ANY emissions laws, they were given a waiver from the EPA; the only legal right a state has is to perform emissions testing; this is blatantly interstate commerce as the vehicles are made in various states (i live near diamond star, all mitsu eclipses sold world-wide are made here) but sold nationwide

third, california had a "crusher law" that stated that an older vehicle can be sold to be crushed so power and oil companies could pollute the air more (i'm not sure if this law is still on the books); it was well-known that most of the vehicles sold were far from operational, in fact, most were towed a block or two from the junkyard, the owner would slap his normal car's plates on, then drive it that last block




RE: whining is bad
By Netscorer on 12/25/2007 2:41:07 AM , Rating: 1
You are missing the point of the debate. To call someone whiners just because they do not agree with the national program that was paid for by Big 3 and Oil Corporations and backed by the biggest pro-oil president in the history of US is really not fair.
We all know who writes the laws in Washington. Californinans are standing up to this because they do not want to become the victimes at someone's expense. And I applaud them. They know they have the power as the most populous and richest state in US and they use this power as they should. The effects of Global warning and rising sea levels for California would be devastating, unlike Texas and Michigan that have little to no shoreline.


RE: whining is bad
By masher2 (blog) on 12/25/2007 1:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
> "The effects of Global warning and rising sea levels for California would be devastating"

The IPCC is predicting a 23cm rise in sea level over the next century. California would suffer from that as much as any other state would...to wit, not at all.


Best thumbnail pic ever!
By retrospooty on 12/21/2007 2:25:43 PM , Rating: 4
After a lot of really funny pics, this one takes it. LOL




CO2 such a hot topic
By littlebitstrouds on 12/21/2007 2:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
I guess it is science, but it seems CO2 and/or global warming is a hot topic in here at DT recently. I look forward to Masher putting in his two cents, and his roadies to follow, but do we really need this many articles about it? I mean, abortion deals with surgery (science kinda), but we steer clear of that topic since it's so hot, can we add this one to the list?

On the article though. Can we trade California for Canada? It seems they agree with the US government more than California does anymore, and lord knows Arnold wants to be President of something, since he can never be President of the US. We lose a good warm climate state, but hey, if global warming is right, we'll turn Canada into a beach community yet.




RE: CO2 such a hot topic
By cochy on 12/21/2007 4:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
No sorry we don't want to be traded for = )


RE: CO2 such a hot topic
By mdogs444 on 12/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: CO2 such a hot topic
By Spuke on 12/21/2007 8:27:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Um, why? Its like if someone asks if you would rather have them poop or pee on you. Both of them are extremely unwanted events...
That there is funny, I don't care who you are!


Do I smell an election run in all this visibility?
By kd4yum on 12/21/2007 11:04:37 PM , Rating: 1
ok. 1)What is the Democratic nomination status at this point? Is there room for another runner? 2)Academy Award, Nobel Prize, even a small voice to nominate Gore! ok. Maybe there's nothing really there, and maybe it is too late for such speculation, but...
.




By BruceLeet on 12/23/2007 11:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
If you're talking about Arnold running for Pres. then no he can't, he was not born on American soil therefor he cannot become President, even if he makes more sense than the current one :) No foreign born American citizen can become President


President Clueless
By pjs on 12/22/2007 6:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
"Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy?"

If we had a REAL and EFFECTIVE national strategy then the President would have a point. We don't and he hasn't a clue. As a Californian, I'm proud that our Governor is taking a stand. I hope other states will join in this suit on California's side. I really don't want to get started on our failure of a President.

Paul




ALL EPA agencies should resign
By nofumble62 on 12/23/2007 12:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
If the EPA is sided with the industry, they have no credibility and authority to require states to meet air quality standard from now on. I think all the EPA employees should turn in their badges.




Interesting...
By Digimonkey on 12/24/2007 9:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
I think if California wants to expedite their decreasing dependence on foreign oil, that they should be allowed to. I know alot of the debate here is about Ford, and GM not being able to complete this task by 2016, but I don't think this is a big deal.

I have a Ford car, who's engine was mostly made in Japan and who's power stirring came from Germany. (Great car btw) If the domestic automobile companies can't meet this deadline, then another car company can. Alot of Toyota/Honda parts are made here in the US. If a Ford/GM plant closes down, a Toyota or Honda plant will open up, as I doubt our consumerist ways will change.




Couldn't Arnie just...
By JonnyDough on 12/21/2007 6:36:59 PM , Rating: 1
Couldn't Arnie just terminate Bush AND Global Warming? I mean come on...he's "Tha Govnah!"




States' rights
By Polynikes on 12/22/2007 3:53:25 PM , Rating: 1
I know I'll get modded into the ground for this but...

I doubt anyone who's arguing that states rights should take precedence in this instance also think Lincoln was wrong in preventing the South from seceding.

States' rights died with the Confederates. And they're never coming back, now that even the "conservatives" are all about big government.




No offense Arnie
By FITCamaro on 12/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: No offense Arnie
By Orbs on 12/21/2007 2:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And the latest news is that over 400 scientists, many who are members of the UN IPCC, have voiced objections to the report saying mankind is the cause of global warming.


While there may have been objections, most of what I've heard/read is that by and large (there may be a coule of exceptions) scientists continue to believe mankind is the most significant factor to increased greenhouse gas levels and global warming.

There may be objections or commentary on the report but that doesn't mean that the scientific community disagrees with the conclusion. What made the report so powerful (and therefore impossible for the Federal Government to ignore) is that so many respected scientists agreed on what it meant.


RE: No offense Arnie
RE: No offense Arnie
By ZJammon on 12/21/2007 2:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
If you read through the report the scientists are trying to establish the fact that it is an unproven Theory that global warming is caused by man and that Gore and the IPCC are attempting tout the theory by using scare tactics. Also, they point out that merely being skeptical of man induced global warming can bring retribution or get their funding cut.

The other major issue deals with the IPCC not following a good peer review process and in most cases ignoring the recommendations from their fellow experts/scientists.

I'm all for discovering the cause of the recent increase in temperature, however I am against politicizing science and their obvious manipulation of data to fit their computer models.
http://www.dailytech.com/Academic+Misconduct+Alleg...
http://www.dailytech.com/Noted+Sea+Level+Expert+Ac...


RE: No offense Arnie
By creathir on 12/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: No offense Arnie
By creathir on 12/21/2007 3:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
One of my own pet pieves, and I commited it... *tisk tisk*

accept => except

- Creathir


RE: No offense Arnie
By zombiexl on 12/21/2007 6:11:42 PM , Rating: 2
While were talking about what bothers us.... My biggest pet pieve is the term pet pieve.


RE: No offense Arnie
By morton on 12/22/2007 4:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
ah haa haa haa - really? i think you'll find it's "peeve"


RE: No offense Arnie
By cochy on 12/21/2007 4:08:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. We can hardly predict the weather tomorrow. Honestly. Who are these people kidding.

They think computer models are the next closest thing to talking with God. News flash: Computer models are as accurate as your current dataset. Which as you pointed out is quite limited.


RE: No offense Arnie
By jbartabas on 12/21/2007 7:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yup. We can hardly predict the weather tomorrow. Honestly. Who are these people kidding.


One can't predict the weather in one week from now, but anybody can predict that it is extremely likely that, for example, in Berlin the month of June 2008 (~6 months from now) be warmer on average than the month of January (6 month later).

That illustrates the difference between short term prediction of short scale chaotic phenomenon like the local weather, and the climate sciences which address large scale long term processes.


RE: No offense Arnie
By cochy on 12/21/2007 9:57:08 PM , Rating: 2
heheh sorry that indicates that difference between Winter and Summer. I think they I had a pretty good understanding of how the seasons works a couple thousand years ago.

But I see where you are trying to say. Unsure if I agree. Perhaps another example?


RE: No offense Arnie
By Hoser McMoose on 12/22/2007 12:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I see where you are trying to say. Unsure if I agree. Perhaps another example?

If you'll accept an economic analogy, it's extremely difficult to predict whether the stock market will be up or down next Thursday, however it's somewhat easier to predict whether it will trend upwards for the next 6 months trend flat, or trend downwards.

You aren't always going to be right either way, but often long-term trends are easier to predict then the day-to-day stuff.


RE: No offense Arnie
By jbartabas on 12/21/2007 3:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
Give a freaking break to the IPCC and Al Gore .... the same position has been officially endorsed by all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries, by the American Geophysical Union (more than 30,000 members worldwide whose specialty is ... guess what!?), by the American Meteorological Society etc...

So continue to cherry-pick the dissident scientists in M.Asher articles, or get real and start to read true information sources.


RE: No offense Arnie
By mdogs444 on 12/21/2007 3:54:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Give a freaking break to the IPCC and Al Gore

I dont think so. They make dooms day hype predictions and try to strike fear into every person globally, then try to force everyone in the world to pay to fix something that is not even proven without a doubt, and then tell the US to sacrifice their economy for the sake of global climate?

Wake up man. You don't get to make those statements and then be given a break.


RE: No offense Arnie
By jbartabas on 12/21/2007 4:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough, you can rant as much as you want after all ... I do not really care and neither do they (the IPCC, maybe Al Gore does though :-D), and that is definitely a liberty of yours ;-) .

But what I meant is: if you really think that AGW is something cooked by a few politicians and a politicized entity (the IPCC), but that there no or little science behind this, you do not live in the real world.

As a physicist who has spent the last 8 years in geosciences and climate sciences lab, and attended many of the related specialized conferences, but not specialized in climate modeling myself, I would find it very 'complex' to challenge the science about GW. So when I read all the high-school level physics thrown on forums like this one by people so certain that the mainstream of scientists are wrong, incompetent, dishonest or all of the above, I seriously wonder about their objectivity ...

But here's the bottom line: if you really think that there is not a huge scientific community and a large amount of actual good science in favor of AGW, and that AGW exist only in the manipulation of data by a bunch of guys who are only politically or financially motivated, you have reached an impressive state of denial. (and that is totally independent to the fact that lots of very competent experts could actually end up being wrong one day... but counting on that is really betting against the odds and is clearly not motivated by an objective look at the science).

Regards ...


RE: No offense Arnie
By cochy on 12/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: No offense Arnie
By jbartabas on 12/21/2007 5:26:14 PM , Rating: 2
Great comment, very strong impact, as always by Christy ... but personal opinion like you could quote from thousands of scientists as intelligent and knowledgeable as him ... Tomorrow you'll post one from Lindzen, and then from Landsea ... It's unbelievable how a dozen of scientists became real pop-stars, never read so many interviews from a single scientist ... I'm sure even Carl Sagan would be jealous! After that, we'll be told that the 'skeptics' can't have their voice heard ...

I have a few small issues with his comment thought, like for example, I am not sure that a carbonless economy is really the point here (except maybe for some tree huger extremist who think that humanity is a disaster), or I misunderstand the word and it actually means "carbon less". We are really talking about increased efficiency and diversification of source of energy here, obviously for a rather long term before a 'carbonless' economy can be thought of ...


RE: No offense Arnie
By cochy on 12/21/2007 4:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't they predict an ice age back in the 70s?

It's all politics/power/money

C'mon the IPCC is a UN project. Geez should be clear as day.


RE: No offense Arnie
By ElFenix on 12/31/2007 12:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
yes, and then we stopped pumping sulfur into the atmosphere. sulfur blocks sunlight and reflects it back into space.


RE: No offense Arnie
By rsmech on 12/21/2007 4:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
Please enlighten me as to what science you are referring to. Most of the GW reports I have seen have had a report countering it or disproving it. Please show me some sources that are undisputed. Throw enough excuses for GW at the wall & sooner or later something may stick. Thats great science.


RE: No offense Arnie
By jbartabas on 12/21/2007 4:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
The IPCC report is no new science, it is a review and report of existing science, which was originally published in specialized peer-reviewed literature. As such, you will find thousands of references to these articles in the IPCC reports for every aspect of the issue (and yes, even on the solar variability, urban heat islands, etc ...). That is the science I refer to. But I presume you know all of that because you have already spend a few minutes to take a look at the IPCC reports ...

As for the endorsement I was talking about, take a look at:
Joint National Academies of science 2007
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news-1/joint-science-aca...
Joint National Academies of science 2005
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=2074...
National Research Council (US)
http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/
American Geophysical Union:
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_p...

Of course these endorsement did not came out because the members of these institutions liked the cover page of the IPCC reports ...

And there are no "undisputed sources" in this world. If you look for certainty, you'll surely not find it in science. The only certainty there is here, is that AGW is by no means a concept invented by the UN or any other 'evil' politician (or politic institution), who tries to scare the 'good' people (even if there is no doubt that now some politicians will surf the wave without any conviction)...


RE: No offense Arnie
By dllb on 12/21/2007 9:11:01 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, let's look at who made up just one of those groups.

How about the Joint Nationa Academies of Science 2007?

Professor Eduardo Krieger Brazilian physician, physiologist

Professor Patricia Demers, a professor of English and Film Studies

Professor Lamberto Maffei, Degree in Medicine cum Laude

Professor Joachim Schellnhuber He is trained as a mathematician and physicist

Etc etc etc. All "scientists" trained in anything BUT climate science.

Kind of like asking your 8 year old for stock tips isn't it?


RE: No offense Arnie
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2007 1:16:58 AM , Rating: 1
> "AGW is by no means a concept invented by the UN "

It depends on how you define "AGW". If you define it simply as "man may be having some measurable impact on the environment", then yes, you're correct. If you define it as mass media does, as "man is causing catastrophic climate change", then yes it's a concept pretty much invented for political purposes.


RE: No offense Arnie
By ezacharyk on 12/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: No offense Arnie
By jbartabas on 12/21/2007 7:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
The individual scientists voice whatever they want. There are many places where they can express their opinion or their disagreement, starting from the AGU meetings and the AGU publications. Some of them have done so (have you ever read an AGU publication or even been to one meeting?).

However I don't see your point. Why does the fact that some of the members of the AGU have expressed their disagreement with the official statement of the organization would make the statement totally irrelevant? Why should the voice of these few be louder than those of the others who do agree? How does it change anything to the fact that the AGU, the AMS, the national academies of science of many countries, all have nothing to do with the UN, and even less with Al Gore?

Please explain.


RE: No offense Arnie
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2007 1:42:54 AM , Rating: 1
> "endorsed by...the American Geophysical Union (more than 30,000 members worldwide...)"

And you believe they all voted on it? Point in fact, the AGU's (more correctly, the AIP, of which the AGU is part) positition statement was voted on a by a 42-member board in 2003. And what exactly did that position state? That man's influence on the climate was a "concern", and more research is needed to identify that concern.

Of course, by the state of climate science in 2003, the situation did indeed look more grim than it does today. At the time, we didn't have the wealth of paleoclimatic data we do today, which clearly demonstrates the current rate of warming is within the bounds of past variability. In 2003, we also believed that past CO2 increases correlated well with temperature rise. We didn't have the resolution to see that those temperature rises predated the CO2 increase by several centuries.

Finally, in 2003 our calculations of the effects of solar insolation changes suggested strongly that the sun could not be the root cause of warming. However at the time, we considerably underrated both the latency of the climatic system, as well as solar feedback effects such as terrestial albedo changes due to magnetosphere effects.


RE: No offense Arnie
By jbartabas on 12/23/2007 1:15:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In 2003, we also believed that past CO2 increases correlated well with temperature rise. We didn't have the resolution to see that those temperature rises predated the CO2 increase by several centuries. M. Asher


This statement is incorrect. I think you somehow misinterpreted the paper you wrote about a while ago... Such predated increases in T were known since at least 1999, and discussed already in the 2001 IPCC report. Did you ever read any of their reports? That 'misconception' you seem to have about what the IPCC and the pro-AGW scientists think about the CO2/T correlation, very usual in the skeptics community, and your reported story on the calibration of altimeters in the scope of sea-level rise measurements, let me think you never really bothered to check the info at the 'source' (and no need to try to contact a 'pro AGW' scientist for that, all the info is publicly accessible ;-) ). Let's see what the IPCC (let alone the AGU) has to say about it in 2001:

quote:
From a detailed study of the last three glacial terminations in the Vostok ice core, Fischer et al. (1999) conclude that CO2 increases started 600 ± 400 years after the Antarctic warming. IPCC 2001


As for the 'uncertainty' that existed on the exact chronology, you are right that it has existed to some extent:
quote:
However, considering the large uncertainty in the ages of the CO2 and ice (1,000 years or more if we consider the ice accumulation rate uncertainty), Petit et al. (1999) felt it premature to ascertain the sign of the phase relationship between CO2 and Antarctic temperature at the initiation of the terminations.


... but by no way the IPCC or the science community at large (??) thought that T would have never risen before the CO2. And as a side note, you would be ill-advised to considered that latests estimates (on which you wrote) are the final word to the story. The bottom line is that the 'fact' that the IPCC and the pro-AGW scientists think that past warmings were triggered by an increases in CO2, and that it is the basis for the current concerns, is just a usual misconception of some of the mass media (it is not true since at least 1999, and I am not sure there was anything like that before). Finally, the IPCC (in 2001) finish the paragraph by:

quote:
In any event, CO2 changes parallel Antarctic temperature changes during deglaciations (Sowers and Bender, 1995; Blunier et al., 1997; Petit et al., 1999). This is consistent with a significant contribution of these greenhouse gases to the glacial-interglacial changes by amplifying the initial orbital forcing (Petit et al., 1999).


So the science was already for a while: past warmings were initiated by orbital forcing (characterized by the Milankovitch cycles) and amplified by positive feedbacks due to GHG. It is certainly not a 'scoop' from post-2003 ...


RE: No offense Arnie
By masher2 (blog) on 12/25/2007 7:23:46 PM , Rating: 2
> "Fischer et al. (1999) conclude that CO2 increases started 600 ± 400 years after the Antarctic warming. IPCC 2001 "

Way to go, selective quoting! Let's complete the paragraph, shall we?
quote:
However, considering the large uncertainty in the ages of the CO2 and ice (1,000 years or more if we consider the ice accumulation rate uncertainty), Petit et al. (1999) felt it premature to ascertain the sign of the phase relationship between CO2 and Antarctic temperature at the initiation of the terminations. In any event, CO2 changes parallel Antarctic temperature changes during deglaciations (Sowers and Bender, 1995; Blunier et al., 1997; Petit et al., 1999).
As I said, the state of the science in 2001 was CO2 rise was seen to be either an initiating event in declaciation events, or at the very least, a contributory forcing factor very early thereafter.

Today, though, recent paleoclimatic data has ruled out the first possibility utterly, and shown that, even if CO2 is a contributory amplifier, the latency is too high for it to be nearly as powerful as once thought.

The last few years especially have seen a wealth of new research limiting CO2's climatic effects, which explains why the Belgium Royal Meteorological Institute recently issued a position paper noting CO2's effects had been grossly overstated":

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8588

> "a side note, you would be ill-advised to considered that latests estimates (on which you wrote) are the final word to the story"

That's excellent advice! But unfortunately, its not the skeptics that are claiming the "final word" on "settled science". The fact remains that climate research is one of the fastest moving fields in all science at present. Every year sees major advances, and new papers rapidly invalidating the results of the old. Nothing is settled in climatology today. Anyone who claims otherwise is selling snake oil.


RE: No offense Arnie
By jbartabas on 12/27/2007 1:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Way to go, selective quoting! Let's complete the paragraph, shall we?


You have some nerve, or you can't read ... the paragraph was quoted in its entirety, please don't inverse the roles here.


RE: No offense Arnie
By jbartabas on 12/23/2007 1:37:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And you believe they all voted on it? Point in fact, the AGU's (more correctly, the AIP, of which the AGU is part) positition statement was voted on a by a 42-member board in 2003.


The AGU elected council adopted the statement. Of course on could be cynical and say that elected presidents don't necessarily always represent the opinion of the majority of their populatio ;-) But ae you suggesting that the council would have adopted a statement on such a hot topic that most of the concerned scientists would not agree on? On a more pragmatic angle, do you know there is absolutely no strong reason for a scientist to be a member of the AGU and pay his annual fee? No doubt that some individual scientists disagreed with the statement (among that may members, the contrary would have been surprising), and some clearly voiced their concerns, but that is not a reason good enough to think that the statement was representative in no way of the opinion of many of the members (actually, the statement is supposed to be based on review of the available literature, not necessarily the opinion of anybody, but I am sure that you don't believe that such a sane system can exist :-) ).

quote:
And what exactly did that position state? That man's influence on the climate was a "concern", and more research is needed to identify that concern.


I won't comment on what I think is a downplaying of the statement, which is necessarily moderate as the IPCC actually is. I'll let people decide for themselves:
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_p...


RE: No offense Arnie
By tdawg on 12/21/2007 3:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless if it's ever proven that man is the cause of global warming, isn't it a noble pursuit for man to behave as if it is and try to improve on how we live and how we coexist with nature? If I lived in Los Angeles I think the smog alone would be something I'd hope myself and others would feel compelled to eliminate.

Conservation of our natural resources and consideration of our fellow man are noble ideals. Do we really need "proof" before we act? It's much easier to be proactive than reactive.

It's funny to me that on this issue it's Liberals that wish to Conserve and Conservatives that wish to consume.


RE: No offense Arnie
By mdogs444 on 12/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: No offense Arnie
By tdawg on 12/21/2007 4:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you want over 300 million Americans, let alone the rest of the globe, to change their lifestyles so that it suits you or matches your beliefs, or meets what you deem as "nobility"? What about those that say they are perfectly happy in life right now and see no reason to change. Do they have the right to not let you pursue your personal "nobility" with nature goals?


Many other countries across the globe are changing the way they think and doing what they can to help without drastic changes to the lives of their citizens. Improving fuel mileage and developing alternative energy sources decreases our dependence on foreign oil, improves our economy because we are doing the manufacturing and production ourselves and decreases trade deficits. All good things for America, right?

quote:
Well, when you are going effect the entire global economy, countless jobs in power plants, auto industry, coal mining, etc....then YES - you had better damn well have PROOF WITHOUT A REASONABLE DOUBT why you are going to change it.


Economic theory is just as strong as environmental theory, so don't spout off that this is the butterfly flapping it's wings and the US and Global economies are going to crash to the point we are using puka shells as currency. That's a scare tactic in reverse! Look at Flint, Michigan and the current US housing market, for example. These economies crashed due to what? Changes in people's mindsets or consumer needs, possibly?

quote:
Its really not funny at all. And the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" have nothing to do with conserving resources. "Conservatives" are named this way because they believe in being "fiscally conservative" - not wasting money for no reason ..... like spending trillions of dollars fighting a war on global warming that probably does not even exist and has no proof of being a man made problem if it does exist.


Or spending trillions on a war in Iraq with no proof that there was a legitimate problem and no plan to actually succeed. While it takes "PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT" to try to change the way we view our impact on the environment, all it takes are a couple of aluminum tubes and some shady intelligence to justify going to war! You're speaking in contradictions, mdoggs.


RE: No offense Arnie
By mdogs444 on 12/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: No offense Arnie
By rsmech on 12/21/2007 4:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad you keep listening & reading from the same sources. You may find that if you look elsewhere some of these reports, news stories, or even movies you have seen have been shown to have errors or oversites. I'm not going to convince you that GW in or is not real but if your sources are false you won't see them admitting it so you keep believing the same thing. This is in response to the fact that the scientific community doesn't agree with it also. Science is not consensus. If it were the wold would still be flat.


RE: No offense Arnie
By xxsk8er101xx on 12/22/2007 9:43:54 AM , Rating: 2
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newst...

read educate yourself.

Climate Change: A Senate minority report lists 400 reputable scientists who think the only melting ice we should really fear was in the cocktail glasses of attendees at the recent global warming conference in Bali.


RE: No offense Arnie
By jbartabas on 12/21/2007 2:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But didn't you drive a H1 Hummer until a few years ago?


So what? Was he supposed to known before the scientists that GW was likely related to human activities?


RE: No offense Arnie
By dllb on 12/21/2007 9:44:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So what? Was he supposed to known before the scientists that GW was likely related to human activities?


We've known since the 70's that 18 percent of our oil imports come from OPEC. What's your excuse for Arnie now?


RE: No offense Arnie
By Some1ne on 12/21/2007 3:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But didn't you drive a H1 Hummer until a few years ago?


So your point is what, exactly? Because he acted in an irresponsible way in the past, it's invalid for him to be trying to do the responsible thing today? That doesn't make sense.

quote:
And the latest news is that over 400 scientists, many who are members of the UN IPCC, have voiced objections to the report saying mankind is the cause of global warming.


Partially correct. They voiced objections to some of its methods, not its overall conclusion (and 400 scientists is hardly a large number considering the global exposure the report has received...a far greater number has voiced no objections at all). Among the scientific community, there remains virtually no doubt that climate change is indeed a real issue, and that human beings are contributing to it, if not the principle cause of it.

quote:
And nearly a 45mpg standard would require everyone to either drive a hybrid or a tiny 4 cylinder diesel. Sorry but it ain't gonna happen.


Bullshit. The legislation allows close to a decade before that standard needs to be reached. There's no reason why technology can't be developed to meet the requirements in a reasonable way in that timeframe. The only reason it hasn't happened already is that there's been no incentive for automakers to improve their fuel economy in any meaningful way, from either an economic or legal standpoint. I think that it's about time that was changed.

quote:
California just needs to shut up.


No, not quite. Certain other individuals do, though.


RE: No offense Arnie
By FITCamaro on 12/21/2007 3:22:08 PM , Rating: 1
First point. I'll give you that.

Second point. No many are saying that new data shows it's incorrect, the warming thats already happened is likely the bulk of it, and that even double the CO2 isn't going to cause the catastrophe people like Gore are trying to scare people with.

Third. Free market. If people want more fuel efficient cars, they'll buy them. The majority of people have shown that MPG is not their primary concern. If I want to drive a 400hp V8 I should be able to. The government shouldn't essentially make the car illegal because it existing causes the automaker to fail mileage requirements.

Four. You're right. Gore could use some staples across his mouth. California is not special. This lawsuit is nothing but a waste of everyone's time. The money and time it will take could be far better spent solving real issues. In California those include things like recent forest fire recovery efforts and improving their pathetic power grid.


RE: No offense Arnie
By Some1ne on 12/21/2007 4:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The majority of people have shown that MPG is not their primary concern.


That's been starting to change as the price of gas keeps getting higher and higher.

quote:
If I want to drive a 400hp V8 I should be able to.


As far as I understand it, you still could. Both the federal legislation and the California legislation stipulate requirements for the "fleet average" MPG. That means that automakers can still produce gas-guzzling vehicles if they want, so long as they balance it out with vehicles that exceed the target average and/or through a pricing structure that encourages more people to buy the fuel efficient model than the muscle-car model.

So you can still drive your 400hp V8 if you want, you just may have to pay a bit of a premium in order to do so. That seems fair, as people who would rather drive a powerful but inefficient car are still free to do so, and the extra money they pay for the privilege can go to offset the damage caused by the extra pollution that results.


RE: No offense Arnie
By mdogs444 on 12/21/2007 4:15:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's been starting to change as the price of gas keeps getting higher and higher.

Actually, it can be argued that the price of gasoline is not making people change what types of cars they drive. Its the stagnant wages, increases in car insurance prices, and increase in housing costs that are leaving a less and less left at the end of the month for a car payment.

However, please note that by increasing the efficiency of the automobile that runs on gasoline is not going to make it cheaper to drive. Do to a lower demand of fuel, a standard supply/demand chart proves that the price of fuel will increase.

quote:
That means that automakers can still produce gas-guzzling vehicles if they want, so long as they balance it out with vehicles that exceed the target average and/or through a pricing structure that encourages more people to buy the fuel efficient model than the muscle-car model.

Mostly true. They will be much more expensive because they will not produce nearly as many in order to offset the fleet average. Ford, Chrysler, and GM will not stop building trucks as they are the largest part of their business. So the other end of the spectrum - the high priced sports car that sells low numbers will be first to go.

quote:
That seems fair, as people who would rather drive a powerful but inefficient car are still free to do so, and the extra money they pay for the privilege can go to offset the damage caused by the extra pollution that results.

First, I would advise you to choose your words more wisely. Since when is it a "privelage" for me to spend extra money on a material item? Its not a privelage, its a right. I work for it, I am free to spend it however I want.

Secondly - lets not start this whole "offset the extra pollution" shit. CO2 is not a proven "pollutant". If you want to say for "lower emmissions", then ok....but since there is an emmissions standard as it is, and the cars pass, there is no judgement of "who pollutes more". I can buy 5 cars and leave them running in my driveway all day long if i freakin want to.


RE: No offense Arnie
By xxsk8er101xx on 12/22/2007 9:53:25 AM , Rating: 1
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution.

just the fact that 400 scientists are risking their jobs and their life to speak out about this scam is amazing .

How dare you dumb this down as "only 400 scientists" you clearly have no idea what is going on.


RE: No offense Arnie
By AntiM on 12/21/2007 3:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
Whether or not CO2 emissions are causing global warming or not is irrelevant. Having more energy efficient vehicles that pollute less and reduce our reliance on foreign oil are other benefits. High oil prices suit the Bushes just fine since they are making gobs of money off them. Bush has no intention of doing anything that could lower the price of oil. Global warming is the least of his worries.
If individual states can exceed the federal guidelines, I don't see how that can harm the federal government.


RE: No offense Arnie
By Azzr34l on 12/21/2007 4:49:46 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. The entire global warming thing is still under debate, but Middle Eastern oil dependence and pollution are not debatable - both are direct effects of petroleum usage - whether it's in your car, truck, or ag equipment.

Those of you that do not live in CA are the ones that need to STFU - you don't have to deal with the poor air quality that so many Californians have to deal with. When your kids schools don't let them go outside for recess or play after school sports and there's a 50% childhood asthma rate in central California and YOU had to deal with it, you'd probably change your condescending, apathetic tune.

Anyone that thinks we have soldiers dying everyday in Iraq because we're such a nice country and want to spread freedom and democracy need to remove your collective heads from the sand. We're there for one reason: National Security. We REQUIRE petroleum to survive - without it our society would crumble. Reduce the need for said fossil fuels and we can get the F*** out of the Middle East.

I applaud California for having the balls and fortitude to call GW and his big business cronie backers to task.


RE: No offense Arnie
By mdogs444 on 12/21/2007 5:23:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but Middle Eastern oil dependence and pollution are not debatable - both are direct effects of petroleum usage - whether it's in your car, truck, or ag equipment.

Actually, thats not true. Dependance on oil is an obvious fact - but that could be offset by the environmentalist stepping aside and letting the US search for oil on its own land. CO2 is not a proven pollutant, in fact, most scientists think otherwise.

quote:
We're there for one reason: National Security. We REQUIRE petroleum to survive - without it our society would crumble. Reduce the need for said fossil fuels and we can get the F*** out of the Middle East.

I hope you realize National Security and the requirement of oil are two different things. We haven't stolen any oil, and we continue to purchase it from the same places we did prior to the war. Its not the rest of the US's fault that California has such a high population and its people have to deal with the downside of that.

Also, even if we werent dependant upon oil, it would have no effect on Iraq. You need new sources of information outside of the Drive-By media.


RE: No offense Arnie
By Azzr34l on 12/21/2007 6:17:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, thats not true. Dependance on oil is an obvious fact - but that could be offset by the environmentalist stepping aside and letting the US search for oil on its own land. CO2 is not a proven pollutant, in fact, most scientists think otherwise.


Hydrocarbons and CO2 are two byproducts of petroleum based internal combustion engines. Last I checked, both are widely accepted as pollutants. So you think that digging up more oil is the answer instead of making our current method of delivery and usage more efficient? Thank God you're not my congressman.

quote:
I hope you realize National Security and the requirement of oil are two different things. We haven't stolen any oil, and we continue to purchase it from the same places we did prior to the war.


What would happen if the US suddenly lost 30-40% of its oil supply? There would be a national security issue called market destabilization, which would most definitely generate financial unrest, and we all know where that goes. National security is not just about keeping evil doers from doing evil.

quote:
Its not the rest of the US's fault that California has such a high population and its people have to deal with the downside of that.


So less populous states should ignore the need to become more self-sufficient/efficient simply because they have fewer consumers? Wow, talk about forward thinking...


RE: No offense Arnie
By dllb on 12/21/2007 9:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
You are kidding right? You SERIOUSLY don't believe Co2, that which comes OUT of your mouth, that EVERY PLANT on the planet NEEDS is a pollutant? What school did you graduate from? I want to make sure my kids never go there.

quote:
Hydrocarbons and CO2 are two byproducts of petroleum based internal combustion engines. Last I checked, both are widely accepted as pollutants. So you think that digging up more oil is the answer instead of making our current method of delivery and usage more efficient? Thank God you're not my congressman.


RE: No offense Arnie
By Anonymous Freak on 12/22/2007 7:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
It's tricky. CO2 isn't a "pollutant" in the conventional sense. CO2 is not something that will directly cause environmental damage the way most people think of as a pollutant "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose." or "Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air, soil, or water."

CO2 *IS* a "greenhouse gas". For good or for bad. The current state of the atmosphere has it that adding more greenhouse gasses are causing BAD things, not good things.

Yes, if every single source of CO2 were stopped instantly, plants would die. However, the trick is that we are introducing more CO2 into the atmosphere by our technological actions than the ecosystem can process. We have disturbed the natural balance of CO2 in the atmosphere. (Which, for eons, has stood at about 0.038%.) Nature has evolved such that this "steady state" of CO2 can be processed and removed from the atmosphere by natural processes to hold the level steady. This prevents it (as a greenhouse gas,) from exerting too much temperature influence.

However, we have been taking "stored" CO2 in the form of coal, natural gas, and petroleum out of "storage" under the soil, and by burning it, are releasing it into the atmosphere faster than nature can remove it. This is causing the level of atmospheric CO2 to rise, which, as a greenhouse gas, contributes to the gradual increase in global average temperature.

This is all documented science. No respectable scientist in relevant fields doubts that human activity is increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, that this increase is *NOT* being balanced by natural processes; and that an increase in atmospheric CO2 contributes to gradual warming of the planet. The exact SPEED of the warming may be subject to honest scientific debate, but the raw CAUSE is not. (I'm not saying "any scientist who disagrees is a quack," I'm saying "only quack scientists disagree.")

If the only sources of CO2 were "natural" sources, then there would be no problem with "global warming". But we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere faster than nature can remove it, which IS a problem.


RE: No offense Arnie
By Spotacus on 12/22/2007 3:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
Except the Middle East isn't 30-40% of our oil supply.


RE: No offense Arnie
By Keeir on 12/21/2007 5:39:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Those of you that do not live in CA are the ones that need to STFU - you don't have to deal with the poor air quality that so many Californians have to deal with. When your kids schools don't let them go outside for recess or play after school sports and there's a 50% childhood asthma rate in central California and YOU had to deal with it, you'd probably change your condescending, apathetic tune.


Why? The people of California are already some of the most wasteful in thier use of gasoline and energy of those in the entire country... and they aren't changing thier own laws and behaviours. Look around to see those that drive more than 50 miles a day or drive at speeds greater than 70mph.

For example, let California reduce the speed on all roads to 45 miles per hour. It will lower congenstion (40-50 miles per hour is maximum through put on most roads) and significantly reduce fuel consumption per mile traveled. I think California can also do this to almost all roads without affecting anyone else in the country. This will probably reduce fuel consumption more then this desire to raise the CAFE standard.

Also, spend significantly more on public transit and actual choose to USE it. For instance, I think in LA, almost 1 million people drive to work alone in a car. Compared to .15 million that use public transit and .2 million that carpool and you get the picture.

quote:
I applaud California for having the balls and fortitude to call GW and his big business cronie backers to task.


Great, so California's want to set their own standards that they will demolish when they can no longer buy thier favorite cars rather than actively changing things they can control on a personal and state level without involving massive wasting of government money on silly fueds with the EPA and central government.


RE: No offense Arnie
By Azzr34l on 12/21/2007 6:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why? The people of California are already some of the most wasteful in thier use of gasoline and energy of those in the entire country... and they aren't changing thier own laws and behaviours. Look around to see those that drive more than 50 miles a day or drive at speeds greater than 70mph.


And you know this how? Please enlighten me with some proof or is it simply anecdotal at best? Then again, maybe you're right, it's possible nobody drives over the posted speed limit in any other states.

quote:
For example, let California reduce the speed on all roads to 45 miles per hour. It will lower congenstion (40-50 miles per hour is maximum through put on most roads) and significantly reduce fuel consumption per mile traveled. I think California can also do this to almost all roads without affecting anyone else in the country. This will probably reduce fuel consumption more then this desire to raise the CAFE standard.


Maybe this was meant as a joke and I just missed the humour, but if this was serious, then there's nothing to really do other than laugh at its ridiculousness.

quote:
Also, spend significantly more on public transit and actual choose to USE it. For instance, I think in LA, almost 1 million people drive to work alone in a car. Compared to .15 million that use public transit and .2 million that carpool and you get the picture.


Outside smaller municipal public transportation systems, there's only two large scale ones - LA and SF bay area.

The LA market public transportation situation was a poorly conceived idea and even worse execution. Because of this, it's virtually unused. The LA rail system is widely regarded as one of the biggest public service implosions ever. I agree to the extent that LA really screwed up on their rail plan and they should fix it, but that's a whole different discussion.

BART is one of the most heavily used and efficient rail systems outside the NY/DC area.

The rest of the state's demographics simply won't support light rail projects.

quote:
Great, so California's want to set their own standards that they will demolish when they can no longer buy thier favorite cars rather than actively changing things they can control on a personal and state level without involving massive wasting of government money on silly fueds with the EPA and central government.


It wouldn't be any different than the situation we're in now. We already have the CARB requirements on vehicles in CA, this would simply be reinforcing and updating those requirements due to chronological progression. We already have the 49 state regs and the CA regs on vehicles and as the article noted, there's a bunch of other states that want to get on board with it as well. If your state's congressional leaders want to do their own thing, then fine, they have that option. This is a win/win for everyone in or outside states that want to adopt the tougher standards.


RE: No offense Arnie
By NoSoftwarePatents on 12/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: No offense Arnie
By dllb on 12/21/2007 9:36:23 PM , Rating: 1
LOL, the illegal alien workforce California uses pays 1/10th the taxes the UAW membership does. Great way for California to "help" the US economy, breaking federal law using illegal workers.

Hate to tell you, but the only thing the California economy drives is the California economy.

quote:
That popping sound is your head being pulled out of your pro-UAW asshole. California drives the economy far more than the UAW does. I'd smack you but shit splatters.


RE: No offense Arnie
By iketech on 12/22/2007 9:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
This is all about Watermelon people trying to take over the world economy, especially the USA's. And California is pretty much gone to the Apocalypto people.


global warming
By xxsk8er101xx on 12/22/07, Rating: -1
"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki