backtop

Science California Sues Federal Government Over CO2
Jason Mick (Blog) - December 21, 2007 2:13 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 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!


</