Global Warming Skeptics Lose White House Support

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, May 31, 2007.

  1. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #1
    apnews

    Well whatayaknow.
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    Whose piledriver penetrated his cement skull?
     
  3. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #3
    God's....he spoke to him from the heavens!!


    And see my sig to see where that leads :)
     
  4. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #4
    LOL, thats awesome. :D
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    Hee-hee. I'm still at work and slaphappy. I get super witty when I'm in this state.
     
  6. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #6
    I don't believe it for a second. He didn't just get enlightenment. There's an ulterior motive behind this, even if it's just to quell international criticism.

    He'll trot out some grand-sounding proposal which he'll later withdraw from on the basis of "It's not good for U.S. business."
     
  7. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #7
    First off, his coalition includes China, and China, whether anyone likes it or not, is stuck with coal for its major energy source for the foreseeable future. China knows it needs to clean up its act, however the sheer massiveness of the Chinese economy and power grid, means nothing is going to happen soon.

    Second, I betcha that bushco is getting a lot of pressure from US business. They realize that they're going to be left behind and locked out of the EU and Japanese market if they don't operate by the same standards as businesses in those countries. Besides, the environment is a growth industry, the US auto industry is definitely not.
     
  8. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #8
    I'll bet this proposal isn't impressive when the specifics are released. I predict one of three things: it's so demanding of other nations that no one else will sign on to it, it's watered down to the point of being meaningless, or it's somehow voluntary.

    I'll only believe the Bush administration doesn't suck when I see some evidence to the contrary.
     
  9. kalisphoenix macrumors 65816

    kalisphoenix

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    #9
    Damned ecofascists. How the hell are mosquitos supposed to take over the world now?
     
  10. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #10
    I can see some positives in this, but there is a long history, which forces one to remain skeptical about a significant proposal being brought forth.

    Positive:

    This is the first time the administration has conceded there is global warming, that is not part of a normal environmental cycle, and is directly influenced by the activities of man.

    Negative:

    My wife, and I, have worked on environmental issues for two decades. This administration has set all of the gains made back to that time. It is like starting over again. At times, it is enough to make you weep. But, there is no other choice than to pick it up and start again. Conceding there is a problem is the first step to solving it.

    The Challenge:

    Environment is going to be one of the top three agenda items for the next few elections. The neo-conservatives are unlikely to succeed on a 'fear' ticket again. They may try though. These people will gladly sacrifice the lives of the 'great unwashed populous' to promote their cause. Remember, Bush just granted himself dictatorial power, in a time of emergency, and made America a government controlled by the executive branch. The President would 'consult with Congress and the Supreme Court'. But, I stray.

    It is imperative the environment gets a clear definition of the problems, what the root causes are, and a milestone chart of when corrective action will take place. The democrats have the numbers to pass this legislation. If the WH vetoes it, the House can then attempt to override. If republicans do not join the 2/3 majority, these are the targets in the next election.
     
  11. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #11
    he is trying to take wind out of the european especially german sails for the oncoming G8 summit in germany where a decision on CO2 reducing has already been on the table of topics .. actually as the main topic

    essentially he wants to avoid making agreements in this round and take the positive image with him that he did something when he actually delayed a decision until end of 2008
    when of course presidental elections will be held in the US

    it's actually headline news around here:
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,485398,00.html
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,485683,00.html
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,485992,00.html

    edit:

    every nation setting it's own goal ? ... riiight
     
  12. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #12
    The best thing Bush can do for the environment is resign.
     
  13. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #13
    I've read where China is balking at the Kyoto accords. India's growth, plus China's, means that their combined CO2 output is already greater than ours; China, alone is second only to the U.S.

    It's all well and good to talk about reductions, but if the reductions of Kyoto are adhered to, whence cometh the unemployment funding? There's no way we can go back to 1995 levels of CO2 emissions without severe downward impacts on employment.

    Shoulda gone nuke decades ago, like many of the countries which support Kyoto...

    One problem that's recently arisen is the reporting of a percentage increase in the temperatures on Mars that is the same as Earth's. That's from an increase in solar output, since there is a shortage of coal-fired power plants on Mars, not to mention SUVs. :D

    'Rat
     
  14. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #14
    AP

     
  15. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #15
    Combined they've also got ten times the population of the US. Per captia we're (Australia and the US) pretty horrific in our CO2 output in comparison. However as more people come out of poverty things will likely change significantly.
     
  16. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #16
    If homo sap's CO2 output is a factor in climate change, Earth doesn't care if it's per country or per capita.

    I really doubt the Great American Voter will happily drop back to parity with other countries, on a per-capita basis. Or Australia/New Zealand or Europe.

    Interesting times...

    'Rat
     
  17. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #17
    I diagree. I think the majority of GAVs or Australia/New Zealand/European voters would be quite happy to drop back to parity with other countries in regards to CO2 output. However I doubt many would be happy to drop our standard of living to do so. This means alternate sources of energy away from coal and petroleum, which has massive support within the community, for a number of reasons many beyond global climate change.
     
  18. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #18
    "However I doubt many would be happy to drop our standard of living to do so."

    Exactly. And a serious drop iin CO2 output is inexorably tied to a reduction in both travel, haulage and electricity generation--which means a decline in the physical standard of living. And that's why I made the comment about nukes. You still can't get folks to believe that "China Syndrome" was not a documentary.

    'Rat
     
  19. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #19
    This assumes that we make absolutely no technological, social, or infrastructural changes, which is simply bogus. We make technological changes consistently over time.
    It's been estimated that every American home replaced just one light bulb with an Energy Star approved compact fluorescent bulb (CFL), the United States would save enough energy to light more than 2.5 million homes for a year and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of nearly 800,000 cars. That's just by replacing one bulb, and I can count more than 20 in my home alone. This is a simple change in technology, would save a massive amount of energy, and does not require sitting in the dark at night.
    Adding in efficiencies in any system is nearly always advantageous.

    I keep repeating this and I plan to do so ad infinitum, there is no silver bullet to energy conservation, but rather a whole armory of policies, technologies, and actions that can result in a robust and even growing economy while producing less CO2. And, then we sell the cool technologies to China lowering our trade deficit with the country.
     
  20. Shadow macrumors 68000

    Shadow

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Keele, United Kingdom
    #20
    All that hot hair coming from him is probably more damaging than global warming! :D
     
  21. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #21
    reducing co2 emissions doesn't have to hinder the economy, after all somebody has to produce replacement technologies

    in spain the push for wind energy has brought 20.000 jobs alone


    and the "but china and india" argument was already old 5 years ago ;)
    they are saying "aslong as the US and other industrial countries do nothing we won't either"

    the EU already agreed on a 20% reduction and if they could a Russia, Japan and US on board too at the current G8 summit you can bet on it that china and india will follow suit soon
     
  22. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #22
    Considering Mars gets the full blast of the solar wind due to it not having a magnetic field, I would have thought the percentage increase there from increased solar activity should be massive compared to that on Earth, where the vast majority of the solar wind is deflected around the planet. Therefore if the increases are equivalent, there must be some other factors playing out down here to make up the shortfall.

    Possibly that we are simultaneously destroying our carbon sinks whilst pumping ever more of the stuff into the atmosphere? If it looks like common sense, and smells like common sense, it ought to be clear what it is.
     
  23. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
  24. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #24
    This is nothing more than a delay tactic by the Bush administration.

    Any proposal he makes won't take affect until he's out of office.

    Then if it all falls apart, they can blame the Democrats.

    His keepers will never allow him to do anything that goes against the grain
    of big business.
     
  25. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #25
    Germany pretty much controls the wind energy market, Japan produces huge amount of solar panels. It has a lot to do with government policy.

    Back in the olden days, it was thought that there was a fixed amount of wealth in the world and the only way to increase it was to steal from your neighbor. Hopefully by now we know better and have learned that new technology creates wealth, it doesn't deplete it.

    Some people though are afraid of the unknwown and unwilling to give up their wasteful ways. Sure, new technology may cost more but if it saves money in the long run...
     

Share This Page