Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by freeny, Jan 30, 2007.
What did you expect...
No, seriously. The man is a large industry puppet, and there is no way in hell Exon or Mobile would want you know that Greenland is melting faster than a Slurpee in August.
Can Congress summon the President and demand he produces the documents? Or does that only happen if they impeach him?
Kinda like US vs Nixon. No the congress can demand, and it's likely he'll call on Executive privildge, and the documents will never be seen. The only chance is that the media will create enough fuss to produce political pressure on them.
frankly, you shouldn't be. anyone who's been paying attention to how this administration routinely edits out from documents anything that's counter to its "environmental ideology" has guessed this was the case.
Where have these people been? we have been talking about this spin machine for years. Bush for the first time used the term Global warming in a speech this past state of the union. His administration has been spinning this for 6 years. More Republican lies but whats new. It all about the corporations quick profits. This man and his policys are a discrace to our nation.
Its discusting to think science is being spun by the NeoCons but here is another example. What will we find out tomorrow?
Didn't we already hear about this? Or was that one of the other scientific issues subjected to a Bush obfuscatory minority report?
Well, I've certainly known about it for at least a year, so I don't know where you've all been. There have been several news items about how the WH has been appointing political hacks to rewrite and edit just about everything produced by NASA and any other agency dealing with climate, evolution, you name it.
It's old news, but new proof. This particular evidence of the administration's actions is new. Anyone paying attention has known about this for a long time though.
When Obama is president he'd better start re-planting the rainforest.
Your point is?
If it were only that simple.
Too bad it's in South America!
Although I suspect you're far from serious, that would actually be a much better use of American taxpayers money than funnelling cash to the war profiteers. So yeah, I hope he does just that.
And Central America, and Africa, and Asia, and Indonesia, and Australia. You Americans and your georgeraphy
No, the point was that we can only be responsible for taking care of what's ours.
True, although alleviating some of the economic pressures on developing countries with rain forest will help slow the destruction. This a US President can do.
Also stopping European & American (and Anglo-Australian) mining companies from continuing with their current bribe-then-destroy business practices wouldn't hurt.
Complete Bull. The US can change our import laws to protect certain resources and put pressure on elimiting or reducing harmful practices. The US can support (rather than try to scuttle) international treaties such as Kyoto, and use international bodies such as the WTO, UN, etc. to support higher environmental standards. The US can fund environmentally sensible projects through USAID and steer the World Bank and IMF to do the same.
Should I go on?
Of course, if we are going to try to lead the world in a positive direction, we have to walk the walk ourselves.
You seem to be forgetting that Libertarians' responsibilities end at the large fence around their private property.
Well, actually I'd like to know what we (and no one else evidently) are importing that are causing Brazil to destroy rainforests. I have no problem with encouraging trade partners to show a little restraint and common sense with their resources rather than slashing and burning just to make a buck.
It just would be nice to see other countries show the kind of restraint and concern for their own countries that's expected of us.
I don't support Kyoto though primarily because of the unfair terms it gives to countries like India and China which have populations far larger than ours. It's the wrong solution to the right problem.
Beef for one.
and North America
of course that one has been already mostly wiped out.
anyone supporting a complete banning of logging (and re-planting of farm land) in oregon, washington and british columbia?
First of all, the argument that because other countries are also importing goods excuses any US behavior is exceedingly defeatist. The US has tremendous influence. In addition to being the world's second biggest market (after the EU), we weild political power to put pressure on other countries to follow our line AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, we can collaborate with other major markets/countries to put restrictions in place. You can bet that if the the NAFTA and EU countries all started clamouring for something, the world would take notice. Add ASEAN in and you've got more clout. Keep going.
As for imports, in addition to Beef, I'd note other agricultural products including coffee, sugar, nuts, fruits, and fish; and all the various forms of wood and paper products.
So let's see if I understand this correctly. The US has enough influence to bring democracy to Iraq and prevent Iran, North Korea et al. from developing nuclear weapons, yet we don't have enough influence to shape logging policy in a foreign country?