WH Still Refuses To Agree TO Reduce CO2

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, May 26, 2007.

  1. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #1
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6694227.stm
    Some things never change.
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    Forgive my ignorance, what does WH stand for?

    America are clearly out of sync with their views now.
     
  3. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #3
    "Wilful Hubris"?
     
  4. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    Ah, of course.

    EDIT: White House is a better answer though given the subject, i should have got that :eek:.
     
  5. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #5
    "White House". (Though I like skunk's answer better.)

    This doesn't surprise me at all. Bush and many of his gang are sociopaths. I've said it before. As such, they have no sense of morals or obligation to anyone else; all they can think about is satisfying their own needs and ambitions.

    You understand that, you understand everything else about Bush.
     
  6. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #6
    To put into perspective how strong the anti-environmental lobby, who have GW by the short and curlys is, 10 of America's top industrial CEO's drafted a joint letter to GW, and were ignored.

    These are the men who were calling the 'greenhouse effect' ridiculous just a short time ago. They were calling the knowledgeable "extremists'. Now they cannot escape the conclusion, we a in deep doodoo. The urged the president to take immediate, strong measures. The WH response was predictable, "Thanks fellas, but......". Energy, chemicals and oil do care about anyone but themselves, and their bottomline.

    Virtually the entire first world wants to move on environmental legislation. The last poll I read, just a few months old, shows ~80% of the country now believes the greenhouse effect has been proven by science, and ~70% believes some immediate action needs to be taken. It seems like there is the WH (and the men running the show from behind the scenes) and the rest of the world, including most of the USA. It seems like our posturing as the 'world leaders', is seriously lacking credibility.

    Congress needs to pass joint legislation which can withstand a GW veto. Those legislators who do not sign-on, should be publicly crucified. Post their names and work to oust them. There is enough public support.
     
  7. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #7
    That's how the environmental movement in the 70's was won. The congressmen that were against environmental regulation were ousted and replaced by those that were pro-environment. The ones that made it through got the message pretty quickly.
     
  8. biturbomunkie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Location:
    cali
  9. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #9
    Yeah, but is history really repeating itself? Look at the Democrats and the issue they were elected to solve, the Iraq war. They don't seem to be getting the message.
     
  10. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #10
    It's all much easier to understand the White House position
    when you consider their plans to be whisked away in The Rapture
     
  11. Chef Medeski macrumors 6502a

    Chef Medeski

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #11
    I dont see anyone really caring about the environment in the US. Democrats or Republican. Its time to get that movement organized. I think if a Democrat wants to win they should heavily base their campaign on helping the environment (its hard for any of the current nominees to talk a lot about Iraq when they all voted for it. There is only a handful of congressional members, democrat or republican who didn't. And I think only one nominee for president, red or blue, that didn't vote.)
     
  12. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #12
    I don't believe for one second history is repeating itself. I wish it were, but it isn't. I think a big reason the environmental movement was won before was because of the whole counter-culture movement at the same time. We don't have anything like that now.

    Ron Paul isn't the only candidate to have voted against the war. Kucinich voted no as well.
     
  13. Chef Medeski macrumors 6502a

    Chef Medeski

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #13
    Oh ok yeah I wasn't sure. Hes running as Democrat?
     
  14. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #14
    Yes. Unforunately he isn't taken seriously. I'm still going to vote for him in the primaries since all of the other Democratic nominees aren't liberals.
     
  15. Chef Medeski macrumors 6502a

    Chef Medeski

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #15
    Yeah I dont think any of the nominess truly represent their parties except maybe him and Ron Paul.

    But I think some of his facts are a little incomplete. He says we pay over twice as much per Canadians. And that we would not have a shortage of being able to see a doctor. Cause there is a higher availability of seeing a doctor in the UK than the US. But having lived in both Canada and the US. I can say the system in Canada is awful. I was lucky enough having lived here for a full year to finally be able to have my own personal doctor for general check-ups. There was NO ONE in sight. It was nearly impossible to find someone. And waiting? Its horrendous, if you go to a clinic, 3-5 hours are the norm. And if you go late afternoon or night or weekends, the time is easily doubled. My brother had to wait 12 hours one day to see someone about this huge rash all over his buddy. I'm not sure how wide his scope is to the issue, but universal health care like Canada is not a good example I find. And the worst part is I DONT KNOW how much I'm spending on this stuff cause its the form of taxes. So I dont know specifically how much of my taxes is going towards it.

    I just think his site was set up a bit decivingly stating that the Europeans systems are so great compared to ours, but we pay more than Canada. But Canada certainly doesn't have a good healthcare system, universal maybe, good ... hardly.
     
  16. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    That was kind of him. I hope his buddy was grateful. :)
     
  17. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #17
    Better an awful system than none at all.

    Right now over half of our taxes are going toward bombs and guns. If we just spent less on bombs and guns and put a lot of that toward a universal healthcare system, I don't think you'd see taxes rise very much, if at all. And if they did, they should (in an ideal world) come from those in society who have benefited the most from the working class, the ultra-rich.
     
  18. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #18
    I think that the Democrats in Congress should lead the the way and show their committment to reducing CO2 emissions by pledging to stop exhaling!
     
  19. Chef Medeski macrumors 6502a

    Chef Medeski

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #19
    Or maybe you could just reduce get rid of that spending and cut taxes in half. I'm pretty sure someone making min. wage will be more effected by cutting taxes in half than a rich person. Every dollar extra per hour a poorer individual makes is a worth a whole lot more than a couple or tens of dollars for a rich person.

    I dont understand the logic of having a system where no one gets good service as compared to a system where a majority do. So everyone deserves equallly crappy services? Hmmm.... thats really future looking.
     
  20. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #20
    This just in, WH refuses to admit sky is blue. Luckily, because everyone hates them for pretty much everything else, only about 30% of the public believes them. The rest of us just don't know what to do about it as the Dems do absolutely nothing, not even talking about it because they don't want to offended the small percentage of the population that would never vote for them anyway. Meanwhile the MSM continues to have environmental experts on, but to balance things out, they also have a religious wacko on who doesn't know anything about the issue, but throws out a lot of buzzwords about how God hates trees. And how those ultra liberal scientists are all rolling in that Global Warming moola, but being a shill for the oil industry is for the good of all.

    Well that was helpful to the conversation.

    You spelled commitment wrong too.
     

Share This Page