Supreme court steps in on carbon pollution

[bitonti]

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/08/AR2007040800927.html[/url]

[quote]Last week's Supreme Court decision concerning carbon dioxide emissions from cars was welcomed by all who regret that the United States has lagged far behind in addressing this serious environmental challenge.[/quote]

written by Republican Christine Todd Whitman by the way

[cr726]

Everything is fine, it snowed on Easter. Global warming? Come on Rush and his brother cbtny said it is a joke. We should focus on more promising causes, you know like the surge.

[jets5ever]

GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JCnflies]

I haven't thought too much about his, but does anyone else see the potential for double success here? Is it too obvious, or could we possibly combine cleaner environmental energy sources (wind, hydro, nuclear. others) so that we both have less dependence on the ME and less impact on the environment?

Does anyone inside the Beltway see it this way at all?

Even though I am conservative, I appreciate the thought of keeping he environment as clean as reasonbly possible............ even if I think global warming is far from definite.

[Buster]

[QUOTE=JCnflies]I haven't thought too much about his, but does anyone else see the potential for double success here? Is it too obvious, or could we possibly combine cleaner environmental energy sources (wind, hydro, nuclear. others) so that we both have less dependence on the ME and less impact on the environment?

Does anyone inside the Beltway see it this way at all?

Even though I am conservative, I appreciate the thought of keeping he environment as clean as reasonbly possible............ even if I think global warming is far from definite.[/QUOTE]


Yes, lots of people think that. If we spent 1/3 of the money spent on Iraq for Tax breaks on solar panels in the southern states and geothermal heat exchangers up north, we could bite a chunk out of our oil addiction. But we decided to go in another direction with that. Another idea is to create some new fangled "clean up the environment" type industry that would create wealth, jobs and blue skies. How's that for a cool idea?
Both of these ideas would come into conflict with the energy industry. The energy gods do not seem to want change, they are friendly with a lot of influential politicians (in both major parties) and they really don't want you creating your own electricity (it's bad for business).

The globe is definitely warming, that is a fact. Some scientist (a really small percentage) are not convinced that mankind is influencing the rise in temperature.

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=Buster]Yes, lots of people think that. If we spent 1/3 of the money spent on Iraq for Tax breaks on solar panels in the southern states and geothermal heat exchangers up north, we could bite a chunk out of our oil addiction. [B]But we decided to go in another direction with that[/B]...[/QUOTE]


Of course we did, silly. There is no money to be made by defense contractors in solar paneling! Why would they do that when they can make money off the govt. by bombing a country and then rebuilding it?

Just ask this question. Who has gained the most since the inception of the "War on Terror"? Bin Laden? George Bush? The right? The left? Or the war vultures that thirst for blood, oil and war profits?

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=JCnflies]Even though I am conservative, I appreciate the thought of keeping he environment as clean as reasonbly possible[/QUOTE]

Why would you say it this way? What makes you think Conservatives in General WANT a dirty environment??

Look, most "Conservatives" where I come from (VA) believe in two things very clearly.....Hunting and Fishing, and the COnservation that goes along with it. Can't catch alot of Fish in a dirty disgusting sewer of a River, can you? No, you can't.

The differences, as I see it, is that these "Redneck Conservatives", as my friend Bitonti once called me, want to see some cost effective real-world technology in action BEFORE we all start giving up on our Cars and Trucks and other Motorized Equipment.

And really, most of them see right through Mr. Gore (the leader, like it or not, of the Public Face of the "Fight" against Global Warming) and his openfaced hypocracy. That too doesn;t help the Anti-Global Change sides position, when such an open hypocrite is your mouth and face.

[JCnflies]

[QUOTE=Warfish]Why would you say it this way? What makes you think Conservatives in General WANT a dirty environment??

Look, most "Conservatives" where I come from (VA) believe in two things very clearly.....Hunting and Fishing, and the COnservation that goes along with it. Can't catch alot of Fish in a dirty disgusting sewer of a River, can you? No, you can't.

The differences, as I see it, is that these "Redneck Conservatives", as my friend Bitonti once called me, want to see some cost effective real-world technology in action BEFORE we all start giving up on our Cars and Trucks and other Motorized Equipment.

And really, most of them see right through Mr. Gore (the leader, like it or not, of the Public Face of the "Fight" against Global Warming) and his openfaced hypocracy. That too doesn;t help the Anti-Global Change sides position, when such an open hypocrite is your mouth and face.[/QUOTE]

Hi Warfish,

I phrase it this way because most of the time pro-environment voices are considered left leaning. you are right about one thing, many fishermen and hunters look to protect he environment - just not to the degree or as the end all or be all that the far let environmentalists would be.

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=JCnflies]many fishermen and hunters look to protect he environment - just not to the degree or as the end all or be all that the far let environmentalists would be.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, as the traditional "Far Left" on this issue values the lives of the individual animals involved more than the Hunter/Fishermans right to harvest those animals within appropriate legal management guidelines. Hence, their goal and the Conservationist Outdoorsmans may seem similar, but they are only similar in the most basic terms....i.e. protection of the Environment and the Species that reside within it. The use of that environment after it has been conserved, however, is where the two sides often split away from each other severely.

But even with that said, Conservative Outdoorsmen often find much common ground even with the "far left" when it comes to Conservation and Environmental Protection.

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=Warfish]Indeed, as the traditional "Far Left" on this issue values the lives of the individual animals involved more than the Hunter/Fishermans right to harvest those animals within appropriate legal management guidelines. Hence, their goal and the Conservationist Outdoorsmans may seem similar, but they are only similar in the most basic terms....i.e. protection of the Environment and the Species that reside within it. The use of that environment after it has been conserved, however, is where the two sides often split away from each other severely.

But even with that said, Conservative Outdoorsmen often find much common ground even with the "far left" when it comes to Conservation and Environmental Protection.[/QUOTE]


You know what would be cool, 'Fish? An electric ATV! You could cruise through the woods without making a sound, no lousy neighbors to call the cops.

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan]You know what would be cool, 'Fish? An electric ATV! You could cruise through the woods without making a sound, no lousy neighbors to call the cops.[/QUOTE]

Not a big fan of ATV's personally. I much prefer the walk to the ol' Fishing Spot. :D

[bitonti]

[QUOTE=Warfish]"Redneck Conservatives", as my friend Bitonti once called me.[/QUOTE]

i don't remember calling you that, but either way i'm sorry. Sometimes things get heated.

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=bitonti]i don't remember calling you that, but either way i'm sorry. Sometimes things get heated.[/QUOTE]

No need Bit. I DID add the part that you were my friend, after all. :D