If you think that climate change is all about partisan advantage, you missed the news today. Schwarzenegger is outraged by the fact that the Bush EPA has shot down his plan to combat climate change by setting tighter standards in California. Bush spat out a rationalization- our plan has to be national. Yeah, that would be nice George but in seven years you have failed to come up with a national plan. As a consequence, Arnold is sick of the sight of you. Please, no more visits to California.
The truth of the matter is simpler than national versus state authority. Bush never wanted to undertake action to combat the threat of climate change, because much of his base does not believe that it exists. However, the moderates within the Republican party have gotten tired of simmering and are starting to boil. Hang on one more year, George, you need to do that favor to payback all the Exxon election cash!
Schwarzenegger, in utter frustration, promised a lawsuit against the EPA decision. Too late, it takes more than one year to make it through the courts. By then George will be on his permanent golfing vacation, and you know damn well that whoever comes after him is not going to defend that EPA inaction in the face of creeping disaster. George just seems to feel that leadership is bad in some areas. Better to crawl along behind industry- as if industry could ever hope to deal with climate change in the total absence of governmental leadership. It's been a sad chapter, and I wish I could turn the final page now instead of January 2009.
Let's let the Governor of California speak for himself from today's speech:
"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."
Question: all you Gather Republicans who delight in heaping abuse on Al Gore as a crazy environmental poseur, care to heap some of that on the Republican Governor of California? Let's be consistent.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 22
I still wish Arnie could run for Prez.
Arnold seems capable of growing and learning from his mistakes, somewhat refreshing in a pol. Obviously when he was a young bodybuilder from Austria pretty obsessed with sexual matters and not above using mind altering substances he had some growing to do, but the fact is, he grew.
Bush on the other hand seems to be better at shrinking.
Arnold on the other hand, has a special room set aside wherein he is able to indulge himself in the vice of cigar smoking. But he has no problem with engineering collective measures to address problems. So which do you prefer- private vice with public virtue, or private virtue with public vice?
I prefer not having the government tell me what I can and can not drive, what light bulbs I have to use, what kind of television I need to have and I don't need the gvt to tell me. I'm sure I live more "green" then you Chris. I am as self sufficient as possible. I compost, have my worms under my sink, I recycle, I grow as much of my own food that I can, I hunt my own meat, I buy local when ever possible. I have had those horrible lightbulbs because the DO save on my electric bill. I don't like them because they are going to be a problem to recycle and the take for ever to light up. I have solar heated water, which is hard to do living deep in the woods like I do, but I manage. What do YOU do?
PS Arnold's special "room" is because Maria can't stand the smell of cigars. By the way....don't cigars contribute to "global warming"?
Surely you will admit that most residents of the USA are less eager than yourself to make what they regard as sacrifices, and are not going to change their lifestyles in any way without an external nudge. Are you not the least bit resentful at making sacrifices for the common good while others buy trophies of consumption? Does it escape your notice that a tax on gasoline would be paid by Gore as well as everyone else? Meddling from the government is the price we are going to pay to deal with this challenge. Bush could have chosen the meddle in the most constructive and least intrusive ways, but instead like most matters he chose to leave it to the next President. So be it.
Do you honest beleive that Al Gore would feel any kind of pain "at the pump"? DO you really think HE actually fills up his own gas tank on his SUV/limo?
My "hositility" is towards hypocrasy. Al Gore is the king of hypocrits.
Also, this enviro-stuff is much like a religion and it burns me that they are forcing their morality on the rest of us. That is wrong in itself, the government has no right to force morals on the people. Morality begins at home and in the people themselves, we need to teach our kids to grow up to make the right decisions ourselves and for whatever reason. If you want to drive a Smart Car or a Prius and can afford it, go ahead, it is your choice, just don't force it on everyone else. This is just another religion, really.
I've made sacrifices because I have to financially, someday I hope to be in a better position and I want to live life to the fullest and as large as I can without these jackwagons telling us what to do.
We need to defund and abolish the EPA.
Am I angry? Dang right I am.
I'm glad to see the Republicans take the house, let's hope they fullfill their promises or at least give it a good try and keep up the fight. I will most likely stay registered as a Republican although over time, I really lean more libertarian or Constitutionalist.
If you want to live large, do it, if not, do it, just keep your hands off of me and don't touch my junk.
"Do you really think the Hollywood folks are going to give up their massive mansions and limos and private jets?"
inspires me to point out that "Hollywood" is far from the largest segment of the population who won't give up their massive mansions, limos, private jets or carbon heavy luxuries, for the sake of energy conservation or reducing carbon emissions.
Music industry, insurance industry, food industry. manufacturing industry... take your pick.. none of the wealthy, well-off or well stationed are truly willing to give up the luxuries of their lifestyle, or the luxuries that their industries provide for them.
I don't want the government telling me what kind of light bulbs I HAVE to use.
If reducing the amount of ergs used to power light bulbs was really a critical issue, then businesses would be forced to stop keeping their buildings lit up when they are mostly empty at night, and government would ban giant inflatable snow globes for your front yard; they are not only constantly lit, but have an ever running fan to keep them inflated and the snow swirling prettily.
CFL lights may greatly reduce my electric bill, but forcing me to switch to them is only being forced on the populous so that the industries that make them can be coddled into success.
If the regular working folk really wanted to make a dent in carbon emissions they'd put the brakes on unnecessary ground and air shipping. Do you have any idea what kind of carbon debt is placed when you have lobster flown in from Maine, or cars shipped from overseas, or flying home for the holidays?
The majority of Americans will never be as green as they could be. There's too much "poverty" stigma attached to that lifestyle. In America, you are supposed to take advantage of everything you can get. Anything else is considered stupid and gets one ridiculed.
On the other hand I have never much cared what anybody thinks of me.
The story gets worse, as it seems that Chrysler and Dick Cheney had a hand in the EPA decision. Why am I not surprised?