Bush 'prepares emissions U-turn' (1 Viewer)

[hipsterdufus]

Kudos to Bush for apparently seeing the light on global warming. Hopefully it's not just pre-election puffery...

President Bush is preparing an astonishing U-turn on global warming, senior Washington sources say.

After years of trying to sabotage agreements to tackle climate change he is drawing up plans to control emissions of carbon dioxide and rapidly boost the use of renewable energy sources.

Administration insiders privately refer to the planned volte-face as Mr Bush's "Nixon goes to China moment", recalling how the former president amazed the world after years of refusing to deal with its Communist regime. Hardline global warming sceptics, however, are already publicly attacking the plans.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1604092.ece

 

[dsanthony]

Well, I read the article until they called Bush "the toxic Texan" and realized it was partisan tripe and stopped reading.

The article also said Bush tried to "sabotage" global warming plans. That is a lie. He said, rightly, that the higher standards would force even more manufacturers out of the US and into third world countries, which are not bound by the treaty.

 

[Kandahar]

If this is true it's fantastic news (at least as far as developing renewable energy goes). Better late than never. This country can ill-afford to wait another two years until we have a new President before we address our energy problem.

While I doubt we can really do much to slow global warming without hurting our economy, we definitely need to change our energy policies as a matter of national security.

 

[dsanthony]

What libs and environmentalists don't realize is that we live in a democracy. They have very Stalinist views, wherein they are certain of the correctness of their policies, whatever the peons may think. But the have peons have the right to vote (for now) and if massive job losses (or everyone making less than $100,000 a year is forced to give up their car and ride the bus) are the final result of your plans, then you can be sure they'll Jimmy Carter anyone who tries to implent those policies.

 

[jfuh]

Well, I read the article until they called Bush "the toxic Texan" and realized it was partisan tripe and stopped reading.

The article also said Bush tried to "sabotage" global warming plans. That is a lie. He said, rightly, that the higher standards would force even more manufacturers out of the US and into third world countries, which are not bound by the treaty.

Force into 3rd world countries. Guess what dsanthony, it'll happen either way, with or without environmental concerns.
Now as for outsourcing, so what? Need you be reminded the principles of a free market? Or what happens under protectionism?

 

[dsanthony]

Do you really want to engage on the issue?

This is just a larger version of the Alaska Pipeline bruhaha, or the Spotted Owl fiasco. Not coincidentally, you libs lined up AGAINST the working class voters, who saw both your opposition to the pipeline and your silly devotion to saving the spotted owl (while lumber workers were struggling to keep their families fed) as proof of your betrayal of their needs to promote a social agenda.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Well, I read the article until they called Bush "the toxic Texan" and realized it was partisan tripe and stopped reading.

The article also said Bush tried to "sabotage" global warming plans. That is a lie. He said, rightly, that the higher standards would force even more manufacturers out of the US and into third world countries, which are not bound by the treaty.

It's true that the source is partisan. But you must realise that Bush's complete disregard for the Science that confirms global warming rightly earned him the nickname "the toxic Texan"

I've been saying this for a while though, if Bush can get out in front on the issue of energy independence, and global warming is part of this, it could very well create an opportunity for a lasting legacy that is not the failure of the Iraq war.

 

[jfuh]

Do you really want to engage on the issue?

This is just a larger version of the Alaska Pipeline bruhaha, or the Spotted Owl fiasco. Not coincidentally, you libs lined up AGAINST the working class voters, who saw both your opposition to the pipeline and your silly devotion to saving the spotted owl (while lumber workers were struggling to keep their families fed) as proof of your betrayal of their needs to promote a social agenda.

Seems you haven't engaged the issue at all, only avoided it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

What libs and environmentalists don't realize is that we live in a democracy. They have very Stalinist views, wherein they are certain of the correctness of their policies, whatever the peons may think. But the have peons have the right to vote (for now) and if massive job losses (or everyone making less than $100,000 a year is forced to give up their car and ride the bus) are the final result of your plans, then you can be sure they'll Jimmy Carter anyone who tries to implent those policies.

Everytime an environmental mandate is proposed, certain industries cry doom and gloom and use the jobs card as a scare tactic. Just the same, there is not an iota of empirical evidence to suggest that even the most sweeping of environmental mandates, such as the Clean Air Act, ever resulted in a net loss of jobs.

In fact, it really defies logic to claim that it would. Our economy has for over 30 years now moved away from being an industrial economy, and toward a high tech and service economy. History has shown time and time again that the innovation that results from complying with environmental mandates creates as many jobs as are lost. That is the wonderful thing about the Free Market, when an old dirty industry is forced to comply with an environmental mandate, capital is diverted to innovative companies who find cleaner and more efficient ways to meet that mandate.

If we mandate controls on carbon emissions, then we will see capital being diverted to companies who develop technologies that help us meet those mandates. Thus, for every job lost, there will be a high tech job to replace it.

However, if we do nothing, and the earth warms two to three degrees Celsius over the next century as a result, the costs of dealing with that climate change, will be far higher than the costs of trying to do something to mitigate it today.

 

[dsanthony]

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Wages for the working class have plummeted in the last 30 years, largely due to the loss of manufacturing jobs overseas. While environmental costs are not the sole factor, they play a large part in forcing businesses to Mexico and China, where the costs of production are much lower.

 

[Iriemon]

Kudos to Bush for apparently seeing the light on global warming. Hopefully it's not just pre-election puffery...

"Hopefully it's not just pre-election puffery..."

Based on his past record (tax cuts will not cause deficits, foreign policy based on humility, we'll get bin Laden dead or alive) it's baseless to even think such a thing. Of course its puffery. This whole administration is based on puffery.

The "puffery president." I like it, it fits, though I think the "pass the buck president" fits better.

 

[dsanthony]

The tax cuts did not cause the deficit. Combined with the sharp increase in homeland security spending, they contributed. Bush made the tax cut a priority before the WTC attacks, and stuck with them. The economy is very strong, despite the deficits. Compared to the GNP of the US, our deficit is manageable.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Wages for the working class have plummeted in the last 30 years, largely due to the loss of manufacturing jobs overseas. While environmental costs are not the sole factor, they play a large part in forcing businesses to Mexico and China, where the costs of production are much lower.

Actually, with the exception of a period of modest increases in median household incomes adjusted for inflation in the mid to latter nineties, median wages have been flat since 1980. In fact, after adjusting for inflation, median wages have declined ever year Bush has been in office (I suspect this year however they will show a modest increase).

However, this is not because of environmental regulation. Rather, it is largely due to a change in the Federal Reserve Monetary Policies since the late 1970s from a policy of promoting full employment and wage increases even at the expense of inflation, to a policy of strongly combating inflation even at the expense of employment and wage increases.

As to manufacturing jobs going overseas, it would be absurd to put much blame at all on environmental regulations. Even absent any environmental mandates at all, we still could not even remotely compete with China on labor costs. Moreover, there is not a single empirical economic argument one could even remotely make for protectionism.

 

[Captain America]

The tax cuts did not cause the deficit. Combined with the sharp increase in homeland security spending, they contributed. Bush made the tax cut a priority before the WTC attacks, and stuck with them. The economy is very strong, despite the deficits. Compared to the GNP of the US, our deficit is manageable.

Just because I'm broke don't mean I don't have plenty of money left on my credit cards. Yes, my economy is very strong.:roll:

Reminds me of a joke.

Wife says, "Wadda ya mean we're broke? I have plenty of checks left in the bank book."

 

[Iriemon]

The tax cuts did not cause the deficit. Combined with the sharp increase in homeland security spending, they contributed.

We both agree the tax cuts have made the deficits worse than they would otherwise have been.

Bush made the tax cut a priority before the WTC attacks, and stuck with them.

I agree with that. Big reason the Govt is almost $3 billion more in debt.

The economy is very strong, despite the deficits.

As the economy is strong there is no reason to be running deficits.

Compared to the GNP of the US, our deficit is manageable.

What is your point? $1/2 trillion debt increases every year don't matter?

The interest expense on the debt is a record $385 in 11 months, an will probably exceed $400 billion this year. Half that goes to hard payments to debtholders like China and Japan.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm

Maybe to you throwing hundreds of billions of dollars away every year on interest is "manageable." I think it's a sin.

 

[mpg]

The article didn't say diddly about what the new policies might be, but if they're pro-environment, that's not a U-turn. You don't have to be anti-environment to be against the Kyoto agreement. There's a right way and a wrong way to fix any problem.

 

[jfuh]

The article didn't say diddly about what the new policies might be, but if they're pro-environment, that's not a U-turn. You don't have to be anti-environment to be against the Kyoto agreement. There's a right way and a wrong way to fix any problem.

Kyoto? Where'd that come from?
Name something environmental that Bush has done? Bush has been the most anti-science anti environment president this nation has ever had.