http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...arzenegger.html Schwarzenegger Blasts Bush on Global Warming ABC News' Mary Bruce Reports: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif., spoke out against President Bush this morning attacking his administration for its failure to counter global warming emissions. "This administration did not believe in global warming," Schwarzenegger told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview that will air Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "They just didn't believe in it or they didn't believe that they should do anything about it, since China is not doing anything about it and since India is not willing to do the same thing, so why should we do the same thing?" Schwarzenegger said. "We don't wait for other countries to do the same thing. That's what makes America number one... And I think we have a good opportunity to do the same thing, also, with fighting global warming," he said. Schwarzenegger's comments came in reaction to the Environmental Protection Agency's recent decision not to take further action against global warming during the remainder of Bush's presidency. "Well, to be honest with you, if they would have done something this year, I would have thought it was bogus anyway," he said. When asked why, the California Governor said, "because you don't change global warming and you don't really have an effect by doing something six months before you leave office." Schwarzenegger argued that any action taken by the administration at this point would not have been sincere. "I think that the way they have done it is much better...This administration did not believe that [carbon dioxide] and greenhouse gases is a pollutant. They fought this in court and then finally the Supreme Court had to tell them, 'Yes, it is a pollutant,'" he said. He also highlighted the strides taken by California to counter global warming. "I'm very happy that California is in the forefront," he said. "We are very aggressive. We have made a commitment to roll back our greenhouse gas emissions to the 1990 level ... We didn't wait for Washington. I just felt that the administration and the federal government have been terrific partners in a lot of things for us and we have worked together very well, but environmental issues was not one of them."
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 13 2008, 12:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And then he hopped into his SUV and drove to the airport and took his private jet home.</div> lol probably haha. Or his personal Austrian tank. Anyway, the economy isnt looking great, and reducing CO2 emmissions wont help the American economy. If anything it will move more factories and jobs to countries with less standards.
Behind all that nonsensical rambling, I do agree with him on one point: I don't like how the US (and Canada) point to the subpar standards in developing countries like India and China as a reason why they don't have to focus their attention on environmental issues. This might be more applicable to Canada, but it makes no sense to me.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 13 2008, 11:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And then he hopped into his SUV and drove to the airport and took his private jet home.</div> Regardless....He's right...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 15 2008, 02:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Behind all that nonsensical rambling, I do agree with him on one point: I don't like how the US (and Canada) point to the subpar standards in developing countries like India and China as a reason why they don't have to focus their attention on environmental issues. This might be more applicable to Canada, but it makes no sense to me.</div> Our record on the environment is pretty spectacular. An oddity is that our CO2 emissions have increased by a small % on an annual basis during economic boom years, but for every other greenhouse gas, our emissions have gone down for the past 30 years. We've cut the amount of lead in the air by eliminating leaded gasoline. We cut the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere to near zero. Lake Erie was once considered a "dead" lake, now it's quite clean. Almost all our energy came from burning coal a few decades ago, and now we burn a lot less of it and when we do it's scrubbed to make the smoke cleaner. &c
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 15 2008, 10:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 15 2008, 02:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Behind all that nonsensical rambling, I do agree with him on one point: I don't like how the US (and Canada) point to the subpar standards in developing countries like India and China as a reason why they don't have to focus their attention on environmental issues. This might be more applicable to Canada, but it makes no sense to me.</div> Our record on the environment is pretty spectacular. An oddity is that our CO2 emissions have increased by a small % on an annual basis during economic boom years, but for every other greenhouse gas, our emissions have gone down for the past 30 years. We've cut the amount of lead in the air by eliminating leaded gasoline. We cut the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere to near zero. Lake Erie was once considered a "dead" lake, now it's quite clean. Almost all our energy came from burning coal a few decades ago, and now we burn a lot less of it and when we do it's scrubbed to make the smoke cleaner. &c </div> ...and Los Angeles moved out of first place as the nations' most polluted city because of California's aggressive regulations. It then shifted to Houston...Bush...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DennyCrane)</div><div class='quotemain'>Lake Erie was once considered a "dead" lake, now it's quite clean.</div> That was after the fire, right? Its a shame it takes a tragedy to get things turned around. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DennyCrane)</div><div class='quotemain'>Almost all our energy came from burning coal a few decades ago, and now we burn a lot less of it and when we do it's scrubbed to make the smoke cleaner.</div> I believe most of our electricity still comes from coal? T. Boone Pickens "may" be on to something. . I am skeptical of wind but Solar has merit as a stopgap in the sunbelt. another possibility
Anyone remember what Dubya was in charge of before he became President? http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/everydayl...Feature_03.html <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Houston has a serious air quality problem. Since 1999, the Texas city has exchanged titles with Los Angeles as having the most polluted air in the United States defined by the number of days each city violates federal smog standards.</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 15 2008, 11:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Anyone remember what Dubya was in charge of before he became President? http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/everydayl...Feature_03.html <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Houston has a serious air quality problem. Since 1999, the Texas city has exchanged titles with Los Angeles as having the most polluted air in the United States defined by the number of days each city violates federal smog standards.</div> </div> To beat LA in that category, you really have to be trying.
Houston's pollution sources include a huge chemical industry and refining industry as well as generating a lot of electrical power for surrounding states, including California. Remember Enron selling power to California? All California is doing is offloading the polluting of the air to elsewhere.
The thing I hate about man-made global warming, is that the debate on whether man has or has not caused global warming is stifled by enviornmentalists, the media, and other liberals like Al Gore.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 15 2008, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Houston's pollution sources include a huge chemical industry and refining industry as well as generating a lot of electrical power for surrounding states, including California. Remember Enron selling power to California? All California is doing is offloading the polluting of the air to elsewhere.</div> Of course. It's California's fault that Bush looks the other way on pollution, whether it be his country or his state. Enron, and the selling of power to California in the early part of the century is an entire new thread.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 15 2008, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The thing I hate about man-made global warming, is that the debate on whether man has or has not caused global warming is stifled by enviornmentalists, the media, and other liberals like Al Gore.</div> Well, lets broaden it a bit. I know that China is polluting as much as any country in the world. Their air pollution is reaching us all the way on the California coast. What can we do about it? Not much really.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 15 2008, 09:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 15 2008, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Houston's pollution sources include a huge chemical industry and refining industry as well as generating a lot of electrical power for surrounding states, including California. Remember Enron selling power to California? All California is doing is offloading the polluting of the air to elsewhere.</div> Of course. It's California's fault that Bush looks the other way on pollution, whether it be his country or his state. Enron, and the selling of power to California in the early part of the century is an entire new thread. </div> Enron wouldn't have been in a position to sell anything to California if California made all its own power. Generating power usually means burning oil, gas, or coal - since we don't do nuclear anymore and there's only a few hydroelectric dams. We can talk about the evils of Enron separately, as you say, but it doesn't change the fact that California is outsourcing its pollution problems to elsewhere, and Houston just happens to be one of the places that has been willing to suffer the pollution for cash to satisfy the needs of places like California. You can't ignore the fact that there's a cost (pollution) to making energy under the restrictive regulations put in place by govt. and it's only a matter of WHERE you pollute, not how much you pollute.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 15 2008, 11:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 15 2008, 09:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 15 2008, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Houston's pollution sources include a huge chemical industry and refining industry as well as generating a lot of electrical power for surrounding states, including California. Remember Enron selling power to California? All California is doing is offloading the polluting of the air to elsewhere.</div> Of course. It's California's fault that Bush looks the other way on pollution, whether it be his country or his state. Enron, and the selling of power to California in the early part of the century is an entire new thread. </div> Enron wouldn't have been in a position to sell anything to California if California made all its own power. Generating power usually means burning oil, gas, or coal - since we don't do nuclear anymore and there's only a few hydroelectric dams. We can talk about the evils of Enron separately, as you say, but it doesn't change the fact that California is outsourcing its pollution problems to elsewhere, and Houston just happens to be one of the places that has been willing to suffer the pollution for cash to satisfy the needs of places like California. You can't ignore the fact that there's a cost (pollution) to making energy under the restrictive regulations put in place by govt. and it's only a matter of WHERE you pollute, not how much you pollute. </div> No, Denny. That is not how it went down. When the electricity demand in California rose, utilities had no financial incentive to expand production, as long term prices were capped. Instead, wholesalers such as Enron manipulated the market to force utility companies into daily spot markets for short term gain. For example, in a market technique known as megawatt laundering, wholesalers bought up electricity in California at below cap price to sell out of state, creating shortages. In some instances, wholesalers scheduled power transmission to create congestion and drive up prices. There was clear and present manipulation going on , which then California governor Gray Davis took the fall for, and ultmately led to Arnold being elected. Then Enron was found guilty of all of the above, and the rest is history.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 15 2008, 11:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We can talk about the evils of Enron separately, as you say, but it doesn't change the fact that California is outsourcing its pollution problems to elsewhere, and Houston just happens to be one of the places that has been willing to suffer the pollution for cash to satisfy the needs of places like California. You can't ignore the fact that there's a cost (pollution) to making energy under the restrictive regulations put in place by govt. and it's only a matter of WHERE you pollute, not how much you pollute.</div> Outsourcing pollution?????? California uses more automobiles than any other state. THEY NEED REGULATION on pollution!!! They burn more fossil fuels. It is Imperative that they keep it as clean as possible. This is the most polluted state, and yet they try as hard as they can to curb it. They have gone so far, that the automobile industry is fighting them over their pollution reduction measures. Read. http://www.latimes.com/news/science/enviro...0,1582283.story
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 15 2008, 11:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 15 2008, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The thing I hate about man-made global warming, is that the debate on whether man has or has not caused global warming is stifled by enviornmentalists, the media, and other liberals like Al Gore.</div> Well, lets broaden it a bit. I know that China is polluting as much as any country in the world. Their air pollution is reaching us all the way on the California coast. What can we do about it? Not much really. </div> The Chinese are a bunch of fucking hypocrites. Sign the Kyoto, then build more coal power plants. And according to the liberal enviornmentalists we're the one not addressing the issue.
