Leading the way to. . . ?
President Obama’s EPA yesterday allowed California to impose the toughest emission standards on vehicles in the nation, which will form the basis of new nationwide rules.- In a major reversal of Bush administration policy, the Environmental Protection Agency's ruling was hailed by California politicians and national environmental groups as a breakthrough in curbing carbon dioxide - a leading contributor to global warming.
Tuesday's waiver highlights the state's decades-long tradition of environmental leadership, said Roland Hwang, transportation program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. SFGate via Heritage.org
Posts
10 comments:
Since you're so opposed to doing anything to improve the environment. Why don't you just grab a cup. Trot on down to Lake Erie, fill it with some of that pristine lake water and drink a good ol' hearty toast to W's environmental policies.
Bottoms up! Let us know how it tasted.
It's a big leap you've made from auto emissions to cleaning up the Great Lakes. I'm very in favor of cleaning up the messes we make--just not the way California is doing it--or this President taking over not only private industry but state governments. That's the problem with libs--give them an inch and they want a yard.
to answer your question, "California officially has a drop-dead date now. State Controller John Chiang told Arnold Schwarzenegger last night (June 10) that the state has 50 days before it hits a financial meltdown. So in that time, it either needs a bailout, massive budget cuts, or a brand new bubble (green tech, Internet, real estate, something like that)." So it will be up to you Ohioans to bail them out--with Lake Erie water?
It's CalPERS you'll be bailing out.
http://www.californiapensionreform.com/?p=179
It's not all that big a leap Norma. Your reaction to this decision is typical of a rightwingers reaction to anything EPA. What you and your kindred spirits pine for is a free ride when it comes to cleaning up the environment. Unfortunately, it's not too likely that any such painless and cost free way actually exists. So instead of confronting reality, you guys continually opt for just kicking the can a little farther down the road.
Now if I'm wrong and you're aware of a realistic, no sweat required way of accomplishing this, please enlighten us.
You go first. Tell me how this isn't a tax on the poor and middle class. Don't swallow every climate lie you hear.
Then I can take it by your last comment that the only cost and pain free plan environmental plan you can come up with is denial. Not to worry, if I were prone to believing climate lies then I'd be agreeing with you..
Maybe you could start your own blog--web log--and I could stop by an insult your intelligence and motives, although I don't do that to other bloggers. It's generally the territory of the liberals, whose minds have snapped shut and vote the party line. At least I voted Democrat most of the years it mattered, until I learned they constantly moved the markers. I'm still not completely comfortable with the Republicans who seem to have spines of spaghetti (after 40 years of the rigidity of the Dems that was a big shock), but at least generally, they don't vote for killing babies, which is my key plank and why Obama is so dangerous.
Strange how some people feel that only they have anything of value to say. And anything said in rebuttal, must of course be considered malicious. Case in point...you insinuate I believe climate lies ( Don't swallow every climate lie you hear) and I insinuate that you do ( if I were prone to believing climate lies then I'd be agreeing with you..) Yet for some reason, you view my comment as an insult and yours as a valid comment. It appears to me, we were both suggesting the same thing. Namely, that the others political perspective is influenced by their acceptance of lies as facts.
But, since this is your blog and I don't wish to upset you. I'll make this my last post and close with this last bit of unsolicited advice. Should you continue making political critiques and don't wish to hear from those who disagree with you. I would suggest disabling the comment section.
You haven't grasped the concept of a blog--it is a personal diary of the thoughts, beliefs and values of the writer. That I said we had elected a Marxist obviously upset you and caused your attacks here saying I should go drink water from Lake Erie; which is pretty obscure given I blogged about California emission standards that will be imposed on Ohio already struggling with a recession.
You have the freedom (for awhile) to start your own blog that reflects your feelings and thoughts. Blogger dot com is free and has an easy template.
I haven't obscured my identity, but you have written under a pseudonym. At Lakeside you have a huge group of support, and after 6 years of blogging, I've encountered many anons and pseuds. My group here is rather small, given the political make-up of the summer community, but a number have quietly told me they agree with me but feel it is useless to say anything. I didn't intend to change anyone's thinking--I was simply giving my own opinion. You seem to think a different opinion is an attack on you and that all seminars and lectures should reflect only your views, like the evening news--op-eds.
Conservatives value differences, liberals do not. Sort of upside down of what the original meanings were of these words.
Post a Comment