McCain raps Bush on global warming

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. John McCain called on President Bush Tuesday to do more to fight global warming. McCain, R-Ariz., pointed to a study on rising Arctic temperatures as further evidence that changes in the earth's climate aren't being addressed seriously enough."

"Some of us believe that the accumulation of knowledge argues that we act, rather than continue to accumulate knowledge," McCain said in criticizing the Bush administration's climate strategy as research-heavy.


Even John McCain got it right..

__________________
"Destiny must be shaped and not left to mere chance."..Spencer Collins

There's a solid point for McCain. If you're keeping points. And I am.
Of course, some will say this is McCain's liberal side showing. I don't think it's about liberal or conservative. It's about quality of life.

__________________
Consumption is indeed important in a free economy: particularly the freedom of consumers to buy their goods in unhampered markets. However, key to long-term economic growth is investment (savings), which is the opposite of consumption. Public policies that promote consumption — such as low interest rates — do so at the expense of savings. Less savings means less investments; an economy that does not save or invest will consume all of its resources and eventually end up bankrupt.-David Saied

Yes it is a solid point for him "except" he made that statement in 2004 "before" he was running for POTUS! He may have "modified" his stance by now.Still..I believe he is more environmentally friendly than the BA.

__________________
"Destiny must be shaped and not left to mere chance."..Spencer Collins

Ok then this current statement: States suing EPA over global warming By JAY LINDSAY, Associated Press Writer
Wed Apr 2, 7:05 PM ET

States suing EPA over global warming - Yahoo! News

BOSTON - Officials of 18 states are taking the EPA back to court to try to force it to comply with a Supreme Court ruling that rebuked the Bush administration for inaction on global warming.

In a petition filed Wednesday, the plaintiffs said the 5-4 ruling in April 2007 required the Environmental Protection Agency to decide whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, from motor vehicles.

The EPA has instead done nothing, they said.

"The EPA's failure to act in the face of these incontestable dangers is a shameful dereliction of duty," Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said.

The petition asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to require the EPA to act within 60 days.

In last year's decision, the Supreme Court ruled the EPA has the authority to regulate emissions from new cars and trucks under the Clean Air Act, and said the reasons the EPA gave for declining to do so were insufficient.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar said the Supreme Court required the agency to evaluate how it would regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and other vehicles but set no deadline.

The EPA plans to include the evaluation in a broader look at how to best regulate all greenhouse gas emissions, not just those from vehicles, he said. Otherwise, a mash of laws and regulations could emerge rather than the "holistic" approach the administration favors.

"We want to set a good foundation to build a strong climate policy of potential regulation and laws we can work toward and actually see some success," Shradar said.

At a press conference Wednesday, David Brookbinder of the Sierra Club, one of 11 environmental groups involved in the suit, said the EPA has been talking about a "holistic" approach to climate change for years.

"In fact, they have done absolutely nothing except stand in the way of everybody's else's efforts," he said.

Last week's announcement by the EPA of the formal rule-making procedure signaled the agency wanted to put greenhouse gas regulation "on indefinite hold," said Jim Milkey, chief of environmental protection at Coakley's office, who argued the case before the Supreme Court.

"Every day that goes by without a solution, the window of opportunity to fix the problem closes a bit more," he said.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the EPA "has failed to lead, it has failed to follow the states' lead and we are prepared to force it out of the way in order to protect the environment."

The plaintiffs in the latest court action include Coakley and attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia, plus representatives of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the cities of New York and Baltimore, and several environmental organizations.

The plaintiffs contend the EPA has already completed the work needed to start regulating carbon dioxide.

The Supreme Court ruling requires the agency to regulate carbon dioxide if it determines it's a danger to public health and welfare. Senior EPA employees have told House investigators about a tentative finding from early December that carbon dioxide posed a danger because of its impact on climate.

They also said a draft regulation had been circulated internally, then abandoned. EPA administrator Stephen Johnson has said the issue had to be re-examined because of tougher automobile mileage requirements enacted in December.

The plaintiffs want the finding about the dangers of carbon dioxide released within 60 days so the process for regulating vehicle emissions can begin. They said final rules wouldn't be ready until the next administration takes over.

In Washington, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming voted 12-0 Wednesday to issue a subpoena for all drafts of EPA documents on the issue.

"EPA has made no effort to accommodate the committee's request," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., the committee's chairman.

Shradar declined to say whether the agency would produce the documents the subpoena will request. "We will review this new petition and respond appropriately," he said.

____

Associated Press writer H. Josef Hebert in Washington contributed to this report.

Now if they are suing then there has to be something to this right?

The economic impact banter from the silly and misinformed masses needs to be placed in the Manure pile it belongs in. Likely, this country would see great gains in multiple sectors as it became green:

ENN: Silver Lining to Climate Change - Green Jobs

Perhaps its time for these people to find a new angle...if only to save some level of credibility.

From what I see you post it is a great idea to try to go green for the work force which is at it's Highest un-empoyed in a long time.
Yet some of the comments leave me wondering just what side you place yourself.
I hate to be confused. I do it to myself enough, lol

NASA's Top Climate Scientist Says Big Oil is Hiding a "Planet in Crisis"

NASA's Top Climate Scientist Says Big Oil is Hiding a "Planet in Crisis" | The Daily Galaxy: News from Planet Earth & Beyond

Global warming has plunged the planet into a crisis and the fossil fuel industries are trying to hide the extent of the problem from the public, NASA's top climate scientist says.

"We've already reached the dangerous level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," according to James Hansen, 67, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"But there are ways to solve the problem" of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which Hansen said has reached the "tipping point" of 385 parts per million.

Hansen calls for phasing out all coal-fired plants by 2030, taxing their emissions until then, and banning the building of new plants unless they are designed to trap and segregate the carbon dioxide they emit.

The major obstacle to saving the planet from its inhabitants is not technology, insisted Hansen, named one of the world's 100 most influential people in 2006 by Time magazine.

"The problem is that 90 percent of energy is fossil fuels. And that is such a huge business, it has permeated our government," he maintained. "What's become clear to me in the past several years is that both the executive branch and the legislative branch are strongly influenced by special fossil fuel interests," he said, referring to the providers of coal, oil and natural gas and the energy industry that burns them.


But the propaganda machines will quickly obliterate this news item just as they have gotten rid of every useful piece of evidence since their bosses realized green talk might cut into green backs!

__________________
Consumption is indeed important in a free economy: particularly the freedom of consumers to buy their goods in unhampered markets. However, key to long-term economic growth is investment (savings), which is the opposite of consumption. Public policies that promote consumption — such as low interest rates — do so at the expense of savings. Less savings means less investments; an economy that does not save or invest will consume all of its resources and eventually end up bankrupt.-David Saied