WTF is special about 2050? (Emissions law)

[Knightshade Dragon]

"Supports a mandatory cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050"

Seriously, what is the point?  This stance is bullshit and I'm hearing it from almost every candidate.  Does anyone honestly believe that we'll be using the same technology in 2050 as we are now?  How about we cut that to 2015.  Every company out there could save up and retrofit their equipment by then and it won't be such a damned joke.  The candidate you elect that succumbs to this policy probably won't be ALIVE to see it come to fruition!  Why do we stand for this?  It is insulting to our intelligence.

[Larraque]

2050 is far enough ahead that it won't matter. That's why they choose that date.

It doesn't piss off businesses who pollute, and dumb people think 'sweet, they're doing something about the environment'. I like this candidate. It's playing both sides, which is key in this ridiculous world we live in.

During the superbowl, I saw an ad for an environmentally conscious SUV Hybrid. It got a whopping 21 mpg. 21? Is that a number to be proud of? My Aveo gets about 36 MPG and when I'm driving 30 miles to and from work each day by myself, I'm not proud of that number.

We're killing the world (that's what these ridiculous January storms are - the earth trying to heal itself) and no one in power cares. We'll be lucky if there's still a fuel supply - if there's still a world - in 2050.

[WalkingFumble]

end of the bell curve?

[Purge]

Past the date Nostradamus used to signal the end of the world?

[unbreakable]

Well, the funny thing about that is if you look at the fuel efficiency rate, the auto industry will hit an 80% reduction by... 2050.  So in other words, the conservatives are, as usual, pushing a "do nothing" policy.

[Knightshade Dragon]

Well, the funny thing about that is if you look at the fuel efficiency rate, the auto industry will hit an 80% reduction by... 2050.  So in other words, the conservatives are, as usual, pushing a "do nothing" policy.

Don't mean to poke holes in your theory but both sides are pushing this same do nothing policy. 

[unbreakable]

Why would they want to push a policy now?  Bush would oppose any meaningful change anyway, and he'll be gone in less than a year.

The conservatives even oppose giving health care to veterans and sick kids.  If they play obstructionist on stuff like that, why are they going to get all lovey dovey "bipartisan" on something like an environmental concern?

[Laner]

Well, the funny thing about that is if you look at the fuel efficiency rate, the auto industry will hit an 80% reduction by... 2050.  So in other words, the conservatives are, as usual, pushing a "do nothing" policy.

Don't mean to poke holes in your theory but both sides are pushing this same do nothing policy. 

(fingers in ears) LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU </unbreakable>

[unbreakable]

He stated "both sides" were pushing to do nothing, so I stated why the Democrats aren't pushing a policy.

I'm sorry that offends you, Laner, seeing as how intellectual you act and everything.

There's simply no reason for the Democrats to be pushing policies at this point.  The Republicans have been playing obstructionist on, literally, everything since after the 2006 elections.  They have long since blown past the congressional world record for filibusters.  Remember all the crying and whining the Republicans were doing in 2004 and 2005 over "ZOMG TEH DEMOKRATZ R TEH UBSTRUTION, GET TEH NUKULUR OPTIENZEZ!!!!11!!"?  Or is that just conveniently forgotten?

That's actually why I couldn't see why the Democrats didn't call the bluff of the Repukes on removing the filibuster, if they dared.  It was perfectly obvious at that point the Repubs were going to lose the congressional elections, and lose them hard.

That's why all this "bipartisan" talk is simply bullshit.  To conservatives, being bipartisan means they say what to do, and Democrats follow along.  If you want to buy that line of crap, well... good for you.

[denoginizer]

I think 99% of the threads in the Political/Religious Nonsense Forum could be summed up as follows:


Unbreakable - "Consevative politicians are evil and corrupt!!!!"

           Everybody Else - "No. All politicians are evil and corrupt."

Unbreakable - "No. Consevative politicians are evil and corrupt!!!!"

            Everybody Else - "No. All politicians are evil and corrupt."

Unbreakable - "No. Consevative politicians are evil and corrupt!!!!"

            Everybody Else - "No. All politicians are evil and corrupt."

Unbreakable - "No. Consevative politicians are evil and corrupt!!!!"

            Everybody Else - "No. All politicians are evil and corrupt."

Unbreakable - "No. Consevative politicians are evil and corrupt!!!!"

            Everybody Else - "No. All politicians are evil and corrupt."

Unbreakable - "No. Consevative politicians are evil and corrupt!!!!"

            Everybody Else - "No. All politicians are evil and corrupt."

Unbreakable - "No. Consevative politicians are evil and corrupt!!!!"

            Everybody Else - "No. All politicians are evil and corrupt."

[Brendan]

denoginizer, you're acting as though the conservatives who post in this forum make any good-faith efforts whatsoever to have a discussion.  Mostly, they complain about dogmatic adherence to the democratic party line without any substantive feedback.  Typically, that's because the facts aren't on their side.

So, I'm happy to talk emissions; my background's in ecology.  Let's start with this:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/24/MNE6UKCQI.DTL

To summarize:

California attempted to limit emissions.  The republican appointee at the EPA, against his staff's explicit recommendations, denied California's request, despite the staff finding that they had the "compelling and extraordinary conditions" necessary for the Clean Air Act's standards for EPA approval.  The staff told him that, were California's law approved, automakers would sue the government, but would lose.  They told him that were the waiver denied, California would sue, and would win.  Despite that, what did he do?

This is the problem with Bush's political appointees:  they know exactly who appointed them, and that their focus has to be on serving the corporate interests that sponsored the Bush presidency.  What's Johnson's background pre-EPA?  He worked for Hazleton Labs, now Covance.  What're they famous for?  Abusing primates in animal testing labs and letting the Ebola virus leak out.

The republican-led senate did force him to make one concession during his confirmation hearings:

During his Senate confirmation hearing, Johnson was criticized for his support of using human subjects in pesticide testing. In April, a hold was placed on his confirmation vote after he refused to cancel the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study, which advocated recording the effects of pesticides on children from infancy to age 3. On April 8, Johnson canceled the study. His nomination was confirmed by the Senate on April 29.

So, what're your thoughts on emissions?  Do you support the EPA overruling California's more agressive emissions standards?

[denoginizer]

denoginizer, you're acting as though the conservatives who post in this forum make any good-faith efforts whatsoever to have a discussion.  Mostly, they complain about dogmatic adherence to the democratic party line without any substantive feedback.  Typically, that's because the facts aren't on their side.

So, I'm happy to talk emissions; my background's in ecology.  Let's start with this:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/24/MNE6UKCQI.DTL

To summarize:

California attempted to limit emissions.  The republican appointee at the EPA, against his staff's explicit recommendations, denied California's request, despite the staff finding that they had the "compelling and extraordinary conditions" necessary for the Clean Air Act's standards for EPA approval.  The staff told him that, were California's law approved, automakers would sue the government, but would lose.  They told him that were the waiver denied, California would sue, and would win.  Despite that, what did he do?

This is the problem with Bush's political appointees:  they know exactly who appointed them, and that their focus has to be on serving the corporate interests that sponsored the Bush presidency.  What's Johnson's background pre-EPA?  He worked for Hazleton Labs, now Covance.  What're they famous for?  Abusing primates in animal testing labs and letting the Ebola virus leak out.

The republican-led senate did force him to make one concession during his confirmation hearings:

During his Senate confirmation hearing, Johnson was criticized for his support of using human subjects in pesticide testing. In April, a hold was placed on his confirmation vote after he refused to cancel the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study, which advocated recording the effects of pesticides on children from infancy to age 3. On April 8, Johnson canceled the study. His nomination was confirmed by the Senate on April 29.

So, what're your thoughts on emissions?  Do you support the EPA overruling California's more aggressive emissions standards?

I am certainly not a conservative when it comes to social issues and the environment.  I am for strict emissions standards.  I voted for Al Gore in 2000.    And I would have a problem with Unbreakable if he was similarly biased against liberals.  I tend to believe that there are good and bad people on both ideological sides.  I am just bothered by his absurdly single minded view of the world.  My brother is like the bizzaro Unbreakable.  He is as right wing biased as Unbreakable is left.  Many Thanksgivng dinners at my mothers' house have been ruined by he and I arguing, with me supporing the left and him the right. 

[Brendan]

Sure, Mr. U is pretty vociferous - he's right more often than a stopped clock, though, and I don't want anyone to think that the democrats are worse on emissions than the republicans.

The republicans will not do anything that jeopardizes corporate interests.  They are on the wrong side of every environmental battle.  In this particular case, and in the case of choosing 2050, this is primarily driven by conservatives.

Democrats are often incompetent and/or weak.  They're very rarely evil or corrupt.

[whiteboyskim]

The conservatives even oppose giving health care to veterans and sick kids.

Can they vote? No? Screw 'em.

[CeeKay]

I think 99% of the threads in the Political/Religious Nonsense Forum could be summed up as follows:


Unbreakable - "Consevative politicians are evil and corrupt!!!!"

           Everybody Else - "No. All politicians are evil and corrupt."

Unbreakable - "No. Consevative politicians are evil and corrupt!!!!"

            Everybody Else - "No. All politicians are evil and corrupt."

Unbreakable - "No. Consevative politicians are evil and corrupt!!!!"

            Everybody Else - "No. All politicians are evil and corrupt."

Unbreakable - "No. Consevative politicians are evil and corrupt!!!!"

            Everybody Else - "No. All politicians are evil and corrupt."

Unbreakable - "No. Consevative politicians are evil and corrupt!!!!"

            Everybody Else - "No. All politicians are evil and corrupt."

Unbreakable - "No. Consevative politicians are evil and corrupt!!!!"

            Everybody Else - "No. All politicians are evil and corrupt."

Unbreakable - "No. Consevative politicians are evil and corrupt!!!!"

            Everybody Else - "No. All politicians are evil and corrupt."

aw, c'mon, that's ridiculous....

he's spelled conservative right at least once.

[unbreakable]

My secret is using a spell checker before I post 

I don't let it bother me.  Denoginizer is just carrying on the well worn tradition of attacking me rather than discussing what I say.  It's a pretty effective tactic for people who aren't equipped to discuss ideas.