http://gamingtrend.com
October 31, 2014, 10:08:34 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: WTF is special about 2050? (Emissions law)  (Read 2729 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21076



View Profile WWW
« on: February 07, 2008, 01:39:47 PM »

"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.
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
Larraque
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2392


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2008, 07:03:54 PM »

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.
Logged
WalkingFumble
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 652



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2008, 07:31:30 PM »

end of the bell curve?
Logged

XBL: I3L00DFUMBLE  -  132,578     |     PSN: WalkingFumble     |     Nintendo Revolution:  1440 9434 2198 4442
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18584



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2008, 07:55:43 PM »

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

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2008, 08:22:11 PM »

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.
Logged
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21076



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2008, 12:44:27 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on February 07, 2008, 08:22:11 PM

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. 
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2008, 03:13:20 PM »

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?
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 03:17:01 PM by unbreakable » Logged
Laner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4693


Badassfully


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2008, 06:39:02 PM »

Quote from: Knightshade Dragon on February 08, 2008, 12:44:27 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on February 07, 2008, 08:22:11 PM

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>
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2008, 08:47:16 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 08:52:09 PM by unbreakable » Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2008, 09:27:01 PM »

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."
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 09:32:14 PM by denoginizer » Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2008, 11:10:41 PM »

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:

Quote
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?
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2008, 11:29:11 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on February 08, 2008, 11:10:41 PM

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:

Quote
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.  slywink  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. 
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 11:34:53 PM by denoginizer » Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2008, 12:01:35 AM »

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.
Logged
whiteboyskim
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7850


Hard partier


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2008, 12:40:38 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on February 08, 2008, 03:13:20 PM

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

Can they vote? No? Screw 'em. thumbsup
Logged

Behold the glory of my new blog!
Filmmaking is vision plus faith plus balls, all 3 of which Hollywood knows little about.
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2008, 01:11:39 AM »

Quote from: denoginizer on February 08, 2008, 09:27:01 PM

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.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #15 on: February 11, 2008, 07:10:58 PM »

My secret is using a spell checker before I post  icon_wink

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.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.116 seconds with 55 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.034s, 2q)