"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:a2f446a7-239c-4277-805c-828249fbd153@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Only 279 days left!)
> Bush Outlines Climate Change Targets
> President Suggests Broad National Goals For Ending Growth Of
> Greenhouse Gas Emissions By 2025
> WA****NGTON, April 16, 2008
>
Bush Ain't Falling For Climate Hysteria
The Climate Speech That Wasn't
16 Apr 2008
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/8671
President Bush's call today to stop the growth of greenhouse gas
emissions by 2025 shouldn't be seen as any kind of White House policy
****ft.
If you think about it, he's really saying that it's fine for emissions
to grow until then. Bush's speech today was a fairly vague and empty
statement of intent, lacking in any plan to actually set specific
emissions targets or reduce the United States' output. And when it does
come time to halt growth, what Bush hails are the tired fallbacks:
fuel-economy standards (not very helpful) and those frequently hyped and
rarely identified "new technologies" that will surely do something. And
since something's on the way, there's surely no need to reduce or cap
today. Or so goes the thinking.
Bush devoted the majority of his remarks to what he still finds wrong
with the emissions debate, making it clear how truly opposed he is to
any type of regulation. He threw in a jab at the Supreme Court and its
"unelected judges" for good measure:
The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National
Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate
change. For example, under a Supreme Court decision last year, the Clean
Air Act could be applied to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from
vehicles.
If these laws are stretched beyond their original intent, they could
override the programs Congress just adopted, and force the government to
regulate more than just power plant emissions. They could also force the
government to regulate smaller users and producers of energy from
schools and stores to hospitals and apartment buildings. [...]
Decisions with such far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected
regulators and judges. (my emphasis)
In short, the climate speech doesn't really alter the political
landscape on the issue. Not a surprise, really, though I'd expected
something a little more ground-****fting this morning when I read the
WSJ's advance on the speech.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's book
Capitalism
|
