I cannot have read that right.

You think bush is /encouraging/ the states to enforce carbon capping ??????

 

I probably could have stated my last post better.

On issues the Bush Administration wants changed to their liking, they often say: "Let the States Decide".

The irony of the states tighening pollutions laws is this is an issue not to the Bush Administration's liking...


In other words, these states are using a Bush method to lead a policy Bush opposes - ironic.

 

Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

Though I have to say I see more cases of manipulating special interests and setting groups against one another as common ploys. Consolidating executive power into the white house is also a favorite.

"Let the States Decide" tends to occur when secular civil liberties are being attacked.

 

Bush said "Let the States Decide" about gay rights UNTIL California, Mass. and Vermont passed Some pro-gay legislation. Then he and his "king James Bible" crowd tried TWICE to amend the Constitution in order to enforce his antiquated views on human sexuality. Being a gay man, I've been expecting a knock at the door (at 3:00 AM) from the Patriot Police ever since Bush was (selected) elected.

With that in mind, you can bet he'll enact some sweeping piece of crap legislation if advances in clean emissions and fuel economy threaten the hefty wallets of his Big Oil backers.

 

What's with all the neo-****'s on here trying to exterminate the Jews and Christians?!

 

azcivic, congragulations !!

You win the moron post of the year award.

 

I prefer reasoning to emoting - please.

 

So far, the EPA has no cap on CO2. If a state like California puts one on vehicles, historically the rest of America will follow.

If you refer to the original BBC story at the start of this thread, there is a link on clean (well, cleaner) coal: Clean coal tech: How it works . It's an interesting read. BBC articles usually have lots of related links.

To inject some levity, New Zealand has a flautantce tax becuase the livestock is their main contrubutor to Global Warming. Is somebody going to attack soft drinks because CO2 is a general health hazard?

 

In the Saturday, Dec 10, 2005 Dallas Morning News Automotive Section was a buried article (page 10M) about how the auto industry is fighting CA, and other states trying to join them (NY, OR, VT), raising the CAFE standards independently. There were two auto groups mentioned. One group is the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the big three and 6 importers) and the other is the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (14 companies). Their argument against CA, et al, seems to be founded in reverse states rights speak.

The article specifically states that "The industry believes that carbon dioxide, which is a natural part of the atmosphere, isn't a pollutant that California can regulate". In other words, the feds have a standard and the states cannot independently set stricter standards. Of course, part of their reasoning was that it will be an economic hardship as well (up to $3000 per car).

I looked for a link on DallasNews.com to the story but one has not been posted at this time. I did find a link on Autoweek.com by the author of the article (Harry Stoffer) dated July 19, 2005 about the decision in favor of the automakers and EPA, and against the states by a Federal court. It appears to be safe to say the recent attempted independent state actions on emissions of CO2 are a direct result of that ruling.

Personally, I am disappointed but not surprised that the EPA is siding with the automakers on this one.

 

Excuse you, but you're among the ones saying that anyone who is religious is just a mindless drone. You are among the many on here that have stated in several threads that anyone who is religious, anyone who reads the bible, and anyone who has any faith of any kind is a zealot that takes their orders from someone and blindly does whatever they are told. It's amazing to me that you think it's socially acceptable to make such offensive comments about people.