New global warming plan

[Klodomir]

President Bush has unveiled his new global warming plan, and not surprisingly, it seems to be completely inadequate and halfway voluntary. And Australia is backing it! Are we now fighting a war against the environment, I wonder?

[Lemonite]

I'm in the process of reading more about it.. But from my initial reactions, it shares the same 'pollution credits', that the worthless Kyoto Treaty had.. but it protects our Economy with priority... It seems to be a pretty good system.. in that it allows us to reduce emissions, clean up the environment, but when necessary, protect our own interests.

L.Unplugged

And just to remind anyone that's going to rip us for not ratifying the Kyoto Treaty.. At the time we dropped out of it.. NO ONE had signed it either.

[Salome]

Originally posted by Klodomir:
Are we now fighting a war against the environment, I wonder?

it does seem so
I'm actually quite surprised
I know quite a few people who study/studied economy and almost all of us thought that we had reached the point where everyone knew that the time has come to let the ecology prevail over economy
since we are just about done with ruining our entire ecological system

I guess we were all wrong though

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[the HORROR]

So lets figure out our "bashing" options:

1) Continue to bash Bush.
2) Continue to bash Bush and America.
3) Continue to bash Bush, and America, and anyone contributing to the oh-so-important American Economy

4) Same as #3) above, add Australia
5) Bash Australia only
6) Combine # 1)and 5)
7) Combine # 2) and 5)
8) All of the above

WoW we really have our options! This should be REAL fun

------------------


"The only fitting memorial for those lives that were lost is the idea that the world is forever changed by this moment in time, that it is a better more inclusive place, & that we cut off the OXYGEN SUPPLY to these CRAZY FANATICS!" ~Bono 11/05/01


"So Mr. Bin Laden, I hear you have an intrest in our airplanes...Let me show you this one, we like to call it the B-52

[Salome]

okay, now I'm really sick and tired of the current practise that anyone who does not agree with certain views is being accused of "bashing" over here

if you can't handle a discussion then go away or I will make sure you'll have to go away
no matter who your friends are around here

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by Salome:
okay, now I'm really sick and tired of the current practise that anyone who does not agree with certain views is being accused of "bashing" over here

if you can't handle a discussion then go away or I will make sure you'll have to go away
no matter who your friends are around here

Of course, none of us really have any say when you drop a Threat of that magnitude.. the HORROR is just calling out something before it is sure to happen in this thread.. He did not accuse anyone of 'BASHING' anything.. Read his post.. He just gave those select few who continuously take every opportunity presented to shit on America some cues to take up on...

Actually, It was quite brilliant.. Calling the shots before they are Fired.

Ruthish if I may.

L.Unplugged

[z edge]

Salome I don't think you got the joke.....

[Klodomir]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
Actually, It was quite brilliant.. Calling the shots before they are Fired.

It's just provocation. You don't have to be anywhere near brilliant to accomplish that.

[Klodomir]

What's your problem, Horror? Why don't you return when you've formed an independent opinion? And if you're going to accuse people of bashing anyone, please post specific names so they can defend themselves. I know you're not talking about me.

[Angela Harlem]

Just a couple of points, Slomey is quite a bright fella. He's essentially coming from the same place the HORROR is, where he's plain jack of all the shit fights.

And also, the Aus PM has his head wedged firmly up the American Prez's arse. Bush could say Im gonna make farting illegal and lil Johnny would reply "Fantastic idea, can I just give your arse a little kiss while Im here?"

[melon]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
but it protects our Economy with priority...

As usual, business interests come before the environment. Apparently, the environment is only worth protecting during prosperous times.

What a scam. What people never seem to get is that business never has enough profits, according to business.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by melon:
As usual, business interests come before the environment. Apparently, the environment is only worth protecting during prosperous times.

What a scam. What people never seem to get is that business never has enough profits, according to business.

Melon

Melon.. Are you saying that you would approve of a treaty or some sort of plan that would have HUUUUUGE economic RAmifications that would very quite possibly put us in a Depression?....

It's not as simple as 'we're putting the economy over the environment', we are putting our interests.. Which do include protecting the environment.. but our interests as a stable nation above anything else.. and if that may cause us to protect our economy.. and that happens to be at the expense of the environment, then I say all the better for it.. Because we still have a plan to protect the environment.. reduce emissions et al..

Bush's plan gives a realistic and step wise plan to help in the clean up of the environment while not wreaking havoc on our country's stability.

L. Unplugged

[Gem]

I am not an economist or a perfect-ecologist who can measure with numbers the effects of the american industry (wich is responsile for 25% of the pollution on the Earth), but the effets of pollution are, in my corner of the Earth, getting more and more intense.

A read a lot of newspapers and the overwhelming majority of editorials/quotes of ecologists outside the United States say that this plan, the "Bush Plan" will not work and the pollution will increase during the next I0 years dramatically. Well, if its the case, here I might see no winter again in a place where winter have a reputation of being the toughest... where's the cold and the snow this winter here ???? I can't imagine in I0 years...

------------------
Le peuple uni, jamais ne sera vaincu
The people united, will never be defeated
El pueblo unido, nunca se derrote

[melon]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
Melon.. Are you saying that you would approve of a treaty or some sort of plan that would have HUUUUUGE economic RAmifications that would very quite possibly put us in a Depression?....

This is just rhetoric fed to you from big business and their president. What it comes down to is that business never wants to be held accountable for its actions. If they wanted to drill oil in endangered species habitats, they would go for it. If it weren't for government regulation, we'd still be driving 7 mpg gas guzzlers with rear engines that explode on impact.

It's not as simple as 'we're putting the economy over the environment', we are putting our interests.. Which do include protecting the environment.. but our interests as a stable nation above anything else.. and if that may cause us to protect our economy.. and that happens to be at the expense of the environment, then I say all the better for it.. Because we still have a plan to protect the environment.. reduce emissions et al..

This is just a pathetic excuse to circumvent EPA regulations, which, must I remind you, business was trying to back out of during the "great prosperity" of the last decade. They're milking this recession for all it is worth, including piling on tax cuts that have been adding up from the last recessions from the past two decades.

Bush's plan gives a realistic and step wise plan to help in the clean up of the environment while not wreaking havoc on our country's stability.

Have you ever thought that environmental regulations would actually "create" jobs? Business is going to have to have *someone* to fix their company to comply. It may be that they might need to hire more engineers to make their products more compliant, they might have to contract out companies to fix up their factory, etc. What it comes down to is that business doesn't want to ever upgrade.

Of course, I know how it is. "Pollution" is just that proverbial liberal made up thing that no one has to deal with. Right? Well, for those who do have to deal with it, we shouldn't be tying economic prosperity with common sense and responsibility. That would be like saying that schools should dumb down their curriculum during times of economic recessions just to crank out more graduates. The unfortunate fact is that we all live just once, and pollution, once released, cannot just simply be erased.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[Lemonite]

Melon, you do make some good points, but when you say that the regulations will create jobs, it will be jobs at the expense of the current business jobs, cutting emissions.. is going to initially require cutting production.. There's just no way around it at the moment, because yes, a lot of technology exists, but it apparently has not been installed, so the production of the business is going to drop significantly due to the initial constraints of immediately conforming to the new standards..
However, a sort of collaborative movement may work.. But then of course the businesses aren't going to want to pay for this... Which you did state, and I think we'd all state..

It's just a big expansive case of the prisoners dilemma... No business is going to want to go through all the mess it will have to .. in order to conform to drastic new standards unless EVERYONE Else does.. And this includes foreign nations.. This was the big big problem with the Kyoto Treaty with us..

I think that how Bush has it set.. The Fixed Limits are gone... is a much more realistic and workable approach.. Until the methods to drastically reduce the emissions in factories and transportation are efficiently created at least.. He's setting a goal.. 18% over ten years, not wrecking the economy in the process, and allowing for future policy to reflect technological advancements.

And until that happens, no one's going to be willing to change at their expense while others are not having to be subjected to such changes...

And How can you accuse those of my thought to be 'Milking' .. yes. I think that's what you wrote.. 'Milking the recession'.. I may have misunderstood, actually I hope I did, but That could not be further from the truth.. I don't know why people haven't realized that tax cuts do work.. Anyways.. another thread.. It is the people from your position, the liberals who want to .. if I may use your term.. 'Milk' this recession, there is nothing they would like more than for this recession to continue until .. at least election time.. I have a hard time believing that you don't see that.. I mean look at what Daschle just recently did.. He STOPPED the stimulus plan.. He is trying to shut down this economy.. Don't ever accuse us of 'Milking this Recession'.. Especially with the latest Daschle screw up.. no one's going to buy that..

L.Unplugged

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 02-16-2002).]

[Popmartijn]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
It's just a big expansive case of the prisoners dilemma... No business is going to want to go through all the mess it will have to .. in order to conform to drastic new standards unless EVERYONE Else does.. And this includes foreign nations.. This was the big big problem with the Kyoto Treaty with us..

Why? Because the foreign industrialised nations do want to comply? Or is it because foreign nations already have some measures for protecting the environment and that the US wants to profit by not having regulations?
I mean, the US has got (one of) the lowest oil productivity of the Western world (that is, the US produces less with one barrel of oil than other countries do). Should they have participated in the Kyoto talks new regulations would have probably called for using less oil (as an effect). This would result in creating a larger efficiency, hence a larger oil productivity. I don't think this would cost (many) jobs as the companies would face lower oil costs which would offset the costs of having to comply to the new regulations.

I think that how Bush has it set.. The Fixed Limits are gone... is a much more realistic and workable approach.. Until the methods to drastically reduce the emissions in factories and transportation are efficiently created at least.. He's setting a goal.. 18% over ten years, not wrecking the economy in the process, and allowing for future policy to reflect technological advancements.

Bush's goal with a 18% reduction is very deceiving. The Kyoto treaty wants to ensure a reduction of the total emission of toxic gases. Bush wants to reduce the emission intensity, where emission intensity is equal to the total emission divided by GNP. This means that if the US economy will grow with 30% the next ten years (as it is projected at the moment) then the total emission will grow with 12%. Said differently, Bush proposes a relative reduction of the toxic gases (from the 183,000 kg per $1 million GNP to 151,000 kg per $1 million GNP), not an absolute reduction (as the Kyoto treaty proposes).

Anyway, president Bush's proposal for voluntary reduction isn't new. In the 1990s such a proposal was also made by governor Bush in Texas. Apparently, it didn't work (wasn't Houston the smog-capital of the USA in the mid-1990s?).

Marty




------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle

[Lemonite]

Other countries do want to comply?...

One Word.. CHINA

L.Unplugged

[melon]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
And How can you accuse those of my thought to be 'Milking' .. yes. I think that's what you wrote.. 'Milking the recession'.. I may have misunderstood, actually I hope I did, but That could not be further from the truth..

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has openly stated that Bush's "economic stimulus" packages are likely not even necessary, as key economic indicators are showing. He has stood by this and didn't lower interest rates at the last Federal Reserve meeting.

Our economy is not in that bad of shape. Who is bitching? Stockholders, as usual. Call it a revolutionary idea, but I don't think that our economic health should revolve around a system that is little more than socially acceptable gambling.

Recessions usually do not hurt big business in the slightest. Companies as big as Ford Motor Company have been around for decades, with some even weathering the Great Depression. This is just a spit in a large economic ocean. Why do companies love recessions?

1) It weeds out weaker competitors, positioning themselves to emerge with a greater market position.
2) It allows them to reinvest their stock portfolios at bargain prices.
3) It allows them to lobby favors from government, like tax breaks and other "stimulus" packages.
4) It allows them to restructure their business to be more cost efficient.

Bush, from the beginning, has been talking down this economy, making it sound sicker than it is, as an excuse to give wealthy and business tax breaks. Bush just threw a bone at everyone else. Those $300 and $600 checks from last year were advances on this year's rebate checks. Expect your average rebate check to be $300 to $600 lighter this year, depending on what you received. Such a tax break!

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by melon:
Bush, from the beginning, has been talking down this economy, making it sound sicker than it is, as an excuse to give wealthy and business tax breaks. Bush just threw a bone at everyone else.

Melon

I still am amazed at your reliance on such things as 'smiley faces' to try and emphasize a point other than using words.. Anyways, Of course Bush has been saying that the economy was bad.. even before he was elected.. THAT's so the liberal media wouldn't be able to paint this recession as a 'BUSH' Recession..

We all know that the economy isn't that bad.. the recession is one of the smallest ever recorded.. but the liberals have never even been saying that. I'm surprised for you to 'switch' gears on us and say that now the economy isn't that bad, when All the liberals were saying that the economy was in terrible shape..

Yes, it has been pointed out here before that the recession.. by all 'legal' terms is over.. of course there's going to be aftermath, layoffs, reduced profits for a bit, but give it just a little bit of time, and it'll come back in full force.

Anyways, Tax cuts aren't just immediate things, the real effect won't be seen today or tomorrow, but again, in time, the difference will be noticed heavily... And the whole reason he cut them in the first place was due to the enormous surplus we had from the tax rates that were standing.. It was so ridiculous, and so he did what he was supposed to do... give the surplus back to those who created it...

L.Unplugged

[melon]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
I still am amazed at your reliance on such things as 'smiley faces' to try and emphasize a point other than using words..

Stop arguing like a little child and get to the point.

Anyways, Of course Bush has been saying that the economy was bad.. even before he was elected.. THAT's so the liberal media wouldn't be able to paint this recession as a 'BUSH' Recession..

It is always funny how the Bush family brings out the worst in economies. Reagan had two recessions himself.

We all know that the economy isn't that bad.. the recession is one of the smallest ever recorded.. but the liberals have never even been saying that. I'm surprised for you to 'switch' gears on us and say that now the economy isn't that bad, when All the liberals were saying that the economy was in terrible shape..

Please. Bush has been the one pushing for the mega stimulus packages, far more than is really needed.

Yes, it has been pointed out here before that the recession.. by all 'legal' terms is over..

I never read it being declared "over." As far as I know, we are still in one, but it is supposedly ending.

of course there's going to be aftermath, layoffs, reduced profits for a bit, but give it just a little bit of time, and it'll come back in full force.

Exactly. That's why these economic stimulus packages are unnecessary. "Time" is really all you need. For a bunch of businesses who cry and whine about the need to end government interference, they always demand corporate welfare.

Anyways, Tax cuts aren't just immediate things, the real effect won't be seen today or tomorrow, but again, in time, the difference will be noticed heavily...

You are right. The predictions are that Bush's fuzzy math won't add up and we'll be amassing a gigantic debt.

And the whole reason he cut them in the first place was due to the enormous surplus we had from the tax rates that were standing..

And the surplus is gone. If Bush had been smart, he would have suspended his tax cut until the economy recovered, rather than demand their permanance.

It was so ridiculous, and so he did what he was supposed to do... give the surplus back to those who created it...

"Those who created it." I love how we assume that "business" was the one who created the surplus. Have you ever seen the breakdown of where the government's money comes from? For every dollar, about 50 cents comes from individuals, while 10 cents come from corporations. If he was really sincere with that piece of rhetoric, he would have sharply cut payroll taxes, rather than handing out money to the top 1% and big business. Business is nothing without the labor behind it.

I'm sure that that 10 cents will reduce to less than 5 cents by the time he leaves office. Then the next recession will come and business will demand their last five cents back as "economic stimulus." In the meantime, we'll be spending trillions on death lasers and an unending "war on terrorism." Then, as the baby boomers get older and need more money for Social Security and Medicare, we will only have two options: run at a severe deficit or raise taxes. Considering Republicans never raise corporate taxes, it will be us that take the brunt of the eventual tax hikes. It's only ironic that, during the "prosperous" 1950s, corporations paid 90 cents for every dollar of federal income.

The math just doesn't add up, and no business would reasonably take this much risk. Unlike business, which can declare bankruptcy as easy as stealing candy from a baby, it would be far disastrous if the same fate befell the American government. Look at Russia with the aftermath of the Soviet Union's bankruptcy. Russia is not projected to recover fully for at least another generation or two.
But we need those tax cuts, right?

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[This message has been edited by melon (edited 02-17-2002).]