Just in case you don't think elections have consequences. How would Boehner keep House? - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com Speaker Boener would reverse many of the steps forward that the congress and the capital have made of late in making itself more environmentally friendly. Everything from gutting the clean air and water acts, undoing the energy efficiencies in government buildings including the capital, reversing the ban on smoking in the capital etc. Pretty sad that the party of NO, is the party of NO in so many ways!
Are the American people that stupid? Do they believe all those phoney TV ads the Libertarian Koch Bros--oil billionaires-- have made the media rich on? Why does the media mainstream extreme right "tea party" views while ignoring extreme left views? The answer to the above question is MONEY. Remember, the media benefits from all that phoney attack advertising. And Democracy suffers. And what is the Democratic response? Houston, I think we have a communications problem. Obama still thinks it's the 1950s, when Everett Dirkson was striking bargains with Lyndon Johnson. Wrong, one-term Barack.
It's going to be difficult to keep this environmental discussion about politic's affect on the environment from turning into a flat-out political argument. Keep it clean.
Tony, I debated posting it in the FhoPol threads, but since it is an environmental story I though this was the appropriate thread. Move it or delete it if you feel the need. Icarus
i don't know if it's possible to separate politics from the environment anymore. Al Gore kinda saw to that.
just read a paper about natural gas drilling in shale in pennsylvania. reminded me of love canal, scary.
What changes would anyone expect that Obama can't veto ? What would actually happen is that nothing new can be done. Anything that requires yearly approprations can't be done. It is not as if they have passed a climate bill that can be gutted ...
I respectfully suggest that you actually read the article in the link. The main point is that the Speaker has great control over administrative issues at the Capital itself. While these issues are largely symbolic, to turn back the clock on the symbolism is quite bad. Just as Ronald Reagan torn down Carter's solar panels at a time when PV was cutting edge and has some symbolic value, taking them down served to stifle the notion that energy issues should be taken seriously. The article goes on to suggest other anti environmental stance stances that Boener has suggested he would take. To blame Gore for politicizing environmental issues is like blaming water for being wet. Environmental issues have always been political, as well as economic. The reality is that being dirty is cheap in the short term, but expensive in the long term, being clean (efficient) is expensive short term, cheaper long term. (See the above reference to Love Canal, and it's environmental costs!) Mix the economic self interests of some against others and you have politics! Deal with it!
Ahhhh, icarus at his best misrepresenting or downright falsifying the truth. The solar panels on the White House were removed to repair the roof it was not cost effective to replace them. I doubt the WH staff needed Reagan to approve the repair. White House Will Not Replace Solar Water-Heating System - NYTimes.com I dare say it would be cost effective to do so now so why won't Obama lend his voice to such an endeavor? Another case of "Do as I say not as I do" much like our friend Eco Preacher Al Gore the gigantically boring hypocrite. snopes.com: A Tale of Two Houses
IMHO that rant is just blatent politics. I would think the speaker if she was being green would do more than spend money on carbon credits that don't really offset the polution they claim. When you put up JC's overpriced leaky roof as an example of the good, you just lose me. The government paid too much and then had to pay for repairs. Even after running JC's solar policy through much of the next administration, then 8 years under Clinton/Gore and anouther 2 under obama, Solar in the US still accounts for less than 1% of energy used, and most of this is used to heat pools. It looks like a symbol of false promises and failed energy policy. The failures and focus started with Nixon and have bipartisan. Obama can't do it now because W. already put up practical solar power. Why didn't Gore enact good energy policy while he was vice president? No you can't blame Him for being a politician, but you can see if putting solar power up was important why didn't he do it? The Republicans and Democrats have both helped craft meaningless symbolism that just hides the issues. The first step in creating good energy policy is to understand why the policies like solar panels on the whitehouse were a failure, not remember them with some fake nostalgia for a poor excuse for a president.
Maybe I'm just getting old and burnt out. I know I should care, but it becomes more and more difficult to really give a damn. Whatever side of the fence you are on. Our politics, government has become so homogenized that it appears to me to be at best simply an illusionary- two party system. The Dems "take control"? The consevatives complain and blame them for everything bad. The GOP "takes control" the democrats accuse of them of everything being unfair and wrong...and the cycle goes on and on and on.... Are there differences? Probably. And what's left of my idealist heart tells me I need to find a reason to care. But the cynic in me says it doesn't really matter. We aren't so much dealing with Democrats or Republicans, Conservatives or Liberals with any real difference in them, we are dealing with politicians, who usually turn out to be wealthy people with a desire for status and power. Okay, I'll feel different tomorrow...but today I feel our whole political leadership system has rotted from the inside out...whomever is momentarily in the majority...won't stay in majority forever and sometimes I think the illusion is simply created to make people think they are voting for change, when the results whatever they might turn out to be, really don't matter so much. I bothers me, that I have to admit that I've reached this place in my feelings. Because it shouldn't be this way.
Political arguments are directly related to the environment. Here is the cycle: 1) Political talk digresses into BS. 2) BS decomposes releasing methane. 3) Methane mixes into the atmosphere increasing Global Climate Change. Now you the real reason for warmer weather. Tom
Well, that didn't take long for the usual suspects to pollute the air. Not much more to say. Tony should feel free to delete or move as he sees fit.
