Dia on 18/9/2006 at 19:36
:weird:
Starrfall on 18/9/2006 at 19:36
Quote Posted by BR796164
How is possible for a Rep candidate to win in a hippie haven of America anyway?
Last time he probably won mostly because its the TERMINATOR HOW CAN YOU REFUSE, and also he was going to give people a tax refund and he's not very conservative from a social standpoint.
This time he's probably going to win because he's still not very socially conservative, he more or less tries to give the people what they want, he got a budget out on time, he's willing to learn from his mistakes (or he'll do what it takes to get votes back, however you want to see it) and Angelides is really unlikeable.
Gingerbread Man on 18/9/2006 at 20:56
Inline Image:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ac/Phil_Angelides.JPGBesides, he's COOL. He has a myspace and was mentioned on the Simpsons once as Duff Beer's vice president of calenders and fake IDs. And he wants to drop the voting age in California to 16. THIS GUY'S AS COOL AS IT GETS PEOPLE.
aguywhoplaysthief on 20/9/2006 at 04:24
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
You can rest assured that Bush will do nothing more than pay lip service to the problem of global warming.
I sure hope you're right!
Hyuk hyuk!
scumble on 20/9/2006 at 07:53
Looks like an attempt to rescue an unpopular administration to me. If the motive isn't political, it wouldn't be politics would it? Also, it seems odd to expect a government that has made a pig's arse of foreign and domestic policy to do much better with global warming.
Pyrian on 20/9/2006 at 22:27
It's an election-year thing - the Republicans are finally hurting for the gross incompetence in Iraq. But, of course, election year promises aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Rogue Keeper on 21/9/2006 at 08:56
In other news:
British Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial
(
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf)
California sues car firms for global warming
(
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1877421,00.html)
In the unprecedented lawsuit, the state accused Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Honda, Chrysler and Nissan of creating a "public nuisance" and costing it millions of dollars.
Oh my, this is hot. But it's funny, considering the massive popularity of SUVs on Californian highways, nah? I'd better wait with massive accusations of car firms until I change my Ford Mustang for a hydrogen powered Highwayman. What happens if the firms get really pissed off?
demagogue on 21/9/2006 at 13:12
So many things to say here:
- Its so inevitable there should be a policy change because the science is so incontrovertible, and the pressure is seriously coming at *every* level now ... federal cases, state cases, governors, mayors, international lawsuits, business groups, kindergarteners ... If he gets to set the policy at this point he can at least can shape it.
- A lot of leading companies have already geared up for climate change policy because it's a choice way for them to weed off competition from the little guys. Not only will they survive the shock better, but they'll be first in line with compliant technology, giving them a little monopoly until everybody else catches up. So the policy change is actually pro-(really big) business.
- But anyway, the climate doesn't care about our policy. All it cares about is how many parts per million ave greenhouse gas there is. So there's one major policy-end, however we get there (the easier or harder road), which is to at least avoid the "catestrophic" end of the spectrum over 500ppm (it'll hit 400 in about 10 years). The easier road is "sooner"; the hard road "later" because the longer you put the turn off, the harder the economic hit because you have to make up time.
- But even knowing all this, it's still the problem from hell because it's bound to two almost impossible problems: (1) A global prisoner's dilemma or free-loader problem: Everybody has a massive incentive to cheat (while everyone else follows the rules) and it's hard to enforce cooperation. (2) It's hard to even get cooperation because every region is affected differently and has different values about what level is "dangerous" and what economic hit "hurts", so what target do we agree to go after? Bush's personal feelings or opinions about who-even-gives-a-fuck is really beside the point in the long-term perspective IMO because these real problems will outlast him by a long shot and that's where the real attention needs to be.
- Also, it's mostly institutions that will be doing the work in the end, not personalities and their agendas ... at this point it's just a matter of getting the institutions set up, which has to happen sooner or later. All this hubub seems like such a transient issue. Get the institutions set up ffs already and then we get to work on the real problems and politics.
Ulukai on 21/9/2006 at 22:00
I sincerely doubt the motives of Bush and his administration in this regard, but maybe (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5368194.stm) Sir Richard Branson is rather more serious about climate change. 3 billion dollars isn't exactly loose change even for him, although ironically and maybe fittingly, a lot of that will be coming from the profits of Virgin Atlantic.
Aerothorn on 23/9/2006 at 02:18
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
I sure hope you're right!
Hyuk hyuk!
Just becaust STD makes jackass posts doesn't give you the right too. This lack of cleverness is a new low for you :mad:
