It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GW Bush Blocked California's Attmept to Limit Green House Gases, Why?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
"EPA is to reveal greenhouse gas papers

EPA Prepares to Provide Documents on California Greenhouse Gas Decision"

by H. JOSEF HEBERT, AP NEWS link to article



The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday signaled it is prepared to comply with a congressional request for all documents — including communications with the White House — concerning its decision to block California from imposing limits on greenhouse gases.




EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson last week rejected California's request to implement regulations on tailpipe emissions of greenhouses gases, principally carbon dioxide. As many as 16 states were free to do likewise if California received approval from the federal EPA.


This is fascinating to me. So many people so often state that one major contributor to the GW hysteria is the government trying to impose taxes on green houses gases to rob you of your money. If that is the case why would the government, GW Bush's administration, block an attempt for California to lower emissions? Setting us up for big bills? Some how I doubt it.

My personal opinion is constantly gravitating towards the idea that the worlds elite know all about global warming, they know what the gases we pump into the atmosphere can do to the natural cycle of warming and cooling, which is create a feedback loop drastically increasing the power and scope of the cycle itself.

I read a few of Zacariah Sitchin's books, I am NOT a believer in his theories (specifically, some what in general) but one thing that I am reminded of is his story of how Enlil knew a giant flood was coming and thought it would be the perfect way to eliminate the masses of human slaves he had created, and then decided he didnt like when his kind started breeding with us.

Could this possibly be the case? Could the NWO / elite / what ever you want to call them know what they are doing? Could they intentionally be attempting to alter natural cycles so that they become deadly in order to rid the planet of, um lets say, 5.5 billion human beings?

Something is up with this GW debate, and I hope we the people figure it out before it is too late.

PS, kind of funny, and a little discoforting that GW = global warming

AND GW = george walker

Could it be a sign?




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
The administrations position is centered around the concept of classifying CO2 as a pollutant. This is essentially what the CA law would do.

Don't know about anyone else, but I would not be comfortable with the government decreeing that CO2 is a pollutant. If it is, then I exhale about 100 kg of a pollutant every year. 120 kg if I spend too much time on ATS.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   
There was a thread on this earlier last week. The person at fault in the other thread was Mr. Cheney. This seems like the usual - something didnt get passed so lets put the blame on the administration. If CO2 is a pollutant, be prepared to pay a high personal tax for breathing...
With that said, having more fuel efficient vehicles or alternative fuel vehicles is very important. Not just for the greenhouse gas issue, but for energy independence.
We, as a nation, spent billions of dollars in the 40's to make a nuke. We spent billions in the 60's to get to the moon. Billions (or trillions adjusting for inflation) should be spent on a long term plan for energy independence.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
California Laws are already more strict than the Federal Government pollution laws and I know that Californians love to legislate themselves to death but I think they should have to follow the same laws as everyone else...

Hey I have any idea you should outlaw fossil fuel motors in California so you can have your clean air not sure what you are going to eat or can't farm without tractors well you can but not on the scale that you currently consume at, you won't have trash pickup no truck to pick it up, oh yeah and you won't have jobs as 85% of businesses rely on transportation of one kind or another so no transport no paycheck... I think you see my point

At any rate you do know who pays for pollution laws don't you?
You and I and everyone else who has to get to work or drive for a living or to make a living the auto makers just pass the added development and engineering costs onto the consumer..as well as the added fuel tax..

The last thing we really need in this country is another freakin law!!!

Ha had to laugh at the breathing tax that is great but it could be coming to a state near you..LOL

Respectfully
GEO



[edit on 12/28/2007 by geocom]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Geo - not to poke fun at this situation BUT isn't that what all the illegal immigrant farm workers are for in California? Clean, renewable energy to pick the cabbage, carrots and other vegetables...not 1 gallon of gas burned!
(that is a joke - nobody overreact)



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


There are far more efficient ways to kill off 5.5 billion people if that were indeed the goal.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Don't know about anyone else, but I would not be comfortable with the government decreeing that CO2 is a pollutant. If it is, then I exhale about 100 kg of a pollutant every year. 120 kg if I spend too much time on ATS.



Originally posted by harddrive21
There was a thread on this earlier last week. The person at fault in the other thread was Mr. Cheney. This seems like the usual - something didnt get passed so lets put the blame on the administration. If CO2 is a pollutant, be prepared to pay a high personal tax for breathing...



It is my opinion that thinking you would be taxed for breathing is highly unlikely, I would even venture to say it is pure fantasy. Honestly, talking about being taxed to breath sounds like a poorly formed scare tactic.

And yes, the Bush administration does carry blame for this not being passed in Cali because it is them that blocked it. If they don't want to be blamed for blocking legislation maybe they should not be in office?



Originally posted by geocom
California Laws are already more strict than the Federal Government pollution laws and I know that Californians love to legislate themselves to death but I think they should have to follow the same laws as everyone else...


Well you obviously are not a Ron Paul supporter. It is nice of you to share your opinion, but still it would be nice if you could explain it. Why should Cali not be able to make laws for themselves?



Hey I have any idea you should outlaw fossil fuel motors in California so you can have your clean air not sure what you are going to eat or can't farm without tractors well you can but not on the scale that you currently consume at, you won't have trash pickup no truck to pick it up, oh yeah and you won't have jobs as 85% of businesses rely on transportation of one kind or another so no transport no paycheck... I think you see my point


I see your point but in some ways your logic is flawed. You may want to do a little research into agriculture before you make the claims that you have here. The industrialization of agriculture, which is a product of gas / oil /etc did away with 100,000s of jobs in the industry. Quite the opposite of what you are saying.



At any rate you do know who pays for pollution laws don't you?
You and I and everyone else who has to get to work or drive for a living or to make a living the auto makers just pass the added development and engineering costs onto the consumer..as well as the added fuel tax..


You might want to look into some terms from economics, specifically 'positive and negative externalities'.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I'd try to block it, too. Maybe we could get back to legislating to make the economy better, not worse.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I do not want to defend or attack our government leaders here Animal, but California has passed MANY laws that are stricter and against Federal Code. One of them is Medicinal Marijuana. I am not here for or against that issue. But, its against federal law, but legal (to a degree) in that state. All I was saying is since the states legislature could not pass it on their own, they are pointing the finger at the Bush administration.
And for the breathing tax - just an illustration that if CO2 is going to be taxed, that "could" happen. I personally think of my line there as a joke - not to be a fear mongerer.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
I'd try to block it, too. Maybe we could get back to legislating to make the economy better, not worse.



Ya, Bush has proven he can do that....what a joke...



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by harddrive21
 


explain this:



EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson last week rejected California's request to implement regulations on tailpipe emissions of greenhouses gases, principally carbon dioxide. As many as 16 states were free to do likewise if California received approval from the federal EPA.


this does not seem like cali pointing its finger to over look its own blame, it looks like an action taken by the feds....



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Animal - right BUT California has a history of ignoring federal la/mandate and doing what it wants.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by harddrive21
 


Sorry man, your assertion that Cali's refusal to listen to Fed laws on Medical Marijuana is COMPLETELY different than CO2 emissions. To try and compare them is like comparing apples and carrots, it makes no sense.

With the medi mari, the state offers the citizens a CHOICE.

With CO2 emissions, the state is trying to make something MANDATORY for ALL citizens.

See the difference?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Animal - there is a difference but what it comes down to is Federal Law vs State Law. California has tougher emission requirements on vehicles than other states and what the feds require. Federal law states MM is illegal. California (and 11 other states) say its ok. Bottom line is the California Legislature could pass this and make it California law. They have not. It could be on the ballot as a Voter Referendum - but they do not.
All I am trying to say is they can bypass the feds and do whatever they want. They don't.
How about our 2nd ammendment right to have firearms. In places like NYC pistols/revolvers are illegal. It is the same in DC and is currently in the Supreme Court.
NY State has passed a law that is not in line with Federal Law because they had the votes to do it.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
One more thing.
The source you have is from Talking Points Memo. That is a "liberal" media outlet. Not saying it is any better or worse in terms of information, but their agenda is specific (like Fox = Conservative, Rense = Crap).



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Follow this link to 186 articles on this topic =)

Thank you for posting though man, I will happily agree to disagree with you =)

Also, thanks for calling me on posting a TPM link, I really should be sure to make my sources less biased, and I will be sure to do that in the future. Cheers man.

[edit on 28-12-2007 by Animal]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join