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.

 

Arizona Looks to Outlaw Global Warming Legislation

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Arizona Looks to Outlaw Global Warming Legislation


www.roguegovernment.com

Arizona is now close to becoming the first state to outlaw climate change legislation. The state Senate voted Monday, 19-10 to approve a bill banning the Department of Environmental Quality from enacting or enforcing measures with language pertaining to climate change. The bill is now awaiting House approval.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.prisonplanet.com




posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I know the topic has always been controversial. That does not mean it is right or wrong. However, the tide to turn from fossil fuels to more green energy has great ramifications then just the slowing of global warming. That is why I would suspect that the oil companies have there hand in this some how. Supporting the politicians in one way or another.

www.roguegovernment.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I must respectfully disagree. The state is merely exercising its rights under the 10th ammendment.

Good for them.

I see other states following suit, not wanting to be a part of the federal machine of cap and trade.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Mike
thanks for posting.
I do not like what I have heard about that cap and trade bill, there is a lot of stuff in it, to say the least a very large tax hike.
But, I do tend to take more of a cynical view of political motives. It would not surprise me in the least if the current powers in the state were getting something from the oil companies.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by RedGolem
 


Lets assume the worse and say they are.

What 'problem' is this going to create? The state says no to cap and trade, the people in the state aren't burdened by higher costs (although this is slight because cap and trade will raise costs throughout the economic strata)
And the oil companies stay in business.

And lets look at that for a moment. Oil companies have been demonized for decades. Evil, profiteers, polluters, monsters to the environment.
They also give us energy, warmth (when we need it), cool (when we need it), jobs, the tax revenue base to DC has powered Washington for decades, and (if given the chance) can release us from dependence from foreign oil.

When they can come up with a cheaper form of power and make it safe for me and my family, I will be the first to say goodbye to oil companies.
But until then, . . . .



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Mike
If my cynical nature is correct, the problem is politicians are being bought off by the people with the money. That is not good for any of little people out there.
As to the oil companies staying in bunsess. When oil was at 140 usd a barrel and people were struggling to find the money to feed them selves, farmers did not have the money to work there fields, the oil companies were turning 12 billion a quarter if profit. The are going to be in bunsess regardless of anything that happens soon.
As to the new cheap greener energy. I want to see it happen also, however with the oil companies writing the nations energy policy, which they did a few years back, why would the write in anything that would make doing bunsess harder for them? The nation and much of the world is dependent on oil, and they will do what ever they can to keep it that way.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by RedGolem
 



I can't really argue the points you've made. But the devil you know vs the one you don't certainly seems to apply here.

An analogy I use quite often seems applicable here.
Bush tried to put out a fire using a bucket of gasoline. Obama is only using a bigger bucket.

Not all "change" is good. And until that true "change" takes place, I just might start buying shares of Exon, BP, just to get some money back when I'm paying 5 bucks a gallon at the pumps.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
When I lived in AZ , the amount of apathy they showed towards any environmental concern was mind boggeling.

What floored me most was even though Lake Powell is continually dropping, they have a 10 year drought, and in the midst of a fight among five states and Mexico over water rights, they use water like there is no end in sight. Twice as badly as those on the east coast who have an abundance.

As far as I am concerned, they can dry up. Then maybe they will think again about legislation.

Still a bunch of cowboys out there.



When the well's dry, we know the worth of water~ Ben Franklin



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by RedGolem
 


Lets assume the worse and say they are.

What 'problem' is this going to create? The state says no to cap and trade, the people in the state aren't burdened by higher costs (although this is slight because cap and trade will raise costs throughout the economic strata)
And the oil companies stay in business.

And lets look at that for a moment. Oil companies have been demonized for decades. Evil, profiteers, polluters, monsters to the environment.
They also give us energy, warmth (when we need it), cool (when we need it), jobs, the tax revenue base to DC has powered Washington for decades, and (if given the chance) can release us from dependence from foreign oil.

When they can come up with a cheaper form of power and make it safe for me and my family, I will be the first to say goodbye to oil companies.
But until then, . . . .




And lighthouse keepers spent centuries keeping boats from crashing ashore. But there comes a time when you need to upgrade and modernize. And the last lighthouse keeper retired a few years ago.

Instead of stories high monoliths, they now have cheap small bouees,(sp??)
and sonar.

Money and economy are always touted as reasons to not change. Fact is, when you stop hiring lighthouse keepers, you now hire bouee makers.


Its not an excuse.

The cap and trade system worked so well, and with little effect, that people have completely forgotten about it.

I remember acid rain. when it was so bad that paint would run off cars. People can't even remember that it was a problem, and we had the following economic boom.

Four years ago AZ lost thousands of miles of fragile sonoran desert due to a forest fire that will never ever recover. It is lost. Gone. The sonoran desert is not supposed to have forest fires. But they are getting them now.


so climate change very much should be in their interest.


But considering they are still segregests, have church ceremonies on court house steps, and still can't stand Native Americans because they think they are getting all these wonderful handouts. *major eye roll here*.

It doesn't surprise me.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Good for Arizona to do this.

In fact the only corrupt people are those trying to pass this bill. Cap and trade is not going to stop Climate change, or even slow it down. this is nothing more than another syphoning hoax to squeeze the people from their money, and let's face it, we are in an economic crisis, yet the Obama administration is doing everything possible to crash the entire economy. Which despite the claims of some, will only bring suffering to the regular citizen, and I don't work for any evil oil company, nor am I being paid for saying this.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


So would you go with the current plan or fall in with the cap and trade folks? Neither is very desireable (granted) but there is no middle ground.

Cap and trade (at least in my mind) is like scratching a mosquito bite with a hammer. Sure, you don't itch anymore but now. . .


[edit on 3-7-2009 by mikerussellus]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 




The deserts will recover, in time, after the fires. Not so quickly as peop;e would like, but it will happen.

Once the desert is cleared to make room for the solar installations, then it will not recover. It is lost for as long as the installation is in place. Plus, for whatever reason, it takes a large volume of water to maintain the solar installation. And we all know here that water is a precious commodity.

Nuclear power would be the way to meet the power needs of those of us living in the desert region. If we could keep that power in-state, and not exported to power hungry CA, whose populace is against nukes. Turns out, Fienstien(?) is fighting the solar and wind generation on the Mohave Desert, to save the tortoise.

The question in my mind is: How much are we to give of our state resources to support a state that is not willing to make any sacrifice?



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Lake Powell is in Utah. I think you mean a different lake!!

Zindo

[edit on 7/3/2009 by ZindoDoone]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


The Glen Canyon dam is actually in AZ, Zindo. SO a small portion of Lake Powell is in AZ. Not much...



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Why? Because the're use to the heat already, and they dont
live near a coastline that could rise and inundate them! (yet?)



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by pyrytyes
Fienstien(?) is fighting the solar and wind generation on the Mohave Desert, to save the tortoise.
The question in my mind is: How much are we to give of our state resources to support a state that is not willing to make any sacrifice?

This classic Kalifornia.
They whine and cry about not having enough electrcity but oh wait, save the tortoise...same folks maing tunnels for frogs...



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Why should coastlines be destroyed when most Americans can't even be bothered to reduce their consumption?


It is truly the ultimate form of selfishness to destroy and ecosystem when no conservation efforts have been made. It is an archaic method of thinking that should of died out decades ago.

Darnit, lets destroy an ecosystem before I have to stop driving my suv!

Only when we are faced with an actual fuel shortage, and Americans have done everything they can to reduce their fuel usage, should options like these be considered.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JulieMills
 


Classic Kalifornia, I like that.


I do not find fault with the conservation efforts put forth by them, but as you point out, the whine could definitely use a good cheese.
Fer crying out loud, the other 49 are not responsible for Kali's ills. They need to man-up and take responsibility, and corrective actions, to straighten themselves out. Otherwise, we'll all go done with them.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
The state law won't mean anything if the federal govt enacts global warming laws.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
If the temperatures world wide increase by 3 degrees the El Nino weather pattern will become permanent.

Under a El Nino weather pattern arizona gets heavy rains.
www.climas.arizona.edu...

Arizona is right and they don't need the US government to stop global warming when it would be a boon to there state.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join