Bush 'prepares emissions U-turn'

[CJ Cregg]

[Republican_Man]

This is what we call a "trial balloon." It is a leak of one or more government officials in order to guage public opinion before actually carrying out an action. I do not believe this is anything more than that, and we may not see action on it, and I hope that we do not.

[Seven of Nine]

I hope it is true. Reducing carbon emissions in the USA would mean that the world has a better chance of surviving what we're doing to it.

[Republican_Man]

Yep, 'cause natural climate change is all human-created damage to the planet that spawns a looming threat to the survival of the planet, alright.

[CJ Cregg]

I am amazed people still believe the wacko scientists who still believe Global warming isn't sped up by humans. I'm sure you will point out Junkscience.com, which is what it says. Junk Science.

Most of the "scientists" who don't support global warming are usually involved with the oil industry in some way or another.

You cannot research something scientifically if you have an agenda.

Politics should stay out of science.

[WeAz]

Politics should stay out of everything. But it doesn't.

[Arellia]

[Republican_Man]

First of all, I'd pretty much be a fool to say that global warming doesn't exist, because, though it is disputable, it's pretty much been proven to be in existence. But I would be equally naive to believe that it is a grave threat that, if we don't stop it soon will end the world, and that the Earth's survival is at stake because of it. Uh-uh, no way. I don't believe GW to be a big threat to the world at all, and I believe it to be backfiring with the Earth getting cooler, but of course the left and the scientists that brought us global warming can't let it be shown that their theory is being turned on its head, so they blame it on global warming. Yeah, right.

Now, that's not to say that I don't believe we need to decrease emissions. I agree that we do, because pollution of the air can make people sick, especially in the cities, and creates acid rain. So, for that reason, and others revolving around the need for energy independence, I believe that we need to research alternative fuels and that the government should give tax incentives to organizations and businesses that research, develop, and implement new technologies, to help American national security, the environment, and solve the growing energy crisis.

The reason why I was so abrasive at first here is because when a "U-turn" is singalled it usually means more government crackdowns or compliance with the Kyoto protocol may occur, and that's the thing that comes to mind and why I was so quick to say "no." I mean, if Bush comes out and does say stuff about a need to help the environment and whatnot, I'll see what he has to say, but I may not like it.

But of course this is a trial balloon. It is not even close to guaranteed that the president will get out there and say something. It's merely a leak to try to guage public reaction.

[Arellia]

Whether Global Warming is your issue or not, then, Carbon emmissions are agreed upon to be a "bad" thing. What is bad for biological life I view as an immediate threat, something that needs to be changed. I don't see why laws preventing the decline in health of the U.S. and/or the world would be irrational. Indeed, you'd think it prudent. Your reasons for preventing such actions revolve around business... business is fleeting. Life on earth will, we hope, continue for a long time. I see no contest.

[Lord Borg]

I'd be all for any laws that would reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Do it! Do it, do it, do it, do it! Now!

[Republican_Man]

I don't believe it is the government's place to regulate what engines cars can use, what technology can be developed, how many emissions to let out. At least, not to that great an extent. I think current laws should be maintained, but that if we really want to see change it should be done through inducements, such as tax incentives and government contracts. In a free market, capitalistic society the government need not, and should not, be involved in the affairs of business to such an extent. It shouldn't be involved to much in most matters, for that matter (hence why I've become surprisingly moderate socially in more recent days).

I'm a small-government conservative, and that's what it stems from. Not from my love for business and economy, but for my beliefs regarding limited government and limited government regulations. There are other ways to go about it then signing a law requiring businesses to cut their emissions to such an extent. The Kyoto Protocol, for instance, is an unnessary, worthless agreement that would do nothing but hurt the economy. It has no environmental value to it.

[Arellia]

What you said is very disconcerting. We take it upon ourselves to tell other countries if they can develop nuclear capabilities or not, and I think we'd try to tell them a thing or two if they developed certain other harmful weapons. Not regulating technologies is suicidal. If we didn't have the regulations on the emmissions we have now, who knows what kind of respiratory problems the children of the nation would have.

Example.

Where I come from, farmers are allowed to torch the ricefields before planting a new crop. Great for the farmers! And I grew up thinking that asthma was a common ailment. Because at least 6/20 kids in my school had it. You couldn't go outside when they torched the fields. You couldn't breathe. So what did the government do? HUGE tax incentives to farmers who rot the fields instead of torch them! But wait! Rotting the field takes a long time. Torching is easier. They have TONS of money, since rice is a big crop. How many people do you think rotted the fields?

Come see my hometown in the late spring. I'll show you what it's like to live in a world of brown skies. Too bad the severe asthmatic in my class isn't alive to see it. Corporations with that much money don't care. I don't want to see a global example of my home.

[Republican_Man]

Nuclear capabilities to other countries that would pose a threat is entirely different from government getting too involved in matters of business.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm fine with government regulation, to a point. You've told me that story before and I agree that it's horrible. If kids are dying due to the scorching of fields then the government has the right to do something about it because it is putting average citizens in immediate danger and killing them off.

But that only goes to a point. There's a point where the government's regulations should stop.

I'd be fine with them saying, "Kids have died because of the torching of these fields, and people continue to be grossly affected by it to this day." Then they regulate it, putting restrictions on it and whatnot. That's fine with me, as are, as I already said before, the current laws in place, but we shouldn't go any further, or much further, such as in the Kyoto Protocol. It is not the government's place to regulate to such an extent.

Again, I'm fine with the EPA and some regulations, but they should only go so far.

[Lord Borg]

So, your saying it's ok to let kids sufficate to death, because direct government involvment in these matters, seem to 'violate' some sort of right for a business to run? Hmmm....

Syd, that's a pretty horrible thing to live though, it's pretty sad when money is placed in front of the welfare of the enviroment, and the people. Gee, if the people are dead, who will buy the rice?

[Republican_Man]

Read my fricken statement, will ya?

[WeAz]

People are going to be dying, if this isn't regualted. It'll just take longer.