Cheney denies states the right to limit greenhouse emissions

Still believe the GOP is the party of states’ rights?

Technically, it was the EPA that did this:

EPA says no to California’s emissions plan

[quote]Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Stephen Johnson on Wednesday denied California’s petition to limit greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.

California officials vowed to fight the decision in court.

A total of 18 states, including Washington, have either adopted or pledged to implement California’s proposed tailpipe-emissions rules, which seek to cut vehicles’ greenhouse-gas emissions by 30 percent between 2009-16.[/quote]

However, it was on order of Cheney and at the behest of the auto industry:

Cheney Repeatedly Met With Auto Execs Before White House Killed California’s Emissions Law

[quote]Before EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson “answered the pleas of industry executives” by announcing his “decision to deny California the right to regulate greenhouse gases from vehicles,” auto executives directly appealed to Vice President Cheney. EPA staffers told the LA Times that Johnson “made his decision” only after Cheney met with the executives.

On multiple occasions in October and November, Cheney and White House staff members met with industry executives, including the CEOs of Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler. At the meetings, the executives objected to California’s proposed fuel economy standards:

In meetings in October with Mr. Cheney and sessions with White House staff members, auto executives made clear that they were concerned not just about the fuel economy measures in the bill but also about the California proposal for stricter emissions standards.

Johnson explained his decision to thwart California by saying that the new energy bill, which the auto industry supported and President Bush signed into law on Wednesday, “made the proposed California standards unnecessary.” One EPA staffer says Johnson’s decision was part of Cheney’s deal with the industry execs brokered at the meetings:

“Clearly the White House said, ‘We’re going to get EPA out of the way and get California out of the way. If you give us this energy bill, then we’re done, the deal is done,’” said one staffer.

Since taking office, Cheney has taken “a decisive role to undercut long-standing environmental regulations for the benefit of business” while undermining any real action to combat climate change. For example, he stacked the Committee on Environmental Quality with industry heavyweights, killing Bush’s 2000 campaign promise to place caps on carbon emissions. In 2001, his infamous energy task force also ordered the EPA to “reconsider” a rule requiring stricter pollution controls on power and oil refinery plants.

More recently, since February, Cheney has also quietly maneuvered to exert increased control over environmental policy by federal agencies — particularly the regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.[/quote]

GOP: the party of pollution.


“Merrily I roll along…roll along…Merrily I roll along…”

But gosh, when the Democrats are in charge of the Senate and House, things are going to be very different! You wait and see! Oh? They are? Well, then… When the Democrats have both houses and the Presidency, then things will be different! You just wait and see!

But…but…but…isn’t the term ‘States Rights’ just a code word for…(that which dasn’t be uttered!)

There are so many problems with this line (ASIDE from the fact that we’ve heard it from you about 600 times in the last few months) that I hardly know where to start.

First of all, it makes no defense whatsoever for what Cheney actually DID or what the Republicans have been doing. It’s basically saying, “You guys haven’t been able to stop us from doing all the nasty stuff we can!!! Nyah nyah nyah!!!”

Congratulations. In 2006, the American people asked for change. Through deft procedural tactics, your party has been successful at denying them what they asked for. You stopped the Democrats from getting health care for under-privileged children! You got more subsidies for Nuclear Power! You continued to fund your debacle in the Middle East by holding our soldiers hostage! Yippee F-ing Doo! How proud you must be!

Second, yeah, the Democrats are either A) secretly in league with the Republicans B) weak-willed C) politically-inept or D) they actually lack the 60-some seats in the Senate it requires to effectively control Congressional outcomes when the other party is actively seeking to thwart everything.

While, as I have often stated, I DO believe the Democrats are somewhat terrified of the fickle post-9-11 electorate, the corporate media and the spin-engineering skills of the Republicans, they HAVE in fact woken up to the fact that they have a mandate, and have been trying to change things in spite of a concentrated and admittedly effective (if misguided and immoral!) effort by the Republicans to stop them.

Chris Dodd (as I recall) successfully filibustered the Republican attempt to get immunity for telecoms that co-operated with Bush’s illegal spying program. The Senate stayed in session over the holidays to keep Bush from making any BS recess appointments. The investigations into yet another Bush government scandal (White House involvement in the CIA’s destruction of evidence of torture) are gaining steam.

This last won’t accomplish much in practical terms, of course - the administration has already proven it has so little respect for Legislative authority (or the rule of law, for that matter) that nothing short of impeachment will work against it. However, it’s just one more thing that will stick in the electorate’s collective mind and further sully your party’s image (deservedly) come 2008.

And regarding what will happen with a new president… well I’m sure even you would agree the past eight years would’ve been significantly different had Al Gore won. As for the future, it depends a lot on who we get. If Hillary wins - which I doubt could happen - you’re right; not much will change. She’s already shown herself to be, as Bill said, an Eisenhower-era Republican - at best. Obama, Edwards or Biden could make some good things happen, however.

TC, I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. States’ rights is a Libertarian cause that has been supported (or at least given lip-service) by a lot of Republicans - including Ronald Reagan. In some areas it has its appeal - particularly now, when Big Government Bush is going in totally the opposite direction, forcing his policies on environmental and social issues down the states’ throats at the behest of his big business cronies and Christian Right backers.

How many recess appointments did Bush make this time?

How the game is played…Demo style:

Senate meets for 9 seconds to block Bush appointment

Of course not 1 Rep Senator showed up to call for a quorum. But that would have necessitated 49 of them plus VP Cheney who could have assumed his position as the President of the Senate.

“Perpetual Session” my SFA!

Well, then, the midterm elections were not so earth shattering then were they Vay, hence my correct reaction in the days following them when I said I was not so worried after all.

What is the Democrat plan for Iraq? Afghanistan? the war on terror? dealing with terrorists captured on the field? What is the Democrat plan for education beyond spending more money? What is the Democrat plan for medicare, medicaid and social security reform beyond spending more money? What is the Democrat solution except to raise taxes? What have the Democrats done to stop the farcical agricultural subsidy bill from passing? Let me know when you have answers to these but until then despite the less than clean Republican approach… they are going to remain even lower on the popularity charts.

Those questions are essentially meaningless. By asking, you seem to imply you’ve proven they (the plans you supposedly desire knowledge of) don’t exist. You really want to know what the Democratic plans are? Well start Googling. Every candidate has one pertaining to just about every issue you’ve touched upon. Biden for one has an extensive plan for post-Bush Iraq which I already posted on this forum eons ago. But tell me, while we’re on the subject, what’s the “Republican plan” for alternative energy development? Medical marijuana? (Think it’s a non-issue? Try having major joint surgery, or getting stomach cancer!) Creating a cost-effective, REALISTIC policy on illegal narcotics? As for education, according to The World is Flat author Thomas Friedman, [quote]…when America should have been doubling the National Science Foundation’s funding, its (Republican-led) Congress passed a pork-laden budget that actually cut assistance for science and engineering.[/quote] Is this the kind of forward thinking that’s preparing America to compete in the flattened global playing field we face?

Fact is, case by case, the Dems have written up and at least attempted to implement plenty of legislation since coming into power: they’ve cut subsidies to oil companies and stripped the president of the power given him by the Patriot Act to appoint state attorneys without Senate approval. They’re working on re-instating full Habeus Corpus rights, and on reversing the Republican-led FCC’s recent decision to permit even greater media consolidation.

One thing they’re NOT doing, thank God, is wasting their energies on the “war on drugs”, abstinence-only birth control programs, prohibiting gay marriage or what to do about all them durned illegal immigrants stealing up all them durned fruit-picking and landscaping jobs American citizens are just dying to get into!

Moreover, even IF all their plans amounted to were “more spending”, it would STILL be preferable to MORE and MORE CONCENTRATION of power in the hands of a big business / government alliance. If it’s a choice between spending on environment, education, social services, public broadcasting and whatnot vs. spending on dish-outs to Republican business cronies in the media, oil, nuclear, military contractors etc., I’ll take the former, any day.

Back to the topic. The Republicans did two things here:

  1. They violated their tenet of support of States’ Rights.
  2. They think reducing emissions (i.e. increasing pollution) is a bad thing.

Can someone please explain this to me?

So now we again have confirmation that Fred is a hypocrite:

  1. One of his bedrock arguments for opposing “wasting billions” into fighting global warming is that we can rely and should divert funds to developing technology that reduces global warming, pollution, the pain in my back, etc.

  2. Here we have a current technology available to reduce carbon-emissions from automobiles.

  3. The EPA/White House denied the states from requiring the implementation of that technology.

Ergo, Fred = hypocrite.

JB:

I see you still have problems with word definitions. English your second language?

I hardly see how I am a hypocrite for not giving a shit when I never have said that I do. I still don’t and never said that I did. For those who claim to care about global warming, I think that technology might be the best solution. It is they who are hypocritical you see because they are the ones who are saying they want to do something but then do nothing but meet to discuss to negotiate to find that… THAT is being hypocritical.

Also, what would you call someone who is wrong and then scutters off with nary an admission of the same? At least, I am man enough to own up to any mistakes that I have made. March 2007 memo? Got one?

English is my second language.

I daresay my grasp of my 2nd language is far superior to yours.

And I’ve already spoken about the memo - it’s a non-issue, a red herring. Whether I accept or deny its existence does not change the fact that the author you cited misrepresented his findings in his survey… ie he lied.

[quote=“Chris”]Back to the topic. The Republicans did two things here:

  1. They violated their tenet of support of States’ Rights.
  2. They think reducing emissions (i.e. increasing pollution) is a bad thing.

Can someone please explain this to me?[/quote]
I think that you can make the argument that, since automakers make cars for the whole country and not state-by-state, California’s stricter regulations would be, in effect, a national standard. So it would be preferable for the Federal government to define emission standards for the entire country.

No. You insisted that the memo of March 2007 existed when it did not. The memo was from March 2006. The rebuttal was dated October 2006, which was seven months later.

What the f***? accept or deny its existence? You were proved wrong. There is no March 2007 memo or if you disagree, cough it up.

He did not lie. You can try to prove that if you want to. Sort of like how you proved the existence of the March 2007 email exchange. Honestly, I think that your refusal to admit that you are wrong on this is something that does not say much about your character. Your parents should have brought you up with a bit better in that regard. He based his report on parameters that were nearly the same as those of Oreskes. They were not. He adjusted his report in the October 2006 memo that postdated the exchange of March 2006. BUT while doing so, he also revealed that if he was wrong, then much of the original work of Oreskes that he was responding to was equally wrong.

Your assertion was that the March 2007 memo (which does not exist) was the final nail in the coffin, the end of the subject if you will. Yet, the October 2006 email exchange was the final say on the matter at least as far as either you or I can tell. Therefore, this did not end in vindication for Oreskes and her research. It actually resulted in it being weakened even more. How then, can YOU, cite Oreskes to prove the consensus in the scientific community? and was that not YOUR point all along? She was equally wrong as well on the point of how the research was conducted.

[quote=“Dr. McCoy”][quote=“Chris”]Back to the topic. The Republicans did two things here:

  1. They violated their tenet of support of States’ Rights.
  2. They think reducing emissions (i.e. increasing pollution) is a bad thing.

Can someone please explain this to me?[/quote]
I think that you can make the argument that, since automakers make cars for the whole country and not state-by-state, California’s stricter regulations would be, in effect, a national standard. So it would be preferable for the Federal government to define emission standards for the entire country.[/quote]

And what exactly is the problem with stricter emissions standards in the first place?

Throughout the last few decades, I have consistently observed a reluctance among Republicans to reduce pollution.

Why is that?

Republicans, I assure you, are not reluctant to reduce pollution but they want to balance this against the needs of industry.

Witness the Clean Air Act. Many power plants continued to use old equipment rather than make modest improvements as the Act stipulated that, when they did so, they would have to spend millions to upgrade all the way. Bush and his team loosened this to enable them to make upgrades without having to go all the way to meeting the newer more stringent requirements. Surely, marginal improvements were better than nothing at all?

The problem is not with reducing pollution but by pretending that it is the ONLY objective. This is the problem with the Democrats in my view. It is an all or nothing approach that fails to recognize that economies are filled with various desirables and costs. Ironically, these are the same people who accuse Bush of seeing things in black or white.

So, somehow it’s all connected to the myth that pollution levels and costs to industry are inversely proportional.

No. It comes as a measurement of tradeoffs vs. benefits.

So, if I clean the air to a very livable quality (say 6.5 on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being perfectly clean–naturally this is impossible even in nature) and I do so by spending say $1 million, most people would accept this as a fair trade off and in fact this is what happened in the 1970s. But when you look at the 1980s and 1990s, we are increasingly looking at spending say $1 billion to go from 6.5 to 7.2. Many would even accept that but is it acceptable to spend $1 trillion to go from 7.2 to 7.375? THAT is where we have problems in these debates. That is when the cost seems to far outweigh any benefits that might be generated. That is why the same people are looking with the same skepticism with regard to global warming. The cost of Kyoto involved trillions in lost economic development if implemented and the promise was a negigible decline in temperature increases and the science involved was such that there was no ability to prove what the temperature increases would be or that taking the measures recommended (and at great cost) would be of any good.

The argument was that despite these high costs and despite the lack of any clear forecast with any reliable probability that it was worth acting because “we need to do something; we need to show the “earth mother” that we care; we need to atone for our sinful consumption.” That is where I and others with a brain get off at the next stop. These people need to convince people like us before any such actions have a realisitic hope of being taken. I doubt that they will be able to do so. I am also convinced that in, say 10 years, we may find a new “ozone layer” or “global warming” or “species extinction” or “rainforest” issue to rally the troops into funding the Next Great Cause. As long as it isn’t my money, I don’t care how these fools throw their money away. Look at Africa and all the money spent there on development and the like. Any benefit? Any whatsoever? No? Okay, then…