In more than a dozen states, special governor-commissioned advisory groups have completed sweeping climate-change action plans that embody precisely the kind of top-down approach President Bush rejects. Measures include tightened vehicle emissions standards, investment in alternative fuels, and strict limits on development in forested areas. It’s enough to make California look like Germany, where efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions have wrought significant economic damage, despite falling well short of targets. WORLD’s Mark Bergin reports.
More Active Posts
Front Page
11 Comments
Good for those states!
Bush is not a dictator, and one of the beauties of our government with 50 diverse states is that their governors and legislatures are able to implement initiatives like this, without needing to wait for the federal government to act.
Of course, I would bet there are some who would like federal legislation prohibiting such action by states. But with states free to act, you can have up to 50 different “laboratories” where we see what policies work (or not). If taking action on global warming is an idea whose time has finally come - if the public demands it - then it will be a difficult thing to stop.
HOORAY!
What’s next? Special taxes on vehicles and persons from other states who do not meet the new standards? Invisible walls to keep out nasty pollution from other states? a Federal bailout when the economy of the state goes south? Answer - yes to all the above.
Live by the lie—die by the lie. If a state wishes to isolate itself with regulations and destroy its’ economy that’s its’ business. Though population growth in our state from California refugees has destroyed our way of life, our economy has certainly benefited.
If a state chooses to merely “encourage” green living that’s another story. Since technology is going to bring about the “green” change anyway, such spending is just another waste of taxpayer money better spent elsewhere. But locking stupidity into law to force change, based on political whim rather than substantiated, undeniable fact, is a problem because such laws limit/remove our liberty—the true desire of the left who can’t stand another’s freedom because it might disagree with their values and choices.
Fortunately, when sanity returns, executive orders and cockamamie legislation can be reversed. Such is the beauty and resiliency of our country.
Christianleftist - You misunderstand the Right.
Letting states do (largely) their own thing on their own dime is a prety conservative idea.
The Right likes it because it limits federal size and power, and keeps power closer to home where an individual should have a better chance of impacting things (question: if you needed to get ahold of your mayor, county board chairman, governor and the president - who would you be morelikely to actually get through to?).
The other advantage is that it gives each state 49 “lab partners” to crib off of - If Wisconsin does something innovative and it works, all the others can go that way and, conversely, if Calfornia does something suicidally stupid, all the others can avoid it; with the federal government, we’re all screwed together).
KRM,
I’d like to agree with you, really, that the Right supports letting states do their own thing. But there are lots of examples of federal preemption, especially in areas like regulation of wireless, interest rates, torts, and so on, generally opposing more consumer-friendly protections enacted by states in favor of more lenient federal regulations.
Similarly, you see state-level attempts to preempt cities trying to create local publicly owned and operated WiFi networks (although, in this case at least, there have been federal attempts to preempt the states’ actions)
See this article for a summary of attempts to use federal courts to preempt state global warming regulations. I suspect that’s just the beginning of attempts to stop states from enacting or enforcing these laws and regs.
Imagine that. A bunch of leftist lawyers filing suit because a bunch of leftist enviros passed and set regulatory law, which by existing law they were not permitted to set, conflicting with federal standards. And we have more lawyers filing suit, based on the “consensus” of another bunch of enviros, to force federal agencies to expand their regulatory influence (read: oversight and control) beyond what current law mandates. And it’s all based on unproved, theoretical belief which has no more business being carved in law than the tenets of Christianity. And it’s all just lawyers making and taking money.
One of the purposes of federal law is to regulate things which have consequence beyond state borders—such as the amount of tailpipe emissions allowed from vehicles sold in all 50 states, or Internet commerce, or the water in rivers, namely required flow rates and allowed usage/storage quantities. These things if regulated by federal law drastically simplify and reduce the amount of law those involved in interstate commerce or who use resources have to dance around—as in one tailpipe emission standard for auto manufacturers rather than fifty. It’s simply more practical.
Sadly, because of its’ population clout, California has been allowed to lead the federal camel around in more ways than it should and to extremes the leftists that run that state think we all should have to live under—because that’s who they are.
Kyoto is just the latest, but I think first world wide, attempt from the left to control commerce in this maner, and thus people’s lives, so that what they believe will be “believed” by all. Since they’ve met resistance in the one country they really need to capitulate, their tactic is to go through state legislatures and their buddies on the bench micro-parsing law to get what they want via the backdoor rather than via the front door and the popular will of the people. Imagine that.
I’ve never understood why wanting to protect/save our environment is considered “evil” or why it’s even identified as being on one side of the political spectrum.
What’s conservative about strip mining, clear cutting, polluting streams, rivers and lakes, selling off our national treasures to private developers, and generally wrecking the air and water? I thought conservatives were about preserving things?
I’ve been wondering why someone hasn’t come out with a hybrid car called the “Kyoto”? I bet it would sell.
“What’s conservative about strip mining, clear cutting, polluting streams, rivers and lakes, selling off our national treasures to private developers, and generally wrecking the air and water? I thought conservatives were about preserving things?”
Conservatives are. The age old lie directly above that you still spread, that conservatives want, do, and allow these things is your problem as it’s your only political strategy coming from your side of the political spectrum. You’ve beat this horse to death and now you’ve got nothing else.
Your problem is that people are smart and read that the rivers in Pittsburgh are now a sport fishery instead of a flaming nightmare, and that former strip mines and land fills are now housing developments and golf courses. And you don’t know what to do about it so you go back to the lie.
When initially started in the 60s there was some truth—not totally or even mostly—but, some truth to your assertion. Now however, regarding present activity it is a complete lie. And now, because of your legal work we ship our national treasures to other countries in the form of money for oil to be used by our enemies to kill us and control our economy because stupid law has locked up our ability to provide for ourselves—wisely, prudently and with minimal environmental impact—the things we need and must have to survive and live comfortably and prosper as a society leading the world toward the environmental responsibility you falsely claim we abuse.
Rond has a point. There is NO problem around Pittsburgh for fishermen. You can catch lots of fish. Just don’t EAT them!
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_536252.html
Residents warned of mercury found in fish
By Mary Ann Thomas
FOR THE VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH
Sunday, November 4, 2007
After finding high levels of mercury in fish sampled in the Kittanning section of the Allegheny River, a University of Pittsburgh professor is advising adults against consuming fish caught there or five miles upstream and downstream more than once a month.
And pregnant women should not eat the fish period, according to the researcher.
Logging and paving is progress! Well, except for when it rains and closes I-5 for most of week and products can’t be trucked…
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=flood09m&date=20071209
Strip-mining ROCKS! Literally!
http://www.tricities.com/tristate/tri/news.apx.-content-articles-TRI-2007-12-09-0011.html