W coming around?

[triphop]

It looks like W is about to change tack on Climate Change.

[brasche]

Yes, but will he fund the programs?

[tripp]

It will be interesting to see how this statement (assuming that it actually happens) is interpreted by those who have written climate change off as a conspiracy. I wonder what impact it will have on the "average joe" who doesn't really know much about the issue and certainly won't follow whether funding follows the "talk". My guess is very little, sadly, since the EIA expects US consumption to grow by 2% in 2007 despite the infamous "addicted to oil" speech.

[triphop]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Sep 18 2006, 06:30 PM) [snapback]321364[/snapback]</div>

It will be interesting to see how this statement (assuming that it actually happens) is interpreted by those who have written climate change off as a conspiracy.
[/b]

Change is slow but at least one of the legs of denial will be removed. All that will remain will be the large fossil fuel companies likes Peabody Coal & Exxon Mobil. All the rest of American industry will probably thrive if the competitive environment is altered so that polluters actually have to pay for the future cost of their emissions.

[Pinto Girl]

The political process has become so perverted, and the breach of trust between the people and the government so vast, that I find myself questioning the motives behind a statement which, at face value, should not evoke skepticism.

I think this is what pains me most of all.

[Marlin]

Bush's position has always been that the solution should be market/technology driven, not regulation driven. Therefore, Bush has always been in favor of incentives, tax breaks, etc. as a way of leading industry toward reduced emissions. He has always opposed arbitrary targets or caps that do not address how the targets will be achieved, particularly when the arbritrary targets exempt many nations.

If anything is annouced, I predict it will be the incentives/market forces type of approach.

[triphop]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Sep 18 2006, 07:35 PM) [snapback]321382[/snapback]</div>

Bush's position has always been that the solution should be market/technology driven, not regulation driven. Therefore, Bush has always been in favor of incentives, tax breaks, etc. as a way of leading industry toward reduced emissions. He has always opposed arbitrary targets or caps that do not address how the targets will be achieved, particularly when the arbritrary targets exempt many nations.

If anything is annouced, I predict it will be the incentives/market forces type of approach.
[/b]

Yeah - see how well that worked out. Unfortunately this is not a problem that can be solved without a regulatory framework. Please see the Prisoners Dilemma as to why these kind of "Commons" problems don't work.

/ Now we need to target the real offenders like Senator Inhofe

[TonyPSchaefer]

I'm having a hard time accepting it.

I mean, there are reports that scientific documents have been altered by the administration. Reports that for the last six years his administration has done all it could to silence the environmentalists. And then this? I can't help but to think that it's a political gain initiative rather than a personal realization.

Also, I want to wonder if the fact that we're addicted to oil will be addressed before we address global warming since he said that first.

[SSimon]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Sep 18 2006, 09:13 PM) [snapback]321463[/snapback]</div>

I'm having a hard time accepting it.

I mean, there are reports that scientific documents have been altered by the administration. Reports that for the last six years his administration has done all it could to silence the environmentalists. And then this? I can't help but to think that it's a political gain initiative rather than a personal realization.

Also, I want to wonder if the fact that we're addicted to oil will be addressed before we address global warming since he said that first.
[/b]

Ditto

[nerfer]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Sep 18 2006, 09:13 PM) [snapback]321463[/snapback]</div>

I'm having a hard time accepting it.

I mean, there are reports that scientific documents have been altered by the administration. Reports that for the last six years his administration has done all it could to silence the environmentalists. And then this? I can't help but to think that it's a political gain initiative rather than a personal realization.

Also, I want to wonder if the fact that we're addicted to oil will be addressed before we address global warming since he said that first.
[/b]

One positive sign was appointing Hank Paulson to the Sec. of Treasurer position. Hank is definitely pro-environment and does talk to the President. (The crazy thing is, apparently some environmental groups criticized Paulson for telling the Chinese they need to take care of their resources if they want to be a major power. They need to understand the context here.) Bush also got rid of the guy who was accused of doctoring the environmental reports commissioned by the White House. I don't know if it was for that reason however.

But you're completely correct. Until funding follows the talk, it's only talk, and probably talk for political purposes - so that the Democrats won't seem green by default.