PDA

View Full Version : Obama begins reversing Bush climate policies



angel_luv
01-26-2009, 03:38 PM
I'm not saying President Obama was wrong in doing this because I presently have no idea.

But I wonder how frustrating it is for President Bush ( and every other former president) to see his ( their) policies reversed.
Even if President Bush keeps from being greatly bothered by 8 years of his effort overturned in mere days, I think it would be impossible to be completely unaffected and indifferent regarding it.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090126/pl_nm/us_obama_climate


WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama began reversing the climate policies of the Bush administration on Monday, clearing the way for new rules to force auto makers to produce more fuel-efficient and less polluting cars.

The president told the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider immediately a request by California to impose its own strict limits on vehicle carbon dioxide emissions, blamed for contributing to global warming.

The Democratic Obama took over last Tuesday from former President George W. Bush, whose Republican administration had denied the request, prompting California and other states to sue.

"The federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Obama said at the White House, taking a stab at his predecessor's policies.

"California has shown bold and bipartisan leadership through its effort to 21st century standards. And over a dozen states have followed its lead."

Obama's directive, which is likely to result in a formal change in coming months, could prompt as many as 18 states to follow California's lead by putting into effect tailpipe emissions standards that are tougher than federal requirements.

The president directed the Department of Transportation to move forward with setting vehicle fuel efficiency standards for model year 2011 by March, giving automakers an 18-month period to prepare.

The rules piled pressure on an ailing car industry struggling to survive in a deepening recession with the help of federal bailouts.

General Motors Corp said it is "working aggressively" to develop better hybrids and electric cars to reduce emissions and improve mileage, but policymakers must weigh in economic factors when making their decision.

"We're ready to engage the Obama administration and Congress on policies that support meaningful and workable solutions and targets," the company said in a statement.

Their future may be more troubled as the U.S. recession deepens. Economists polled by Reuters in advance of Friday's Gross Domestic Product report think GDP contracted at a 5.4 percent rate on an annualized basis in the fourth quarter, which would be the worst performance since 1982.

SIGNALS ON ENVIRONMENT

The Obama directive pleased environmentalists, who supported his election but could annoy labor unions, another key constituency, whose members are embittered about the loss of auto jobs.

Obama said the policy shift would help carmakers in the long run.

"Our goal is not to further burden an already struggling industry, it is to help America's automakers prepare for the future," he said.

California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged the Obama administration last week to review the pollution emissions decision.

"It is clear that California and the environment now have a strong ally in the White House," he said in a statement, welcoming the move on Monday.

"Allowing California and other states to aggressively reduce their own harmful vehicle tailpipe emissions would be a historic win for clean air and for millions of Americans who want more fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly cars."

Democratic lawmakers in Washington hailed the measure as a step toward energy independence and clean air, but some Republicans accused him of setting back the struggling U.S. auto industry.

The moves signaled Obama's desire to move forward quickly with his campaign promises to fight climate change and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Obama laid out broad principles that he said his administration would follow. It was time for the United States to lead on climate change, he said, and reduce its dependence on foreign oil.

"It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil," he said, adding previous administrations had made similar goals.

"We need more than the same old empty promises. We need to show that this time it will be different," he said.

The U.S. State Department is expected to name Todd Stern, a senior White House official under former President Bill Clinton, as its climate change envoy, two people familiar with the decision said on Monday.

Stern coordinated the Clinton administration's Initiative on Global Climate Change from 1997 to 1999 and acted as the senior White House negotiator in the Kyoto negotiations on climate change.

BacktoBasics
01-26-2009, 03:44 PM
Is the only reason you can't support this move related to the fact that said move was done by Obama.

Bartleby
01-26-2009, 03:45 PM
She's worried it will make Bush feel bad.

ClingingMars
01-26-2009, 03:47 PM
great, the economy will love this.

-Mars

ChumpDumper
01-26-2009, 03:48 PM
The old cars were perfect; that's why the auto industry is so healthy these days.

101A
01-26-2009, 03:54 PM
The old cars were perfect; that's why the auto industry is so healthy these days.

And the govt. knows so well what I want to drive!

ClingingMars
01-26-2009, 03:56 PM
The old cars were perfect; that's why the auto industry is so healthy these days.

and this will improve the auto industry? :lol

101A
01-26-2009, 03:56 PM
Also, how cold does it have to get before anyone is allowed to question whether this is actually happening?

In Western Pa, I have spent all of 5 hours above 32 degrees thus far in '09.

balli
01-26-2009, 03:58 PM
Also, how cold does it have to get before anyone is allowed to question whether this is actually happening?
Son of a bitch. Seriously? Fucking ass-ignorant line of reasoning.

angel_luv
01-26-2009, 03:58 PM
Is the only reason you can't support this move related to the fact that said move was done by Obama.

I have no opinion currently on the policy. It was not the point of my post.

balli
01-26-2009, 04:00 PM
And the govt. knows so well what I want to drive!
Better than the idiots in Detroit. Anyways, it wasn't the government on it's hands and knees. And your tax money's going/gone there whether you like it or not. So given that, I don't know why the fuck you'd want our government to continue to enable their idiocy? At now taxpayer expense? Do you hate America?
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/7618/930404iq7.gif

angel_luv
01-26-2009, 04:00 PM
She's worried it will make Bush feel bad.

I feel some empathy for him, yes.
How he feels about it won't keep me up at night. But I would love to sit down with the both President Bush and President Clinton and interview them about how they felt transitioning out of office.

It is a part of politics that interests me.

Shastafarian
01-26-2009, 04:02 PM
Also, how cold does it have to get before anyone is allowed to question whether this is actually happening?

In Western Pa, I have spent all of 5 hours above 32 degrees thus far in '09.

:bang:bang:bang

Bartleby
01-26-2009, 04:03 PM
I feel some empathy for him, yes.
How he feels about it won't keep me up at night. But I would love to sit down with the both President Bush and President Clinton and interview them about how they felt transitioning out of office.

It is a part of politics that interests me.

You probably care more about this issue than he does (and know more about it, too).

ChumpDumper
01-26-2009, 04:03 PM
And the govt. knows so well what I want to drive!Were car companies unable to build cars you like with these restrictions, I would agree with you -- but they can. You're just whining about nothing.

angel_luv
01-26-2009, 04:05 PM
You probably care more about this issue than he does (and know more about it, too).

Maybe.

ChumpDumper
01-26-2009, 04:06 PM
and this will improve the auto industry? :lolProbably.

More importantly it will help the air quality in this country.

Why are you for pollution?

Winehole23
01-26-2009, 04:09 PM
It can't really be said that Obama's rolling back Bush's environmental protections. Mostly, his environmental regulators protected business from environmental regulations and from states that were clearly overzealous in their persecution of harmful tailpipe emissions.

CuckingFunt
01-26-2009, 04:10 PM
Son of a bitch. Seriously? Fucking ass-ignorant line of reasoning.

It's why I hate that "global warming" has become the buzz term.

clambake
01-26-2009, 04:30 PM
we took the wrong approach to begin with.

should have told conservatives that global warming was heat from satan's hell.

MaNuMaNiAc
01-26-2009, 04:47 PM
Also, how cold does it have to get before anyone is allowed to question whether this is actually happening?

In Western Pa, I have spent all of 5 hours above 32 degrees thus far in '09.

well, unless proponents of global warming have restricted their predictions to the US alone, your bullshit assumption that because its cold where you live, global warming doesn't exists is laughable.

Here in Argentina we're sufering from an almost unprecedented drought. In fact, our rural areas have been declared in a state of emergency for months now...

FreeMason
01-26-2009, 04:50 PM
The old cars were perfect; that's why the auto industry is so healthy these days.

That's why men are looking for older model trucks instead of these horrible fucked up overly regulated diesel/engine emission trucks that give poor performance and cost a bundle to maintain?

Step up your game from your Focus and you might be surprised.

baseline bum
01-26-2009, 04:51 PM
we took the wrong approach to begin with.

should have told conservatives that global warming was heat from satan's hell.

:lol

ChumpDumper
01-26-2009, 04:54 PM
That's why men are looking for older model trucks instead of these horrible fucked up overly regulated diesel/engine emission trucks that give poor performance and cost a bundle to maintain?Right, everybody is doing that.

Except they aren't.


Step up your game from your Focus and you might be surprised.The Focus is a crappy car.

Why are you for pollution?

baseline bum
01-26-2009, 04:55 PM
Better than the idiots in Detroit. Anyways, it wasn't the government on it's hands and knees. And your tax money's going/gone there whether you like it or not. So given that, I don't know why the fuck you'd want our government to continue to enable their idiocy? At now taxpayer expense? Do you hate America?
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/7618/930404iq7.gif

:lmao x 20

George Gervin's Afro
01-26-2009, 06:22 PM
we took the wrong approach to begin with.

should have told conservatives that global warming was heat from satan's hell.

Or maybe 'God Warming'

Creepn
01-26-2009, 06:46 PM
I don't understand the backlash about this. Don't yall want cleaner burning cars and more miles for the buck?

Is it only because the people that are against this wants to rev their engines really loud to look macho or something?

CuckingFunt
01-26-2009, 07:26 PM
well, unless proponents of global warming have restricted their predictions to the US alone, your bullshit assumption that because its cold where you live, global warming doesn't exists is laughable.

Here in Argentina we're sufering from an almost unprecedented drought. In fact, our rural areas have been declared in a state of emergency for months now...

Wait... what? There's places outside of the US??

Crazy talk.

SnakeBoy
01-26-2009, 07:56 PM
almost unprecedented drought.

When was the worst drought in Argentina?

MaNuMaNiAc
01-26-2009, 08:40 PM
When was the worst drought in Argentina?

I'd be hard pressed to give an exact date, but I know that around September of last year, we went through the worst one in over 120 years. This year its gearing up to be a tough one as well. Point is, if you want to argue against global warming, better come up with something better than that "Global warming my ass, its cold over here" bullshit.

MaNuMaNiAc
01-26-2009, 08:40 PM
Wait... what? There's places outside of the US??

Crazy talk.

I can prove it... I have pictures

boutons_
01-26-2009, 09:42 PM
"how frustrating it is for President Bush ( and every other former president) to see
his ( their) policies reversed."

As ideology, those @ssholes don't GAF about the environment, their anti-environment actions for 8 years are well documented. They care only about the corps and capitalists, only to the extent that environmental protections cost corps money, do the Repugs care.

The Reckoning
01-26-2009, 10:24 PM
yeah, apparently the moon and mars are suffering from global warming, too

edit: anything other than earth

:bking

balli
01-26-2009, 10:32 PM
yeah, apparently the moon and mars are suffering from global warming, too
The moon (in particular) and Mars have almost no atmosphere.

Venus would be the answer we're looking for here.

Bartleby
01-26-2009, 10:40 PM
yeah, apparently the moon and mars are suffering from global warming, too

edit: anything other than earth

:bking

Apparently Uranus is suffering from global warming as well.

The Reckoning
01-26-2009, 10:45 PM
Apparently Uranus is suffering from global warming as well.


yeah its being terraformed by alamo cafe enchiladas

Bartleby
01-26-2009, 10:49 PM
:lol

ElNono
01-26-2009, 10:57 PM
Don't worry angel_luv. The Anti-Christ is only changing the policies, not the actual climate.

ClingingMars
01-26-2009, 10:59 PM
Don't worry angel_luv. The Anti-Christ is only changing the policies, not the actual climate.

so true.

Creepn
01-26-2009, 11:43 PM
Don't worry angel_luv. The Anti-Christ is only changing the policies, not the actual climate.

lol.

That is just so unbelievably judgemental of her.

Cry Havoc
01-27-2009, 12:56 AM
I feel some empathy for him, yes.

How about the thousands of innocent people who died because he wanted oil? Does that enter into your thoughts of empathy, or is he just a nice old misunderstood man who would give you a dime and pet you on the head if he saw you running around?

Sec24Row7
01-27-2009, 11:05 AM
I'd be hard pressed to give an exact date, but I know that around September of last year, we went through the worst one in over 120 years. This year its gearing up to be a tough one as well. Point is, if you want to argue against global warming, better come up with something better than that "Global warming my ass, its cold over here" bullshit.


So it's ok for you to do it to prove global warming exists (because of course the drought was caused by that) but it's not ok for people on the other side to cite cold weather in the negative...

Gotcha

ploto
01-27-2009, 11:18 AM
Even if President Bush keeps from being greatly bothered by 8 years of his effort overturned in mere days,
You act as if he dedicated 8 years to some wonderful, altruistic program, and some bad guy came in and destroyed it all in one day? This particular issue is not exactly an appropriate example to go along with this claim. Protecting the world that God created should be an issue you support. It is this inconsistency for which you get challenged- views and opinions based not upon ideals but on who puts them forth.

angel_luv
01-27-2009, 11:19 AM
How about the thousands of innocent people who died because he wanted oil? Does that enter into your thoughts of empathy, or is he just a nice old misunderstood man who would give you a dime and pet you on the head if he saw you running around?



Where did you guys get the idea that I was a fan of President Bush because I can assure you that I never have been.

ploto
01-27-2009, 11:21 AM
Where did you guys get the idea that I was a fan of President Bush because I can assure you that I never have been.

You voted for him in 2004.

angel_luv
01-27-2009, 11:27 AM
You act as if he dedicated 8 years to some wonderful, altruistic program, and some bad guy came in and destroyed it all in one day? This particular issue is not exactly an appropriate example to go along with this claim. Protecting the world that God created should be an issue you support. It is this inconsistency for which you get challenged- views and opinions based not upon ideals but on who puts them forth.


All I have said is that if I put 8 years into a project only to have someone come in an change it all up, I would be frustrated.
That isn't to say that my successor's version could not be better, only that I am sure I would feel a sense of loss after seeing something replaced that I believed in and spent 8 years upholding.

I said nothing about the validity of Senator Obama's new policy. In fact I was specific to say that I had no opinion on it.

You guys are assuming a hostile approach and about a subject I was not even discussing, much less arguing.

angel_luv
01-27-2009, 11:28 AM
You voted for him in 2004.

BEGRUDINGLY ( if you knew me you would know how very much so.)

jman3000
01-27-2009, 04:56 PM
Meh... executive orders are like that. Next time we get a (R) in the white house they'll just change the policies over again. Will you feel sympathetic for Obama? Is it possible to feel sympathy for the anti-christ?

It's not a big deal, and Bush most likely isn't frustrated over this at all.

It comes with the business.

DarrinS
01-27-2009, 06:07 PM
Shove one pipe up Michael Moore's ass and another up Rosie O'Donnell's ass and that should be enough fuel to supply most of California.

FreeMason
01-27-2009, 06:10 PM
Horrible mental picture =[

Wild Cobra
01-28-2009, 07:45 PM
Horrible mental picture =[

I agree, but they are [have] such big asses, a pipe large enough to supply California may fit!