Other Industrial Countrise Can and DO! USA: "No We Can't"

[boutons_]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/20/eagermany120.xml

============

[Clandestino]

you've obviously never been out of your mother's basement... other countries have totally different infrastructure than the u.s.

hell, a few years ago my cousin(decided to be enviromentally friendly) wanted to take the bus to work. he wasn't able to because to get from the NW to the NE side of town would have taken him 2 1/2 hours! not to mention no bus would get him to work on time.

[PixelPusher]

other countries have totally different infrastructure than the u.s.

Well, since our oft-neglected infrastructure is crumbling anyway...

[ElNono]

It's a matter of size and population density too. You would need to compare against China, Russia, etc. And I'm not sure how we stack up there. Most Euro countries are nowhere near as big.
Countries like Brazil have the size, but not the population density.

[boutons_]

The key problem is that Europe has tried and succeeded to cut down oil consumption and energy overall, while lowering pollution, and did a long time ago. Even still, they are finding ways to keep the consumption trending down now, rather than up as in USA.

The USA hasn't even tried conservation, because the oilcos run the USA, not the citizens.

Yes, the USA, esp the Sunbelt, was predicated on cheap oil and cheap energy, and that the cheapness would go on forever. Kinda stupid, huh? It's like the lesson of 67, 73, 79 oil shocks were totally forgotten.

And without $4 gas, the USA would STILL be pushing "more supply" rather than $4 gas pushing more conservation. Pretty fucking stupid, inarguably stupid.

In fact, right-wing bots are still pushing for "more supply" and for exporting the cash cost of 11B barrels/day into foreigners' pockets.

[Clandestino]

population density is the largest factor. for 98% of europeans there is no such thing as the american dream that we have. they don't get to own homes, their european dream is owning their own apartment that costs more than our homes with yards.

[boutons_]

Clanny, do you have links to prove your jingoistic points?

[Extra Stout]

I was all set to back Clanny up with facts, but the facts are not on his side, at least not anymore. Western Europeans now live in detached single-family homes at rates comparable to the United States, and in some countries, even higher.

[boutons_]

And of course in Europe, nobody worries about a medical catastrophe destroying the family's fiances.

Well, I guess you right-wingers are OK with USA' "No We Can't".

Poor litttle USA, sniff. Can't get their shit together, but they sure know how to bust up other countries.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

And of course in Europe, nobody worries about a medical catastrophe destroying the family's fiances.

Well, I guess you right-wingers are OK with USA' "No We Can't".

Poor litttle USA, sniff. Can't get their shit together, but they sure know how to bust up other countries.

So fucking move to Europe if you hate this country so much.

[Clandestino]

I was all set to back Clanny up with facts, but the facts are not on his side, at least not anymore. Western Europeans now live in detached single-family homes at rates comparable to the United States, and in some countries, even higher.

what the data doesn't tell you is that those single family homes actually have like 3 stories and 3 different families live on each floor.

[ElNono]

So fucking move to Europe if you hate this country so much.

Should we feel free to answer the same way when you start bitching about what Obama is going to make out of this country?

[RandomGuy]

The key problem is that Europe has tried and succeeded to cut down oil consumption and energy overall, while lowering pollution, and did a long time ago. Even still, they are finding ways to keep the consumption trending down now, rather than up as in USA.


This is something that will drive the right-wing in this country nuts for the next 50 years.

Europeans looked a bit ahead, did some adjustments and are prepared to meet expensive energy, because they made their economies a lot more energy efficient in terms of energy used per unit of GDP.

We will become more energy efficient, but going forward, the Eurozone will have a comparative advantage when it comes to coping, because they have already sunk the effort into becoming more energy-efficient.

If the dollar stabilizes against the Euro, or falls much further because of this, that will make working in Europe VERY attractive for skilled US workers that can make the leap. Work there for 15-20 years, save up a lot of Euros, then cash that out into uber-cheap dollars, move back to the US and retire rather well.

Where will the "socialism is bad" bit go when you can earn more money working there than you can here, even with the higher proportion of taxes?

[xrayzebra]

Well RG and boutons, there is no problem about can-do here in the good old U.S.A. We have turned that over to our most wonderful, have all the answers, trust us, government. From cradle to grave, well except those that are aborted, they have it covered. And if not now, they will have shortly. I just wonder then if someone will say: "there ought to be a law". And if you need any property please contact Senator Reid, he has some nice stuff in Nevada and Senator Dodd will arrange financing. What a government.

[Wild Cobra]

population density is the largest factor. for 98% of europeans there is no such thing as the american dream that we have. they don't get to own homes, their european dream is owning their own apartment that costs more than our homes with yards.
No kidding. To be able to buy a house rather than a condominium, you have to be very rich.

[Wild Cobra]

Clanny, do you have links to prove your jingoistic points?

People who have lived outside the USA and Europe have seen so first hand. I lived there for six years.

[Wild Cobra]

I was all set to back Clanny up with facts, but the facts are not on his side, at least not anymore. Western Europeans now live in detached single-family homes at rates comparable to the United States, and in some countries, even higher.

Where? I have a hard time believing that.

[ElNono]

White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail
By FELICITY BARRINGER

The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week.

The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official status, was the E.P.A.’s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment, the officials said.

This week, more than six months later, the E.P.A. is set to respond to that order by releasing a watered-down version of the original proposal that offers no conclusion. Instead, the document reviews the legal and economic issues presented by declaring greenhouse gases a pollutant.

Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

Both documents, as prepared by the E.P.A., “showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce greenhouse gases,” one of the senior E.P.A. officials said. “That’s not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can’t work.”

The Bush administration’s climate-change policies have been evolving over the past two years. It now accepts the work of government scientists studying global warming, such as last week’s review forecasting more drenching rains, parching droughts and intense hurricanes as global temperatures warm (www.climatescience.gov).

But no administration decisions have supported the regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act or other environmental laws.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, refused to comment on discussions between the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency. Asked about changes in the original report, Mr. Fratto said, “It’s the E.P.A. that determines what analysis it wants to make available” in its documents.

The new document, a road map laying out the issues involved in regulation, is to be signed by Stephen L. Johnson, the agency’s administrator, and published as early as Wednesday.

The derailment of the original E.P.A. report was first made known in March by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The refusal to open the e-mail has not been made public.

In early December, the E.P.A.’s draft finding that greenhouse gases endanger the environment used Energy Department data from 2007 to conclude that it would be cost effective to require the nation’s motor vehicle fleet to average 37.7 miles per gallon in 2018, according to government officials familiar with the document.

About 10 days after the finding was left unopened by officials at the Office of Management and Budget, Congress passed and President Bush signed a new energy bill mandating an increase in average fuel-economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The day the law was signed, the E.P.A. administrator rejected the unanimous recommendation of his staff and denied California a waiver needed to regulate vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases in the state, saying the new law’s approach was preferable and climate change required global, not regional, solutions.

California’s regulations would have imposed tougher standards.

The Transportation Department made its own fuel-economy proposals public almost two months ago; they were based on the assumption that gasoline would range from $2.26 per gallon in 2016 to $2.51 per gallon in 2030, and set a maximum average standard of 35 miles per gallon in 2020.

The White House, which did not oppose the Transportation Department proposals, has become more outspoken on the need for a comprehensive approach to greenhouse gases, specifically rejecting possible controls deriving from older environmental laws.

In a speech in April, Mr. Bush called for an end to the growth of greenhouse gases by 2025 — a timetable slower than many scientists say is required. His chairman of the Council of Environmental Quality, James Connaughton, said a “train wreck” would result if regulations to control greenhouse gases were authorized piecemeal under laws like the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.

White House pressure to ignore or edit the E.P.A.’s climate-change findings led to the resignation of one agency official earlier this month: Jason Burnett, the associate deputy administrator. Mr. Burnett, a political appointee with broad authority over climate-change regulations, said in an interview that he had resigned because “no more constructive work could be done” on the agency’s response to the Supreme Court.

He added, “The next administration will have to face what this one did not.”

The House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, led by Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, has been seeking the discarded E.P.A. finding on the dangers of climate change.

After reading it last week, Mr. Markey’s office sent a letter to Mr. Bush saying, “E.P.A. Administrator Stephen Johnson determined that man-made global warming is unequivocal, the evidence is compelling and robust, and the administration must act to prevent harm rather than wait for harm to occur.”

Simultaneously, Mr. Waxman’s committee is weighing its response to the White House’s refusal to turn over subpoenaed documents relating to the E.P.A.’s handling of recent climate-change and air-pollution decisions. The White House, which has turned over other material to the committee, last week asserted a claim of executive privilege over the remaining documents.

In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Fratto, the White House spokesman, said the committee chairmen did not understand the legal precedent underlying executive privilege. “There is a long legal history supporting the principle that the president should have the candid advice of his advisers,” Mr. Fratto said.

LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

[johnsmith]

What the hell is a countrise anyway?

[RandomGuy]

What the hell is a countrise anyway?

countrise are places where they try to reduce their energy usage.

The German economy, by the way, is doing pretty well.

It will be interesting to see if the German emphasis on energy conservation does what I say it should, i.e. make them more competitive in a world of expensive energy.

Wer spricht Deutsch?

[Wild Cobra]

countrise are places where they try to reduce their energy usage.


And here I thought it was just dyslexia..

countries
countrise