 |
Environmental groups are racking up a series of early wins thanks to expanded Democratic majorities in the U.S. Congress. But they aren’t satisfied, and the scope of their agenda may cause headaches for party leaders.
Environmentalists want Congress to cap greenhouse-gas emissions, a proposal meeting resistance from companies such as General Motors Corp. because of its cost. They’re pushing for laws to force public utilities to buy 15 percent of their power from renewable energy sources, an idea opposed by Southern Co. and American Electric Power Co. And they want tougher energy- efficiency standards for cars, buildings and appliances.
“They have high expectations and non-negotiable demands,” James Lucier, an energy analyst at Capital Alpha Partners LLC in Washington, said of the groups, which include the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and the League of Conservation Voters.
How is pushing for change taking over?
Only an idiot thinks an initial demand is non-negotiable. As such, theirs seem quite reasonable. Any substantive issue?
Well, you elect neo-libs into office, and you are going to get neo-lib agenda’s being pushed. Really did anyone expect anything different?
Geez, after 8 years of the Corporations having carte blanche with the laws, now that they don’t have that anymore, they’re crying foul? The pendulum has swung, and it’s time to balance the Corporate freeform agenda with some regulation. Of course they’re going to fight this whole thing tooth and nail and say it’s “non-negotiable”. Railroading is the only negotiation tactic they’ve known for so long, and to them “Bi-Partisan” = You cave to all our demands and we’ll call it Bi-Partisan. Of course the environmentalists are going too far, just like the Corporations took it too far when they had control of the Government. That’s the way this works.
Either way, your average Joe, you know, you and me, get screwed in the process anyway.
Lets see…
Corp: you want us to Cap greenhouse gas??
Enviro: yes
Corp: ok, then we can ship the jobs to another country to do the SAME thing. OK?
Enviro: no!
Corp: we have to make these pollutants, TELL us where you want them..We will ship the manufacturing THERE, and the JOBS with it.
The problem with energy is that the only non-carbon source widely available for base energy supply that won’t double costs is Nuc.
A 1st world countries economy is tied to energy prices…
“Neo-lib”? Pro-environmentalism is some kind of new liberal agenda? I suppose if your concept of politics comes from the 1960s…
# 7 Alex said, ““Neo-lib”? Pro-environmentalism is some kind of new liberal agenda? I suppose if your concept of politics comes from the 1960s”
Umm, no. Founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, speaks of this and the reason he left Greenpeace. “I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986. “
Nice Photo, fits your stereoytpe, doesn’t it.
I doubt your average environmentalist is a stoner or that they drive an SUV.
I like the enviroment. At the moment about all that could be done is to require people to part all private transport that gets less than 30 mph.
Do you see that happening? Only if everybody can declare their vehicle to be a business machine.
Maybe the environmentalists should go back to school, become engineers and solve these problems instead of whining about them to the bozos in gov’t.
Oh, I know why… because it’s hard.
Bunch of babies…
Maybe the environmentalists should go back to school, become engineers and solve these problems instead of whining about them to the bozos in gov’t.
Oh, I know why they don’t do that… because it’s hard.
Bunch of babies…
“They have high expectations and non-negotiable demands”
That’s because environmentalists and related groups such as those seeking animal rights are more akin to religious dogma than anything approaching science or rational thought.
I can’t believe I am agreeing with Paddy-O but he is right about nuclear power being part of the answer. I am not talking about the old style uranium and plutonium base reactors but new more environmentally safe thorium reactors (technologyreview.com/Energy/19758/). Between thorium reactors, wind, solar, improved power efficiency and a smart electrical grid we could have the best of both worlds. A cleaner environment AND economic growth.
#15 With Thorium enrichment we have enough fuel for 10’s of thousands of years, at the very least.
“I doubt your average environmentalist is a stoner or that they drive an SUV.”
A quick look at the Zombietime collection shows Bay Area “environmentalists” are indeed fans of gas guzzlers.
I wonder:
When the ice age hits, will the enviros demand we give up our electric cars and start burning fossil fuels?
#17 – Thorium doesn’t need enriching. That is what makes it so attractive. Less than 1% of uranium is fissile (U235) with current technologies, but all thorium can be converted into a fissile fuel (U233). However, the thorium cycle does require fuel reprocessing, and Jimmy Carter killed that in the 1970s. Not to worry, France and Japan still reprocess their (uranium) fuel so all we have to do is adapt the technology for thorium. The chance of that happening with the Obama administration is very low, but hopefully not zero. Carol Browner (energy czar) is an Al Gore follower and Al Gore is no friend to nuclear power.
It’s really sad that the ‘climate-change’ racket has drowned out virtually every other worthy environmental cause, when it’s the most scientifically dubious. There are so many more urgent, more concrete environmental problems that should get focus:
– oceanic dead zones
– chemical, pesticide and hormone pollution
– the pacific garbage dump
– plastic pollution
– rainforest preservation
– coral reef decay
– etc.
Everybody agrees on these issues and they are much more pressing concerns. Yet all these a-holes want to do is control people’s “carbon emissions” by using government to force people into various scams like carbon credits.
# 3 Eric
Patrick Moore is a very bright person. He is one of the few that noticed, that being against nuclear energy is actually being against the environment. There was an explosion of thermal electrical power plants, after people judged that nuclear is risky. Well, now our energy matrix is dirtier. Thanks Greenpeace!
See below:
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/11/moore_qa
#8, Cow-Paddy,
Patrick Moore was asked to leave Greenpeace. It was not a voluntary separation.
#1, Bobbo,
Only an idiot thinks an initial demand is non-negotiable. As such, theirs seem quite reasonable. Any substantive issue?
Why is the most reasonable post, and also the first one, ignored by so many?
Industry has outsourced itself anyway. It wouldn’t matter if there were pollution controls or not. If they can earn $1 more per item they will move the whole plant to China. Corporations don’t have a conscience. They are there to earn the largest profit possible.
# 23 Mr. Fusion said, “Patrick Moore was asked to leave Greenpeace. It was not a voluntary separation.”
Damn straight. He tried to get the unscientific morons out. Like in real life, uneducated environ-wackos out number the scientists in the movements.
# 20 pete said, “However, the thorium cycle does require fuel reprocessing,”
That’s what I’m referring to. Throwing it in a reactor and giving it a neutron…
The sad thing is, the dude pictured is almost certainly 12 times smarter than anybody in the last administration.
That’s actually not an exaggeration. Now think about that for a minute.
# 28 Wretched Gnu said, “The sad thing is, the dude pictured is almost certainly 12 times smarter than anybody in the last administration.”
You’re confusing ethics with IQ.
Modern environmentalists are assholes. And asshats.