California sued the federal government on Thursday to force a decision about whether the state can impose the nation’s first greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and light trucks.
More than a dozen other states are poised to follow California’s lead if it is granted the waiver from federal law, presenting a challenge to automakers who would have to adapt to a patchwork of regulations.
The state’s lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., was expected after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vowed last spring to take legal action.
“Our future depends on us taking action on global warming right now,” Schwarzenegger said during a news conference. “There’s no legal basis for Washington to stand in our way.”
At issue is California’s nearly two-year-old request for a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act allowing it to implement a 2002 state anti-pollution law regulating greenhouse gases.
Sure they can. And the auto manufacturers can choose NOT to sell cars to California, and close all their dealerships. Ah, the free market!
I like that idea!
yeah, they’re gonna stop selling to the largest single state market there is. Right.
You would see a surge in purchases in Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, etc.
So I live in Los Angeles and I’ll go to Arizona to buy my car? Absolutely!! ^_^
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><
Problem is, California’s action will drastically increase the price of new cars for the rest of us.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><
We should tell Califorina to go to……
Oh, Blast! This is where I wanted to post this, not under the ‘Price of Gas’ thread!
Not to hijack the thread, but this was just sent to me:
[url=http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/]Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’ [/url]
By John Coleman
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research†to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific†scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.
Br. Michael, thanks, I for one appreciate that.
As my brother likes to say, Restore the Republic! (The California Republic that is, which never really existed anyway).
Jim, even the Bush administration admits something is going on. Does he categorize as a “well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizen”? Insulting the intelligence of the American people and almost the entire scientific community will not advance your argument very far. If the Democrats are guilty of posturing, so are certain Republicans and others. But then, conservatives have nothing to gain from denying global warming, do they?
Who says Global Warming is not happening? No one I know, even my fellow Republicans, are denying the effects of Global Warming.
It’s the [i]CAUSE[/i] that is in question. Many scientists from every field from astrophysics to zoology are stating that their findings indicate a natural cycle. Yelling that if you disagree then you are in the pocket of big oil, or have your head in the sand, or need to get with the program is not going to help.
[i](as Dr. Heidi Cullen, the current head of the Weather Channel says:
“Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn’t agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It’s like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It’s not a political statement…it’s just an incorrect statement.” )[/i]
Only open debate on the subject where all sides are presented will shed light on what is the true cause of today’s global warming. That’s not happening right now. But thanks to the internet and book publishers, word is getting around that there is nothing near consensus on this issue.
And yes, I would have to categorize some that hold to human cause (anthropogenic) as being very gullible and ignorant on the issues and the science.
I had a young lady come into the library the other day and yell at us for wasting paper from the patron computer printer (patrons print piles and never pick it up from the desk), because after all “this is causing trees to be cut down and we are contributing to Global warming which means my daughter won’t have an Earth to live on!”
When I asked her why she thought this,
“Well [b]ALL[/b] the scientists say we are causing it. if not, then why did Al Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize?”
I mentioned a few scientists who disagreed: Singer, Lindzen, Allegré, Lomborg but she cut me off — “Oh they are just nut cases who don’t know what they are talking about”.
Well, I said, we have a few books in the library that give the other side of the question I’d be happy to get them for you.
“I’m not going to read ANYTHING that says we are not causing it!”
So, yes, I’d have to go with describing her as a “gullible (but) environmentally conscientious citizen”.
By the way, did you go to my link on the other thread by Warren Anderson called [url=http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp]Fire and Ice[/url]? Please read it before responding here.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
Oh, another article from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics called
[url=http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/press/archive/pr0310.html]20th Century not so hot[/url] is also worthy of a read through.
Their conclusion:
[blockquote]Cambridge, MA – A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century. [/blockquote]