It's too early and too Saturday to be this pissed off.
From the front page of this morning's Washington Post, In Bush's Final Year, The Agenda Gets Greener:
The evolution has been evident over the past year. Bush cited the danger of climate change in his State of the Union address for the first time, proposed a plan to cut gasoline consumption and, by extension, greenhouse gases, and convened a conference of major world polluters to start work on an international accord to follow the Kyoto Protocol. He even invited former vice president Al Gore for a 40-minute talk about global warming.It's disturbing that the Post would print something so selectively misleading. Bush says one thing and does another all the time. The Post gives Bush credit for what he says, then wraps what he did in the media mire of "Dems claim this, GOP claims that, who can say what's true?"
Let's give this one a truthiness scan:
WHAT BUSH SAID: "Bush cited the danger of climate change in his State of the Union address for the first time ... convened a conference of major world polluters to start work on an international accord to follow the Kyoto Protocol."
WHAT BUSH DID: Went to the climate change negotiations in Bali and feigned ignorance on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, then tried to take credit for being more progressive than Turkey.
WHAT BUSH SAID: "proposed a plan to cut gasoline consumption and, by extension, greenhouse gases"
WHAT BUSH DID: Repeatedly threatened to veto the energy bill that contained tougher fuel economy standards and rallied allegedly moderate Republicans like our very own Sen. John Warner to strip renewable energy standards and cuts in Big Oil subsidies from the bill. Net effect? US energy policy remains less progressive than China's.
WHAT BUSH SAID: "He even invited former vice president Al Gore for a 40-minute talk about global warming."
WHAT BUSH DID: Acted like an ungracious douche the whole time.
See? You don't have to take a single eco-friendly action to get credit from the Post for being green. So why would you? Talk green, fight for Big Oil. It's a win-win for Bush and a lose-lose for the rest of us.
If you want to reduce so-called greenhouse gas emissions, the most effective thing you could do would be to promote straight-forward taxes on the products that produce these gases. Instead, you promote a phony crisis and legislation designed to micromanage our economy.
If you are really concerned about the environment, then I suggest you take a close look at how socialism worked in the former USSR. Command economies pollute. When you put the government in charge instead of leaving it in the role of regulator, then you create a conflict of interest -- throwing objectivity out the door.
When a government pollutes, who is going to stop it?
Speaking of which, I just saw Michael Moore's movie, "Sicko," last night. I strongly recommend it, but be prepared to get very angry, including at the heartless George W. Bush (no "compassionate conservatism" there!).
If you want to accelerate the adoption of energy alternatives that actually work do not pollute, then don't try to mandate via government the adoption of your preferred energy solutions. You do not know enough. Nobody does. Just tax the pollution.
If you don't want something, and you want to get rid of it, tax it.
Bush opposes carbon taxes of any kind. Why aren't you complaining to him?
Your excuse for replacing a relatively simple idea you admit would work with a complex mess that will wreck the economy (and the environment) is political feasibility?
That's crazy!
Hurling charges of "socialism" and "you're crazy!" as he goes. Funny trolls.
Carbon tax = "sensible"
Carbon cap & trade = "crazy"
