Bush, the environmental president.

[Jac de Molay]

When bush does something significant, like close the mileage loopholes for SUVs, which would save three times as much oil as in ANWR. Or close the safety and emissions loopholes, which would save a lot more lives than this, I might start buying the "environmental" president rap.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Originally posted by Sava

Trust me. And this crosses all party lines. There's always somebody getting some pork in every bill.

I think Sava has you on that one Rah.

[rah]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
You drive an SUV don't you?. You about as pro-environment as the couch potato who claims to be pro-exercise.

I do drive an SUV but not a large one. (honda passport) that gets good highway miles. But, I spent a lot of money for a smaller house near work. As a result I put less than 7,000 miles a year on my SUV, using less gas than my neighbor with his more fuel efficient car that comutes 70 miles a day into the city. Which one of us is helping the environment more? We recycle almost all of our disposables. I don't water my grass very often, unlike some of my neighbors. I've replaced EVERY appliance in our house with more fuel efficient models.


So saying I'm anti-environment just because I own an SUV is just plain ignorant. But i've come to expect that from people that generalize instead of thinking things through and looking at the big picture.

[rah]

Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV


I think Sava has you on that one Rah.

Yep, that one i'll concede. But it's hard to place those at the foot of the president.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by rah


I do drive an SUV but not a large one. (honda passport) that gets good highway miles. But, I spent a lot of money for a smaller house near work. As a result I put less than 7,000 miles a year on my SUV, using less gas than my neighbor with his more fuel efficient car that comutes 70 miles a day into the city. Which one of us is helping the environment more? We recycle almost all of our disposables. I don't water my grass very often, unlike some of my neighbors. I've replaced EVERY appliance in our house with more fuel efficient models.

You've told me that before, and you'll tell me that again - next time I troll you over your SUV.

[rah]

Yep

[Stuie]

I'm sure the administration will back-peddle at some point and make the program "voluntary" instead of mandatory. Just like they've done with almost every other environmental issue.

This administration is great at bait-and-switch.

[Sava]

Originally posted by rah



Yep, that one i'll concede. But it's hard to place those at the foot of the president.

I know, but it's so fun to do.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Spec
First , kyoto is really not what we need right now. Kyoto is adressed mostly to big companies and oil refineries. It's goal is to reduce the pollution emitted by those companies by 70% atleast....but how is this supposed to help or case when WE, the people, produce over 72% of the overall pollution. It is we that the kyoto has to aim. What we should change first is how cars burn petrolium, how we waste water, how we dispose of garbage and so on. Kyoto has nothing to do with that...So IMO, kyoto is aiming at the wrong dear.
Secondly, although I am glad that this decision has been taken, I am sure that it is just a way of getting back the peoples votes or hearts....if bush can make more mistakes and try to fix them up this way, hey, keep on screewing up baby!


Spec.

Spot on Spec!!!

Anything meaningful to environmental causes requires changes at the consumer level moreso than at the supplier level.

[Az]

I agree spec. As a first step, you should give away your cars to less fortunate, backward people. I will gladly accept your cap, Spec.

[gsmoove23]

Wouldn't Kyoto effect the choices consumers may have by pushing for research in environmentally friendly products like cars, washer machines, air conditioners, etc... Consumers only have the choices that are given to them, for any real change they have to be given economically competitive environmentally friendly products. The pressure has to be on industry.

[rah]

Consumers can assist as in any quasi free market.
The demand for hybrid cars is starting to have an impact. There are a lot of car companies that are starting to make agreements with other companies so they're not left out in the cold.

Forcing changes on industries without considering the consumers could leave a company with products that no one wants. Think old Soviet Union.

[gsmoove23]

Old Soviet Union comparison is not even close. These are changes that we know are necessary and we know industry doesn't want to accept. There is a very comfortable middle ground between complete laissez faire and complete goverment control.

[gsmoove23]

People follow money whether they're big industry or individual consumers. A minority of people will buy the more expensive environmentally correct products but not enough to make a subtantial difference.

The assumption that targetting business and industry doesn't effect the consumer is wrong. Whatever costs are taken on by business will be passed on to the consumer. Its trickle down economics people!

[Spec]

Originally posted by Azazel
I agree spec. As a first step, you should give away your cars to less fortunate, backward people. I will gladly accept your cap, Spec.

Ummmmm, no.