ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 1238
Feb 20 07 2:34 PM
Interact
Posts: 16876
Feb 20 07 4:04 PM
Feb 20 07 4:06 PM
Posts: 2397
Feb 20 07 5:48 PM
Quote:char: "I have not invoked Al Gore or his movie, which I have not seen and have no intention of seeing. Can you deal with the evidence presented to you, or would you rather argue with Al Gore? If it's the latter, please give him the benefit of your wisdom as to what he is saying. I'm not interested."
Quote:iowan15: "Kyoto is a 'concerted' response. How's that workin' out for you?"char: "It's working better than if we didn't have it,"
Quote:char: "but worse than if it were truly a concerted response of the world's biggest polluters, the biggest of which is the US. Maybe you aren't aware that the US is not a signatory."
Quote:iowan15: "Just like we muddled through the population bomb scare, the Alar scare, the acid rain scare, etc."char: "The results aren't all in on the population challenge, but thanks to some extremely aggressive action by many governments around the world, we're in a lot better position than we could have been."
Quote:char: "Alar was a minor scare that one network hyped, and doesn't belong in this category."
Quote:char: "Acid rain has done a lot of damage to forests and fish, but thanks to some government action to control sulfur and nitrogen emissions, it's a lot better than it would have been had it gone unchecked. Your examples aren't working very well for you, are they?"
Quote:iowan15: "You're one fearless forecaster, char!"char: "I've already made my forecasts; they're essentially the same as those made by the majority of the world's climate scientists. In my last post, I was drawing a comparison between the effects of you or me being wrong. It's just a fact that the consequences of doing nothing if we could ameliorate and plan for AGW are devastating, but the consequences of doing something when it wasn't necessary are in the category of annoyances. But I guess you'll be dead before the worst comes, so why should you care?"
Posts: 8416
Feb 20 07 6:47 PM
Feb 20 07 11:18 PM
Quote:char: "Iowan, I see you'd rather argue with Al Gore than with me, and I don't blame you. Have fun. Maybe he has a website you can post on."
Quote:char: "Government action was necessary to deal with overpopulation and with acid rain, as you well know."
Quote:char: "Is global warming in this category too? I think it is, but you're willing to roll the dice."
Quote:iowan15: "Just recently I read where the EU countries that are signatories are emitting more CO2 now than before they went Kyoto green."char: "I'm not terribly surprised. I hear Canada is doing even worse. But they're doing better than if they'd never tried to limit the increase in their emissions, and there's always the next round, in which the world's biggest polluter may eventually join."
Quote:char: "Or not, if people like you are still in charge. The adults can but try to convince you to wake up. It's a democracy."
Quote:char: "Exult in the triumph of ignorance."
Quote:char: "It usually wins in the short run. Congratulations. Remember this in thirty years."
Feb 20 07 11:38 PM
Feb 21 07 12:52 AM
Quote:char: "Iowan, you really don't know anything about China's one child policy, or India's sterilizations, or any government actions to lower population growth?"
Quote:char: "When you start with the insults, I know you're done trying to argue the issue. Good evening."
Posts: 1871
Feb 21 07 7:13 AM
Feb 21 07 9:17 AM
Feb 21 07 9:22 AM
Feb 21 07 10:54 AM
Quote:char: "Iowan, I'm not Ehrlich either."
Quote:char: "I know you'd prefer to argue with other people; is that because you sense you argument with me is not going well?"
Quote:char: "The Chinese and Indians thought they had to take drastic action, they took it, and to a very great extent it worked."
Quote:char: "In contrast to the actual history, we get your usual "I don't want to believe it". It was your example, I showed how it supported me and not you, and you can't handle it."
Quote:iowan15: "The world isn't going to heck in a handbasket."char: "Remember that the next time you see two gays holding hands."
Feb 21 07 2:55 PM
Feb 22 07 3:47 AM
Quote:Duke, are you denying that CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas, in that it absorbs infrared radiation?
Feb 22 07 3:02 PM
Posts: 845
Feb 23 07 2:32 AM
Feb 23 07 7:04 AM
Feb 23 07 10:47 AM
Posts: 2949
Feb 23 07 1:19 PM
Owner
Feb 23 07 3:14 PM
Quote:A Conservative Conservationist?Why the Right Needs to Get Invested in the Search for Climate Change SolutionsBy Mark SanfordFriday, February 23, 2007; Page A19When George W. Bush, The Post and the insurance giant Lloyd's of London agree on something, it's obvious a new wind is blowing. The climate change debate is here to stay, and as America warms to the idea of environmental conservation on a grander scale, it's vital that conservatives change the debate before government regulation expands yet again and personal freedom is pushed closer toward extinction.The fact is, I'm a conservative and a conservationist -- and that's okay. For the past 20 years, I have seen the ever-so-gradual effects of rising sea levels at our farm on the South Carolina coast. I've had to watch once-thriving pine trees die in that fragile zone between uplands and salt marshes. I know the climate change debate isn't over, but I believe human activity is having a measurable effect on the environment.The real "inconvenient truth" about climate change is that some people are losing their rights and freedoms because of the actions of others -- in either the quality of the air they breathe, the geography they hold dear, the insurance costs they bear or the future environment of the children they love.But like a polar bear searching for solid ice, many people seem ready to dig into the first solution offered to slow or reverse climate change. Cue former vice president Al Gore -- the politician turned screen star who could take home an Academy Award this weekend and a Nobel Peace Prize later this year -- whose call for greater government intervention is resonating with administrations in this country and across the globe: California may soon ban incandescent light bulbs; France wants to force the Kyoto-less United States to pay carbon taxes on exports; and the European Union is pushing automobile emission standards that would cost carmakers such as Volvo roughly $3,200 more per vehicle.Make no mistake, the issue of environmental conservation sits squarely on the battle line between government and liberty. From light bulbs to automobiles, government will gladly expand its regulatory reach even if the result is a hamstrung economy and curtailed individual freedoms. Yet conservatives have remained largely absent from this debate, and by pulling back from the environmental battle they have conceded the high ground to those on the far left.I believe conservatives have a window of opportunity, but that window is closing fast.First, conservatives must reframe the environmental discussion by replacing the political left's scare tactics with conservative principles such as responsibility and stewardship. Stewardship -- the idea that we need to take care of what we've been given -- simply makes sense. It makes dollars as well, for the simple reason that our economy is founded on natural resources, from tourism and manufacturing to real estate and agriculture. Here in South Carolina, conservation easements are springing up across the state as landowners see the dual benefit of preserving the environment and protecting their pocketbooks.Second, conservatives must reclaim lost ground from far-left interest groups by showing how environmental conservation is as much about expanding economic opportunity as it is about saving whales or replanting rain forests. When corporations such as BP and Shell America pursue alternative energy sources, they not only cut carbon emissions but help cut our petroleum dependency on OPEC nations. When South Carolina restaurants recycle their oyster shells, they not only restore shellfish habitat but take a job off local governments' plates and ensure continuing revenue streams for local fishermen.Third, conservatives must respond to climate change with innovation, not regulation. This means encouraging private research and implementation of more eco-friendly construction, more energy-efficient workplaces and more sustainable ways of going about life -- all of which cuts costs and protects God's creation. It means looking past the question of whether your car's exhaust melts polar ice caps and instead treating our environment as an investment our future depends on.South Carolina is creating an advisory group that will study the effects of climate change on commerce and vice versa, with an eye toward crafting a plan that balances the needs of the business and environmental communities.I am a conservative conservationist who worries that sea levels and government intervention may end up rising together. My earnest hope going forward is that we can find conservative solutions to the climate change problem -- ecologically responsible solutions based on free-market principles that both improve our quality of life and safeguard our freedoms.For if conservatives cannot reframe, reclaim and respond to climate change with our principles intact, government will undoubtedly provide a solution, no matter how taxing it may be.The writer, a Republican, is governor of South Carolina.
Share This