This so-called "debunking" has been picked apart right down the molecular level for AGES. See: http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/quick/
Fern Mackenzie
|
|
|
![]() |
||
|
||
Update your infoSubmitted by FEMACK on Tue, 2008-01-29 07:00.
This so-called "debunking" has been picked apart right down the molecular level for AGES. See: http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/quick/ Fern Mackenzie » reply
McCain and climate changeSubmitted by James Hrynyshyn (not verified) on Tue, 2008-01-29 07:11.
Praising McCain as the lesser of several evils is all very well. But given that his sincerity on climate change is in doubt, why bother with him at all? Given that the likely Democratic nominees are all far more progressive on the subject, why not simply remind voters that if they care about climate change, they should vote for someone who shares their concerns? Of course, there are hard-core Republicans who will never consider voting for a Democrat, and I presume that's who this piece is aimed at. But I suggest that that particular audience has no interest in climate change anyway. » reply
Republicans not interested in climate change?Submitted by Richard Littlemore on Tue, 2008-01-29 07:54.
They should be, and we should be making it easier for them to start supporting solutions. It's worth noting, too, that the best current climate change policy in America has come from a Republican Governator. In fact, by his actions, Arnie Schwarzenegger has drained a huge amount of the partisan poison out of this issue. That's a good path, and it's appropriate to support McCain's efforts to make it wider.
» reply
McCainSubmitted by Chad Ferguson (not verified) on Tue, 2008-01-29 09:25.
I've never voted Republican and, given my concerns with McCain's changes of stance (as opposed to flip-flops), I won't this time either. However, there are a lot of things about McCain that wouldn't be too horrible... definitely the lesser of all Repub evils this year. So, yeah, from an environmental perspective, an Obama/Edwards vs. McCain race might be a best-case-scenario. » reply
Trust McCain?Submitted by Steve L (not verified) on Tue, 2008-01-29 10:27.
First, we should never trust politicians, regardless of party. Second, it's likely that McCain would launch more wars and exempt the military from any restrictions on emissions. Third, though, your point about having a republican there who would push the democrat toward more than just nice sounding words regarding climate is well-taken. » reply
As a ecologically mindedSubmitted by Marshall (not verified) on Tue, 2008-01-29 14:38.
As a ecologically minded Republican I resent the notion that no one who cares about the environment could be Republican. Democrats do not have a strangle hold on answers to environmental problems. It worries me that most Republicans are ambivalent or even hostile towards the environment, because Democrats see this as another way to expand the role of government. Free market thinkers have proposed a number of inventive solutions to ecological problems that minimize the role of government. Just as Roosevelt's imposition of price controls and regulations prolonged the depression, an irresponsible response to this current dilemma could prove disastrous. For those of you who don't think he is sincere about his environmental concerns, just wait until he wins the nomination. Republican primary voters are not very concerned about the environment, that's why McCain hasn't made an issue of the environment. The first step for a Republican to institute environmental change is to win the nomination, you have to give him some slack at this point. » reply
I agree, Marshall. McCainSubmitted by Stephen Berg on Tue, 2008-01-29 17:29.
I agree, Marshall. McCain showed good judgment in discussing issues Republicans tend to be more interested in, though I think this is unfortunate, as more Republicans should be getting on the environmentally-conscious bandwagon as it is a moral issue and not a political one as Al Gore said previously (as Republicans claim their party is the party of moral values). However, the only point I disagree with you on is your assertion that Roosevelt's New Deal prolonged the depression. On the contrary, FDR's policies helped bring about greater confidence in the American people, who were incredibly weakened by the poor state of the economy. (The increased manufacturing that WWII brought on also contributed to a higher standard of living, but that came after the economy stabilized itself.) Many presumed Republicans are environmentally-friendly. Revs. Richard Cizik and Rick Warren are two who come to mind, Evangelical Christian conservatives who embraced the "Creation Care" doctrine. I hope more join this group. » reply
Free Market, eh?Submitted by Chad Ferguson (not verified) on Wed, 2008-01-30 13:24.
HAA-HAA... So we should trust a market driven by profit, populated by corporate interests, to "do the right thing"??? Man, thats worth a laugh. When was the last time you remember hearing about a corporation giving away money for the purposes of the public good? Charitable donations don't count b/c the tax code is rigged so that counts against tax obligation. I don't have an example that wasn't the result of enforcement. While it is nice to see some evangelicals taking environmental concerns on as moral issues, the Cult of the Free Market (or should I call it the Cult of Reagan?) is the last place to look for ecological or environmental justice. » reply
free market is efficientSubmitted by Steve L (not verified) on Wed, 2008-01-30 16:11.
If you set up a system so that people can make a profit doing the right thing, then you'll get from A to B a lot quicker and with less effort, cost, and resentment than if you try to regulate it only and hope for compliance. People often respond better to the carrot than the stick. » reply
Carrot & the StickSubmitted by Chad Ferguson (not verified) on Wed, 2008-01-30 16:41.
Thats all well and good, and I agree with you in spirit, but corporations are not people. A corporation exists for the sole purpose of making money for its shareholders. If we were talking about small business people, incentives w/o regulation might have a prayer, but thats not who generally buys Republicans. In a corporate society, capitalism left unregulated will destroy itself because individual morality is removed from the equation. Happened in the 1920s and it could happen today without a reality check. I'd argue the stick would be sufficiently effective, but the stick plus the carrot would be quicker and more agreeable. The thing that really kills me about this myth of the free market is that it lends itself to a sort of speculative hysteria/hype that can cause a lot of harm to actual people and actual economies in the long run. » reply
your exampleSubmitted by Steve L (not verified) on Thu, 2008-01-31 08:36.
Okay, but your example of how politicians can be bought is one reason that some people dislike regulation. They resent unfair regulations and see the 'free market' as the fairest system, though others may disagree. But this is too theoretical... let's have another example, like some guy who promotes carbon legislation that helps the climate in rhetoric but in fact supports, subsidizes, or exempts nuclear or ethanol because that's what his local constituents can benefit from (and who lines his pocket). That's not the way to inspire improvements. » reply
I think you would have to beSubmitted by Ottawacon (not verified) on Wed, 2008-01-30 04:13.
I think you would have to be naive to question why McCain is soft-selling his position and, as you put it, appealing to Republican votes. Exactly whom should he be appealing to in trying to win the Republican nomination? For that objective, his laudable record is a potential liability. I also think it is stretching reality, or at least oversimplifying, to call Lieberman-Warner moderate and bipartisan. It has one Republican supporter, Warner himself, and Warner is not planning to run for re-election. The entire dynamic in the committee was a vigorous tacking away from moderate in order to obtain the extreme left vote from Bernie Sanders. » reply
|
Subscribe To Our NewsletterLike what you read here? Get our top five stories in your inbox every week (here's a preview). Enter your email address below and click Subscribe! Other Posts by This Writer![]() The good news is that solutions to global warming exist, check out Ross Gelbspan’s Green Sheet and his vision for a pathway to climate peace. Or, check out the latest below: Join One of DeSmog's Facebook Groups Today!Did you know DeSmog has some very active Facebook Groups? Check them out:
Similar entries
most popular itemsTell Your Facebook Friends About DeSmogBlog!The Science is ClearThe scientific evidence is clear, global warming is happening, our continued burning of fossil fuels (i.e. oil, gas and coal) is to blame and we should be very concerned about the consequences. Check here for more info and resources on the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming. User login | ||
"Man-Made" Global Warming
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Report Released on December 20, 2007
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport