"The Supreme Court decision wasn't the only loss for those trying to stop California's new regulations, which require automakers to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 30% between 2009 and 2016. Under the Clean Air Act, other states are empowered to adopt California's tougher environmental standards if they so choose, and so far about a dozen, including Vermont, are ready to duplicate this state's "clean cars" law if it gets an EPA waiver. The auto industry responded by filing federal lawsuits in Vermont and California, and although the latter hasn't been heard, the former was a conclusive defeat. A judge in Vermont ruled last month that California's rules weren't "sufficiently draconian" to interfere with the federal government's authority to set fuel-economy standards, as car makers had argued." --LA Times
So apparently California has been striving for ways to help clean the environment, ultimately making the air safer to breath and improving the health of California citizens. By not agreeing to help regulate carbon dioxide emissions, the supreme court and the Bush administration are stating that they don't care about the health of the people in California or the environment. It is our responsibility to take care of our world, yet how do we achieve a cleaner world if they government is not willing to support us when we try to take the first step.
Carbon dioxide emissions and green house gases are destroying our world and we are willing to work to fix that, however the government is showing that our health and the state of our world are not important on their list of priorities. They would rather be spending our money on a war we don't agree with than working with the people of California to help purify our air, ultimately making the work a safer place to live in.
If we have learned anything since Al Gore's campaign against Global Warming it is that we need to be willing to use less energy and to decrease the amount of green house gases being emitted into our air. We are ready to start saving the earth but the government has proved that they are not.
10 comments:
i read this and couldn't help thinking about the national geographic biofuels article i read a little while ago. it takled about different forms of biofuel (from corn, soybeans, sugarcane) and how it's processed into ethanol.
i've also noticed how the government isn't really doing as much as they could or should to support programs to develop these methods of cleaner fuel. it's these sort of environmental programs that we should be doing more to promote. i agree with you on that - the Bush administration's actions make a statement that i'm not sure they realize they've made.
they're not willing to sacrifice a few year's profits for economic independence and environmental health in the long run.
I think that if the states are willing to create programs that help clean up the enviornment then the government should definately be willing to fund the organizations. Government is supposed to be initerested in what the people are into, and more importantly what is best/safest for the people; inhaling toxic emissions is not the safest. Although the government does need to help out, i think that it is more of the state's responsibilty to create these programs. The president should be concerned with things like security, but when an idea is proposed, like the one in your article, it should be accepted. Presidents tend to stay away from the global warming topic because if they agree with it and decide to make a change they will be losing money, but if they disagree they will come off as if they don't care about our enviornment and lungs. (it's all about their image).
though this even necessarily a position i agree with, i'll bring it up anyway:
so basically everything i've seen on the comments here and especially in the post seem like some fairly radical positions on the government's care for our health have been taken. just because they don't do this they are saying they don't care about our health and well being? they apparently are stating here that they love iraq more than clean air? absolutely not. i'm sure the government would love to make the entire country way more healthy, but this goes beyond what they would love to do. really what this comes down to is whether or not the government has the right to regulate business. in this case, the government decided against further regulation of business. in the end this is an ideological war over to what means a government can govern, not whether the iraq war is more important than clean air in california.
I think that the government is trying to decide to what extent they should govern, yet they are also putting their image first. It happens that this time they think that it is not government's job to regulate businesses yet on other things that are less controversial it's okay. I think that personal motives are being put before the opinion of the public.
I had heard about this issue of how the nation is telling the people to fight again global warming locally than together as a nation. California among many other states are making changes in response to the national government's cry to change, and yet they won't accept the laws and regulations california has committed to for 2009. i agree that it is ridiculous, that local governments and the national government are fighting for the same thing and yet enemies on this issue.
I'm surprised California is the one that is trying to clean up the air seeing as how air quality is probably terrible with all the people and cars everywhere around here. This is good surprising news though. Although it may not have the most support now, the fact that people are pushing for this hopefully means that it will become a reality in the near future. I can see why automobile industries are upset, but in the long run this can only have a positive effect on all of us.
I think it is very important that California is trying to help global warming. We as a state are a very large contributor to this problem, and by trying to stop it, we will set a good example for other states. I think it is strange, though, that the national government and the local governments are fighting about the same thing. They both want to stop global warming, but just want to do it in different ways. If they compromised, it would be much easier to get this process started.
First of all, I didn't know much about global warming until I watched an "Incoveniant Truth." I think that Al Gore is on teh right track, and obviously our environment is very important. Hopefully the government will realize this and begin to support the problem. It is understandable that they have to be careful with spending, but they should be more willing to spend this money on where we live. I personally don't agree with the war and think that the money and time would have been better off spent on our environment.
I think that it is great the California is trying to take forward steps in stopping global warming and trying to correct the wrongs that we have already had on our environment. I think that if the state government and the national government worked together, we would be able to accomplish a much greater and positive outcome because we would be combining our efforts to stop global warming.
Post a Comment