I have been trying to stay fairly apolitical in my posts for quite a while. But while we were in Bali the United Nations Climate Change Conference the area newspapers were filled with reports from the meetings. Almost all of them pointed out the US led resistance to the agreement up until the end of the meetings. Also of major news was that the new President of Australia made his first official action signing on to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol leaving the United States as the only major industrialized nation in the world refusing to ratify the treaty in 2005. Neither the Clinton nor Bush presidencies or the congresses during their terms agreed to ratify the agreement.
The Bush Administration announced that the new federal energy law will require auto manufacturers to reduce emissions by 40% by 2020. That is a swift policy change. It requires that fleets average 35 MPG. Sounds pretty good! But California and more than a dozen other states have already adopted their own emissions plans that would bind manufacturers. It would set a target for 45 MPG average for most passenger cars, trucks and SUVs by 2016. The EPA just denied California’s application to waive the federal regulations in favor of their more restrictive state law. They denied it. And today our President said this:
“Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy?”
How about a global strategy? Like, uh, i don’t know - the Kyoto Protocol? Seems like that would be “more effective” than a “national strategy.”
Cena on 
Tiffany on 
Nicola on 
cece on 
zieak on 
Karna on 
February 6th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
how about we take care of something that we can manage - the feds can manage the U.S.
we don’t need the rest of the world pointing their fingers at the big guy, while they’re polluting far more per capita than we are.