Bush U-turns in environmentalism

[Delfos]

WTH!!! 2012?! that's too late you tart!

anyway, what caused this U-turn? did they finally realised they were wrong? What will happen to all those Americans that were proud to say their government doesn't care for environmentalism and that it sucks?

and environmentalism comes again to the discussion table, bring it on!

[Varkour]

You dont like Bush, do you?

[Delfos]

I just love him, he is one of the most active figures in the modern days, appears in most of the tabloids all over the world (never for a good reason), normally a quarter of the news in EURONEWS are about Bush or Rice.

He sucks, but i love him for that. He's a strong president that is responsible for terrorism to grow, keep it up!

oh, Portugal in 2006 was considered the 9th most safest country in the world. Our army does peace keeping and people love them here and wherever they go because of that. I would mourn the day terrorists would target Portugal or the Portuguese, but i think that's far from happening, amasing how the Portuguese fill up when the Americans are gone and they aren't targeted by terrorists or Taliban or whatever.[/side_note]

This isn't about that. This is about environmentalism in USA. Why did he even thought of an U-Turn? Maybe because alot of states really care for Kyoto? Please discuss

[Varkour]

9th?.... well Denmark is third, so in your face!

[Solnath]

For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat three rare ones.

[Talmann]

This is a little off topic, but... I live in the metro of the #1 green city in the US: Austin, Texas. Environmentalism is about the only "Democratic" (US party version) thing I support. Green tech interests me very much. In fact... I have a design for a green car (it ain't good though, but the idea's still there)

[St Oz]

Haha, next to Austin you got Houston and Dallas, probably the dirtier cities...

I love San Antonio though, I like that river walk.

[LLANYDERN]

All I'm going to say is who's surprised about this really.

As both a biologist and a socialist I shall just point out that the best way to avoid excessive global warming is through a planned economy and greater social equity....... (honest that's officially the University of Wales's point of view, god I love my course)

[kor]

First of all, Bush only change his stand on environmentalism because the Republican party fears the possibility of Al Gore running for President in 2008. With Al Gore's 70% approval rating among the citizen of the US the republicans know he would win. Everyone knows Al Gore is big on the environment and Bush is trying to win approval from US citizens, well it's too little, too late. This tactic just show the fear that the Republicans have in losing the next election. 

[Solnath]

Llan, not to mention reducing human population severly. 90% off or so.

[Delfos]

you and the human population. As a documentary shows, humans live 3 times more than they should because of technology and science and all that. means we should all live until 30s? That's why we're overcrowded and getting old populations, 60 more years than we should, and that is if we consider we live to 90s. Being 100s not very often...

I bet the republicans will drive some scam to win the election *looks at the republican dynasty tree*

Anyway, whatever the US government can do now comes late. Unless they can do what Mercle appointed in 1year they will never be on the front line of environmentalism. Plus i feel irony about Bush's words and arrogance in his words when he says they must convince heavily industrial countries like China and India about environmentalism.

[LLANYDERN]

no we can support the population of the world quite happily as it is, hell 10 billion no problem, its how the resources are used, also it must be said how these people are fed (rice paddies and cows being major contributors to green house gasses).

Those countries that are causing the biggest impact on global climate change are the developed nations which have relatively stable populations or even declining populations.

Someone on a radio comedy program I was listening to had to come up with the scariest sentence they could think of, the one that one was "president Jeb Bush" the man who makes Dubbya seem eloquent and witty.

[Solnath]

7.5 billion can be supported on a long-term basis with a strict vegan diet and excessive recycling. Don't see that happening any time soon. People will learn when it's too late, like they always do, unless someone intervenes.

[kor]

That is very ironic Delfos  considering that China and India have both signed the Kyoto Protocol. All industrial nations of the world have signed this, except the US. The US is also the worlds' largest polluter. With only 4.6% of the worlds population, The US produces 24% of the CO2 emissions in the world. I think if the US would just agree to follow the Kyoto Protocol and make our entire energy policy an eco-friendly one we could still save the environment. The Us needs to convert to solar and hydroelectric energy and curb our oil consumption.  Cars need to run on Bio-diesel, electricity, or Ethanol. Also I think there needs to be more research into Hydrogen energy. If the US did these things, the environment would greatly improve. I know this isn't the full solution, but it would be a start.

[LLANYDERN]

The world can produce a lot more food then it does now without adverse affects to the worlds climate, however it would be better if the population tailed off about 10 billion (this is the best case scenario) as declining world population and booming world populations cause problems.

To give you an example, the EU destroys food rather then selling it to keep prices artificially high.