With an inept president and a do-nothing congress, it takes the State of California to enter into an International treaty with Britian - to begin a Global Warming Pact. Read full article here - or just summary below:
A main target of the agreement between Britain and California is the carbon from cars, trucks and other modes of transportation. Transportation accounts for an estimated 41 percent of California's greenhouse gas emissions and 28 percent of Britain's.
Schwarzenegger has called on California to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. California was the 12th largest source of greenhouse gases in the world last year, bigger than most nations.
Blair has called on Britain to reduce carbon emissions to 60 percent of its 1990 levels by 2050. Britain also has been looking at imposing individual limits on carbon pollution. People who accumulate unused carbon allowances -- for example, by driving less, or switching to less polluting vehicles -- could sell them to people who exceed their allowances -- for example by driving more.
Bush has resisted Blair's efforts to make carbon reduction a top international priority. After taking office, Bush reversed a 2000 campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, then withdrew U.S. support from the Kyoto treaty requiring industrialized nations to cut their greenhouse gases to below 1990 levels.
The United States is responsible for a quarter of the world's global warming pollution. Bush administration officials argue that requiring cuts in greenhouse gases would cost the U.S. economy 5 million jobs.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Right On from Andrew Sullivan's Blog
An Iranian Dissident's Credo
07 Jun 2006 05:11 pm
Akbar Ganji was jailed by the mullahs in Tehran for six years for his political beliefs, and demonstrated his commitment by hunger strikes. What are those beliefs? Here is a new translation of a speech he once gave. It's really a statement of classical liberalism, what Neil Tennant called "dear old, dreary liberal rights." By "liberal" I do not mean the infantilization of people under a cloying and growing welfare state. I mean the liberalism of the founding fathers, of John Locke, of the American Constitution. And part of that liberalism, according to Ganji, is as follows:
Liberals always accept religion in the private sphere. They protested the unity of the institutions of religion and government and still do. They are not anti-religion. Freedom of religion is a basic principle of liberalism. Contrary to orthodox Marxists who completely reject religion, even from the private sphere of individuals (since they considered it the opium of the masses), liberals believe that everyone must have the right to set up his life according to his religious beliefs. But the civic code must not be based on any particular religious teachings. It should guarantee the freedom of religion in the personal life and morality. Incidentally, a law based on the teachings of a particular religion is unable to guarantee the freedom of all religions.
Sometimes it takes a man living in an actual theocracy to remind us to be on guard against it, even with the blessing of the First Amendment. It gives me great hope to realize that for years, in some vile Iranian jail, someone knew his John Locke. Even while too many Americans have found it so easy to forget him.
07 Jun 2006 05:11 pm
Akbar Ganji was jailed by the mullahs in Tehran for six years for his political beliefs, and demonstrated his commitment by hunger strikes. What are those beliefs? Here is a new translation of a speech he once gave. It's really a statement of classical liberalism, what Neil Tennant called "dear old, dreary liberal rights." By "liberal" I do not mean the infantilization of people under a cloying and growing welfare state. I mean the liberalism of the founding fathers, of John Locke, of the American Constitution. And part of that liberalism, according to Ganji, is as follows:
Liberals always accept religion in the private sphere. They protested the unity of the institutions of religion and government and still do. They are not anti-religion. Freedom of religion is a basic principle of liberalism. Contrary to orthodox Marxists who completely reject religion, even from the private sphere of individuals (since they considered it the opium of the masses), liberals believe that everyone must have the right to set up his life according to his religious beliefs. But the civic code must not be based on any particular religious teachings. It should guarantee the freedom of religion in the personal life and morality. Incidentally, a law based on the teachings of a particular religion is unable to guarantee the freedom of all religions.
Sometimes it takes a man living in an actual theocracy to remind us to be on guard against it, even with the blessing of the First Amendment. It gives me great hope to realize that for years, in some vile Iranian jail, someone knew his John Locke. Even while too many Americans have found it so easy to forget him.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Read this...
and look at the beautiful pictures.
something to think about. If we were to drill in ANWR, it would only provide enough oil to power the US for 90 days - yep, only 90 days! is it worth the destruction of pristine habitat for hundreds of species, to power us up for such a short time?
something to think about. If we were to drill in ANWR, it would only provide enough oil to power the US for 90 days - yep, only 90 days! is it worth the destruction of pristine habitat for hundreds of species, to power us up for such a short time?
Friday, March 31, 2006
Oak Trees
like a hunched-back old lady walking with a cane
like wicked old wizards whispering ancient spells
guarding the golden liquid that comes from these vines
I Love Oak Trees
they dot the landscape and remind me of so many different things...
like a skinny teenager with an afro
like an army of soldiers approaching your fort (where you ride great single-track in their shade)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)