Obama to reverse Bush policies.

[Jackhowitzer]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27628719/

OBAMA OBAMA WOOOO! to quote Randy from South Park.
Page 1, of the article for anyone lazy to not click the link
Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

"The kind of regulations they are looking at" are those imposed by Bush for "overtly political" reasons, in pursuit of what Democrats say was a partisan Republican agenda, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget. The list of executive orders targeted by Obama's team could well get longer in the coming days, as Bush's appointees rush to enact a number of last-minute policies in an effort to extend his legacy.

Stem cell research
A spokeswoman said yesterday that no plans for regulatory changes had been finalized. "Before he makes any decisions on potential executive or legislative actions, he will be conferring with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, as well as interested groups," Obama transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said. "Any decisions would need to be discussed with his Cabinet nominees, none of whom have been selected yet."

Still, the preelection transition team, comprising mainly lawyers, has positioned the incoming president to move fast on high-priority items without waiting for Congress.

Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush's controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson's.

Bush's August 2001 decision pleased religious conservatives who have moral objections to the use of cells from days-old human embryos, which are destroyed in the process.

But Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said that during Obama's final swing through her state in October, she reminded him that because the restrictions were never included in legislation, Obama "can simply reverse them by executive order." Obama, she said, "was very receptive to that." Opponents of the restrictions have already drafted an executive order he could sign.

Click for related content
NYT: Obama team weighs which issues to tackle first
Christian right regroups after Obama victory

The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it.

"We have been communicating with his transition staff" almost daily, Richards said. "We expect to see a real change."

While Obama said at a news conference last week that his top priority would be to stimulate the economy and create jobs, his advisers say that focus will not delay key shifts in social and regulatory policies, including some -- such as the embrace of new environmental safeguards -- that Obama has said will have long-term, beneficial impacts on the economy.

Page 2
The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration's decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. "Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer," Obama said in January.

California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California's rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation's automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country.

"An early move by the Obama administration to sign the California waiver would signal the seriousness of intent to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil and build a future for the domestic auto market," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Carbon dioxide emissions
Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.

Robert Sussman, who was the EPA's deputy administrator during the Clinton administration and is now overseeing EPA transition planning for Obama, wrote a paper last spring strongly recommending such a finding. Others in the campaign have depicted it as an issue on which Obama is keen to show that politics must not interfere with scientific advice.

Some related reforms embraced by Obama's transition advisers would alter procedures for decision-making on climate issues. A book titled "Change for America," being published next week by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, will recommend, for example, that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.

The center's influence with Obama is substantial: It was created by former Clinton White House official John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of the transition effort, and much of its staff has been swept into planning for Obama's first 100 days in office.

The National Energy Council would be a counterpart to the White House National Economic Council that Clinton created in a 1993 executive order.

"It would make sure all the oars are rowing in the right direction" and ensure that climate change policy "gets lots of attention inside the White House," said Daniel J. Weiss, a former Sierra Club official and senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Click for related content
NYT: Obama team weighs which issues to tackle first
Christian right regroups after Obama victory

The center's new book will also urge Obama to sign an executive order requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act. Several key members of Obama's transition team have already embraced the idea.

Other early Obama initiatives may address the need for improved food and drug regulation and chart a new course for immigration enforcement, some Obama advisers say. But they add that only a portion of his early efforts will be aimed at undoing Bush initiatives.

Striking a balance
Despite enormous pent-up Democratic frustration, Obama and his team realize they must strike a balance between undoing Bush actions and setting their own course, said Winnie Stachelberg, the center's senior vice president for external affairs.

"It took eight years to get into this mess, and it will take a long time to get out of it," she said. "The next administration needs to look ahead. This transition team and the incoming administration gets that in a big way."

Staff writers Juliet Eilperin, Spencer S. Hsu and Carol D. Leonnig and staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

[Cato Minor]

MSNBC. For balanced news.

[Silverhandorder]

So much for caring about the other 49%

[FermentedLies]

Hey Obama you so fine, you so fine you blow my mind! Would have been better.

[Ozzy Wrong]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27628719/

OBAMA OBAMA WOOOO! to quote Randy from South Park.
Page 1, of the article for anyone lazy to not click the link
Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

"The kind of regulations they are looking at" are those imposed by Bush for "overtly political" reasons, in pursuit of what Democrats say was a partisan Republican agenda, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget. The list of executive orders targeted by Obama's team could well get longer in the coming days, as Bush's appointees rush to enact a number of last-minute policies in an effort to extend his legacy.

Stem cell research
A spokeswoman said yesterday that no plans for regulatory changes had been finalized. "Before he makes any decisions on potential executive or legislative actions, he will be conferring with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, as well as interested groups," Obama transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said. "Any decisions would need to be discussed with his Cabinet nominees, none of whom have been selected yet."

Still, the preelection transition team, comprising mainly lawyers, has positioned the incoming president to move fast on high-priority items without waiting for Congress.

Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush's controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson's.

Bush's August 2001 decision pleased religious conservatives who have moral objections to the use of cells from days-old human embryos, which are destroyed in the process.

But Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said that during Obama's final swing through her state in October, she reminded him that because the restrictions were never included in legislation, Obama "can simply reverse them by executive order." Obama, she said, "was very receptive to that." Opponents of the restrictions have already drafted an executive order he could sign.

Click for related content
NYT: Obama team weighs which issues to tackle first
Christian right regroups after Obama victory

The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it.

"We have been communicating with his transition staff" almost daily, Richards said. "We expect to see a real change."

While Obama said at a news conference last week that his top priority would be to stimulate the economy and create jobs, his advisers say that focus will not delay key shifts in social and regulatory policies, including some -- such as the embrace of new environmental safeguards -- that Obama has said will have long-term, beneficial impacts on the economy.

Page 2
The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration's decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. "Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer," Obama said in January.

California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California's rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation's automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country.

"An early move by the Obama administration to sign the California waiver would signal the seriousness of intent to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil and build a future for the domestic auto market," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Carbon dioxide emissions
Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.

Robert Sussman, who was the EPA's deputy administrator during the Clinton administration and is now overseeing EPA transition planning for Obama, wrote a paper last spring strongly recommending such a finding. Others in the campaign have depicted it as an issue on which Obama is keen to show that politics must not interfere with scientific advice.

Some related reforms embraced by Obama's transition advisers would alter procedures for decision-making on climate issues. A book titled "Change for America," being published next week by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, will recommend, for example, that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.

The center's influence with Obama is substantial: It was created by former Clinton White House official John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of the transition effort, and much of its staff has been swept into planning for Obama's first 100 days in office.

The National Energy Council would be a counterpart to the White House National Economic Council that Clinton created in a 1993 executive order.

"It would make sure all the oars are rowing in the right direction" and ensure that climate change policy "gets lots of attention inside the White House," said Daniel J. Weiss, a former Sierra Club official and senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Click for related content
NYT: Obama team weighs which issues to tackle first
Christian right regroups after Obama victory

The center's new book will also urge Obama to sign an executive order requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act. Several key members of Obama's transition team have already embraced the idea.

Other early Obama initiatives may address the need for improved food and drug regulation and chart a new course for immigration enforcement, some Obama advisers say. But they add that only a portion of his early efforts will be aimed at undoing Bush initiatives.

Striking a balance
Despite enormous pent-up Democratic frustration, Obama and his team realize they must strike a balance between undoing Bush actions and setting their own course, said Winnie Stachelberg, the center's senior vice president for external affairs.

"It took eight years to get into this mess, and it will take a long time to get out of it," she said. "The next administration needs to look ahead. This transition team and the incoming administration gets that in a big way."

Staff writers Juliet Eilperin, Spencer S. Hsu and Carol D. Leonnig and staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.
What is up with people quoting themselves in their sigs? Can you be more conceited?
MSNBC. For balanced news.
You're right, Fox news would have said he was reversing 300 Bush Administration actions and called him a socialist for it, which is how it really is.

[Jackhowitzer]

What is up with people quoting themselves in their sigs? Can you be more conceded?

You're right, Fox news would have said he was reversing 300 Bush Administration actions and called him a socialist for it, which is how it really is.

I'm not conceited, I just made something so epicly awesome that I've quoted it because it's my sig and I can do pretty much whateva I want. TOS pending of course.

[Ozzy Wrong]

I'm not conceited, I just made something so epicly awesome that I've quoted it because it's my sig and I can do pretty much whateva I want. TOS pending of course.
If it was really that great it would've been quoted by someone else...

[Slypieguy]

Yay skyrocketing price of electricity and more government intervention on behalf of environmentalist nutjobs!!

[FermentedLies]

If it was really that great it would've been quoted by someone else...

Not true. Very view minds are knowledgeable of or recognize quality.

[Ozzy Wrong]

Yay skyrocketing price of electricity and more government intervention on behalf of environmentalist nutjobs!!
Slypieguy, we know where you stand, so nothing you say really holds any relevance anymore because it's all predictable, and none of it is controversial.

Not true. Very view minds are knowledgeable of or recognize quality.
And his is not one of them.
your sig is stupid and it belongs in the back of the bus.
Thank you.

[Slypieguy]

Slypieguy, we know where you stand, so nothing you say really holds any relevance anymore because it's all predictable, and none of it is controversial.

Yea, cap and trade isn't controversial at all. Nothing to see here

[Ozzy Wrong]

Yea, cap and trade isn't controversial at all. Nothing to see here

I'm just saying, your opinions are starting to blend together.
And could you give me an unbiased explanation of cap and trade? I've never heard that terminology.

[Spart]

Not to scare you guys or anything (actually, I'm lying, that's exactly what I want to do), but quite a lot of this is a like to what the Australian government is doing. The same government who decided that the internet needs to be censored.

I think it would be hilarious if Obama tried this as well. Except for the fact that, you know, you guys have actual technology so there is a good chance he would succeed if he tried. Hope that warms your day =)

[Dirty l3um]

Yay skyrocketing price of electricity and more government intervention on behalf of environmentalist nutjobs!!

I have to say i agree with this

[Jathen]

Yay skyrocketing price of electricity and more government intervention on behalf of environmentalist nutjobs!!

Sounds about right....... yahwhoooooooo change.

[Slypieguy]

I'm just saying, your opinions are starting to blend together.
And could you give me an unbiased explanation of cap and trade? I've never heard that terminology.

I would try, but you would just say it's biased, because of how obviously retarded it is. Maybe try wiki

[Carl Ragadamn]

Hurray for changing all of the Bush policies execpt for the ones that grant power to the executive branch.

[Ozzy Wrong]

Hurray for changing all of the Bush policies execpt for the ones that grant power to the executive branch.

I was actually thinking the same thing.
Did we just find something we agree on?

[Feyrband]

im fine with the stem cell stuff but... god damned global warming agenda.

[Carl Ragadamn]

I was actually thinking the same thing.
Did we just find something we agree on?

Only if you agree that it is a joke to say you are going to reverse policies and completely ignore the ones that actually need changed.

[Ozzy Wrong]

Only if you agree that it is a joke to say you are going to reverse policies and completely ignore the ones that actually need changed.

We don't know if he's going to completely ignore them, and these ones did need changing, so it's not a joke, but yes, it is more insignificant then people are making it out to be.
Happy?

[Killuminati]

Bush will always be my hero no matter what.

[dirtknap]

im fine with the stem cell stuff but... god damned global warming agenda.

we know for a fact global warming is happening and we're more than 90% certain it's due to human activity; it stopped being controversial around the turn of the century.

see the international panel on climate change (http://www.ipcc.ch/)

[Brekken]

Hurray for changing all of the Bush policies execpt for the ones that grant power to the executive branch.

And what sir do you base this on? Until Jan 21st we just won't know. He reportedly already has over 200 things planned.

[Slypieguy]

we know for a fact global warming is happening and we're more than 90% certain it's due to human activity; it stopped being controversial around the turn of the century.

see the international panel on climate change (http://www.ipcc.ch/)

LOL

[dirtknap]

LOL

Translation: i'm too stupid to read let alone understand the 200-page report, so i'll just reply with 'LOL'.

[Kailas]

Translation: i'm too stupid to read let alone understand the 200-page report, so i'll just reply with 'LOL'.

This is the Darkfall forums. Half the people here believe in UFOs, you really think they believe in global warming?

[Carl Ragadamn]

Translation: i'm too stupid to read let alone understand the 200-page report, so i'll just reply with 'LOL'.

more like LOL, we have been thru and shot down man made global warming so many times that it is not worth the effort anymore. Linking the ipcc is like linking fox news.

[Septus]

im fine with the stem cell stuff but... god damned global warming agenda.

What about simply allowing California to enforce higher MPG on cars?

You're all for decentralization until states want to do something you guys don't like, lol.

As for environmental regulations, it would help eliminate a twin deficit that is spiraling out of control.

I know you don't want to hear it, but it's true. We borrow money from China to give it to the Middle East.

[Septus]

more like LOL, we have been thru and shot down man made global warming so many times that it is not worth the effort anymore. Linking the ipcc is like linking fox news.

How did you shoot down global warming exactly?

[Carl Ragadamn]

How did you shoot down global warming exactly?

"man made"

[Septus]

"man made"

Okay, how did you shoot down man made global warming?

[antihero-zero]

Yay skyrocketing price of electricity and more government intervention on behalf of environmentalist nutjobs!!

This of course means you didn't actually read the article, but nice ad homen response. Reading is hard.

Bush will always be my hero no matter what.

Troll harder. QQ.

im fine with the stem cell stuff but... god damned global warming agenda.

I'm not fond of this part too, but if the fuel efficiency increase is a side effect the argument against doing it is moot.

Okay, how did you shoot down man made global warming?

He didn't, I just provided a valid counter-argument against it, and stated that I don't know and neither does anyone else. The vast majority, and I do mean vast, of scientists believe in man-made global warming in scientific journals. A few months ago there were about 20 scientific articles disagreeing with parts of the global warming argument, many from Russian scientists only readable in Russian. There are several hundred in support of it, maybe more. This doesn't mean it exists, only that it is scientifically popular.

[Carl Ragadamn]

Okay, how did you shoot down man made global warming?

By showing that there are competing theories like Solar output, and thus we should proceed slowly instead of rushing wholesale down a road to fix a problem that may not exist.

[antihero-zero]

By showing that there are competing theories like Solar output, and thus we should proceed slowly instead of rushing wholesale down a road to fix a problem that may not exist.

If I wanted to be a dick, and I do, there are like 3 or so articles ever published that have anything to do with that theory, and there are far more that disagree with it. Since we live in a "Democracy", popularity wins, and you lose.

[Beorg]

Yay skyrocketing price of electricity and more government intervention on behalf of environmentalist nutjobs!!

Honestly, the man's going to be your president, you may not like it, but at least support the man who's going to be running the country. The more conflict and friction between political parties, the worse for the nation as a whole.

[Carl Ragadamn]

Honestly, the man's going to be your president, you may not like it, but at least support the man who's going to be running the country. The more conflict and friction between political parties, the worse for the nation as a whole.

It is one thing to support him, it is another to abandon all long held ideals and follow blindly like sheep. Plus, why is it only now that Obama is president that we "must" support our president?

[Septus]

By showing that there are competing theories like Solar output, and thus we should proceed slowly instead of rushing wholesale down a road to fix a problem that may not exist.

First off, those "competing theories" have very little in the way of charted data. It's more like a hypothesis if anything.

As far as rushing vs. proceeding slowly, there is also the economic issue of our twin deficit (which I just fucking said).

We run our country by borrowing from China and giving to the Middle East. That is not sustainable. And for that matter, fossil fuels aren't sustainable either - so it's a poor idea to base our energy needs on them.

[antihero-zero]

First off, those "competing theories" have very little in the way of charted data. It's more like a hypothesis if anything.

As far as rushing vs. proceeding slowly, there is also the economic issue of our twin deficit (which I just fucking said).

We run our country by borrowing from China and giving to the Middle East. That is not sustainable. And for that matter, fossil fuels aren't sustainable either - so it's a poor idea to base our energy needs on them.

He is right, I've done a lot of research on future energy projects, and there are about 100 years, at current production levels (production will increase in most industries, so it's less than 100 years actually), of petroleum, uranium, and coal left on the planet. We're fucked either way, but we'll have the Dark Ages II if we don't do something immediately. For those who didn't understand this statement, it's OK, you're the slow kid and you're not expected to respond.

Note: Oil reports are falsified by governments as a national security problem, so there is quite possibly less than 100 years of petroleum left to harvest. There might be some left on the planet, but the quality would be too low and the technology too limited to drill that deep. We're fast approaching a global energy crisis of technology slowing to a halt in keeping up with innovation to scrape the bottom of the barrel, so to speak, and the transition is likely to be worse than most of you could imagine.

[Silverhandorder]

He is right, I've done a lot of research on future energy projects, and there are about 100 years, at current production levels (production will increase in most industries, so it's less than 100 years actually), of petroleum, uranium, and coal left on the planet.

That is completly false. We have 2000 years worth of coal. 100 years worth of petroleum and uranium. Plus as technology advances it takes less energy to run many things. Atleast try not to be biased.

[Silverhandorder]

First off, those "competing theories" have very little in the way of charted data. It's more like a hypothesis if anything.

As far as rushing vs. proceeding slowly, there is also the economic issue of our twin deficit (which I just fucking said).

We run our country by borrowing from China and giving to the Middle East. That is not sustainable. And for that matter, fossil fuels aren't sustainable either - so it's a poor idea to base our energy needs on them.

There is not much evidence for the man made part either. Plus scientists don't like to publish their findings in a hostile environment so they sit on them untill they have undeniable evience.

[Beorg]

It is one thing to support him, it is another to abandon all long held ideals and follow blindly like sheep. Plus, why is it only now that Obama is president that we "must" support our president?

You don't have to, but in this day and age, it's important that we cooperate.

I agree, I voted for Obama because I read both of his books before he was even considering running for office, and I thought that he would be the best thing to happen to our nation in a long while. There are some things of his I don't support--his views on abortion, and his Chief of Staff's support of the Patriot Act--but mostly I agree with him. Even if he's not the best president, he's a monumental step up for the nation than Bush, and I think he'll bring the change we need. Hopefully he can help strengthen relations with the rest of the world (can you really see McCain as a peacetime president?), and help free us from our oil stranglehold. As soon as he differs from a good portion of his original objectives, I will start to question his leadership, and if he strays too far from his plotted course, I'd stop supporting him entirely.

That time, however, has not come yet, and I don't believe it will while he's in office. For now it's imperative that we support our elected president--we can settle our differences later, but as of now we need to make the best of this president, like him or not.

That is completly false. We have 2000 years worth of coal. 100 years worth of petroleum and uranium. Plus as technology advances it takes less energy to run many things. Atleast try not to be biased.

Maybe 2,000 years left throughout the world, but I don't want to pay up the nose for coal when America eventually runs out of it. Either way, the more you burn coal and other products that create pollutants, you are poisoning the air, and eventually it will poison you directly unless we take actions to stop the production of these pollutants, or find another source that produces none. Moreover, if Global Warming is true (which many signs point to "yes"), burning coal and petrol can't be helping slow it.

[Septus]

That is completly false. We have 2000 years worth of coal. 100 years worth of petroleum and uranium. Plus as technology advances it takes less energy to run many things. Atleast try not to be biased.

Yeah but it takes one ton of coal to do what a few barrels of oil can do. Once oil depletes, coal would have to take on that load as well.

I'd like to know where you got those figures (especially the 2000 years one). If you were to rely on fossil fuels, you'd have an energy strapped world inside 100 years. You'd have negative GDP growth after that. Those are the fucking realities.

[Beorg]

Yeah but it takes one ton of coal to do what a few barrels of oil can do. Once oil depletes, coal would have to take on that load as well.

I'd like to know where you got those figures (especially the 2000 years one). If you were to rely on fossil fuels, you'd have an energy strapped world inside 100 years. You'd have negative GDP growth after that. Those are the fucking realities.

It really doesn't matter, either way, if we don't come up with a new solution to fossil fuels and petroleum products, we're screwed.

[Silverhandorder]

Yeah but it takes one ton of coal to do what a few barrels of oil can do. Once oil depletes, coal would have to take on that load as well.

I'd like to know where you got those figures (especially the 2000 years one). If you were to rely on fossil fuels, you'd have an energy strapped world inside 100 years. You'd have negative GDP growth after that. Those are the fucking realities.

I was at a lecture by Daniel Nocera. He is a green technology advocate on the grounds that polution is bad. He says that he and his team did calculations and the worlds energy supply will last for more then 100 years even if our needs keep increasing at the same pace. Mind you and he still supports going green.

[AngusFinch]

Yay, ultra-right on Forumfall and rural America is unhappy! Go Obama, I love you! Could you be blacker and socialister to piss them off more, please?

[Feyrband]

What about simply allowing California to enforce higher MPG on cars?

You're all for decentralization until states want to do something you guys don't like, lol.

As for environmental regulations, it would help eliminate a twin deficit that is spiraling out of control.

I know you don't want to hear it, but it's true. We borrow money from China to give it to the Middle East.

i'm all for alternative fuels and getting off our dependance on the middle east but thats the main reason for imo, saving money. if some alternative fuels lead to less smog in san fran good for them.

and to the earlier poster and the "90%" of whoever, believing in global warming... ok buddy.

<edit> oh its 90% actually believe its man made, REALLY good one, rofl.

[Razel]

obama is our sav-edior 4 sure

[Feyrband]

see the international panel on climate change (http://www.ipcc.ch/)

a panel based on global warming believes in global warming, thats interesting.

here is a bit from the American Physics Society.

Discussion

We have set out and then critically examined a detailed account of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. We have made explicit the identities, interrelations, and values of the key variables, many of which the IPCC does not explicitly describe or quantify. The IPCC’s method does not provide a secure basis for policy-relevant conclusions. We now summarize some of its defects.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

theres a couple objective views to start you on. for every theory proving global warming, there are just as many disproving it, especially that it is man-made.

[Jackhowitzer]

we know for a fact global warming is happening and we're more than 90% certain it's due to human activity; it stopped being controversial around the turn of the century.

see the international panel on climate change (http://www.ipcc.ch/)

Finally someone around here that isn't wearing a tinfoil hat and doesn't have go outside wearing plate armor because they think the world is full of lies and they might get hurt actually believing something. It's good to be objective, but sometimes when IMO there's irrefutable proof that this is happening it gets downright annoying hearing IT DOES NOT EXIST LALALALALALA. Not that I'd be skeptical before believing something, believe me I would be, it's just that I'm not completely paranoid. There's a thread that was made earlier about global warming.. and British Scientist actually seeming to be on to something.. I forgot.. I'll have to find it.

[Galadon]

It would be fun if they accidentally legalize weed.

[Jackhowitzer]

It would be fun if they accidentally legalize weed.

Don't forget everything else that grows in the ground, IMO if it grows in the ground and if you can eat/grow it, you're welcome to, I most likely wont do it, but if you want to, be my guest.

[Feyrband]

Don't forget everything else that grows in the ground, IMO if it grows in the ground and if you can eat/grow it, you're welcome to, I most likely wont do it, but if you want to, be my guest.

what if it grows in the ground, but you have to mix it with other stuff?

[hardboiled]

http://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=factsyc4.jpg

IAE and IPCC described in one picture.

[Septus]

It would be fun if they accidentally legalize weed.

Funnily enough, if we legalized industrial hemp, we would have a huge export, help our trade deficit, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil (currently a requisite for plastics).

[Beorg]

It would be fun if they accidentally legalize weed.

It's legal as long as you have a permit to do so.


On the off-topic:You're the one Mikee did a reading on, aren't you?

[PrimalSign]

On the off-topic:You're the one Mikee did a reading on, aren't you?

Unless he did one in addition to Timberwolf, then no.

[Montenegro]

Global climate change is such an annoying topic; lots of terms get misused (global warming in place of man-made global warming, for one) and so little serious fact checking is done.


Here's an example.

On this topic, sea level rise is often used as evidence for global warming. How many people who talk about sea level rise actually know how it's measured though?

It's measured by tide-gauges, which measure high and low tide. These figures are averaged over a time period, such as a year, and compared to past records. This all sounds very good on paper, but ask yourself this question: What controls tidal range? Are tidal ranges the same around the world, or different in different places?

The shape of bays, underwater land forms, coastal marsh land, and other features all impact tidal range. When a city fills in marshland to put down another strip mall, the tide range increases, making it appear as if the sea level has risen. In addition, a number of tide gauges that have been cited in global warming papers are located in ports built on top of glacially deposited marine sediment - mud. This stuff compacts over time, meaning the sea isn't rising, the city is sinking!!

Yes, the globe has warmed - it has been warming more or less continuously (though unevenly) for the past 18,000 years. If the definition of an ice age is a time period of intense glaciation and cooling punctuated by brief periods of warmth and glacial retreat, we are currently IN an ice age.

We had better hope mankind is having an impact on temperature in the upwards direction - because the alternative is the extinction of most of the worlds human population.

[paade]

He is right, I've done a lot of research on future energy projects, and there are about 100 years, at current production levels (production will increase in most industries, so it's less than 100 years actually), of petroleum, uranium, and coal left on the planet. We're fucked either way, but we'll have the Dark Ages II if we don't do something immediately. For those who didn't understand this statement, it's OK, you're the slow kid and you're not expected to respond.

Note: Oil reports are falsified by governments as a national security problem, so there is quite possibly less than 100 years of petroleum left to harvest. There might be some left on the planet, but the quality would be too low and the technology too limited to drill that deep. We're fast approaching a global energy crisis of technology slowing to a halt in keeping up with innovation to scrape the bottom of the barrel, so to speak, and the transition is likely to be worse than most of you could imagine.

that part is absolute bullshit.

[antihero-zero]

That is completly false. We have 2000 years worth of coal. 100 years worth of petroleum and uranium. Plus as technology advances it takes less energy to run many things. Atleast try not to be biased.

I wasn't sure about the coal, but I'm positive about the petroleum and uranium. I lost the book with the article in it, so I can't look it up again until I find it, but it was recent and gave a very good list of all the energy sources and alternative ideas. There was another modern source that was about 100 years left, but I can't think of what it would be if it wasn't coal.

I guess since we agreed about the uranium and petroleum reserves definitely, you're full of shit stating that you think the statement is, "completely" false.

Oh, and about the second part, unless you're an engineer, or a physicist, don't tell me about technology and energy efficiency. I'm aware of the alternatives, and I'm aware that they take petroleum and uranium to implement, and if we run out, there won't be a transition. Do you see how that works?

Update: Haha, oh man, you're so dumb. We have 143 years of coal left for our planet, according to the US government in a study done in 2008. Furthermore, this number has been going down with all the recent estimates, and if the very modern source I read this from was published later than this study, it very well could be 100 years. Also, I estimated, accepting that I would be about 10 years off, give or take, since I did not have the source to read this in front of me and didn't want to dig it up. Source:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/table9.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html

[Bratus]

Global climate change is such an annoying topic; lots of terms get misused (global warming in place of man-made global warming, for one) and so little serious fact checking is done.


Here's an example.

On this topic, sea level rise is often used as evidence for global warming. How many people who talk about sea level rise actually know how it's measured though?

It's measured by tide-gauges, which measure high and low tide. These figures are averaged over a time period, such as a year, and compared to past records. This all sounds very good on paper, but ask yourself this question: What controls tidal range? Are tidal ranges the same around the world, or different in different places?

The shape of bays, underwater land forms, coastal marsh land, and other features all impact tidal range. When a city fills in marshland to put down another strip mall, the tide range increases, making it appear as if the sea level has risen. In addition, a number of tide gauges that have been cited in global warming papers are located in ports built on top of glacially deposited marine sediment - mud. This stuff compacts over time, meaning the sea isn't rising, the city is sinking!!

Yes, the globe has warmed - it has been warming more or less continuously (though unevenly) for the past 18,000 years. If the definition of an ice age is a time period of intense glaciation and cooling punctuated by brief periods of warmth and glacial retreat, we are currently IN an ice age.

We had better hope mankind is having an impact on temperature in the upwards direction - because the alternative is the extinction of most of the worlds human population.

Another common practice with talking about warming is to turn a half a degree into a fraction of a fractions fraction!

"Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005."

Yet normally we hear how temperatures have risen 18%

[Lethn]

Meh on the bright side at least he seems to be at least PLANNING something now instead of just boasting change, I do think it's wrong to completely blast away a countries' core belief system though but we're going to have to see what will happen next, especially with the restrictions to peoples' freedoms that are coming in with that.

[Xzi]

So much for caring about the other 49%
Obvious troll is obvious. What was Bush's approval rating? 0.5%?

In all seriousness I think right before the election it was down to one guy living under a rock.

[Silverhandorder]

Obvious troll is obvious. What was Bush's approval rating? 0.5%?

In all seriousness I think right before the election it was down to one guy living under a rock.

Did you see me defending Bush? :D

[antihero-zero]

World Fossil Fuel Reserve Data
Petroleum Reserves
I stand by my previous "estimate" of 100 years of petroleum left. Keep in mind that I believe it was Iran that got spied on and revealed they had grossly exaggerated their oil reserves, and this information hasn't leaked about other countries, but it's safe to assume they are all playing this game, and that all estimates are going to fall far short of the US' prediction on this. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves) estimates 65 years are left at current production levels. Wikipedia's source, the US government data, (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html) clearly shows that production levels have been increasingly steadily as the world has become increasingly industrialized, largely due to China's growth of consumption.

Uranium Reserves
Predicted to be 85 years based on the 2004 study by the International Atomic Energy Agency (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/uranium_resources.html). Reserve estimates have been increasing.

Coal Reserves
Predicted to be 143 years as of 2008 according to US government data (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html), with estimates that have been decreasing.

Conclusion
"If" the data supplied in the OP's article is true, and this test in CA proves to increase fuel efficiency, this is good for the planet, regardless of the validity of man-made global warming.

Conclusion
We need these diminishing fuels to run factories to transition to other forms of energy (solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, gas, etc) which we have greater supplies of, but drastically lack the infrastructure to adopt currently. Factories are what is required to make the parts for these things, you see. Machines in factories use these depleting fuels, particularly uranium and coal. We need the petroleum to ship the parts across our country and others. Do we understand now kiddies?

Neocons
You can thank your idiot selection of president for this lack of foresight and infrastructure, because he is big oil royalty.

[Xzi]

Did you see me defending Bush? :D
Yes indeed I did. You suggested that by reversing Bush's policies Obama was ignoring half the country. As if any self-respecting conservative supports Bush.

[Montenegro]

Obvious troll is obvious. What was Bush's approval rating? 0.5%?

In all seriousness I think right before the election it was down to one guy living under a rock.


I believe it's about 24-29% this month, down from 29% in September (from pollkatz website), versus something like 12-22% for congress.

[Jargo]

I think it’s funny that Obama hasn’t even done a thing yet in an official capacity as president and at the mere mention of his name people snap right into internet libertarian nerd-rage mode. Even when he’s working to repel a bunch of Bush’s bullshit it immediately becomes a global warming conspiracy thread, or a thread about how we’ve become a communist country or something.

[Temet nosce]

Well, I'm warily looking forward to this although I remain skeptical about most of it happening, still at least these are things I agree with Obama on for the most part.

[dirtknap]

a panel based on global warming believes in global warming, thats interesting.

here is a bit from the American Physics Society.

Discussion

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

theres a couple objective views to start you on. for every theory proving global warming, there are just as many disproving it, especially that it is man-made.

that's a criticism of one of the methods cited in the report. this is the scientific process at work - they are objectively pointing out deficiencies in the report - this does not invalidate it at all. there are dozens of different data streams that are cited for one thing.

Not to mention it makes no sense whatsoever to still be burning dead plants for energy in the year 2008 when there are riduclous amounts of energy beamed to Earth every day from the Sun and we have the tech to harness it.