Chris McGann gives it fair coverage in the P-I. The key difference - as many an observer can already guess: Gregoire is for mandates, Rossi prefers incentives.
Examples:
1) Gregoire takes credit for the fact she "pushed for and signed a bill to reduce CO2 emissions and double 'green-collar' jobs by 2020." Ah, because state government passed a bill those jobs will appear as promised...and on schedule, too!
2)
Democrats say Rossi's actions don't jibe with his talk. They point out that he voted against a 2002 Senate bill that mandated: "State government adopt a policy to meet its energy needs with no net increase in greenhouse gas emissions."
Translation: Democrats are annoyed Rossi voted against a feel good statement with little binding impact (or much policy logic).
Why? Some in the left-of-center seem more concerned about pretty pieces of legislation than substantive action. Witness the two examples above. But, as we have discussed in the past, Rossi is actually proposing doing more to advance certain environmentally friendly ideas - including the economically sensible notion of reducing dependence on oil.
It's a simple distinction: talk versus action, and sensible action at that.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 27, 2008 07:36 AM | Email ThisPrager was debating Huffington the other day. She couldn't give reason one why she thinks there is global warming and man causes it. It was all the hype. Prager brought up the 31,000 scientists who don't agree with the hypothesis that global warming is nondocumented. She glossed over it.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a problem right here in River City!!
Posted by: swatter on May 27, 2008 07:26 AMhttp://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/27/report-un-wasting-billions-on-carbon-offset-scam/
Posted by: Andy on May 27, 2008 08:26 AMLet's lower CO2 by 10x, about 5 more dams (as was proposed more than 50 years ago, the E. WA plan has only 50% completed) on the Columbia should do that nicely, and increase WA state farm land by 30% in an era of high farm commodity prices. WIN (jobs), WIN (enviro) , WIN (energy). Of course we'll lose 2k to 3k of the annual salmon run, offset by a massive increase in mitgratory birds like we did the last time the dams and farm land was built.
Posted by: John McDonald on May 27, 2008 08:31 AMEnvironmentalism these days is all about power and extracting money from the people.
It's not about the environment.
It's socialism with an E.
On the other hand there are a lot of green minded folks in this state. If Rossi can't convince them that his plan is best they'll most likely go with the lies the Queen Gregoire spews.
Posted by: Sam Adams on May 27, 2008 01:33 PMPlanet oBORGama's economic fantasy's aside, here on Planet USA, the (good bad and ugly) IRS will require net profit calculations to include adjustments for stuff like salaries, overhead, etc ...
Posted by: Derf on May 27, 2008 05:02 PMDemocrats believe in mandates with the force of law behind them because they believe power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
Posted by: KW64 on May 27, 2008 06:15 PM"Incentives"? That is just the government distorting the market and using a lighter form of coercion, but coercion nevertheless.
I look at environmental considerations like another engineering problem. In that view we have practical reasons for not dumping raw sewage into Ravenna Creek. That we have not completely SEPARATED storm sewers from sewer sewers is very bad engineering.
But limiting carbon dioxide? We are talking about plant food. The first thing an engineer would do is look at is the NUMBERS. 160 to 200 billion tons of carbon flush in and out of the biomass each year through the natural and VITAL carbon cycle.
We only add 5 to 7 billion tons of carbon each year by burning fossil fuels. Most of this carbon is photosynthesized by the plants into the biomass resulting in a bigger biomass.
I do not believe that more fish, meat, grains, fruits and vegetables to eat is a bad thing. Nor do I think that more wood, fiber, and rubber for the things we use is a bad thing.
For those who were taught Everyday Math, 7 billion tons is 3.5% of 200 billion tons.
Simple common sense dictates that these numbers mean that regulating our use of fossil fuels, whether through contrived shortages, "incentives", mandates, cap and trade garbage, or other means, will have as much effect on the climate as sacrificing virgins has on volcanic activity.
Dino, if you want my support stop talking nonsense!
Posted by: Roger Knight on May 27, 2008 09:13 PMObama came out today and all but
There will be a revolt very soon.
And to top it off the Democrats want a Farm bill that pays farmers to keep their acres unplanted, a welfare system of sorts.
Why I have to ask, are we paying Billions to keep food and ethenol crops from being grown when we are in a world food shortage and a US fuel crisis. Only in a democrats world.
Posted by: GS on May 27, 2008 09:31 PMAre you talking about hydroelectric dam's? If so you may recall that I-937, which passed in 2006, does not list hydroelectric power as a renewable resource. Thsi being the case I really doubt they will build anymore dam's for that purpose unless that provision is removed from the law.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002981358_initiatives09m.html
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 28, 2008 12:49 AMLOL ... Rain is not renewable! JEEZ this is so stupid I don't no where to start? OH my GOD we are running out of RAIN.
And the Liberal think they are more scientific.
George Orwell's 1984
Posted by: John McDonald on May 28, 2008 09:23 AMThen who are you going to vote for? Those you disagree with 90% of the time or Dino Rossi whom you agree with 90% of the time (I'm guessing). The first step in this state is to change the government in Olympia then we'll work on the "Global Warming" hoax by lobbying our representatives with; emails, snail mail, petitions, action groups etc... If you decide not to vote or vote for the Democrats then you are part of the problem. Conservatives need to unite and stop nit picky fighting over tiny things. Let us unite behind Dino Rossi!!!!
Posted by: Lee Davis on May 28, 2008 11:06 AMI am one of those divorced fathers whose license to drive is PERMANENTLY suspended because the Republicans I helped put in control of the Legislature due to a belief, unfounded as it turns out, that they would do something about the insane child support schedule, STABBED US IN THE BACK. They sold our driver's licenses for a bag of federal money!
It did not take long for our retaliation to take effect. Remember 1998? You f with our licenses and violate your oath of office and you CANNOT expect us to unite behind you!
I am not about to unite behind a RINO who is walking to the left BEFORE being elected to office. We have enough of Schwarzeneggers turning into liberal girly men once elected!
You want my vote? You EARN it!
Posted by: Roger Knight on May 28, 2008 11:54 AM