Well, President Obama acted to get the EPA to approve California (and other states) more strict emissions standards for automobiles. His new mileage mandate would require automobiles sold in the US to achieve 35mpg (per 2008 test) by 2020. His mandate includes a 4% increase per year to achieve this (more on these actions here).

In response to Obama's proposed stimulus/bailout (depending on which news channel you watch), the Canadian group "PowerUP Canada" is pushing for a similar deal in Canada. The proposal would nearly match the Obama proposal in funds for green goals, and would have the same purpose. Most of the money would go towards retrofitting buildings so that they are more energy efficient (more from the story here).

Personally, I am glad to hear that North America will be cutting down on pollution and wasting less energy. Though I am an independant (for politcal purposes) I really like what the democrats have proposed so far for this "green" agenda. I can only hope that there will be some sort of major rail (both passenger and freight) included in this stimulus/bailout.

So far so good, from Pres. Obama.

I saw this video as a commercial on TV, and thought it warranted discussion...



You can even read the write-up here.

According to WikiAnswers (reliability in question...) the US only buys 23% of it's oil from the Mid-East... (here)

PBS (reliable) seems to back this up... (here)

With this in mind, it would seem that oil is not as big of a security threat as the "WE campaign" would like to admit. Now don't get me wrong - I think we should try and replace foreign oil with something domestic (hopefully wind and solar). I just feel that one's argument should be based upon something realistic.

It also appears that the WE campaign is hoping to replace 28% of the energy needs by mandating more energy efficient laws and policies (here). My guess is that those will fail miserably because of the cost factor. The simple truth is that in a free-market economy, the cheapest route is going to win, regardless of it's ethical stance. That is one of the weaknesses I see in a free-market economy (but that is another story). Of course, if the government owns all of the industries (as it appears may be the case in the future) then the cheapest route will no longer be the default choice.

I would suggest to Al Gore and his fans that they concentrate on creating a cost-effective alternative to carbon fuels if they wish to reach their goal. The bottom line is that most Americans make decisions based upon a consumption attitude (see Baudrillard's philosophy - Stanford entry here), and not an ethical choice (in my opinion at least).