Dear Sir or Madam

News & Analysis
In the News Gristmill Blog Muckraker Podcast Features

Columns
Ask Umbra® Victual Reality Weekly Recipes The Bottom Line From A to Green The Grist List

Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.

ADVERTISING POLICY

[Advanced]

Tools: print | email | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS

Governors will pester candidates about climate

Posted at 9:28 AM on 18 Apr 2008

A gaggle of governors will conclude a meeting at Yale with an agreement to pester the presidential candidates about climate change. Governors of 18 states, representing more than half of the U.S. population, pledge to "reach out to major presidential candidates as a means of shaping the first 100 days of the next administration."

source: Reuters

ADVERTISING POLICY

< Previous | Next >

Comments: (2 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

One hundred days

I have heard that one hundred days thing before.Actually,I think that it was one hundred hours.Never the less,talk is cheap and if the democrats,and I lean that way although I am an independent.The democrats have lied and backpeddled,and bowed down to and run scampering away from the promises that they made to get a majority in the house and senate.I see no reason that they won't do the same thing if the president is a democrat.Worst case,the democrats will turn aroung and screw the american people their own way.It is the cycle of political life.

Why not ask why!?

by usandthem at 9:44 AM on 19 Apr 2008

I'm not in the habit...

of defending the Democratic party. Like you, u&t, I tend to vote that way, but I consider myself an independent.

That said, as much as the right-wing media likes to spin it as the Democrats not living up to their promises... The fact is, it's still the Republicans' fault. Almost all of the failures and compromises of the last year have been brought on by the threat of either a Republican filibuster or a Bush veto.

The energy bill that brought such a lukewarm response from the environmental community? The first draft of that, while not enough, would have done some serious good. Then Bush sent Congress a message that said in very slightly less caustic terms than this, "If you pass an energy bill that will actually save energy, I will veto it." So they watered it down, because it was a choice being completely ineffectual on principle, or being only mostly ineffectual.

The only way we're going to see real environmental progress in 2009 is if we put a Democrat in the White House--I don't think it matters which one, and even those who disagree are probably with me that either choice is better than McCain--and get a strong enough majority of Democrats or green-leaning independents in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. And, of course, keep the Democratic majority in the House.

So, go vote. And just as importantly, find a green candidate in a close race and donate money.

by Pathos at 6:41 PM on 19 Apr 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?