English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Why did´t they argue, on the CO2 gas emission, during the campaign?

2006-11-28 08:33:45 · 3 answers · asked by Pour la Paix. 6 in Politics & Government Politics

3 answers

In some places, the environment was a campaign issue. The Chairman of the House Resources Committee, Richard Pombo (R-CA-11), lost his seat because of his agenda to sell national parks, gut the Endangered Species Act, and drill in ANWR. Environmental groups threw money and support behind Jerry McNerney, an alternative energy engineer who won the seat.

For further evidence, look at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which for years was Chaired by James Inhofe (R-OK), who thinks global warming is a hoax. When the Democrats take control in January, the new Chairwoman is Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who believes global warming is the most important issue facing our generation.

Even though the environment was drowned out by issues like the Iraq War and immigration, there is still a big difference between the environmental agenda of Republicans and Democrats. Still, with a slim majority and a Republican President with veto power, don't expect too much change right away.

2006-11-28 08:59:57 · answer #1 · answered by Ek8101 2 · 0 0

They aren't the same.. but the public had more pressing issues on their mind.. they weren't worried about something that will harm them in 50 - 100 years when there was something that could change the world tomorrow to argue about.

2006-11-28 16:47:58 · answer #2 · answered by pip 7 · 0 0

Because bashing gays and immigrants and bad jokes involving troops in Iraq is a lot sexier.

2006-11-28 16:43:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers