Congress' new chance for clean energy - CNN.com

Congress' new chance for clean energy - CNN.com:

"The United States can and must also act on the international stage to limit the consequences of climate change and enhance our national security. Congress can show a commitment to the U.S. goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, take concrete steps to reverse widespread deforestation that contributes 18 percent of these emissions globally, and provide short-term financing to allow the poorest countries in the world to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

This is not a partisan agenda. The midterm elections reaffirmed that the clean energy agenda is a positive political agenda. In California, voters overwhelmingly supported the nation's only cap-and-trade policy even in the face of a well-financed attack led by a coalition of out-of-state fossil fuel industries. In defeating Proposition 23, California voters across the political spectrum forcefully chose new technologies and new jobs over a retreat to last century's polluted air and fossil fuel dependence -- showing broad bipartisan support for the most comprehensive emissions reduction measures the country has ever seen."

***

"This is not a partisan agenda." 

Believe the writer of this article is wrong with this statement. 

California is....well....California.  Impossible for even full bloodied Republicans to come out of the State of California just as conservative as when they first entered. 

It's like some of my habits being considered becoming flamboyant by relatives,  while most urban gays consider me still a stupid redneck;  despite the fact I know a hell lot more about sushi than most queens.  Just because we have gay in common doesn't mean we are capable of  interbreeding if locked in a room together only because nothing else bettter to do.  Just ain't gonna happen.  Entirely different species ...... technically.

Same goes for Californian Republicans.   

Like swimming in the ocean.  If you find yourself being sucked out to sea by a rip current,  the key is don't panic.  You just swim parallel to the beach to get out of it's tow;  then the swim back to shore is much, much, easier.  Still end up a little further from shore but it beats the heck out of putting more lives at risk (liberals most likely) trying to keep one stupid conservative from another state visiting (betcha one who tips poorly and cheats IRS of taxes every chance they get) from drowning. 

Limiting lifeguards to teaching people how to swim instead of saving them from drowning.......betcha that would ...... over time...... give Democrats a  voting advantage. 

At least offset the loss of A.C.O.R.N.

Can't picture Pro-Lifers wanting to be lifeguards either, except, maybe, at  Country Clubs.  But with all them mothers around with nothing better to do but get a tan ...... bit redundant.