Bush is the best environmental President ever

[Aquatic]

Bush Eases Pesticide Reviews for Endangered Species

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04212/353979.stm
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040729/dcth092_1.html
etc

Don't forget this, totally seperate: we get waivers to be exempt from international rules, as usual.
http://www.edie.net/gf.cfm?L=left_frame.html&R=http://www.edie.net/news/Archive/8602.cfm

Hey Nick what do you think? Do you still think Bush has "quite well"?

Hey Aquatic.

Better environmental president, well environmentally I think Bush has done quite well. I mean when you get past the people flinging rhetoric around just because they could never see more than one party holding a certain value and look at the record, it is a pretty good one. For example Bush has been chastized for allowing the thinning of forests. I live near multiple national and state parks where you could see one out of every three trees dying due to over crowding. The weakened trees were attacked by bark beetles who turned them into perfect fuel for huge fires.

The whole arsenic debate was nonsense. Out standards are lower than they every were.

Now I look at John Kerry's site. I see some nice boogie man type rhetoric that plays on people's fears, but I don't see any true environmental promises. I don't see any promise to raise CAFE standards for example.

So I certainly cannot believe Kerry would do anything more for the environment.

As for population control, we already have it. One out of four births is terminated via abortion. The native population of the United States has a birth rate of 1.8, which is a level that only sustains, but does not grow the population. Countries like Italy and Japan have a birth rate of 1.2 and are looking at shrinking populations.

The difference between us and them is that we have record legal immigration and massive illegal immigration. In addition to this immigration, the birth rate of immigrants is much higher than the native population.

So if you want to address population control, we already have it here at home. The birth rate is 1.8 and dropping. Neither candidate has properly addressed immigration and border control. In fact I suggested in threads far back that it would be the true way to win the white male vote and also the vote of many minorities while showing true progressivism. Unlimited immigration makes it hard to unionize and keeps minorities on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. Neither Kerry nor Bush have addressed this any differently.

Nick

[ColanderOfDeath]

He's no Nixon when it comes to the environment, that is fo sho. God, if Shrubbery gets re-elected can we at least just have Barbara's baby-daddy serve out the second term instead of W.

[bunge]

You've got to love this:

The administration proposed the regulations in January. It received roughly 125,000 comments, which ran 2 to 1 against the proposal, they noted.

[SDW2001]

WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency will no longer have to consult with wildlife agencies before deciding whether pesticides will likely harm threatened or endangered species, according to rules issued yesterday by the Bush administration.

Sounds like a bureauracy reduction to me, no? The EPA can't do it's job without consulting the Fish and Game Commission?

As for the exemption, I don't suppose there could be...I don't know...an actual poblem with banning the chemical in 2005?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Bush Eases Pesticide Reviews for Endangered Species

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04212/353979.stm
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040729/dcth092_1.html
etc

Don't forget this, totally seperate: we get waivers to be exempt from international rules, as usual.
http://www.edie.net/gf.cfm?L=left_frame.html&R=http://www.edie.net/news/Archive/8602.cfm

Hey Nick what do you think? Do you still think Bush has "quite well"?

I think Bush is still doing just fine. In fact if anything your examples illustrate the difference a paper reality and what can actually be done in the latter instance. In the former it looks like someone found an loophole that had seldom been exploited and now was being used to slow down the approval process during second half of the Bush term.

Look at this quote for example...

Despite the previous requirement, the EPA frequently failed to consult with outside agencies on the question of pesticides in any event, according to agency officials. EPA has sent 30 consultation packages to the two wildlife agencies since 2002, said spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman, yet they have completed only a dozen in the past decade.

First we have to believe that the EPA works entirely against the public interest for this to have any harm when their mission is to protect the environment. Bush didn't weaken the EPA or change their mission. Secondly it is a provision that was either ignored or seldom used. For the entire eight years of the Clinton term and the first two years of the Bush term this process had been used 12 times. Suddenly in the last two years it has been called upon 30 times. It sounds like some smart environmental kid realized the government doesn't follow it's own rules, no matter who runs it and started petitioning the EPA to do so on matters they found important. The result, they change the rules.

But the government can do this on all matters and with all parties. Which is why I don't wish to trust them with my retirement, my health care or pretty much as little as possible. If they don't like the rules, they can just exempt themselves or change them. In this instance it didn't change anything but imagine if it were say, the cost of living adjustment on my social security after I've already given them all my money and after I am retired.

On the second issue we see this...

More time and money is needed before an alternative can be put into use, according to deputy secretary of state for environment, Claudia McMurray. She said: "What we have to do is balance our desire to aggressively phase out all ozone depleting chemicals with the fact that our farmers need this chemical now."

Nine EU member states, including France, Germany and the UK, also received written warnings this week for their failure to report on the phasing out of the pesticide (see related story).

Which happens to link to this...

Rich countries destroy world (http://www.edie.net/gf.cfm?L=left_frame.html&R=http://www.edie.net/news/Archive/8602.cfm)

Now we see that the U.S. has already run down to 30% of their 1991 use and is concerned about farmers in other countries WHO CAN STILL USE THIS CHEMICAL, might put U.S. farmers at a price disadvantage. They have petitioned to have their use brought up to 37% of 1991 levels. But again this could just be an attempt to level the playing field. Either allow us to use more or force everyone to use less. The one has a cost benefit, the other an environmental benefit. We also see that basically NO large Western Democracy has managed to phase use out completely yet which is why I say paper and reality are often different.

Nick

[Aquatic]

Well of course most papers say it is "streamlining." The media in this country has been whacked far-right. Yes it is a layer of red tape but with good intentions. Those other agencies are there for a reason. The EPA also, thanks to Bush, doesn't have the resources to handle things like this alone. Are there any environmental sites that like this new rule or that like anything Bush has done? Environmentalists and environmental sites aren't out to make many. So who do you think is more objective? OK here is a list of environmental sites.

http://www.enn.com/direct/display-release.asp?objid=D1D1366D000000FE12969F6A7C68DF6F
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=876
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2004/2004-07-27-09.asp

I like this part from that last one:

"SEATTLE, Washington, July 27, 2004 (ENS) - Three conservation and fishing groups Monday sent a 60 day notice warning of impending legal action against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unless the agency protects salmon from pesticides.

“Pesticides are deadly by design and they’ll kill baby salmon after the poisons wash off fields, orchards, and lawns into salmon streams," said attorney Patti Goldman of Earthjustice, the nonprofit, public interest law firm representing the groups.

The disputed EPA action on the pesticides came only after a federal district court ordered a review of the pesticides because of their potential danger to federally protected salmon.

But the EPA’s superficial review was criticized by NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency responsible for enforcing salmon protections. "After review of the submitted information, NOAA Fisheries does not concur with EPA’s effects determinations," the agency wrote.

NOAA Fisheries is requesting that the EPA conduct a more extensive analysis of the effects of pesticides on salmon.

"EPA’s job is to regulate their use so they don’t violate the Endangered Species Act, but their own sister agency in the federal government has found them failing miserably at this obligation,” Goldman said. "

http://www.enn.com/news/2004-07-22/s_26086.asp

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Your opinion contradicts the opinion of every major environmental group. They've given his environmental policies failing "D" and "F" grades, suggesting a significant erosion of protection or a failure of action. How do you deal with the huge perception gap between you and most experts in the field?

Being a member of an environmental group does not denote expertise. It merely expresses concern. You or I could both join the Sierra Club and would not gain anything new in terms of credentials.

Lastly, I could care less about a grade because as even you know, grades can be highly subjective. I'm sure there are teachers in your academic career who have appeared to give different grades for the same work.

What most of these articles that Aquatic have brought up have failed to do, and this is what would be convincing, is actually show anything becoming more polluted. In every instance the concerns have been addressed and have been reduced. The reality is that large numbers of environmental groups don't want us to be stewards of our planet. They want it untrodden by humans. Additionally they don't just want their concerns addressed, they want to dictate the timeline, the costs, and who receives the monies as well. Any failure to address all three perfectly is declared a failure when a Republican president is involved.

Most articles I have read declare that Bush, has taken action, but there is concern about the timeline, costs, etc. In the meantime things are still becoming less polluted.

But I'll ask you Shawn, has Kerry agreed to raise the CAFE standards and did Clinton raise them? Did Kerry wimp out on taxing gas higher or did he really take a stand for the environment? When I look at Bush, I see the reality of trying to meet goals with regard to the environment and still not harm the economy. The trade-offs that are talked about and made seem reasonable.

I encounter this often on these forums and that is that people will berate a position and declare someone or something to be better. Yet there are no specifics. Also a lot of the time people like Kerry are on all sides of all issues. How is Kerry going to make America safer by reducing our dependence on foreign oil while not allowing any increase in domestic drilling? That doesn't add up to me. I see no specifics but I see plenty of buddy politics. Show me some specifics and then we can continue the discussion.

Nick

[Aquatic]

I will post every negative thing he does from now on. It will probably be daily. Off to hit up edf's email.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Aquatic
I will post every negative thing he does from now on. It will probably be daily. Off to hit up edf's email.

Do us a favor and don't post it just because someone thinks it is negative. Post it when something in our environment has actually gotten worse. I do not need nor will likely anyone have time for "Bush is evil because we thought the wetlands needed an inflation adjusted 175 million and Bush gave $150 million, so now the planet is going to die."

Those are not convincing. If you want to be most effective, post that which is convincing and not minutia and sausage-making so to speak.

Nick

[pfflam]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Your opinion contradicts the opinion of every major environmental group. They've given his environmental policies failing "D" and "F" grades, suggesting a significant erosion of protection or a failure of action. How do you deal with the huge perception gap between you and most experts in the field? Hey, if they're not experts in Corporate finance of management then what good are they?!

[Scott]

You people wont be happy until Bush concedes power over environmental decisions to the watermelons.

[faust9]

Originally posted by Scott
You people wont be happy until Bush concedes power over environmental decisions to the watermelons.

Actually as a hunter/sportsman I wont be happy until Bush and the anti-environment lot are out of power. Noth quite so ugly as a slant drilled natural gas line along a majestic Great Lakes beach.

[edit]Gotta love David Horsey:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20040720/cartoon20040720.gif

[Common Man]

Most envionmenal groups are nothing but anti-american socialists in disguise, "Saving the environment" is just another way of hating the American way and of hating GWB.

[groverat]

Bush could start an "Inject All Wildlife With Arsenic" program and the conservative drones would say it was good work.

Here is their logic:
Because liberals hate Bush so much, he can do no wrong.

Another funny thing, "conservatives" who support unchecked federal power. GO FIGURE!

2 to 1 against? So what, what do you think this is... a democracy!?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Let me restate my question.

Environmental groups widely agree that this administration had done an abysmal job on the environment. You, in stark contrast, commend its performance as "quite well." Assuming the major environmental groups base their evaluations on the opinions of experts in the field, how do you deal with the huge perception gap between those experts and yourself?

You clearly think they're wrong, and I would like to find out why.

I've also clearly stated why if you read any of the posts in this thread. No one, REPEAT, no one has produced any bit of evidence the environment is actually getting worse in any fashion. The arguments are always about costs, timelines and techniques used on an environmental result that is still always improving. The argument is about what amount of improvement should occur, has occured and at what cost.

And I even went further than that since you seem to think I am ducking your question. I said I was even willing to hear evidence of how Kerry was going to act differently with regard to my charge that these groups act differently. I asked about CAFE standards, gas taxes, and the Kerry claim that he will somehow stop us from relying so heavily on foreign oil while not requiring any more domestic drilling.

Has Kerry sworn off SUV's or even pledged to force them to conform to car standards instead of the light truck standards they meet for gas mileage? How about just swearing off golf and golf courses? Talk about elitist bullshit. Every golf course uses about a million cubic ft of fresh water a year and most of them require fees so large that the lower 50% of people never get to use them.

But I've already gone through this. I've looked at the articles and they always show large reductions and usually a hold up over cost or technology on the remaining reductions. The example Aquatic cited showed that use was down 70% from 1991 levels.

Now I'll ask you a favor Shawn. Why don't you find me some articles where Bush is commended by an environmental group for anything.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by groverat
Bush could start an "Inject All Wildlife With Arsenic" program and the conservative drones would say it was good work.

Here is their logic:
Because liberals hate Bush so much, he can do no wrong.

Another funny thing, "conservatives" who support unchecked federal power. GO FIGURE!

2 to 1 against? So what, what do you think this is... a democracy!?

Actually it is just the opposite. Bush give a group everything they want but have on variable be different (say a timelime of 10 years vs 8 or 5) and they would declare that he is personally going around and sprinkling arsenic and lead on your children's food.

Nick

[kozchris]

I drive an SUV but its not mine so that means I love the environment. Sincerly John "Flipper" Kerry.

[bunge]

Originally posted by kozchris
I drive an SUV but its not mine so that means I love the environment. Sincerly John "Flipper" Kerry.

Now driving an SUV might be bad, but it's not the core source of environmental problems we have. Here's a good list to read:

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2001.asp
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2002.asp
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2003.asp
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2004.asp

[bunge]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Good or bad, check out the evidence of the Bush Record (http://nrdc.org/bushrecord/default.asp) at the National Resources Defense Council.

Or at one of the 4 links I provided. (Insert winking smiley here)

[Aquatic]

Ah that feels better, I put Common Man on my ignore list.

I've also clearly stated why if you read any of the posts in this thread. No one, REPEAT, no one has produced any bit of evidence the environment is actually getting worse in any fashion.

That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

[Xool]

I would think that wildlife agencies would have more knowledge about a particular area than the EPA. I haven't researched either of these particular issues however.

Bush has approved drilling in the Arctic, among other anti-evironmental policies.

Anyone who thinks Bush is more pro-environment than Kerry really needs to put the crack pipe down.

Seriously.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Indeed.

Nick, you should qualify your statement just a tad-- because it basically says: the environment has not been harmed by human actions-- resulting from Bush administration policies or inaction. :err: Or rather, no evidence exists of any harm-- none. :err:

I stand by the statement. If anything it shows the difference between us on the environmental issue. That website shows the exact philosophy I was speaking about. Do you realize that according to that philosophy you are a gross polluter Shawn? I mean you breath out carbon dioxide all day and Bush hasn't put an end to you or proposed millions to counteract the effects of your breathing.

According to that philosophy, the very fact that you are human and exist means harm is occuring. I don't buy that, even if I wanted to in some instances.;) :lol:

That website is nothing more than the minutia of what I was talking about.

Here's a prime example.

NRDC
Agency pushes oil exploration near Utah park
January 24, 2002: The U.S. Bureau of Land Management wants to allow oil exploration on the Dome Plateau, a scenic 36-square-mile area near Arches National Park in southern Utah's Redrock Canyon Country. The project involves crisscrossing the landscape with nearly 50 miles of cable and heavy-duty trucks to conduct seismic testing.

NRDC and other environmental groups plan to challenge BLM's approval of the project, which will cause soil erosion, unsightly tracks, crushed vegetation and damage to wildlife. They will allege that the agency violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to prepare a thorough environmental impact statement; failing to consider alternatives to the oil company's proposal; failing to consider the impacts of oil exploration on the area's wilderness qualities; and ignoring cumulative impacts.

"The BLM's job is to fully evaluate the impacts of development on our sensitive public lands, not to rubber stamp destructive projects for the oil industry," said Johanna Wald, director of NRDC's land program.


This isn't a national park and they have to grossly intensify all the "damage" being done simply because they don't want the land touched. No amount of action to minimize, repair or replace the damage will make them happy. They simply do not want the land touched.

But again, I went through all four years. There was not a single article saying, a form of pollution was tested for and had increased in any manner. Thanks to you and bunge for proving my point. In fact you proved it in excruciating detail. You show four years worth of grievences that amount to nothing.

Also speaking about no credit due, I found two articles slamming Bush for suspending and reviewing the arsenic standard, but not a single bit about them going forward with it.

I'm still waiting for proof of worse pollution. But thanks for wasting my time with four years worth of junk like "x project funding limits effectiveness."

Nick

[hardeeharhar]

Nick claims to know the set of all potential behaviors by "environmentalists." His omnipotence is impressive.

There are those of us who consider ourselves enviromentalists who talk about sustainability. We understand the need and desire for lumber. We also understand the need and desire of lumber for our children and their children. In that way we defend national forests rigourously. Destruction of old growth areas will generally not have an effect if there are continuous bands of forest around it and the population of trees that are being replanted are not monoculture or even monospecies. The problem is that they are monoculture and monospecies. That is not sustainable. Shit happens.

Protection of national forests calls for a decrease in clear cutting which produces irreparable damage, and a greater responsibility of timber companies in ensuring their far reaching future success. Environmentalist are mostly wise economists at heart.

ecetera ecetera

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by Common Man
Most envionmenal groups are nothing but anti-american socialists in disguise, "Saving the environment" is just another way of hating the American way and of hating GWB.
If you truly represented the American way, then I would be hating it proudly.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Nick claims to know the set of all potential behaviors by "environmentalists." His omnipotence is impressive.

There are those of us who consider ourselves enviromentalists who talk about sustainability. We understand the need and desire for lumber. We also understand the need and desire of lumber for our children and their children. In that way we defend national forests rigourously. Destruction of old growth areas will generally not have an effect if there are continuous bands of forest around it and the population of trees that are being replanted are not monoculture or even monospecies. The problem is that they are monoculture and monospecies. That is not sustainable. Shit happens.

Protection of national forests calls for a decrease in clear cutting which produces irreparable damage, and a greater responsibility of timber companies in ensuring their far reaching future success. Environmentalist are mostly wise economists at heart.

ecetera ecetera

Actually I clearly stated that there are multiple views on environmentalism. However there are groups that basically consider human existance a form of harm and also even environmental terrorist groups. Pointing at the grievences of those types of groups and claiming Bush is a bad president just isn't going to be convincing to me.

If you want to even point to evidence of use that you believe is not sustainable or appears to be a conservation measure but doesn't account for long term harm, you are welcome to do so. I've stated the type of evidence that is convincing and the type that is not. No one has provided any evidence of actual environmental harm. They have provided plenty of links about funding policies, people they don't endorse being placed in agencies, how much of a recommendation is being acted on, etc. Those to me indicate disagreements, not environmental damage.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Those are mutually exclusive statements, Nick. ;) Reduced funding resulting in limited effectiveness *IS* proof of environmental damage. Still-- we provided you with a comprehensive record of the Bush administration's environmental policies and actions. Take a look at the evidence for yourself. You asked for it-- we provided it. Now tell my why the consensus among experts in the environmental field is wrong-- and you're right.

Wrong. As I said according to groups like that, you are a form of environmental harm that needs to be countered via dollars spent. Limited effectiveness from that extreme perspective is not destructive at all.

You didn't provide me with a comprehensive record. You linked to one environmental action group that listed four years of one sided disagreements. I took a look at it. I've repeatedly stated why it is wrong. Add something new because I'm not going to repeat myself ad nauseum. Link to some proof of environmental harm increasing. According to you, it should be very easy to find.

Why don't you prove to me that the environmental groups you listed are bipartisan or even nonpartisan Shawn? More and more of these groups that previously claimed a nonpartisan purpose are clearly not only taking a side, but even funding and declaring exclusive support for certain parties. For example the NAACP will declare how awful Bush is for not speaking at their convention, but at the same time not mention that for the first time in their history they endorsed a candidate for president (Kerry) and previously ran "issue" ads that associated Bush with the dragging death of James Byrd.

That moves into a partisan political realm where you lose credibility as an independent advocate of a single issue. Just as we know NOW would never ever endorse a Republican for president and likewise never condemn a Democrat in office (even for harassment, rape allegations and so forth) there are plenty of environmental groups who are purely partisan in their motivations and claims.

Nick

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
However there are groups that basically consider human existance a form of harm and also even environmental terrorist groups. Pointing at the grievences of those types of groups and claiming Bush is a bad president just isn't going to be convincing to me.

No one has linked to a group like that so your argument rings hollow.

Here's the:

Mission Statement

The Natural Resources Defense Council's purpose is to safeguard the Earth: its people, its plants and animals and the natural systems on which all life depends.

We work to restore the integrity of the elements that sustain life -- air, land and water -- and to defend endangered natural places.

We seek to establish sustainability and good stewardship of the Earth as central ethical imperatives of human society. NRDC affirms the integral place of human beings in the environment.

We strive to protect nature in ways that advance the long-term welfare of present and future generations.

We work to foster the fundamental right of all people to have a voice in decisions that affect their environment. We seek to break down the pattern of disproportionate environmental burdens borne by people of color and others who face social or economic inequities. Ultimately, NRDC strives to help create a new way of life for humankind, one that can be sustained indefinitely without fouling or depleting the resources that support all life on Earth.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Nick claims to know the set of all potential behaviors by "environmentalists." His omnipotence is impressive.

There are those of us who consider ourselves enviromentalists who talk about sustainability. We understand the need and desire for lumber. We also understand the need and desire of lumber for our children and their children. In that way we defend national forests rigourously. Destruction of old growth areas will generally not have an effect if there are continuous bands of forest around it and the population of trees that are being replanted are not monoculture or even monospecies. The problem is that they are monoculture and monospecies. That is not sustainable. Shit happens.

Protection of national forests calls for a decrease in clear cutting which produces irreparable damage, and a greater responsibility of timber companies in ensuring their far reaching future success. Environmentalist are mostly wise economists at heart.

ecetera ecetera I come from Pennsylvania, and in my particular neck of the woods, they striped large sections of woodland for lumber. According to family and eyewitness accounts, the land was bare. The areas that the trees were taken were replanted and left to grow for 40 or so years. The areas that were stripped are easily distinguished from other untouched areas.

Do you know how you can tell the difference?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I come from Pennsylvania, and in my particular neck of the woods, they striped large sections of woodland for lumber. According to family and eyewitness accounts, the land was bare. The areas that the trees were taken were replanted and left to grow for 40 or so years. The areas that were stripped are easily distinguished from other untouched areas.

Do you know how you can tell the difference?

Yeah, the trees are in lines...

Edit: and if you were more than just a casual observer, you would notice that the "truly" untouched areas had diverse populations of trees. It has been clearly shown that forests that are of mixed species/age survive forest fires better and are indeed heathier than the monoculture forests we east coast folks are accustomed to. there are no untouched forests on the east coast (and the forests were even managed before the white man got here)...

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Yeah, the trees are in lines... Kinda, but there are 10 to 15 times more trees than there were when they cleared it. There is one area I remember that you could hardly walk between the trees.

Hardly a case of irreparable damage. Some would call 10 to 15 times return on an investment good. Maybe not you, mind you, but some.

Edit: 10 times the oxygen produced, 10x the wood and 10x the choice of housing to the birds in the area. Not bad.

[faust9]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Yeah, the trees are in lines...

Edit: and if you were more than just a casual observer, you would notice that the "truly" untouched areas had diverse populations of trees. It has been clearly shown that forests that are of mixed species/age survive forest fires better and are indeed heathier than the monoculture forests we east coast folks are accustomed to. there are no untouched forests on the east coast (and the forests were even managed before the white man got here)...

The species mix is usually pretty poor. Company X removes oak,maple,elm, pines, and birch and replaces with oak or maple or pine.

Funny pic

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~jmilsom/photo/states/jpg/reforestation.jpg

All pine all in rows. Natrual forest growth at its best. Man mother nature does some strange things. The upside is future harvesting is much easier.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Yeah, the trees are in lines...

Edit: and if you were more than just a casual observer, you would notice that the "truly" untouched areas had diverse populations of trees. It has been clearly shown that forests that are of mixed species/age survive forest fires better and are indeed heathier than the monoculture forests we east coast folks are accustomed to. there are no untouched forests on the east coast (and the forests were even managed before the white man got here)... I don't think that you could exactly call me a casual observer, but if you want marginalize me in that way, go ahead.

My grand father actually worked for the company that did the clearing. My grandfather owned a tree farm, and I actually worked for him summers when I was but a wee sprout. He passed on to me some of his knowledge on the subject and you would be very surprised at the level of respect and love for the land he had, as do I.

But feel free to label me to get some point across.

Edit: I know of many areas, in and around my hometown that have concentrated populations of certain types of trees that occurred naturally. In particular one area that had tons of birch trees. We used to cut small pieces of the bark off of the saplings to suck on like chew. Actually pretty good stuff. Ever had birch beer. I love the stuff.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Kinda, but there are 10 to 15 times more trees than there were when they cleared it. There is one area I remember that you could hardly walk between the trees.

Hardly a case of irreparable damage. Some would call 10 to 15 times return on an investment good. Maybe not you, mind you, but some.

Edit: 10 times the oxygen produced, 10x the wood and 10x the choice of housing to the birds in the area. Not bad.

There is more to nature than just trees, but ok, I will bite. The density of a forest is inversely correlated with the likelihood and rate at which a fire can spread through it. Natural forests are thin because it is a beneficial trait to be so...

[bunge]

Originally posted by NaplesX
He passed on to me some of his knowledge on the subject and you would be very surprised at the level of respect and love for the land he had, as do I.

Well news today isn't as pleasant as it was in your grandfather's day. The effects of logging are worse today than before because the methods used are worse than before.

http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/04win/cumberland1.asp

[bunge]

Nick,

There are lots of examples of environmentallly harmful actions by Bush, including some very serious threats to your home state of California. It's not even an anti-human site, but a decidely pro-human site. Your argument has been completely riddled with holes.

When will you admit that you were wrong and that Bush has been a very poor environmental president?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
Nick,

There are lots of examples of environmentallly harmful actions by Bush, including some very serious threats to your home state of California. It's not even an anti-human site, but a decidely pro-human site. Your argument has been completely riddled with holes.

When will you admit that you were wrong and that Bush has been a very poor environmental president?

Looking, looking, still waiting for evidence... see mission statement as some sort of true proof of intent?!? Laughable... (murmurs to self, I'm sure bunge would allow me the post statements from the RNC website and consider it proof of their true motivations) looking... looking... see more repetition of unproven point.... nothing new.... nothing to add.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
How is the NRDC's list of the Bush Record (http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/) on the environment not comprehensive? What's missing, exactly? What major policy changes did they omit? The Bush Record is organized both chronologically and topically, the latter organization includes 6 main topics and 34 total sub-topics-- with literally hundreds of accounts, both good and bad. So again, what's missing?

You're evading my question because you can't account for the huge discrepancy between the consensus of environmental experts and yourself. What exactly makes Bush a "good" or a "quite well" or a "just fine" President on the environment? (a starkly contradictory opinion)

Hahahah, you are so funny. I already cited the lack of mention about Bush moving forward with the arsenic standard for example. You do understand that the little links you keep mentioning there are nothing more than four years of press releases right? You tell me, what is comprehensive about a press release?!?! Does it give a historical context. Does it do anything more than state what they don't like? Not really.

A perfect example is that many of the links are detailing their ongoing dissatisfaction with Bush and the roadless rule. So when did this horrible rule go into effect? January of 2001. When did Clinton issue it? On his way out the door, just like with the arsenic. Does that mean that national forests could have roads built through them for the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency? You betcha.

Yet we don't see a website informating of us of all the environmental damage that constitutes the "Clinton environmental legacy."

Now, to move on. Does Bush allow anyone to build roads however they would like? No. Does the Bush "rollback" (how can you rollback something that was never in effect?) allow state governors to petition the federal government to set up roadless areas instead of having the federal government decide what is best from thousands of miles away? Yes.

So why is the group upset? Because they don't believe that local people will have their own interests in mind I suppose. Also the biggest objection from the site itself is the possible introduction of non-native animals and plants to the area. We are not talking about environmental damage, unless of course any sort of change from pure stasis is damage. (which it is in the minds of these folks) We are talking about folks who don't even want us to have access to our own national lands for any purpose, not even to visit.

As for the "huge discrepancy between the consensus of environmental experts and myself." You've provided nothing more than a website for an issue group filled with press releases. I've asked for studies, measurements, in otherwords proof. You claim that it is so clear and obvious that it should be absolutely easy to find, yet you provide nothing.

I'm quite tired of you and bunge filibustering this topic by declaring yourself right and myself wrong via nothing more than pure repetition. Add a dash of science. It should be easy as hell to find. Show where a Bush policy made something more polluted. Not less funded than requested, or took a different timeline than desired, or has someone as the head of a department we all know is truly evil, or any other such nonsense.

This is my last post in this thread if you don't link to something other than press releases detailing disagreements. Post over and over that you are right and I am wrong. I'll just ignore it from this point forward because anyone with an ounce of sense can see that your links are flimsy press releases. If I declared Bush right on a matter by using nothing more than press releases from the NRA, Christian Coalition, or any other such group, you would be laughing yourself hysterical no matter how rightously I declared (over and over) my position to be correct.

So in otherwords post something of substance because I've got a cramp from laughing so hard at your "proof."

Nick

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
Looking, looking, still waiting for evidence... see mission statement as some sort of true proof of intent?!?

And what evidence have you provided that the site is anything less than what they say, much less as anti-human as you claim? None.

100% hyperbolic straw man creating drivel.

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
This is my last post in this thread if you don't link to something other than press releases detailing disagreements.

It's nearly impossible to get the proof you ask because you're asking for us to look into the future. If you can't agree that reducing the budget for the EPA will ultimately harm air quality, it's because you don't want to believe it. The EPA's most recent analysis on air quality stops in 2001.

It'll be years until we see how the quality changes because of rules that Bush has put in place or removed. But, here are a few pieces of evidence:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030929ta_talk_kolbert

Then, last New Year’s Eve, the Bush Administration proposed new rules that broadened the definition of “routine maintenance” to allow operators to make, in effect, any changes they want to their plants without installing new pollution controls. These rules were finalized just before Labor Day weekend, and, not coincidentally, before Governor Mike Leavitt, of Utah, the President’s nominee to be the next E.P.A. administrator, was forced to take a position on them.... According to environmentalists, the new N.S.R. regulations would let the Monroe plant emit about forty thousand additional tons of sulfur dioxide a year.

http://environmentmaine.org/envmaine.asp?id2=13069

In January 2003, the Bush administration ordered the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to immediately stop enforcing the Clean Water Act for as many as 20 million acres of wetlands.

http://ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2004/2004-04-26-11.asp

Three conservation groups filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging approval by the Bush administration's decision to approve Florida's request to remove 161 Florida waters from its required pollution clean-up list.

The waters removed from the list include 97 that are contaminated with mercury, the organizations say, a pollutant that is harming Rookery Bay.

"Fish in Rookery Bay are contaminated with mercury, posing a threat to the health of anyone who eats them,"

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by trumptman
We are talking about folks who don't even want us to have access to our own national lands for any purpose, not even to visit.
Oh, really?
I call BS. Please provide a quote with a link to source or other supporting evidence that said "folks" don't want us to have access even to visit our own national lands. You're real big on demanding "proof" from others, so if you're going to make such an outrageous accusation, I think you'd better be prepared to back it up.

They are against the building of ROADS. There's this quaint old wilderness tradition sometimes known as HIKING that allows us all the ACCESS you want - without building roads over pristine wilderness! Or, does access to pristine land not count unless you can roll in there with your SUV and your ATV on a trailer and leave lots of tire tracks?

Originally posted by trumptman
As for the "huge discrepancy between the consensus of environmental experts and myself." You've provided nothing more than a website for an issue group filled with press releases. I've asked for studies, measurements, in otherwords proof. You claim that it is so clear and obvious that it should be absolutely easy to find, yet you provide nothing.

I'm quite tired of you and bunge filibustering this topic by declaring yourself right and myself wrong via nothing more than pure repetition. Add a dash of science. It should be easy as hell to find. Show where a Bush policy made something more polluted. Not less funded than requested, or took a different timeline than desired, or has someone as the head of a department we all know is truly evil, or any other such nonsense.

This is my last post in this thread if you don't link to something other than press releases detailing disagreements. Post over and over that you are right and I am wrong. I'll just ignore it from this point forward because anyone with an ounce of sense can see that your links are flimsy press releases. Nick So then you are apparently the only person posting here with an ounce of sense, as I don't see anyone else calling an environmental group's detailed analysis of Bush's environmental policies "flimsy press releases".

Declare everyone else to be too stupid to bother talking to, and your intent to take your ball and go home which will only prove yourself right, huh? Very impressive debate tactics!

[Aquatic]

Nick wait, let me get this right. You think the environment isn't getting worse?

[FormerLurker]

Republicans blast President Bush on Environment (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0720-01.htm)
One of the Environmental Protection Agency’s earliest leaders, flanked by Republican state politicians, blasted the president’s record on the environment Monday during a news conference organized by an environmental group.

Russell Train, a Republican, was the EPA’s second chief under presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. But he said Bush’s record is so dismal he’s casting his presidential vote for Democrat John Kerry in November.

"It’s almost as if the motto of the administration in power today in Washington is not environmental protection, but polluter protection," he said. "I find this deeply disturbing."


But of course, Nick knows more about the environment than Russell Train... :rolleyes: :no:

[FormerLurker]

The above came from the first page of Google results for president bush environment (http://www.google.com/search?q=president+bush+environment&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

Big surprise - the vast majority of the found links are very critical of Bush's actions and policies regarding the environment.

I must confess, though, that the front page does contain two links to glowing reviews of his environmental policies. One is a page from georgewbush.com (http://www.georgewbush.com/Environment/) and the other is a page from whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/environment/) :lol: :lol:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
There is more to nature than just trees, but ok, I will bite. The density of a forest is inversely correlated with the likelihood and rate at which a fire can spread through it. Natural forests are thin because it is a beneficial trait to be so... So you support the recent push to thin such forests to help prevent large forest fires?

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So you support the recent push to thin such forests to help prevent large forest fires? Well, I'm not going to speak for hardeeharhar, but I think "thinning" sounds a lot better than "clearcutting". So yes, as a longtime SWFL resident who has seen more than enough brush fires in places like Lehigh Acres and Golden Gate, I think planned thinning to reduce fire risk is an excellent idea.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Well, I'm not going to speak for hardeeharhar, but I think "thinning" sounds a lot better than "clearcutting". So yes, as a longtime SWFL resident who has seen more than enough brush fires in places like Lehigh Acres and Golden Gate, I think planned thinning to reduce fire risk is an excellent idea. What neck of the wood are from? I did not know you were a fellow mosquito feeder.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by NaplesX
What neck of the wood are from? I did not know you were a fellow mosquito feeder. Check your PMs...

[tonton]

The day the Republicans build a road through the John Muir trail so that non-hiking lazy or out-of-shape SUV driving Souza march playing "patriots" can access our wonderful California wilderness is the day Theodore Roosovelt's likeness on Mount Rushmore will crumble in shame. But that seems to be exaclty what Nick thinks "access" means.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Republicans blast President Bush on Environment (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0720-01.htm)


But of course, Nick knows more about the environment than Russell Train... :rolleyes: :no:

Strangely enough your own link notes exactly what I have been saying. Thanks for proving me right.

Officials with the state’s Bush-Cheney campaign said sulfur dioxide emissions are down 9 percent, while nitrogen oxide emissions are down 13 percent. They added that the 2002 Farm Bill set aside more than $40 billion in conservation funding.

Environment2004, the environmental group, released a report Monday titled "Damaging the Granite State." It criticizes presidential policies on energy, global warming, toxic waste and air and water pollution.

"It is the worst record in modern history, unfortunately," said Aimee Christensen, the group’s executive director. "They are systematically weakening our keystone public health protections and undermining decades of bipartisan leadership on the environment."

The report faults Bush’s energy policy, for example, for slashing renewable energy funding. According to the report, the cuts are holding back New Hampshire, which could produce 43 percent of its energy from wind power. The report also claims the state could add 5,000 jobs by 2020 with more renewable energy and efficiency investments.

Emissions are down, and so the criticisms are about funding, timelines and officials, exactly what I have claimed all along.

It must be so sad to be so wrong.:lol: Also please make sure you note that the nice strawman that is the thread title is not my view. I simply said Bush is doing well and is no worse than Clinton. I've not claimed he was the best environmental president ever or any such thing.

But honestly who's to say he might not be? I mean Clinton's entire environmental legacy, from arsenic to roadless rules, was created pretty much in the last 12 hours of his second term. Maybe you should wait that long to judge Bush.

Perhaps all the arsenic you drank during the Clinton years is impairing your judgement.

Nick

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Nick wait, let me get this right. You think the environment isn't getting worse? That's not what he said - he said, you can't prove scientifically that it is (reminds me of some of those fun Creationism discussions), or that it is getting worse as a result of Bush policies. He said you can't go by just the overwhelming opinions of scientists, environmental advocates ('cause dem's all liberal hippies!), or even Republican bureaucrats with extensive experience and expertise, because he knows better than all of them put together.

Nevermind the dozen-plus links posted (and the Google link to hundreds more) that slam the Bush enviro record, or the complete lack of postings by Nick of anyone with any kind of enviro credentials who believes that Bush has been good, OK, not so bad, or whatever.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by tonton
The day the Republicans build a road through the John Muir trail so that non-hiking lazy or out-of-shape SUV driving Souza march playing "patriots" can access our wonderful California wilderness is the day Theodore Roosovelt's likeness on Mount Rushmore will crumble in shame. But that seems to be exaclty what Nick thinks "access" means.

Yeah... uh... you are so slick...

The JMT runs through 3 National Parks: Yosemite (Official NPS Page), Kings Canyon and Sequoia (Official NPS Page). When not within a National Park, it runs through Forest Service (Official Inyo National Forest Page) land, including the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wilderness areas. The trail also passes through the Devils Postpile National Monument near Red's meadow.

Would you care to mention which of those three national parks have no roads going to them and are only accessable by hiking? Those parks have roads built into them to facilitate public access and use. It's our land, we are supposed to be allowed to enjoy it. Of course to some even enjoyment is destroying it.

No one has suggested the extreme type of nonsense you knock down. /sarcasm Yes, supporting any road building for public access of public lands means that we want the entire park paved over. /sarcasm off.

:rolleyes:
Nick

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by trumptman
Strangely enough your own link notes exactly what I have been saying. Thanks for proving me right.
HUH? I see only the first and shortest paragraph of what you quoted as supporting your case:Officials with the state’s Bush-Cheney campaign said sulfur dioxide emissions are down 9 percent, while nitrogen oxide emissions are down 13 percent. They added that the 2002 Farm Bill set aside more than $40 billion in conservation funding.
Ahh, a great non-partisan quote, that's not using cherry-picked statistics - good job, way to prove your point! Yay, Team! [/sarcasm]

The rest of your quote is supporting... well... everyone else's case. I'm glad to see you Read Before Quoting;

Environment2004, the environmental group, released a report Monday titled "Damaging the Granite State." It criticizes presidential policies on energy, global warming, toxic waste and air and water pollution.

"It is the worst record in modern history, unfortunately," said Aimee Christensen, the group’s executive director. "They are systematically weakening our keystone public health protections and undermining decades of bipartisan leadership on the environment."

The report faults Bush’s energy policy, for example, for slashing renewable energy funding. According to the report, the cuts are holding back New Hampshire, which could produce 43 percent of its energy from wind power. The report also claims the state could add 5,000 jobs by 2020 with more renewable energy and efficiency investments.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by trumptman
It must be so sad to be so wrong.:lol:
I dunno - it seems sadder to be so wrong, and yet so firmly convinced that you are right, because you are simply parroting the opinions^^^^^^^^gospel of those who are "Right". Yay, Team!

Originally posted by trumptman
Also please make sure you note that the nice strawman that is the thread title is not my view. I simply said Bush is doing well and is no worse than Clinton.
Ahh, yes - the remaining refuge of the retreating right-wing reactionary: "Oh, YEAH? But, CLINTON..." Strawman, strawman, who's got the strawman?... well, Nick - your strawman is the biggest one of all. From now on, I shall call it the OYBC Strawman. Next time you respond to a criticism of Bush, by trying to make a criticism of Clinton, I'll just type OYBC Strawman - wow, what a great savings of keystrokes! Thanks for the inspiration.

Perhaps all the arsenic you drank during the Clinton years is impairing your judgement.
Damn, I drank a LOT of arsenic during the Clinton years. I used to enjoy it at this one pub a lot, I'd walk up to the bar and order an arsenic on the rocks. They served it with deep fried asbestos in mercury gravy - YUM!

Oh, what's that? Ah, you meant WATER with arsenic in it. OK, fair enough. I'm sure you''ll manage to express your thoughts more clearly next time.

So, what exactly was different about the water you drank during the Clinton years? Was it special water that only Republicans could get? Or does arsenic only damage "liberal wieners", while "right-wing nut jobs" are impervious, in This Land of ours?

One more thing - judgment is spelled with only one "e", unless you colour your spelling in the British way. My 8th grade Honors English teacher taught me that over 25 years ago, and I still remember it - I guess that makes her a hell of a teacher! You're a teacher, right? I hope Spelling and/or English (aka 'Riting) is not one of the subjects you teach :p

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Thank you, FormerLurker, for your clearheaded and fresh analysis. Good to see you getting your PoliticalOutsider fix as well. ;)
Thanks, ShawnJ. You should know by now how much I enjoy jumping in, especially when the lone vocal head in the sand claims he's being filibustered by a couple of people, and when the thread could use a few good Google links. Plus, the environment is something I care deeply about, and not just another topical opportunity to Bash Bush as some might believe.

Besides, while the Mac and non-political discussion over at The Other Place is pretty damn good, there is nothing like the AO/PO stuff here to keep my discussion chops nice and sharp. I for one enjoy debating politics with people who I will always have more important things in common with, such as those which drew us all to this site in the first place (right, Naples?)

[tonton]

Originally posted by trumptman
Yeah... uh... you are so slick...



Would you care to mention which of those three national parks have no roads going to them and are only accessable by hiking? Those parks have roads built into them to facilitate public access and use. It's our land, we are supposed to be allowed to enjoy it. Of course to some even enjoyment is destroying it.

No one has suggested the extreme type of nonsense you knock down. /sarcasm Yes, supporting any road building for public access of public lands means that we want the entire park paved over. /sarcasm off.

:rolleyes:
Nick

I was referring to King's Canyon, which is not accessible on a day hike. Sequoia and Yosemite are both only partially accessible by road. Roads to a national park are not the same thing as roads through a national park, and no government policy would or should limit the former. However, it's my opinion that any government policy that restricts the latter (or bans it altogether) can only be a good thing for our National Park system.

[FormerLurker]

Bush Administration Attacks Roadless Forest Protections
A Federal Register notice indicates that the Bush Administration intends to replace the Roadless Area Conservation Rule with a state petition process that essentially eliminates federal protections from logging and mining in millions of acres of national forests – making these roadless areas much more vulnerable to road building and commercial logging. These proposed regulatory changes, according to the notice, are scheduled to be released for public comment in July 2004. In addition, the Federal Register states that the Administration intends to propose permanently exempting both of Alaska’s national forests from the Roadless Rule in November 2004.

Well, here's an idea.
Instead of completely reversing all protection against road-building in federally-owned pristine wilderness, and forcing a bureaucratic process of "state petitions" to protect lands that are currently protected.... How about, we leave protected land, protected, and require a state petition process to un-protect them?

Surely that would be the ultimate in local determination vs. federal, as Nick says is so important. Instead of the state bureaucracies having to act to protect, they can act to un-protect when commercial development/exploitation of resources, and/or "access" via new roads, is deemed to be beneficial to the citizens of the STATE. And of course, they will be documenting the reasons that the citizens will benefit from exploiting the land, instead of being forced to protect every piece of unexploited land by saying over and over "this is pristine and undeveloped land - a national treasure that should remain unspoiled" every time a corporate exploiter of resources wants to build a new road on pristine, public, protected land.

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
Strangely enough your own link notes exactly what I have been saying. Thanks for proving me right.

After all your BS about proof, this is your proof?

Officials with the state’s Bush-Cheney campaign said sulfur dioxide emissions are down 9 percent, while nitrogen oxide emissions are down 13 percent.

You're ignoring dozens of other examples where campaign officials don't disagree.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
HUH? I see only the first and shortest paragraph of what you quoted as supporting your case:
Ahh, a great non-partisan quote, that's not using cherry-picked statistics - good job, way to prove your point! Yay, Team! [/sarcasm]

The rest of your quote is supporting... well... everyone else's case. I'm glad to see you Read Before Quoting;

Here's a hint FL, it's called cherry-picking when you leave other statistics out. In this instance I quoted the only statistics that were mentioned in the entire article. You are welcome to post whatever statistics I didn't mention because there aren't anymore. The rest of the article does consist of criticism, but not statistics. I've stated that regardless of what you believe scientifically, criticism is not proof.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
I dunno - it seems sadder to be so wrong, and yet so firmly convinced that you are right, because you are simply parroting the opinions^^^^^^^^gospel of those who are "Right". Yay, Team!


You accuse me of supporting someone blindly, yet provide no statistical evidence. Instead you provide me with "but they are mad and said so" which amounts to blind support. Again you undermine your own case because I can find the numbers in your own articles while you provide no numbers at all.


Ahh, yes - the remaining refuge of the retreating right-wing reactionary: "Oh, YEAH? But, CLINTON..." Strawman, strawman, who's got the strawman?... well, Nick - your strawman is the biggest one of all. From now on, I shall call it the OYBC Strawman. Next time you respond to a criticism of Bush, by trying to make a criticism of Clinton, I'll just type OYBC Strawman - wow, what a great savings of keystrokes! Thanks for the inspiration.

You must not understand how strawmen work. Unless of course you are saying that Clinton and his environmental legacy are so bad that they would be easy to knock down and suppose someone with only a slighly better approach, Bush. You can toss in any president you want. But somehow arguing with you that Bush is a better environmental president than say, Reagan probably wouldn't convince you because in your mind, Reagan was probably running around starting fires in rain forests because his wife's astrology told him to do so. (<-- now that is a true strawman;) ) You want Bush compared to a Democrat who you believe would do something different. Kerry isn't in office. So the best I can do is Clinton to show the differences in approach. Most of these rules that people are screaming about with regard to Bush did not exist for the entire eight years of Clinton's term. They were written in the last 12 hours or so via executive order and then he hit the door.

Damn, I drank a LOT of arsenic during the Clinton years. I used to enjoy it at this one pub a lot, I'd walk up to the bar and order an arsenic on the rocks. They served it with deep fried asbestos in mercury gravy - YUM!

Oh, what's that? Ah, you meant WATER with arsenic in it. OK, fair enough. I'm sure you''ll manage to express your thoughts more clearly next time.

So, what exactly was different about the water you drank during the Clinton years? Was it special water that only Republicans could get? Or does arsenic only damage "liberal wieners", while "right-wing nut jobs" are impervious, in This Land of ours?

One more thing - judgment is spelled with only one "e", unless you colour your spelling in the British way. My 8th grade Honors English teacher taught me that over 25 years ago, and I still remember it - I guess that makes her a hell of a teacher! You're a teacher, right? I hope Spelling and/or English (aka 'Riting) is not one of the subjects you teach

Obviously you are getting a little ticked off. Oh well that happens when all you have to support your case are criticisms instead of facts.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Thank you, FormerLurker, for your clearheaded and fresh analysis. Good to see you getting your PoliticalOutsider fix as well. ;) My question I pose to Nick is the following: On what merits do you judge Bush's record on the environment? The NRDC list has every conceivable action, so you should be able to cherry-pick a few accomplishments. Oh, and thank you for admitting you were wrong about the arsenic press release. Very honest of you. Oh wait.

Edited for a dyslexic-esque jumbling of NRDC.

I stated the criteria about ten times. Go back and read.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by tonton
I was referring to King's Canyon, which is not accessible on a day hike. Sequoia and Yosemite are both only partially accessible by road. Roads to a national park are not the same thing as roads through a national park, and no government policy would or should limit the former. However, it's my opinion that any government policy that restricts the latter (or bans it altogether) can only be a good thing for our National Park system.

The point is that these parks would not even have roads built into them for any sort of access. That is why I said you point appears to portray someone wanting to pave over the entire park. That simply isn't true. You were using caricatures but the reality is that when you can't build any sort of road into a national park, it severely limits access which is of course exactly the point. Someone driving in, parking and hiking a couple miles in not the same as having to hike in from the border of the park or from even beyond that.

You should just admit that you prefer the parks be devoid of human contact and that you can tolerate the 20 people per year who will hike in from a hundred miles out to camp in a spot. (at least until the next law limits access even more) Why would you deny the public the use of their own land? Why do you hold the general public in contempt?

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
After all your BS about proof, this is your proof?



You're ignoring dozens of other examples where campaign officials don't disagree.

Read the first post of this thread. Aquatic made an assertion and asked me if this changed my mind about Bush. I've simply stated no, the flaws with what was provided, and the kind of evidence that would be convincing.

It has not been provided.

But I've not started the thread or made the assertion. If I started a thread declaring a position and personally asked you, bunge, if this changed your view. I can't turn around later and complain that you are not providing evidence. I made the assertion and asked you to change your mind. If I am doing that, I better provide the evidence.

The reason people like yourself are getting uptight though is because I've read your links and pointed out the repeated lack of any statistical evidence. It might piss you off that I do this, but just provide the statistical evidence that the environment is getting worse. Just do it. Otherwise don't participate in a thread that is asking me to change my mind.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Especially after being proven wrong about the arsenic press release, I don't believe you're in the position to tell others to "go back and read." That's certainly not the manner in which I treated you. And with all due respect, wading through your posts takes a considerable amount of energy to discern just what you're saying. But I'll try. Now, I may be wrong, but I believe you never clearly justified your opinion on Bush's environmental record beyond refusing to admit any environmental harm resulted from his policies. A quick look at the section on toxic chemicals and health under the pesticides and other toxic chemicals subcategory reveals a slew of problems on ignorning safety and health issues, reducing superfund cleanups, allowing more pollution, and tons of other issues-- just in that one little section. There are 33 other sections.

You call this moving forward or giving credit?

EPA issues an arsenic-in-tap-water standard higher than that recommended by public health advocates
October 31, 2001: Although a recent National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report found that arsenic's health risks are much greater than the Environmental Protection Agency had previously assumed, the agency announced today it will keep the arsenic-in-tap water standard it adopted at the end of the Clinton administration.

"EPA Administrator Christine Whitman said she wanted to make sure the Clinton EPA decision was based on 'sound science,' but when the National Academy of Sciences found that the cancer risks of even low levels of arsenic in tap water are many times higher than EPA ever estimated, she didn't lower the standard," said Erik D. Olson, an NRDC senior attorney. "Her review was a charade, and her decision will threaten the health of millions of Americans."

NRDC had urged the agency to adopt a new rule of 3 parts per billion, the lowest level that EPA studies show is technically and economically feasible to achieve. That standard still presents cancer risks 10 times higher than the level EPA considers acceptable in regulating other water contaminants. The agency has received more than 57,000 comments from Americans calling for a 3-parts-per-billion standard.


Sham... threatens the health of millions.... Yep I call that positivity, don't you? I call that giving credit when due. Of course the credit is for endangering millions of Americans, but hey, I'm sure they treated Clinton the same way for the entire eight years of his term. I'm sure there was no partisan slant at all.:rolleyes: Why don't you find their press release called, Clinton endangered hundreds of millions for refusing to lower arsenic standard during entire term. Where is that press release? Oh doesn't exist.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
You're wrong.

Plainly, clearly, and for all to see: you're wrong.
EPA issues an arsenic-in-tap-water standard higher than that recommended by public health advocates (http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/articles/br_483.asp?t=t)
Yes, it's a critical press release. Why? Because is seems the cancer factor of arsenic was traditionally underestimated-- until the end of the Clinton administration. I could be wrong about the exact time, but it doesn't appear as if anyone knew about its true toxicity until shortly before the Clinton rule change. It's a recent discovery-- not one known for the entirety of the Clinton administration. The Bush EPA knew this, thus knowingly endangering millions of people.

I'll tell you what Shawn, I'll call myself wrong on their press release because I really don't care to have you spend twenty posts arguing it. They did say Bush was going forward with the previously proposed arsenic standard...but also that he was still endangering millions and that his review was a lie and a sham. I guess I scanned that and didn't think that was giving him credit where due. If you want to call that giving him credit for lowering the arsenic standard in water, that is fine. I won't argue it because I have better things to do with my day.

Nick

[bunge]

I'm sorry Nick, but you're lying. I provided the links you asked for, and you're pretending I didn't.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
I'm sorry Nick, but you're lying. I provided the links you asked for, and you're pretending I didn't.

Get over yourself and stop calling names when people disagree with you. Press releases are not proof. I looked at the other links and there were exactly what I claimed. For example the issue about power plant retrofitting definition is exactly the type of cost/timeline/etc. issue I discussed.

Again, get over yourself.

Nick

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
Get over yourself and stop calling names when people disagree with you.

Nick,

More pollution = Bush made things worse. You asked for examples, people have given more proof than press releases. You're ignoring the truth.

[ColanderOfDeath]

Originally posted by trumptman
A perfect example is that many of the links are detailing their ongoing dissatisfaction with Bush and the roadless rule. So when did this horrible rule go into effect? January of 2001. When did Clinton issue it? On his way out the door, just like with the arsenic. Does that mean that national forests could have roads built through them for the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency? You betcha.

The roadless rule first came up a year and a half before Clinton left office:

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/chief_memorandum.htm

It went through the whole long and winding federal comment process. But pretend that Clinton scribbled on a post-it note before he left office if you like.

The roadless rule only applies to the 60 million or so FS acres that have no roads in them. As in, no roads were built in them during the Clinton administration either. Yes there was road building going on during the Clinton admin in the forests. But it was in areas inventoried by the FS in the Other category. There are different categories, IRA-Roads Allowed, IRA-Roads Not Allowed, IRA-Wilderness Recommendation, Wilderness and Other (as in already has roads). The anti-environment movement would have you believe that Clinton tried to stop road building on all FS land. Not true at all. That rule stated that areas which do not yet have roads to date should be reviewed for wilderness quality and be left roadless.

Now, to move on. Does Bush allow anyone to build roads however they would like? No.

Bush didn't even bother to defend the roadless rule.

Past that, you are undoubtedly aware of how he compares on designating wilderness (the only federal protection from road building) compared to past presidents including elephants like his father, Reagan, Nixon, Ford etc. It's a pitiful record.

Does the Bush "rollback" (how can you rollback something that was never in effect?) allow state governors to petition the federal government to set up roadless areas instead of having the federal government decide what is best from thousands of miles away? Yes.

Hello. These are the federal lands. Not state lands. Yes people thousands of miles away are often better informed on how to take care of them as they often are interested in the best and highest use for the land. As opposed to this interested in milking it for a buck and then moving on.

So why is the group upset? Because they don't believe that local people will have their own interests in mind I suppose. Also the biggest objection from the site itself is the possible introduction of non-native animals and plants to the area. We are not talking about environmental damage, unless of course any sort of change from pure stasis is damage. (which it is in the minds of these folks) We are talking about folks who don't even want us to have access to our own national lands for any purpose, not even to visit.

No one is arguing that. You think these roadless areas are all the size of the FCRONRW? Christ, at least argue on point instead of with these strawmen.

The non-native species issue is a non-issue. It's unrealistic to think it will happen but arguing that there is no logic behind the goal is just silly.

Would you care to mention which of those three national parks have no roads going to them and are only accessable by hiking? Those parks have roads built into them to facilitate public access and use. It's our land, we are supposed to be allowed to enjoy it. Of course to some even enjoyment is destroying it.

No one has suggested the extreme type of nonsense you knock down. /sarcasm Yes, supporting any road building for public access of public lands means that we want the entire park paved over. /sarcasm off

THis has nothing to do with anything. Those three parks are DOI land managed by the NPS. They never were subject to the Roadless Rule which applied to FS IRAs. One has little to do with the other. You can actually support hte roadless rule, which again has to do with FS areas with no roads in them yet, and still support roadbuilding in non-wilderness NPS land like the Yosemite Valley. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The point is that these parks would not even have roads built into them for any sort of access.

Except that they could and would since the roadless rule had nothing to do with NPS land, even non-wilderness roadless NPS land. If the NPS decided to they could have built a road from your front door right to the base of Half Dome and it would not have been in violation of the roadless rule at all.

You were using caricatures but the reality is that when you can't build any sort of road into a national park, it severely limits access which is of course exactly the point.

Everyone sing along: Except that the roadless rule has nothing to do with national parks and so the rule in no way prevents what you suggest.

The NPS has a focus much more on serving people than the USFS. FS lands or IRAs more specifically, those roadless rule lands, are a different story.

[tonton]

Bold text originally posted by trumptman
The point is that these parks would not even have roads built into them for any sort of access.
Fantastic. There are already roads leading to them and into them as far as they should. I've hiked the 10-15 miles over the rocky, snowy passes to get to the Muir trail through King's Canyon from the East, and the 15-20 miles over softer terrain from the West on many occasions. Have you? Maybe if you tried it at least once you'd realize that the access that is already there is plenty.
That is why I said you point appears to portray someone wanting to pave over the entire park.
You've said it, but you were wrong.
That simply isn't true.
I know, but what's true is still not good enough.
You were using caricatures but the reality is that when you can't build any sort of road into a national park, it severely limits access which is of course exactly the point.
Yes it is the point! It limits access, and it limits damage and it limits interference with the appreciation of nature.
Someone driving in, parking and hiking a couple miles in not the same as having to hike in from the border of the park or from even beyond that.
Yeah because someone driving, parking and hiking a couple of miles can still see the headlights at night, the pollution from exhaust, the noise, and the lack of privacy, suitable campsites being filled up, etc.
You should just admit that you prefer the parks be devoid of human contact...
Not devoid of human contact, but devoid of over-population and pollution. Yosemite is not fun for that very reason.
...and that you can tolerate the 20 people per year who will hike in from a hundred miles out to camp in a spot.
Exaggeration just makes you look even dumber.
...(at least until the next law limits access even more)
Since when have existing roads been removed to limit access more? More exaggeration.
Why would you deny the public the use of their own land?
Because too much access is the same thing as non-conservation. Why have the National Parks system at all? I bet you think the system was some democonservationistliberaltreehugger scheme to keep fat people away from the beautiful land, don't you?
Why do you hold the general public in contempt?
Because they pollute and damage the environment, no matter how you regulate them. Even the small quota of hikers who are allowed into King's Canyon leave pollution. For instance you can't drink any of the water any more because it's all full of Giardia. Imagine if people could just drive up into it...

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Why is that not surprising? :)

What's not surprising is watching the two of you parse a post to death instead of debating the true nature of these laws. What next? Not being surprised that I make a spelling error?

But again, no evidence of a worsening environment, however we have more and more evidence of the desperate measures you will take to discredit that which you cannot disprove.

Nick

[ColanderOfDeath]

What's not surprising is watching the two of you parse a post to death instead of debating the true nature of these laws.

Not at all. Your posts show a true ignorance of the true nature of the laws. You don't even know which agencies' lands these apply to let alone know which third of the FS's land they have to do with. You don't even know that the roadless rule applied to tracts without roads and that it in no way impact areas which already have roads. You try to throw up a false argument of removing access which does not currently exist. And you ascribe hypocrisy to the Clinton administration in terms of FS roadbuilding vs. the Roadless rule when in fact none exists.

Since when have existing roads been removed to limit access more? More exaggeration.

Existing roads have been removed on occasion. Not like paved highways or anything but logging roads are sometimes removed for various reasons. Obviously that is the exception rather than the rule as 99+% of the time they are just left for recreational use or or ignored or allowed to be overgrown over subsequent decades while the crop, er I mean trees, regrow.

The roads the roadless rule is really getting at anyway are logging roads which are built like spiderwebs to get closer to the trees and harvest them as cheaply as possible. As cheaply as possible for the timber companies that is, since the cost of the road building, which is sometimes less than what the FS receives for its trees, is soaked up by the taxpayer. Most of those logging roads do zilch for access.

Of course what no one talks about with regard to the roadless rule is that the forest service has billions of dollars in backlogged repairs just for the roads that currently exist. They can't afford to keep up what they have let alone build new ones.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by tonton
Bold text originally posted by trumptman
The point is that these parks would not even have roads built into them for any sort of access.
Fantastic. There are already roads leading to them and into them as far as they should. I've hiked the 10-15 miles over the rocky, snowy passes to get to the Muir trail through King's Canyon from the East, and the 15-20 miles over softer terrain from the West on many occasions. Have you? Maybe if you tried it at least once you'd realize that the access that is already there is plenty.
That is why I said you point appears to portray someone wanting to pave over the entire park.
You've said it, but you were wrong.
That simply isn't true.
I know, but what's true is still not good enough.
You were using caricatures but the reality is that when you can't build any sort of road into a national park, it severely limits access which is of course exactly the point.
Yes it is the point! It limits access, and it limits damage and it limits interference with the appreciation of nature.
Someone driving in, parking and hiking a couple miles in not the same as having to hike in from the border of the park or from even beyond that.
Yeah because someone driving, parking and hiking a couple of miles can still see the headlights at night, the pollution from exhaust, the noise, and the lack of privacy, suitable campsites being filled up, etc.
You should just admit that you prefer the parks be devoid of human contact...
Not devoid of human contact, but devoid of over-population and pollution. Yosemite is not fun for that very reason.
...and that you can tolerate the 20 people per year who will hike in from a hundred miles out to camp in a spot.
Exaggeration just makes you look even dumber.
...(at least until the next law limits access even more)
Since when have existing roads been removed to limit access more? More exaggeration.
Why would you deny the public the use of their own land?
Because too much access is the same thing as non-conservation. Why have the National Parks system at all? I bet you think the system was some democonservationistliberaltreehugger scheme to keep fat people away from the beautiful land, don't you?
Why do you hold the general public in contempt?
Because they pollute and damage the environment, no matter how you regulate them. Even the small quota of hikers who are allowed into King's Canyon leave pollution. For instance you can't drink any of the water any more because it's all full of Giardia. Imagine if people could just drive up into it...

I'll tell you what Tonton, we disagree about what the final result should be regarding public lands and their use. However I will commend you for admitting what you believe and arguing strongly for it. You believe access to these lands and the number of people who enjoy them should be very limited and also that the means of access should be very limited. Again we have a disagreement there, but at least you are very forward and clear about admitting that and arguing for it. Thank you.

BTW, if exaggeration makes you dumber then what is this?

The day the Republicans build a road through the John Muir trail so that non-hiking lazy or out-of-shape SUV driving Souza march playing "patriots" can access our wonderful California wilderness is the day Theodore Roosovelt's likeness on Mount Rushmore will crumble in shame. But that seems to be exaclty what Nick thinks "access" means.

You do this both times when you discuss access, so it is indeed a strawman, or whatever you care to call it when you discuss the public, how you view them, and how you believe they will act on public lands. I believe the general public will respect their lands, and that it becomes easier to convince them that such lands are unimportant in the future since they are effectively barred from them and thus cannot enjoy or realize their importance. Again it is a difference that we have in opinion, and it is likely not something we can "prove" to each other. But I do appreciate your honesty in not claiming to want open access for the general public.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Not at all. Your posts show a true ignorance of the true nature of the laws. You don't even know which agencies' lands these apply to let alone know which third of the FS's land they have to do with. You don't even know that the roadless rule applied to tracts without roads and that it in no way impact areas which already have roads. You try to throw up a false argument of removing access which does not currently exist. And you ascribe hypocrisy to the Clinton administration in terms of FS roadbuilding vs. the Roadless rule when in fact none exists.

True ignorance is not demonstrated by not knowing every bit of minutia, it is demonstrated by not having an understanding. There are state parks, forests and national parks and forests. I did understand the law and its intent even if I did use park and forest interchangably within a couple of posts. The point of the argument is public use of public lands, not which agency will enforce it on which land.

But you make a very good point about false arguments. You say I try to make a false argument about removing access which doesn't exist. Thank you, thank you, thank you because you show the exact mentality that I have complained about regarding the treatment of Bush. Nothing had been changed about the land and its use under Clinton until the time he left office. The land and the access are the same. No more or less polluted. How do you like it when motives are ascribed to policy positions with no actual change occuring?

That is why I have been begging for proof of actual pollution during the Bush term. Instead what I get are policy positions, funding levels, and personnel decisions that we kow must all be evil because we know the MOTIVES of Bush and thus these all are bad. The actual results of the policies are unimportant because we all must know the man and his motives and thus regardless of actual changes, we know what the results must be politically. Hope you liked it in reverse and just like you mentioned, it is totally unconvincing and a false argument. Anything that tries to convince via motive instead of actual evidence is not going to be convincing to me regarding Bush.

Again, thanks.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
:\

There are literally hundreds of examples like EPA will not regulate dioxins from sewage sludge (http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/articles/br_1421.asp?t=t) or Ignoring health risks, EPA choses not to ban dangerous weed killer (http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/articles/br_1234.asp?t=t) or EPA sticking with unsafe percholate level (http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/articles/br_1255.asp?t=t) or EPA cooks fish data to allow more pollution (http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/articles/br_1304.asp?t=t). I think your understanding of environmental issues has been proven demonstrably thin and your evaluations clouded by simple prejudice. I'm no expert myself, but everything I have read, from the websites of environmental groups to statements from the Union of Concerned Scientists suggest not that the Bush Administration is merely bad on environmental issues, but one of the worst in history. The evidence, as I have shown, is overwhelming. And you don't even admit anything--that any form of pollution increased-- than any safeguards have been relaxed-- or even that reducing funding for various cleanup programs (where shown to increase inefficiency and slow cleanup efforts) continues to endanger millions of Americans. It's perplexing, really.

Perplexing... isn't doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result considered proof of insanity? :lol: :p

Shawn, a bit of advice both for being a lawyer and a teacher, don't try a bigger hammer, try a different tool. I've said that the source you use is nothing more than press releases and that I don't consider them to be convincing. So.... trying to convince me by repeatedly citing them won't work. Try a different source.

Nick

[bunge]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Do you even disagree that those things I cited even happened?

I'm left wondering the same thing about my own citations.

[FormerLurker]

Facts, Figures, Statistics, with citings (http://www.democrats.org/environment/bushrecord.html)

Nick - why have you not linked to even ONE statement by any person or group with credentials/experience/expertise in environmental issues, who agrees with you that Bush has been anything but horrible in this area?

Surely if you are right, there's be such a link that would not be too hard to find, right?

If you are going to just out of hand dismiss the dozens and dozens of examples of those with such credentials who believe Bush's policies and actions to be harmful to the environment, then you should be able to find at least ONE person with environmental expertise who agrees with you that they are not.

Otherwise, you will continue to look rather silly, jumping up and down in your little tinfoil hat, saying "I'm right, because I SAY I'm right".

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
With all due respect, I consider any advice from you unsolicited. So please respect my wish to keep it to yourself-- I never want it from you for anything. :) And I'm not backing down from a source just because one person in a discussion sees no value in it, and blindly rejects everything it has to say based on a poor or easily disproved justification du jour. Do you even disagree that those things I cited even happened?

Perhaps if you don't want unsolicited advice, you should stop soliciting people to change their opinion and then being pissed off when they don't.

Conversation is a two way street. If you want it to only be one way, go get a megaphone and yell at people in the street. Better yet, jack-off so we don't have to worry about reproduction and your genes.

As for the things cited in your various press releases, the take on what happened is what you support. Obviously the EPA making a decision for example, on sludge, did occur. Whether or not the decision is harmful is up to which study you care to use. Here's something to seriously consider Shawn, why argue with me if you don't care to consider anything that would convince me?

Nick

[Aquatic]

Lurker that is an excellent point. Wither the linkage?

Nick on that logging issue it's simple. Bush gave state governors power over federal land. That is illegal. I'm hoping this (albeit conservative) Supreme Court cans this garbage fast. Someone should get an injunction on this. AGAIN.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2004/2004-07-13-10.asp

I am going to look at this more but it looks like somehow the Bushies thwarted the judicial branch's review of this. It's like checks and balances in this administration disappeared.

Anyhow, why don't you go live by a nuclear reactor or...even worse (cringing)...New Jersey!:wow: :p

[trumptman]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Facts, Figures, Statistics, with citings (http://www.democrats.org/environment/bushrecord.html)

Nick - why have you not linked to even ONE statement by any person or group with credentials/experience/expertise in environmental issues, who agrees with you that Bush has been anything but horrible in this area?

Surely if you are right, there's be such a link that would not be too hard to find, right?

If you are going to just out of hand dismiss the dozens and dozens of examples of those with such credentials who believe Bush's policies and actions to be harmful to the environment, then you should be able to find at least ONE person with environmental expertise who agrees with you that they are not.

Otherwise, you will continue to look rather silly, jumping up and down in your little tinfoil hat, saying "I'm right, because I SAY I'm right".

Well according to your reasoning/linking I have ample resources to which I can link. I can just link to the RNC or the Bush reeleciton site. Isn't that what you just did in this post by linking to the DNC?

:rolleyes:
Nick

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Facts, Figures, Statistics, with citings (http://www.democrats.org/environment/bushrecord.html) Yep, ShawnJ, he fell right into that one, didn't he? I knew for a fact that he'd just attack the source (yet again), since he still can't come up with a single source to support his... um.... opinion. Too bad for him that the source he's attacking has all those citings to back it up.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Lurker that is an excellent point. Wither the linkage?

Nick on that logging issue it's simple. Bush gave state governors power over federal land. That is illegal. I'm hoping this (albeit conservative) Supreme Court cans this garbage fast. Someone should get an injunction on this. AGAIN.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2004/2004-07-13-10.asp

I am going to look at this more but it looks like somehow the Bushies thwarted the judicial branch's review of this. It's like checks and balances in this administration disappeared.

Anyhow, why don't you go live by a nuclear reactor or...even worse (cringing)...New Jersey!:wow: :p

Bush thwarted the judicial review by not appealing a decision he agrees with?

Also look at this...

Last July a Wyoming federal judge enjoined the rule in Wyoming after ruling it illegally created wilderness areas in violation of the process set up by Congress through the Wilderness Act.

Perhaps this is why several western governors are fighting this in court.

Look at who is effected...

Although there are 39 states with inventoried roadless areas on national forest lands within their boundaries, some 97 percent of these areas lie within a dozen Western states - Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

That is pretty much the entire Western United States, all decided from Washington D.C.

Under the proposal, a governor could request that roadless areas in his or her state be protected, but a state-by-state rulemaking would only go forward if the agriculture secretary agrees. It appears that governors could even ask that some or all of the roadless areas in their state receive less protection than existed before the Roadless Rule, said Marty Hayden, legislative director at Earthjustice, a nonprofit, public interest law firm.

From my reading the governor's get to make requests and have them considered. When you consider that it appears that these areas were declared wilderness areas without using the congressional process to declare as such, it doesn't seem to bad to allow the actual governors in those states to give some local input.

Aquatic, could you do me a favor though, since you are better and finding this sort of information than I am. Could you find for me the procedure for declaring wilderness and for state input that was in place before the Clinton directive? From my understanding (and I don't want to be busted for misapplying terminology by the parse-masters) it appears that before this directive, the state agencies were given cooperating agency status. They would work with the government and the state and federal government together would create local plans that met both state and federal interests. From what I understand the Clinton directive basically tossed all this aside and allowed no more local input.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Technically. Except you missed the part about: Sources: 1New York Times, 7/11/01; Baltimore Sun, 8/28/03; Chicago Tribune, 8/28/03; Los Angeles Times, 8/28/03; Washington Post, 8/28/03; 2General Accounting Office, 7/29/03; Boston Globe, 1/9/04; New York Times, 7/1/02; The Bush Administration's FY2005 Budget for the Environment: Putting Our Future at Risk, 2/4/04; 3Seattle Post Intelligencer, 12/24/03; Los Angeles Times, 12/24/03; Denver Post, 3/15/01; Washington Post, 4/18/02; 4New York Times, 12/3/03, 2/10/04; Washington Post, 12/3/03; Pioneer Press, 10/6/03; Houston Chronicle, 12/5/03; Associated Press, 12/15/03. So you would need to provide citations, too.

So if the RNC site links to Washington Times, New York Post, Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal, etc you would accept the source?

Nick

[Carson O'Genic]

I think the best thing Bush has done for the environment is that he has dropped the "There is not enough data to believe in global warming" crap for a general silence on the issue all together. This is actually progress, even though the "its time to sell the beach home before prices fall" policy does nothing to improve the situation.

[Aquatic]

That kind of talk went up when Bush took office last time I checked.

Also, look at this.
Friends in the White House Come to Coal's Aid (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/09/politics/09coal.html)

Hate to be a miner about now. This is an example of how things are done with Republicans, especially Bushies, these days, but alas, politics in general even Democrats. The blurring of the private and government sectors. Why the hell would a mining exec become in charge of the very organization that monitors coal mine health standards!? Fox in the hen house!? Sounds about like how Bushies run the EPA and other environmental agencies.

The first line says it all.

In 1997, as a top executive of a Utah mining company, David Lauriski proposed a measure that could allow some operators to let coal-dust levels rise substantially in mines. The plan went nowhere in the government.

Last year, it found enthusiastic backing from one government official - Mr. Lauriski himself. Now head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, he revived the proposal despite objections by union officials and health experts that it could put miners at greater risk of black-lung disease.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Aquatic
That kind of talk went up when Bush took office last time I checked.

Also, look at this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/09/politics/09coal.html

Hate to be a miner about now. This is an example of how things are done with Republicans, especially Bushies, these days, but alas, politics in general even Democrats. The blurring of the private and government sectors. Why the hell would a mining exec become in charge of the very organization that monitors coal mine health standards!? Fox in the hen house!? Sounds about like how Bushies run the EPA and other environmental agencies.

The first line says it all. That's exactly the modus operandi, for example Mark Rey, now undersecretary of Agriculture was, and I must quote an article that also lists other such choices, an industry leader: "Mark Rey is a good example -- 18 or 20 years as a timber lobbyist for the major trade groups for the timber industry, fighting all sorts of environmental protections. His career has been basically trying to remove obstacles to logging, and by "obstacles" what often is meant is citizen input, appeals, any kind of regulation that impedes timber. Then there's James Connaughton (http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/connaughton-bio.html), the Council on Environmental Quality chair, who is, in a strict sense, the closest environmental advisor to the president. His background is as a lawyer representing General Electric with respect to their Superfund sites. That was his specialty: trying to avoid Superfund problems for big corporations.


Gale Norton came to Washington, D.C., with James Watt in the '80s. She has devoted her life to deregulation. She made an argument before the Supreme Court, in an attempt to undermine the Endangered Species Act, that you should only consider direct "taking" -- like shooting -- to be a threat to endangered species, rather than things like habitat loss. That would completely gut the Endangered Species Act. And now she's the one enforcing it. Since she came on as interior secretary the Bush administration hasn't listed a single species under the Endangered Species Act, except when ordered to by a court, or if it was already in the works from the Clinton administration." source (http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/06/30/bush_vs_the_environment/index1.html)

Never mind . . . industry knows best . . .

. best how to make a buck

[ColanderOfDeath]

Never mind . . . industry knows best . . .

. best how to make a buck

If what you say were true, then we would be seeing favoritism to energy companies in cases where they wish to develop pristine lands against the advice of conservationists and scientists. Oh wait...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=2&u=/latimests/20040809/ts_latimes/whitehouseintercedesforgasprojectinnationalforest

[FormerLurker]

CARSON NATIONAL FOREST, N.M. — Overriding the opposition of the U.S. Forest Service and New Mexico state officials, a White House energy task force has interceded on behalf of Houston-based El Paso Corp. in its two-year effort to explore for natural gas in a remote part of a national forest next door to America's largest Boy Scout camp.

Hey Nick, I thought that Bush's policy was to respect the wishes of the local state officials regarding development of national forest land... how come they're overriding New Mexico state officials on this one?


Edit: vB really hates that URL for some reason - I searched Yahoo News for white house gas project national forest
http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=white+house+gas+project+forest&c=&ei=ISO-8859-1

[trumptman]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Hey Nick, I thought that Bush's policy was to respect the wishes of the local state officials regarding development of national forest land... how come they're overriding New Mexico state officials on this one?


Edit: vB really hates that URL for some reason - I searched Yahoo News for white house gas project national forest
http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=white+house+gas+project+forest&c=&ei=ISO-8859-1

They created a task force, the task for created a report with a recommendation.

There's still a long way to go, who knows how this could turn out? I'm not outraged about a report. We have to see the actual result or even see the plan and what resulting damage it would do while being used. Any offsets, and what would be done to restore the land afterwards.

But no I'm not outraged at a report.

Nick

[Aquatic]

:rolleyes:

It's sad that this is how most people think these days.

Did you know, Nick, that we are committing genocide right here in the US? I wrote a lengthy remote on Native Americans and the environment. Suffice it to say, their kids on reservations are eating dioxins and living next to nuclear and toxic waste dumps and military test sites. That is bad. Dioxins are invisible, odorless, tasteless, etc. A silent but deadly killer like say radon.

People like you don't believe it if you don't see it. Oh the sky is blue the environment must be fine! Well I can't see the mercury in my fish or taste it so I'm fine!

Have fun feeding your kids cancer.

[trumptman]

http://nwi.org/Maps/GovernmentLand.gif

Found this interesting picture. Probably shows quite clearly why all the western states have such a problem with the roadless rule.

Nick

[tonton]

Originally posted by trumptman
http://nwi.org/Maps/GovernmentLand.gif

Found this interesting picture. Probably shows quite clearly why all the western states have such a problem with the roadless rule.

Nick

Now filter out all of those colors except red and you'll see there's very little to worry about.

[Aquatic]

Nick can't read he just looks at the pretty pictures. And it's hard to see color through those black and white glasses.

[Aquatic]

And he screwed up the formatting.

Here. http://www.defenders.org/defendersmag/issues/summer04/view.html

"Just this past March, the Environmental Protection Agency issued new warnings about the extreme danger to children and pregnant women from eating mercury-contaminated fish. Yet at the same time, the White House was pushing to weaken current regulations that require power plants to reduce the amount of toxic mercury they pump into the atmosphere.


The science of mercury contamination is clear. After being released into the atmosphere, mercury is absorbed by clouds and falls back to earth in rain that then pollutes our wetlands, creeks, rivers and oceans. From there it is a short step into the food chain where it works its way through various aquatic species and ends up in humans and other mammals. Because the pollutant magnifies at each link in the food chain, predatory fish such as bass or walleye can have mercury levels tens of thousands of times higher than the water in which they live. Small aquatic mammals such as river otters, as well as birds including bald eagles, red-tailed hawks, mallard ducks and common loons, all show the impacts of high mercury levels. The toxic metal is even showing up as one culprit in the decline of the endangered Florida panther.


The biggest danger is to pregnant women, fetuses and young children. Mercury exposure can be devastating to the development of mammals’ central nervous systems, especially putting their offspring in danger. In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 1 in 12 U.S. women of childbearing age have unsafe levels of mercury in their bodies.


How bad is it? Forty-four states and territories have issued health advisories about eating fish caught in local waters, and new research is raising red flags about mercury in canned tuna, a staple of kids’ lunchboxes across the country."


Now it's your turn to post something good Bush has done Nick. Put up or shut up.

[Aquatic]

www.defenders.org is a great site, that was a tiny fraction of the crap Bushies are pulling.

[ColanderOfDeath]

Now filter out all of those colors except red and you'll see there's very little to worry about.

Right idea, wrong color. The green USDA (USFS) areas are the relevant lands. Except that it is not all of the green lands, just the 1/3 of them that are roadless or 1/4 of them if you exclude Alaska.

Here is the map of the IRAs. Congressionally designated wilderness, for which the roadless rule has no standing, is the bright green land. Standard FS areas with roads, the Other category is the very light bluish color and again that land is not impacted by the roadless rule. The IRAs- the only federal lands impacted by the roadless rule- are the brown areas:

http://www.pbase.com/image/32633862.jpg

You can find the original of this map on the FS site:

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/

Acreage summaries by state for the impacts of the roadless rule:

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/data/sheets/acres/appendix_state_acres.html

Of course, the roadless rule doesn't say that we can never build roads in these areas, the brown areas on the map. It just says we need to review our forest plans to evaluate them for wilderness quality or IRA Recommended Roadless before we actually build the roads. The roads which the Forest Service can't even afford to build or maintain. But whatever.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Aquatic
And he screwed up the formatting.

Here. http://www.defenders.org/defendersmag/issues/summer04/view.html



Now it's your turn to post something good Bush has done Nick. Put up or shut up.

It's not screwed up on my 17 inch Apple LCD monitor.:devil:

I'll post some things Bush has done positive. I'll even use your source. They do mention things he has done positively but still view him through those "evil Republican" glasses.

Bush agrees to POP (http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2001_04.asp#)

Sulfur (http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2004_04.asp#)

There I posted two. :p From a source you endorse even.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
:???:

Two.

:lol:

I guess I haven't figured out how to link to those pop-up windows. If you'll share how you did it, I'll fix the links.

;)

Nick

[Aquatic]

Hmm those links aren't doing much to convince me.

Cheney sketches out a misguided energy policy_(04/30/01)

Bush administration marks 100 days in office_(04/29/01)

EPA drops objections to Florida rule that undermines Clean Water Act protections_(04/26/01)

Interior will not reintroduce grizzly bears into Idaho, Montana wildlands_(04/25/01)

Gale Norton nominates William G. Myers III as solicitor for Department of the Interior_(04/24/01)

Yellowstone snowmobile ban goes into effect, but perhaps not for long_(04/23/01)

Bush seeks to relax requirements of Endangered Species Act_(04/09/01)

Bush supports U.N. treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)_(04/09/01)

Bush unveils fiscal year 2002 budget_(04/09/01)
Pentagon misses deadline on perchlorate report_(04/30/04)

Smoggy skies affecting more than half of all Americans_(04/29/04)

EPA air experts accuse Bush administration of altering science_(04/29/04)

Interior Dept. limiting "critical habitat" protection_(04/28/04)

Hatchery fish to be counted under ESA_(04/28/04)

Court questions industry-friendly EPA fertilizer rule_(04/23/04)

Church leaders chastise President Bush for bad air policies_(04/22/04)

EPA stands firm on sulfur regulations_(04/22/04)

President Bush promises a "net gain" in the nation's wetlands_(04/22/04)

Fish and Wildlife Service lists caviar-producing sturgeon as threatened_(04/21/04)

Fish and Wildlife Service mulls lifting habitat protections for endangered kangaroo rat_(04/20/04)

New "quieter" snowmobiles damage employee hearing in Yellowstone_(04/20/04)

States reject Pentagon's request for environmental exemptions_(04/19/04)

Federal agency cooked books on salmon recovery_(04/15/04)

White House OMB releases a modified peer-review proposal_(04/15/04)

Fish and Wildlife Service decides not to protect Yellowstone swans_(04/15/04)

Imperiled bull trout may lose federal protections_(04/13/04)

Fish and Wildlife Service proposes habitat protections for California frog_(04/13/04)

Bush administration wasting billions on nuclear weapons stockpile, NRDC finds_(04/13/04)

Bush budget cuts lead poisoning prevention funding_(04/11/04)

Fish and Wildlife Service less protective of bald eagles than local Florida officials_(04/09/04)

EPA ignores National Academy of Sciences on tap water contaminants_(04/09/04)

Corps settlement will protect some artificial waterways_(04/09/04)

Forest Service cites "economic emergency" to jumpstart Oregon logging_(04/09/04)

Department of Interior afraid of big bad wolves_(04/08/04)

Fish and Wildlife Service forced to protect endangered plant in California desert_(04/08/04)

Fish and Wildlife Service refuses adequate protection for Pacific fisher_(04/08/04)

White House altered scientific findings on mercury threat_(04/07/04)

Pentagon again seeking immunity from environmental laws_(04/06/04)

Investigator resigns in protest over Interior's cheating Native Americans out of energy royalties_(04/06/04)

Deal cutting wilderness protections in Utah was premeditated_(04/06/04)

EPA lets rat poison industry weaken safety rules_(04/06/04)

Mining cleanup costs vastly exceed Superfund budget_(04/05/04)

Mining company gets price break on federal land_(04/02/04)

Department of Energy agrees to enforce higher efficiency standards for air conditioners_(04/02/04)

EPA overestimating fuel economy data, environmentalists charge_(04/02/04)

Corps proceeds with Missouri River management plan_(04/02/04)

U.S. strong-arms E.U. to back down on chemical safety requirements_(04/01/04)

Mining whistleblower accuses Bush administration of cover-up_(04/01/04)

Court orders release of more energy task force records_(04/01/04)

Formatting's wacky on my screen probably because I have the PowerBook mini. Hey that's what they should call it, and make it in colors. And an inch smaller each way. How awesome would that be. OK back to our regularly scheduled topic already in progress...

[pfflam]

Mountop removal - Bush makes way for its big return (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6462-2004Aug16.html)

A method of Coal Mining that is absolutely destructive to the environment has destroyed over 700 miles of streams and valleys but was regulated so as to lessen its impact finds a new fan in Bush . . . . of course the 900Million dollars from the Coal Mining industry sure helps:

Tidbits from the article: the first dealing with the Mercury issue and the thinly vieled tactics of the Bush administration's anti-environmental stance
The "fill rule," as the May 2002 rule change is now known, is a case study of how the Bush administration has attempted to reshape environmental policy in the face of fierce opposition from environmentalists, citizens groups and political opponents. Rather than proposing broad changes or drafting new legislation, administration officials often have taken existing regulations and made subtle tweaks that carry large consequences.

Sometimes the change hinges on a single critical phrase or definition. For example, when the Environmental Protection Agency announced proposals last year to control mercury emissions, it also moved to downgrade the "hazardous" classification of mercury pollution from power plants -- a seemingly minor change that effectively gave utilities 15 more years to implement the most costly controls. Earlier this year, the Energy Department helped insert wording into a Senate bill to reclassify millions of gallons of "high-level" radioactive waste as "incidental," a change that would spare the government the expense of removing and treating the waste.
Another proposal would scale back the federal government's legal obligation to police state mining agencies, by reclassifying certain duties from "nondiscretionary" to "discretionary."

In October 2001, the Bush administration intervened to change the focus of a federal mining study that was poised to recommend limits on the size of new mountaintop mines. And, in an internal policy change this spring, the administration promulgated guidelines that allow ditches dug by coal companies to serve as substitutes for streams that were being buried by debris.

"They call them 'clarifications,' but it's really all about removing obstacles," said Jack Spadaro, who regulated coal mines for 32 years as a federal mine inspector and senior mining safety officer. "They've made it easier for companies to dump mining waste into streams, and harder for citizens to challenge them."


http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I6798-2004Aug16L
Dude, where's my mountains?

A Huge percentage of the watershed is being filled in and mined out, and we have no idea what the downstream impacts will be," said one senior government scientist who has studied mountaintop mining extensively but insisted on anonymity for fear of repercussions at work. "All we know is that nothing on this scale has ever happened before." What . . . what does that working-guy have to worry about from this nice administration?!
Other impacts are felt downstream. Federal water-quality studies have found substantially higher levels of selenium, a mineral that is toxic to fish in high doses -- in rivers near the mines. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that as many as 244 species, including several that are endangered, were being affected by the loss of forest and aquatic habitats. "The individual and cumulative impacts to both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems are unprecedented," the agency's West Virginia field office concluded in a September 2001 report.
And again to highlight the administration's tactic favorite du jourAfter the election, administration officials publicly promised to remove the legal bureaucratic roadblocks to the mining permits. Newly appointed Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles, a former coal industry lobbyist, made a specific pledge to the West Virginia Coal Association in a speech in August 2001:

"We will fix the federal rules very soon on water and spoil placement," Griles said. .
[size=2] Yet, the final version of the Bush administration's fill rule published in May 2002 contained nearly all the changes the mining industry requested. The definition of "fill" was expanded to include "rock, sand, clay, plastics, construction debris, wood chips and overburden from mining." Only garbage was expressly excluded. .
The administration was taking steps to contain another potential threat to mountaintop mining: the environmental impact study begun under President Bill Clinton to assess the need for limits on the size of future mines.

As part of the study, federal scientists and engineers had spent more than two years documenting damage to Appalachian streams and wildlife. Some panel members had prepared draft recommendations that called for restricting valley fills larger than 250 acres. But Griles, the Interior Department undersecretary, informed panel members in an Oct. 5, 2001, memo that their study lacked the proper focus and needed restructuring. He ordered recommendations for "centralizing and streamlining coal-mine permitting," according to the memo, which the environmental law firm Earthjustice obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

"We do not believe the [study] as currently drafted focuses sufficiently on those goals," Griles wrote.

Scientists who were at work on the report found the change in direction inexplicable, internal memos and e-mails show. "Our proposed approach was subsequently voted down within the executive committee," one Fish and Wildlife Service employee explained to colleagues in a memo, "in part because a decision appears to have been made that even minor modifications to current regulatory practices are now considered to be outside the scope" of the study.
So, don't like the science, then simply order the panel of scientists to write about something else entirely . . . order them to NOT look at the environment!
By the time the Bush administration released the study, all proposals for limiting valley fills had indeed been omitted. And, as Griles had urged, the document's main recommendations called for cutting bureaucratic red tape and speeding up the permitting process.
and the humnan impact is irreparable as well:
"It makes me furious," said Janice Nease, 68, a retired teacher who became an anti-mining activist after her village, a settlement of about 30 homes, was bought and destroyed to make room for a mine. "We keep on plugging away, but it's harder."

For years, Maria Gunnoe, 36, a waitress and single mother, watched nervously as coal companies hacked their way north along a ridge of mountains near the town of Bob White, W.Va. Then, three years ago, the first mining crews arrived on what she calls "my mountain," a rocky ridge called Island Creek Mountain directly above her house, her family's home for three generations.

"I sit here in the evening and listen to the equipment ripping and tearing at the mountain," Gunnoe, a coal miner's daughter, said as she sat on her porch on a late spring afternoon. "It's the same as if they were ripping and tearing at the siding of my house."

She has seen flooding wash away a third of her front yard and destroy the only bridge that connects her property to a public highway. Her car has been vandalized and her children have been bullied because of her outspoken opposition to the mine, she said. Her nerves are raw from the near-constant blasting, which continues even on holidays. "It sends the kids screaming, running through the house. The dogs hit the dirt," she said.

Far worse, she said, is the emotional toll. A peak that served as the natural backdrop for her entire life, the lives of her parents, her grandparents and her two young children is vanishing before her eyes. The family has received offers from coal companies to sell the small wood-frame cottage her father built. Gunnoe says she will never sell, but she wonders how long her family can hold on.

"The true cost of coal is here," she said quietly, staring off into the crisp mountain air, at her mountain. "We pay for it with our lives and our future. And also our past."
I'll never forget a documentary that I saw on the subject several years ago(Bush Senior era): in it there was an old man who had obviously grown up in the mountains reduced to tears and saying "Shame on you shame on you for what you are doing"

[FormerLurker]

Tree Farmers joining with Sierra Club to fight Bush attempts to change logging rules. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/20/roadlesslogging.ap/index.html)

Mark Woodall is an unlikely environmentalist. After all, he makes his living growing trees so he can cut them down.

But Woodall and other small tree farmers are aligning themselves with the Sierra Club and other "green" groups as the White House proceeds with its plan to open roadless forests to commercial logging.

[pfflam]

Golly, what a surprise:

More polluted fish advisories issued (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5808526/)

[faust9]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/08/0827_040827_tvarctic_toxins.html

I guess the science is still out... Let's just roll back all protections and let industry regulate itself. There are a couple of places where I disagree with this opinion. One is when concerning the environment. Most MI hunters agree with me in this regard (at least the 100's I've talked to in my lifetime). Industry wont do what's best for the environment period--but don't tell the gun slinger that. "The Rollback Kid" never saw an environmental reg he didn't want to eliminate...

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
I think the best thing Bush has done for the environment is that he has dropped the "There is not enough data
to believe in global warming" crap for a general silence on the issue all together. This is actually progress, even though the "its time to sell the beach home before prices fall"
policy does nothing to improve the situation.

Hehe. Kind of.
Talk about FLIP FLOPPING (http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5002788-103681,00.html) In a dramatic reversal of its previous position, the White House this week conceded that emissions of carbon
dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were the only likely explanation for global warming.

Citing the "best possible scientific information," an administration official, James Mahoney, delivered a report
to Congress that essentially reversed the previous White House position set out by George Bush, who had refused to link carbon dioxide emissions to climate change. Two years ago, when his administration last published a document claiming that global warming over the last
few decades had been prompted by human behaviour, Mr Bush dismissed it as something "put out by the bureaucracy".

One of Mr Bush's first acts on the international scene as president was to refuse to ratify the Kyoto treaty, which
aimed to cut emissions by 5.2% from 1990 levels by 2012 - prompting outrage throughout the world.

"We must argue with the Americans and get them to agree we have to have a global solution, and America is a
very important part of that solution," the deputy prime minister, John Prescott, said at the time.But Mr Bush also alienated himself from members of
his own cabinet as he overrode the recommendations of his newly-appointed head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Christine Todd Whitman. This was widely seen as a payback to the energy lobby which had donated a huge
amount to his campaign.

At the time Mr Bush cast doubts on the science, claimed restrictions would hamper economic growth, and said
the treaty was "unfair to the United States and to other industrialised nations" because it exempted developing countries.

However, it will be far more difficult for him to distance himself from the current report, because it has been signed by the secretaries of energy and commerce in his administration. Environmentalists say the report's conclusions simply highlight the distance between what the Bush administration
has done and what good science suggests should be done.

Of course, there's a reason they are doing a world class flip flop about Climate Change:Coming just days before the Republican convention opens in New York, it is thought to be another attempt by
the administration to show moderate leanings.

I can't wait to hear the spin coming from the mind controlled droids programmed to defend anything and everything Bush does. We wouldn't happen to have any of those here would we? :D

[bunge]

Maybe he is a good environmental president. What do you think, Nick?

[Aquatic]

Oh and I read now in the newspaper that every state now except Hawaii and Alaska have advisory against eating freshwater fish because of mercury contamination.

Information here http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/

Remember, according to Nick "No one, REPEAT, no one has produced any bit of evidence the environment is actually getting worse in any fashion."

Hey Nick where are those links with Bush doing good things for the environment? (or anything...)

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Oh and I read now in the newspaper that every state now except Hawaii and Alaska have advisory against eating freshwater fish because of mercury contamination.

Information here http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/

Remember, according to Nick "No one, REPEAT, no one has produced any bit of evidence the environment is actually getting worse in any fashion."

Hey Nick where are those links with Bush doing good things for the environment? (or anything...)

No one has produced any bit of evidene the environment is actually getting worse in any fashion UNDER BUSH.

I really hate when people change the question. Note the thread title. The EPA, according to your links has been issuing these advisories for thirteen years.

You should also read your own links a bit better.

The largest single source of human-caused emissions in the US is coal-fired power plants. The Bush Administration is the first administration ever to propose a regulation to reduce these mercury emissions. We are on track to finalize this regulation, called the Clean Air Mercury Rule, on or before March 15, 2005.

I guess Clinton didn't propose or care about mercury in fish for his entire eight year term because he did nothing about it.

All you've shown me is that you are willing to ignore work done by Bush. I don't care how you care to partally or misquote me. All I've ever asked for is proof the environment is getting worse under a Bush administration. You've just provided me with proof and a policy that will make it better.

Nick

[Aquatic]

OK Nick you're right. It's getting worse regardless. Changes in fucking Asia effect us. And our policy effects the environment there. We have to realize we are all connected. And thus, the environment has been getting worse under Bush. The fucking ROADLESS rule for one you dunce. Last time I checked, our population was increasing the last four years, cities were sprawling, trees were being cut down, carrying capacities exceeded. Bush has done nothing good environmentally. Please link if he has. My point is, under John Kerry or another Democrat, it would certainly degrade at a slower rate, if not improve in certain areas. They wouldn't do what Bush did to the "Clean Skies" and Clean Water act. He'd probably put a scientist in charge of the EPA and the EPA would probably manage fisheries, decrease harvesting rates below carrying capacities, other administrations would do what they could to reduce sprawl in the face of population growth, etc. What I would really like to see is a program like China has, to keep population control in check. Overpopulation is the root of every single problem on the face of this Earth. Every problem I can think of. Why is it fair that a family with 10 kids would pay the same taxes and a couple without kids? In fact I bet the kids get them some sort of discount. Now you're a freaking Conservative so you must agree that's nuts. Less than two kids, you should get a tax break. More than two, you should have to pay more, on some sort of scale. Hehe the IRS would rack up some revenue from Utah. :D

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by trumptman
I guess Clinton didn't propose or care about mercury in fish for his entire eight year term because he did nothing about it.

Nick Remember, Google is your friend (unless of course you are attempting to spread misinformation):

http://www.mercola.com/2003/dec/27/mercury_fish.htm
http://www.ospolitics.org/healthenv/archives/2004/04/02/one_trout_.php
http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/children's_environmental_health/121003__great_lakes.htm
the Bush Administration proposed a major rollback of the mercury pollution reduction goals adopted by the Clinton EPA, which will result in much higher levels of mercury pollution over a more prolonged period, increasing the risk of fish contamination.
http://powermarketers.netcontentinc.net/newsreader.asp?ppa=8kowu%5DZgjoqtvnRTfct%3EEvbfej% 5B!
The Clinton administration had wanted to declare mercury a toxic substance and require the use of modern controls to restrict the pollutant at 500 coal plants across the country. The end result would have been a 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions but the plan was scuttled by the Bush administration.
http://www.nylcv.org/ecopolitics/winter2004/articles/03.htm
EPA Eases Mercury Regulations as FDA Issues Mercury Warnings
In December 2000, the EPA concluded that mercury emissions from power plants were a hazardous pollutant that should be controlled under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, which mandated adopting the "maximum available control technology (MACT)."

Until recently, the EPA was on track to propose the MACT rule by Dec. 15, 2003, but, after facing fierce opposition industry, the White House and the EPA are rescinding the December 2000 ruling and reversing the Clinton administration's finding in favor of a more flexible enforcement system.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001880929_mercury17.html
EPA let industry dictate policy on mercury, some staffers contend
Political appointees in the Environmental Protection Agency bypassed the agency's professional staff and a federal advisory panel last year to craft a rule on mercury emissions preferred by the industry and the White House, several longtime EPA officials say.
Mercury was on the agenda at a staff meeting last spring at EPA headquarters presided over by Jeffrey Holmstead, a lawyer who represented industry interests on air-pollution issues before Bush appointed him to run the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. Several of the staff members said they expected to discuss plans to carry out comparative studies of proposals to reduce mercury emissions. The studies, which had been requested by the federal advisory panel, were designed to examine the impact of mercury regulation on energy markets, electricity prices and public health.
But William Wehrum, a senior adviser to Holmstead who also represented industry clients before joining the Bush administration, told the dozen or so employees that comparative studies would be postponed indefinitely.
"I was floored," one participant said. "We pointed out that the studies were required ... that the data runs were promised to a federal advisory committee."
Holmstead did not respond to the expressions of concern, participants said. "There was an awkward silence," one recalled.
After the meeting, two staff members said, Holmstead informed them the studies would not be conducted partly because of "White House concern."

[Aurora]

Originally posted by trumptman
No one has produced any bit of evidene the environment is actually getting worse in any fashion UNDER BUSH.

I really hate when people change the question. Note the thread title. The EPA, according to your links has been issuing these advisories for thirteen years.

You should also read your own links a bit better.



I guess Clinton didn't propose or care about mercury in fish for his entire eight year term because he did nothing about it.

All you've shown me is that you are willing to ignore work done by Bush. I don't care how you care to partally or misquote me. All I've ever asked for is proof the environment is getting worse under a Bush administration. You've just provided me with proof and a policy that will make it better.

Nick Im not going to call you stupid but the world is in a population explosion and burning more Oil then at anytime in history. what comes from burning oil? what comes from clearing rain forests and cutting trees for homes, what are all those SUVS pushing out their tailpipes? and what president has encourage more SUV purchases with tax breaks, Dubya did. mercury is a poison,its in the fish and where did it come from?Polluters, who is easing all the enviroment pollution restrictions? Dubya, who is letting more pesticides float around Dubya......Dubya, Dubya buddy to the polluters and millionaires and screwer of the common people. take off your republican glasses and wake up.

[bunge]

Nick is hiding behind the fact that the effects of environmental travesty usually take years to show.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by bunge
Nick is hiding behind the fact that the effects of environmental travesty usually take years to show. "Effects" meaning, we can't leave the house without a haz-mat suit and air supply? Caring about anything else would just be "kneejerk liberal whining" of course...

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Aquatic
OK Nick you're right. It's getting worse regardless. Changes in fucking Asia effect us. And our policy effects the environment there. We have to realize we are all connected. And thus, the environment has been getting worse under Bush. The fucking ROADLESS rule for one you dunce.

You can call me a dunce. I'll call you a shithead. Are we square now?:D

Last time I checked, our population was increasing the last four years, cities were sprawling, trees were being cut down, carrying capacities exceeded. Bush has done nothing good environmentally.

You complain about the population. Is Kerry going to do anything about immigration? Is going to outlaw having sex now? Cities are sprawling because the population is increasing, mostly due to legal and illegal immigration. Kerry is no different than Bush in that regard. Are we somehow going to stop printing books and newspapers, making furniture, or using wood under Kerry?

Now here's one for ya. Kery raises the CAFE standards for SUV's. This would probably have a net effect of driving consumers to... Japanese cars, just as it has done everytime we have had gas price shocks and raised the standard. Why does this happen? Because the Japanese make many more (and heck, I'll say it, better)sedans while the U.S. companies make many more SUV's and trucks. When we suddenly have GM for example unable to maintain UAW wages, pension and health benefit obligations because of lost sales due to redesigns, attempts to pound into the sedan market against very strong Japanese sales there while at the same time dealing with huge issues or possible just lost sales or inability to makes sales in the area where they were strong, how will this all go over?

How will Kerry keep up his rhetoric on not exporting jobs, or keeping good jobs, etc when U.S. companies are going belly up to the Japanese for no other reason than a change in laws under Kerry?

My point is, under John Kerry or another Democrat, it would certainly degrade at a slower rate, if not improve in certain areas. They wouldn't do what Bush did to the "Clean Skies" and Clean Water act. He'd probably put a scientist in charge of the EPA and the EPA would probably manage fisheries, decrease harvesting rates below carrying capacities, other administrations would do what they could to reduce sprawl in the face of population growth, etc.

I don't recall us not having sprawl, not using trees, or even raising the CAFE standards under Clinton. Most of the actions we debate about Clinton attempting or issuing executive orders about (like arsenic for example) he was sued into action over. Why would I believe Kerry to be any better when I've not seen him addressing population control at all via immigration?

What I would really like to see is a program like China has, to keep population control in check.

You would like to see an authoritarian regime enforce mandatory abortions against the will of the woman carrying them?

And you portray my views as extreme? China is beyond extreme with their population control measures.

What I would really like to see is a program like China has, to keep population control in check.

Population control wouldn't be a problem in the U.S. if we enforced our immgration policies and also simply stopped immigration for a period of years. The native population of the United States has done it's part. They actually have a population rate that is below a sustaining level. It is raise to and above the level by immigration. We both know that countries like Japan and also most of Europe are expected to have their populations decrease in the following decades. But what good will it do if they have to let in the whole third world in some attempt to fund their retirement and pension obligations?

Every problem I can think of. Why is it fair that a family with 10 kids would pay the same taxes and a couple without kids? In fact I bet the kids get them some sort of discount. Now you're a freaking Conservative so you must agree that's nuts. Less than two kids, you should get a tax break. More than two, you should have to pay more, on some sort of scale. Hehe the IRS would rack up some revenue from Utah.

I don't believe in any credits that allow you to be paid money you haven't paid into the system. Both the child tax credit and earned income tax credit allow you to take out "credit" that you never paid in. I've never seen a Democrat take a stand against the EITC and I doubt any of them would against the child tax credit either since it they are both forms of income redistribution. So again, I don't see how electing Kerry would change that.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Oh, Nick.

:)

Just like Clinton "didn't care" about arsenic in water, right?

:p

Check out the paragraph above the one you quoted.

:lol:



That's just silly for you to have missed that.

I didn't miss it. I probably should have put /sarcasm in front of it though. The point was that if you aren't shown to have done "enough" then you don't "care" about the environment.

Sorry if the tone didn't come through well enough.

Nick

[tonton]

Nick, what was that about Clinton, mercury levels and Bush?

I've never seen anyone shut down more solidly about anything on these forums ever.

Admit that you were wrong. I'll take silence as an admission. Of course, you'll try to change the subject and ignore the question.

Actually, this issue is such a clear indication of the environmental harm the Bush administration has cause that I think it wshould be sent to the media. Seriously.

Hey, guys (bunge et al), let's do the research and get this story on 60 minutes. I know we're smart enough to do it.

"Rising mercury levels in our supply of fish". Next on 60 Minutes.

Just in time for the election.

[tonton]

And of course Bush proposed reductions in mercury output for coal fired plants. Coal is not oil and Bush is a one fuel kind of guy.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by tonton
Nick, what was that about Clinton, mercury levels and Bush?

I've never seen anyone shut down more solidly about anything on these forums ever.

Admit that you were wrong. I'll take silence as an admission. Of course, you'll try to change the subject and ignore the question.

Actually, this issue is such a clear indication of the environmental harm the Bush administration has cause that I think it wshould be sent to the media. Seriously.

Hey, guys (bunge et al), let's do the research and get this story on 60 minutes. I know we're smart enough to do it.

"Rising mercury levels in our supply of fish". Next on 60 Minutes.

Just in time for the election.

I'm not clear on your point Tonton. I don't try to ignore people on here. I post as often as I can. But being the "token" conservative means that the twenty of you to one of me can have the effect of an occasional point being overlooked or even thought that I addressed it via someone else.

Nick

[Aquatic]

take off your republican glasses and wake up.

:lol:

Don't forget, they turn things in to black and white too!

OK Nick I should have been more specific. Or maybe you are being disingenuous with your Republican glasses.
You would like to see an authoritarian regime enforce mandatory abortions against the will of the woman carrying them?

And you portray my views as extreme? China is beyond extreme with their population control measures.


NO. Don't be absurd. I support the women's right to choose.

Here's what I said and I guess you didn't see it so I'll cut and paste just for you. The rest of the class can skip to the next chapter.

Why is it fair that a family with 10 kids would pay the same taxes and a couple without kids? In fact I bet the kids get them some sort of discount. Now you're a freaking Conservative so you must agree that's nuts. Less than two kids, you should get a tax break. More than two, you should have to pay more, on some sort of scale. Hehe the IRS would rack up some revenue from Utah.:D

People with more kids should pay more taxes. Period. If you don't have the money, don't have the kids. If you do, maybe we should deport you. You seem to be big on that. And while we're on that topic of immigration/deportation, you obviously don't get where I'm coming from even though it was crystal clear in my last post.
OK Nick you're right. It's getting worse regardless. Changes in fucking Asia effect us. And our policy effects the environment there. We have to realize we are all connected. And thus, the environment has been getting worse under Bush.

What does the statement "we are all connected" mean to you. I meant the whole planet, not just America. You are being subtly and perhaps even unknowingly racist when you suggest we should only care about our environment. Screw poor people, Mexicans, Africans, Asians, etc. Oh and wait, it gets better. Thanks to your lot (the ol' GOP) we are committing genocide. Right here in America! How are those Native Americans doing on reservations with nuclear waste, Army ammo and testing, dioxins, and everything else we don't want in our pretty, WASPy little suburbs. For perspective, go out, take a walk, look at all the litter, and come back and post your thoughts.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by trumptman
being the "token" conservative I rather think of you as the "tokin' conservative" :D

[tonton]

I agree with a "brood tax" for large families.

Up to three kids: Standard deductions for each.

Fourth kid: no more deductions.

Sixth kid: Brood tax.

I'm not a welfare liberal when it comes to family planning. We're already overpopulated.

[bunge]

Screw all the deductions. Flat tax. No other taxes.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by bunge
Screw all the deductions. Flat tax. No other taxes.

nononononononononononononono.

[tonton]

Originally posted by bunge
Screw all the deductions. Flat tax. No other taxes.

Yeah. Right. :rolleyes:

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by tonton
Yeah. Right. :rolleyes: well sure, why not? A family making $30,000 can afford to pay 25% of their income just as easily as a family making $300,000, right?
errr...
wait, maybe NOT

[tonton]

But actually, with all of the deductions for the rich, and with high sales taxes, a flat tax might not hurt the middle class at all. Think about it. With deductions and tax shelters, most super rich don't end up paying high taxes at all.

Sales tax is the greatest burden on the poor and middle classes, though. Property tax doesn't help, either.

But a flat tax would definitely hurt the poor. I'm not talking about the families that earn $30,000. I'm talking about the families that earn $15,000. In fact, it doesn't make sense for those families to work at all, as they'd be earning a higher overall income on welfare. Under $20,000 should definitely not have to pay any taxes, ever. Even sales tax.

Except for luxury tax, of course.

High ticket, non-essential items should always be taxed. But not food. Or toilet paper. Or soap. You know what I mean.

[bunge]

Sorry folks. A 'flat tax' to me doesn't necessarily mean 15% across the board. Call it what ever you like, but you're right, the tax would have to be graded. My point was to get rid of deductions and the tax code mess.