Fouling our nest
This basically touched the tip where the iceberg begins:
[quote] from the NYTIMES Fouling Our Own Nest
By BOB HERBERT
o you remember the character Pig-Pen in the "Peanuts" cartoons? He was always covered with dirt and grime. He was cute, but he was a walking sludge heap, filthy and proud of it. He once told Charlie Brown, "I have affixed to me the dirt and dust of countless ages. Who am I to disturb history?"
For me, Pig-Pen's attitude embodies President Bush's approach to the environment. We've been trashing, soiling, even destroying the wonders of nature for countless ages. Why stop now? Who is Mr. Bush to step in and curb this venerable orgy of pollution, this grand tradition of fouling our own nest?
Oh, the skies may once have been clear and the waters sparkling and clean. But you can't have that and progress, too. Can you?
This week we learned that the Bush administration plans to cut funding for the cleanup of 33 toxic waste sites in 18 states. As The Times's Katharine Seelye reported, this means "that work is likely to grind to a halt on some of the most seriously polluted sites in the country."
The cuts were ordered because the Superfund toxic waste cleanup program is running out of money. Rather than showing the leadership necessary to replenish the fund, the president plans to reduce its payouts by cleaning up fewer sites. Pig-Pen would have been proud.
This is not a minor matter. The sites targeted by the Superfund program are horribly polluted, in many cases with cancer-causing substances. Millions of Americans live within a few miles of these sites.
The Superfund decision is the kind of environmental move we've come to expect from the Bush administration. Mother Nature has been known to tremble at the sound of the president's approaching footsteps. He's an environmental disaster zone.
In February a top enforcement official at the Environmental Protection Agency, Eric Schaeffer, quit because of Bush administration policies that he said undermined the agency's efforts to crack down on industrial polluters. Mr. Schaeffer said he felt he was "fighting a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce."
That, of course, is exactly what this White House is doing. Within weeks of Mr. Schaeffer's resignation came official word that the administration was relaxing the air quality regulations that applied to older coal-fired power plants, a step backward that delighted the administration's industrial pals.
During this same period, the president broke his campaign promise to regulate the industrial emissions of carbon dioxide, a move that, among other things, would have helped in the fight to slow the increase in global warming. Mr. Bush has also turned his back on the Kyoto Protocol, which would require industrial nations to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The president was even disdainful of his own administration's report on global warming, which acknowledged that the U.S. would experience far-reaching and, in some cases, devastating environmental consequences as a result of the climate change.
The president's views on global warming seem aligned with those of the muddle-headed conservative groups in Texas that have been forcing rewrites in textbooks to fit their political and spiritual agendas. In one environmental science textbook, the following was added:
"In the past, the earth has been much warmer than it is now, and fossils of sea creatures show us that the sea level was much higher than it is today. So does it really matter if the world gets warmer?"
Senator Joseph Lieberman, not exactly a left-winger on the environment or anything else, gave a speech in California in February in which he assailed the president's lack of leadership on global warming and other environmental issues. He characterized the president's energy policy as "mired in crude oil" and said Mr. Bush had been "AWOL in the war against environmental pollution."
Several states, fed up with Mr. Bush's capitulation to industry on these matters, have moved on their own to protect the environment and develop more progressive energy policies.
Simply stated, the president has behaved irresponsibly toward the environment and shows no sign of changing his ways. You could laugh at Pig-Pen. He was just a comic strip character. But Mr. Bush is no joke. His trashing of the environment is a deadly serious matter.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote] from the NYTIMES Fouling Our Own Nest
By BOB HERBERT
o you remember the character Pig-Pen in the "Peanuts" cartoons? He was always covered with dirt and grime. He was cute, but he was a walking sludge heap, filthy and proud of it. He once told Charlie Brown, "I have affixed to me the dirt and dust of countless ages. Who am I to disturb history?"
For me, Pig-Pen's attitude embodies President Bush's approach to the environment. We've been trashing, soiling, even destroying the wonders of nature for countless ages. Why stop now? Who is Mr. Bush to step in and curb this venerable orgy of pollution, this grand tradition of fouling our own nest?
Oh, the skies may once have been clear and the waters sparkling and clean. But you can't have that and progress, too. Can you?
This week we learned that the Bush administration plans to cut funding for the cleanup of 33 toxic waste sites in 18 states. As The Times's Katharine Seelye reported, this means "that work is likely to grind to a halt on some of the most seriously polluted sites in the country."
The cuts were ordered because the Superfund toxic waste cleanup program is running out of money. Rather than showing the leadership necessary to replenish the fund, the president plans to reduce its payouts by cleaning up fewer sites. Pig-Pen would have been proud.
This is not a minor matter. The sites targeted by the Superfund program are horribly polluted, in many cases with cancer-causing substances. Millions of Americans live within a few miles of these sites.
The Superfund decision is the kind of environmental move we've come to expect from the Bush administration. Mother Nature has been known to tremble at the sound of the president's approaching footsteps. He's an environmental disaster zone.
In February a top enforcement official at the Environmental Protection Agency, Eric Schaeffer, quit because of Bush administration policies that he said undermined the agency's efforts to crack down on industrial polluters. Mr. Schaeffer said he felt he was "fighting a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce."
That, of course, is exactly what this White House is doing. Within weeks of Mr. Schaeffer's resignation came official word that the administration was relaxing the air quality regulations that applied to older coal-fired power plants, a step backward that delighted the administration's industrial pals.
During this same period, the president broke his campaign promise to regulate the industrial emissions of carbon dioxide, a move that, among other things, would have helped in the fight to slow the increase in global warming. Mr. Bush has also turned his back on the Kyoto Protocol, which would require industrial nations to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The president was even disdainful of his own administration's report on global warming, which acknowledged that the U.S. would experience far-reaching and, in some cases, devastating environmental consequences as a result of the climate change.
The president's views on global warming seem aligned with those of the muddle-headed conservative groups in Texas that have been forcing rewrites in textbooks to fit their political and spiritual agendas. In one environmental science textbook, the following was added:
"In the past, the earth has been much warmer than it is now, and fossils of sea creatures show us that the sea level was much higher than it is today. So does it really matter if the world gets warmer?"
Senator Joseph Lieberman, not exactly a left-winger on the environment or anything else, gave a speech in California in February in which he assailed the president's lack of leadership on global warming and other environmental issues. He characterized the president's energy policy as "mired in crude oil" and said Mr. Bush had been "AWOL in the war against environmental pollution."
Several states, fed up with Mr. Bush's capitulation to industry on these matters, have moved on their own to protect the environment and develop more progressive energy policies.
Simply stated, the president has behaved irresponsibly toward the environment and shows no sign of changing his ways. You could laugh at Pig-Pen. He was just a comic strip character. But Mr. Bush is no joke. His trashing of the environment is a deadly serious matter.
<hr></blockquote>
Comments
- T.I.
<strong>Part of this is George W Bush failing to ratify the US joining the Kyoto protocol when the US is responsible for the largest proportion of CO2 emissions in the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Senate ratifies treaties, not the President. And, Kyoto is seriously flawed.
[ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
The Senate ratifies treaties, not the President. And, Kyoto is seriously flawed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It was, however, submitted to a test vote (in 1998, I think). It failed to get a SINGLE vote in the Senate but for some idiot reason Bush is held responsible for the Kyoto fiasco.
<strong>...but for some idiot reason Bush is held responsible for the Kyoto fiasco.
- T.I.
<strong>Bush seems to be able to push lots of other stuff through though, no?
- T.I.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not a SINGLE vote. And not only was that when Clinton was still in office but it was only a test vote. It was free opportunity for a Senator to burnish his or her environmental credentials and they ALL passed on it. Just how much political power do you think Bush has? He can't even get Miguel Estrada's nomination (to the DC Circuit) to the floor for a vote.
This is why I have so little respect for much of what passes for environmentalism these days. That test vote should send up a huge, freaking, red flag but instead of addressing the treaty's problems, people would rather just blame Bush. It's ALL politics and zero substance.
<strong>This is why I have so little respect for much of what passes for environmentalism these days. That test vote should send up a huge, freaking, red flag but instead of addressing the treaty's problems, people would rather just blame Bush. It's ALL politics and zero substance.</strong><hr></blockquote>You have it exactly backwards. It was BUSH that didn't want to address the treaty's problems, not his critics. Everybody BUT Bush wanted to improve the treaty.
Kyoto was not just a single static treaty - it was a negotiation framework. Of course it wasn't going to pass as it was back then. That's why it was continuing to be re-negotiated. But Bush refused to even do that, and that's why he was criticized. His critics were asking for him to propose an alternative.
Apparently, even he realized he was wrong, because he's since reversed himself and says that he'll continue negotiations within the Kyoto framework.
Of course Kyoto's all about politics. That's exactly what it's about. We can do anything we want alone. The whole point of a treaty like that is to put political pressure on other countries to do something, too. By refusing to try to improve the treaty, Bush got political pressure. Surprise, surprise.
And I think he knew exactly what was going to happen, and it's exactly what he wanted. Criticism from environmentalists and Europeans? In his constituency, that wins, not loses. Even if it derails something that could eventually be beneficial.
<strong>You have it exactly backwards...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, right. This is such gold-plated bullsh!t.
[quote]<strong>Kyoto was not just a single static treaty - it was a negotiation framework. Of course it wasn't going to pass as it was back then. That's why it was continuing to be re-negotiated. But Bush refused to even do that, and that's why he was criticized. His critics were asking for him to propose an alternative...</strong><hr></blockquote>
He did. But don't let the facts disturb you.
[quote]<strong>Apparently, even he realized he was wrong, because he's since reversed himself and says that he'll continue negotiations within the Kyoto framework...</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are you talking about?
[quote]<strong>Of course Kyoto's all about politics. That's exactly what it's about. We can do anything we want alone. The whole point of a treaty like that is to put political pressure on other countries to do something, too. By refusing to try to improve the treaty, Bush got political pressure. Surprise, surprise.
And I think he knew exactly what was going to happen, and it's exactly what he wanted. Criticism from environmentalists and Europeans? In his constituency, that wins, not loses. Even if it derails something that could eventually be beneficial.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Typical argument from you. It's all about Bush's bad faith, isn't it? Here's a newsflash for you. Bush doesn't win politically by appeasing only those who already voted for him. He wins by appealing to swing voters. The environment is an important issue for those voters.
Kyoto was a bad deal. The only improvement to it came precisely because Bush pulled out of it. Japan was wavering and in order not to lose another important country a concession was made regarding the role of carbon sinks in meeting Kyoto's goals. That concession didn't make Kyoto into something beneficial, however. It just painted over some of the problems.
<strong>Yeah, right. This is such gold-plated bullsh!t.</strong><hr></blockquote>Oh, OK. Good argument. I know, it must hurt to get caught with your facts down. Clinton "opposed Kyoto" too. But he kept the US in negotiations. Bush wanted to drop all negotiations. So who wanted to improve it, and who didn't?
[quote]What are you talking about?<hr></blockquote>I'm talking about what you clearly don't understand - that "Kyoto" was not a specific treaty, but a negotiating framework under UN auspices. Bush initially said he was abandoning the entire framework, but has now apparently continued to allow the US to be involved in the UN process.
[quote]He did. But don't let the facts disturb you.<hr></blockquote>Yes, just a few months ago, and his only formal proposals have been outside the context of the existing negotiations. Again, his critics wanted him to propose changes to the existing framework, as Clinton had done. But don't let reality intrude on your delusions.
[quote]Typical argument from you. It's all about Bush's bad faith, isn't it?<hr></blockquote>1. Making political debates personal is typical from you.
2. I didn't argue it was "bad faith." I argued it was politics.
[quote]Here's a newsflash for you. Bush doesn't win politically by appeasing only those who already voted for him. He wins by appealing to swing voters. The environment is an important issue for those voters.<hr></blockquote>Bush may or may not believe that. He appears to waiver back and forth on the issue.
<strong>
Oh, OK. Good argument. I know, it must hurt to get caught with your facts down. Clinton "opposed Kyoto" too. But he kept the US in negotiations. Bush wanted to drop all negotiations. So who wanted to improve it, and who didn't?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You didn?t refute anything that I wrote. Show me where I wrote a single word about what Clinton did or did not do. And as for Clinton?s desire to change the treaty, that?s all well and good but what did he actually change about it?
[quote]<strong>I'm talking about what you clearly don't understand - that "Kyoto" was not a specific treaty, but a negotiating framework under UN auspices...</strong><hr></blockquote>
If this is true you?d better notify the NY Times and the Washington Post among others. They have both described the Kyoto Protocol as a treaty. Who ratifies a framework?
[quote]<strong>Bush initially said he was abandoning the entire framework, but has now apparently continued to allow the US to be involved in the UN process...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Abandoning Kyoto doesn?t mean abandoning the U.N. Bush proposed an alternative to Kyoto. He did precisely what his critics and you said he didn?t do. There will probably be areas his proposals mesh with what the U.N. is trying to do. That doesn?t mean that Kyoto is anything but a dead letter in the Bush administration.
[quote]<strong>Yes, just a few months ago, and his only formal proposals have been outside the context of the existing negotiations...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. It?s an alternative to Kyoto.
[quote]<strong>Again, his critics wanted him to propose changes to the existing framework, as Clinton had done. But don't let reality intrude on your delusions...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, what changes did Clinton achieve?
[quote]<strong>1. Making political debates personal is typical from you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You got personal with me the other day over at MacNN and you?re doing it again here. It?s a habit with you. And then you blame me for what you do. It's getting old - real old.
[quote]<strong>2. I didn't argue it was "bad faith." I argued it was politics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You didn?t use the words ?bad faith? but that?s what you were arguing.
[ 07-07-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
Bush's alternative is US-only, not a Kyoto alternative. It makes no attempt to get other countries to reduce emissions. The global climate change convention is a framework for international discussion about how to reduce global warming. Kyoto was just one manifestation of it - the negotiations could continue, and the Kyoto specifics would change. Bush refused to even continue with talks. That's what Europeans and others were ticked off about. Not that he would want to change the specifics of Kyoto. Everyone knew that, because even Clinton wanted it changed.
About Clinton: He proposed the emissions-trading idea, and said the US would never accept binding reductions unless China & India did, two things that Bush would also favor.
spaceman, you get in personal, bitter fights with everybody with whom you disagree. I respond in kind, using language that you already used in the same thread. If you don't see that, you need a dose of self-awareness.
I even sent you a couple of nice private messages in the past because we've debated politics for a year or two here. In return, you've sent me numerous nasty personal ones in the middle of on-board debates. So now you're on my ignore list. Do you burn all your bridges in real life, too?
<strong>Bush abandoned any further negotiations, whereas his critics wanted him to propose changes. So arguing that Bush wanted to improve Kyoto...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't say that. So arguing that I did is exactly upside down.
[quote]<strong>About Clinton: He proposed the emissions-trading idea, and said the US would never accept binding reductions unless China & India did, two things that Bush would also favor. </strong><hr></blockquote>
But what did he achieve? If his way is superior, where are the results?
[quote]<strong>spaceman, you get in personal, bitter fights with everybody with whom you disagree. I respond in kind, using language that you already used in the same thread.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And the language I used was almost word for word what another poster first said to me. Somehow that didn't merit a comment from you. You are real good at putting me under a magnifying glass, though.
[quote]<strong>... Do you burn all your bridges in real life, too?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tell me again about my lack of self awareness. Burn bridges? I didn't put you on my ignore list. Hey, if that works for you, fine.
[ 07-07-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>