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_fr...chive/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_fr...chive/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

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-re...969F6A7C68DF6F
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=876
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2...4-07-27-09.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:

[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 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. Or rather, no evidence exists of any harm-- none.

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.

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



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 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/conten...a_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!