or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush is the best environmental President ever
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush is the best environmental President ever - Page 3

post #81 of 145
Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #82 of 145
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
post #83 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
But again, no evidence of a worsening environment

\

There are literally hundreds of examples like EPA will not regulate dioxins from sewage sludge or Ignoring health risks, EPA choses not to ban dangerous weed killer or EPA sticking with unsafe percholate level or EPA cooks fish data to allow more pollution. 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.
post #84 of 145
Quote:
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?

Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #85 of 145
Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #86 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
\

There are literally hundreds of examples like EPA will not regulate dioxins from sewage sludge or Ignoring health risks, EPA choses not to ban dangerous weed killer or EPA sticking with unsafe percholate level or EPA cooks fish data to allow more pollution. 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?

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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #87 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Perplexing... isn't doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result considered proof of insanity?

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

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?
post #88 of 145
Quote:
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.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #89 of 145
Facts, Figures, Statistics, with citings

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".
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #90 of 145
Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #91 of 145
Thread Starter 
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/jul2...4-07-13-10.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!
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #92 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Facts, Figures, Statistics, with citings

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?


Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #93 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
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?


Nick

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.
post #94 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Facts, Figures, Statistics, with citings

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.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #95 of 145
Quote:
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/jul2...4-07-13-10.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!

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

Also look at this...

Quote:
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...

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #96 of 145
Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #97 of 145
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.
post #98 of 145
Thread Starter 
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

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.

Quote:
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.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #99 of 145
Quote:
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, 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

Never mind . . . industry knows best . . .

. best how to make a buck
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #100 of 145
Quote:
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?tmp...nationalforest
post #101 of 145
Quote:
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/...&ei=ISO-8859-1
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #102 of 145
Quote:
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/...&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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #103 of 145
Thread Starter 


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.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #104 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
So if the RNC site links to Washington Times, New York Post, Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal, etc you would accept the source?

Nick

It would be a better starting point for discussion of your viewpoint than what you've currently linked to-- but that's not saying very much. Still, I'm not sure your viewpoint has much backing at all, given that most conservative pro-business advocates think of the interests of business and the interests of the environment as mutually exclusive-- that is, one has to suffer at the expense of the other. As John Kerry said (paraphrased), good environmental policy is good economics, especially if you want to get into sustainability arguments. (Many environmentalists believe the current trajectory of business affairs in the world is unsustainable.) But my point here is that most of the literature you'll find will simply project a myopic view that protecting the environment just isn't worth the cost. So it's curious why you'd argue that no environmental harm resulted from his policies.
post #105 of 145


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

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #106 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman


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.
post #107 of 145
Thread Starter 
Nick can't read he just looks at the pretty pictures. And it's hard to see color through those black and white glasses.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #108 of 145
Thread Starter 
And he screwed up the formatting.

Here. http://www.defenders.org/defendersma...er04/view.html

Quote:
"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.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #109 of 145
Thread Starter 
www.defenders.org is a great site, that was a tiny fraction of the crap Bushies are pulling.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #110 of 145
Quote:
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:



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/...ate_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.
post #111 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
And he screwed up the formatting.

Here. http://www.defenders.org/defendersma...er04/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.

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

Sulfur

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

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #112 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
There I posted two. From a source you endorse even.

Nick



Two.

post #113 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ


Two.


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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #114 of 145
Thread Starter 
Hmm those links aren't doing much to convince me.
Quote:
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...
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #115 of 145
Mountop removal - Bush makes way for its big return

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
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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."



Dude, where's my mountains?

Quote:
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?!
Quote:
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 jour
Quote:
[size=2]After 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.

.
Quote:
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.

.
Quote:
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!
Quote:
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:
Quote:
"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"
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #116 of 145
Tree Farmers joining with Sierra Club to fight Bush attempts to change logging rules.

Quote:
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.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #117 of 145
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #118 of 145
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ic_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...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #119 of 145
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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:
Quote:
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?
post #120 of 145
Maybe he is a good environmental president. What do you think, Nick?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush is the best environmental President ever