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. Nick
Yeah, all 'those people' throwing rhetoric around . . like SCIENTISTS throwing their science around . . . and Nobel scientists . . . who do they think they are?!
They never ran a company! . . . . what do they know?!
Better environmental president, well environmentally I think Bush has done quite well.
So I certainly cannot believe Kerry would do anything more for the environment.
Bush is roundly considered a terrible President in terms of his record on the environment. Check out NRDC, The League of Conservation Voters, Greenpeace, and The Sierra Club-- which are independent organizations committed to the environment. "Quite well," indeed, if you consider "F's" and "D's" the pinnacle of achievement. Your judgment is demonstrably skewed by whatever sense of loyalty you may feel towards the President. And the fact that you see Kerry as no better or even worse than President Bush in terms of environmental policy disturbs me. Check out his entire plan for the environment (PDF) and tell me if you see a difference or two.
Nick you make good points about immigration and I agree. I hope someday the world unifies in to one country but for now I don't like the way immigration works either. It's a complex issue. However, although related, not what I'm tackling.
If you think Bush has done well environmentally you are either stupid or lying.
This is my major. At first I was going to be marine bio, now natural resource management and economics. I know more about it than you. Do you sit through multiple classes on the environment every day? Tell us about the ESA or NEPA. A lot of us here, being liberal, care about the environment, and know more about it than you. I'm not being arrogant, just saying you should listen to people when they are trying to teach you. Like I listen in a thread about CPU design to Programmer. (Because that's way over my head!)
Bush is the worst environmental President ever. Search for "bush worst environmental President ever" in Google. And don't respond with some dumb post about semantics.
The arsenic example I am familiar with. Yes Clinton lowered the limit. Bush promised he wouldn't let that pass but he did. I picked that example earlier. It was a poor example. Sorry. Let's pick a better one.
Off to google.
Clear Skies Act. That's like calling it Microsoft Works. Hah.
OK I don't really need to do this I'm sure you know how to use Google.
A guy who started a war over oil is not a good environmental President. When is war EVER good for the environment? No one ever thinks about war's impact on the environment but it's bad. Iraq is a desert, granted. Geez remember Agent Orange in Vietnam though? Ouch. But the Army consumes a vast amount of resources.
By this I mean, idealogically, where does George Bush fit into the repbuclican platform.
I kind of understand the traditional republican (and very much sympathize with them). The are against government interference in our private lives, are fiscal conservatives and support the constitution. Bush, by contrast, is creating out of thin air all sorts of extra-constitutional powers, is raising the debt as fast or faster than Reagan and with the patriot act is expanding police powers far beyond previous limits.
My question, is support for GWB simply pragmatism (George is our guy, no matter how ugly his behavior) or is GWB breaking new ground in conservative thought in favor of large deficits and in favor of extensive intervention in private lives and in favor of modifying the constitution? Does the promise of security trump the Bill of Rights? Is the US the new Italy?
Nick you make good points about immigration and I agree. I hope someday the world unifies in to one country but for now I don't like the way immigration works either. It's a complex issue. However, although related, not what I'm tackling.
If you think Bush has done well environmentally you are either stupid or lying.
This is my major. At first I was going to be marine bio, now natural resource management and economics. I know more about it than you. Do you sit through multiple classes on the environment every day? Tell us about the ESA or NEPA. A lot of us here, being liberal, care about the environment, and know more about it than you. I'm not being arrogant, just saying you should listen to people when they are trying to teach you. Like I listen in a thread about CPU design to Programmer. (Because that's way over my head!)
Bush is the worst environmental President ever. Search for "bush worst environmental President ever" in Google. And don't respond with some dumb post about semantics.
The arsenic example I am familiar with. Yes Clinton lowered the limit. Bush promised he wouldn't let that pass but he did. I picked that example earlier. It was a poor example. Sorry. Let's pick a better one.
Off to google.
Clear Skies Act. That's like calling it Microsoft Works. Hah.
OK I don't really need to do this I'm sure you know how to use Google.
A guy who started a war over oil is not a good environmental President. When is war EVER good for the environment? No one ever thinks about war's impact on the environment but it's bad. Iraq is a desert, granted. Geez remember Agent Orange in Vietnam though? Ouch. But the Army consumes a vast amount of resources.
NIck what's your major.
My major is music education. A search on this site would have turned that up for you. (speaking of searching)
As for starting a war, again Kerry voted for that war. So how can you convince me that he would have supported something more friendly to the environment when he voted for the war? He can claim whatever he would like now but the point is he voted for the war and the environmental concerns that went with it.
Now I'll give my criteria as well and you can find some evidence addressing it. First understand that many environmental groups are very inflexible in their views. You either give them 100% of what they ask for or you are "killing the planet." This is because many of them have the view not that we should conserve our resources and be good stewards, but that the planet should be pristine and free of any footprint from human inhabitation.
So use this criteria and tell me how we are doing. Is our water any dirtier today than it was during the eight years of the Clinton era? Not, gee we wanted treatment down to 2 ppb on something and Bush wouldn't do it so he hates the planet. Rather can you find me anything that says our water is getting more polluted today than it was during the Clinton era.
Secondly, same with the air.
Here I'll even give you a perfect example, likely addressing your concerns. It is even an example that looks very bad for Bush and probably is from a group you would support.
Now note the language. The current levels of mercury are still the same as they were. The fight is over when the reduction will occur. All that wonderful "Mercury, It's What's for Dinner" type stuff shows that the level has been the same for the last 12+ years. The fight is over when or if a reduction will occur. Either way the reductions don't occur until 2008.
Note that even in when Bush does right by the group, he doesn't get any credit. It mentions the sulfur requirement was issued in December of 2000. Gee that Clinton sure became environmentally friendly his LAST MONTH IN OFFICE. Again Bush had to due the actual heavy lifting regard the reduction. However he gets no credit for the actual work involved. Rather the opposite. He gets accused of trying to take credit, just like with arsenic.
Now also take note of this...
Quote:
Leavitt signed a new rule to reduce soot and smog-forming pollution from power plants, but at a much slower rate than under previous EPA standards.[2]
Again is the air getting cleaner or dirtier? It is still getting cleaner, but apparently at a slower rate.
Now back the mercury discussion, it appears that the biggest Mercury polluters are power plants. When Bush first came to office Cheney proposed looking quite hard at dramatically increasing the use of nuclear power. I know again, that there is quite the large rift in the environmental community about nuclear power between the conserve/steward and no footprint crowd.
The point is we need power, the level of pollution we create while making is still going down and we are still having discussions about the timeline for how fast the pollution levels should drop, and what we should use as alternatives. The pollution coming from the plants and fuels is getting lower/cleaner over time, not higher.
Also, seriously environmental groups should give credit where due. Signing a bill in the last month of your term doesn't make one an environmental steward. Likewise doing the actual work on those standards should give one credit instead of pure animosity.
Your mercury news is all askew. . . maybe in Ca it is not problem, but up here, in the Great Lakes, and 10,000 lakes area we are hearing more and more and more that we can NOT eat fish from the lakes due to mercury contamination . . . and/or are warned that levels are far higer than previous tests and we should at least limit ourselves to a fish a week.
Nick I didn't even read your post. BUSH IS THE WORST ENVIRONMENTAL PRESIDENT EVER. PERIOD. There is NO room for debate or semantics. And yes making a lot of woods areas national landmarks DOES make you a steward.
That would be like us liberals trying to say Clinton is honest and has good family values.
Your mercury news is all askew. . . maybe in Ca it is not problem, but up here, in the Great Lakes, and 10,000 lakes area we are hearing more and more and more that we can NOT eat fish from the lakes due to mercury contamination . . . and/or are warned that levels are far higer than previous tests and we should at least limit ourselves to a fish a week.
Hello Pfflam,
Thanks for limiting the personal attack to my news only being all askew.
The advisories I have read relate to small children and pregnant women. The advisories are not because of any sort of increase in mercury levels, but rather because (this according to your own links) the EPA has been charged with studying the effects of mercury since 1990 and have determined that they could possibly be harmed.
Bush, the evil hate the environment president, has still proposed the mercury levels be dropped 70%. However the argument is about the amount and the timeline. The critics believe that cost be damned, and we could reduce emissions 90% immediately. Note that the EPA still hasn't even issued their guidelines for mercury levels yet. Bush waited for their guidelines for arsenic levels and followed them.
I read your idaho link, but I don't quite understand how it relates to Bush. It seems a local water issue that is being handled at the city level. I wasn't aware that Bush was a Lilac City official.
The point is that Bush is being portrayed as raising mercury levels when the reality is that he has proposed lowering them 70%. He has done this BEFORE the EPA has issued their final guidelines (at least according the links your provided which I read) and he could still propose dropping the rates farther even faster.
Nick I didn't even read your post. BUSH IS THE WORST ENVIRONMENTAL PRESIDENT EVER. PERIOD. There is NO room for debate or semantics. And yes making a lot of woods areas national landmarks DOES make you a steward.
That would be like us liberals trying to say Clinton is honest and has good family values.
Well I suppose there is not point in having a one-sided conversation.
As for creating national parks, you do realize they are not making any more of this land stuff and eventually we will come up against limits. In California for example 55% of the entire state is a state or national park. I suppose you might be happy if we just declared all land goverment owned and moved right on the the purging of all illegal thought.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
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. Nick
Yeah, all 'those people' throwing rhetoric around . . like SCIENTISTS throwing their science around . . . and Nobel scientists . . . who do they think they are?!
They never ran a company! . . . . what do they know?!
Originally posted by trumptman
Better environmental president, well environmentally I think Bush has done quite well.
So I certainly cannot believe Kerry would do anything more for the environment.
Bush is roundly considered a terrible President in terms of his record on the environment. Check out NRDC, The League of Conservation Voters, Greenpeace, and The Sierra Club-- which are independent organizations committed to the environment. "Quite well," indeed, if you consider "F's" and "D's" the pinnacle of achievement. Your judgment is demonstrably skewed by whatever sense of loyalty you may feel towards the President. And the fact that you see Kerry as no better or even worse than President Bush in terms of environmental policy disturbs me. Check out his entire plan for the environment (PDF) and tell me if you see a difference or two.
Originally posted by trumptman
/ignore
Nick
If you think Bush has done well environmentally you are either stupid or lying.
This is my major. At first I was going to be marine bio, now natural resource management and economics. I know more about it than you. Do you sit through multiple classes on the environment every day? Tell us about the ESA or NEPA. A lot of us here, being liberal, care about the environment, and know more about it than you. I'm not being arrogant, just saying you should listen to people when they are trying to teach you. Like I listen in a thread about CPU design to Programmer. (Because that's way over my head!)
Bush is the worst environmental President ever. Search for "bush worst environmental President ever" in Google. And don't respond with some dumb post about semantics.
The arsenic example I am familiar with. Yes Clinton lowered the limit. Bush promised he wouldn't let that pass but he did. I picked that example earlier. It was a poor example. Sorry. Let's pick a better one.
Off to google.
Clear Skies Act. That's like calling it Microsoft Works. Hah.
Clean Water Act. well go to http://www.savethecleanwateract.org/
The National Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
OK I don't really need to do this I'm sure you know how to use Google.
A guy who started a war over oil is not a good environmental President. When is war EVER good for the environment? No one ever thinks about war's impact on the environment but it's bad. Iraq is a desert, granted. Geez remember Agent Orange in Vietnam though? Ouch. But the Army consumes a vast amount of resources.
NIck what's your major.
By this I mean, idealogically, where does George Bush fit into the repbuclican platform.
I kind of understand the traditional republican (and very much sympathize with them). The are against government interference in our private lives, are fiscal conservatives and support the constitution. Bush, by contrast, is creating out of thin air all sorts of extra-constitutional powers, is raising the debt as fast or faster than Reagan and with the patriot act is expanding police powers far beyond previous limits.
My question, is support for GWB simply pragmatism (George is our guy, no matter how ugly his behavior) or is GWB breaking new ground in conservative thought in favor of large deficits and in favor of extensive intervention in private lives and in favor of modifying the constitution? Does the promise of security trump the Bill of Rights? Is the US the new Italy?
Originally posted by Aquatic
Nick you make good points about immigration and I agree. I hope someday the world unifies in to one country but for now I don't like the way immigration works either. It's a complex issue. However, although related, not what I'm tackling.
If you think Bush has done well environmentally you are either stupid or lying.
This is my major. At first I was going to be marine bio, now natural resource management and economics. I know more about it than you. Do you sit through multiple classes on the environment every day? Tell us about the ESA or NEPA. A lot of us here, being liberal, care about the environment, and know more about it than you. I'm not being arrogant, just saying you should listen to people when they are trying to teach you. Like I listen in a thread about CPU design to Programmer. (Because that's way over my head!)
Bush is the worst environmental President ever. Search for "bush worst environmental President ever" in Google. And don't respond with some dumb post about semantics.
The arsenic example I am familiar with. Yes Clinton lowered the limit. Bush promised he wouldn't let that pass but he did. I picked that example earlier. It was a poor example. Sorry. Let's pick a better one.
Off to google.
Clear Skies Act. That's like calling it Microsoft Works. Hah.
Clean Water Act. well go to http://www.savethecleanwateract.org/
The National Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
OK I don't really need to do this I'm sure you know how to use Google.
A guy who started a war over oil is not a good environmental President. When is war EVER good for the environment? No one ever thinks about war's impact on the environment but it's bad. Iraq is a desert, granted. Geez remember Agent Orange in Vietnam though? Ouch. But the Army consumes a vast amount of resources.
NIck what's your major.
My major is music education. A search on this site would have turned that up for you.
As for starting a war, again Kerry voted for that war. So how can you convince me that he would have supported something more friendly to the environment when he voted for the war? He can claim whatever he would like now but the point is he voted for the war and the environmental concerns that went with it.
Now I'll give my criteria as well and you can find some evidence addressing it. First understand that many environmental groups are very inflexible in their views. You either give them 100% of what they ask for or you are "killing the planet." This is because many of them have the view not that we should conserve our resources and be good stewards, but that the planet should be pristine and free of any footprint from human inhabitation.
So use this criteria and tell me how we are doing. Is our water any dirtier today than it was during the eight years of the Clinton era? Not, gee we wanted treatment down to 2 ppb on something and Bush wouldn't do it so he hates the planet. Rather can you find me anything that says our water is getting more polluted today than it was during the Clinton era.
Secondly, same with the air.
Here I'll even give you a perfect example, likely addressing your concerns. It is even an example that looks very bad for Bush and probably is from a group you would support.
Bushwatch
Now note the language. The current levels of mercury are still the same as they were. The fight is over when the reduction will occur. All that wonderful "Mercury, It's What's for Dinner" type stuff shows that the level has been the same for the last 12+ years. The fight is over when or if a reduction will occur. Either way the reductions don't occur until 2008.
Note that even in when Bush does right by the group, he doesn't get any credit. It mentions the sulfur requirement was issued in December of 2000. Gee that Clinton sure became environmentally friendly his LAST MONTH IN OFFICE. Again Bush had to due the actual heavy lifting regard the reduction. However he gets no credit for the actual work involved. Rather the opposite. He gets accused of trying to take credit, just like with arsenic.
Now also take note of this...
Leavitt signed a new rule to reduce soot and smog-forming pollution from power plants, but at a much slower rate than under previous EPA standards.[2]
Again is the air getting cleaner or dirtier? It is still getting cleaner, but apparently at a slower rate.
Now back the mercury discussion, it appears that the biggest Mercury polluters are power plants. When Bush first came to office Cheney proposed looking quite hard at dramatically increasing the use of nuclear power. I know again, that there is quite the large rift in the environmental community about nuclear power between the conserve/steward and no footprint crowd.
The point is we need power, the level of pollution we create while making is still going down and we are still having discussions about the timeline for how fast the pollution levels should drop, and what we should use as alternatives. The pollution coming from the plants and fuels is getting lower/cleaner over time, not higher.
Also, seriously environmental groups should give credit where due. Signing a bill in the last month of your term doesn't make one an environmental steward. Likewise doing the actual work on those standards should give one credit instead of pure animosity.
Nick
PDF
Idaho River
EPA lifts Mercury report directly from Corporate (Log and pass=appleinsider)
PDF on dirty power plants and Bush
Report from THE LEAGUE OF CONSERVATIVE VOTERS
etc etc . . . fish in a barrel
That would be like us liberals trying to say Clinton is honest and has good family values.
Originally posted by pfflam
Your mercury news is all askew. . . maybe in Ca it is not problem, but up here, in the Great Lakes, and 10,000 lakes area we are hearing more and more and more that we can NOT eat fish from the lakes due to mercury contamination . . . and/or are warned that levels are far higer than previous tests and we should at least limit ourselves to a fish a week.
Hello Pfflam,
Thanks for limiting the personal attack to my news only being all askew.
The advisories I have read relate to small children and pregnant women. The advisories are not because of any sort of increase in mercury levels, but rather because (this according to your own links) the EPA has been charged with studying the effects of mercury since 1990 and have determined that they could possibly be harmed.
Bush, the evil hate the environment president, has still proposed the mercury levels be dropped 70%. However the argument is about the amount and the timeline. The critics believe that cost be damned, and we could reduce emissions 90% immediately. Note that the EPA still hasn't even issued their guidelines for mercury levels yet. Bush waited for their guidelines for arsenic levels and followed them.
I read your idaho link, but I don't quite understand how it relates to Bush. It seems a local water issue that is being handled at the city level. I wasn't aware that Bush was a Lilac City official.
The point is that Bush is being portrayed as raising mercury levels when the reality is that he has proposed lowering them 70%. He has done this BEFORE the EPA has issued their final guidelines (at least according the links your provided which I read) and he could still propose dropping the rates farther even faster.
Nick
Originally posted by Aquatic
Nick I didn't even read your post. BUSH IS THE WORST ENVIRONMENTAL PRESIDENT EVER. PERIOD. There is NO room for debate or semantics. And yes making a lot of woods areas national landmarks DOES make you a steward.
That would be like us liberals trying to say Clinton is honest and has good family values.
Well I suppose there is not point in having a one-sided conversation.
As for creating national parks, you do realize they are not making any more of this land stuff and eventually we will come up against limits. In California for example 55% of the entire state is a state or national park. I suppose you might be happy if we just declared all land goverment owned and moved right on the the purging of all illegal thought.
Nick