RFK Jr book - Crimes Against Nature - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Halx · 10-27-2004, 03:15 PM

Crimes Against Nature : How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy

I saw RFK Jr talk about this on Bill Maher's show this week and he really struck me. The environment has been completely ignored in this election. I'm not some tree hugging hippy, but I don't plan on getting cancer any time soon. The way things are going, though, my plans could change fairly quickly.

It's sad. I'm not one to buy into whatever I hear and read, but some things are just too juicy to ignore, like the part about how GWB and many of his advisors are of the belief that the second coming is fast approaching and thus the resources of the earth are not important to conserve. I have seen so many fucked up things come from this administration that it's not too far of a stretch to believe bits like that.

So, you like your national security, huh? How do you like your grandchilden?

bling · 10-27-2004, 03:28 PM

I personally haven't read or seen much on RFK Jr on this issue (I know that's his focus, I just haven't gotten to reading up on his comments).

But I found this article, published in the NYTimes as highly informative on the tactics used by this administration to fuck over the environment while changing the rules so they can claim they're improving things.

Long, but filled with very telling details of the issue of new-source review -

Quote:

President Bush doesn't talk about new-source review very often. In fact, he has mentioned it in a speech to the public only once, in remarks he delivered on Sept. 15, 2003, to a cheering crowd of power-plant workers and executives in Monroe, Mich., about 35 miles south of Detroit. It was an ideal audience for his chosen subject. New-source review, or N.S.R., involves an obscure and complex set of environmental rules and regulations that most Americans have never heard of, but to people who work in the power industry, few subjects are more crucial.

The Monroe plant, which is operated by Detroit Edison, is one of the nation's top polluters. Its coal-fired generators emit more mercury, a toxic chemical, than any other power plant in the state. Until recently, power plants like the one in Monroe were governed by N.S.R. regulations, which required the plant's owners to install new pollution-control devices if they made any significant improvements to the plant. Those regulations now exist in name only; they were effectively eliminated by a series of rule changes that the Bush administration made out of the public eye in 2002 and 2003. What the president was celebrating in Monroe was the effective end of new-source review.

''The old regulations,'' he said, speaking in front of a huge American flag, ''undermined our goals for protecting the environment and growing the economy.'' New-source review just didn't work, he said. It dissuaded power companies from updating old equipment. It kept power plants from operating at full efficiency. ''Now we've issued new rules that will allow utility companies, like this one right here, to make routine repairs and upgrades without enormous costs and endless disputes,'' the president said. ''We simplified the rules. We made them easy to understand. We trust the people in this plant to make the right decisions.'' The audience applauded.

Of the many environmental changes brought about by the Bush White House, none illustrate the administration's modus operandi better than the overhaul of new-source review. The president has had little success in the past three years at getting his environmental agenda through Congress. His energy bill remains unpassed. His Clear Skies package of clean-air laws is collecting dust on a committee shelf. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge remains closed to oil and gas exploration.

But while its legislative initiatives have languished on Capitol Hill, the administration has managed to effect a radical transformation of the nation's environmental laws, quietly and subtly, by means of regulatory changes and bureaucratic directives. Overturning new-source review -- the phrase itself embodies the kind of dull, eye-glazing bureaucrat-speak that distracts attention -- represents the most sweeping change, and among the least noticed.

The changes to new-source review have been portrayed by the president and his advisers as a compromise between the twin goals of preserving the environment and enabling business, based on a desire to make environmental regulations more streamlined and effective. But a careful examination of the process that led to the new policy reveals a very different story, and a different motivation. I conducted months of extensive interviews with those involved in the process, including current and former government officials, industry representatives, public health researchers and environmental advocates. (Top environmental officials in the Bush administration declined to comment for this article.) Through those interviews and the review of hundreds of pages of documents and transcripts, one thing has become clear: the administration's real problem with the new-source review program wasn't that it didn't work. The problem was that it was about to work all too well -- in the way, finally, that it was designed to when it was passed by Congress more than 25 years ago.

Having long flouted the new-source review law, many of the nation's biggest power companies were facing, in the last months of the 1990's, an expensive day of reckoning. E.P.A. investigators had caught them breaking the law. To make amends, the power companies were on the verge of signing agreements to clean up their plants, which would have delivered one of the greatest advances in clean air in the nation's history. Then George W. Bush took office, and everything changed.

Continued: http://www.environmentalintegrity.or..._the_Rules.htm

Sparhawk · 10-27-2004, 03:28 PM

I know a few evangelicals who believe we are in the "Days of Revelation" - great guys all of 'em, but they've been conned by the "Left Behind" folks into thinking the world's about to end.

djtestudo · 10-27-2004, 03:52 PM

If the environment is really this bad, then John Kerry ought to have had a field day with it, right?

Since he has ignored the issue too, what makes you think he would make any real changes?

bling · 10-27-2004, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Since he has ignored the issue too, what makes you think he would make any real changes?

I don't expect John Kerry will be good for the environment - but I am quite certain he would not be as bad as Bush.

As to why Kerry has not made much of an issue of it (and to be clear, he has mentioned it a few times), I would say the apathetic nature of American's perception towards non-immediate calamity in contrast to the omnipresent "fear the wrath of the all powerful terrorist", prevents the issue from gaining much traction.

daswig · 10-27-2004, 05:30 PM

Halx, I remember back in the 1970's when they told us that we'd be able to walk in a direct line from Cleveland to Canada across Lake Erie without getting our feet wet by the year 2000 because it would be completely filled with debris by then. Relax.

bling · 10-27-2004, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Halx, I remember back in the 1970's when they told us that we'd be able to walk in a direct line from Cleveland to Canada across Lake Erie without getting our feet wet by the year 2000 because it would be completely filled with debris by then. Relax.

That is called a strawman argument, daswig. Such tactics are only effective in solidifying a course of non-discussion.

daswig · 10-27-2004, 05:43 PM

Bling, "environmentalism" has become BIG business. I don't know if you realize just how much money is involved. I have a friend who was a charter member of Greenpeace Hawaii, who left because it stopped being about the problem and started being a cash cow. He tells very interesting stories. Their cash cow keeps producing ONLY as long as people are scared. Hence the relevance of the scare tactics of the 1970's.

Mephisto2 · 10-27-2004, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Bling, "environmentalism" has become BIG business. I don't know if you realize just how much money is involved. I have a friend who was a charter member of Greenpeace Hawaii, who left because it stopped being about the problem and started being a cash cow. He tells very interesting stories. Their cash cow keeps producing ONLY as long as people are scared. Hence the relevance of the scare tactics of the 1970's.

One time, in bandcamp....

Mr Mephisto

cthulu23 · 10-27-2004, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Bling, "environmentalism" has become BIG business. I don't know if you realize just how much money is involved. I have a friend who was a charter member of Greenpeace Hawaii, who left because it stopped being about the problem and started being a cash cow. He tells very interesting stories. Their cash cow keeps producing ONLY as long as people are scared. Hence the relevance of the scare tactics of the 1970's.

I've worked with Greenpeace USA and I can tell you that they are in no way a "wealthy" organization. Perhaps your friend had found some bad people in Hawaii but please don't tar the entire organization based on one story.

Furthermore, the idea that environmentalism has become big business does not fit with my experiences with several different national environmental groups. The number one cause of activist attrition that I saw was the inablility to make a living doing full time organizing.

jonjon42 · 10-27-2004, 06:45 PM

yeah trust me....greenpeace is anything but wealthy. Furthermore, daswig...guess why things didn't get as bad as they could have...WE DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

I was horrfied to hear about Bush's "plan" to control forest fires was to cut down trees..."Healthy Forest" initiative my ass. It's accepted in the scientific community that every so often a forest fire is good for the forest itself. This clears brush and dead trees that can clutter and choke the forest.

The "Clear Skys" initiative basicly let's old outdated coal plants to continue to run...It defangs the clean air act nearly completely.

The Bush administration still hasn't given much recognition to the growing problem of global warming, which could cause unpredictable climate change. ( may be some models and such, but I don't know enough about that) yes Kyoto wasn't going to work, but, at the very least we could have renegotiated it instead of leaving the table completely.

bling · 10-27-2004, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Bling, "environmentalism" has become BIG business. I don't know if you realize just how much money is involved. I have a friend who was a charter member of Greenpeace Hawaii, who left because it stopped being about the problem and started being a cash cow. He tells very interesting stories. Their cash cow keeps producing ONLY as long as people are scared. Hence the relevance of the scare tactics of the 1970's.

Regardless of the veracity of this claim, you are still making a strawman argument.

If you state that apples are good for you, and I say "Wrong, I ate a rotten apple the other day, so apples are clearly not good for you" - I would be duplicating your form of argument in this thread. It is a strawman.

daswig · 10-27-2004, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Furthermore, the idea that environmentalism has become big business does not fit with my experiences with several different national environmental groups. The number one cause of activist attrition that I saw was the inablility to make a living doing full time organizing.

Ask Paul Watson why he's where he is now.

cthulu23 · 10-27-2004, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Ask Paul Watson why he's where he is now.

Of all the criticisms that could be leveled at Paul Watson, and there are many, I think that accusing him of "greed" may be the one that sticks the least. Some actual details about whatever it is your accusing him of would be helpful.

There may be a handful of large organizations like the Sierra Club that have a relatively large budget on the environmental NGO scale (which is very modest), but they are the exception, not the rule. Grass roots campaigning isn't known for it's fabulous financial rewards. Does anybody here seriously believe that anyone gets into activism for the money?

daswig · 10-27-2004, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Of all the criticisms that could be leveled at Paul Watson, and there are many, I think that accusing him of "greed" may be the one that sticks the least. Some actual details about whatever it is your accusing him of would be helpful.

Actually, I wasn't leveling any criticism at Watson, he does miracles with what he has. What I was pointing out was why he is where he is now, instead of being part of a larger organization.

cthulu23 · 10-27-2004, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Actually, I wasn't leveling any criticism at Watson, he does miracles with what he has. What I was pointing out was why he is where he is now, instead of being part of a larger organization.

He's currently on the board of directors of the Sierra Club.

daswig · 10-27-2004, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

He's currently on the board of directors of the Sierra Club.

Uh huh, and Sea Shepherd is his sideline....RIIIIIGHT.....

cthulu23 · 10-27-2004, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Uh huh, and Sea Shepherd is his sideline....RIIIIIGHT.....

Activists have a propensity for being in many groups at once.

From the Sierra club website:

Quote:

Current Board of Directors
Director:

Term Expires:
Larry Fahn, President 2005
Bernard Zaleha, Vice President 2006
Lisa Renstrom, Chairman 2007
Charles McGrady, Secretary 2005
Jan O'Connell, Treasurer 2007
Lisa Force, Fifth Officer 2006
Greg Casini 2007
James Catlin 2005
Robert Cox 2006
Marcia Hanscom 2005
David Karpf 2007
Douglas La Follette 2006
Sanjay Ranchod 2007
Paul Watson 2006
Ben Zuckerman 2005

Halx · 10-28-2004, 11:53 AM

daswig, you need a great big hug.

Hey everybody! Dont hug trees! Hug daswig!

My question is why would any human being who is not in a position of power or great wealth (and thus it does not affect them directly to take this stance) be *against* environmentalism? Seriously, it does you no harm (in fact it may even help you) to say, "Yeah, I agree, shit needs to be cleaned up." Yet some of you are content to shrug at it and go, "Fuck the earth! I'm only on it for another 60 years, tops. It aint gonna fall apart before then." How irresponsible.

Bodyhammer86 · 10-28-2004, 06:29 PM

http://www.protestwarrior.com/new_signs.php?sign=16

Ustwo · 10-28-2004, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

daswig, you need a great big hug.

Hey everybody! Dont hug trees! Hug daswig!

My question is why would any human being who is not in a position of power or great wealth (and thus it does not affect them directly to take this stance) be *against* environmentalism? Seriously, it does you no harm (in fact it may even help you) to say, "Yeah, I agree, shit needs to be cleaned up." Yet some of you are content to shrug at it and go, "Fuck the earth! I'm only on it for another 60 years, tops. It aint gonna fall apart before then." How irresponsible.

Its not about being against *enviromentalism* Halx, its about using the enviroment as a political and finianial tool while retarding human progress.

These are the same people who still say we shouldn't thin the forests despite the huge forest fires we have had the last years due to the current un-natural state they are in.

I think I'm safe saying most hunters and fishermen vote republican, and this is a big part of why Kerry is trying so hard to look like a hunter this election. Now do you really think these types of people want to fuck up the enviroment? I love to fish, I hate dirty water, and over use of natural resources. The enviromentalists offer me nothing.

Having spent more time with these people than almost any of you, I can state they see people as the virus on the world and will do anything which keeps people 'away' from nature, no matter what the need.

tecoyah · 10-28-2004, 07:05 PM

I have spent quite a bit of time with "these" people, having a sister who is one. And have rarely seen the rabid version, not that I have never had to deal with them. You may generalize the movement as you see fit, and may have percieved that attitude from your experience, but it bears little resemblence to my own. Much of what you stated I have seen before....in speeches from candidates, but never from those I have been in contact with who are self proclaimed activists in the environmental movement.

That said....I do not claim you are incorrect...only that our experiences differ dramatically, and may do so as a result of personal perception, and pre-concieved attitudes we both have.

bling · 10-28-2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Its not about being against *enviromentalism* Halx, its about using the enviroment as a political and finianial tool while retarding human progress.

These are the same people who still say we shouldn't thin the forests despite the huge forest fires we have had the last years due to the current un-natural state they are in.

I think I'm safe saying most hunters and fishermen vote republican, and this is a big part of why Kerry is trying so hard to look like a hunter this election. Now do you really think these types of people want to fuck up the enviroment? I love to fish, I hate dirty water, and over use of natural resources. The enviromentalists offer me nothing.

Having spent more time with these people than almost any of you, I can state they see people as the virus on the world and will do anything which keeps people 'away' from nature, no matter what the need.

Why is the only response to Halx's post and the article I posted a bunch of strawman arguments?

Ustwo, daswig - sure, there are environmentalists who are so passionate that they are blinded in their methods of viewing reality. But the thread was started and followed with very compelling evidence that there are also people who are either so dispassionate about the environment or are so passionate about exploiting the environment that they are causing serious damage. And one of those people (George Bush) happens to not only be in a position to cause much more harm, but does in fact cause much more harm than someone sitting on the BofD of the Sierra Club.

You cannot in any way dismiss the negative impact to the enviroment and the double-talk of George Bush by stating "well, there are environmentalists who go too far and retard progress".

daswig · 10-28-2004, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

daswig, you need a great big hug.

Hey everybody! Dont hug trees! Hug daswig!

Bad idea. When people come towards me that I don't know, I get nervous. Very very nervous. It's a side effect of being gravely injured during the '89 riots and a few other things.

Quote:

My question is why would any human being who is not in a position of power or great wealth (and thus it does not affect them directly to take this stance) be *against* environmentalism?

It depends on the kind of environmentalism being proposed. I have no problem with sensible environmentalism. You know, things like "please don't dump that 55 gallon drum of mercury into our fresh water supply", or "if you make a mess, clean it up" makes sense to me. The nutjob ELF and Earth Firsters are another matter entirely. Running around burning down condominiums and car dealerships ain't environmentalism, it's just plain old-fashioned nut-jobbery.

There's always going to be some exploitation of the environment. That is a GOOD thing. Without it, we'd all be either dead or living in caves, and I don't care to live in caves.

sprocket · 10-28-2004, 09:12 PM

Enviromental arguments annoy me very quickly. This is because almost any repeal of enviromental regulation is always deemed a "Crime Against Nature" or worse, while no one calls into question the effectiveness of the regulations. Did these regulations really help the enviroment? In what way? Is there sound scientific data that proves the regulations work? For any enviromental regulation we should have quantifiable data that measures the cost to the enviroment vs the cost of human resources. If the regs are disproportionately detrimental to the humans that struggle behind them, compared the their enviromental benifit then they should be repealed.

Its just too damn easy for a politician to demonize another over enviromental issues.

Boo · 10-28-2004, 09:20 PM

In Alaska, we cannot log and sell beetle kill trees to provide jobs ect, we just get to watch them burn every year. Thanks Greenies.

Fires

Quote:

2004 Wildland Fire Season Summary

Despite going into the 2004 fire season on the heels of continuing drought and dry fuel conditions, the season transpired into a below-average year across most of the nation. Alaska, the lone exception, experienced its worst fire season on record. Alaska accounted for 703 fires and 6,517,200 acres burned. The lower 48 states experienced 61,873 fires burning 1,394,144 acres. Fewer dry lightning storms and high initial attack success rates contributed to the fire season being less severe than anticipated across the lower 48.

Alaska held the fire season of records this year. This summer was the warmest and third driest on record and set the record for the most lightning strikes (9,022 strikes) in a 24 hour period on July 15. The highest number of Incident Management Teams (IMT) and hot shot crews from the lower 48 states were used. Wildland Fire Use (WFU) Management Teams were used for the first time and more IMTs and hot shot crews were mobilized from the lower 48 states than in any previous season. Also for the first time ever, engines were shipped from the lower 48 states to Alaska. More water-scooping aircraft (CL-215s and 415s) and single engine airtankers (SEATS) were used than ever before in a single season. Additionally, there were more evacuations and threatened communities than ever before during a fire season in Alaska.

gibingus · 10-29-2004, 10:44 AM

this issue is so huge and so important in this election and the last one, that it has been virtually crushed off the radar is a testament to how successful the bush campaign has been at defining the issues and framing the entire election.

bush's environmental record is abhorent. while the hypothesis in RFKJRs book goes too far in my eyes, there is no debate that bush has chosen faith over fact and turned his back on science on every issue. he's proud of it, brags to his base about it, and they cheer him while the reasoning world looks on aghast.

if you find yourself saying that environmentalists hurt economic growth, put the kool-aid down and step away from the PACs and non-profits on both sides. the overwhelming voice of academia on this issue is impossible to ignore, but hard to simplify into a campaign trail soundbite.

our economic future absolutely depends upon smart management of our natural resources, conservation of our environment, and development of new technologies and industries. Al Gore spoke to this effect between sighs in the 2000 debates, but big business and old industry won out when the votes were miscounted.

at the present rate of climate change, we are 50 years away from turning colorado's mountain pastures into arizona's deserts. when that happens, the breadbasket of middle america's fertile farm land will be in canada's tundra and we will lose our greatest business.

19 states have levels of mercury that endanger unborn children when pregnant women eat fish or drink the water. yet the same people that vote to protect the unborn from abortion, vote for policies that allow the coal industry to cause birth defects and relax the legal process that might hold them accountable later.

the american auto industry said that cars couldn't be made profitably that got 50 miles to the gallon and produced acceptible emission levels. then toyota proved them wrong, and they lobbied to impede imports. we call ourselves free market patriots and ignore that if every car in america got 40 miles to the gallon, we would have no dependency on foreign oil and could rewrite our policies in the middle east free of our petrochemical addiction.

kerry's environmental voting record is one of the best in congress (www.vote-smart.org). he has been for 20 years, what is the word... "a leader?"

the choice is clear, but it is not simple.

Superbelt · 10-29-2004, 10:48 AM

This is what happens when your leaders are people who can't take the majesty of nature into account.
When you believe the Grand Canyon was carved in 40 days by a worldwide flood, you have less respect for it's preservation.

This kind of CRAP Wouldn't happen under a sane administration.

Quote:

PHOENIX, Arizona – According to Associated Press, a book by the founder of Canyon Ministries, which organizes Christian whitewater rafting trips through the Canyon, and a former Colorado River guide, Tom Vail, has put the Grand Canyon into the debate due to a controversial claim that the Grand Canyon was formed as a result of the great flood of Genesis and is therefore only a few thousand years old.

The book, entitled “Grand Canyon: A Different View,” contains a collection of essays by fellow creationists who favor a biblically based view of the Earth’s formation, has been sold at the national park’s bookstore but because of its contained claim about the biblical formation of Grand Canyon, the park is reconsidering the display of religious materials at public sites.

The national park’s spokeswoman Dawn O’Sickey reported that the criticism began just weeks after “Grand Canyon: A Different View” went on sale at the park’s bookstores in August. It was also after a dispute initiated by civil libertarians and consultations with the U.S. Solicitor's Office over displaying plaques that contained biblical words.

Now, the Justice Department is reviewing whether the plaques should be removed permanently or remain at the park.

Some critics believe that the book allowed the National Park Service to avoid the pressure of conservative and fundamentalist Christian groups, by complying to their requests.

"The overall concern is that the top managers of the park service are implementing a conservative agenda that is at odds with their duties as custodians of the nation's heritage," said Jeff Ruch, director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit group of federal and state resource workers.

"This is a book that by its cover it shouts out, 'This is a biblical interpretation of how the Grand Canyon came to be in only thousands of years,"' Ruch said. "This is a decision to approve, in essence, a religious book."

However National Park Service officials say before any kind of actions they make, they first seek legal advice. Indeed they referred the book to the National Park Service for review. The National Park is trying to avoid any biased viewpoint but only remain “historically accurate.”

Officials there are preparing a letter telling Grand Canyon administrators that the book most likely will not be restocked, said David Barna, another spokesperson for the National Park Service, because it does not comply with what is conventionally accepted in archaeology, that the canyon is millions of years old.

When you think this kind of thing was created instantaneously or some such, and that it's been there only for a few thousand years, your respect is diminished and your thoughts to exploiting it/spoiling it for profit are greater.

Halx · 10-29-2004, 10:56 AM

Two excellent posts. Others seem content to hold up extremist groups as their defense while ignoring simple logic that we don't have to be gung-ho, but rather just *active* - which we haven't been at all over the last 4 years.

daswig · 10-29-2004, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

Two excellent posts. Others seem content to hold up extremist groups as their defense while ignoring simple logic that we don't have to be gung-ho, but rather just *active* - which we haven't been at all over the last 4 years.

There has been plenty of activism from the lunatic fringe animal rights groups. For example, they tried to give away comic books to toddlers of adults who were wearing fur at the Boston Nutcracker. What part of that could people oppose? Well:

<img src="http://www.furisdead.com/images/mommykills_comichead.jpg" /img>

I dunno...giving this to four year olds is just their First Amendment right, isn't it?

Mephisto2 · 10-29-2004, 06:59 PM

So what's your point?

We all know PETA are head cases. But because some one tried to scare a child, it means we should continue raping the Earth?

You've lost me.

Mr Mephisto

daswig · 10-29-2004, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

it means we should continue raping the Earth?

Didja ever think maybe the earth consented?

Didja hear about the problem with the parks in California? Seems that in a fit of PC-ness, some people decided that the BSA couldn't use the parks. Unintended consequence? She state of the parks are declining, since the BSA did lots of community service preservation stuff.

BSA=non-gay friendly, but good conservationists.
PETA=Bizzare-o nutjobs.
So which group should we support?

Mephisto2 · 10-29-2004, 08:09 PM

Earth consented....

Funny.

I can't comment on the California issue, as I don't know anything about it.

But I think we're both in agreement that PETA are head cases (as we say in Ireland).

Honestly, I find it disappointing and depressing that Conservatives... sorry, conservatives, use the actions of extremists to justify not supporting environmentalism. It's all about putting profit over sustainability and ensuring the quick buck as opposed to keeping people and the planet healthy and retaining some of its beauty.

Sometimes, just sometimes, it's good to pass over the ability to make maximum profits when it would cause longer term problems.

Consider this analogy. I live in a house. I could go outside and dig up all the plants and rose bushes in my garden and sell them at the flea-market down the road. I would make some money, but my garden would be destroyed.

I could rip off the roof tiles and strip out all the copper wiring and sell them both at the flea-market. But this would also make my house less healthy, less pleasant to live in.

Poor analogy, but the idea being that we shouldn't always think in a short-term profit focussed manner. Put another way, what's wrong with protecting the environment, the few remaining wildernesses?

Mr Mephisto

irateplatypus · 10-29-2004, 11:24 PM

I'd like to inject a bit of sanity:

Neither the President or his advisors think the world is going to end soon. No one who is a part of the Bush administration believes the Grand Canyon was formed in 40 days. Why do people accept and perpetuate such lies?

This is getting silly.

host · 10-29-2004, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Didja hear about the problem with the parks in California? Seems that in a fit of PC-ness, some people decided that the BSA couldn't use the parks. Unintended consequence? She state of the parks are declining, since the BSA did lots of community service preservation stuff.

BSA=non-gay friendly, but good conservationists.
PETA=Bizzare-o nutjobs.
So which group should we support?

C'mon daswig.....your weak rebuttal to the Bush regime's gutting of a successful, 25 year effort fought by the EPA to improve the biggest source of
toxic and irritant emissions into our atmosphere is incompatible with your
credentials. Treason takes on many guises........

The references below offer a persuasive argument that, just as the operators
of the heaviest polluting coal fired power plants in the U.S. began to capitulate by entering into agreements with the EPA, after 25 years of
non-compliance, litigation, and health damaging, illegal emissions of toxins,
such as excessive levels of mercury, Bush, Cheney and their appointees
pre-empted and gutted power industry compliance enforcement by putting
the Department of Energy in chanrge of Environmental Protection.

An easy to understand example is a comparison of Tampa Electric (TECO),
and Southern Company, both operators of highly polluting coal fired power
plants. In 2000, TECO made the decision to enter into an agreement with
EPA to pay a $3.5 million fine for it's illegal emissions, and to spend $1.4 billion
on coal plant upgrades and pollution controls.

Quote:

<a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4759864/">Clearing the air</a>
EPA official talks for first time about retiring after changes in clean air regulations and enforcement
By Stone Phillips
Dateline NBC
Updated: 8:37 a.m. ET April 20, 2004

If you're going to make a stand by walking away from your job, it should be over something pretty important. How about the air we breathe? A new government report found that the air in 31 states, affecting nearly 160 million people, fails to meet new federal health standards for smog. Part of the reason is pollution coming from big coal-burning power plants. For decades, the Clean Air Act helped improve air quality, a man named Bruce Buckheit helped enforce it. But now, this former top government official has given up his job, frustrated because he says the country is taking a giant step backwards -- and that you and your children may soon see the difference in the air you breathe.

There are few things on earth that Bruce Buckheit feels more passionate about than the air, whether he's catching it in his sails or cleaning it up at old coal burning power plants.

Stone Phillips: “Among the major sources of air pollution in this country where do coal fired power plants rank?”

Bruce Buckheit: “They're number one. By an order of magnitude. There is no one that comes close.”

Buckheit says the nearly 400 coal fired plants scattered across this country, generating more than half of the electricity we use, are dirty old dinosaurs overdue for extinction.

Buckheit: “Can anybody imagine a situation where we have plants that were built in 1950 still emitting as if they were located in China or Mexico? I mean, this country's better than that.”

Buckheit spent the last 20 years of his government career working on air quality issues, most recently as director of the Environmental Protection Agency's Air Enforcement Division. But in December, he made a difficult decision to retire from the EPA.

Buckheit: “If we were still enforcing the Clean Air Act the way it should be enforced I would still be there.”...........

......Last year, during a visit to one of the nation's largest coal-burning power plants, President Bush announced that New Source Review had been overhauled. The new rule encourages utilities to make improvements to their old plants to increase their efficiency, while relaxing the requirement to add those expensive pollution controls. the change was made in spite of a 2001 memo from former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to Vice President Dick Cheney, warning: "we will pay a terrible political price if we undercut or walk away from the enforcement cases. It will be hard to refute the charge that we are deciding not to enforce the Clean Air Act."

While the energy industry applauded the rule change, more than a dozen state attorneys general appealed it, asking the federal courts to reinstate New Source Review as a necessary enforcement tool. Buckheit says it was the hammer that helped him forge that landmark agreement in Tampa. And John Ramil agrees....................

.........Buckheit: “The Bush Administration. An opportunity to reduce pollution just as we saw in Tampa is being foregone.”

<H4>Phillips: “Are you saying this administration just doesn't care about air pollution?”

Buckheit: “Yes. I'm saying this administration has decided to put the economic interests of the coal fired power plants ahead of the public interests in reducing air pollution.”

Phillips: “That's a pretty serious allegation.”

Buckheit: “Well, I was the head of the air enforcement division up until a couple weeks ago and I watched it happen.”

But are lawsuits really the most effective way to solve the nation's air quality problems? The Bush administration says there's a better way, by setting caps on emissions and creating financial incentives for companies to reduce pollution. And by allowing utilities to upgrade old plants, the administration says it's helping keep the lights on across the country.

Phillips: “As demand increases, and heaven knows we all want our microwave ovens and our video games and our computers, shouldn't utilities be given leeway to make these modifications, to make sure supply is there?”

Buckheit: “We all want the supply to be there when it's 90 degrees and you turn on the air conditioner. EPA has never opposed that at all. What we're saying here is if you want to take an old power plant and extend its life in a major capitol improvement, treat it as a new power plant with good pollution control devices.”

Before he retired last December, Buckheit was ordered to shut down further New Source Review investigations at other utilities.

Buckheit: “We had several dozen investigations.”

Phillips: “Ongoing.”

Buckheit: “Ongoing. Strong cases, where I had to tell the regional engineers and lawyers, stop. Put your documents in the box, so that hopefully we can get back to it someday. But otherwise, you know, stop your investigation.”
</H4>
Bruce Buckheit proved with that historic agreement in Tampa that it could be done, that a coal-burning utility could change to running clean without running aground financially. The question is, can history repeat itself?

Phillips: “What would you say to Bruce Buckheit?”

Ramil: “He helped us, I think. Nudging us along. Maybe sometimes it was more of nudge than we might have liked, but that's okay. Things get done when you stretch people.”

A federal court of appeals in Washington has temporarily stayed the Bush administration's change in the New Source Review rule. The fight over its future will play out in court later this year. The EPA says it will vigorously defend the rule change.

<a href="http://cta.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=23860">Georgians Choke Through a Smog-filled Summer</a>
<a href="http://cta.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=23500">EPA UNVEILS NEW LOOPHOLES FOR POLLUTING POWER PLANTS</a>
<a href=""></a>
<a href="http://cta.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=23220"> Children at Risk: How Air Pollution from Power Plants Threatens the Health</a>
<a href="http://cta.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=22420">Latest Toxics Inventory Shows
Power Plants Continue To Be Major Threat</a>
<a href="http://cta.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=22320">Bush Administration Pollution Plan Falls Short</a>
Southern Company, parent of Alabama Power, Georgia Power, and of power companies in North Carolina, continued to resist the EPA via litigation, a $23 million ad campaign to portray itself as a "good corporate citizen", launching the largest lobbying effort in the U.S. on the congress, and by generous campaign contributions to effect changes in congress and the executive branch that led to the sell out of the public and the environment that we are seeing today. The immediate results are dirtier air in the southeast.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.hlrecord.org/news/2003/09/18/Opinion/Letting.Polluters.Breathe.Easily-470092.shtml">Letting polluters breathe easily?</a>
........This regulatory relief will allow the nation's 17,000 industrial facilities to breathe a little easier. That's an unfortunate phrase in this case, but you get the point. There have also been some fringe benefits. Right after the ruling, two top EPA staffers landed some pretty sweet new jobs based on their hard work and obvious expertise. John Pemberton, just last week the chief of staff in the EPA's air and radiation office, joined Southern Co., the nation's No. 2 power-plant polluter. Ed Krenik, who you may have known as EPA's associate administrator for congressional affairs, just set up shop at Bracewell & Patterson, a Houston law firm that coordinates utility lobbying. Who says the Bush administration isn't doing enough to create jobs? There are two new jobs right there!

Now I know what you're thinking: Hey, wait a minute, isn't there a bit of an ethical problem when two high-ranking EPA officials help devise a major new regulatory give-away, and then immediately leave the government for high-paying jobs with the companies that were just lobbying for those rule changes? Not to worry. According to an EPA spokeswoman, Pemberton "played a minimal role" on the rule change. For his part, Krenik said he had "nothing to do with writing the rule."

I mean, surely the Chief of Staff for the EPA's air division had more important things to do than get involved with a major revision of the Clean Air Act. And what's wrong with employment mobility? It's about time the liberal media stopped exaggerating this administration's corporate connections.

host · 10-29-2004, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

I'd like to inject a bit of sanity:

Neither the President or his advisors think the world is going to end soon. No one who is a part of the Bush administration believes the Grand Canyon was formed in 40 days. Why do people accept and perpetuate such lies?

This is getting silly.

No.....not silly. Criminal, treasonous......but not silly!
Please do some research to educate us as to how Bush and his administration
are being maligned. Are Bush and Cheney taking steps to insure that the air
that I breathe and that my chidren breathe will be cleaner next year than it
is today? Post your linked references, persuade us that Bush represents the
interests of the people of the U.S. in environmental protection policy.

Superbelt · 10-30-2004, 04:42 PM

Ooh I believe that Ashcroft DOES believe the Canyon was carved in 40 days.
He's a christian fundamentalist. Chrisitian fundamentalists take the bible at it's word and the word of the bible states the earth is approximately 6000 years old.
I believe Bush believes this also, he too is a christian fundamentalist who was converted, largely, with the help of Billy Graham.

And the kinds of people that Bush would appoint to positions like this, likely follow his brand of morality.

I don't think christian fundamentalism is the largest force in desecration of the earth. I think it is a dominant one, but ignorance, shortsightedness and greed are higher on the totem pole.
But those reasons are well known and have been fleshed out plenty. The Fundie reason isn't as clear.

irateplatypus · 10-30-2004, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

No.....not silly. Criminal, treasonous......but not silly!
Please do some research to educate us as to how Bush and his administration
are being maligned. Are Bush and Cheney taking steps to insure that the air
that I breathe and that my chidren breathe will be cleaner next year than it
is today? Post your linked references, persuade us that Bush represents the
interests of the people of the U.S. in environmental protection policy.

with whatever respect is due... that really isn't a response to my post. Also, a very small minority of Christian fundamentalists believe the young earth theory. I guess all I have to offer is my own anecdotal evidence... but I'm surrounded by fundamentalists like you wouldn't believe (seriously, i think i would get a few laughs if i told everyone the full story) and I've yet to meet someone who believes the grand canyon was made in 40 days.

it's so much easier to believe such crazy things about people who view the world differently than you.

Ustwo · 10-31-2004, 12:01 AM

First off what did Clinton due differently then Bush with regards to the environment?

Answer: Basically nothing.

Kyoto treaty was voted down in the senate by a vote of 0-99. That’s a pretty strong statement.

And who remembers the arsenic in the water deal right when Bush took office. Well since I don’t think many of you understand it, let me splain it. Arsenic exists in the natural environment. Very small amounts are in the water in some places. Rules were put up to mandate its removal, based on the idea that if X amount of arsenic is the LD50 (lethal dose 50, look it up if you don’t know) then if you take a straight line down the curve, X/whatever would kill a small % of the people. So for example if 100 grams would kill 500k of 1 million people then 1 gram would kill 5000 people. The problem is biology doesn’t work in a linear fashion. Lets take an example most of you would understand. We all know people can die of alcohol poisoning, you drink too much, you die. Does that mean that some people will die of alcohol poisoning after a sip of wine? No, it doesn’t work that way, and while one person might take more alcohol to kill then the next, there is a base level that must be reached before there is a problem. What Bush did was get rid of BAD SCIENCE, rules that sounded good, but did nothing except cost a ton of money. He got rid of government waste and was willing to take the political hit to do the right thing.

So don’t give me the Bush is bad for the environment BS. Bush is bad for wackos who want to use the environment as an excuse for other agendas, but that’s about it.

bling · 10-31-2004, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

First off what did Clinton due differently then Bush with regards to the environment?

Answer: Basically nothing.

Kyoto treaty was voted down in the senate by a vote of 0-99. That’s a pretty strong statement.

And who remembers the arsenic in the water deal right when Bush took office. Well since I don’t think many of you understand it, let me splain it. Arsenic exists in the natural environment. Very small amounts are in the water in some places. Rules were put up to mandate its removal, based on the idea that if X amount of arsenic is the LD50 (lethal dose 50, look it up if you don’t know) then if you take a straight line down the curve, X/whatever would kill a small % of the people. So for example if 100 grams would kill 500k of 1 million people then 1 gram would kill 5000 people. The problem is biology doesn’t work in a linear fashion. Lets take an example most of you would understand. We all know people can die of alcohol poisoning, you drink too much, you die. Does that mean that some people will die of alcohol poisoning after a sip of wine? No, it doesn’t work that way, and while one person might take more alcohol to kill then the next, there is a base level that must be reached before there is a problem. What Bush did was get rid of BAD SCIENCE, rules that sounded good, but did nothing except cost a ton of money. He got rid of government waste and was willing to take the political hit to do the right thing.

So don’t give me the Bush is bad for the environment BS. Bush is bad for wackos who want to use the environment as an excuse for other agendas, but that’s about it.

This is pretty much false.

10-27-2004, 03:15 PM	#1 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	RFK Jr book - Crimes Against Nature Crimes Against Nature : How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy I saw RFK Jr talk about this on Bill Maher's show this week and he really struck me. The environment has been completely ignored in this election. I'm not some tree hugging hippy, but I don't plan on getting cancer any time soon. The way things are going, though, my plans could change fairly quickly. It's sad. I'm not one to buy into whatever I hear and read, but some things are just too juicy to ignore, like the part about how GWB and many of his advisors are of the belief that the second coming is fast approaching and thus the resources of the earth are not important to conserve. I have seen so many fucked up things come from this administration that it's not too far of a stretch to believe bits like that. So, you like your national security, huh? How do you like your grandchilden? __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

10-27-2004, 03:28 PM	#3 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	I know a few evangelicals who believe we are in the "Days of Revelation" - great guys all of 'em, but they've been conned by the "Left Behind" folks into thinking the world's about to end. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

10-27-2004, 03:52 PM	#4 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	If the environment is really this bad, then John Kerry ought to have had a field day with it, right? Since he has ignored the issue too, what makes you think he would make any real changes? __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

10-27-2004, 06:45 PM	#11 (permalink)
jonjon42 Psycho Location: inside my own mind	yeah trust me....greenpeace is anything but wealthy. Furthermore, daswig...guess why things didn't get as bad as they could have...WE DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I was horrfied to hear about Bush's "plan" to control forest fires was to cut down trees..."Healthy Forest" initiative my ass. It's accepted in the scientific community that every so often a forest fire is good for the forest itself. This clears brush and dead trees that can clutter and choke the forest. The "Clear Skys" initiative basicly let's old outdated coal plants to continue to run...It defangs the clean air act nearly completely. The Bush administration still hasn't given much recognition to the growing problem of global warming, which could cause unpredictable climate change. ( may be some models and such, but I don't know enough about that) yes Kyoto wasn't going to work, but, at the very least we could have renegotiated it instead of leaving the table completely. __________________ A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

10-28-2004, 11:53 AM	#19 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	daswig, you need a great big hug. Hey everybody! Dont hug trees! Hug daswig! My question is why would any human being who is not in a position of power or great wealth (and thus it does not affect them directly to take this stance) be against environmentalism? Seriously, it does you no harm (in fact it may even help you) to say, "Yeah, I agree, shit needs to be cleaned up." Yet some of you are content to shrug at it and go, "Fuck the earth! I'm only on it for another 60 years, tops. It aint gonna fall apart before then." How irresponsible. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

10-27-2004, 05:30 PM	#6 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Halx, I remember back in the 1970's when they told us that we'd be able to walk in a direct line from Cleveland to Canada across Lake Erie without getting our feet wet by the year 2000 because it would be completely filled with debris by then. Relax.

10-27-2004, 05:43 PM	#8 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Bling, "environmentalism" has become BIG business. I don't know if you realize just how much money is involved. I have a friend who was a charter member of Greenpeace Hawaii, who left because it stopped being about the problem and started being a cash cow. He tells very interesting stories. Their cash cow keeps producing ONLY as long as people are scared. Hence the relevance of the scare tactics of the 1970's.

10-28-2004, 06:29 PM	#20 (permalink)
Bodyhammer86 Insane Location: Mattoon, Il	http://www.protestwarrior.com/new_signs.php?sign=16 __________________ Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/ Last edited by Bodyhammer86; 10-28-2004 at 06:31 PM..

10-28-2004, 07:05 PM	#22 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I have spent quite a bit of time with "these" people, having a sister who is one. And have rarely seen the rabid version, not that I have never had to deal with them. You may generalize the movement as you see fit, and may have percieved that attitude from your experience, but it bears little resemblence to my own. Much of what you stated I have seen before....in speeches from candidates, but never from those I have been in contact with who are self proclaimed activists in the environmental movement. That said....I do not claim you are incorrect...only that our experiences differ dramatically, and may do so as a result of personal perception, and pre-concieved attitudes we both have. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-28-2004, 09:12 PM	#25 (permalink)
sprocket Psycho Location: In transit	Enviromental arguments annoy me very quickly. This is because almost any repeal of enviromental regulation is always deemed a "Crime Against Nature" or worse, while no one calls into question the effectiveness of the regulations. Did these regulations really help the enviroment? In what way? Is there sound scientific data that proves the regulations work? For any enviromental regulation we should have quantifiable data that measures the cost to the enviroment vs the cost of human resources. If the regs are disproportionately detrimental to the humans that struggle behind them, compared the their enviromental benifit then they should be repealed. Its just too damn easy for a politician to demonize another over enviromental issues. __________________ Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

10-29-2004, 10:44 AM	#27 (permalink)
gibingus Insane Location: 38° 51' N 77° 2' W	this issue is so huge and so important in this election and the last one, that it has been virtually crushed off the radar is a testament to how successful the bush campaign has been at defining the issues and framing the entire election. bush's environmental record is abhorent. while the hypothesis in RFKJRs book goes too far in my eyes, there is no debate that bush has chosen faith over fact and turned his back on science on every issue. he's proud of it, brags to his base about it, and they cheer him while the reasoning world looks on aghast. if you find yourself saying that environmentalists hurt economic growth, put the kool-aid down and step away from the PACs and non-profits on both sides. the overwhelming voice of academia on this issue is impossible to ignore, but hard to simplify into a campaign trail soundbite. our economic future absolutely depends upon smart management of our natural resources, conservation of our environment, and development of new technologies and industries. Al Gore spoke to this effect between sighs in the 2000 debates, but big business and old industry won out when the votes were miscounted. at the present rate of climate change, we are 50 years away from turning colorado's mountain pastures into arizona's deserts. when that happens, the breadbasket of middle america's fertile farm land will be in canada's tundra and we will lose our greatest business. 19 states have levels of mercury that endanger unborn children when pregnant women eat fish or drink the water. yet the same people that vote to protect the unborn from abortion, vote for policies that allow the coal industry to cause birth defects and relax the legal process that might hold them accountable later. the american auto industry said that cars couldn't be made profitably that got 50 miles to the gallon and produced acceptible emission levels. then toyota proved them wrong, and they lobbied to impede imports. we call ourselves free market patriots and ignore that if every car in america got 40 miles to the gallon, we would have no dependency on foreign oil and could rewrite our policies in the middle east free of our petrochemical addiction. kerry's environmental voting record is one of the best in congress (www.vote-smart.org). he has been for 20 years, what is the word... "a leader?" the choice is clear, but it is not simple. __________________ if everyone is thinking alike, chances are no one is thinking.

10-29-2004, 10:56 AM	#29 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Two excellent posts. Others seem content to hold up extremist groups as their defense while ignoring simple logic that we don't have to be gung-ho, but rather just active - which we haven't been at all over the last 4 years. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

10-29-2004, 06:59 PM	#31 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	So what's your point? We all know PETA are head cases. But because some one tried to scare a child, it means we should continue raping the Earth? You've lost me. Mr Mephisto

10-29-2004, 08:09 PM	#33 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Earth consented.... Funny. I can't comment on the California issue, as I don't know anything about it. But I think we're both in agreement that PETA are head cases (as we say in Ireland). Honestly, I find it disappointing and depressing that Conservatives... sorry, conservatives, use the actions of extremists to justify not supporting environmentalism. It's all about putting profit over sustainability and ensuring the quick buck as opposed to keeping people and the planet healthy and retaining some of its beauty. Sometimes, just sometimes, it's good to pass over the ability to make maximum profits when it would cause longer term problems. Consider this analogy. I live in a house. I could go outside and dig up all the plants and rose bushes in my garden and sell them at the flea-market down the road. I would make some money, but my garden would be destroyed. I could rip off the roof tiles and strip out all the copper wiring and sell them both at the flea-market. But this would also make my house less healthy, less pleasant to live in. Poor analogy, but the idea being that we shouldn't always think in a short-term profit focussed manner. Put another way, what's wrong with protecting the environment, the few remaining wildernesses? Mr Mephisto

10-29-2004, 11:24 PM	#34 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	I'd like to inject a bit of sanity: Neither the President or his advisors think the world is going to end soon. No one who is a part of the Bush administration believes the Grand Canyon was formed in 40 days. Why do people accept and perpetuate such lies? This is getting silly. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

10-30-2004, 04:42 PM	#37 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Ooh I believe that Ashcroft DOES believe the Canyon was carved in 40 days. He's a christian fundamentalist. Chrisitian fundamentalists take the bible at it's word and the word of the bible states the earth is approximately 6000 years old. I believe Bush believes this also, he too is a christian fundamentalist who was converted, largely, with the help of Billy Graham. And the kinds of people that Bush would appoint to positions like this, likely follow his brand of morality. I don't think christian fundamentalism is the largest force in desecration of the earth. I think it is a dominant one, but ignorance, shortsightedness and greed are higher on the totem pole. But those reasons are well known and have been fleshed out plenty. The Fundie reason isn't as clear.

10-31-2004, 12:01 AM	#39 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	First off what did Clinton due differently then Bush with regards to the environment? Answer: Basically nothing. Kyoto treaty was voted down in the senate by a vote of 0-99. That’s a pretty strong statement. And who remembers the arsenic in the water deal right when Bush took office. Well since I don’t think many of you understand it, let me splain it. Arsenic exists in the natural environment. Very small amounts are in the water in some places. Rules were put up to mandate its removal, based on the idea that if X amount of arsenic is the LD50 (lethal dose 50, look it up if you don’t know) then if you take a straight line down the curve, X/whatever would kill a small % of the people. So for example if 100 grams would kill 500k of 1 million people then 1 gram would kill 5000 people. The problem is biology doesn’t work in a linear fashion. Lets take an example most of you would understand. We all know people can die of alcohol poisoning, you drink too much, you die. Does that mean that some people will die of alcohol poisoning after a sip of wine? No, it doesn’t work that way, and while one person might take more alcohol to kill then the next, there is a base level that must be reached before there is a problem. What Bush did was get rid of BAD SCIENCE, rules that sounded good, but did nothing except cost a ton of money. He got rid of government waste and was willing to take the political hit to do the right thing. So don’t give me the Bush is bad for the environment BS. Bush is bad for wackos who want to use the environment as an excuse for other agendas, but that’s about it. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.