»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Environmental issues in this election season
| The Alley |
|
Environmental issues in this election season |
|
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
It is undeniable that our environment has suffered under the Bush administration... ... mostly (it seems) because environmental rules and laws have been ignored, or are upheld by unelected Bush appointees, who either bow to higher authority, or are canned when they speak out. My research of the backgrounds of some of those appointees makes me very suspicious of them and their appointer....It seems that foxes are in charge of guarding the environmental henhouse. Examples: Bush... appointed Former Utah Governor Mike Leavitt as head of the EPA...While governor, his state spent the least of all the states on environmental protection. (Texas came in 49th under Bush as governor) Appointed Mark Rye as head of the Forest Service..a former timber industry lobbyist. Marianne Horinko heads the air division of the EPA....Her job before this one was advising large corporations on how to evade Superfund laws. The list is long and frightening... I am opening this thread to engage in a discussion about why the degradation of the air we breath, the land and flowing waters that are held in common by all people in this country, is not a major issue in this election season?.. Why (do you think) the Bush administration has not been called down in stern tones (well, Nader has called him down..if that counts) for its part in weakening or ignoring existing environmental laws , and when they cannot do that, weakening the agencies in charge by appointing former corporate lobbyists, and former heads of polluting industries to run them? Perhaps Kerry has expounded loudly his feelings on this issue, but I have only heard a blip or two about it in his speeches...Perhaps I have not listened at the right times... ------------ice ><> |
||
| © Copyright 2004 ford hume - All Rights Reserved | |||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Everyone is too focused on terror, the failing economy, and human health care issues. The environment always takes a back seat, especially when the almighty dollar is at stake. One day we shall all wake up to a world without trees, without songbirds, without clean water, without fresh air to breathe. Then the environment will suddenly seem to be the number one issue. But by then, 'twill be too late. Meanwhile, look at the price of oil, and who controls it, who is profiting. 'nuff said. Thank you for this post. |
||
|
Krawdad Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597 |
Ice, thanks for the post. I was beginning to wonder if anyone here cared. You would think that a bunch of poets would. You obviously know what this Bush Regime is up to. Quite criminal as I see it. The NRDC lawyers have nearly given up on trying to defeat them in the courts (at least in the opinion of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.). The reason being that as soon as the people win one, the regime goes about changing the law to make the ruling unenforcable. Makes me ill to listen to the bragging about Clear Skies or the wetland laws when I know it is all due to redefining what is or isn't a pollutant or what qualifies as a wetland. Very clever lying. Why are Kerry and Edwards not making the case? I have no idea and I find it desperately disappointing. Perhaps Kacy is right about the fear tactics succeeding in smothering even critical environmental issues. After James Watt, the political right learned to bury the issues quietly or deeply so few would notice the blatant tactics they use. (for those in doubt, check out the NRDC website) e |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Kacy Thank you for your reply... "Everyone is too focused on terror, the failing economy, and human health care issues." and so are you and I, indirectly all of those issues are environmental issues..Terror being a pollutant of the mind, and the war that has resulted has torn the fabric of the physical earth, and human spirit, as all wars do. The economy is a false profit, no pun intended..Off paper values are also falsely presented...The books are always cooked when only the visible math shown in the bottom line is counted... The lack of healthy trees, lack of songbird sound, edible fish and polluted air are never considered as negatives on corporate calculations of profit and loss..How much is a wrens song worth, what does the loss of it cost? What I am saying is that the environment is always foremost in importance to human and all life and is always "the number one issue" Thank you for caring... ---------ice ><> |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Krawdad Thank you for your input.... It is hard to figure out in detail what the administration is up to in all areas of their regime...It takes many hours to find tiny bits of information about what their policies really are and then make a guess at what the intentions of those policies really are...it is a very secretive,"trust me, don't worry" administration... Robert Kennedy and the NRDC are very important , and although they have exposed many Bush policies that have had drastic effect on the environment, they seem to have a thicker Teflon coat (the Bushies) than did Reagan.. They are very good at naming policy and hiding what they really do. "Quite criminal" indeed, they must be watched like hawks, The NRDC seems to have the strongest eyes in that matter, but a tiny fraction of Bushes budget spent on hiding the truth about what is being done to the world around us. "James Watt" That name makes me gasp...It reminds me also of other environmental destroyers of the past The assault of the environment by the likes of him are part of a foul history of elected officials and appointees. The "issues" may be buried, but they can be exhumed if one looks close enough to the grave and starts digging.... --------------ice ><> |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
There's no question that the Bush Administration is the worst environmental administration in our nation's history. 73% of Americans have said in a last major survey that the environment is a major issue to them and must be protected. And while about 3/4 of Americans embrace Mother Nature, she has been choking under this Administration. Three times the level of mercury is being released into the atmosphere from coal-burning power plants. In result, almost half of Americans, 130 million, are exposed to unhealthy air pollution levels. In result of this, premature deaths caused from pollution by coal-burning power plants have risen 24,000. As much as 16% of women of child-bearing age now, in fact, have blood mercury levels such that their fetuses may experience mercury levels in the womb at levels higher than what the EPA considers safe. They have rolled back many Clean Air Act protections and their so-called "Clear Skies" initiative is nothing but one of those Orwellian euphemisms which, in contrast to its pleasant-sounding name, has now allowed twice as much sulfur dioxide, one-and-a-half times as much nitrogen oxide, and as up to five times as much mercury up till 2018, into our skies. In addition, this act has let corporate polluters off the hook in weakening "new source review" program requirements, allowing them to increase emissions without following any pollution control requirements. What affects our air also affects our water dramatically. Mercury is emptying into our waters. Studies have detected over 5 million acres of polluted lakes. 218 million Americans are living within 10 miles of these lakes and streams. 300,000 miles of polluted streams and shorelines have been researched, and among them, 49% of estuary land and 61% of rivers and streams are unsafe for fishing. Now, after six administrations with the much-loved Clean Water Act, the Bush Administration has approved big bucks and profit over health for everyone. 20 million acres of wetlands that Bush claimed he is protecting have lost protection from industrial pollution or unlawful development. In California, they have allowed 36 sites to start oil-drilling despite the objections of state officials. Logging in the West Everglades has now been permitted. Once again, the winners are the polluters. Factory farms have been allowed to write their own pollution laws that the public and the EPA don't know about, and demand that factory farms monitor groundwater for contamination on routine. A quarter of the largest industrial plants violate Clean Water Act standards, yet few get penalized. Since Bush first took office, formal enforcement actions by the EPA under the Clean Water Act declined by 45 percent. Same goes for environmental enforcement. New civil pollution enforcement cases referred by the EPA for federal prosecution are down by more than 25 percent since the start of the Bush administration, and new criminal referrals are down by more than 40 percent. Civil penalties assessed in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 declined by $35 million (14 percent), compared with the last two years of the Clinton administration, and criminal penalties dropped by $27 million (15 percent). Bush has reduced the EPA staff by 210. In fiscal year 2002, the EPA conducted 2,700 (13 percent) fewer inspections to detect violations of environmental laws, compared with those that occurred in 2000. In result, the EPA is experiencing management and funding defiencies and are struggling to afford tackling major environmental crimes. Deforestation is prominent, and our last remaining old-growth forests are in danger. The Bush Administration has even exempted the Tongass National Forest from the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, allowing commerical logging in previously "roadless" wilderness areas. Nine million acres that make up one of the largest forests in North America is endangered because of this, and 100-year sequoias are being cut down in the Sequoia National Monument. Being a great lover and believer of the environment, I could go on and on and on and on and on about the terrifying environmental record of this Administration. And, despite all the obvious signs of environmental degradation, Bush has successfully been able to deceive the public in saying his so-called "Clean Skies" plan has cut air pollution by 70 percent, and Bush has refused to listen to EPA's alternative suggestions of reducing emissions at an only slightly-higher cost. Bush has successfully been able to label the time frame of October 18, 2002-October 17, 2003 as, "The Year of Clean Water," when in fact he's secretly been undermining the Clean Water Act by curtailing environmental inspections, etc. Bush has successfully been able to claimed a record number of enforcement cases were initiated in 2002, while more than a fourth of these cases were anti-terrorism efforts not related to suspected environmental crimes, and four-fifths of the original EPA staff have vanished. I mus be one of the most upset tree-huggers right now, and I am sure so many of these 73% of Americans feel likewise. And to see that the environment was never even mentioned as a question in the domestic policies debate, is saddening to me. I can guarantee Kerry will do better on the environment if elected. ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE IT! No doubt whatsoever. Health care and the economy too. On the other issues, I wouldn't say it's a guarantee, but in all, proven Kerry's acclaimed environmental record by many environmental organizations, including a 93% grade from the League of Conservation Voters and the fact the Sierra Club awarded Kerry with an endorsement, the first time they have ever endorsed a presidential candidate since political conventions ever started, Kerry could not possibly do worse than Bush has on this particular issue. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 Oh, Ford, by the way, I absolutely agree that the environment is one of two most important issues in our society. The other is education. For I believe children are the most beautiful creation of God, and they are the future. And every single moment is crucial as they grow and develop, so education is critical. I believe that in educating our children the true morals of life, that fighting, war, selfishness and lying is wrong, and encourage the virtues of giving, sharing, loving thy neighbor and forgiveness, the world can be a much better place once the children grow up to be the next leaders of the world. Education is interconnected to all patterns of behavior I think. It influences our decisions in domestic and foreign policy, in protecting our environment, in funding schools and churches and community centers. Education is a top priority also, no matter what time it is. The environment is the other major issue I believe because this is the world we live in, it is our playground. In understanding other living creatures, our waters, our air, our forests, we understand life and living. I believe the Earth is our body, the water our blood, the air our breath and the fire our spirit. And if we don't recognize how important it is to nurture it for the children of tomorrow, the very Earth could get a fatal case of cancer that may never fully heal or mend. I hate to think of the day in the future at this rate when man rwalizes all the trees cut down and ominous black clouds of ash in the air and then fall to their knees and weep in shame to what they've done and finally spend eons regretting the destruction.  The environment is our home, and education is the lamp that lights the home. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Noah Thank you for your input..I was hoping you would see this post... You are well informed about this subject, that is obvious by reading your replies.. Yes, the Bush administration is very good at slogans and bumper sticker jingles..."clear skies" "no child left behind" not to mention their choice of battle field slogans and making a mockery of the words used to poeticize the real intentions of those programs.. (Their Madison Avenue consultants have done a superb job) I could not have done a better job at posting the some important facts about this administrations secret attacks on the environment. Your information adds greatly to this thread. Thank You... Thank you twice, your second reply was very touching...It shows that one can mix emotion and fact..Two things that make up educated opinions....I am glad that both exist in you... ----------ice ><> |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
A must read interview and book; quote: Interview: http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/10/09_402.html Crimes Against Nature : How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060746874/102-9923520-5668156?v=glance#product-details Honorable mention review http://www.thelantern.com/news/2004/09/23/Campus/Robert.Kennedys.Book.Criticizes.Bushs.Policy-728487.shtml |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: To a man in search of beauty and self-actualization, the value of a wren's song is great, indeed. However, to a man who yesterday lost his infant son to hunger, and tomorrow faces the prospect of losing his daughter to disease, the warbling of a tiny bird is of little consolation and even less concern. Environmentalists, I think, need to get out into the real world and realize that their fears, while fully and completely justified, simply don't seem relevant to most of the audience. Arguing the importance of beauty amidst the squalor of poverty is a fool's errand. No one is going to listen. Psychologist Abraham Maslow, in 1943, published his classic treatise on The Hierarchy of Needs. Those wishing to affect social and political change should read it carefully and understand it clearly. Each of the five levels posited in Maslow's pyramid of human needs depends on fulfillment of all lower levels. You can't convince a man to build city walls (safety) unless you first ease the gnawing ache of hunger in his belly (physiological). And you can't convince anyone to hug a tree if they feel they need that tree to build city walls or homes for their families. Those in search of beauty (self-actualization) have two choices. They can continue to preach to the choir, addressing their concerns to everyone on the same upper level, or they can work to move others along the same path they have traveled. What environmentalists can't ever do is repeal the laws of gravity or convince another to skip a few steps in the hierarchy of human needs. The environment will continue to take a backseat to hunger, fear, isolation and self-doubt so long as those baser human needs remain unmet. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Awwwwwww, thank you dearest Ford!  I believe that you shouldn't only know what you're talking about, but feel what you're talking about as well. I guess because I grew up, bullied all the time and beaten up by other boys because I was the little boy who didn't like to get in fights or start trouble and I was called "girlish" in result, I have felt the pain and understand it growing up now and don't want others to feel that same type of pain I do. There are so many innocent endangered species that are being threatened in result of this poor environmental management and care, such as the orca whale, the white marlin, the Canadian lynx, the Santa Barbara tiger salamander, the northern spotted owl, and the grizzly bear. Every living thing is one of God's many glorious creations and I believe they all share these same emotions as we do, and we must nurture and protect their habitat. Ever since I was seven, I've been fascinated with the environment, and I guess that's why it's the political issue I know most about and am most familiar with. I actually still have a small shelf filled with all my old entomology books, because I was fascinated with insects like butterflies and ladybugs ever since I was a little boy and my mom called me her little entomologist! One of the most emotional, yet beautiful memories of my childhood was having one of those home-care butterfly kits, where you have a box with food, water and air and five caterpillars, and you take care of them and through the plastic windows you can watch them grow up, crawl into their little cocoons, then become beautiful butterflies. I remember I cried when the butterflies learned to fly and knew it was time to let them go, because watching them grow and raising them made them feel like family to me I didn't want to see go, but I knew I had to do what was right and let them free immediately and it made me smile imagining the butterflies fluttering to the flower fields to kiss the flowers and start families of their own and have other baby butterflies. I remember my mom put her arm around my shoulder as I was wiping my tears mixed with missing and joy, saying that I was a wonderful carer for the butterflies and that I'll make a wonderful dad someday. To me, it was a funny thought at the time imagining myself a daddy being a little boy, but now that I've grown, I truly believe one who keeps in touch with nature is almost like babysitting Mother Nature. That is why, by the way, I always wear a hemp necklace with a butterfly on it. I believe the children of the world should always dream and believe in flying to embrace their dreams, and if we believe long enough, we can dance and embrace life in joy, flittering like the butterflies. It's representative of innocence and the free spirit of life! The environment means the world to me, and it saddens me this issue is not being taken seriously in politics. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Ron, the points you made are true, yet I find it isn't only poor who are really ignoring the environment. The calculated intentional damage usually comes from the greedy rich who feel the world is their personal oyster bar. It's not the ones looking for a burrito or peanut butter sandwich who are out there trying to drill in the Arctic. Of course, there are many loggers here in Oregon who would prefer to see the out-of-towners and 'environmentalists' go away and leave them alone to cut the trees as they please. Everyone claims to have a legitimate reason for raping/not raping the environment. In the end, we all pay the price, and we'll all be damned lucky if 150 years from now there is anything close to a hospitable environment on Earth. I guess I just don't see this as a Maslow hierarchy issue, though I do understand that an empty belly and a roof comes before saving a tree. That just proves how short-sighted we humans can be. We are destroying the rainforest, polluting the skies and the seas, literally raping the earth. But gay issues and abortion are suddenly higher priorities, and the war on terror and health care are naturally two biggies. *sigh* [This message has been edited by Midnitesun (10-17-2004 09:46 AM).] |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Rebel, Noah, Ron, Kacy Thank you for your replies...I have to go on an appointment this morning, but will address what you said in them this afternoon...again, thank you for your comments.... ---------ice/ford ><> |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
More foxes that guard the environmental hen-house, in the Bush administration.... ******************************************* Gale Norton- Secretary of the Interior Promised not to slant the scientific information given her in an ideological way while carrying out her duties as secretary.... Quote, by her friend Thomas Sansonetti (Now assistant attorney general, formerly a coal industry lobbyist) "There won't be any biologists or botanists to come in and pull the wool over her eyes." Under Norton's watch over the interior, not a single species has been put on the endangered species list..( The first secretary of the interior to not do so since its inception)ignoring the urging of scientific evidence showing that the trumpeter swan, the Florida panther and the grizzly bear are in critical jeopardy, and should be placed on the list. ******************************************* Frank Luntz-Republican pollster /Political advisor-Author of the 1994 "Contract with America... Quote: "You need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue," he told Republicans, "by becoming even more active in recruiting experts sympathetic to your view. ******************************************* J.Steven Griles Deputy secretary of the interior. Helped the coal industry (Reagan administration, while assistant to James Watt)avoid mountain-top removal regulations. Left the government in 1989 to work in the mining industry, became a lobbyist for "National Environmental Strategies" A D.C. based firm that represented the National Mining Association" Now he is in charge of mining regulations on federal land.. Of course he had to sell his client base when he was appointed to his new post, although he still receives $284,000 per year (for four years, from his former employer as deferred pay, (he is no longer legally on the payroll) These may be a form of buy-out payments, I am not sure, but I am sure of their legality. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Thank you for this information. It's a common tactic to use euphemisms to cover the real intent and aim, that both sides have been known to engage in this rhetorical game. I've encountered this many times, when a lobbysist/attorney for an environmentally unsound business attempts to pull the wool over the public's eyes and call a rock a rose. Sheesh, and they've often called us 'eco-terrorists' when we've suggested 'radical' actions to stop or prevent their abuses. Radical sometimes just means standing up against them and uncovering lies. The biologist/botanist sheep...LOL, yeah, right. Sometimes you've got to wear steel re-enforced muck boots to get through the layers of manure, especially in politically/financially charged issues. |
||
|
froggy Senior Member
since 2003-06-23
Posts 1893Michigan |
Ford, I truly know where your coming from. You and I have shared many a discussions on this as well as other things regarding Mr. Bush. Its a pity he takes and overlooks many things including those of the working man and woman. If everyone stood their ground and said No to this adminstration's way we'd all be far better off. You've given voice for those who are afraid to speak and I give thumbs up for it. Hugs my friend. :-) Froggy Within this heart you'll find love |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Local Rebel I am well aware of Robert Kennedy's work in protecting our environment, through lawsuits and the calling out of many polluters. Some of the information I have used in this thread has come from the sites you mention..I am glad that you posted the links so that others can check them out.. Thank you _____________________________________________________ Ron Thank you for taking the time to reply to this thread. I am assuming that you are not saying that the "wrens song" is not important , but must take a back seat when it comes to world hunger..I agree I am an environmentalist, and because of that, I am out in the real world everyday....The father with the sick kid is also an environmentalist...his environment is polluted by hunger and disease...That part of the ecosystem must also be cleaned up...There is no beauty as long as squalor exists... I will read Maslov's treatise, I have read much, but am always open to other ideas, even if they rub against the grain of what I already think..thank you for the links. Indeed "human needs depend(s) on fulfillment of lower levels" I am already in agreement..My feelings are that a pure environment is the base or lowest level on the ladder that raises the quality of all life, including the aforementioned father and his children...a clean earth is the only thing that can grow enough food to feed that family, and fill the base human needs that you speak of...After the child is fed, my hopes are that the wren will be around to sing... _____________________________________________________ Noah Thank you again, your interest in this thread is well received, and the new information you supply adds much to it.... _____________________________________________________ Kacy Thank you for returning... You add fire to this discussion, Controlled anger is good sometimes, I agree with what you say. Thank you for your input.... You are very welcome, I am glad you read the "information" Of course we are not all "eco-terrorists" but some are, out of desperation they break the law, which are always slow in getting enacted, so slow that they must try to save things outside those uninacted laws that are many times put in effect after it is to late to save what needs be saved.. "Radical" I love that word...in poetic/botanical metaphorical terms, it means the tip of a growing root. The reason for this thread is to expose the histories of the Bush appointed cabinet, those people who have followed the presidents own initiatives pertaining to the earth we live on...regardless of what scientists tell them, they will follow his lead like so many sheep, and also bow to the special interest groups they represent now and in former occupations.. _____________________________________________________ Froggy Glad you stopped by to read this discussion.. My voice comes from the facts I have found, I mean no harm to those I have exposed, I just want them out of office, I trust them not at all...The secrets that they try to hide are exposed, I believe in great part by the use of the internet..I use information that can be proven by history. I (so far) have not seen a rebuttal of those facts, I am waiting for some Bush supporters to prove me wrong, I hope they can as what I have stated is frightening.... _____________________________________________________ What a wonderful place this discussion forum is, thank you Ron and all who post and reply to the threads...this is America at its best, exchanging ideas, we are all better informed people because of it.. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I don't think there has been a rebuttal yet because its clear when you look beyond the smokescreen rhetoric on the campaign trail, the facts clearly state in virtually every scientific and climatologist study that the environment has gotten worse, and Bush can't defend his record. If the environment were a far more top priority issue in the course of this election year campaign, I'd say Kerry would likely be favored to Bush on the issue by at least a 2 to 1 margin, even with the skillful euphemisms the Bush campaign uses in claiming they're protecting millions of acres of wetlands and the air is 70% cleaner. Look at this year alone. We've had four major hurricanes to hit Florida this year. We had Charley, one of the five most destructive hurricanes in Florida history. Then we had Frances, Ivan, Jeanne. All four of these hurricanes costing Florida billions in damage and forcing millions to evacuate from their homes. No, I certainly know better than to solely blame Bush and his Administration for the worsening of extreme weather, but I think their policies are encouraging the further acceleration of it, not to mention their cold shoulder on climatologists and scientists in inexcusable. Our scientists are suffocating under this Administration. Their reports continue to relentlessly be distorted by the White House of dire warnings about climate change, stem cell research, the dangers of mercury and hundreds of other toxic chemicals, the dangers of depleted uranium, Agent Orange, mining, nuclear weapons storage, and the power plants themselves. 4,000 scientists including 48 Nobel Laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences have come out accusing the Administration of this, who continue to be blacklisted and harrassed, suppressed from releasing information to the public that is critical of the Bush Administration and its corporal contributors. Mountaintop removal strip mining, endangered species, marine studies, all across the board, their findings are being distorted. There is 673 billion dollars of federally insured flood sites, a vast majority of which are within the 17 of the 25 fastest growing counties in the United States, which are coastal communities. About half of these sites are in Florida. None of that flood insurance even takes into account rising sea levels, intensified hurricanes, the other impacts of global warming. There's even a government report that says 25% of all houses within 500 feet of the ocean will be gone in the next 50 years. Yet, a majority of these Florida sites the 673 billion dollars covers are in places like North Captiva, Florida, where the flood insurance program began in 1968, where citizens are subject to harms way, and in flood plains and in areas of high erosion due to sea-level rise. Both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission, two major commissions that just reported on the state of America's blue frontier, both recommended reforming the flood control system so it doesn't encourage new growth in high risk areas. Even three republican governors from Maryland, Massachusetts and South Carolina agreed in reformation. But guess what? Jeb Bush isn't. He is more interested in real estate interests. He believes if you watch a hurricane hit Punta Gorda, turn your head, and says to come back one year later, it'll be a more beautiful estate than ever. Had Charley stayed its original course and hit Tampa, Charley could very well have been one of those $50 billion to $100 billion destructive hurricanes climatologists are warning about. And they continue to be left in the background. The consequences of climatologist backlash go far beyond America as well. We have seen depressing floods in Bangladesh kill thousands and leave thousands more homeless and sick from malnutrition. We see our great glaciers vanishing at alarming, accelerating rates in the Himalayan mountains. In result, virtually all the great rivers of Asia are threatened to dry up, which can cause untold damage to their irrigation agriculture and leave millions in famine. We had that massive heat wave in Europe last year that killed about 20,000 people. The results affect us globally. And very little is being done. Personally, when George W. Bush can't even remember co-owning a timber company (LSTF, LLC) it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know something is in the air here. The facts are there, and I KNOW Kerry will do significantly better for the environment as president. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Noah "The facts are there, and I KNOW Kerry will do significantly better for the environment as president." Out of all of the things you said, this one hit home with the most force.. On researching the Bush cabinet I find that just about anybody could do better than this president on picking its key members when it comes to the environment, and for that matter the cabinet members in charge of the other areas of his regime...but I want to stay focused on the environment right now..the rest of his staff have shaky credentials in their areas as well and conflict of interest backgrounds...it seems most of the highly honorable people have quit or have been asked to leave their posts. again, Thank you for your information and thoughts. ----------ice ><> |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
More "Foxes" Dick Cheney Vice president of the United States Vice president, Cheney chaired the president's energy task force and battled environmentalists in court over which of the energy task-force records should be made public. ******************************************* James Connaughton Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. Connaughton serves as the West Wing's top environmental-policy person. A former partner at the law firm of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, he used to represent clients such as mining giant Asarco and General Electric. He also represented companies fighting Superfund cleanup rules. He co-authored a 1993 law journal article, "Defending Charges of Environmental Crime -- The Growth Industry of the '90s." ******************************************* ALLAN FITZSIMMONS Wildlands Fuels Coordinator, Department of the Interior Fitzsimmons has built a career around questioning the scientific basis of ecosystems. While an aide to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks in 1986, Fitzsimmons wrote a memo suggesting that "public recreational benefit is the principal reason for conserving natural features." He is founder of a consulting firm called "Balanced Resource Solutions" that advises conservative think tanks and free market groups. In a paper published by one of those groups (The political Economy Research Center) he wrote.."The main problem is that ecosystems are not real... Ecosystems are only mental constructs, not real, discrete, or living things on the landscape. The second problem is that even if they were real, we have no idea of what their 'health' or 'integrity' might mean." Now, Fitzsimmons is the administration's wildfire czar, in charge of implementing the president's 'Healthy Forests Initiative.' That program is predicated on the belief that "deteriorated forest and rangeland conditions significantly affect...ecosystem health." |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
