Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

The argument fails on its face. The argument fails to acknowledge the fundamental premise of science which is that one cannot prove a negative. Thus, it is impossible to prove that Freon does not affect the ozone layer.

It also fails to acknowledge the underlying premise of environmentalists, which is, if there is a significant probability that an action will diminish the health of the planet which sustains us, we should refrain from that action until such time as a better risk assessment outcome based on better evidence is available.

Hence, environmentalist’s argument is if there is a reasonable chance that freon could destroy the ozone layer which protects us all from the sun’s radiation, then we should cease releasing freon into the atmosphere until either 1) that reasonable chance is reduced to a negligible chance of harm, or 2) an alternate product or practice which does not potentially threaten the globe’s or socieities health is developed.

The person you quote is a master spinner, but like most spin, it does not hold up under the light of logical scrutiny.

“Once again, the ecofascists have blood on their hands.”

Bloody ecofascist liberal Reagan… http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/montreal/01.htm

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, done at Montreal on September 16, 1987. The report of the Department of State is also enclosed for the information of the Senate.

The Montreal Protocol provides for internationally coordinated control of ozone-depleting substances in order to protect public health and the environment from potential adverse effects of depletion of stratospheric ozone. The Protocol was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program, pursuant to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, which was ratified by the United States in August 1986.

In this historic agreement, the international community undertakes cooperative measures to protect a vital global resource. The United States played a leading role in the negotiation of the Protocol. United States ratification is necessary for entry into force and effective implementation of the Protocol. Early ratification by the United States will encourage similar action by other nations whose participation is also essential.

I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Protocol and give its advice and consent to ratification.

Ronald Reagan
The White House
December 21, 1987

ceejayoz, your comment is a tough one to get around. But, “true believers” in anti-environmental practices will find away. They always do. If you can’t make em’ eco-fascists because that demeans there own leaders, then dip into the bag and try socialist, communist, revolutionaries or the big one going around, un-patriotic.

Right. Those eco-fascists, socialists,communists, and unpatriotic revolutionaries are so self-centered as to want to protect the planet for their own selfish needs. Living.

This is no where as important as the profits that can be made, for the moment, by circumventing, or even reversing, “bloody” environmental laws and regulations. After all, it is much better to have millions and billions of dollars than it is to breath clean air and drink clean water.

Vivek, I suspect Hannes Hacker has struck a a few nerve bundles : )

What a silly premise. NASA didn’t have to launch the damn rocket with foam they already knew to be inferior (as Hacker clearly alleges). The blame (if any - it may well have simply been a really unfortunate accident) rests solely on NASA’s bureaucrats and/or engineers.

The environmental angle is just a sad, and maybe a little ironic in light of the environmentalists’ good intentions, coincidence. Exploiting the Columbia tragedy to make a point about an utterly unrelated political issue is obscene.

-Cf

The environmentalists (and Ronald Reagan) didn’t demand that NASA use unsafe foam. NASA needs to live with the consequences of their decisions like everyone else. If I get drunk and drive my subcompact off the road, I can’t blame the environmentalists because I didn’t have a 4-wheel drive.

I find it funny how religious people (you may or may not be one) are always accusing atheists and agnostics of actually having a “religion” like materialism, environmentalist, etc? If religion is such a wonderful force for humanity, isn’t this actually a compliment?

To amplify my previous comment, this perfectly parallels the logic of a frivolous tort: Instead of blaming a tragedy on the last person who could have prevented it, blame someone earlier in the chain of causality for “forcing” the true offender to act like an idiot.

Your objectivist friend (follower of Ayn Rand, according to his author’s bio), in his rush to condemn the EPA for it’s meddling, forgets that it was well within NASA’s power to find more suitable alternatives. It is NASA’s response to the EPA’s mandate that seems to be in error, not the EPA’s rather justifiable banning of ozone depleting chemicals.

Why is it that they must always claim that the most economic measures are always the least environmentally friendly? I mean, if they stopped interfering with environmental regulation, perhaps market forces could help produce less expensive environmentally friendly materials, procedures, and pollution countermeasures. Can’t American ingenuity solve that problem? This column is no less soaked in dogmatic belief than that of the worst environmental extremist.

Thank God that there were no eco-fascists around at Love Canal, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Valdez, etc., etc., etc. — I find it hard to believe that saving the environment is a hot-button issue which people would be adamantly against! Anyone who has ever had a beer and bothered to figure out how it was made knows that the yeast kills itself by polluting its own environment. Aren’t we the same? Don’t we pose the same health hazards to ourselves and the world that we live in? Maybe we won’t end life entirely by depleting the ozone, irradiating the soil, strip mining the mountains, dumping waste into the streams and oceans, and pumping tons of carbon-monoxide into the air each year…but we certainly aren’t leaving much for our children to enjoy.

“But NASA, a government organization afraid of antagonizing powerful political interests did not reject the EPA’s demands and thoroughly reverse their fatal decision. Instead, they sought a compromise, applying for a waiver from the EPA that allowed them to use the old foam on some parts of the external tank.”

Surely that’s a management failure? If the foam was not upto standard then it should not have been used. The law has provisions allowing exceptions to be made. NASA did not seek one.

Given what has recently been revealed about NASA’s crappy management is it really so hard to believe this is the real problem?

That last part of your quote, vivek, about “doubtful prognostications of an environmental disaster”, now I caught sight of it, just begs to be punctured. environmental studies of the Ozone over Antarctica and Northern Europe have quite adequately shown an erosion of that crucial layer of the atmosphere, and observations have been made of that process occuring. It’s only doubtful prognostications, if you were selling freon.

Total toss….

…. if the replacement foam was known to be unsatisfactory then it should not have been used …. a proper replacement should have been found….. and if it could not have been found the shuttles should have been grounded untill a replacement was found … and probably with the shuttles grounded a better replacement would have been found!!…. Its as simple as that!!

Environmentalists are devastating the American economy? Perhaps. But tell me if someone that lives in a dirt floor shack cares about freon? How about the farmer that is regulated out of business and loses the family farm to Agribusiness who can afford to buy off regulators?
Why is it that it is affluent whites that feed this issue? They can afford to pay a buck for a drink of fancy water, and buy over priced ugly vegies at the local co-op.
Meanwhile the rest of us have to eat from the supermarket, and live in fear? Can’t eat, can’t breathe, can’t drink the water? If anyone is a terrorist it is these cult level, Steiner spouting, brain washing our children in Waldorf Schools (those that can afford them)Greenies that are ruining America. I have a few old hippie friends that have totally bought into this religious science called the Steiner Method(from Rudolf Steiner) that teaches children not to use black crayons or dark colors, and never draw straight lines, or not to read before their first molar, and light candles everyday to a designated angel of the classroom. These are funded schools, not privately but by government charter.
Rudolf is the man behind the pure race theory,(Hitler) and the ascention of the purest to the next level of evolution. Jews are evil and inhabited by alien spirits? Children are handicapped because of karma?
I could say more, but you will just have to research it yourself.
Caring for the planet means all of the planet not just affluent white people, who already have the best of the best.
Good article, I live in the woods, and I feel like this life style will not exist much longer thanks to EPA, Endangered Species regulations, and now the Invasive species act. Too bad Indians can’t use it to get rid of all people of European descent! Just kiding, I wouldn’t want to lose my husband.