Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

You forgot to mention how BushCo removed Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant in the EPA Measurements then started claiming the air was cleaner in thier studies.

Really? It is no longer considered a pollutant by the EPA? Are SURE about that?

First of all, the petition to ADD CO2 as an air pollutant was started in 1999. The EPA didn’t make a ruling until 2003, when they ruled that they were not in a position to make a ruling on Greenhouse Gases when so little is understood.

Before you blindly follow the lead of Sierra Club, et al, read this article… please. It may be too logical and scientific for what you are trying to (hate Bush in all ways), but it is RIGHT. You just can’t beat being right.

http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2003/wca_7a.html

Rarely have I seen you make such a glaringly wrong statement as to say, “No president can turn that around and we can’t credit or blame President Bush.”

The president proposes budgets and in so doing sets many of the nation’s priorities, and with the assistance of Congress those priorities are dealt with. So, YES! the President can turn things around, he just has other priorities like accomodating his own and his party’s donors and lobbyists.

So you are content to call our air “cleaner each year” when pregnant women cannot eat fish more than 2x a week due to mercury poisoning. Nearly 90% of women breast feeding are found to have traces of jet fuel additives. Clear cutting (which is not the only way to harvest lumber) is destroying some of the last vestiges of our once great wilderness.

Environmental control at the hands of “market based incentives” is about the same as placing electric power resources into the hands of an Enron. Greed and profit are not the only way to manage scarce resources.

Go try and swim in a river near a N.C. pork farm, or in a river through one of our great urban centers, or try and see the Great Smokies even on a clear day. After you have done all of that, then tell me how clean our environment is.

Just as a restaurant is required to take care of its trash every day, so should the mining, chemical and agri business be required to clean up their mess every day. Why are we so scared to make them pay they fair share?

Maybe it is because they underwrite and fund most of the groups you mention as an alternative “information” source.

Isn’t most of the success of today the result of Clinton’s presidency?

Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

A White House official who once led the oil industry’s fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase “significant and fundamental” before the word “uncertainties,” tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.

Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the “climate team leader” and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor’s degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

The documents were obtained by The New York Times from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers.

The project is representing Rick S. Piltz, who resigned in March as a senior associate in the office that coordinates government climate research. That office, now called the Climate Change Science Program, issued the documents that Mr. Cooney edited.

A White House spokeswoman, Michele St. Martin, said yesterday that Mr. Cooney would not be available to comment. “We don’t put Phil Cooney on the record,” Ms. St. Martin said. “He’s not a cleared spokesman.”

In one instance in an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, “Our Changing Planet,” Mr. Cooney amplified the sense of uncertainty by adding the word “extremely” to this sentence: “The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult.”

In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was “straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings.”

Other White House officials said the changes made by Mr. Cooney were part of the normal interagency review that takes place on all documents related to global environmental change. Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted that one of the reports Mr. Cooney worked on, the administration’s 10-year plan for climate research, was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. And Myron Ebell, who has long campaigned against limits on greenhouse gases as director of climate policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group, said such editing was necessary for “consistency” in meshing programs with policy.

But critics said that while all administrations routinely vetted government reports, scientific content in such reports should be reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions.

In a memorandum sent last week to the top officials dealing with climate change at a dozen agencies, Mr. Piltz said the White House editing and other actions threatened to taint the government’s $1.8 billion-a-year effort to clarify the causes and consequences of climate change.

“Each administration has a policy position on climate change,” Mr. Piltz wrote. “But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program.”

A senior Environmental Protection Agency scientist who works on climate questions said the White House environmental council, where Mr. Cooney works, had offered valuable suggestions on reports from time to time. But the scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because all agency employees are forbidden to speak with reporters without clearance, said the kinds of changes made by Mr. Cooney had damaged morale. “I have colleagues in other agencies who express the same view, that it has somewhat of a chilling effect and has created a sense of frustration,” he said.

Efforts by the Bush administration to highlight uncertainties in science pointing to human-caused warming have put the United States at odds with other nations and with scientific groups at home.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who met with President Bush at the White House yesterday, has been trying to persuade him to intensify United States efforts to curb greenhouse gases. Mr. Bush has called only for voluntary measures to slow growth in emissions through 2012.

Yesterday, saying their goal was to influence that meeting, the scientific academies of 11 countries, including those of the United States and Britain, released a joint letter saying, “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.”

The American Petroleum Institute, where Mr. Cooney worked before going to the White House, has long taken a sharply different view. Starting with the negotiations leading to the Kyoto Protocol climate treaty in 1997, it has promoted the idea that lingering uncertainties in climate science justify delaying restrictions on emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe gases.

On learning of the White House revisions, representatives of some environmental groups said the effort to amplify uncertainties in the science was clearly intended to delay consideration of curbs on the gases, which remain an unavoidable byproduct of burning oil and coal.

“They’ve got three more years, and the only way to control this issue and do nothing about it is to muddy the science,” said Eileen Claussen, the president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a private group that has enlisted businesses in programs cutting emissions.

Mr. Cooney’s alterations can cause clear shifts in meaning. For example, a sentence in the October 2002 draft of “Our Changing Planet” originally read, “Many scientific observations indicate that the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change.” In a neat, compact hand, Mr. Cooney modified the sentence to read, “Many scientific observations point to the conclusion that the Earth may be undergoing a period of relatively rapid change.”

A document showing a similar pattern of changes is the 2003 “Strategic Plan for the United States Climate Change Science Program,” a thick report describing the reorganization of government climate research that was requested by Mr. Bush in his first speech on the issue, in June 2001. The document was reviewed by an expert panel assembled in 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. The scientists largely endorsed the administration’s research plan, but they warned that the administration’s procedures for vetting reports on climate could result in excessive political interference with science.

Another political appointee who has played an influential role in adjusting language in government reports on climate science is Dr. Harlan L. Watson, the chief climate negotiator for the State Department, who has a doctorate in solid-state physics but has not done climate research.

In an Oct. 4, 2002 memo to James R. Mahoney, the head of the United States Climate Change Science Program and an appointee of Mr. Bush, Mr. Watson “strongly” recommended cutting boxes of text referring to the findings of a National Academy of Sciences panel on climate and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that periodically reviews research on human-caused climate change.

The boxes, he wrote, “do not include an appropriate recognition of the underlying uncertainties and the tentative nature of a number of the assertions.”

While those changes were made nearly two years ago, recent statements by Dr. Watson indicate that the admnistration’s position has not changed.

“We are still not convinced of the need to move forward quite so quickly,” he told the BBC in London last month. “There is general agreement that there is a lot known, but also there is a lot to be known.”

Aldous,

If it were in your power to remove all the carbon dioxide from the earth, Would you?

Aldous,

Is your post Chapter 1 of a new manuscript you are writing?

Mike Tracy writes….

“Go try and swim in a river near a N.C. pork farm, or in a river through one of our great urban centers, or try and see the Great Smokies even on a clear day. After you have done all of that, then tell me how clean our environment is.”

As you are well aware from making the reference, there is nobody living near a pork farm in NC who would even consider, no less want to swim in a riuver near it. What do you suggest, do away with the pork industry. Also there are steps under way by the State of NC to reduce and eventually eliminate this problem.

Again a river running through an urban center is nothing more than a target for people to dispose household garbage, appliances, tires (even cars). A law against doing so is unenforceable.Also the water traffic contributes greatly to the problem. How about no boats on the urban rivers?

Maybe we can install huge fans to blow away the clouds , both real and man made, to enhance the view over the Smokies.

Cleaning up the trash from restaurants is a great idea. Unfortunately that trash from the major populated cities in the Northeast ends up in dumps in Virginia and other “out of site places” for the urban folks.

How about let’s stop generating so much trash as a good 1st step to cleaning up the environment.

Beagle
Why do you feel the need to go to such extremes??
SOME CO2 is necessary for life — as you know, many plants use CO2 in their life processes.

But TOO MUCH of a necessary thing can kill you.
Oxgen is necessary for Human Life, but did you know that you can die from TOO much oxygen?

Let’s keep the discussion on track — it is about TOO MUCH
That is why there is a discussion at all
the disagreement on what constitutes TOO MUCH and its causes.

Re: polluters
it is a “Pay me now or pay me later scenario”
Eventually the crap has to be cleaned up and the options are:
Spend a little (relatively) AT THE SOURCE BY THE PEOPLE CREATING THE CRAP AND MAKING A PROFIT FROM IT.
OR
HAVE THE TAXPAYERS PAY 10,000 TIMES MORE TO CLEAN IT FROM THE ENVIORNMENT ONCE IT IS RELEASED.

(HMMMM, WHICH OPTION DO YOU THINK BUSHCO AND INDUSTRY PROMOTE???)
Again
What does it take to NOT put a drop of gasoline into a barrel of drinking water?
What does it take to purify the water once you have allowed the drop into the barrel??
Which do YOU think is cheaper??

A little Background Check on the GREENING EARTH Society Referenced by bAp above
From a Google Search:
“Greening Earth Society - public relations and lobbying organization funded by the Western Fuels Association that is skeptical of the potential for catastrophic climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions generated by human activity.”

Let’s see, the rest of the “references” or background information for the original post comes from…………….Ta — DA
THE WHITE HOUSE!!!
Now, with a source like that, who needs INDEPENDENT, corroborating FACTS????
Hmm, better to just quite thinking and take the Prez at his word — right??

Russ,

I didn’t remember asking you any questions, but since you are asking me some..

I understand about plants and animals and the enviorment in general.

If you want to know my opinion of the biggest threat to the enviorment?…Disneyland !

Jack,

First of all, any law can be challenged in court. By your logic, the government shouldn’t try to regulate any industry at all, because the regulations are subject to judicial review. Numerous laws regarding kiddie porn on the Internet have been challenged, and not without success (because they infringe on other material), but I don’t see anyone saying that we should ask illegal pornographers what regulations would be acceptable to them.

Incidently, I don’t have a source for this handy, but I believe the Bushies have been accused of sending signals to polluters that they should keep up their legal fights, which in a twisted way makes sense if they don’t like the regulations they are enforcing.

Also, you had a post a while ago saying that the environment was “getting better”. The reason the environmental has been getting better in some regards is because of regulations.

You posted earlier accusing liberals of comparing their intentions to conservatives’ results. What you are doing now is exactly vice versa. Yes, we all obviously prefer a cleaner environment to legal fights. But saying it doesn’t make it so.

Aldous:
“You forgot to mention how BushCo removed Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant in the EPA Measurements then started claiming the air was cleaner in thier studies.”

Aldous, with your usual no bullsh*t brevity, you are spot on. My Dad, who before his retirement was an epidemiologist and whose entire working career was spent working in a state Heath Dept. and then the EPA, would agree wholeheartedly with you. Indeed, my old man would also probably bore you reciting a list as long as your two arms, and both of your legs, relating all the things Bush has done to help his Big Polluter Buddies in various industries, and describe to you how this administration has rolled environmental standards back to the Nixon Era. He would then proceed to tell you how upset and dismayed his scientist friends and former co-workers have been to watch as important health and environmental legislations have been unraveled or have entirely disappeared while under the leadership of BushCo.

David:
“Rarely have I seen you make such a glaringly wrong statement as to say, “No president can turn that around and we can’t credit or blame President Bush.”

Yeah. I’ll go even farther and state that Jack (despite being quite a clever and intelligent guy) has never written an article so completely and utterly WRONG from start to finish.

“The president proposes budgets and in so doing sets many of the nation’s priorities, and with the assistance of Congress those priorities are dealt with. So, YES! the President can turn things around, he just has other priorities like accomodating his own and his party’s donors and lobbyists.”

Absolutely right.
And it is to laugh that Jack actually had the audacity to mention the “Healthy Forests Initiative”! A piece of legislation that never did pass through Congress (due to public skepticism), but was instead pushed through by a Bush administrative decree (sound familiar?)!
He used the forest fire issue of 2002 to try to cut the public completely out of the public lands management decision making process in order to give logging companies free access to our National Forests - based on a false pretense (also sounds familiar, no?) of decreasing the incidence of forest fires. The real truth is, what those companies really wanted was the chance to cut large, commercially valuable trees miles away from any community that might be at risk.
Bush then began a series of new National Forest management proposals designed to limit the analysis of environmental impacts, and to repeal the ability of the public to appeal bad projects — you know, the kind that create severe degradation of wild forests and wildlife habitats.
Far from promoting Healthy Forests, that initiative went forward with the clear-cut goal (pun intended!) to TURN SCIENTIFIC FOREST MANAGEMENT BACK 40 YEARS.
When you think about it though, it’s not all that surprising really — I mean, rather than be a good steward of the environment, the man seems to do nothing but “cut brush” while at his ranch. He really seems to get goofy on the scent of gasoline mixing with that of freshly cut wood.

Shame on you, Jack for calling Chainsaw George a Champion of the Environment!!!

I wonder how many toxins are being spewed into the environment as a result of your pure hatred of Bush?

It seems more reasonable to state that no one person can effect a lasting change and I do not believe the present or past administrations have actually accomplished much more than providing themselves and their associates with personal gain. That goes for the Clintons as well as Bush. They are all self-serving and have lost focus of who they serve. The Clintons are just more polished with the smoke and mirrors, yet I wouldn’t trust either side to honestly keep my best interest at heart. So, whether it is environmental issues, international issues, or national issues, both the left and right are culpable.

Stop the name calling because you hate a political party or the people who represent it. It immediately negates anything you say afterward as purely partisan poilitcal speak. Whether you have facts or not, who will listen to you other than those that already share the same belief? If you’re trying to convince the other side, you have just turned them off.

As it stands now, half the country will agree with you, the other half will not. What makes one side believe they are superior to the other? You can see plenty of examples of each party showing their arrogance. We’ve seen how you feel about Bush, but can you really say the left doesn’t have the same affliction (ex: Howard Dean’s hate-speak about Repubilcans? How arrogant and classless is that?) If you want to win hearts and minds and reach a peaceful compromise, ditch the guy. No one wins and neither does the environment, school children nor the nation.

It’s rather dishonest to say that George Bush is a Champion of the environment… The fact that pollution levels have gone down may very well be a result of higher gas prices. While we can attribute that partly to Bush, we really can’t say Bush was looking out for the environment.

David

What I meant is the obvious. Things in the environment can’t turn around that quickly. The Federal government is only one player. Besides firms and individuals make plans years in advance. Plants and equipment last for many years. These things just don’t change so fast. There was some disinformation spread around that the environment had gotten worse under Bush. This is just not possible - no matter what his policies. The coal plant finished in 1999 will be working for many years. They are not going to tear it down and build a less clean plant even if they are allowed. It is just silly even to think that.

Woody

I say again that regulations will be required to keep the environment clean. I am convinced that the strong directive command and control regulations of the past were necessary. But we have moved beyond them. Thirty years ago, it was easy to identify pollutions sources. There were big ones and they were usually stationary. We got most of those. We have reduced pollution remarkably, but each additional unit of improvement is harder to get.

This is a general rule that applies to almost every related endeavor. When a fat guy loses weight, it is easier to lose the first ten pounds than the last two. Diminishing returns, you know.

This is where we are in environmental protection. Now we have to be smarter. The smartest thing we can do is use market forces to help devise new and better ways to get at those last bits.

Adrienne

Welcome back from vacation. We missed you.

Healthy forests are actually my favorite. I studied forestry in college and just bought 176 acres of forestland. My commercial interest would be to allow no logging on public lands, since that would increase the value of my growing timber. Big timber firms such as Weyerhaeuser are in the same boat only more so. I support healthy forests in spite of my economic interests because I love trees and forests.

I saw first hand the damage done to growing trees from mismanagement and neglect. In just one example, bark beetles were killing ponderosa pine. Then fires started and finished the job. But the fires went father, destroying some of the “island” forests on mountaintops surrounded by desert. When they are go, they often don’t come back. Better to thin and manage. This includes not only timber cutting, but prescribed burns, wetland restorations and re-plantings. Of all the Bush policies I support (and I support most) this is the one I feel the strongest about.

I just read the other day that Bush will not even aknowledge the results of the National Academy of Sciences that our current environment is contributing to the greenhouse effect. He questions that man-made products are at all responsible for higher average temperatures. Like the scientists are just some drama queens trying to get attention. I mean, this is coming from the National Academy of Sciences. That’s a group of some of the most regarded scientists in the country, and has been around since the early 1900’s. But then again, what would the people who spend their whole lives studying it know about it anyway? You know, one thing Bush has never been accoused of is being bright. I don’t know why people just decided to like him despite all logic, but 6 months into the second term and I think it’s becoming clear that we’ve got a horses-ass in charge of things.

Others have explained it better than I can.

So sad that you can’t defend it yourself, Jack. BTW, I loved that Easterbrook article where he talks about Clear Skies

“…the goals of Bush’s Clear Skies legislation are approximately the same as existing targets of the Clean Air Act”

Nice little qualification there. But I do have to give him credit for noting Clear Skies doesn’t regulate greenhouse gasses and makes it impossible to sue companies that don’t comply with the regulations.

You know what else is interesting, Republicans go on and on about “cap and trade”, yet they’re against actually implementing it - as in the Kyoto protocol.

Here’s Bush’s own Energy Information Administration just finished a study that concluded,

Mandatory limits on all U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases would not significantly affect average economic growth rates across the country through 2025

EIA estimated that the cost to each U.S. household of using a market-based approach to limit greenhouse gases would be $78 per year, from 2006 to 2025. That would reduce the gross domestic product in 2025 by about one-tenth of 1 percent, it said.

The commission also had recommended a 36 percent increase in the average fuel economy for cars and light-duty trucks between 2010 and 2015 and doubling to $3 billion a year the budget for federal energy research and development. In addition, it called for new tax incentives for gasifying coal and building nuclear plants.

Adding those measures to the greenhouse gas plan, EIA estimated, would reduce the nation’s gross domestic product in 2025 by about four-tenths of 1 percent.

Chump change - if the administration was interested in making the environment a priority.

Sam Steele:
“It seems more reasonable to state that no one person can effect a lasting change and I do not believe the present or past administrations have actually accomplished much more than providing themselves and their associates with personal gain.”

When it comes to environmental safety and public health, you are wrong in that belief. Past administrations, including Nixon’s, have often done the right thing, but all the good, hard-won legislation that has been enacted through many, many years is systematically being taken apart, and environmental health and safety standards are consistently being lowered by this administration.

“That goes for the Clintons as well as Bush.”

I wasn’t thrilled by Clinton’s environmental record. I thought he could have done more.

“Stop the name calling because you hate a political party”

I hate no political party — but still have the freedom to strongly disapprove of their actions, as do you and everyone posting here.

“or the people who represent it.”

Wrong. Name calling of politicans who wield huge amounts of power over We the People is pretty much par for the course on a political blog (and IMO, makes things more fun and interesting to read). If you don’t like it, simply skip through such posts and read and respond to only the most deadly serious ones that meet with your approval.

“Whether you have facts or not, who will listen to you other than those that already share the same belief? If you’re trying to convince the other side, you have just turned them off.”

Jack and I go at it all the time, and he and I actually admire each other, despite the fact that we very seldom agree. That is why this blog is so good — because all of us have the opportunity to make each other think and to articulate our differences without the kind of animosity and hatred you’ll see on other blogs.

“What makes one side believe they are superior to the other?”

FYI, I currently don’t belong to the two huge behemoth parties that have a stranglehold on American govt. But when it comes to the environment, the straight facts speak for themselves — Bush and Co. are no friends of the environment, they are merely friends of Big Business/Polluters. It really is that simple.

“We’ve seen how you feel about Bush,”

I make no secret of my complete opposition to the Neocons in office. I consider them horribly bad for America in every way possible.

“If you want to win hearts and minds and reach a peaceful compromise, ditch the guy.”

When it comes to the environment and public health, We the People shouldn’t have to try to win hearts and minds — because all of us have a stake in it, no matter what our political affiliation happens to be. On behalf of ourselves, our children, and future generations of American’s, we should be demanding what is best for the Common Good. Siding with Big Polluters because of their greed, destroying legislation based on solid science, and lowering safety standards to create a false illusion of environmental improvement, and ignoring and/or down-playing the dangers of global warming are things that simply don’t fall into that category. Unfortunately, this administration has been given four more years to degrade our health and our environment, and to stand against the rest of the civilized world on global warming.

Jack:
“Adrienne
Welcome back from vacation. We missed you.”

Aww! That’s very kind of you to say. Thanks, Jack.

Matel, I’m not buying it. Bush’s record on the environment is abysmal.

Barely three months into office, Bush walked away from his pledge to regulate CO2 — something he even admitted was the main culprit for global warming (which, based on yesterday’s meeting with Tony Blair, he really isn’t concerened about at all, stating that he “needs to learn more” about the situation before doing something to help further regulate CO2 emissions.)

Not only does this President oppose the Kyoto Protocol; he also rolled back just about every sane provision of the Clean Air Act of 1978, has lifted pollutant regulations for coal-burning facilities, upped the “acceptable” level of arsenic in our drinking water, and recently opened 58.5 million acres of national parks to the possibility of drilling and logging.

And you have the audacity to insinuate that Bush cares about the environment and can’t turn things around? Of course he can. He just doen’t want to.

Jack, Since we seem to have so passionately embraced Orwellianism, I suggest your next article should be “Bill Clinton: Champion of Marital Fidelity.”

Oh, yeah. Here’s the latest on what our champion’s environmental administration has been up to, from Reuters:

A White House official, who previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute, has repeatedly edited government climate reports in a way that downplays links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

I resent it when right-wingers oppose every policy to reduce pollution, and then say “Well things are better now”. Well, things aren’t better in a lot of ways. Bush continues to support fossil fuel barons at the expense of a real sustainable energy policy.

Here is a great link to find out about many environmental issues: www.bushgreenwatch.org/index.php

Jack said: “The coal plant finished in 1999 will be working for many years. They are not going to tear it down and build a less clean plant even if they are allowed. It is just silly even to think that.”

Silly, Jack? As silly as tearing down an entire nation like Iraq in the hopes of building up again from scratch? No, Jack, not silly. Far less silly and expensive than Iraq, by far.

Adrienne,

“When it comes to environmental safety and public health, you are wrong in that belief. Past administrations, including Nixon’s, have often done the right thing, but all the good, hard-won legislation that has been enacted through many, many years is systematically being taken apart, and environmental health and safety standards are consistently being lowered by this administration.”

My point was not that there were no administrations that have done the environment a good turn, but rather it is not one person and one person alone that will effect change. Any president certainly can influence and lead, but if no one listens nor takes action, then the situation will never improve. To blame, Bush, Clinton or any other president for all that ails us is simply inaccurate. Does he share in the blame, yes, but so do scores of politicians and citizens that do nothing but watch the fight from the sidelines. Sadly, I include myself in that group.

“I hate no political party — but still have the freedom to strongly disapprove of their actions, as do you and everyone posting here.”

Agreed. Disapproval and throwing spitballs are two different things. I do try to skip through the vitriol and find more factual and philosophically based arguments. I may not have liked the Clintons for a number of reasons, but I choose not to use name calling for the purpose of stiring things up. The issues do that pretty well on their own merit.

“When it comes to the environment and public health, We the People shouldn’t have to try to win hearts and minds — because all of us have a stake in it, no matter what our political affiliation happens to be. On behalf of ourselves, our children, and future generations of American’s, we should be demanding what is best for the Common Good. Siding with Big Polluters because of their greed, destroying legislation based on solid science, and lowering safety standards to create a false illusion of environmental improvement, and ignoring and/or down-playing the dangers of global warming are things that simply don’t fall into that category. Unfortunately, this administration has been given four more years to degrade our health and our environment, and to stand against the rest of the civilized world on global warming.”

While I agree with your passion, I believe approach should include a more inclusive delivery. Not all of the “We the people” agree with your point of view, a convincing argument and openess to discussion works more effectively in the long run. I know that this is just a blog, but it is more interesting to me (just me)to read solid information that gives me the opportunity to review my own point of view.

Back to “I hate no political party — but still have the freedom to strongly disapprove of their actions, as do you and everyone posting here.”

Agreed. You have raised many good points, and although I tend to be more libertarian in my political views, I too will continue to exercise the same freedom you mentioned above. That’s what makes this country great, not perfect, but great!

James, c’mon, you know that if God doesn’t whisper it into his ear, it can’t be true. See how easy it is to explain Bush and all his absurd initiatives and policy proposals.

Now to be fair, we must give him credit for invading Afghanistan, even if he did fail to get rid of the Taliban and al-Queda and OBL from lack of perserverence and focus. But, you know, focus and attention span are pretty difficult for a lot of folks who hear God telling them what to do, even with their medications.

Words versus actions.

I hate to pester the Clinton Administration (because I generally liked Bill). But look at that record. In the last days of the Administration, President Clinton saw fit to makes promises on things like mercury, arsenic, expanding wilderness and Kyoto in the clear and certain expectation that nothing could or would be done to implement them. Then partisans accused Bush of rolling them back. Rolling what back? Rolling back the rhetoric, that was all. In eight years they DID little. In the last eight days, they promised it all. I used to think that you can’t make a reputation by what you are gonna do, but I was wrong (or wooda done).

From the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act until the Bush initiatives, there were no real new or interesting changes. The 1990 rules included cap and trade and they worked remarkably well. That is the big reason that the air is cleaner today than in 1990. The Bush plans on mercury and sulfur are similar.

Kyoto has a cap and trade mechanism too, as you point out. The problem with Kyoto is political. Most of the biggest future polluters are exempt.

I do fault the Bush Administration for not pretending to go along (as Clinton did). Bush is accused of not telling the truth, but his real problem is a lack of mendacity. He is too straightforward. I respected President Clinton’s ability to dissemble. Bush doesn’t have the knack.

Rather than blame Bush for not doing enough on enviro issues, wouldn’t the blame be better placed on the voters that elected Him?.

Without “red states” he couldn’t have been elected?, any simpleton knows that.

Look at the red states, a big part of that area are farmers and sportsmen. Both are very enviro groups.
If farmers look across the isle and see; put diapers on cows, and ban oil, diapers on cows is silly, and ban oil?, most dont want to go back to farming with horses(they would have to put diapers on them too).

Sportsmen look across the isle and see; ban guns and hunting/fishing.

Both groups were once solidly Dem. voters, HOW the HELL do you expect them to vote now?

If Dem.’s ever expect to get those voters back to their “nest”, they may wish to clean some of the “droppings” from it first!

Anyone ever see the episode of The Simpsons (yes, I know it is a fictional cartoon)where Bart caught a fish with 3 eyes? Mr. Burns and his cronies set out to show how safe things are and went to dinner with “an average family.” That’s right, Marge in her infinite wisdom cooked and served that 3-eyed fish. Funny, No one, including Mr. Burns dared swallow even 1 bite. Hmmmmmm, Art imitating life…what a concept. Sassyliberal

Steve said:

“Maybe we can install huge fans to blow away the clouds , both real and man made, to enhance the view over the Smokies”

I’ve lived at the foothills of the Smokies most of my life. There was a time that the mountain tops could be seen year-round. Now, you can count the number of times per year on your fingers and toes.

I’m not blaming any single administration. Our whole society is wasteful. It’s not just the large corporations. How many of us recycle on a regular basis? How many of us drive fuel efficient automobiles? How many of us look for ways to reduce our energy consumption at home? How many attend their city/county commission meetings to voice our concerns regarding conservation and recycling and fuel efficiency?

Blame Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Bush, or Reagan….whoever you want. THIS IS AN AMERICAN problem. We are a wasteful and consumptive bunch with little thought of the future…unless of course, future means the next quarterly report for our favorite corporate investment.

Jack, Greg Easterbrook’s articles are extensively refuted elsewhere (I dunno, maybe he’s another red pundit on the take?) and pages on whitehouse.gov are also a little biased, I’d guess.

Can you point us to some relevant discussion of Bush’s policy by sources that are actually interesed in environmental advocacy - you know, places like the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, UCS, League of Conservation Voters, etc? (And don’t tell me they’re all biased - they endorse Republicans all the time.) I’d like to know what the environmentalists think of his policies.

I don’t know about this refuting of Easterbrook. For example the article you mention complains that, “The numbers Easterbrook cites about air-quality improvement are exaggerated, according to O’Donnell; Easterbrook notes, for instance, a 33 percent reduction overall in nitrogen oxide emissions since 1990 when the number more widely accepted by experts is 12 percent.”

Okay, we disagree about exact numbers, but how many people know that air quality has IMPROVED since 1990. Even though the economy was growing. That the environment is improving is his main point. So even at its worst, there is no reputation.

The whole Easterbrook case is interesting. He used to be considered a man of the left, until he crossed the line by asserting - correctly - that the enviroment is actually getting better. He did this before Bush was elected, so implying that he is doing this only to support Bush makes little sense.

David R. Remer:

“But, you know, focus and attention span are pretty difficult for a lot of folks who hear God telling them what to do, even with their medications. “

Priceless. Thanks for the humor (not to mention truth).

Look folks, to say Bush is an environmental champion is like saying Michael Jackson is a shepherd of children. I don’t agree that Bush has been as severly and utterly damaging as some purport, but we have to be able to face the facts as presented. He has not done nearly what he could have—either for the better or worse.

I guess what it comes down to for me is Bush has been environmentally a non-entity.

For a conservative blog, this one certainly attracts a number of passionate liberals. For another perspective on the Global Warming issue:

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=109

Frankly, I don’t know who to believe anymore. People are making a buck on both sides of the political fence…I’m sure some will discount this site for some bias just as the other sites listed are biased in their own way.

Agenda’s, we all have them! The stuff of life!

Jack-
Easterbrook is wrong by a very significant margin. Users of his statistics would be equally wrong. They would only compound it if they made arguments based off of this “fact”.

We’re human. We may not always end up with reliable information, but the problem is that the zeal to win blinds many Republicans to the importance of reliable sources. I don’t know how many times I’ve confronted some Right Winger claiming that they have some paradigm shattering piece of information, only to find out that the only thing cracked up is their research.

I think some Republicans are too fixed on trying to prove the things of liberalism wrong to get their own theories straight sometimes.

Look at the red states, a big part of that area are farmers and sportsmen. Both are very enviro groups.

Okay, so let’s turn to Fly Fisherman magazine, which in December 2004 had this to say:

The Orwellian Clean Skies Initiative now gives corporate polluters 15 years to cut emissions 70 percent, instead of 3 years to cut 90 percent. Clean Skies also makes it clear that carbon dioxide is not to be considered a pollutant and therefore denies the EPA any authority to regulate its emissions.

In that same article, there’s an allusion to the exemptions that the Bush Administation gave to Alaska in regard to the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which applied to the Tongass National Forest:

The reaction from the timber industry was understandably ecstatic, but perhaps not quite so expected was the immediate uproar from hardcore GOP sportsmen who realized they had been sold out by their president…..The Northern Sportsmen Network (NSN) sent a petition of outrage to the Forest Service. It was signed by 470 gun clubs from across the nation including 40 from Texas itself.

I could go on from the same article, but there are so many other good sources. How about The Economist magazine, which few would ever accuse of learning to the left:

As for climate-control policy, this is another fine mess. Having rejected Kyoto, Mr Bush proposed a toothless combination of voluntary programmes and “emissions-intensities” targets (where the carbon content is measured in relation to the economic output of the company or industry concerned.

Even some evangelicals think Bush has been irresponsible in regard to CO2. Here’s a tidbit from the Wall Street Journal:

Richard Cizik, a vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said recent polls among its membership show that “even George Bush supporters believe you have to offer something more here than simply voluntary measures.”

In short, even many of those on the right can see that George Bush is no champion of the environment.

George Bush, in one of his more articulate moments (or, perhaps, one of his more scripted ones) spoke of the “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” In my opinion, the notion that Mr. Bush is anything like a champion of the environment is an example of our exceedingly low expectations not only of Mr. Bush but of the GOP in general.

As a prime example of these low expectations, Gregg Easterbrook actually gives George Bush credit for FAILING to eviscerate the Clean Air Act. This is like giving a threatening looking kid on your block a pat on the back for failing to mug you. Talk about your low expectations!

Then there’s Easterbrook’s giving credit to Bush for rules that, according to the environmental magazine Grist, were forged during the Clinton Adminstration. This article, printed in another location, was linked to above in William Cohen’s post. Here’s just a small piece that relates to the diesel rules:

When Muckraker put in a call to Bob Perciasepe, [Clinton EPA chief Carol] Browner’s lead author on the diesel regulations, he said he was prepared to write a rejoinder to the L.A. Times addressing Easterbrook’s misstatements. “I happen to be staring at a plaque on my wall right this moment,” he said, “with the front page of the Federal Register on it from Jan. 18, 2001 — two days before the Bush administration came into office. It contains the title of the diesel rules that we passed. The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with it.”

So, by all means, let’s lower our expectations far enough to give Mr. Bush credit for NOT cutting a rule which was basically negotiated by the Clinton Administration. Hurrah! The next Teddy Roosevelt! I suggest carving his profile onto some mountain. Preferably one conveniently located next to some Alaskan oil rig.

Stephen

I was just being polite when I accepted the figures quoted against Easterbrook. His figures are taken from the EPA. I have reasonable confidence that they are correct. For most of the period in question, BTW, it was a Clinton EPA.

The other reason I didn’t quibble about the figures was that even the low figures make the same point. Things have improved. The general consensus among the alarmists is that conditions have just gotten worse. Talk about being wrong. The idea that the environment has gotten worse under Bush is also just wrong and – as I pointed out – actually impossible in the time period mentioned.

It is the other side that needs to get the theory straight, or at least pointed in the same direction.

Reed

I think the Economist is great and I often quote from it myself, but what you are referring to is just an article about Bush’s predicament. I agree is in one. But we need to examine how and why.

Kyoto is dead in the U.S. Clinton knew this. That is why he didn’t try to get it ratified. That is why he did even less than Bush in real terms. But what he did do in the waning days of his administration is sign off on Kyoto. He knew that it would not work. He was throwing a curve ball to Bush. It worked. If Gore had been elected, we would be in the same place on Kyoto. A bipartisan majority in the Senate opposed Kyoto.

No Senate, no ratification. The rest is just hot air. I believe President Bush should have continued the Clinton deception, but he didn’t. That was the mistake.

Why did Clinton do all this stuff so late. He didn’t really care about it. His legacy is good, but the legacy of welfare reform, NAFTA, Kosovo and NATO expansion looks more conservative than liberal. So at the last minute he did all the liberal things the left part of his constituency wanted. After eight years, he got religion. Of course he knew it wouldn’t take. Besides the Marc Rich pardon, nothing really worked. But Clinton also suspected he could fool some of the people all of the time, especially if they had a partisan motive to believe him. He was right. The liberals were either taken in or using it as a hammer or both, as we see.

Why did Clinton do all this stuff so late.

The point is, Jack, that he did it before Bush took office. It takes time to get some things done in politics. I don’t think Clinton was some great environmentalist but he was considerably better than Mr. Bush. Even Easterbook admits that “trends might be even more positive had the Clinton-written rule remained in effect. Clinton’s version of the rule was a good job and could have been left to stand.”

Clinton DIDN’T do it. There is no courage or virtue in enacting things you never would do your self so that it becomes someone else’s problem. It is like writing a check with someone else’s money. Or more to the point, writing a check on your spouses account the day before the divorce is final.

Clinton had eight years to enact these things. He NEVER enacted them. He signed papers, that’s it.

I don’t know how many ways to make this analogy. But it is worse than doing nothing. It is cowardly and dishonest. You know from my previous posts that I generally support and defend Bill Clinton. In this he was just wrong.

What would you say if Bush signed all sorts of orders the week before a Dem president took office? Worse yet, with Kyoto he was acting in direct oppostion to what he knew that he or anyone else could do.

jack:

Clinton did not have both Houses of Congress. Thanks to Republican Persecution, he spent most of his time defending himself.

Jack-

For starters:
Coal Mining waste water
Another Coal Mining Story
Limestone Mining
Bush’s position on Hard Rock Mining
The EPA’s position on Hard Rock Mining
Bush’s hydrogen dark side

I mean, damn. The guy lets our public lands and even our national parks be exploited for it’s mineral wealth, doesn’t acknowledge the role Carbon Dioxide plays in Global Warming, even to the point of editing out references in papers produced by the government.

This is not the president to defend on these counts. The only thing that protects you is that most people don’t have the energy to do internet searches to dig it all up. Maybe here and there he has improvements, but any overall picture of his record will not be flattering.

The environment is better in California because of the California regulatory boards. Which, I might add, Bush routinely has tried to eviscerate.

Then there is the issue of the coal sludge disaster in Kentucky:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111352/posts

This coupled with Cheney and Bush’s actions during the California Energy Crisis and their failure to make FERC do it’s job (and FERC’s failure to do its job), is enough to prove to me that they have a consistent pattern of blatant disregard for their responsiblities as the leaders of this nation to protect its citizens.

I just watched the Enron documentary, and then I read Frank Wolak’s points before the investigation of Enron, and I am shocked, appalled and outraged.

The evidence is overwhelming. Bush and Cheney stepped aside and let Enron rape California during its power crisis. And, in many of the same ways, there administration actively undermined the power of the regulatory boards to properly prosecute the coal factory in the coal slurry disaster.

I see no reason to trust them on any de-regulation policy of any sort. Their policies on the environment, and on energy, consistently asks businesses to “regulate themselves”. And those businesses have proven that they are not capable of being honest with that power.

Enough is enough.

However, I quite like solutions from other Republican leaders. There are some excellent ones on the Florida State legislature.

Julia:

George Bush is just looking out for his constituents: the Religious Right, the Top 1%, Corporations, NRA, etc.

Jack, I was disappointed (but not surprised) to see all your sources were political editorials, right-wing think tanks, and the White House press office, rather than scientists and primary documentary sources and studies.

But I’m glad you’ve shifted your position so that now you’re arguing President Bush is just maintaining the status quo, rather than championing the environment. A couple more shifts like that and you’ll be pretty close to the truth. :)

Speaking of scientists, there’s this really cool blog run by climate scientists. They’re pretty good at separating the fact from fiction on global warming.

The Bush Administration’s environmental record as a whole is indefensible. I’m sorry, but this is just hubris to try to defend the Adminstration’s record, which is woefully weak. If I were President Bush, I would have gotten a very forward thinking energy bill through Congress in early 2001. Heck, for that matter, Clinton got nothing done on that front. You now see Governors and States taking the environmental and energy lead—from Arnold to New England, to states like Nebraska, where their public power districts are building huge wind energy farms. Bush could and should have accomplished so much more on these fronts already—he doesn’t really care, as evidenced by his praise of the schlock bill the House put together this spring—empty lip service. Whether he does or doesn’t believe global warming is a problem is beside the point—improving this country’s energy efficiency and reducing oil dependency is an important enough goal—a cleaner environment would be a welcome byproduct of that improved efficiency. Just trying to say “things haven’t gotten worse” is akin to admitting a failing grade. Heck, I have friends at EPA who say that little or no enforcement is getting done, because they cannot get clearance from DC to do enforcement activities.

James Meister

The problem we have right now is that the Bush Administration has been so good at lying that Republicans can’t tell the truth if it bit them in the ass. Republicans STILL believe that Iraq did 9/11 for example.

The odds of convincing Repugs of reality are practically nil.

Clinton had eight years to enact these things. He NEVER enacted them. He signed papers, that’s it.

You mean he signed executive orders, using his power as the president? OK, I imagine he didn’t personally go to all the power plants and installed equipment to remove the arsenic. He did what presidents do.

I can’t believe you are pushing this “last minute” crap, Jack. You act like you are trying to bend over backward for Clinton, but you are giving us this totally bogus argument. Should Bush do NOTHING for the last eight days of his presidency, knowing that according to the Matel Rule it doesn’t count?

The world already has an Ari Fleischer. It doesn’t need another one.

I don’t know about this refuting of Easterbrook. For example the article you mention complains that, “The numbers Easterbrook cites about air-quality improvement are exaggerated, according to O’Donnell; Easterbrook notes, for instance, a 33 percent reduction overall in nitrogen oxide emissions since 1990 when the number more widely accepted by experts is 12 percent.”

The next sentence is “More intolerable, however, is the way he ignores the primary reason these improvements came about in the first place: the very “command and control” regulations that President Bush is trying to eliminate, and that Easterbrook claims are unnecessary.” Ie, Easterbrook is crediting Bush with improvements in air quality that actually result from regulatory inertia - standards that were in place before he gained office, and have yet to be dismantled. That’s not just a numbers disagreement, Jack.

And to repeat myself - and no others - can you muster any support for your argument from people that are actually environmentalists, rather than white house PR writers or Red-Team pundits? No? If you can’t what does that say for your arguments?

Jack-
I submitted a comment earlier that detailed some of Bush’s failings on the environment, but I think because it was so link-heavy, the system has held up approval. I would be grateful to you if you were to let the comment enter the debate.

Jack,

I know you are trying to make your point about what you perceive as the wonders of cap and trade and market environmentalism by referring to how air quality has improved since 1990 when cap and trade was introduced. But the Clean Air Act was introduced in 1970. I suppose improvements made over those 20 years count for bupkiss?

And yes, when you average the numbers out, air quality has improved since the Clean Air Act was passed. However, according to the EPA, 224 counties and DC don’t meet federal health standards. That’s 95 million people who are breathing toxic air. What seems to be happening is that there remain hot spots of poor air quality. I see cap and trade exacerbating this problem and creating even more inequality between different regions. Oil refineries and other industrial polluters are disproportionately located in poor communities of color. When they can just buy pollution credits, what incentive do polluters really have to clean up their act? Meanwhile, these communities will continue to suffer.

One of my biggest problem’s with this administration when it comes to the environment is the way it deals with, or refuses to deal with, inconvenient scientific findings that run counter to its policy goals. Let’s remember that in February of 2004, over 60 leading scientists including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents, signed a statement, voicing their concern over the misuse of science by the Bush administration. In this statement they explained:

“When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front.

For example, in support of the president’s decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences.”

Isabelle,

You forget some things:
Bush43 “believes” that profit is more important than pollution control.
Bush43 “believes” that the ends justifies the means.
Bush43 has never let truth stand in the way of policy.
Conservatives believe that Bush43 is good for this country.
Conservatives believe that “Daddy” Knows Best.
Conservatives will defend “Daddy”, period. If there is no truthful defense, see paragraphs 2-3.

Sassy liberal,

What a sassy example, I love it, it gets the point across. The environment is doing fine…until you have to eat a three eyed-fish.

And I checked out the website for the Greening Earth Society, and related links. The major reason they seem to be citing against “the alarmists” is the lack of certainty in the climate models currently used. That’s as lame a reason as any. THAT’S WHAT MODELS ARE FOR, TO TRY AND CLARIFY UNCERTAINTIES, BUT TO SAY THAT WITHOUT FULL CERTAINTY, THE MODEL IS OFF. Most models are a little off, but they’re the best we have at this time in understanding particular issues. Further research is supposed to clarify if the model is accurate, or if it needs some modification. Mind you, in science, answering questions usually leads to more questions, but that is the nature of knowledge.

True, there is much research that needs to be conducted on the mechanisms by which greenhouse gases are regulated and circulated throughout the biosphere(pollution does not recognize national borders).

WHERE is the evidence then that the air is “cleaner” this year than in past years???? Some numbers would be appreciated, as well as the sources from which these numbers are drawn, the studies that came up with this data, the designs used in these studies, etc. The feasiblity of these numbers can only be determined by critically examining the data as well as the means by which that data was obtained. (in other words, complete transparency).

And to say that this improvement in air quality si due to the implementation of the cap-trade policy is illogical. That’s like saying the AIR saying, “Congress passed a law, okay everyone, let’s clean up our act!” To attribute a decrease in pollution, if there is one, to a SINGULAR EVENT, considering the number of factors and variables that come into play with respect to air quality is illogical and foolish.

What some perceive as a “decrease” in GHG’s (“cleaner air”) could be due to a number of reasons, given the many regulatory mechanisms connected to atmospheric gas composition. And a so-called “cleaner” year does not necessarily mean that there is a downward-trend in the amount of GHG’s. Ecosystems don’t really function in straight lines, most trends in nature (or in any system, for that matter) exhibit “zig-zag” trends of increases and decreases - with this in mind, it’s the net effect you have to look at, and most of the scientific literature points to a net increase in global temperatures since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. This does not necessarily mean that summers will be hotter. On the contrary, IT MEANS MORE ERRATIC WEATHER PATTERNS, as the Earth is in a constant balancing act; however, the Earth is getting more and more stressed out in trying to balance the effects of human activity. Does any one notice how winters are alot warmer and alot colder? 80 degree weather in one week in January, followed by 20 degree weather the next week, followed by hot again, is a bad sign, no matter how you look at it.

Another argument made against current climate models is that the upward trend in global temperature might be a natural trend in the Earth’s history, predating any human activity. Case in point, the occurrence of several Ice Ages throughout the eons. Okay, then let’s assume that this is TRUE. Even if this trend is a naturally occurring one that is not caused by human activity in any way, then would we want to help in that trend? Would we want to exacerbate the problem and speed toward our own demise? Or in other words, if you had lung cancer, would it be good sense to continue smoking if you wanted to treat the cancer and get better?

Isabelle cited:
“One of my biggest problem?s with this administration when it comes to the environment is the way it deals with, or refuses to deal with, inconvenient scientific findings that run counter to its policy goals. Let?s remember that in February of 2004, over 60 leading scientists including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents, signed a statement, voicing their concern over the misuse of science by the Bush administration. In this statement they explained:

“When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government?s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front.”

Isabelle, you sum up my concerns with your post…I copied a good part of it because if everyone out there didn’t read your post, then I hope they do read at least part of it in my post. Thanks.

The only way to combat the flagrant abuse of science and manipulation of data by the current administration is to be informed yourself and speak up…do your homework and find out for yourself, don’t rely on some “fact sheet” that the administration provides.

Stephen

I don’t know about the links. I only post. I don’t have anything to do with what else gets on and don’t even have any idea how the system works (except posting)

We have two different strains in this thread.

One is trying to say that Bush rolled back Clinton policies. I suppose it does depend on your interpretation of what last days mean, but I really can’t understand how anyone can give credit to Clinton for signing orders after the election that he never would sign before. I don’t believe he would have done that to Al Gore, because he knew the orders could not stand. He has managed to fool some of the people all of the time.

The other strain is who should get credit for improvements. I don’t have trouble saying that the improvements came as a result of concerted efforts over many years. I used to fight for the command and control. I have acknowledged on many occasions that this worked to get rid of most pollution. But it has reached the point of severely diminishing returns. We can’t make further progress with the same old system.

The Bush record of ACCOMPLISHMENT is better than the Clinton record, although the Clinton record is better on rhetoric. Some of the things implemented by Bush originated in the Clinton EPA. But Bush got them though and improved them, such as non-road engines. Speaking of this, non-road engine rules are the biggest substantive improvement to clean air since 1990 clean air act revisions. This is a really big victory for the environment. I don’t know how anyone can say otherwise. There is background at environmental defense">http://www.environmentaldefense.org/subissue.cfm?subissue=12”> their link is here.

The healthy forests initiative is a long overdue. I don’t know what kind of sources you want for this. My local Virginia Forestry Association thought it was a good idea and lobbied for it. ">http://www.vaforestry.org/news.htm”> their link is here. All my own experience and observation tells me this is a good thing. While I am not an expert, I have been observing and working with trees for forty years. I find that most people who actually live and work among the trees support healthy forests, while the opposition resides in cities. I think what we have here is not a difference of fact, but one of ideology. Are forests to be used or are they to be kept off limits? Most reasonable people believe in both, but they set the boundaries differently. Re healthy forests, I am sure we can find examples of abuse and I don’t agree with all the provision, but I am convinced that the previous policies were much more grievously harmful. I saw the results in burning trees and trees killed by insects.

In fact, besides the erroneously labeled “roll backs” of Clinton policies (which weren’t), I don’t see anything in the Bush record that should annoy environmentalists. I suppose we can have a legitimate difference about Healthy Forests or the speed of mercury reductions, or the methane to markets initiative, but it looks to me like the administration is clearly in the tradition of improving the environment with the added benefit that Bush policies actually do something in the real world.

jack,

I don’t disagree that our forest fire prevention plans needed to change. But what Bush did was essentially a mass de-regulation of forest management, he reduced the power of citizens at the local level, and increased the power of the timber industry.

If the timber industry responds the same way the energy industry responded to California de-regulating its markets, then we’re going to see a lot of damage as a result.

A better initiative would have been to move the money from fire suppression to fire management, and give the local communities more flexibility in their forestry management practices.

With the proper funding, and the proper flexibility, local communities usually do a fantastic job. The reason San Diego didn’t properly manage its forests had far more to do with taxes than it did with anything else. If their federal fire money had been allocated towards management and not suppression, the fires never would have happened.

For all of you Bush apologists, I highly recommend you watch Enron: The Smartest Men in the Room, and then go read VP Cheney’s and Frank Wolak’s comments in the PBS Frontline special on the California’s Power Crisis (on the web).

Then I would remind you that California still faces billions of dollars in its budget shortfall. Bad legislation, and bad de-regulation has far-reaching effects. Couple that with a refusal at the federal level to act against robber barons… and the future doesn’t look bright.

In reading some of the posts written in regards to the lead article…why do some Republican apologists seem to deride views other that theirs as “Bush-hating”?
Let me be perfectly clear about my feelings: I don’t hate Bush. I don’t know the man personally, and he has done nothing to me, personally, in any way, shape or form. By the same token, he has done nothing FOR me either!
What I do hate is the policies that he and his Insane Clown Posse (and lobbyists cum advisors/bureacrats) posit as healthy, wealthy and wise for the American public. So far, all I have been able to see is that these policies are healthy, wealthy and wise for his political contributors and cronies.
Having lobbyists and trade representatives of industry write your environmental policies is akin to having the animals in charge of the zoo!
That is my opinion…I could be wrong BUT I DOUBT IT.

What would you say if Bush signed all sorts of orders the week before a Dem president took office?

Ok, let’s run your little thought experiment. I am pro-choice. Let’s suppose that in his last days of office Bush signed a bunch of executive orders that made it harder for women to get an abortion. Would I be upset?

By your logic, I shouldn’t be upset at all. The executive orders would simply be an empty gesture. On the other hand, people are pro-life would have to be mad because he waited until the end. If they praised him, they would be suckers. He would have left it up to a Democratic president to do the real heavy-lifting of protecting fetuses.

Of course, they could get lucky. Maybe that Democratic president (who of course reverses all those silly “last minute” orders) would pass a “Healthy Fetuses Act”. Although written by NARAL, it would no doubt be a very earnest effort to prevent women from having abortions…

“My local Virginia Forestry Association thought it was a good idea and lobbied for it. their link is here”

VFA, for which membership benefits include “seminars and programs on topics that affect forests and landowners” and “insurance programs for healthcare, timberland and hunting lease liability”? never heard of it, but it looks very much like some sort of industry association. Yes, Jack, logging companies do like the Leave No Tree Behind Act, very much. In fact the major criticisms of it is that its a giveaway to the timber industry! Are these the best advocates for Bush that you can find, Jack?

Go to the Sierra Club to find out what environmentalists (vs tree farmers) think about Bush’s policies. Or survey what other environmental groups think about it.

A pre-election discussion of this issue is here, by the way. Sample quote:

“In addition to the League of Conservation Voters, John Kerry has been endorsed by Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, the National Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Nature Conservancy, and the National Parks & Conservation Association. I’m not aware of any legitimate environmental group that’s endorsed Bush. I’m sure Team Red will let me know if I’ve missed someone. “

I hadn’t missed anyone. If Bush is so great, how come not a single environmental advocacy organization supported him?

Jack-
When you sign on to your blog, the homepage you reach while have three options next to it: Create Entry, Entries, and Comments. Go to Comments, and you will see the list of comments for the blog. If a comment is not approved, the status light on the first column will indicate that. I think as a contributing editor, you have the power to approve or disapprove comments on your entries.

Julia, William, Woody, AP (you gave one of my favorite links!), James Meister, RC, Isabelle, Dave - all of you have made truly excellent posts, but lately I find myself quickly reaching Aldous’ rather acerbic viewpoint — I’ll make a couple of impassioned posts based on solid facts, but then it’ll suddenly sink in with a sickening thud that we are in fact often hitting a solid brick wall of denial — with absolutely no chance of breaking through.

PS to Julia — you are so right about what you wrote, Enron is like a supercondensed microcosm of the sentiments of this administration. I too, have seen the Enron movie, and was totally outraged as I listened to every minute detail unfold, and was finally able to grasp the gigantic enormity of that crime, which did indeed include the president. You and I are residents of California so maybe it hits us a little harder, but I do think that everybody should try to see that film — because it uncovers every aspect about what deregulation can expose the American people to.

Adrienne,

If you want to get even angrier, check out these links:

http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/ucei/PDF/csemwp110.pdf#search=’Federal%20Power%20Act%20california%20frank%20wolak’

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/themes/california.html (See Dick Cheney’s comments)

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/research/conferences/calelectricity/wolakslides2.pdf#search=’Federal%20Power%20Act%20california%20frank%20wolak’

Frank Wolak correctly called this thing years before they got to the bottom of it. His ideas are a perfect example of the kind of policy we need to be implementing. He doesn’t fear de-regulation, and he doesn’t fear regulation. He fears bad solutions.

The Healthy Forest Initiative is more of the same. It’s a bad solution that’s driven by corporate interests, not sustainable forestry management.

Californians lauded de-regulation too, that is, until they realized that their legislature (and then the federal government) had allowed corporate profiteering to set the guidelines.

I hear ‘ya Adrienne! Where DO they get their rose-colored glasses and teflon body armor? Did I miss out on a big sale at Walmart?

Woody

Yes. You describe it well. You would be upset, I suppose. But you need not be concerned unless your guy wanted to keep the new regulations.

In the Clinton case, it is even worse. Imagine Bush appointing a pro-life Supreme Court justice and then leaving it for his successor to get confirmation. He might score points with the core constituency, but he would not be accomplishing anything.

The Clinton last minute rules were like that. Kyoto, for example, can’t be ratified in the Senate. Everybody knows that. The arsenic rules were more stringent than need be. Some places have naturally occurring levels higher than the standard. People have been drinking this water for years. Poison is in the dosage. It is not true that even a little is bad.

Anyway, if Clinton thought these rules were so important, why didn’t he propose them earlier? If he thought he could make them work, why didn’t he do it? Did he just forget? Maybe he woke up in January 2001 and said, “Crap, I forgot about the environment for eight years. Best do something quick.”

Stephen

What I got it just an open page. I have left open for all comments. I never delete anything or censor anything. As I said, I don’t even know how to do it. Try it again.

David

If you are monitoring, maybe you can help with this.

William

This is the environmentalist/conservationist divide and it has gotten worse and more political. I used to be a member of Sierra Club. They used to have books etc about hiking and camping in the forest. Now they are political. I still support the Nature Conservancy, because they put their money where the mouths are. But nature organizations probably should not support any candidates. They should support nature in a non-partisan manner.

The other thing to remember is that environmentalists don’t represent nature; they represent their constituents. Some of them have a fairly radical view of nature. Lots of them believe in things like animal rights. Hunters have probably done more to preserve and protect nature than any other group. How welcome are they among the “new” environmentalists?

Jack-
You don’t need to worry about it. It came up by itself, or with somebody else’s help. Either way, I’d like you to examine what I’ve put forward there, and tell me what your reaction is to it. You can’t miss the post. It’s got several links in it.

Here’s what I think I’ve learned or had reinforced in this discussion:

1) Jack has convinced me that Bush did a few good things for the environment in terms of air pollution.

2) By being able to work with a Republican Congress, Bush was able to use some of the groundwork laid by the Clinton Adminstration, and this was a good thing.

3) Some of what Mr. Bush has done in terms of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule has been practically criminal, especially in terms of Tongass. Even many of his citizen constituents detest it.

4) Bush has been an utter disaster in terms of CO2. This goes beyond mere do-nothingness. In a scandalously dishonest and unethical manner, the administration has time and again downplayed and edited out links between greenhouse gases and global warming.

5) Bush likes to rely on voluntary measures, which are essentially meaningless and are corporate giveaways.

6) Cap and trade isn’t the worst method of protecting the envionment, but it has to be done correctly.

7) Our air and water would likely get cleaner faster without Bush in office.

8) Calling Bush a champion of the environment does get people talking. Still, the notion is silly at best and Orwellian at worst. But (drumroll please) he could be worse.

Feel free to add to the list or dispute what’s here. I’m learning as I go.

This is the environmentalist/conservationist divide and it has gotten worse and more political….They should support nature in a non-partisan manner.

They do support nature in a “non-partisan” manner, Jack. The LCV’s environmental champions, for instance, includes 6 Republicans and 12 Democrats (if I counted right). They’re not out to promote one party or another, they are advocates for the environment, not one political party. They’ll support Republicans, too, if they support the environment.

Dismissing environmental organizations that don’t support your point as “radicals” who “don’t represent nature” without any supporting argument is unfounded. (Are they radicals just because they disagree with the logging industry?) And being able to produce no environmental organizations that do support your point unmasks this whole argument as a sham.

William

It goes to the definition of being green.

As we define it, it means bigger government, more control, and more regulation. These are necessary, but not sufficient, tools and they can easily be overused. There are other ways. The State of Maine, for example, is a fairly clean place. Most of the state is private property (i.e. there are relatively few public lands) Much of that private property is in the hands of timber companies. They take care of it because it is theirs.

You rightly worry about timbering on public lands. Why should this be a problem? BECAUSE they are public lands. Private owners would take better care of them.

Consider water in the west. Most of the West is arid or semi arid. It is watered by large projects funded by the Feds. It started off well, but now some people get water at subsidized rates and others can?t get any at all. Since there is no market price, it gets wasted. Ironically, my sister in law in Phoenix pays less for a gallon of city water than my sister who lives in Milwaukee on the shores of Lake Michigan.

Market solutions work best. Some people don?t like the idea of putting a price on the environment. But if you refuse to put a price on it, you essentially make it free to be exploited by anyone who can figure out a way to game the system.

Many people have complained about give aways to big corporations. That concerned me too. But why is it possible for them to get this free stuff. Yes, yes, corrupt politics. But politics is always like that. Politicians can give away resources because they are controlled by politics (i.e. PUBLIC).

A better environmental policy would give people rights and responsibilities over resources. Businesses are good at cutting costs. If pollution is a cost they will look for innovative ways to cut it. Businesses are also good at gaming laws and working the political system. If pollution is a crime, they will look for innovative ways to avoid getting caught.

The question is: Do you want their energy and innovation to work for a cleaner environment or for ways to avoid the clean up.

Some people are under the mistaken impression that conservative trust business. We don?t. Big business is an enemy of the free market. We just don?t trust government either. Big government is an enemy of the free market. Too often big business and big government get together. They are like vampires in more than one way. First, they such the life blood of the economy, but also ? like vampires ? they can only operate when they are invited in. We invite them in when we think rules can solve our problems. We invite them in when we trust in the good will of government officials. We invite them in when we don?t take care of ourselves.

And noboby represents nature, by the way. Humans have only human consituents, no matter how much we imagine that the rocks, trees and animals communicate their wishes to us.

You know what your dog would tell you if you could understand his language? Nothing.

Beagle: You really need to stop getting your news from FOX and other extremely one-sided news sources. You’ll be MUCH better informed…and a more well-rounded person for it. Try it.

jack:

You assume that different people will compete for these Contracts. The plain truth is that fewer and fewer people own anything anymore. Corporations own Corporations. Odds are the Company who does one job is connected to something else. Profit and greed are the best motivators for cheaters.

Your Republican Friend Ken Lay can tell you something about that.

…you too, Mr. Matel. For one who likes to broadcast how intelligent they are, you really should get your *facts* from both sides before you make such a sure statement of said *facts*. Hilariously naive, the things you say…excuse me while I go read that news release about how Bush had the global warming reports changed by an ex-oil industry lobbyist (and not even a scientist! Imagine that!) You can read it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?

Carri~
In case you’ve missed it……ALL news has biases!

First off, I must preface my comments with a little background information. I am an 18-year Senior Chief (E-8) in the U.S. Navy forward deployed to a ship the Arabian Gulf. I don’t have an Ivy League Education or even a Bachelors Degree. The school I attended was public high school followed by the school of life. So Intellectual crowd please cut me a little slack. I only speak from experience and I have no bar graphs or percentages to back up what I am about to say.
Since joining the navy all those many years ago, I have traveled all around the world. In all of those travels, I have never witnessed a country take the health of its environment as seriously as Americans. Currently, I am in port in Bahrain. Ever heard of it? It’s a little island off the coast of Saudi Arabia. The water in the harbor here is so disgusting and polluted that falling in to would mean certain medical attention. A fuel film constantly covers the water. Dead sheep float by almost daily. Industries on the waterfront around here pump whatever they want into the harbor with careless abandon and without fear of government intervention. You know why? Because it’s all about the “all mighty dinar”. Most places I have been would never dream of placing any environmental regulations on any company, which could possibly drive off the slightest bit of business.
Liberals - you think Europe is so great and if we all thought and acted a little more like them we would be OK? Well, go swimming in the waters around Naples, Italy. I dare you. I have seen men spraying down the beaches in Spain before sunrise to disinfect them from bacteria. Think about that the next time you are lying on the beach in Palma De Majorca.
My whole point is before you go poking the “good ole US of A” in the eye one more time; please take a look at the world around you. You will quickly find out we are pretty good, especially where the environment is concerned.

Carri,

I watch/read news from all sides and viewpoints on the issues.

BTW..You were great in that movie, a lil bit of a temper, but still great.

First of all, kudo to Chris and all servicemen and women for the sacrifice they make for the country.

Secondly, I hope all these “American Liberals Who Love to Hate America” take a good hard look at the reality outside. You know, just for an example, if the Chinaman apply 25% cut of their CO2 emission, the Earth is already saved!!!! Why we have to do more than what we are doing now and let the Chinaman take away our jobs?

Carrie

Which “facts” do you mean?

The arsenic rules were more stringent than need be.

But wouldn’t George “Champion of the Earth” Bush WANT them to be strict? (Arsenic does occur naturally, but it’s also a pollutant.) He surely wouldn’t let Bill “Do Nothing” Clinton to outdo him! Oh, never mind, this is fruitless. I am dealing with a very articulate brick wall…

(But if you want to keep up the good fight, maybe you can explain why it’s good for the environment to drill in ANWR for oil. I’m sure “Captain Earth” Bush wouldn’t do that for any other reason!)

In conclusion, I just hope you are right. We have Bush until 2008, and his party will probably control Congress until then. We will see if he passes an alternative to the wrong-headed Kyoto Treaty and manages to improve the environment in other ways (beyond what would happen by enforcing existing regulations). In that case, a lot of people would have to acknowledge that we were wrong. I can only hope.

Hey look at that! Once the hard data stopped getting posted, the liberal bashers reappeared with their opinions about “Chinamen”. Welcome back guys. I was afraid you might have permanently left for sites with less facts and more incestuous amplification.

China just passed a renewable energy law that mandates 10% of China’s power be renewable energy by 2010. Even if they slip to 2020, they’ll still be ahead of the US which is stalled at about 2%,

Greenpeace applauded the legislation.

“China could and should be a world leader in renewable energy development,” said Yu Jie, Greenpeace energy policy advisor in Beijing.

John Kerry had a 20/20 plan - 20% of US power as renewable energy by 2020 - but now there’s nothing. Piss on China all you want, but at least they’re doing something.

Woody

Poison is in the dosage. Standards are too strict if they do nothing to protect people or improve the environment. They go beyond what is needed and so become negative.

That is a common fallacy of regulation. Getting down to zero is not necessary or even desirable. Do you drink distilled water? The water you are drinking today is probably full of impurities. So is all the food you eat. The healthy, organic apple you eat is full of naturally occurring poisons. They just don’t matter. It would be neurotic to worry about such things. It is not wise environmentalism to regulate beyond what is needed to be perfectly healthy or beyond what nature provides.

Re Kyoto – Bush is doing some things (methane to markets etc. They are in the sources) to cut greenhouse gasses. Clinton did almost nothing. Compare the real world accomplishments of Bush and Clinton, and Bush comes out the winner. Clinton kicks ass in the rhetoric department. Yes, if you compare what Clinton said he wanted to do if he had the time in the last eight days of his presidency, he did real well. Talk is cheap.

AP

I thought you have been to China. The words are good. Let’s see the results. So far we don’t see much (literally because of the air pollution).

What do they count as renewable? Some estimates count hydro power as renewable. The massive new dam will produce a lot of that. Good thing, I agree. Most environmenal groups are less enthusiastic.

AP,

Firewood is very renewable energy, and one that will be used more and more if the US isn’t allowed to drill for cleaner sourses like natural gas and even oil.

I wonder if greenpease will give me an award for pointing that out?

Chris:

“Liberals - you think Europe is so great and if we all thought and acted a little more like them we would be OK? Well, go swimming in the waters around Naples, Italy. I dare you. I have seen men spraying down the beaches in Spain before sunrise to disinfect them from bacteria. Think about that the next time you are lying on the beach in Palma De Majorca.
My whole point is before you go poking the “good ole US of A” in the eye one more time; please take a look at the world around you. You will quickly find out we are pretty good, especially where the environment is concerned.”

I travelled extensively in Europe over 20 years ago during my stint in the Air Force. I knew back then that Europe was environmentally pretty filthy, but had heard it had improved greatly. It doesn’t sound like it has. Thanks for the first hand witness.

Having said that, the fact that Europe seems to be paying lip service to the environment does not meen we should. I think a balance can be struck between the environment and corporate America. Unfortunately, our last several presidents and Congressional sessions have proved more adversarial than constructive. The corporate goons need to see the advantages of a clean environment for everyone, and the enviro-wackos need to see the point that Jack pointed out earlier. There is a point of diminishing returns, and even harm, if regulated levels are pushed to the extreme.

Sometimes man’s intervention, even with the best intentions, pisses off Mother Nature, and she retaliates. In Wisconsin, the Japanese Beetle was introduced by farmers/environmentalists to curtail various other varmints that destroyed crops. Now, the beetles have all but taken over the state, clogging A/C systems, contaminating harvested crops, and being a general pest.

Had the introducers waited just a couple months, the University of Wisconsin had developed an environmentally friendly insecticide that could have been applied with better/shorter duration effect.

Balance is key.

Aww c’mon, now you guys are just playing dumb.

Jack, you could’ve read the article I linked, but here’s what you’re looking for,

The law, which takes effect next year, requires power grid operators to purchase resources from registered re