Third Party & Independents Archives

Keep Scientists Involved in Environmental Decisions

Taking care of the environment should be a bipartisan effort.
Who wants to be poisoned by their drinking water or their air?
Why would anyone want to limit the role of scientific research and debate in such important matters?

I was happy to read that the new Congress is going to challenge the Bush Administration environmental agenda next year. The first oversight hearing in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will focus on recent changes to the process of setting air quality standards. These changes seem to reduce the role of outside input in the following ways:

  • The Integrated Science Assessments and the Risk/Exposure Assessment will both be restructured to be more "concise".

    This may not be a problem, but when they highlight the "most policy-relevant science" before presenting "up to two drafts" to the scientific community and the public, I become a little worried that some viewpoints will be missed.

  • The Agency will also be defining the risk/exposure methodologies to present to the scientific community and the public with the first draft of the Integrated Science Assessment.

    Limiting the testing methods seems to be an attempt to limit public debate and knowledge, not a means to ensure the "clearest possible understanding". Controlling the "characterization of risk and exposure" is a way to control public opinion, but maybe not the best way to obtain all the relevant measurements.

  • The Agency will then develop a policy assessment.

    The language in this section seems to be geared towards "alternative" standards.

    Such an assessment should help to "bridge the gap" between the Agency's scientific assessment and the judgments required of the Administrator in determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the standards

  • Finally, the new rule will be published in the Federal Register as an Advance Notice of Proposed rulemaking.

    This is when the scientific community and the public can comment. In the old process, there is outside input before the standard becomes an official record. On the other hand, a proposed rule and a final rule need to follow for an official change.

I realize that I'm reading into the wording and projecting intent where it may not exist. The streamlining may be benevolent. I would like to believe that. I don't like believing that EPA is trying to suppress scientific opinions that do not match the Administration's desired policy changes. Unfortunately, other actions are reinforcing my judgment:

Multiple research libraries that provide scientific information to the public will be closed. The lack of information will make it more difficult to enforce environmental laws.

The Administration is fighting to remove many of the waters in this country from the scope of the Clean Water Act.

In 1996, an amendment created a process to exempt small water companies from meeting quality standards due to affordability. The Administration is trying to change the variances allowed by this amendment. According to the environmental group NRDC:

In making the recommendation, the administration rejected the advice of its own expert panel. In 2003, an EPA-convened panel of state, tribal, and local officials; water utilities; health experts; economists; and consumer and environmental groups recommended that waivers of federal tap water standards should be allowed in very limited circumstances, and only when the cost of complying with the standard exceeds one percent of Median Household Income (about $33 per month). The panel also recommended that EPA and states help small water systems "restructure" (for example, gain economies of scale by consolidating or pooling resources) and use current or new funding programs to assist needy small systems, rather than weakening health protections. All members of the expert panel, including a water industry trade association expert representing small and large water systems, agreed to the recommendations, with the exception of a single member representing the national rural water association.

A proposal to sell off our national forests died due to lack of Congressional support (both parties)

Taking what they can get from polluting companies involved in Superfund sites may be tempting, but it costs all of us in the long run.

I don't know if the government's science can be trusted or not. I try not to judge until I've seen both sides of the argument. But there is mounting evidence that the government wants to suppress the ability to evaluate conflicting opinions. Groups fighting a logging sale make the following accusation:

The groups allege that Supervisor Bull attempted to block public knowledge of excessive soil damage in the project area by "altering the best-available scientific data and by purging project file documents related to soils" in an attempt to whitewash the Forest Service's proposal.

I don't know if the allegation is true or not, but it does fit the pattern.

If they are secure in their science, why not let everyone see it?
Aren't these environmental issues important enough to keep the information available, the window for public commentary long and the dialogue constructive?
Cutting access to information will never lead to consensus or trust.
Without a trustworthy process, how can we have a well-thought decision that we can feel comfortable with?

Christine

Posted by Christine at December 10, 2006 3:20 PM
Comments
Comment #198583

Christine,

Taking care of the environment should be a bipartisan effort.
Who wants to be poisoned by their drinking water or their air?
Why would anyone want to limit the role of scientific research and debate in such important matters?

Indeed, why would anyone want to be poisoned? Seems contradictory doesn’t it?

I can tell you why someone might want to reserve rights for themselves instead of ceding all authority decisionmaking over their lives to exalted experts. For one thing scientists are not infallible, nor are they always without bias. There have been many cases of doctors and scientists working for causes that were, shall we say, not in the self interest of the masses.

Posted by: esimonson at December 10, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #198588

Follow the money to find the motives.

Environment: If we mess up our environment, a lot of other things ain’t gonna matter much.

  • Arable Land (land that can grow crops): Of the Earth’s 57 million square miles (148 million km²) of land, approximately 12 million square miles (31 million km²) are arable. However, arable land is being lost at the rate of over 100,000 km² (38,610 square miles) per year. At that rate, all arable land could be lost in only 310 years ! (12 million mi² / (38,610 mi² / year)).

  • Global Warming: Pollution and damage to the atmosphere, land, and water is a growing problem. Trillions of tons of green-house gases are being released into the atmosphere. Depletion of the ozone is destroying our protection against harmful radiation and global warming. The current scientific consensus is that most global warming since 1950 is most likely due to attributable to human activities. The extent of this consensus was the subject of a study (published in December 2004 in the journal Science) of 928 refereed abstract scientific articles in the Institute for Scientific Information citation database identified with the keywords “global climate change”. This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view.

  • World Over-Population: in areas that can’t sustain those populations, resulting in poverty, starvation, disease, crime, etc.;

Posted by: d.a.n at December 10, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #198590

I if the environmental groups were not ran by the far left, we who are mainstream and concerned about the environment and cruelty to animals could get so much accomplished.

If PETA would leave magic mountain and their cockroach eating program alone and concentrate on people who beat and abuse animals, real abuse, not times when animals are used for food, and for the furthering of human safety.

If they would admit to truths such as :

Cow ‘emissions’ more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars.

Meet the world’s top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world’s rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

It would be so helpful.

It is about time we started talking about the fact that although the republicans got their hands slapped by the voters, the far left not only also got slapped by the voters, they got spanked by the Democratic party too.

Notice this election.

No Micheal Moore, No Cindy Shehan, No Goerge Soros, No Streisand. The list goes on… Any loud noise from Move On.org?

Not a word. Yes they were very active in the background, but the leadership knew in order to win they had to keep the far left “shut up”

The far left also lost in the election themselves. The far left didn’t win any elections either. The American people chose conservative democrats, not liberal democrats.

So to the far left:

YOU WERE ALSO SLAPPED JUST AS HARD AS BUSH AND THE GOP.

WHAT MAKES YOUR LOSS WORSE IS YOU WERE ALSO SPANKED BY YOUR OWN PARTY!

sorry, I needed that.

So, We the majority, the middle, “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,”

need to start taking important issues such as the environment, social issues, etc.

Posted by: Scottie1321 at December 10, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #198591

away from the far left.


Sorry

Posted by: Scottie1321 at December 10, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #198598

Scottie1321,

“I if the environmental groups were not ran by the far left, we who are mainstream and concerned about the environment and cruelty to animals could get so much accomplished.”

Sorry to burst your bubble, but….

The far left has been the only group that has actually paid more than lip service to environmental issues.

The far right, thinks it’s a joke (Rush, etc…), and only makes fun of the issue.

The right thinks it’s a ploy to separate them from their money.

The middle believes it may be a problem, but maybe not right now.

That leaves the left, and you think they’re too radical.

I’m truly sorry for the gross generalizations, but someone has to say these things.

Posted by: Rocky at December 10, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #198604

Rocky,

Even if what you said was all true, and you are the one that calls them “gross generalizations” so we can just leave it at that. It still does not change the fact: (and you did not even touch this did you?)

No Micheal Moore, No Cindy Shehan, No George Soros, No Streisand. The list goes on… Any loud noise from Move On.org?

Not a word. Yes they were very active in the background, but the leadership knew in order to win they had to keep the far left “shut up”

The far left also lost in the election themselves. The far left didn’t win any elections either. The American people chose conservative democrats, not liberal democrats.

The reason environmental issues don’t get solved is because the far left is in control. The large majority of the American people do not agree with the far lefts view of animals are more important than people. The politicians, (mainly the dems) are caught in the middls

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 10, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #198605

So to the far left:

YOU WERE ALSO SLAPPED JUST AS HARD AS BUSH AND THE GOP.

WHAT MAKES YOUR LOSS WORSE IS YOU WERE ALSO SPANKED BY YOUR OWN PARTY!

So if you argue that the GOP should sit down and shut up, you probably should too.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 10, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #198610

“For one thing scientists are not infallible, nor are they always without bias. There have been many cases of doctors and scientists working for causes that were, shall we say, not in the self interest of the masses.”

finally! the truth! there have indeed been many cases such as you describe! those employed by bush to spuriously deny the existence of any environmental danger!

glad you’re finally seeing through all the b.s.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 10, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #198611

Scottie1321,

“It still does not change the fact: (and you did not even touch this did you?)

No Micheal Moore, No Cindy Shehan, No George Soros, No Streisand. The list goes onâ€� Any loud noise from Move On.org?”

YOU LOST, get over it.

Posted by: Rocky at December 10, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #198615

“YOU LOST, get over it.”

you *sure* you’re not a republican?

Posted by: Diogenes at December 10, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #198624

Eric

For one thing scientists are not infallible, nor are they always without bias.

This is why we need all the scientific research and interpretation possibilities to be out in the open.

scottie

No Micheal Moore, No Cindy Shehan, No Goerge Soros, No Streisand. The list goes on… Any loud noise from Move On.org?

I don’t associate any of those people with the environment. I also purposely left out global warming because it’s a lengthy article by itself.

The issues I raised are not “far left” issues. They are (should be) important to all of us

rocky

The far left has been the only group that has actually paid more than lip service to environmental issues.

The fishing and hunting groups have also done a lot to raise awareness and protect the environment.

Some environmental groups oppose hunting but others take no position. Sometimes the environmental group works in partnership with the hunting/fishing group on a project.

As I said, this should not be a partisan issue.

Christine

Posted by: Christine at December 10, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #198625

I just found an interesting article from the Audobon about the challenges of communication between the two sides.

One of the examples he included of a success is this one.

“Maybe the best example of what sportsmen and environmentalists can accomplish together is the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement [CARE],” says Mike Daulton, Audubon’s assistant director of government relations. This group of 20 organizations has one purpose: securing federal funding for the national wildlife refuge system. Its members include such philosophically divergent groups as Ducks Unlimited, Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon, the Wilderness Society, and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, but conflicting agendas haven’t affected the coalition. “CARE has made a tremendous difference,” says Daulton, getting steady increases in refuge appropriations, from $178 million in 1997 to $391 million in 2004.

Christine

Posted by: Christine at December 10, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #198635

Rocky,

I did not lose! I am a very moderate republican who happens to like many of the dems elected.

Yes, the GOP Lost! Thats the point! The far left lost more! They were essentially gagged. They lost seats also. Nancy pelosi has even distanced herself from the far left and made it clear that they are not controlling the democratic party “Go Nancy”

You still cannot and did not even try to debate that point.

Christine,

You are so right! They are not far left issues. But the far left has taken control of the organizations put together to take care of the environment. They put out false exaggerated info.

Look at peta! can’t eat the cockroaches. thats c—p.If they don’t want to eat cockroaches, they don’t have to. But don’t try to take away my right to eat them. That is one example of many many.

Most politicians run from peta. Why? I think we have already stated the answer. The large majority of people do not like the “animals are better than people” stance of the far left environmentalist.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 11, 2006 12:53 AM
Comment #198637

I only use PETA because it has the most colorful illustration. You could find examples with the Sierra Club and many other environmental groups.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 11, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #198638

So I say again:

“It is about time we started talking about the fact that although the republicans got their hands slapped by the voters, the far left not only also got slapped by the voters, they got spanked by the Democratic party too.”


Let’s take back environmental issues and groups back from the far left so that we can really save the environment.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 11, 2006 1:05 AM
Comment #198646


Scottie1321: Show us a list of all the far left Congresspersons that got slapped or spanked in this election and we will discuss it.

Posted by: jlw at December 11, 2006 2:21 AM
Comment #198654

Christine,

Yes, hunters, and fishermen, do “local” work for the environment through the fees they pay for hunting, and fishing licences, but on a global scale that is truly just one or two small drops in a huge bucket.


Scottie1321,

On the subject of livestock.
The huge “factory farms” and feed lots are a blight that pollutes rivers, and streams, but unless you are a Vegan, they put food on your table every night. Except for the methane they produce, they still are a mostly “local” issue.

Your “Let’s take back environmental issues and groups back from the far left so that we can really save the environment”, is just silly.

How about we join with the far left, and really make the environment a global cause?

Or is it you just find the idea of working with “liberals” repugnant?

Posted by: Rocky at December 11, 2006 8:06 AM
Comment #198674

Rocky, Rocky,

On the subject of live stock:

Great spin but that is not at all what the article says or its point.

If the only way you can debate the far left loss issue is to paint me far Right, and call my argument “silly’ then keep trying. But I am far from far right.


JLW,

We can start with congresswoman cynthia mckinny. But I never said a list who lost.

I never said far left congresspeople got slapped. I said the far left as a whole.

The new seats taken over by dems were very moderate dems.

I throw the question back to you JLW:

What far left congresspeople won in the last election? Give me that list and we can debate.

The big spank came when those I mentioned were kept out of the view of the voters before the election. Oh, that was just a coincidence that we did not hear anything from:

No Micheal Moore, No Cindy Shehan, No George Soros, No Streisand. The list goes on. Any loud noise from Move On.org?”


Posted by: scottie1321 at December 11, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #198678

BTW to all bloggers.

When you can only say that the other argument is “silly”,

That is psychologically a sign that one has nothing else to say. It makes no point, no argument.

Lets debate facts and stay away from stuff like that. It only shows the one saying it can’t come up with a rebuttal.

I was in Debate in HS and College. If I had ever turned to my opponent and said “your argument is silly” without following with a few points of fact that show why the arguemnt was silly, I would have won in the comedy category but not the debate.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 11, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #198686

scottie1321,

You whine about a lack of debate, yet you are way off topic with the question of what “far Left” Reps. won or lost.

You also declined to answer my questions that actually were on topic.

Are you just here to troll, or do you actually have some point that is “on topic” to discuss?

Posted by: Rocky at December 11, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #198696

Rocky,

No I am not off topic. My point is the real problem with solving the environmental problems is the far left.

I’m not wining, you are not responding with facts, you say “silly” and “Whine” but that is not an argument.

I did answer your questions, no, actually you did.

You your self said you were were making GROSS GENERALIZATIONS.

Non of those statements were true. Some of your statements contain some truth. But that is what the far left does when they.

“The middle believes it may be a problem, but maybe not right now.”

My friends in the middle would totally disagree with you.

“The far left has been the only group that has actually paid more than lip service to environmental issues.”

Any of you moderate dems that agree with that statement?

“The right thinks it’s a ploy to separate them from their money.”

can you find me a quote?

So I throw the ball back in your court.

Without using “Gross Generalizations, which would also be laughed at if used in any public debate,
Make your point with some facts.

Again: The far left lost more than the GOP in the 06 election. They lost in the primaries, moderate dems were elected. The far left was kept quiet during the election.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 11, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #198716

scottie,

Perhaps you don’t know how the Congress works.

The Republicans lost their Senate majority, and their House majority. Pelosi is now the Leader in the House, Reid is now the leader of the Senate. Along with that they lost the chairmanship rights to committees.

Essentially the Republicans are no more powerful than the Democrats were when the Democrats were in the minority.

As for the far left, my hope is that those now in power will actually listen to all of their constituents, not just those that voted them into office.

On the environment;

It’s true, the far left has made the most noise about the environment.

Is that a bad thing?

Again I’ll ask the question, do you feel the idea of working with liberals on the environment would be repugnant?

IMHO, science is science, and politics is politics, and they should never be inner-twined.

Scientists should be free to do science without the restraints of trying to match the science to some one’s agenda.

Posted by: Rocky at December 11, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #198722

scottie,

Oh, and BTW,

Could it be that I am painting you as from the far right because you continue to paint me from the far left?

Think about it.

Posted by: Rocky at December 11, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #198723

Rocky

“Perhaps you don’t know how the Congress works”

You prove my point. Thank You. Not a fact, just a put down. Psychologically used when there is no rebuttal.

Yes the far lefts statements are a bad thing. They exagerate the problem, they want me to not have the right to eat meat, smash a spider on the wall in my house.They use false info on CO2 gasses as shown in my first post.

They don’t help the cause because they do not work well with others.
They do the same thing you do. Make gross generalizations to prove their point which are of no use in the debate. They think anyone right of them is “stupid”, Uneducated”, “brainwashed”

They feel that because I feel that there is a Creator that I am just off my rocker.

So how can I work with that?

I enjoy working with “true” Liberals on the economy. The far left is too far out to get any thing accomplished.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 11, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #198727

scottie,

“They think anyone right of them is stupid, Uneducated”, brainwashed”

The same could be said of the right’s opinion of the left, and has been.

“They feel that because I feel that there is a Creator that I am just off my rocker.”

Frankly, I could give a rat’s ass who or what you worship.
It has no place in the debate.

Posted by: Rocky at December 11, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #198729

scottie,

“The far left is too far out to get any thing accomplished.”

Yet they are still citizens of this country and have a right to their opinion.

And, they have actually been working toward the goal of a better environment for everybody, even, dare I say it, for the far right.

Posted by: Rocky at December 11, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #198730

Rocky

Charles Manson has a right to his opinion too but that doesn’t mean we want him involved in the debate on who to incarcerate. Doesn’t mean we want to hear his view on the death penalty.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 11, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #198731

You just told me that the far left has the right to their opinion but I am not allowed to bring the Creator of the environment into the debate. Censorship. Debate it if you want. But don’t tell me I cannot bring God into the debate. Long time far left tactic.

And again you prove my point of why those in the middle need to take environmental issues and groups back from those of you on the far left. Remember Rocky, over 80% of the nation disagree with you on whether or not there is a Creator. Those of us in the middle do.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 11, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #198732

scottie,

Charles Manson can’t vote.

Posted by: Rocky at December 11, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #198733

Rocky,

We were not discussing voting. We were discussing debating.
We don’t need Mansons opinion on what to do with people that brutally murder people. That bwould be rather “repugnant”

Wrong Hat Rocky! Try again!

Bullwinkle

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 11, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #198735

scottie,

“We were not discussing voting. We were discussing debating.
We don’t need Mansons opinion on what to do with people that brutally murder people. That bwould be rather “repugnant”

Wrong Hat Rocky! Try again!

Bullwinkle”


As I first suspected, you are only here to troll and play gotcha.

Unless you can come up with something substantially better than that, this is my last post to you.

Posted by: Rocky at December 11, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #198736


“As I first suspected, you are only here to troll and play gotcha.”

What the H—l are you talking about.

Fine last post. Again psychologically used when one has no rebuttal.

We will just leave it up to the readers to decide.

It was fun Rocky!

Again I say:

So to the far left:

YOU WERE ALSO SLAPPED JUST AS HARD AS BUSH AND THE GOP.

WHAT MAKES YOUR LOSS WORSE IS YOU WERE ALSO SPANKED BY YOUR OWN PARTY!

So if you argue that the GOP should sit down and shut up, you probably should too.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 11, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #198753

THIS! Is what I’m Talking about! The far left will not even take this into account in any decision making. The middle will tho!

UN downgrades man’s impact on the climate

Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:37am GMT 11/12/2006

Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.

In a final draft of its fourth assessment report, to be published in February, the panel reports that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has accelerated in the past five years. It also predicts that temperatures will rise by up to 4.5 C during the next 100 years, bringing more frequent heat waves and storms.
advertisement

The panel, however, has lowered predictions of how much sea levels will rise in comparison with its last report in 2001.


Do we have a problem? Yes! Do we need to solve it? Yes! Do humans have to change some habits? Yes! Do we need to regulate some activities? Yes!
Do we have to recycle more? Yes!

Do we want to fix those problems with no concern of how it effects jobs, economy, my right to eat meat, my right to fish and hunt, NO!

I am going to give you a personal example;

I own Osborn’s Pizza station in my local city. It is in an old 40’s gas station. There were tanks. A man drives 40 miles once a month, (spewing co2 and gunk from his truck), one way, to test by way of these test wells on my property, for minute traces of gasoline heading underground towards the river. (500 feet away)

Now, They just dug a new well a month ago. (We already had three). In the process, A very large drilling truck that ran 8 hours a day for three days drilling a hole 300 feet while at the same time constantly spewing black soot and diesel gunk in the air. They left an 8 foot in diameter pile of oil and whatever else that thing leaked over three days which is gone now. The rain washed it into the river!

Now my question to all you far lefties. Solve this Problem. If the minute traces of gasoline that all this environmentally destructive activity is tracking makes it to the river. Then what do we do.

Ladies and gentlemen, They have been doing this for 20 years. All the money, all the excess pollution that has to be 1000 times the amount they are “watching”. The next 30 years.


So don’t tell me that the far left can see the forest through the trees. They can’t

Thats why they were told by the voters, “we want moderate polititions”

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 11, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #198760


Posted by: scottie1321 at December 11, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #198761

Osborn’s Pizza Station from previous post.

Ain’t it cute? Sorry, it’s my baby. I had to show a picture.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 11, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #198798

scottie

Great spin but that is not at all what the article says or its point.

The article is also not saying that the “real problem with solving the environmental problems is the far left”

Not at all. The real problem with solving the environmental problems is the fact that most people’s perception of these groups is wrong and this partisan bickering combined with that lack of knowledge only makes it harder to get things done.

I only use PETA because it has the most colorful illustration. You could find examples with the Sierra Club and many other environmental groups.

The Sierra Club was also mentioned in my last link, but I would like to give you another example that mentions their outreach.

This second link also discusses the history of the split between the sportsmen and the greens. It was originally caused by anti-hunting sentiment in some chapters. Industry groups seized on it and created their own groups to to drive the split.

The seeds of the modern anti-environmental backlash were sown, when conservative leaders in the late 1970s and 1980s came to see environmentalism, together with Nader’s consumer-safety movement, as threats to commercial enterprise. Industries that depend upon cheap access to public lands and federal mineral resources - oil, gas, mining, timber, and grazing interests - used their checkbooks to fight back.

Specific examples follow. Obviously, it worked.

Vilifying greens proved easier than vilifying green policies, which the public largely supported.

But people are beginning to come together now - even if it’s for one cause or one project - because they can see that they want the same things even if they don’t want to be labeled “that way”.

Environmental policies have become increasingly popular over the past few years. Seventy-five percent of Americans in a 2005 Harris poll agreed with the statement, “Protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high, and continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost.”

rocky

Yes, hunters, and fishermen, do “local” work for the environment through the fees they pay for hunting, and fishing licences, but on a global scale that is truly just one or two small drops in a huge bucket.

Licenses help with funding, but I was thinking of interest groups like Ducks Unlimited. There are also a lot of activist articles in the hunting and fishing magazines. Both of my links give more details about the work of these groups.

Christine

Posted by: Christine at December 11, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #198800

Christine,

I am not attempting to debate what you wrote because I agree with alot if not most of what you said. However as long as the far left continues to use extreme measures to tackle not so complicated problems such as my own personal Pizza Station example. It highly hinders getting anything really dome.

This underlying problem is the foundation that the things you discussed in your post rest on. If you do not fix the foundational problem, which in this case, the far left being in control and trying to pass bad extreme bills that really don solve the problem. Or often make it worse.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 11, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #198804

Cristine,

While I agree that the Sierra club is probably more mainstream than some think, the groups of the 70’s and 80’s like ELF, for instance gave the green movement a bad name.

I forgot about “Ducks unlimited” sorry.

Some like to see demons where there are none. Not all of the members of PETA for instance are of the far left.
Who really could be against better treatment of the animals that we use to feed ourselves every day?
The conditions these animals spend the last days of their lives in are indeed truly appalling, and further the spread of disease (anybody heard of e-coli).

When I was a teen I worked one summer at an “egg” ranch. The conditions were unbelievably bad. Five chickens to a cage, five cages high, with troughs to catch the poo. The excrement was scraped by machines to a catch basin, which was pumped into what could only be called a pond.
There were 35,000 laying hens in five barns.

There are some instances that I agree with PETA and others groups like them, however I believe they sometimes go too far in their rhetoric, and the actions of “some” of the members go too far as well.

We cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater, and to attempt to leave out members of our society, such as scottie suggests, is just ridiculous.

There has to be a moderate path which includes everybody, or this will be a huge waste of time.

Posted by: Rocky at December 11, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #198806

Rocky,

Is that really you? You sounded so moderate.

I am a very strong believer in an ethical treatment of animals. PETA as an organization has a position also. I happen to believe that there position is far left. That includes the cockroaches, their wanting to infringe on my right to hunt, fish, eat meat. They don’t just want to make sure those things are done by some standard. They want to take away my right to do them at all.
That is there position.

Yes you are correct, many people who pay dues to PETA are not far left. But the core and their policies are.

I did not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I DRAINED THE TUB! We can refill it with moderates.


If the moderate environmentalist would take charge, of course with both extremes having some voice too, of PETA, the Organization would double its membership and could tackle world environmental problems.

As it is now the far left is control, and they just call anyone that calls themselves a Republican, Nuts!

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 11, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #198807

If my own personal Pizza Station example is not enough to convince you that there is just as much of a management problem (if not more) when the far left is in control as GW Bush has, then your eyes are shut.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 11, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #198810

scottie
Your Pizza Station example is a good one (and I’m sorry you saw that criticism about debating what I wrote - I deleted it within a few minutes because I decided it was too attacking. Sorry, emotions…)

I don’t know anything about testing regulations for previous gas stations, but some questions come to mind.

Do people in your community drink the groundwater that’s being tested through your wells?

What do they do when they find excessive contamination (besides drill a new well)?
If they don’t do anything, this is a problem.

I agree with what you said about the condition of the truck exponentially increasing the environmental damage, but we don’t really regulate that… People would probably get upset if we started.

Anyway, I agree that some groups are extreme. Those are not what I’m advocating.

My hope is that people on the right will look at the issues actually being discussed, that they won’t just be knee-jerk anti-environmentalists.

If we can resolve the issues of both extremes, maybe common sense will reign…

Christine

Posted by: Christine at December 11, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #198811

Rocky
I agree with you about factory farming. I even plan to write an article about it soon, but the research will be extremely depressing…

Not only are the living conditions horrible, but many animals aren’t even covered by laws concerning humane slaughter.

Treatment of these farm animals should be a mainstream issue, but nobody wants to see what’s going on. I admit that (subconsciously) “nobody” even includes me because it almost doesn’t help to notice it - seeing what is happening drives the desire for personal actions, but the alternative purchasing options are few.

There are a lot of groups that only focus farm animals. I don’t know much about PETA, but if its agenda is too broad, there are always more options.

Christine

Posted by: Christine at December 11, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #207882

SCIENTISTS SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN STRATAGIES FOR THE ENVIORNMENT. BUT BOTH SIDES SHOULD BE HEARD, NOT JUST THE LEFT WING MEDIAs VERSION. FOOD FOR THOUGHT, DID YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS A 1500 YEAR CYCLE THAT CHANGES GLOBAL WEATHER!! DID YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS A GLOBAL OCEAN CURRENT THAT EFFECTS THE WORLDS WEATHER!! JUST ONE MORE THING, IF THE LEFT WING POLITICIANS GET THIER WAY YOU BETTER EXPECT ANOTHER TAX IT SHOULD BE CALLED THE CARBON TAX. PURPOSE TO COMBAT GLOBAL CARBON POLLUTION. YOU WON’T HERE ABOUT IT UNTIL CONGRESS PASSES THE MEASURE. I AND MANY OTHER folks KNOW WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY. ATTEMPT TO SECURE A MOVIE BY THE NAME OF ” AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM” BY AARON RUSSO.

Posted by: DAN R. at February 13, 2007 3:20 PM
Comment #209501

Hello, my name is Jorge L. Lombana, I have worked since the Year 2000 in an invention to help to clean
our atmosphere with excellent results, and obtaining the first place in inventions for preserving
the environment in http://www.yankeeinventionexpo.org/latnews.htm, This invention can be applied in any
system that emits contamination. This project has been performed with a lot of sacrifice without having
any financial aid. I had many difficulties but it was worthy and now is the moment that I ask for the help
of the mankind to make known this system that can clean the contamination from a 40%
to a 60% which can be improved with the financial support. I feel that
I have done my part. Now is the moment for all of you to do something because this is a responsibility that concerns
to all of us, for us and for the future of the mankind. The help that I am asking is to send this Email
to your friends or to all the people you are able, especially to congressmen, senators,
television, to all people that are able to do something in order to have positive results. If you can do
donations to be able to build a prototype that I have designed for cars, this would be a great help.
Hoping to hear from all of you.
Sincerely:

Jorge L. Lombana

P.O. Box 82603

Phoenix AZ, 85071

Posted by: Jorge L. Lombana at February 24, 2007 12:27 AM
Post a comment