"Bush's 7 Deadly Sins" [Environmental Record]
09-17-2004, 09:49 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: How do you swap an RSTi?
Posts: 1,020
Car Info: 2001 Impreza 2.5RS(Ti)
"Bush's 7 Deadly Sins" [Environmental Record]
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200409/sins.asp
The environment hasn't been brought up much in this forum, but this is an area where W's record is abhorrent. The Sierra Club calls him "the most anti-environmental president in American history" Numerous EPA officials have resigned in protest to his policies:
A Timber lobbyist (Mark Rey) holds a key post in the Forest Service
an Oil and Mining lobbyist was appointed deputy secretary of the interior in
March '01, in October '01 the interior department weakened environmental laws on mining operations
Oil drilling off the coasts of California and Florida are proposed
rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.
The list goes on and on, but all of the previous happened in Bush's first year in office. There is no argument on Bush's record on the environment.
Bush's 7 Deadly Sins
Sierra's staff curmudgeon tallies the president's environmental crimes.
by Bob Schildgen
I don't get it. And I've seen a lot of strange stuff in the past 60 years, going back to the two-headed calf on our farm in Wisconsin. I've spent quality time, as they now call it, with smugglers, embezzlers, con men, celebrities, and a genuine blackmailer.
I've hung out with philosophers, Bible scholars, and Trotskyites, not to mention a nuclear engineer who ran a Pizza Hut. And I've followed professors explaining Dante's psychological map of humanity, from the traitors being gnawed on by Satan to angels yodeling in the farthest arc of the universe.
But I just can't understand George W. Bush.
A man who presents himself as a down-home Texan, Bush claims to be in touch with common folk. As president, he's been rock-solid in speaking about core values: the rights of the unborn, law and order, compassionate conservatism, government accountability, and our great American heritage.
Why, then, has he been hammering those core values in his environmental policy? See if you can figure him out.
1. Turning Mom Into a Superfund Site
A Bush proposal to weaken clean-air rules would put three times more mercury into our air and water than existing rules would allow. One in six women has enough mercury in her system to risk her kid having brain damage, mental retardation, blindness, seizures, and speech impediments. Not exactly friendly to the rights of the unborn, is it, George?
2. Belly Flop in a Cesspool
Nobody much likes sewage, except maybe sewer rats or those albino mutant lizards they say inhabit the pipes. So why did Bush, on his inauguration day, rescind a rule to cut down on sewage dumping? And then he goes from belly flop to flip-flop. First, Bush whacked a new regulation to reduce the arsenic in drinking water. A few months later--after a public outcry--he agreed to cut arsenic down to the same limits they have in Old Europe.
Sierra's staff curmudgeon tallies the president's environmental crimes.
by Bob Schildgen
I don't get it. And I've seen a lot of strange stuff in the past 60 years, going back to the two-headed calf on our farm in Wisconsin. I've spent quality time, as they now call it, with smugglers, embezzlers, con men, celebrities, and a genuine blackmailer.
I've hung out with philosophers, Bible scholars, and Trotskyites, not to mention a nuclear engineer who ran a Pizza Hut. And I've followed professors explaining Dante's psychological map of humanity, from the traitors being gnawed on by Satan to angels yodeling in the farthest arc of the universe.
But I just can't understand George W. Bush.
A man who presents himself as a down-home Texan, Bush claims to be in touch with common folk. As president, he's been rock-solid in speaking about core values: the rights of the unborn, law and order, compassionate conservatism, government accountability, and our great American heritage.
Why, then, has he been hammering those core values in his environmental policy? See if you can figure him out.
1. Turning Mom Into a Superfund Site
A Bush proposal to weaken clean-air rules would put three times more mercury into our air and water than existing rules would allow. One in six women has enough mercury in her system to risk her kid having brain damage, mental retardation, blindness, seizures, and speech impediments. Not exactly friendly to the rights of the unborn, is it, George?
2. Belly Flop in a Cesspool
Nobody much likes sewage, except maybe sewer rats or those albino mutant lizards they say inhabit the pipes. So why did Bush, on his inauguration day, rescind a rule to cut down on sewage dumping? And then he goes from belly flop to flip-flop. First, Bush whacked a new regulation to reduce the arsenic in drinking water. A few months later--after a public outcry--he agreed to cut arsenic down to the same limits they have in Old Europe.
A Timber lobbyist (Mark Rey) holds a key post in the Forest Service
an Oil and Mining lobbyist was appointed deputy secretary of the interior in
March '01, in October '01 the interior department weakened environmental laws on mining operations
Oil drilling off the coasts of California and Florida are proposed
rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.
The list goes on and on, but all of the previous happened in Bush's first year in office. There is no argument on Bush's record on the environment.
09-18-2004, 12:21 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,402
Car Info: 02 WRX wagon=dead; rollin' in a Craptastic Camry!
Devil's advocate
A lot of people believe environmental legislation has gone too far. In some cases, they may be correct, but in other cases they just can't be inconvenienced enough to care.
I think that part of the appeal of the Republican party is an attitude of "we've always done it that way, it's an easy and established way of doing it, why should we change?" It's a valid question, the answer's are often not clear and Democrat's are quick to advocate change before an issue is completely thought through.
In the instance of "environmentalism", studies are typically funded by various groups having various agendas. The results of these studies are absorbed as headlines and sound bites by John Q. Public. If these headlines or sound bites fit with his world view, he accepts them, after all, it is a "scientific" study. If they do not line up with his world view, they are dismissed as propaganda - junk science. It is easy to see how people become confused, complacent and entrenched in one simplistic way of thinking.
Articles like you cited are largely being read by a sympathetic audience - the people reading them are likely to be open to the view point of the Sierra Club. I don't see any references to the author's claims, so putting myself in a skeptic's shoes, why should I bother checking his claims out as opposed to just discounting them immediately as "tree-hugging" propaganda?
If you guys have read my other posts, you probably know that I fall into the camp which believes the current administration has an extremely poor record in terms of environmental stewardship. Mercury, SOx and NOx from coal plants is just one example of policies which will prove to be a net detriment to our economy and society for decades, imho.
I think that part of the appeal of the Republican party is an attitude of "we've always done it that way, it's an easy and established way of doing it, why should we change?" It's a valid question, the answer's are often not clear and Democrat's are quick to advocate change before an issue is completely thought through.
In the instance of "environmentalism", studies are typically funded by various groups having various agendas. The results of these studies are absorbed as headlines and sound bites by John Q. Public. If these headlines or sound bites fit with his world view, he accepts them, after all, it is a "scientific" study. If they do not line up with his world view, they are dismissed as propaganda - junk science. It is easy to see how people become confused, complacent and entrenched in one simplistic way of thinking.
Articles like you cited are largely being read by a sympathetic audience - the people reading them are likely to be open to the view point of the Sierra Club. I don't see any references to the author's claims, so putting myself in a skeptic's shoes, why should I bother checking his claims out as opposed to just discounting them immediately as "tree-hugging" propaganda?
If you guys have read my other posts, you probably know that I fall into the camp which believes the current administration has an extremely poor record in terms of environmental stewardship. Mercury, SOx and NOx from coal plants is just one example of policies which will prove to be a net detriment to our economy and society for decades, imho.
09-18-2004, 10:23 AM
#5
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
BlahBlahBlah...W is bad...BlahBlahBlah.
What is wrong with drilling for oil off of California's coast?
It's better for the planet's ecology, as California has some very strict, if not the strictest environmental laws around. California doesn't have to worry about rebels blowing up pipelines, like in Irag or South America.
And better for our economy.
The United States loses 12,389 jobs for every $1 billion spent on imported oil. That boils down to 1.7 million jobs at the current rate of imports. By far the largest use of the stuff is transportation, where use has been growing steadily for many years.
California's gasoline usage is the second largest on the planet. In 2002 California refineries imported $6 Billion worth of crude oil. In 2004 California refineries are expected to import 220 million barrels of oil, costing $7.7 Billion, or the loss of 95,395 jobs.
NIMBYs are the only reason why there aren't oil wells along our coast.
What is wrong with drilling for oil off of California's coast?
It's better for the planet's ecology, as California has some very strict, if not the strictest environmental laws around. California doesn't have to worry about rebels blowing up pipelines, like in Irag or South America.
And better for our economy.
The United States loses 12,389 jobs for every $1 billion spent on imported oil. That boils down to 1.7 million jobs at the current rate of imports. By far the largest use of the stuff is transportation, where use has been growing steadily for many years.
California's gasoline usage is the second largest on the planet. In 2002 California refineries imported $6 Billion worth of crude oil. In 2004 California refineries are expected to import 220 million barrels of oil, costing $7.7 Billion, or the loss of 95,395 jobs.
NIMBYs are the only reason why there aren't oil wells along our coast.
09-18-2004, 09:35 PM
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: How do you swap an RSTi?
Posts: 1,020
Car Info: 2001 Impreza 2.5RS(Ti)
BlingBlingBlue -- your question is a good one. Why should we change? The answer I have for you is because the environment is changing. Your shot at caring about the situation in which we live with the "quotation marks" "environmentalism" and your opinion of how studies are funded, I have but one thing to say. No one who actually cares deeply about this issue is actually the Bush side. This issue has been thoroughly thought through. If you don't think it has then you have not done your research. These so-called 'agendas' that you propose are the common denominator with every environmental group on the face of the planet. You are correct, however, in your statement that it is a simplistic way of thinking. I will elaborate, "Take care of the earth that birthed you and it will take care of you."
And Oaf, what am I to do with you? If you have no clue of what the repercussions of drilling off the coast of California are, then may your god be with you. As far as being better for the planet's ecology. I would love for you to explain to me, how this is possible. Please answer for me, while you're at it, how California's laws are in any way bad, except for in the extreme economical short term... and other than not being able to get away with running a WRX catless.
And since my sierra club figures are in question, where do you get these numbers that you are quoting? "growing steadily for many years"? -- do elaborate.
You obviously, in my opinion, don't have any comprehension of the proportionality of ALASKAN, CALIFORNIAN, AND FLORIDIAN OIL as compared with the middle east.
Do your research and get back to me. If you care about the environment or in leyman's terms, 'wether or not your kids grow up living on a nuclear waste site' than you can not vote for George W. I rest my case.
And Oaf, what am I to do with you? If you have no clue of what the repercussions of drilling off the coast of California are, then may your god be with you. As far as being better for the planet's ecology. I would love for you to explain to me, how this is possible. Please answer for me, while you're at it, how California's laws are in any way bad, except for in the extreme economical short term... and other than not being able to get away with running a WRX catless.
And since my sierra club figures are in question, where do you get these numbers that you are quoting? "growing steadily for many years"? -- do elaborate.
You obviously, in my opinion, don't have any comprehension of the proportionality of ALASKAN, CALIFORNIAN, AND FLORIDIAN OIL as compared with the middle east.
Do your research and get back to me. If you care about the environment or in leyman's terms, 'wether or not your kids grow up living on a nuclear waste site' than you can not vote for George W. I rest my case.
09-18-2004, 09:47 PM
#8
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
The oil argument is absolutely worthless when we all drive AWD/turbo vehicles... save your oil argument for us when you've ditched the WRX for a hybrid.
What does it matter where your oil comes from as long as you can coat the inside of your IC and turbo with it? lame...
What does it matter where your oil comes from as long as you can coat the inside of your IC and turbo with it? lame...
Last edited by Salty; 09-18-2004 at 09:56 PM.
09-18-2004, 09:56 PM
#9
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: How do you swap an RSTi?
Posts: 1,020
Car Info: 2001 Impreza 2.5RS(Ti)
Salty, you continue to depress me. My car, which is mostly stock maintains an average fuel mileage of 19 mpg. Ford advertises it's *new 3-valve V-8 engine as the most fuel efficient in its class when it get's only 14mpg. I'm pretty sure FHI was capable of complying with the Kyoto Protocol. When the US gov't gets it's ****e together, I'll be ready, and I'll have a job doing R&D on fuel cells with my mechanical engineering degree and I'll be able to afford another car with which to do my daily driving. I believe that automotive enthusiasts should be the ones arguing for better fuel economy and alternative fuels. That's where I stand. Where are you on this issue?
09-18-2004, 10:02 PM
#10
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
19mpg is **** poor for someone that posts an environmental thread regarding oil. You depress me, MoneyAB... if you really were so concerned then you would have gone the extra mile (literally) with the honda 30mpg+ civic or hybrid.
I'll get into where I stand tomorrow... too tired at the moment.
I'll get into where I stand tomorrow... too tired at the moment.
09-18-2004, 10:08 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 178
Originally Posted by MonkeyAB
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200409/sins.asp
The environment hasn't been brought up much in this forum, but this is an area where W's record is abhorrent. The Sierra Club calls him "the most anti-environmental president in American history" Numerous EPA officials have resigned in protest to his policies:
A Timber lobbyist (Mark Rey) holds a key post in the Forest Service
an Oil and Mining lobbyist was appointed deputy secretary of the interior in
March '01, in October '01 the interior department weakened environmental laws on mining operations
Oil drilling off the coasts of California and Florida are proposed
rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.
The list goes on and on, but all of the previous happened in Bush's first year in office. There is no argument on Bush's record on the environment.
The environment hasn't been brought up much in this forum, but this is an area where W's record is abhorrent. The Sierra Club calls him "the most anti-environmental president in American history" Numerous EPA officials have resigned in protest to his policies:
A Timber lobbyist (Mark Rey) holds a key post in the Forest Service
an Oil and Mining lobbyist was appointed deputy secretary of the interior in
March '01, in October '01 the interior department weakened environmental laws on mining operations
Oil drilling off the coasts of California and Florida are proposed
rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.
The list goes on and on, but all of the previous happened in Bush's first year in office. There is no argument on Bush's record on the environment.
09-18-2004, 10:10 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 178
Originally Posted by Oaf
BlahBlahBlah...W is bad...BlahBlahBlah.
What is wrong with drilling for oil off of California's coast?
It's better for the planet's ecology, as California has some very strict, if not the strictest environmental laws around. California doesn't have to worry about rebels blowing up pipelines, like in Irag or South America.
And better for our economy.
The United States loses 12,389 jobs for every $1 billion spent on imported oil. That boils down to 1.7 million jobs at the current rate of imports. By far the largest use of the stuff is transportation, where use has been growing steadily for many years.
California's gasoline usage is the second largest on the planet. In 2002 California refineries imported $6 Billion worth of crude oil. In 2004 California refineries are expected to import 220 million barrels of oil, costing $7.7 Billion, or the loss of 95,395 jobs.
NIMBYs are the only reason why there aren't oil wells along our coast.
What is wrong with drilling for oil off of California's coast?
It's better for the planet's ecology, as California has some very strict, if not the strictest environmental laws around. California doesn't have to worry about rebels blowing up pipelines, like in Irag or South America.
And better for our economy.
The United States loses 12,389 jobs for every $1 billion spent on imported oil. That boils down to 1.7 million jobs at the current rate of imports. By far the largest use of the stuff is transportation, where use has been growing steadily for many years.
California's gasoline usage is the second largest on the planet. In 2002 California refineries imported $6 Billion worth of crude oil. In 2004 California refineries are expected to import 220 million barrels of oil, costing $7.7 Billion, or the loss of 95,395 jobs.
NIMBYs are the only reason why there aren't oil wells along our coast.
09-18-2004, 10:12 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 178
Originally Posted by Salty
The oil argument is absolutely worthless when we all drive AWD/turbo vehicles... save your oil argument for us when you've ditched the WRX for a hybrid.
What does it matter where your oil comes from as long as you can coat the inside of your IC and turbo with it? lame...
What does it matter where your oil comes from as long as you can coat the inside of your IC and turbo with it? lame...
09-18-2004, 10:16 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 178
Originally Posted by Salty
19mpg is **** poor for someone that posts an environmental thread regarding oil. You depress me, MoneyAB... if you really were so concerned then you would have gone the extra mile (literally) with the honda 30mpg+ civic or hybrid.
I'll get into where I stand tomorrow... too tired at the moment.
I'll get into where I stand tomorrow... too tired at the moment.
09-18-2004, 10:32 PM
#15
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by MonkeyAB
And Oaf, what am I to do with you? If you have no clue of what the repercussions of drilling off the coast of California are, then may your god be with you. As far as being better for the planet's ecology. I would love for you to explain to me, how this is possible. Please answer for me, while you're at it, how California's laws are in any way bad, except for in the extreme economical short term... and other than not being able to get away with running a WRX catless.
California's laws aren't bad.
I said strict, meaning that they protect the environment.
So, where would you rather have oil come from?
From countries that don't give shiznit about the environment or from California where the laws will protect the environment?
Originally Posted by MonkeyAB
And since my sierra club figures are in question, where do you get these numbers that you are quoting? "growing steadily for many years"? -- do elaborate.
You obviously, in my opinion, don't have any comprehension of the proportionality of ALASKAN, CALIFORNIAN, AND FLORIDIAN OIL as compared with the middle east.
Do your research and get back to me. If you care about the environment or in leyman's terms, 'wether or not your kids grow up living on a nuclear waste site' than you can not vote for George W. I rest my case.
You obviously, in my opinion, don't have any comprehension of the proportionality of ALASKAN, CALIFORNIAN, AND FLORIDIAN OIL as compared with the middle east.
Do your research and get back to me. If you care about the environment or in leyman's terms, 'wether or not your kids grow up living on a nuclear waste site' than you can not vote for George W. I rest my case.
"In 2002, the total receipts to refineries of roughly 661 million barrels came from in-state oil production (48%), combined with oil from Alaska (22%) and foreign sources (30%)." Link
Californians consume 75.6 million gallons of oil per day, while producing only
707,000 barrels per day. Link
This means that we transfer our responsibility of oil production to other areas, such as Alaska, which, in my opinion, is much more deserving of protection that California's coast.
Bottom line is we need oil.
Why go half way around the world when we can get it from our front yard?