|
More on Bush's administration's impact on environmental resources.
For those who insist that Bush really has had no different impact on our
resources than anyone else.... http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian...6292101830.xml Enjoy the wild places while they last. --riverman |
"riverman" wrote in message ... For those who insist that Bush really has had no different impact on our resources than anyone else.... http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian...e/110190629210 1830.xml Add this recent article to the list, too: http://tinyurl.com/5bvzl Some quotes from the second article: -------------------------------------------- Environmentalists see some of their worst fears playing out as President Bush moves to cement a second-term agenda that includes getting more timber, oil and gas from public lands and relying on the market rather than regulation to curb pollution. Bush's top energy priority - opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling - is shaping up as an early test of GOP gains in Congress. .................................................. .................. Bush's environmental priority is to rewrite the Clean Air Act to set annual nationwide limits on three major air pollutants from power plants and to allow marketplace trading of pollution rights rather than regulation to meet those goals. -------------------------------------------- I'm as tired of the political tirades as any of us, but I really do have a deep-seated fear that the landscape in America, as we know it, will be fundamentally changed forever from Bush's administration. These aren't one-off changes..."first development" of virgin land is an irreversable step. And he intends to rewrite laws which will continue to impact us once he is gone. If anyone can offer any alternative press that shows that Bush's intentions are to _preserve_ the wilderness, or even to add anything to it, and to ensure that at least *some* of our undeveloped, unmanaged land will remain protected and undeveloped, I'd like to read it. --riverman |
"riverman" wrote in message ...
For those who insist that Bush really has had no different impact on our resources than anyone else.... http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian...6292101830.xml But Bob Lohn, a regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service, said that as a practical matter, the level of protection for the fish will not change. "By incorporating more accurate data about the presence of salmon, we were able to conclude that the area occupied by salmon was one-fifth as large as the area proposed in the older designations," Lohn said. Enjoy the wild places while they last. --riverman Sounds to me like a land grab to me by some enthusiastic Environmentalist in a previous administration counted 5X higher than what their data should have indicated was really needed. TnT |
|
riverman wrote:
For those who insist that Bush really has had no different impact on our resources than anyone else.... http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian...6292101830.xml Enjoy the wild places while they last. Yes, I just heard the same thing on NPR. Also, there was a change in the definition of "wild salmon" to include hatchery-raised salmon, which effectively side-stepped protections of the Endangered Species Act. This happened in Bush's 1st term. Bush is a criminal environmental plunderer. -- Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me - From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message m... "riverman" wrote in message ... For those who insist that Bush really has had no different impact on our resources than anyone else.... http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian...6292101830.xml But Bob Lohn, a regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service, said that as a practical matter, the level of protection for the fish will not change. "By incorporating more accurate data about the presence of salmon, we were able to conclude that the area occupied by salmon was one-fifth as large as the area proposed in the older designations," Lohn said. Enjoy the wild places while they last. --riverman Sounds to me like a land grab to me by some enthusiastic Environmentalist in a previous administration counted 5X higher than what their data should have indicated was really needed. TnT Possibly, or more likely they included a buffer zone to include watershed land that is not actually inhabited, but who's ecological health they deem important to the salmon habitat. The developers challenged that a) the financial impacts on them were not considered enough, and b) the proposed buffer land was not essential *enough* to the fish. Its that "enough" that worries me; its a degradation of our preservationist values in favor of development. When it comes to preserving our natural resources (the kind that only exist if you leave them alone), we need the same sense of 'resolve' that the Admin prides itself on in other arenas, but we're not getting it. What is landmark about this ruling is that is sides the Feds with the developers; it agrees that we don't have to so protectionist in our environmental stance, and sets the stage to completely reinterpret the EPA and associated laws. It puts the burden of defining *enough* on the conservationists, not the developers. Here's a related article, but with the same amount of spin from the other side of the debate: http://www.propertyrightsresearch.or...ritical_ha.htm In addition to the precent of compromising of standards of environmental protection, what concerns me in that article is the last part, about whether or not a species is delisted. The feds recently ruled that hatchery fish are the same as 'wild' fish, therefore if hatchery fish are released in a watershed, then the population is no longer endangered. That will change the nature of a region entirely, from a natural one to a completely managed one. A google search on "salmon california washington critical habitat" shows that this is the tip of an iceberg, with much history of legal battling between preservationists and developers. Interesting reading so far. --riverman |
NPR, now there's a credible source.
"Frederick Burroughs" wrote in message ... riverman wrote: For those who insist that Bush really has had no different impact on our resources than anyone else.... http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian...6292101830.xml Enjoy the wild places while they last. Yes, I just heard the same thing on NPR. Also, there was a change in the definition of "wild salmon" to include hatchery-raised salmon, which effectively side-stepped protections of the Endangered Species Act. This happened in Bush's 1st term. Bush is a criminal environmental plunderer. -- Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me - From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon |
"Mike B" wrote in message ... NPR, now there's a credible source. Umm, sure. Why not? If your point is to pooh pooh the messenger, then don't just fire blindly; come up with some DISproof. But in this case, you won't. Both of his claims (the land ruling, and the Salmon ruling) are true, and are very widely reported on news channels everywhere, not just NPR. --riverman |
My statement still stands, Bush is no worse than Bill Clinton, maybe better if your environmental focus happens to be on anything besides wilderness. You gotta be kidding. When Bush farts, I bet all you smell is fine perfume. |
riverman wrote:
"Mike B" wrote: NPR, now there's a credible source. Umm, sure. Why not? If your point is to pooh pooh the messenger, then don't just fire blindly; come up with some DISproof. But in this case, you won't. Both of his claims (the land ruling, and the Salmon ruling) are true, and are very widely reported on news channels everywhere, not just NPR. I find NPR to be a reliable and credible news source. And, among mainstream news providers, they will air news of environmental importance. Actually, their story about land use/stream designation was quite balanced, mentioning government, timber, development and preservation interests. Give a listen (requires Windows Media or Real Audio player): http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4195582 -- Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me - From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon |
A partial list of results from Bush's first term.
-For the first time since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, water pollution levels are rising according to EPA. -A Bush White House proposal would allow twice as much sulfur dioxide and three times more mercury emission than if the Clean Air Act were fully implemented. -Auto fuel efficiency has dropped to its lowest level in 20 years under Bush policies encouraging consumers to buy SUV's. - The Lake Erie dead zone is increasing for the first time in 30 years. -Superfund cleanups have declined by 50 percent since Bush took office. -Last year, EPA's two most senior enforcement officials resigned citing the Bush administration's refusal to enforce environmental laws. -After taking office, the Bush administration ordered EPA to halt Clean Air Act investigations of animal factories and weaken water rules to allow them to continue to dump waste into streams and rivers. -The Bush administration suppressed the EPA inspector general's finding of public health risks from poisoned air following 9/11. - James Zahn, a scientist at Dept of Agriculture, resigned after Bush suppressed his study proving that billions of antibiotic resistant bacteria can be carried daily across property lines from meat factories into neighborhoods. - the White House blocked EPA staff from publicly discussing perchlorate (rocket fuel) contamination, then froze federal regulations on perchlorate in spite of new research showing high levels in drinking water and food. - Interior Secretary Gale Norton promised not to ideologically slant agency science. Her friend Tom Sansonetti, former coal industry lobbyist who is now assistant attorney general predicted: "There won't be any biologists or botanists to come in and pull the wool over her eyes." - After providing the Senate Committee on Energy with Interior's scientific assessment that Arctic oil drilling would not harm herds of caribou, Fish and Wildlife Service biologists provided the data they had given to Norton to a watchdog agency. There were seventeen major changes to their report, all of which minimized reported impacts. Norton called them typographical errors. -White House political adviser Karl Rove forced National Marine Fisheries scientists to alter findings on the amount of water required for salmon to survive in the Klamath, to make sure large corporate farms got a bigger share of river water. Result: 33,000 chinook and coho salmon died, the largest fish kill in U.S. history. -Mike Kelly, the biologist who drafted the original (suppressed) opinion has been awarded federal whistleblower status. He says coho are headed for extinction: "Morale is low among scientists here. We are under pressure to get the right results. The administration is putting species at risk for political gain--and not just in the Klamath." -Norton ordered rewritten a 12-year study by federal biologists on effects of Arctic drilling on musk oxen and snow geese. She reissued the report two weeks later as a two page paper showing no negative impact to wildlife. -Norton order the suppression of two studies by the Fish and Wildlife Service concluding that drilling would threaten polar bears and violate the international treaty protecting the bears. She instructed F&WS to redo the report to "reflect the Interior Department's position." -Under Norton this is the first Fish and Wildlife Service that has not voluntarily listed a single species as endangered or threatened. Bush will be remembered as the president with the worst environmental record--hands down. JV |
wrote:
-A Bush White House proposal would allow twice as much sulfur dioxide and three times more mercury emission than if the Clean Air Act were fully implemented... West Virginia recently updated consumption advisories for fish caught in the state, these include limits on fish consumption of fish caught *statewide*. Most of the mercury pollution in WV results from power plants and boilers that burn coal as an energy source. For the advisories, see: http://www.wvdhhr.org/fish/current.asp#sect3 -- Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me - From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon |
Was flipping channels and caught heard that "particle" polution has lessened
by 10% in the last four years. Don't remember which network, but I'm sure it was not one of the major 3 "Frederick Burroughs" wrote in message ... wrote: -A Bush White House proposal would allow twice as much sulfur dioxide and three times more mercury emission than if the Clean Air Act were fully implemented... West Virginia recently updated consumption advisories for fish caught in the state, these include limits on fish consumption of fish caught *statewide*. Most of the mercury pollution in WV results from power plants and boilers that burn coal as an energy source. For the advisories, see: http://www.wvdhhr.org/fish/current.asp#sect3 -- Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me - From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon |
-A Bush White House proposal would allow twice as much sulfur dioxide
and three times more mercury emission than if the Clean Air Act were fully implemented... Was flipping channels and caught heard that "particle" polution has lessened by 10% in the last four years. Don't remember which network, but I'm sure it was not one of the major 3 I'm guessing "Pravda"...er, Fox News. |
Mike B wrote:
Was flipping channels and caught heard that "particle" polution has lessened by 10% in the last four years. Don't remember which network, but I'm sure it was not one of the major 3 There's this from the Associated Press (AP): December 18, 2004 EPA Says 225 Counties Fail Air Standards By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 11:13 a.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday identified 225 counties in 20 states that don't meet new clean air standards designed to protect against one of the tiniest but most harmful pollutants -- microscopic soot. The counties and the District of Columbia will have to move quickly to come into compliance. They have three years to devise a pollution-reduction plan for fine particles and then must meet federal standards by 2010. Failure to comply could mean a county will have to limit development and its state could lose federal highway dollars. EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt announced the list, which included 18 fewer counties than the agency identified in a preliminary report in June. He emphasized the agency was for the first time specifically regulating for fine particles, or soot, that are 2.5 micrometers in diameter -- 1/30th the width of a human hair. Such pollution comes from power plants, car exhaust, diesel-burning trucks, wood-burning stoves and other sources. EPA considers it potentially the most significant air quality health standard, because soot can penetrate deeply into the lungs. ``This is not a story about the air getting dirtier,'' Leavitt told a news conference. ``It is a story about higher, more stringent standards and healthier air.'' About 95 million people live in the 225 counties and the nation's capital. EPA estimates the new standard, once met, will prevent at least 15,000 premature deaths, 95,000 cases of bronchitis and 10,000 hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. All but three of the states -- Missouri, California and Montana -- are east of the Mississippi River. The counties and states at issue might modify transportation plans, require new pollution controls when factories expand or impose stricter vehicle emission and inspection programs. ``We're going to implement over the course of the next few months new national tools,'' Leavitt said. ``In essence we're going to do the same thing for smokestacks that we have done for tailpipes.'' In some cases, the EPA could grant five-year extensions, letting jurisdictions take up to 2015 to comply with the new rule. Environmentalists say states will find it tough to impossible to meet the standard without accompanying action to reduce soot pollution from power plants. President Bush decided last week to delay at least until March putting in place a companion regulation he promised on the campaign trail that would address pollution drifting among states. ``This is also a story about EPA failing to finalize rules to clean up power plant pollution,'' said Michael Shore, an air policy specialist at Environmental Defense, an advocacy group. ``The Bush administration frankly deserves a lump of coal for its failure to protect the health of our children from power plant pollution.'' The largest concentrations of counties in noncompliance with the new soot standard are in the Los Angeles basin and interior central California; the urban corridor from New York City to Washington; the Ohio River Valley; Atlanta; St. Louis; Chicago, and Detroit. The only other Western area was a small corner of northwestern Montana. In May, governors gave EPA a list of 141 counties they viewed as failing to meet the soot requirements. EPA broadened that to include many other counties, not because their air is too dirty but because their pollution contributes to nearby areas that are out of compliance. Counties were placed on the list or removed due to factors such as emission rates, recent air quality, population density, traffic and commuting patterns, expected growth, weather and geography, legal boundaries and the level of pollution controls. The regulations have been a long time coming. The Clinton administration devised them in 1997, but they were held up because of court challenges by industry that went all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld the standard. They are also meant to update and complement the 1987 standard for reducing soot particles 10 micrometers in diameter, or 1/7th the width of human hair. Those had mostly targeted dusty air from things such as mining tailings, factory debris, unpaved roads and windblown dust. The states with counties in violation are Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. ------ On the Net: EPA: http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations Copyright 2004 The Associated Press -- Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me - From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon |
Yes of course. Through 2001 and 2002 it actually lessened by 20%,
while the new Administration got its new regulations in place. Then over 2003 and 2004 it backslid to a net 10% improvement. What that news show didn't tell you eas the the improvement curve has been reversed under the current Administration. Two years from now we'll be back to 0. OK, I made those numbers up, but the point is that for much of this Administration's first term we were still coasting on the improvements made due to increased environmental regulation over the previous 20 years. e.g., a Clinton-era or Bush I-era rule requiring an industrial plant to install exhaust-scrubbing equipment by 2000 would not show results until the Bush II Administration, even though the improvement was in no way the result of Bush II policy. Similarly, if the current Administration now tells other plants of the same kind that they don't have to install such new equipment after all, the ones who have already installed it will probably not remove it, so you will not see an immediate reduction in the relevant air-quality indicator... but you will cease to see the further improvements that would have occured if the new Administration were not in the business of gutting the Clean Air Act. -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty -- ================================================== ==================== Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA .. rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net .. Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll .. rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu .. OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters ================================================== ==================== |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com