| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
*JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... John H wrote: We keep waiting for some good news about the Bay, but it doesn't come. Here's the latest from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation: http://www.cbf.org/site/News2?page=N...m5pu741.app26a -- John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!) Yep, pollution. It's a good thing that the republicans want to relax the environmental laws, huh? Why did you have to turn this into a political thing Kevin? John posted some disturbing news. Both republicans and democrats equally pollute. Why do you keep calling me Kevin, Jim? Now, take a look around you, Jim. OK Kevin, done. I fully understand that Democrats and Republicans both pollute,....snip So we agree. Thanks. I didn't "turn it into a political thing", Jim, it all ready was one. How so Kevin? I saw nothing political in John's post or link. What exactly did you see that was political in either? Again, I'm not Kevin, but seeing how you are responding to ME, I'll answer. It's already a political thing, simply because the Republicans are responsible for weaker environmental laws. That causes more pollution. If the republicans didn't weaken, or downright do away with some environmental laws, pollution wouldn't worsen, now would it? There's much more to pollution than fertilizer runoff, or animal feces. I'd think it would be simple to understand that if the republicans didn't weaken or do away with environmental regulations, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. THAT is why it is political in nature. I'm sure you understand, don't you? You seem to be one of the brighter right wingers here. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... John H wrote: We keep waiting for some good news about the Bay, but it doesn't come. Here's the latest from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation: http://www.cbf.org/site/News2?page=N...m5pu741.app26a -- John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!) Yep, pollution. It's a good thing that the republicans want to relax the environmental laws, huh? Why did you have to turn this into a political thing Kevin? John posted some disturbing news. Both republicans and democrats equally pollute. Why do you keep calling me Kevin, Jim? Now, take a look around you, Jim. OK Kevin, done. I fully understand that Democrats and Republicans both pollute,....snip So we agree. Thanks. I didn't "turn it into a political thing", Jim, it all ready was one. How so Kevin? I saw nothing political in John's post or link. What exactly did you see that was political in either? What is funny is how blue state pollution is somehow the Republican's fault. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... John H wrote: We keep waiting for some good news about the Bay, but it doesn't come. Here's the latest from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation: http://www.cbf.org/site/News2?page=N...m5pu741.app26a -- John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!) Yep, pollution. It's a good thing that the republicans want to relax the environmental laws, huh? Why did you have to turn this into a political thing Kevin? John posted some disturbing news. Both republicans and democrats equally pollute. Why do you keep calling me Kevin, Jim? Now, take a look around you, Jim. OK Kevin, done. I fully understand that Democrats and Republicans both pollute,....snip So we agree. Thanks. I didn't "turn it into a political thing", Jim, it all ready was one. How so Kevin? I saw nothing political in John's post or link. What exactly did you see that was political in either? Again, I'm not Kevin, but seeing how you are responding to ME, I'll answer. It's already a political thing, simply because the Republicans are responsible for weaker environmental laws. That causes more pollution. If the republicans didn't weaken, or downright do away with some environmental laws, pollution wouldn't worsen, now would it? There's much more to pollution than fertilizer runoff, or animal feces. I'd think it would be simple to understand that if the republicans didn't weaken or do away with environmental regulations, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. THAT is why it is political in nature. I'm sure you understand, don't you? You seem to be one of the brighter right wingers here. So explain how the Republicans specifically caused the water quality in the Bay decline. Do you really think Republicans always vote against and Democrats always vote for stronger environmental laws? |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
"DSK" wrote in message
. .. Doug Kanter wrote: You're both right and wrong sorta kinda. I'm not familiar with the local situation around the bay, but I do know that what's causing a lot of the problem is the same thing that's causing problems in a couple of the Finger Lakes of upstate NY: Runoff from farms, mostly normal fertilizers, and it doesn't matter THAT much whether they're synthetic fertilizers or organic ones, like composted manure which the Amish farmers use. In most watersheds, definitely including the Chesapeake, runoff from lawns is also a very big problem. That's impossible. A couple of meatheads in one of the gardening newsgroups have been telling me that lawn chemicals are good for you, and that 40 years of toxicity research is null and void. :-) NC addressed the issue of runoff from upland farms by q very effective method: money. Farmers are given incentives (big enough to affect profitability) to have a buffer system of ditches and dikes around their fields, with natural cover, which captures much of the fertilizer run-off. Who cares how it gets fixed? If bribes are what it takes, so what? ... Here, I don't see much arguing between the parties when it comes to working out these problems. Local pols have to literally look their constituents in the eye, and maybe watch restaurants, motels and marinas go out of business if they allow a recreational resource like a lake turn to crap. Hmmph. I suspect that you don't see the arguing because the side with the most money always wins. I also suspect that the environmental picture up there isn't as rosy as you paint it... especially considering the low population density. Well, I share your cynicism IN GENERAL, but because I fish some of these lakes (when I can hack through the weeds), I follow the situation pretty closely. For the most part, the farmers have been pretty cooperative. Even the DEC, in a public meeting, said that farmers were waiting for THEM to offer suggestions. Not necessarily cheap suggestions - just ideas of any kind. The solution varies from place to place because of terrain, soil type, blah blah blah. Using Conesus Lake as an example, farm runoff is a small part of the problem. The rest comes from vacation cottages which are very tightly packed together along both shores. Lawn poisons are negligible, but many of the homes are very old, and their septic systems are outdated. New construction requires the cesspool be quite a ways back from the water, and that waste be pumped uphill. It's tough to upgrade many of the older homes because, again, they're so tightly packed in with other older homes. If a homeowner is lucky, the house behind his falls down from old age, and it's easy to install the new system. There's very little contentious behavior surrounding the situation. It's just...they can't come up with a consistent procedure because every piece of property is different, and each one's postage-stamp size. If it involved new construction on an empty shoreline.....easy, right? The biggest problem for the US east coast ecosystems is very simple... lots & lots & lots of people. For example, Boston Harbor, that fabled avatar of aquapurity, has about 10X more 'stuff' flushed & drained into it than the total volume, much less the tidal exchange volume. This threshold was crossed back in the 1800s... and there are effectively zero wetlands. Is this the model for the future? Try selling the overpopulation reason to anyone these days. Does Zero Population Growth still exist? ... I suspect that when problems surrounding the Bay are fixed, it will also be local powers that deal with it. I suspect that they'll continue to fail to deal with it. Making well-publicized but ineffective & inexpensive gestures is a lot more politically expedient. However, on a national level, where laws are made regarding more dangerous pollutants, the Republican party is almost exclusively responsible for the WEAKENING of the rules. If you don't agree with that, you're not reading much. Heh, under Reagan the EPA took a big hit. Under Bush Jr the EPA has all but shut down. There is no effective environmental law enforcement on the Federal level. DSK |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... John H wrote: We keep waiting for some good news about the Bay, but it doesn't come. Here's the latest from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation: http://www.cbf.org/site/News2?page=N...m5pu741.app26a -- John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!) Yep, pollution. It's a good thing that the republicans want to relax the environmental laws, huh? Why did you have to turn this into a political thing Kevin? John posted some disturbing news. Both republicans and democrats equally pollute. Why do you keep calling me Kevin, Jim? Now, take a look around you, Jim. OK Kevin, done. I fully understand that Democrats and Republicans both pollute,....snip So we agree. Thanks. I didn't "turn it into a political thing", Jim, it all ready was one. How so Kevin? I saw nothing political in John's post or link. What exactly did you see that was political in either? Again, I'm not Kevin, but seeing how you are responding to ME, I'll answer. It's already a political thing, simply because the Republicans are responsible for weaker environmental laws. That causes more pollution. If the republicans didn't weaken, or downright do away with some environmental laws, pollution wouldn't worsen, now would it? There's much more to pollution than fertilizer runoff, or animal feces. I'd think it would be simple to understand that if the republicans didn't weaken or do away with environmental regulations, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. THAT is why it is political in nature. I'm sure you understand, don't you? You seem to be one of the brighter right wingers here. So explain how the Republicans specifically caused the water quality in the Bay decline. Do you really think Republicans always vote against and Democrats always vote for stronger environmental laws? Do you actually expect a sane thought from such a defective mind? |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
... Do you really think Republicans always vote against and Democrats always vote for stronger environmental laws? Do you actually expect a sane thought from such a defective mind? Are you aware of what your president has done to dismantle air pollution regulations over the past couple of years, or are you pretending to have heard/read nothing at all about it? |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
*JimH* wrote: So explain how the Republicans specifically caused the water quality in the Bay decline. Just for you and Fritz, to show how narrow minded you a By Osha Gray Davidson September/October 2003 Issue As The World Burns A Mother Jones special project on global warming ----Advertisements---- Author Thomas Frank Appearance May 24th lunch and book signing with author. Your Ad Here Reason Over Religion! God gave us reason, not religion. Deism is an alternative to superstition. Your Ad Here Text Ads on MotherJones.com Click to Place Your Ad Here! Your Ad Here A New Book on Bush Get Book Analyzing What Went Wrong. New Low Price. Your Ad Here ----Advertisements---- IN THE EARLY 1980s you didn't need to be a member of EarthFirst! to know that Ronald Reagan was bad for the environment. You didn't even have to be especially politically aware. Here was a man who had, after all, publicly stated that most air pollution was caused by plants. And then there was Reagan's secretary of the Interior, James Watt, who saw no need to protect the environment because Jesus was returning any day, and who, in a pique of reactionary feng shui, suggested that the buffalo on Interior's seal be flipped to face right instead of left. By contrast, while George W. Bush gets low marks on the environment from a majority of Americans, few fully appreciate the scope and fury of this administration's anti-environmental agenda. "What they're doing makes the Reagan administration look innocent," says Buck Parker, executive director of Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm. The Bush administration has been gutting key sections of the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, laws that have traditionally had bipartisan support and have done more to protect the health of Americans than any other environmental legislation. It has crippled the Superfund program, which is charged with cleaning up millions of pounds of toxic industrial wastes such as arsenic, lead, mercury, and vinyl chloride in more than 1,000 neighborhoods in 48 states. It has sought to cut the EPA's enforcement division by nearly one-fifth, to its lowest level on record; fines assessed for environmental violations dropped by nearly two-thirds in the administration's first two years; and criminal prosecutions-the government's weapon of last resort against the worst polluters-are down by nearly one-third It goes on: So why aren't more people aware that George W. Bush is compiling what is arguably the worst environmental record of any president in recent history? The easy explanations-that environmental issues are complex, that war and terrorism push most other concerns off the front pages-are only part of the story. The real reason may be far simpler: Few people know the magnitude of the administration's attacks on the environment because the administration has been working very hard to keep it that way. And this: JUST BEFORE SHE STEPPED DOWN last summer, EPA head Whitman issued a "state of the environment" report that fairly rhapsodized about the significance of environmental protection: "Pristine waterways [and] safe drinking waters are treasured resources," one passage declared. "The nation has made significant progress in protecting these resources in the last 30 years." What Whitman did not mention was that the administration has spent two years attempting to eviscerate the law that brought about most of that progress-the Clean Water Act of 1972. In January 2003, the administration proposed new rules for managing the nation's wetlands, removing 20 percent of the country's remaining swamps, ponds, and marshes from federal protection. And wetlands are only the beginning: A close reading of the proposed rules shows that the administration is attempting to change the definition of "waters of the United States" to exclude up to 60 percent of the country's rivers, lakes, and streams from protection, giving industries permission to pollute, alter, fill, and build on all of these waterways (see "Down Upon the Suwannee"). "No president since the Clean Water Act was passed has proposed getting rid of it on the majority of waters of the U.S.," notes Joan Mulhern of Earthjustice-and Bush might not have tried either, had he been forced to justify the move in congressional debate rather than burying it in bureaucratic rule-making. Get it now, Jim? Do you really think Republicans always vote against and Democrats always vote for stronger environmental laws? Hmm, did I say that Jim? But, alas, I can say ALMOST always. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 May 2005 11:00:42 -0700, wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/big_fish -- John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!) |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: So explain how the Republicans specifically caused the water quality in the Bay decline. Just for you and Fritz, to show how narrow minded you a By Osha Gray Davidson September/October 2003 Issue As The World Burns A Mother Jones special project on global warming ----Advertisements---- Author Thomas Frank Appearance May 24th lunch and book signing with author. Your Ad Here Reason Over Religion! God gave us reason, not religion. Deism is an alternative to superstition. Your Ad Here Text Ads on MotherJones.com Click to Place Your Ad Here! Your Ad Here A New Book on Bush Get Book Analyzing What Went Wrong. New Low Price. Your Ad Here ----Advertisements---- IN THE EARLY 1980s you didn't need to be a member of EarthFirst! to know that Ronald Reagan was bad for the environment. You didn't even have to be especially politically aware. Here was a man who had, after all, publicly stated that most air pollution was caused by plants. And then there was Reagan's secretary of the Interior, James Watt, who saw no need to protect the environment because Jesus was returning any day, and who, in a pique of reactionary feng shui, suggested that the buffalo on Interior's seal be flipped to face right instead of left. By contrast, while George W. Bush gets low marks on the environment from a majority of Americans, few fully appreciate the scope and fury of this administration's anti-environmental agenda. "What they're doing makes the Reagan administration look innocent," says Buck Parker, executive director of Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm. The Bush administration has been gutting key sections of the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, laws that have traditionally had bipartisan support and have done more to protect the health of Americans than any other environmental legislation. It has crippled the Superfund program, which is charged with cleaning up millions of pounds of toxic industrial wastes such as arsenic, lead, mercury, and vinyl chloride in more than 1,000 neighborhoods in 48 states. It has sought to cut the EPA's enforcement division by nearly one-fifth, to its lowest level on record; fines assessed for environmental violations dropped by nearly two-thirds in the administration's first two years; and criminal prosecutions-the government's weapon of last resort against the worst polluters-are down by nearly one-third It goes on: So why aren't more people aware that George W. Bush is compiling what is arguably the worst environmental record of any president in recent history? The easy explanations-that environmental issues are complex, that war and terrorism push most other concerns off the front pages-are only part of the story. The real reason may be far simpler: Few people know the magnitude of the administration's attacks on the environment because the administration has been working very hard to keep it that way. And this: JUST BEFORE SHE STEPPED DOWN last summer, EPA head Whitman issued a "state of the environment" report that fairly rhapsodized about the significance of environmental protection: "Pristine waterways [and] safe drinking waters are treasured resources," one passage declared. "The nation has made significant progress in protecting these resources in the last 30 years." What Whitman did not mention was that the administration has spent two years attempting to eviscerate the law that brought about most of that progress-the Clean Water Act of 1972. In January 2003, the administration proposed new rules for managing the nation's wetlands, removing 20 percent of the country's remaining swamps, ponds, and marshes from federal protection. And wetlands are only the beginning: A close reading of the proposed rules shows that the administration is attempting to change the definition of "waters of the United States" to exclude up to 60 percent of the country's rivers, lakes, and streams from protection, giving industries permission to pollute, alter, fill, and build on all of these waterways (see "Down Upon the Suwannee"). "No president since the Clean Water Act was passed has proposed getting rid of it on the majority of waters of the U.S.," notes Joan Mulhern of Earthjustice-and Bush might not have tried either, had he been forced to justify the move in congressional debate rather than burying it in bureaucratic rule-making. Get it now, Jim? No. What does this have to do specifically with the Bay? Do you really think Republicans always vote against and Democrats always vote for stronger environmental laws? Hmm, did I say that Jim? But, alas, I can say ALMOST always. Prove it. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Glorious day on the Chesapeake Bay! | General | |||
| Your help needed - Chesapeake Bay | General | |||
| Palm Beach to the Chesapeake | Cruising | |||
| "Chesapeake Bay Boat Buying" followup/Boat search update | Cruising | |||
| north chesapeake cruising? | General | |||
Linear Mode
