|
Bad day on the Chesapeake Bay!
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!) |
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? |
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. |
*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. I fully understand that Democrats and Republicans both pollute, but tell me, which of those two do you think is to blame for relaxing environmental laws? Do you think that by relaxing or sometimes eliminating environmental laws that they deter, or add to the pollution problem? I didn't "turn it into a political thing", Jim, it all ready was one. |
"John H" wrote in message
... 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, how often is stuff like this really in peoples' faces in the news? I wonder because it's the kind of story which, if people see it once every two months, they shake their heads, say "that sucks", and then forget about it and do nothing. Same problem here with Lake Ontario. The NY DEC is finding increasing levels of dioxin in fish, publicizing the results (not often enough), and you hear people say "Wow...is that still a problem? I thought they were taking care of it". (They???) |
On Tue, 24 May 2005 17:13:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . 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, how often is stuff like this really in peoples' faces in the news? I wonder because it's the kind of story which, if people see it once every two months, they shake their heads, say "that sucks", and then forget about it and do nothing. Same problem here with Lake Ontario. The NY DEC is finding increasing levels of dioxin in fish, publicizing the results (not often enough), and you hear people say "Wow...is that still a problem? I thought they were taking care of it". (They???) It seems to make the 'real' news around here about twice a year, when the Maryland and then the Virginia governors decide it's time for a little environmental pat on the back. It won't *really* hit the news until the crabbers go out of business (which is happening) and the commercial fishermen can't make a living. Then maybe something will happen. It makes the 'newsgroup news' about once every two months, when I see something I deem newsworthy! -- 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!) |
"John H" wrote in message
... On Tue, 24 May 2005 17:13:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. 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, how often is stuff like this really in peoples' faces in the news? I wonder because it's the kind of story which, if people see it once every two months, they shake their heads, say "that sucks", and then forget about it and do nothing. Same problem here with Lake Ontario. The NY DEC is finding increasing levels of dioxin in fish, publicizing the results (not often enough), and you hear people say "Wow...is that still a problem? I thought they were taking care of it". (They???) It seems to make the 'real' news around here about twice a year, when the Maryland and then the Virginia governors decide it's time for a little environmental pat on the back. It won't *really* hit the news until the crabbers go out of business (which is happening) and the commercial fishermen can't make a living. Then maybe something will happen. Well....there ya go. The farmers have to use some sort of fertilizer, and even organic fertilizers will contribute to this problem. Other states are learning to deal with agricultural runoff. Sounds like nobody gives a damn there. |
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? |
"*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? 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. 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. I suspect that when problems surrounding the Bay are fixed, it will also be local powers that deal with it. 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. |
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. 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. ... 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. 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? ... 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 |
*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. |
"*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. |
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? |
"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 |
"*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? |
"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? |
*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. |
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!) |
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. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message
... Prove it. Nobody here is your secretary. You deny what he's saying - YOU prove him wrong. You can do that simply by calling your representatives' offices and asking for the various bill numbers which are finished or in progress. Then, the news will tell you how your president is planning to deal with each one. Or, you can remain oblivious. No big deal. You don't matter. |
"*JimH*" wrote...
Prove it. He already did. Doug Kanter wrote: Nobody here is your secretary. You deny what he's saying - YOU prove him wrong. You can do that simply by calling your representatives' offices Well, who among the krause-obsessed Bush-Cheney cheerleaders is going to do that? They don't want the truth. Kinda funny, really. The sad thing is that rest of the country... and those of us who love the Chesapeake... have to live with the consequences. DSK |
On Wed, 25 May 2005 17:19:38 -0400, Harry.Krause wrote:
I think Bush is pushing himself into lameduckdom three years early. If it does, we'll all be better off for it. He does seem to be ****ing away all that "political capital", doesn't he? |
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... DSK wrote: "*JimH*" wrote... Prove it. He already did. Doug Kanter wrote: Nobody here is your secretary. You deny what he's saying - YOU prove him wrong. You can do that simply by calling your representatives' offices Well, who among the krause-obsessed Bush-Cheney cheerleaders is going to do that? They don't want the truth. Kinda funny, really. The sad thing is that rest of the country... and those of us who love the Chesapeake... have to live with the consequences. DSK We're living with the consequences of Bush's stupidity every day of the week. I watched the idiot today, commenting on the passage of a Bill that would provide federal funding for more extensive stem-cell research. It was obvious he hadn't a clue about the science involved, not a frippin' clue. Bush's brand of ignorant fundamentalist Christianity is going to put off the day on which medical science will achieve a major breakthrough that will help save the life of someone in everyone's family. Those Americans still able to think will understand this, and will resent Bush and candidates like him for slowing progress. It's the same with the environment. Bush is the anti-environment president. Sooner or later, the public will perceive the truth about Bush and the environment. I think Bush is pushing himself into lameduckdom three years early. If it does, we'll all be better off for it. There is no law against stem cell research! Bush can only prohibit Federal money going to the research. He may be correct. We in California, at least a majority of misinformed ones, voted to fund stem cell research. To the tune of $6 billion dollars, and that is in a bankrupt state. The law is written where. we the taxpayers of California put up the money, but have no say in how it is spent, and get none of the patent rights from the research. We are being the venture capitalists, we ought to get the benefits. The drug companies, in my estimation, and all of the left here, can fund their own research. Most drugs are developed 95% in universities and government funded research, but the drug companies take the research the extra 5% and patent it. Then we get to pay extra for drugs we paid to develop. |
On Wed, 25 May 2005 21:12:03 -0400, Harry.Krause wrote:
thunder wrote: On Wed, 25 May 2005 17:19:38 -0400, Harry.Krause wrote: I think Bush is pushing himself into lameduckdom three years early. If it does, we'll all be better off for it. He does seem to be ****ing away all that "political capital", doesn't he? His threatened veto of the stem cell bill is going to offend those of his supporters who actually have a brain. Yeah, it seems cracks are showing in the GOP. Imagine 50 House Republicans going against the Hammer and the Chump, I can hear the teeth gnashing on the fundie right. With the votes going against him in the Senate, it will be interesting to see how important a "up or down" vote actually is to Frist. I'm betting he doesn't schedule a vote on the stem cell bill. After all, "up or down" votes are only important on judicial appointments. |
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... Bill McKee wrote: "Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... DSK wrote: "*JimH*" wrote... Prove it. He already did. Doug Kanter wrote: Nobody here is your secretary. You deny what he's saying - YOU prove him wrong. You can do that simply by calling your representatives' offices Well, who among the krause-obsessed Bush-Cheney cheerleaders is going to do that? They don't want the truth. Kinda funny, really. The sad thing is that rest of the country... and those of us who love the Chesapeake... have to live with the consequences. DSK We're living with the consequences of Bush's stupidity every day of the week. I watched the idiot today, commenting on the passage of a Bill that would provide federal funding for more extensive stem-cell research. It was obvious he hadn't a clue about the science involved, not a frippin' clue. Bush's brand of ignorant fundamentalist Christianity is going to put off the day on which medical science will achieve a major breakthrough that will help save the life of someone in everyone's family. Those Americans still able to think will understand this, and will resent Bush and candidates like him for slowing progress. It's the same with the environment. Bush is the anti-environment president. Sooner or later, the public will perceive the truth about Bush and the environment. I think Bush is pushing himself into lameduckdom three years early. If it does, we'll all be better off for it. There is no law against stem cell research! Bush can only prohibit Federal money going to the research. He may be correct. We in California, at least a majority of misinformed ones, voted to fund stem cell research. To the tune of $6 billion dollars, and that is in a bankrupt state. The law is written where. we the taxpayers of California put up the money, but have no say in how it is spent, and get none of the patent rights from the research. We are being the venture capitalists, we ought to get the benefits. The drug companies, in my estimation, and all of the left here, can fund their own research. Most drugs are developed 95% in universities and government funded research, but the drug companies take the research the extra 5% and patent it. Then we get to pay extra for drugs we paid to develop. I agree that if the public puts up the money, it ought to own the research and the patents. We're falling behind in stem cell research. The Israelis, for example, are way ahead of us. At some point in the not too distant future, a foreign country's research is going to produce a stem cell cure for some serious ailment, and that research will be the result of messing about with stem cells in ways the lunatic right doesn't like. It will attempt to restrict the "cure." That will be the end of the lunatic right. -- Impeach Bush Where is the law that says our companies and individuals can not do stem cell research? |
*JimH* wrote: 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? Holy ****, Jim!!! READ the last two paragraphs. What does it NOT have to do with the Ches. 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. No problem, here is part of the study: The non-partisan Environmental Law Institute (ELI) studied all 325 cases brought in district and appellate courts under the nation's cornerstone National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from January 21, 2001 through June 30, 2004. Among the findings: * Federal district judges appointed by a Democratic President ruled in favor of environmental protection 60% of the time. Judges appointed by Republican Presidents ruled in favor of the environment 28% of the time. * District judges appointed by President George W. Bush ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs only 17% of the time. * When industry or pro-development interests sue under NEPA, the results are almost completely reversed. Democratic appointees rule in favor of such plaintiffs 14% of the time, while Republican appointees rule in favor almost 60% of the time. * At the three-judge circuit court level, panels with two or more judges appointed by a Democrat ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs 58% of the time. Panels with a majority of Republican appointees ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs in only 10% of cases. * When all three judges were Democratic appointees, the panel ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs 75% of the time, compared to 11% for entirely Republican-appointed panels. ELI is an internationally recognized independent research and education center. To read it all, go he http://www.ems.org/nws/2004/10/08/study_finds_wide Then, read this: Weakening The National Environmental Policy Act How the Bush Administration Uses the Judicial System to Weaken Environmental Protections DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE 2ma03 A Report of the Judicial Accountability Project By: William Snape III John M. Carter II Executive Summary This empirical study details the Bush (II) administration's treatment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), one of America's most important and enduring environmental statutes. In this report, the Bush administration's perceived hostility toward NEPA is analyzed by examining arguments the administration has made in federal litigation where NEPA violations have allegedly caused harm to the environment, by comparing those administration arguments with well accepted legal interpretations of those NEPA issues and by assessing the response of the federal judiciary to the Bush arguments. During the first two years of the Bush administration, executive branch agencies have been active in the litigation of at least 172 decided court cases involving the application of NEPA.[1] In 94 of those cases, or roughly 54 percent of the time, the Bush administration has presented NEPA-hostile arguments that attempted to weaken the application of NEPA. Despite the fact that federal agency arguments under NEPA are usually given a high degree of deference by federal courts, the Bush administration has only won 21 of its NEPA-hostile arguments, which represents a significant 78 percent failure rate. By contrast, in the Bush administration's 78 NEPA-consistent arguments that tended to uphold or promote NEPA, the Bush administration has won 75, a 96 percent success rate.[2] These statistics illustrate that the Bush administration is not only frequently making arguments hostile to NEPA in federal court, but is also frequently finding these arguments rejected by the federal judiciary. The data also indicate that the administration overwhelmingly wins when its arguments are NEPA-consistent. In contrast to the first two years of the Bush administration, a comparatively fewer 105 NEPA cases were decided during the first two years of the Clinton administration. In these cases the Clinton administration had an overall win rate of 74 percent of its total NEPA arguments, as opposed to the 55 percent win rate of Bush administration overall NEPA arguments. What makes the Bush administration's NEPA-hostile arguments more troubling is the increasing necessity of citizen groups to turn to the federal court system in order to uphold important environmental laws. Conservationists faced with unresponsive agencies and a hostile legislative branch are left with little choice but to defend important environmental protections in court.[3] That NEPA essentially requires only accurate information and public participation in federal environmental decision-making merely amplifies the questions that should be asked of this administration's environmental policy. This report reveals a disturbing pattern by the Bush administration to target certain key environmental issues with NEPA-hostile arguments (e.g., exempting corporate timber interests from national forest protections, undermining federal road and highway environmental reviews and encouraging an increase in oil and gas drilling on public lands) in a determined effort to push environmentally damaging actions under deceiving slogans such as "the healthy forest initiative," "streamlining transportation" or "making America energy-independent." In reality, both NEPA and the resources the statute is designed to protect are losing, as Bush corporate supporters are rewarded by the Bush administration with environmental roll-backs.[4] Indeed, many of the administrative attempts to weaken environmental regulations by the Bush administration have mirrored the failing arguments made by the Bush administration in court. For example, the Bush administration has used strategies described by federal judges as "bait and switch tactics" and "mystical legal prestidigitation," in order to shortcut NEPA as it applies to our national forests. On the energy front, the Bush administration has made arguments that an administrative law judge warned would "eviscerate NEPA as it relates to pre-leasing environmental analysis." In allowing development to encroach on the habitat of listed endangered species, the Bush administration has presented NEPA analysis that a federal court called "so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise." In its refusal to support the Clinton roadless rules, the Department of Agriculture went so far as to endorse an industry interpretation of NEPA that a federal court of appeals stated would allow NEPA to be used to "preclude lawful conservation measures by the Forest Service and to force federal agencies, in contravention of their own policy objectives, to develop and degrade scarce environmental resources." This report confirms that, across the board, the Bush administration is hard at work attempting to undo decades of environmental protections. By fleshing these legal stories out and studying their empirical patterns, this report identifies three general trends regarding the Bush administration's NEPA arguments before the federal judiciary. First, the Bush agencies have made many unfounded arguments in order to avoid NEPA review through a variety of legal mechanisms. These arguments have mostly failed. Second, Bush agencies have repeatedly attempted to shortcut the NEPA process at the Environmental Assessment (EA) phase by making unwarranted "Findings of No Significant Environmental Impacts" (FONSI) despite facts that indicate either significant impacts or significant scientific uncertainty, thus necessitating a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Again, these arguments have mostly failed. Third, Bush agencies have sought to avoid meaningful and honest environmental review of federal action, including outright deception, the use of inaccurate or dated information and simply ignoring relevant impacts. These arguments by the Bush administration, too, have been rejected by the courts. A potentially important side note is that although the overwhelming majority of the Bush administration's NEPA-hostile arguments have been rejected by federal judges of all political persuasions, including Republican-appointed judges, there is some statistical evidence indicating that Republican-appointed judges have been more likely to accept NEPA-hostile arguments than Democrat-appointed judges. Given some of President Bush's recent judicial nominees, many of whom have anti-environmental records, the composition of the federal courts could dramatically change in the coming years. In the cases reviewed for this project, Republican-appointed district court judges were nearly twice as likely to agree with NEPA-hostile arguments as were Democrat-appointed judges. At the Court of Appeals level particularly, the difference was striking. Where the composition of the three judge federal appellate panel was comprised of a majority of Republican-appointed judges, the success rate of NEPA-hostile arguments was 60 percent, as opposed to only 11 percent where Democrat-appointed judges constituted the majority of the panel.[5] The partisan voting tendencies documented in this report are consistent with the results of previous studies. In sum, the Bush administration appears to be going to great lengths, including the presentation of arguments in federal court that are clearly not supported by law, to undercut NEPA and avoid informed environmental decision-making. This report documents the Bush administration's undeniable assault on NEPA, a law with no substantive requirements that is intended only to ensure honest evaluation of the environmental impacts of federal actions with meaningful public and expert participation If you need more information, please let me know! |
wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: 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? Holy ****, Jim!!! READ the last two paragraphs. What does it NOT have to do with the Ches. 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. No problem, here is part of the study: The non-partisan Environmental Law Institute (ELI) studied all 325 cases brought in district and appellate courts under the nation's cornerstone National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from January 21, 2001 through June 30, 2004. Among the findings: * Federal district judges appointed by a Democratic President ruled in favor of environmental protection 60% of the time. Judges appointed by Republican Presidents ruled in favor of the environment 28% of the time. * District judges appointed by President George W. Bush ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs only 17% of the time. * When industry or pro-development interests sue under NEPA, the results are almost completely reversed. Democratic appointees rule in favor of such plaintiffs 14% of the time, while Republican appointees rule in favor almost 60% of the time. * At the three-judge circuit court level, panels with two or more judges appointed by a Democrat ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs 58% of the time. Panels with a majority of Republican appointees ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs in only 10% of cases. * When all three judges were Democratic appointees, the panel ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs 75% of the time, compared to 11% for entirely Republican-appointed panels. ELI is an internationally recognized independent research and education center. To read it all, go he http://www.ems.org/nws/2004/10/08/study_finds_wide Then, read this: Weakening The National Environmental Policy Act How the Bush Administration Uses the Judicial System to Weaken Environmental Protections DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE 2ma03 A Report of the Judicial Accountability Project By: William Snape III John M. Carter II Executive Summary This empirical study details the Bush (II) administration's treatment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), one of America's most important and enduring environmental statutes. In this report, the Bush administration's perceived hostility toward NEPA is analyzed by examining arguments the administration has made in federal litigation where NEPA violations have allegedly caused harm to the environment, by comparing those administration arguments with well accepted legal interpretations of those NEPA issues and by assessing the response of the federal judiciary to the Bush arguments. During the first two years of the Bush administration, executive branch agencies have been active in the litigation of at least 172 decided court cases involving the application of NEPA.[1] In 94 of those cases, or roughly 54 percent of the time, the Bush administration has presented NEPA-hostile arguments that attempted to weaken the application of NEPA. Despite the fact that federal agency arguments under NEPA are usually given a high degree of deference by federal courts, the Bush administration has only won 21 of its NEPA-hostile arguments, which represents a significant 78 percent failure rate. By contrast, in the Bush administration's 78 NEPA-consistent arguments that tended to uphold or promote NEPA, the Bush administration has won 75, a 96 percent success rate.[2] These statistics illustrate that the Bush administration is not only frequently making arguments hostile to NEPA in federal court, but is also frequently finding these arguments rejected by the federal judiciary. The data also indicate that the administration overwhelmingly wins when its arguments are NEPA-consistent. In contrast to the first two years of the Bush administration, a comparatively fewer 105 NEPA cases were decided during the first two years of the Clinton administration. In these cases the Clinton administration had an overall win rate of 74 percent of its total NEPA arguments, as opposed to the 55 percent win rate of Bush administration overall NEPA arguments. What makes the Bush administration's NEPA-hostile arguments more troubling is the increasing necessity of citizen groups to turn to the federal court system in order to uphold important environmental laws. Conservationists faced with unresponsive agencies and a hostile legislative branch are left with little choice but to defend important environmental protections in court.[3] That NEPA essentially requires only accurate information and public participation in federal environmental decision-making merely amplifies the questions that should be asked of this administration's environmental policy. This report reveals a disturbing pattern by the Bush administration to target certain key environmental issues with NEPA-hostile arguments (e.g., exempting corporate timber interests from national forest protections, undermining federal road and highway environmental reviews and encouraging an increase in oil and gas drilling on public lands) in a determined effort to push environmentally damaging actions under deceiving slogans such as "the healthy forest initiative," "streamlining transportation" or "making America energy-independent." In reality, both NEPA and the resources the statute is designed to protect are losing, as Bush corporate supporters are rewarded by the Bush administration with environmental roll-backs.[4] Indeed, many of the administrative attempts to weaken environmental regulations by the Bush administration have mirrored the failing arguments made by the Bush administration in court. For example, the Bush administration has used strategies described by federal judges as "bait and switch tactics" and "mystical legal prestidigitation," in order to shortcut NEPA as it applies to our national forests. On the energy front, the Bush administration has made arguments that an administrative law judge warned would "eviscerate NEPA as it relates to pre-leasing environmental analysis." In allowing development to encroach on the habitat of listed endangered species, the Bush administration has presented NEPA analysis that a federal court called "so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise." In its refusal to support the Clinton roadless rules, the Department of Agriculture went so far as to endorse an industry interpretation of NEPA that a federal court of appeals stated would allow NEPA to be used to "preclude lawful conservation measures by the Forest Service and to force federal agencies, in contravention of their own policy objectives, to develop and degrade scarce environmental resources." This report confirms that, across the board, the Bush administration is hard at work attempting to undo decades of environmental protections. By fleshing these legal stories out and studying their empirical patterns, this report identifies three general trends regarding the Bush administration's NEPA arguments before the federal judiciary. First, the Bush agencies have made many unfounded arguments in order to avoid NEPA review through a variety of legal mechanisms. These arguments have mostly failed. Second, Bush agencies have repeatedly attempted to shortcut the NEPA process at the Environmental Assessment (EA) phase by making unwarranted "Findings of No Significant Environmental Impacts" (FONSI) despite facts that indicate either significant impacts or significant scientific uncertainty, thus necessitating a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Again, these arguments have mostly failed. Third, Bush agencies have sought to avoid meaningful and honest environmental review of federal action, including outright deception, the use of inaccurate or dated information and simply ignoring relevant impacts. These arguments by the Bush administration, too, have been rejected by the courts. A potentially important side note is that although the overwhelming majority of the Bush administration's NEPA-hostile arguments have been rejected by federal judges of all political persuasions, including Republican-appointed judges, there is some statistical evidence indicating that Republican-appointed judges have been more likely to accept NEPA-hostile arguments than Democrat-appointed judges. Given some of President Bush's recent judicial nominees, many of whom have anti-environmental records, the composition of the federal courts could dramatically change in the coming years. In the cases reviewed for this project, Republican-appointed district court judges were nearly twice as likely to agree with NEPA-hostile arguments as were Democrat-appointed judges. At the Court of Appeals level particularly, the difference was striking. Where the composition of the three judge federal appellate panel was comprised of a majority of Republican-appointed judges, the success rate of NEPA-hostile arguments was 60 percent, as opposed to only 11 percent where Democrat-appointed judges constituted the majority of the panel.[5] The partisan voting tendencies documented in this report are consistent with the results of previous studies. In sum, the Bush administration appears to be going to great lengths, including the presentation of arguments in federal court that are clearly not supported by law, to undercut NEPA and avoid informed environmental decision-making. This report documents the Bush administration's undeniable assault on NEPA, a law with no substantive requirements that is intended only to ensure honest evaluation of the environmental impacts of federal actions with meaningful public and expert participation If you need more information, please let me know! That is your proof? A study of only a 4 year span? Yes Kevin, please provide more information to support your claim that Democrats nearly always vote for environmental protections and republicans nearly always vote against them. |
*JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: 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? Holy ****, Jim!!! READ the last two paragraphs. What does it NOT have to do with the Ches. 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. No problem, here is part of the study: The non-partisan Environmental Law Institute (ELI) studied all 325 cases brought in district and appellate courts under the nation's cornerstone National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from January 21, 2001 through June 30, 2004. Among the findings: * Federal district judges appointed by a Democratic President ruled in favor of environmental protection 60% of the time. Judges appointed by Republican Presidents ruled in favor of the environment 28% of the time. * District judges appointed by President George W. Bush ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs only 17% of the time. * When industry or pro-development interests sue under NEPA, the results are almost completely reversed. Democratic appointees rule in favor of such plaintiffs 14% of the time, while Republican appointees rule in favor almost 60% of the time. * At the three-judge circuit court level, panels with two or more judges appointed by a Democrat ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs 58% of the time. Panels with a majority of Republican appointees ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs in only 10% of cases. * When all three judges were Democratic appointees, the panel ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs 75% of the time, compared to 11% for entirely Republican-appointed panels. ELI is an internationally recognized independent research and education center. To read it all, go he http://www.ems.org/nws/2004/10/08/study_finds_wide Then, read this: Weakening The National Environmental Policy Act How the Bush Administration Uses the Judicial System to Weaken Environmental Protections DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE 2ma03 A Report of the Judicial Accountability Project By: William Snape III John M. Carter II Executive Summary This empirical study details the Bush (II) administration's treatment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), one of America's most important and enduring environmental statutes. In this report, the Bush administration's perceived hostility toward NEPA is analyzed by examining arguments the administration has made in federal litigation where NEPA violations have allegedly caused harm to the environment, by comparing those administration arguments with well accepted legal interpretations of those NEPA issues and by assessing the response of the federal judiciary to the Bush arguments. During the first two years of the Bush administration, executive branch agencies have been active in the litigation of at least 172 decided court cases involving the application of NEPA.[1] In 94 of those cases, or roughly 54 percent of the time, the Bush administration has presented NEPA-hostile arguments that attempted to weaken the application of NEPA. Despite the fact that federal agency arguments under NEPA are usually given a high degree of deference by federal courts, the Bush administration has only won 21 of its NEPA-hostile arguments, which represents a significant 78 percent failure rate. By contrast, in the Bush administration's 78 NEPA-consistent arguments that tended to uphold or promote NEPA, the Bush administration has won 75, a 96 percent success rate.[2] These statistics illustrate that the Bush administration is not only frequently making arguments hostile to NEPA in federal court, but is also frequently finding these arguments rejected by the federal judiciary. The data also indicate that the administration overwhelmingly wins when its arguments are NEPA-consistent. In contrast to the first two years of the Bush administration, a comparatively fewer 105 NEPA cases were decided during the first two years of the Clinton administration. In these cases the Clinton administration had an overall win rate of 74 percent of its total NEPA arguments, as opposed to the 55 percent win rate of Bush administration overall NEPA arguments. What makes the Bush administration's NEPA-hostile arguments more troubling is the increasing necessity of citizen groups to turn to the federal court system in order to uphold important environmental laws. Conservationists faced with unresponsive agencies and a hostile legislative branch are left with little choice but to defend important environmental protections in court.[3] That NEPA essentially requires only accurate information and public participation in federal environmental decision-making merely amplifies the questions that should be asked of this administration's environmental policy. This report reveals a disturbing pattern by the Bush administration to target certain key environmental issues with NEPA-hostile arguments (e.g., exempting corporate timber interests from national forest protections, undermining federal road and highway environmental reviews and encouraging an increase in oil and gas drilling on public lands) in a determined effort to push environmentally damaging actions under deceiving slogans such as "the healthy forest initiative," "streamlining transportation" or "making America energy-independent." In reality, both NEPA and the resources the statute is designed to protect are losing, as Bush corporate supporters are rewarded by the Bush administration with environmental roll-backs.[4] Indeed, many of the administrative attempts to weaken environmental regulations by the Bush administration have mirrored the failing arguments made by the Bush administration in court. For example, the Bush administration has used strategies described by federal judges as "bait and switch tactics" and "mystical legal prestidigitation," in order to shortcut NEPA as it applies to our national forests. On the energy front, the Bush administration has made arguments that an administrative law judge warned would "eviscerate NEPA as it relates to pre-leasing environmental analysis." In allowing development to encroach on the habitat of listed endangered species, the Bush administration has presented NEPA analysis that a federal court called "so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise." In its refusal to support the Clinton roadless rules, the Department of Agriculture went so far as to endorse an industry interpretation of NEPA that a federal court of appeals stated would allow NEPA to be used to "preclude lawful conservation measures by the Forest Service and to force federal agencies, in contravention of their own policy objectives, to develop and degrade scarce environmental resources." This report confirms that, across the board, the Bush administration is hard at work attempting to undo decades of environmental protections. By fleshing these legal stories out and studying their empirical patterns, this report identifies three general trends regarding the Bush administration's NEPA arguments before the federal judiciary. First, the Bush agencies have made many unfounded arguments in order to avoid NEPA review through a variety of legal mechanisms. These arguments have mostly failed. Second, Bush agencies have repeatedly attempted to shortcut the NEPA process at the Environmental Assessment (EA) phase by making unwarranted "Findings of No Significant Environmental Impacts" (FONSI) despite facts that indicate either significant impacts or significant scientific uncertainty, thus necessitating a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Again, these arguments have mostly failed. Third, Bush agencies have sought to avoid meaningful and honest environmental review of federal action, including outright deception, the use of inaccurate or dated information and simply ignoring relevant impacts. These arguments by the Bush administration, too, have been rejected by the courts. A potentially important side note is that although the overwhelming majority of the Bush administration's NEPA-hostile arguments have been rejected by federal judges of all political persuasions, including Republican-appointed judges, there is some statistical evidence indicating that Republican-appointed judges have been more likely to accept NEPA-hostile arguments than Democrat-appointed judges. Given some of President Bush's recent judicial nominees, many of whom have anti-environmental records, the composition of the federal courts could dramatically change in the coming years. In the cases reviewed for this project, Republican-appointed district court judges were nearly twice as likely to agree with NEPA-hostile arguments as were Democrat-appointed judges. At the Court of Appeals level particularly, the difference was striking. Where the composition of the three judge federal appellate panel was comprised of a majority of Republican-appointed judges, the success rate of NEPA-hostile arguments was 60 percent, as opposed to only 11 percent where Democrat-appointed judges constituted the majority of the panel.[5] The partisan voting tendencies documented in this report are consistent with the results of previous studies. In sum, the Bush administration appears to be going to great lengths, including the presentation of arguments in federal court that are clearly not supported by law, to undercut NEPA and avoid informed environmental decision-making. This report documents the Bush administration's undeniable assault on NEPA, a law with no substantive requirements that is intended only to ensure honest evaluation of the environmental impacts of federal actions with meaningful public and expert participation If you need more information, please let me know! That is your proof? A study of only a 4 year span? Yes Kevin, please provide more information to support your claim that Democrats nearly always vote for environmental protections and republicans nearly always vote against them. Did you download and read the whole PDF? If so, it's right in front of you face! So, now you need a timetable? Come on Jim, you are dumb, quit acting like it. |
*JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: 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? Holy ****, Jim!!! READ the last two paragraphs. What does it NOT have to do with the Ches. 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. No problem, here is part of the study: The non-partisan Environmental Law Institute (ELI) studied all 325 cases brought in district and appellate courts under the nation's cornerstone National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from January 21, 2001 through June 30, 2004. Among the findings: * Federal district judges appointed by a Democratic President ruled in favor of environmental protection 60% of the time. Judges appointed by Republican Presidents ruled in favor of the environment 28% of the time. * District judges appointed by President George W. Bush ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs only 17% of the time. * When industry or pro-development interests sue under NEPA, the results are almost completely reversed. Democratic appointees rule in favor of such plaintiffs 14% of the time, while Republican appointees rule in favor almost 60% of the time. * At the three-judge circuit court level, panels with two or more judges appointed by a Democrat ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs 58% of the time. Panels with a majority of Republican appointees ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs in only 10% of cases. * When all three judges were Democratic appointees, the panel ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs 75% of the time, compared to 11% for entirely Republican-appointed panels. ELI is an internationally recognized independent research and education center. To read it all, go he http://www.ems.org/nws/2004/10/08/study_finds_wide Then, read this: Weakening The National Environmental Policy Act How the Bush Administration Uses the Judicial System to Weaken Environmental Protections DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE 2ma03 A Report of the Judicial Accountability Project By: William Snape III John M. Carter II Executive Summary This empirical study details the Bush (II) administration's treatment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), one of America's most important and enduring environmental statutes. In this report, the Bush administration's perceived hostility toward NEPA is analyzed by examining arguments the administration has made in federal litigation where NEPA violations have allegedly caused harm to the environment, by comparing those administration arguments with well accepted legal interpretations of those NEPA issues and by assessing the response of the federal judiciary to the Bush arguments. During the first two years of the Bush administration, executive branch agencies have been active in the litigation of at least 172 decided court cases involving the application of NEPA.[1] In 94 of those cases, or roughly 54 percent of the time, the Bush administration has presented NEPA-hostile arguments that attempted to weaken the application of NEPA. Despite the fact that federal agency arguments under NEPA are usually given a high degree of deference by federal courts, the Bush administration has only won 21 of its NEPA-hostile arguments, which represents a significant 78 percent failure rate. By contrast, in the Bush administration's 78 NEPA-consistent arguments that tended to uphold or promote NEPA, the Bush administration has won 75, a 96 percent success rate.[2] These statistics illustrate that the Bush administration is not only frequently making arguments hostile to NEPA in federal court, but is also frequently finding these arguments rejected by the federal judiciary. The data also indicate that the administration overwhelmingly wins when its arguments are NEPA-consistent. In contrast to the first two years of the Bush administration, a comparatively fewer 105 NEPA cases were decided during the first two years of the Clinton administration. In these cases the Clinton administration had an overall win rate of 74 percent of its total NEPA arguments, as opposed to the 55 percent win rate of Bush administration overall NEPA arguments. What makes the Bush administration's NEPA-hostile arguments more troubling is the increasing necessity of citizen groups to turn to the federal court system in order to uphold important environmental laws. Conservationists faced with unresponsive agencies and a hostile legislative branch are left with little choice but to defend important environmental protections in court.[3] That NEPA essentially requires only accurate information and public participation in federal environmental decision-making merely amplifies the questions that should be asked of this administration's environmental policy. This report reveals a disturbing pattern by the Bush administration to target certain key environmental issues with NEPA-hostile arguments (e.g., exempting corporate timber interests from national forest protections, undermining federal road and highway environmental reviews and encouraging an increase in oil and gas drilling on public lands) in a determined effort to push environmentally damaging actions under deceiving slogans such as "the healthy forest initiative," "streamlining transportation" or "making America energy-independent." In reality, both NEPA and the resources the statute is designed to protect are losing, as Bush corporate supporters are rewarded by the Bush administration with environmental roll-backs.[4] Indeed, many of the administrative attempts to weaken environmental regulations by the Bush administration have mirrored the failing arguments made by the Bush administration in court. For example, the Bush administration has used strategies described by federal judges as "bait and switch tactics" and "mystical legal prestidigitation," in order to shortcut NEPA as it applies to our national forests. On the energy front, the Bush administration has made arguments that an administrative law judge warned would "eviscerate NEPA as it relates to pre-leasing environmental analysis." In allowing development to encroach on the habitat of listed endangered species, the Bush administration has presented NEPA analysis that a federal court called "so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise." In its refusal to support the Clinton roadless rules, the Department of Agriculture went so far as to endorse an industry interpretation of NEPA that a federal court of appeals stated would allow NEPA to be used to "preclude lawful conservation measures by the Forest Service and to force federal agencies, in contravention of their own policy objectives, to develop and degrade scarce environmental resources." This report confirms that, across the board, the Bush administration is hard at work attempting to undo decades of environmental protections. By fleshing these legal stories out and studying their empirical patterns, this report identifies three general trends regarding the Bush administration's NEPA arguments before the federal judiciary. First, the Bush agencies have made many unfounded arguments in order to avoid NEPA review through a variety of legal mechanisms. These arguments have mostly failed. Second, Bush agencies have repeatedly attempted to shortcut the NEPA process at the Environmental Assessment (EA) phase by making unwarranted "Findings of No Significant Environmental Impacts" (FONSI) despite facts that indicate either significant impacts or significant scientific uncertainty, thus necessitating a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Again, these arguments have mostly failed. Third, Bush agencies have sought to avoid meaningful and honest environmental review of federal action, including outright deception, the use of inaccurate or dated information and simply ignoring relevant impacts. These arguments by the Bush administration, too, have been rejected by the courts. A potentially important side note is that although the overwhelming majority of the Bush administration's NEPA-hostile arguments have been rejected by federal judges of all political persuasions, including Republican-appointed judges, there is some statistical evidence indicating that Republican-appointed judges have been more likely to accept NEPA-hostile arguments than Democrat-appointed judges. Given some of President Bush's recent judicial nominees, many of whom have anti-environmental records, the composition of the federal courts could dramatically change in the coming years. In the cases reviewed for this project, Republican-appointed district court judges were nearly twice as likely to agree with NEPA-hostile arguments as were Democrat-appointed judges. At the Court of Appeals level particularly, the difference was striking. Where the composition of the three judge federal appellate panel was comprised of a majority of Republican-appointed judges, the success rate of NEPA-hostile arguments was 60 percent, as opposed to only 11 percent where Democrat-appointed judges constituted the majority of the panel.[5] The partisan voting tendencies documented in this report are consistent with the results of previous studies. In sum, the Bush administration appears to be going to great lengths, including the presentation of arguments in federal court that are clearly not supported by law, to undercut NEPA and avoid informed environmental decision-making. This report documents the Bush administration's undeniable assault on NEPA, a law with no substantive requirements that is intended only to ensure honest evaluation of the environmental impacts of federal actions with meaningful public and expert participation If you need more information, please let me know! That is your proof? A study of only a 4 year span? Yes Kevin, please provide more information to support your claim that Democrats nearly always vote for environmental protections and republicans nearly always vote against them. If you downloaded and read the entire PDF, it would be clear to you. Now you need a friggin' timeline????? Take a look around if you want to know what's happened previous years. The Reagan administration done more to harm the environment by passing laws allowing pollution, and doing away with regulations than any administration EVER. Jim, you aren't dumb, I suggest you quit acting like you are in order to make the right look like something they are not. The head in the sand trick really isn't very becoming of you. |
On 26 May 2005 07:24:45 -0700, wrote:
*JimH* wrote: 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? Holy ****, Jim!!! READ the last two paragraphs. What does it NOT have to do with the Ches. 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. No problem, here is part of the study: The non-partisan Environmental Law Institute (ELI) studied all 325 cases brought in district and appellate courts under the nation's cornerstone National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from January 21, 2001 through June 30, 2004. Among the findings: * Federal district judges appointed by a Democratic President ruled in favor of environmental protection 60% of the time. Judges appointed by Republican Presidents ruled in favor of the environment 28% of the time. * District judges appointed by President George W. Bush ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs only 17% of the time. * When industry or pro-development interests sue under NEPA, the results are almost completely reversed. Democratic appointees rule in favor of such plaintiffs 14% of the time, while Republican appointees rule in favor almost 60% of the time. * At the three-judge circuit court level, panels with two or more judges appointed by a Democrat ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs 58% of the time. Panels with a majority of Republican appointees ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs in only 10% of cases. * When all three judges were Democratic appointees, the panel ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs 75% of the time, compared to 11% for entirely Republican-appointed panels. ELI is an internationally recognized independent research and education center. To read it all, go he http://www.ems.org/nws/2004/10/08/study_finds_wide Then, read this: Weakening The National Environmental Policy Act How the Bush Administration Uses the Judicial System to Weaken Environmental Protections DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE 2ma03 A Report of the Judicial Accountability Project By: William Snape III John M. Carter II Executive Summary This empirical study details the Bush (II) administration's treatment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), one of America's most important and enduring environmental statutes. In this report, the Bush administration's perceived hostility toward NEPA is analyzed by examining arguments the administration has made in federal litigation where NEPA violations have allegedly caused harm to the environment, by comparing those administration arguments with well accepted legal interpretations of those NEPA issues and by assessing the response of the federal judiciary to the Bush arguments. During the first two years of the Bush administration, executive branch agencies have been active in the litigation of at least 172 decided court cases involving the application of NEPA.[1] In 94 of those cases, or roughly 54 percent of the time, the Bush administration has presented NEPA-hostile arguments that attempted to weaken the application of NEPA. Despite the fact that federal agency arguments under NEPA are usually given a high degree of deference by federal courts, the Bush administration has only won 21 of its NEPA-hostile arguments, which represents a significant 78 percent failure rate. By contrast, in the Bush administration's 78 NEPA-consistent arguments that tended to uphold or promote NEPA, the Bush administration has won 75, a 96 percent success rate.[2] These statistics illustrate that the Bush administration is not only frequently making arguments hostile to NEPA in federal court, but is also frequently finding these arguments rejected by the federal judiciary. The data also indicate that the administration overwhelmingly wins when its arguments are NEPA-consistent. In contrast to the first two years of the Bush administration, a comparatively fewer 105 NEPA cases were decided during the first two years of the Clinton administration. In these cases the Clinton administration had an overall win rate of 74 percent of its total NEPA arguments, as opposed to the 55 percent win rate of Bush administration overall NEPA arguments. What makes the Bush administration's NEPA-hostile arguments more troubling is the increasing necessity of citizen groups to turn to the federal court system in order to uphold important environmental laws. Conservationists faced with unresponsive agencies and a hostile legislative branch are left with little choice but to defend important environmental protections in court.[3] That NEPA essentially requires only accurate information and public participation in federal environmental decision-making merely amplifies the questions that should be asked of this administration's environmental policy. This report reveals a disturbing pattern by the Bush administration to target certain key environmental issues with NEPA-hostile arguments (e.g., exempting corporate timber interests from national forest protections, undermining federal road and highway environmental reviews and encouraging an increase in oil and gas drilling on public lands) in a determined effort to push environmentally damaging actions under deceiving slogans such as "the healthy forest initiative," "streamlining transportation" or "making America energy-independent." In reality, both NEPA and the resources the statute is designed to protect are losing, as Bush corporate supporters are rewarded by the Bush administration with environmental roll-backs.[4] Indeed, many of the administrative attempts to weaken environmental regulations by the Bush administration have mirrored the failing arguments made by the Bush administration in court. For example, the Bush administration has used strategies described by federal judges as "bait and switch tactics" and "mystical legal prestidigitation," in order to shortcut NEPA as it applies to our national forests. On the energy front, the Bush administration has made arguments that an administrative law judge warned would "eviscerate NEPA as it relates to pre-leasing environmental analysis." In allowing development to encroach on the habitat of listed endangered species, the Bush administration has presented NEPA analysis that a federal court called "so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise." In its refusal to support the Clinton roadless rules, the Department of Agriculture went so far as to endorse an industry interpretation of NEPA that a federal court of appeals stated would allow NEPA to be used to "preclude lawful conservation measures by the Forest Service and to force federal agencies, in contravention of their own policy objectives, to develop and degrade scarce environmental resources." This report confirms that, across the board, the Bush administration is hard at work attempting to undo decades of environmental protections. By fleshing these legal stories out and studying their empirical patterns, this report identifies three general trends regarding the Bush administration's NEPA arguments before the federal judiciary. First, the Bush agencies have made many unfounded arguments in order to avoid NEPA review through a variety of legal mechanisms. These arguments have mostly failed. Second, Bush agencies have repeatedly attempted to shortcut the NEPA process at the Environmental Assessment (EA) phase by making unwarranted "Findings of No Significant Environmental Impacts" (FONSI) despite facts that indicate either significant impacts or significant scientific uncertainty, thus necessitating a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Again, these arguments have mostly failed. Third, Bush agencies have sought to avoid meaningful and honest environmental review of federal action, including outright deception, the use of inaccurate or dated information and simply ignoring relevant impacts. These arguments by the Bush administration, too, have been rejected by the courts. A potentially important side note is that although the overwhelming majority of the Bush administration's NEPA-hostile arguments have been rejected by federal judges of all political persuasions, including Republican-appointed judges, there is some statistical evidence indicating that Republican-appointed judges have been more likely to accept NEPA-hostile arguments than Democrat-appointed judges. Given some of President Bush's recent judicial nominees, many of whom have anti-environmental records, the composition of the federal courts could dramatically change in the coming years. In the cases reviewed for this project, Republican-appointed district court judges were nearly twice as likely to agree with NEPA-hostile arguments as were Democrat-appointed judges. At the Court of Appeals level particularly, the difference was striking. Where the composition of the three judge federal appellate panel was comprised of a majority of Republican-appointed judges, the success rate of NEPA-hostile arguments was 60 percent, as opposed to only 11 percent where Democrat-appointed judges constituted the majority of the panel.[5] The partisan voting tendencies documented in this report are consistent with the results of previous studies. In sum, the Bush administration appears to be going to great lengths, including the presentation of arguments in federal court that are clearly not supported by law, to undercut NEPA and avoid informed environmental decision-making. This report documents the Bush administration's undeniable assault on NEPA, a law with no substantive requirements that is intended only to ensure honest evaluation of the environmental impacts of federal actions with meaningful public and expert participation If you need more information, please let me know! Who invited you to this thread, Kevin? -- 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!) |
Who invited you to this thread, Kevin? -- 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!) Basskisser has reformed...or so it seems. Give him a pass until he proves otherwise...it now seems he also wants to improve the overall tone of this NG. ;-) |
On Fri, 27 May 2005 01:44:35 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote: On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:42:09 -0400, 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 I just looked at the latest National Geographic and it seems to echo your concerns. However exasperating it seems.... there *has* been some improvement. Years ago, my Aunt and Uncle worked for the Department of Agriculture and I had my run of DC (and the Smithsonian(s)) when the greatest hazard was an unyielding street car.....then, the Potomac and Tidal Basin were truly toxic. Now, the D of A has moved to Beltsville and I still wouldn't want to swim the Potomac... but what the hey... it *is* marginally cleaner, even with an explosion in population... Bottom line is the increase in population. I'm seeing that, and the ensuing problems in my local area. Sad. Very sad, but as my father pointed out many years ago...... inevitable. We'll all have to become better stewards of nature to ensure that our children and grandchildren enjoy the treasures that our parents and grand parents left us..... You're right. The Potomac, at least, is much, much cleaner than when I first was assigned to this area in 1967. One of the little 'exercises' we had to perform was a nighttime crossing of Pohick Bay (off the Potomac). It was done on inflatables, with about 10 men per boat (a squad). If someone fell in, they were taken to the hospital for a Tetanus shot - no questions asked. The river was always lined with dead fish. Now it is home to many bass fishing contests, held out of the same bay. -- 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!) |
On Fri, 27 May 2005 14:55:43 -0400, "Harry.Krause"
wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 27 May 2005 01:44:35 GMT, Gene Kearns wrote: On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:42:09 -0400, 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 I just looked at the latest National Geographic and it seems to echo your concerns. However exasperating it seems.... there *has* been some improvement. Years ago, my Aunt and Uncle worked for the Department of Agriculture and I had my run of DC (and the Smithsonian(s)) when the greatest hazard was an unyielding street car.....then, the Potomac and Tidal Basin were truly toxic. Now, the D of A has moved to Beltsville and I still wouldn't want to swim the Potomac... but what the hey... it *is* marginally cleaner, even with an explosion in population... Bottom line is the increase in population. I'm seeing that, and the ensuing problems in my local area. Sad. Very sad, but as my father pointed out many years ago...... inevitable. We'll all have to become better stewards of nature to ensure that our children and grandchildren enjoy the treasures that our parents and grand parents left us..... You're right. The Potomac, at least, is much, much cleaner than when I first was assigned to this area in 1967. One of the little 'exercises' we had to perform was a nighttime crossing of Pohick Bay (off the Potomac). It was done on inflatables, with about 10 men per boat (a squad). If someone fell in, they were taken to the hospital for a Tetanus shot - no questions asked. The river was always lined with dead fish. Now it is home to many bass fishing contests, held out of the same bay. I still get queasy when I see guys fishing just below the sewage treatment plant. At various 'boaters' beaches' south of there the folks are swimming, water-skiing, and letting their babies play in it. -- 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!) |
The best thing that happended to the Potomac River was Hydrila(sp?) that
green vegitation that everyone thought would clog the river and kill off everything. They even had Hydrila harvestors that would go up and down the river and into the bays and harvest the Hydrila and burn it. But, what they found out is that the Hydrila was a beneficial habitat and cleanser of the river. Quite a number of fish owe their lives to the Hydrial. "John H" wrote in message ... On Fri, 27 May 2005 01:44:35 GMT, Gene Kearns wrote: On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:42:09 -0400, 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 I just looked at the latest National Geographic and it seems to echo your concerns. However exasperating it seems.... there *has* been some improvement. Years ago, my Aunt and Uncle worked for the Department of Agriculture and I had my run of DC (and the Smithsonian(s)) when the greatest hazard was an unyielding street car.....then, the Potomac and Tidal Basin were truly toxic. Now, the D of A has moved to Beltsville and I still wouldn't want to swim the Potomac... but what the hey... it *is* marginally cleaner, even with an explosion in population... Bottom line is the increase in population. I'm seeing that, and the ensuing problems in my local area. Sad. Very sad, but as my father pointed out many years ago...... inevitable. We'll all have to become better stewards of nature to ensure that our children and grandchildren enjoy the treasures that our parents and grand parents left us..... You're right. The Potomac, at least, is much, much cleaner than when I first was assigned to this area in 1967. One of the little 'exercises' we had to perform was a nighttime crossing of Pohick Bay (off the Potomac). It was done on inflatables, with about 10 men per boat (a squad). If someone fell in, they were taken to the hospital for a Tetanus shot - no questions asked. The river was always lined with dead fish. Now it is home to many bass fishing contests, held out of the same bay. -- 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!) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com