"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


" Limbacher notes that a year ago, "Clinton slammed a Bush
administration
proposal to
allow utilities to upgrade their plants by relaxing a few of the more
punishing environmental
regulations. She warned of 'dirtier air and rising temperatures' that
would
expose citizens 'to
increased childhood asthma rates, higher sea levels and more acid rain
and
mercury-tainted
fish.'"

Must be painful when a politician says something which is true,
something
which makes it even more obvious that your president has a huge supply
of
kneepads which he uses when servicing his campaign contributors. Your
boy is
currently doing exactly what Ms. Clinton mentioned: dismantling clean
air
regulations. The results are obvious. Example: Tupper Lake, in the
Adirondacks, where I vacation each year, now has mercury warnings for
most
of its fish. President Nookular Boy couldn't give a damn.

So then we should blame Clinton for the blackout, since Bush is the one
that wants to help them, while the environmental groups would rather the
electric generating plants go bust than relax pollution laws.


Every public company's shareholders face risk, even in a relatively
bulletproof industry like mine (grocery). Utility shareholders have known
for at least 20 years that this day was coming. Tough ****.


If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. Everyone complains about
the cost of energy yet the environmental faction of the left:

Opposes the creation of additional nuclear (nookular) plants, due to the
waste disposal issues.

Would YOU like to live within 100 miles of a nuclear waste dump built near
an earthquake fault?



Opposes the expansion of coal burning plants due to pollution issues.

So, you think the "pollution issues" are acceptable as they are? How about
if they increase by 25%, and either kill the fish in your favorite waters,
or make those fish inedible? Do you consider that just incidental to our way
of life?


Opposes the drilling for oil on our own shores to reduce the dependancy
on foreign oil, due to perceived environmental impacts.

I guess you've forgotten the Exxon Valdez incident, and the fact that they
bitched and moaned about taking responsibility for it. Or, the fact that GE
still won't own up to its part in poisoning the Hudson River, and claims
they shouldn't have to help pay for it. These are NOT exceptions, Dave.


Embraces new technology like wind power.... Unless you're a Kennedy and
oppose the locating of those windmills in your backyard.

If that's true, it's silly. I think wind farms are cool, and I'm sure the
equipment manufacturers will gradually find ways to make the machinery more
attractive, just as cell tower manufacturers have.



Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and Powell.

Do you feel this type of opposition is the rule? In other words, for every
100 hydro facilities, how many are being picked on?


Meanwhile, we are facing an energy crisis. The latest blackout, and the
crisis in California a few yeasr back, should serve as a warning and a
wake up call. Do we want energy or not? What will we be willing to give
up to get it?

I'm not willing to give up clean air & water to appease the shareholders of
utilities in Ohio. Every company gets beat up sometimes. The well managed
ones recover just fine, especially when they have a virtual monopoly.