Bush ready to gut Endangered Species Act.

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by Godiva, Aug 11, 2008.

  1. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Mostly to prevent it being used in conjunction with Global Warming. Like with the Polar Bears.

    Bush to relax endangered species rules.

    "Parts of the Endangered Species Act may soon be extinct. The Bush administration wants federal agencies to decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants.
    [​IMG]
    New regulations, which don't require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews government scientists have been performing for 35 years, according to a draft first obtained by The Associated Press.


    Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said late Monday the changes were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act would not be used as a "back door" to regulate the gases blamed for global warming. In May, the polar bear became the first species declared as threatened because of climate change. Warming temperatures are expected to melt the sea ice the bear depends on for survival.


    The draft rules would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats."


    The interior secretary with his pants down.
     
  2. dogfriend

    dogfriend Human - Animal Hybrid

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    7,512
    1,170
    0
    Location:
    Carmichael, CA
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    One more trophy on the mantle for the Worst President Everâ„¢.

    Is that too political of a statement? Apology in advance, but he is leaving quite a legacy. But not a good one.
     
  3. SSimon

    SSimon Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    1,418
    20
    0
    Location:
    N/W of Chicago
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Yes, because why not dismantle an Act with a 99% efficacy rate?

    I just read the links and the intended changes seem to be driven by cost increases due to the impositions of the ESA. So once again, we have short sighted gain for long term consequence.
     
  4. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
  5. dogfriend

    dogfriend Human - Animal Hybrid

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    7,512
    1,170
    0
    Location:
    Carmichael, CA
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    My father's birthday is Jan 20 (he will be 87). He has already mentioned numerous times that he will be getting a new president for his birthday.
     
  6. FL_Prius_Driver

    FL_Prius_Driver Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    4,319
    1,526
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    I
    Is this full circle? CARB was sued by the federal government for setting local emission/environmental standards (EV1 story)....and now the logic is that the federal government should let local standards prevail?
     
  7. Dipena

    Dipena Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2008
    1,567
    68
    0
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    I get the feeling that this is something he's wanted to do along, but he was just distracted by the "need" to wage a bogus war. Remember that debate in 2004 where he smirked and said that he was a good steward of the environment.
     
  8. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    It was tried once before and failed to pass Congress. So now he's trying an end-run. I hope Congress blocks it.

    I agree. What a moron. Like his legacy wasn't already in the toilet, now he has to keep flushing.
     
  9. bac

    bac Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    863
    52
    0
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    Because we wouldn't want to regulate global warming gasses ... no sir. Global warming is a myth, don't you know. :rolleyes:

    ... Brad (still ashamed of our "leadership")
     
  10. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    It is an interesting situation...

    While I advocate for habitat preservation, with the polar bear situation / "global warming" it is a situation that, for every federal permit that might allow directly or indirectly for increased emissions of hydrocarbons, it could be considered an act that might impact the polar bear, and thus could be prevented.

    I'm all for polar bears, but that seems like a recipe for very poor public policy decisions.
     
  11. morpheusx

    morpheusx Professor Chaos

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    1,555
    80
    0
    Location:
    Akron, OH
    Vehicle:
    2011 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    not the polar bears, without polar bears we wouldn't be able to have those great Coke commercials at Christmas.
     
  12. dogfriend

    dogfriend Human - Animal Hybrid

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    7,512
    1,170
    0
    Location:
    Carmichael, CA
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    So, because there is a possibility that GW considerations might slow down or kill some projects, the Bush administration will just eliminate all oversight by parties outside the project? What a clever solution by a clever administration.
     
  13. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Remember, regulation is bad for the people. The private sector knows best. :rolleyes:
     
  14. dogfriend

    dogfriend Human - Animal Hybrid

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    7,512
    1,170
    0
    Location:
    Carmichael, CA
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius

    Yes, that worked so well for the California Electrical Power industry and the Mortgage industry. Let's extend it to Environmental Protection.
     
  15. Devil's Advocate

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    922
    10
    1
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    UMMMMMMM Polar Bear burgers!
    What is weird is that people think, and it seems to have been accepted as fact, that the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and other environmental laws prevent human caused impact or disturbance to the environment.

    While certain chemicals are certainly regulated, in general any project can affect and even wipe out any portion of almost any natural habitat. The only thing the environmental laws actually say is that you have to do a study to determine the impacts of the project. That is why the studies are always attacked, not specifically the projects.

    Any whoo most environmental laws are just used by no-growthers to stop development in their back yards.

    Unfortunately this makes it more difficult for the legitimate use of the laws to prevent true harm to the environment because the no-growthers usually piss off average Joe's who otherwise wouldn't care much.
     
  16. dogfriend

    dogfriend Human - Animal Hybrid

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    7,512
    1,170
    0
    Location:
    Carmichael, CA
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    You're Karl Rove aren't you? :evil:
     
  17. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    I know it was stated somewhat tongue in cheek, but there needs to be a balance. The private sector has proven quite efficient in many areas when there is adequate incentive to do so. The public sector is painfully inefficient and ineffective, though when it devises appropriate incentives for the private sector, can achieve desired objectives.

    But just be careful how regulation is accomplished. As per my prior example, if any project that produces incremental CO2 can be shut down because it "threatens" polar bears due to "global warming", that is a pretty draconian public policy. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, you couldn't build a road, put up a building, or for that matter, cut a fart without violating the law.
     
  18. malorn

    malorn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    4,281
    59
    0
    Location:
    "Somewhere in Flyover Country"
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Taken to it ultimate conclusion, could we still breathe?
     
  19. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius

    No. But it reduces the disturbance and impact. What I believe is that without these laws in place and enforced there would be even worse damage and destruction done by the private sector in the pursuit of profit.

    Capitalism isn't about sensitivity to the environment or consideration of the public. If it was, it wouldn't be called Capitalism.
     
  20. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    OK - if you want to take that cynical of a line...

    The public sector typically only masquerades as protectors of the public interest. It is really more protecting their jobs, strengthening their unions, and promoting special interests.

    If you don't think so, look at the SEI website. So they agitate for public employee unionization to increase membership so they can garnish wages (whether you want to belong to the union or not) so they can increase their budget so can further expand unionization efforts and further garnish wages to create even larger budgets to buy political favors via political action committees and fealty from their ever-expanding membership come election day.
     
Loading...