"President Bush extends protection for waters off Hawaii"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jun 17 2006, 09:39 PM) [snapback]272916[/snapback]</div>

That would leave voters dangerously informed.

Yes. Couldn't agree more. Enough of that bollocks. <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jun 17 2006, 06:29 PM) [snapback]272862[/snapback]</div>

Well, the quote about President Clinton using the "unilateral authority" 19 times didn't come through. I do remember some criticism from the folks in Nevada over the expansion of the park that adjoins the Grand Canyon National Park. There was a "land grab" claim that had the state pitted against the feds. I need to look it up, but my recollection was that the President, without public review, removed some land the state was going to put aside for a particular kind of development. Or the decision land-locked land the state did have the right to develop, and they were mad about that because now they couldn't get to the land to develop it. Something like that. It was at the same time the UN was granting some kind of "World Resource Recognition" that had a lot of the looney conservatives concerned (the "Black Helicopter Club" folks). "American sovereignty" was being threatened, and Clinton was going to declare a national emergency before the elections and hold himself over for a third time.

The same kind of fever-swamp, lunatic fringe claptrap we see right here in FHOP about President Bush. If the Dems re-take the White House with one of their fine public servants, such as John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or Evan Bayh, we can expect to see the same immature, irrational statements about them.

If you have an interest to see how bad a political campaign can get, look back to the first real Presidential campaign, when VP Thomas Jefferson challenged President John Adams in 1796. Wow! Talk about a dirty campaign!

 

I found a reference to President Clinton's controversial use of the "Antiquities Act" that allows a President to confiscate land by declaring a National Monument, and bypassing Congress. It was in Utah, not Nevada. The park in question was the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. President Clinton gave the state of Utah only 24 hours notice, then made the announcement not in Utah at the monument site, but in Arizona at the Grand Canyon. The charge was that this was "political" since it was during an election campaign, and the announcement allowed him to have his Secretary of the Interior "front and center". Bruce Babbit was a native Arizonan and popular among environmentalists and fellow Arizona residents alike. Arizona was a hotly contested state, and Clinton won it by just over 2% of the vote. This was the one I remember, but the article above mentions that President Clinton used it another 15 times. President Carter used it 18 times.

The original law was to act quickly to preserve artifacts in danger of being exploited, such as Indian burial grounds, but was just as quickly used to circumvent the power of Congress by the Executive branch. Not sure that's a good thing, folks, but there it is.

 

President Bush has one, if not the worst, environmental record in the history of our nation. He initiates protection of a marine habitat probably because this site does not contain oil or have timber from which he can collect proceeds. I will not go on about all the infractions caused to endangered species (there are many - even the weakening of the Endangered Species Act itself) or much of the land that he's violated because I know this probably won't get much attention. I'll just speak of the violations that will be felt by you and/or your pocket book if you live near, or in, the respective area or are a taxpayer. here's what's happened on his watch.

weakening of clean air rules for thousands of power plants
gives power plants ten more years to cut mercury and sulfur dioxide emissions
exempts large category of power plants from lawsuits for Clean Air Act violations
deletes global warming section from pollution report
proposes opening ANWAR to oil drilling.
allows mining and agricultural waste in streams - asks for voluntary clean up
asks for removal of Yellowstone National Park from World Heritage Status
allowed more arsenic in drinking water
budget proposal to cut $500,000,000 from EPA funding
wants taxpayers to pay for superfund site clean up = not the polluters
wants weaker standards for nuclear storage at Yucca
weakens standards and protections for wetlands (natural water filtration sites, also prevents flooding nearby areas- think hurricanes)
loosens restrictions for polluting companies - decreased rates of fines for these industries under his watch
live near a factory farm?- expect reduced restrictions on waste and pollutants
wants to reclassify mercury as "non toxic"

i can go on ad nauseam

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jun 19 2006, 02:49 PM) [snapback]273541[/snapback]</div>

I am far from being an expert here like you are. I have a few simple questions if you could answer them for me:

1. Today as compared to 6 years ago the AVERAGE air quality in the USA is better or worse?
2. Today as compared to 6 years ago the AVERAGE water quality in the USA is better or worse.

Thats it. Thanks in advance for your answers

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 19 2006, 02:17 PM) [snapback]273558[/snapback]</div>

Expert? I'm not an expert. I am very environmentally aware and happen to pay attention to how our perceived leaders are managing related topics. all i am certain of is that Bush is mismanaging MOST areas. these are interesting questions that i had to research. from 1970 to the year 2000 air quality improved dramatically if you gauge this by CO (carbon monoxide) ,NO (nitrogen oxides),VOC SO2, PM, Pb ...... CO down 25%; Nox up 20% (i believe this is a by product of diesel burning); VOC (volatile organic compounds) down 43%; SO2 (sulfur dioxide) down 44%; PM (particulate matter) down 88%; Pb (lead) down 90%. between 2000-2005 CO down 13%; Nox down 14%; PM same; SO2 down .6%; VOC same; lead same. you can extrapolate that the current administration isn't doing as good a job as the prior adminstration(s) but there are too many variables such as whether or not there are more cars on the road, more power plants in operation etc.....

since i can't find any data from the same source on water quality comparisons, i don't feel comfortable posting. also, there are different types of water to be evaluated such as ground water or drinking water. both, in my opinion, are equally as important. if i find anything in the future, i'll post.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jun 19 2006, 01:53 PM) [snapback]273585[/snapback]</div>

Expert? I'm not an expert . . . but I am becoming quite adapt at recognizing politically biased extrapolations, statements of fact, and conjecture.
It's becoming especially easy to spot blatant and unfounded Bush bashing. I did it just today while watching TV with the sound muted. Didn't know what channel I was flipping through, but I could just tell she was an angry liberal spouting something anti-Bush - I turned the sound up . . . "Bush lied, Bush is bad, Bush, Bush, Bush" :huh:

Look at the following chart and ask yourself, “Who was the President of the United States in 1995 when the trend of emissions reductions started to slow down?â€
Hint: His initials were WJC.

Then ask yourself, “Who was the President of the United States during most of the 1980's when that emissions reduction trend was at its fastest decline?†Hint: His initials were RONALD WILSON REAGAN!


http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2006/econ-emissions.html

So Ssimon, are you still certain certain?
By the way, the answer is YES, there ARE more cars and more energy being produced.

I am curious to hear how the Republicans-are-bad-for-the-environment continent are going to “extrapolate that the current administration isn't doing as good a job as the prior adminstration (sic)â€
:huh:

 

Well, aside from pushing drilling in Alaska and building logging roads into forests I heard today of an attempt to gut the clean water act.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 19 2006, 07:40 PM) [snapback]273854[/snapback]</div>

Well, the problem with the environment is the same as the problem with science; both parties twist the facts for political gain.

In the case of lead content in drinking water, President Clinton waited until the end of his term to propose very strict limits to take effect after he had left office. Bush repeals the ruling, and hands the Democrats the first of the "gut the clean drinking water" issues.

The Executive branch of the government should not be issuing "laws" like this in any case. Legislation should be left up to the constitutionally empowered branch of government ... the Congress and Senate as the combined legislature. Allowing the executive branch to play fast and loose with the environment, rather than the legislature, gives the politicos a chance to play politics with the environment. And presumeably, we all feel that the environment is not something that should be batted about like a shuttlecock in a badmitton game.

Statistically, our water is cleaner, our air is cleaner and we are doing a better job year by year. We should take heart and continue our efforts. Those two statements won't be said together by any Democrat or Republican; one will deny the first to encourage you to think of an "environmental crisis" and the other will declare we've made so much progress we can cut costs and improve the bottom line. In the end, neither one playing this game cares more about the environment than the other: they care only about winning the next election.

There are those that are truly concerned. I think Al Gore fits into that category. I think John McCain does also. Others will care personally about one aspect of it or another. But most of the ones making the environment a political issue don't really care. Its just a way to manipulate you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jun 17 2006, 11:57 PM) [snapback]272970[/snapback]</div>

I'll stay out of the rest of the political mess... but I can sure answer this one!
First off, don't steal it. Second... there really may be a way to get your hands on the thing. It has happened before. Find out what department actually holds the lease on the the thing, and go talk to somebody there. Find out when the lease is up, and ask them NOT to just turn it in. Once it is turned in, Toyota owns it and can do with it as they please. For quite some time, they were immediately crushing these awesome, low-mileage cars. While we have stopped the crushing, we still have no way of actually getting the cars back on the road once they're reaturned to Toyota. You'll have to figure out a way of having the city entity PURCHASE the vehicle for the residual value of their lease (will be about $26k if a 3-year-lease), and then sell it to you. If you don't want it, I'll buy it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Jun 16 2006, 07:49 PM) [snapback]272543[/snapback]</div>

C'mon, windstrings, 14 minutes elapse and you attribute the lack of an immediate positive follow-up to Bush-haters? Boy, are you gonna miss you-know-who (but he'll probably return).

I commend the President for this action. I don't care why he did it. Well, I do somewhat, but I personally dislike people who simultaneously poison their own praise by pointing out what terrible motives someone had to do what he/she did. That's for another time.

As usual, Mr. Hagan shines. I lived 18 years in Utah and had strong feelings for its natural wonders and wilderness areas. But I was among many who had mixed feelings about Clinton's obvious, politically-motivated high-handedness in that matter.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jun 19 2006, 08:37 PM) [snapback]273796[/snapback]</div>

Um, I believe your anger got in the way of READING my statement. First of all, I got my data from the Environmental PRotection Agency's site. Oh, did I mention that this is the same federal agency where two of their top EPA officials resigned because the BUSH ADMINISTRATION was sensoring their data?????? Anyway, I digress. If you read my statement and put YOUR bias aside, you would have interpreted my statement to mean what I had written - that the data posted by the EPA is virtually meaningless because there are too many variables to ascertain whether or not the pollutant quantities is good or bad with respect to any other readings at different points in time. So you see, I was giving bush the benefit of the doubt. Am I liberal??? You bet. But I try to see my way to having an open opinion about our leaders. For instance, I appreciate what my Republican Congressman Mark Kirk is doing in government. Heck, I even voted for him. He's a progressively minded Republican that understands that humans need and require clean water and air and open space. I could give a rat's *()%^ what side of the aisle my respresentatives are on so long as they are intelligent enough to understand the basic necessities of life. Bush doesn't seem to get it. Oh, but then again he bastardizes the english language. How can one expect him to understand the basic elements of life?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jun 19 2006, 04:53 PM) [snapback]273585[/snapback]</div>

So correct me if I am wrong. President Bush as been as good if not better than President Clinton when it comes to air quality, water quality and the other parameters you posted (BTW - very nice job) all the while our economy continues to chug along. Looks good to me.

Thanks for your time and expertise!

 

Hmmm. dbermanmd. looks like the way you interpret data will get you a job in the current administration!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 20 2006, 09:17 AM) [snapback]274103[/snapback]</div>

You are wrong. Air and water quality continue to improve despite President Bush' efforts to loosen enviromental protections. Thankfully, the courts have prevented this administration from the wholesale dismantling of clean air and water regulations.

Here are a couple of examples:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jun 20 2006, 12:24 PM) [snapback]274107[/snapback]</div>

Just looking at the facts - show me where the environment is worse off over the past 20 years including Clintons and Bush's administration.

Facts can be silly things - they take the emotion out of a discussion...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 20 2006, 11:45 AM) [snapback]274114[/snapback]</div>

I gave you facts in my initial posting. There are too many more facts about BUsh's assault on the environment to post. When one measures the environment with a couple components, such as clean air and clean water, you are not considering "the environment". You are considering mere components of the environment. When actually, the environment comprises many aspects such as fertile soil, a broad spectrum of insects, native plants and trees, lack of pesticides and herbices, toxinsand so on and so on and so on. One cannot quantify the health of the environment with only a mere few components. For instance, there is a water retention area near my house where my neighborhood's storm sewer run off is directed. This area doesn't support much by way of diversity because there is so much phoshorus and other lawn nutrient chemicals in the water from residential over use. (The water is not even ideal for dragonflies to breed. Why should one care - because dragonflies have an extremely voracious appetite for mosquitoes larvae and mosquitoes could care less about water quality. So instead of my township educating people, they go ahead and spray insecticdes throughout my neighborhood to kill the mosquitoes. i would rather have a dead lawn then get cancer) Some may consider this area "clean" because there's no mercury or arsenic present but one cannot say that this is a healthy environment.

Healthy environments are important as they contribute to biodiversity and keep "pests" in check. Healthy environments support our pollinating insects that are resonsible for our fruits and vegetables. Healthy environments are what provided the European settlers with prime farming land (they tilled our prairie ecostyems due to the rich, fertile soil). The native plants of our healthy environments filter storm water run off and rain water before entering streams and rivers and the like. Some healthy environments are comprised of wetlands that prevent the flooding of neighboring areas. Healthy environments are key to survival of all species (including humans) and should be regarded and respected. As should all native flora and fauna.

Here's a link on how New York intended to utilize one such philosophy.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4356

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jun 20 2006, 01:39 PM) [snapback]274135[/snapback]</div>

I understand what you are saying. I find it hard to blame President Bush for everything "environmental". I think a balance has to be maintained between human habitation and our need to "function" and the environment - knowing both are in a state of constant flux and evolution. I also believe the better the state of human "functioning" the better off the environment will be - that you need to put people first and not the environment - but still respect it at the same time. That is why I do NOT believe in the Kyoto Protocol - the same way the Clinton Adminstration did not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 20 2006, 12:48 PM) [snapback]274142[/snapback]</div>

Yes, if we could all think and initiate a healthy balance with our environment, we'd all be a lot better off. So far as blaming Bush for everything environmental, I will continue to do that. He's a travesty to the cause. However, I think we're near enough to an overall understanding to get around our differing positions concerning his leadership on the matter.