"President Bush extends protection for waters off Hawaii"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jun 19 2006, 11:31 PM) [snapback]273946[/snapback]</div>

No, I'd be more than happy to distinguish between bashing/hating and real, justified criticisms . . .

Unjust critisism of Bush by the Natural Resources Defense Council in the article you linked to:

Clean Air The most contentious and high-profile environmental battle of the coming Congress may well
surround the Bush administration’s effort to fundamentally rewrite and weaken the Clean Air Act. The
leading edge of this initiative will be the administration’s proposal to weaken the law’s new source review
program and relax requirements for control of mercury pollution from power plants, currently promoted
under the label “Clear Skies.” Once the Clean Air Act is in play, industry forces will almost certainly advocate
a range of additional weakening changes to reduce their obligations under the law.
http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/rollbacks/rr2005.pdf (page vii)

The reality of a dirty political game:

The EPA says of its decision to use a cap and trade mechanism: "We do believe that a type of cap and trade approach will allow us to get greater reductions in mercury emissions at lower cost."

By contrast, the Clinton-era EPA did not chose to impose a rule -- neither "cap and trade" or the more inflexible "command and control" (i.e., the government dictates exactly what plants must do) regulations -- on mercury emissions from power plants. What it did do was announce (in mid-December 2000, after George W. Bush had been elected), a draft proposal so draconian it would have been extremely expensive to the economy and, very possibly, scientifically/technically impossible to achieve.

Since the Clinton-Browner EPA proposed only a draft regulation and never a final rule, Clinton and Browner left office without regulating mercury emissions from power plants.

The Clinton-Browner EPA essentially created a political trap, apparently for the sole purpose of putting the then-incoming Bush Administration in a tight spot. On the one hand, it would have been hurtful to Americans had Bush adopted the proposal unchanged; on the other hand, if his Administration changed the Clinton-Browner draft, the left could charge -- as it now is doing -- that Bush was "rolling back" mercury regulations.

The Bush Administration chose to do the right thing policy-wise, but now is taking the political hit that is being administered now by Browner herself, MoveOn.org, the Environmental Working Group Action Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and others.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032904.html
- - -
If you are all upset that Bush opted for a realistic "cap and trade" system to reduce mercury emissions, do some research on Acid Rain.
Hummmm, “Acid Rain” :mellow: . . . there's a term you don't here much any more . . . wonder why? :huh: :huh:

The Acid Rain [cap and trade] Program has achieved greater emission reductions in such a short time than any other single program to control air pollution.
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/trading/basics/index.html

. . . That is an example between bashing/hating and real, justified criticisms. :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jun 19 2006, 09:37 PM) [snapback]273898[/snapback]</div>

Thanks darelldd I spotted two more Prii in Kingsburg within the last couple of days. Don't know if they live here or not but there EVERYWHERE!

I think I will try to save this one myself. But if I can't afford it I will contact you or someone who will want it. Maybe I should start a movement . . .

SAVE THE KINGSBURG RAV4 EV!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 19 2006, 09:40 PM) [snapback]273854[/snapback]</div>

House lifts ban on offshore drilling.

"The House bill would end an Outer Continental Shelf drilling moratorium that Congress has renewed every year since 1981. It covers 85 percent of the country's coastal waters — everywhere except the central and western Gulf of Mexico and some areas off Alaska.

Rep. Richard Pombo (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., a leading proponent for lifting the ban, said he believes a majority of the Senate wants to open the protected waters to energy companies."

"This time, they included a provision that would allow states to keep the moratorium in place if they opposed drilling and changed the revenue sharing so that states' share of royalties would soar eventually as much as 75 percent."

"The White House issued a statement saying it favors much of the bill but strongly opposes the changes in royalty revenue sharing, which it said "would have a long-term impact on the federal deficit.""

It's not the environment that is the concern of the White House. They don't want the states to get the money.