Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Bush and Kerry Channel Their Eco-Character

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: 97silverlsc

By Amanda Griscom, Grist Magazine. Posted September 20, 2004.

At a time when the man commonly derided by greens as the worst environmental president in U.S. history is up for re-election, it's perplexing that the most publicly discussed environmental issue of the campaign right now is Yucca Mountain a molehill in the grand scheme of America's environmental problems.

Of course, dumping nuclear waste in this Nevadan outpost is a genuine concern particularly for, say, Nevadans. But nationally speaking, even many enviros are ambivalent on the issue; as a whole, the green community has put forward no clear alternative plan of action. Enviros have far stronger and more unified objections to, say, Bush's failure to address global warming, or his sweeping rollbacks of protections for air quality, drinking water, forests, and wetlands yet rarely are these issues discussed in the campaign context.

Yucca seems to have hogged more airtime and headline space in the last four months than in the last four years. In the last few weeks alone, The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, MSNBC, and various other national news outlets have run stories fueling the Yucca controversy. The Kerry and Bush campaigns have issued a number of press releases and statements bashing each other's positions on the issue; John Kerry staunchly opposes the dumping, while President Bush supports it. As of this week, both candidates will have made four visits each to Nevada which Bush took by 4 percentage points in the 2000 election to rally voters.

On Monday, Associated Press reporter John Heilprin went so far as to argue that Yucca is the only green issue with enough emotional immediacy to convince a critical mass of red voters to cast a blue ballot: "Nevada, where Bush wants to entomb a half-century's waste from atomic power plants, is the only state where an environmental issue can realistically swing the outcome [of the election], according to environmental leaders and political analysts."

Really? We tried to hunt down those "environmental leaders," but couldn't find one who agreed with that contention.

"By no means is Yucca the final, or only, environmental frontier in this election," said Mark Longabaugh, senior vice president of political affairs at the League of Conservation Voters, which is investing up to $7 million in the election to help draw out environmental voters to defeat George Bush. "It's misleading to conclude that any particular issue will be more dominant or decisive than others. Issues are merely a way of getting voters to understand the larger themes of this race: George Bush sides with special interests at the expense of average citizens and the public interest."

Aimee Christensen, executive director of Environment2004, which is putting up to $5 million toward rallying the green vote with very targeted messages in swing states, agreed that specific issues are primarily a device for illustrating a larger message: "We're addressing local issues, but really what we're trying to get voters to understand is that George Bush is neither compassionate nor conservative. Conservation is deeply ingrained in the Republican ethos, and Bush is betraying his Republican roots."

Republican pollster Frank Luntz (the same Luntz who penned the 2002 memo leaked to The New York Times in which he argued that the environment "is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general and President Bush in particular are most vulnerable") also said that swing-state victories will not be decided on Yucca Mountain or any other issue: "This is not an issue-based election," he said. "It's going to be decided on presidential image, on personal attributes. Kerry's weakness is not based on his position on the issues at all ? it's based on perceptions of his leadership skills, on concerns that he's weak-minded, indecisive, on three sides of every issue."

Democratic pollster Celinda Lake added that "one of the things that Republicans have been better at doing than the Dems is using issues as character frames. That's clearly a very, very important component of what we need to get in the election in the next 50 days." Lake added that voters see the environment, in particular, as a character-defining issue: "It's a positive for Kerry because people think that candidates who are good on the environment also have integrity and courage ? you have to stand up to special interests and protect the little guy, you have to be a truth teller. That's why the Dems need to go on the offensive with this to frame [Kerry's] character in this context."

Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, also said that environmental issues are a potent tool for illustrating values: "It's about issues to the extent that we have to tell a good story at the door in Wisconsin. If you go there and say, 'Kerry has a 96 percent LCV rating,' they'll say, 'Big whoop.' If you say, 'George Bush is the worst environmental president since William McKinley,' big whoop. But they listen if you say, 'Did you know that George Bush has delayed cleaning up that mercury-infested fish in your backyard for 10 years and got huge campaign contributions from the power companies that didn't want to clean up?'"

Whether it's mercury contamination in the waterways in Wisconsin and Florida, pumping water out of the Great Lakes in Michigan, or road-building in the forests of Arizona and Oregon, environmentalists "need to make it a window onto the character issue," Pope said. The Sierra Club is putting an estimated $5 million toward its get-out-the-green-vote effort, the bulk of which will be spent in the month leading up to Nov. 2.

Though Luntz now insists that the environment will play a negligible role in this election, he pinpointed what could be another Bush weakness: "Most Americans today consider themselves anti-big business," Luntz said. "Americans are simply anti-big. Anti-big government. Anti-big media. Anti-big corporations. We like small business, small government, independent television. We're for the underdog, the little guy."

Leave it to Luntz to lay out the strategy for the next six weeks of the Kerry campaign. Catering to big business could be to Bush what flip-flopping is to Kerry his most serious perceived character flaw. Virtually every environmental issue, from Arizona's forests to Yucca's nuclear waste, lends itself to this message which, unlike the flip-flopping charge, is not just spin.

Posted by: MonsterMark

This is another fine example of the misleading liberal Main Stream Media in this country. If you say it enough times, eventually it will become true, huh. Just like the documents were real before they were forged.

Show me specific examples of the big, bad Bush policies and then I will compare and contrast those with the Clinton Administration. As soon as a Democrat hits office, he is saving the world. As soon as a Republican hits office, he is trying to destroy it.

I am so tired of these games. Who really doesn't want clean water. Clean air. Less violence and murder. Blah, blah, blah. The media gets behind these stories and runs with them, attempting to mislead the American people.

What is so great is the advances that conservatism has made in the last 24 years, starting with Ronald Reagan, despite the near monopoly by the liberal media. But chip away with the truth, piece by piece and that mighty wall comes tumbling down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97silverlsc

Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, also said that environmental issues are a potent tool for illustrating values: "It's about issues to the extent that we have to tell a good story at the door in Wisconsin. If you go there and say, 'Kerry has a 96 percent LCV rating,' they'll say, 'Big whoop.' If you say, 'George Bush is the worst environmental president since William McKinley,' big whoop.

Posted by: 97silverlsc

Bryan,
You should be on tour with the Shrub/ Cheney 3 ring circus. Any charge they can't deny they attacked the messenger. "this is just another example of liberal MSM blah, blah, blah". If you weren't so busy spouting GOP BS, maybe you could read the Rolling Stone article by RFK jr. that was posted in your "Who would vote for Kerry" post. I've read RFK jr's book, it's very disturbing. You and Kbob continue denying all charges with the Liberal media line, that excuse is getting very tired.
Phil

Posted by: 97silverlsc

IN THESE TIMES, November 23, 2003
Title: Liquidation of the Commons
Author: Adam Werbach

HIGH COUNTRY NEWS, Vol. 35, No. 11, June 9, 2003
Title: Giant Sequoias Could Get the Ax
Author: Matt Weiser

Evaluator: Mary Gomes Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Gina Dunch

Not since the McKinley era of the late 1800s has there been such a drastic move to scale back preservation of the environment. In 1896 President William McKinley was extremely pro-industry in terms of forests and mining interest giveaways. Mark Hanna, McKinley's partner against American populist William Jennings Bryan, raised more than $4 million in campaign contributions stating that only a government that catered first to the needs of corporate interests could serve the needs of the people.

The Bush Administration's environmental policies are destroying much of the environmental progress made over the past 30 years. A prime example is the Bush Administration?s Clean Skies Initiative. The Clean Air Act of 1970 has made skies over most cities cleaner by cutting back pollution let out by major power companies. However, the Clean Skies Initiative allows power plants to emit more than five times more mercury, twice as much sulfur dioxide, and over one and a half times more nitrogen oxides than the Clean Air Act.

Another example is in Gillette, Wyoming where a significant amount of natural gas (coal bed methane) exists. The only way to extract the gas is by draining groundwater to the level of the coal in order to release it. The Bureau of Land Management estimates that if all goes ahead as planned, the miners will discard more than 700 million gallons of publicly owned water a year. The mining of coal bed methane is as expensive as it is wasteful, and the industry has received promises from Congress of a $3 billion tax credit to help them on their way. It makes little economic sense to drill for marginal coal bed methane when larger deposits are elsewhere. Meanwhile, the U.S. government agencies normally responsible for protecting the land now serve as customer relations organizations for mining companies.

Bush's Healthy Forests Initiative is funding projects for logging companies to gain access to old growth trees and paying them for brush clearing. Matt Weiser discusses the new draft for the Forest Service management plan, which allows logging of up to 10 million board feet of lumber each year. President Bush's plan could even include removal of the very trees the monument was established to preserve , the giant sequoias, which are found nowhere else in such abundance.
The administration poses the problem as one of unnecessary regulations that oppose tree thinning. Yet U.S. Forest Service records show that in the four national forests in Southern California that burned in early November 2003, environmentalists had not filed a single appeal to stop Forest Service tree-thinning projects to reduce fire risk since 1997. And, when Gov. Davis requested money to remove unhealthy trees throughout California's forests, the request for emergency funds went unanswered by the Bush Administration until the end of October, and then, it was denied.

President Bush appointed Vice President Cheney to head a secretive energy task force to craft the administration's energy policy, which constituted the same types of give aways as McKinley's. Not only are corporate interests put first, but taxpayers are now paying to clean up the mess left behind. The Bush Administration has cut the Superfund budget, and Congress is shifting the burden of clean up from polluters to the American taxpayer.

Some administration officials still have active ties to corporate interests. Undersecretary of the Interior, J. Steven Griles, a former industrial lobbyist, is still being paid by his former employer, National Environmental Strategies (NES). NES lobbies for coal, oil, gas, and electric companies.
Coal bed methane development, the Clear Skies Initiative, and the Healthy Forests Initiative are just a few examples of the Bush Administration's efforts to undo 30 years of environmental progress. With the Senate approval of Gov. Mike Leavitt of Utah (an individual who is acquiescent to the Bush Administration's environmental policies) as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, the situation can only get worse.

UPDATE BY ADAM WERBACH: It's ironic that the growth of the twenty-four hour news industry has resulted in even less news. The Bush Administration's war on terror has pushed the most rapid destruction of the commons witnessed this century into the back pages of major newspapers. The article "Liquidation of the Commons" published by In These Times detailed the Bush Administration's say one thing do another policies, which have symbolized his Administration's efforts to allow industry to pollute the skies {"Clear Skies Initiative") and cut down our last remaining ancient forests ("Healthy Forests Initiative").

While most American news consumers can describe in detail the military hardware deployed in Iraq, the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of America's common assets is absent from political conversation. From the planned sale of trees in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska to the weakening of FCC media ownership caps on the people's airwaves, the Administration's policy has been to sell-off, neglect or destroy the commons those resources which we own collectively.

It will probably be years until we understand the full cost of what we've lost during the Bush Administration. Thousands of seemingly small regulatory changes; secret out of court settlements that have sacrificed endangered species and lax enforcement of existing laws, are only a few of the symptoms of the Administration's liquidation of the commons. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, "sunlight is the best disinfectant, electric light the best policeman." Thankfully, Project Censored is helping to bring these stories to light.

For more information about Bush's environmental policies visit: Common Assets at <http://www.commonassets.org/>, Tomales Bay Institute at <http://www.tomales.org/>, the Sierra Club at <http://www.sierraclub.org/ and Apollo Alliance at <http://www.apolloalliance.org/>.

Posted by: Kbob

(sigh) You asked for it, 97silverlsc. Maybe you should be the one who does the fact checking before you post ultra-liberal editorials. Oh yeah, I forgot, that's what I do, not you. You just hate Bush and believe everything negative about him you read. CBS has an opening for an investigative reporter; I think you should apply.

http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/faqs.html

What is Clear Skies?

The Clear Skies Act sets forth a mandatory program that would dramatically reduce and permanently limit power plant emissions.
What would Clear Skies do?

Clear Skies would establish caps on sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and mercury emissions at levels 70% below year 2000 emission levels. The caps on emissions, coupled with rigorous monitoring protocols and automatic enforcement provisions, ensure that these reductions would be achieved and sustained over time. Clear Skies would provide these reductions faster, with more certainty and at less cost to America's consumers than would current law.
How does Clear Skies compare to existing air pollution laws?

The Clear Skies Act would move the Clean Air Act forward by providing greater protection over the next decade. EPA's analyses indicate that the cumulative emissions reductions and health and environmental benefits over the next decade from Clear Skies are markedly greater than could be expected under the current Clean Air Act.
These benefits would happen at a considerably lower cost, and with greater certainty, than would occur under the current Clean Air Act. This is due in large measure to the major innovation of Clear Skies – a market-based, integrated multi-pollutant emissions reduction strategy for power generation.
Clear Skies would require a 70% decrease in power plant emissions of SO2 and NOx, which contribute to ozone and fine particle pollution.
Clear Skies would get greater reductions of SO2 and NOx than we expect from the current Clean Air Act power plant regulations that would be replaced or modified by Clear Skies (e.g., new source review (NSR), regional haze (or BART), the Acid Rain program, and the NOx SIP Call).
Clear Skies would not change the health-based air quality standards for ozone and fine particles – those standards will still have to be met. In fact, Clear Skies would help bring more areas into attainment with these health-based standards over the next decade than would current law.
Clear Skies would require reductions of approximately 70% in power plant emissions of mercury.
EPA expects less mercury to be emitted by power plants over the next 5 years if Clear Skies is enacted.
EPA cannot predict what mercury emissions would be under the current Clean Air Act after that because EPA is currently engaged in a rulemaking process to set a standard for mercury emissions from power plants which will go into effect no sooner than the end of 2007 (this rule will likely be litigated).
Clear Skies would take today's power plant emissions of mercury (48 tons) down to a cap of 15 tons.
Clear Skies would not change Clean Air Act requirements for sources not covered by Clear Skies.
Is New Source Review the fundamental provision in the Clean Air Act to reduce power plant emissions?

There is a misconception that the New Source Review (NSR) program is designed to require power plants to reduce emissions. This is simply incorrect. NSR applies to existing power plants and major manufacturing facilities only when they make modifications to their plants which result in increased emissions. They may then be required to install new emission control equipment.
Clear Skies, on the other hand, is specifically designed to require the power generation industry to reduce their emissions and maintain those reductions by capping emissions at the specified levels. The industry may employ the compliance strategy of its choosing as long as it meets emission reduction requirements.
What emission reductions would Clear Skies deliver compared to the existing Clean Air Act?

There are great uncertainties (regulatory development, litigation, implementation time, etc.) as to how quickly and effectively current regulations would be implemented over the next decade under existing law.
In contrast, the mandatory emissions caps at the heart of Clear Skies are a sure thing and guarantee that reductions will be maintained over time. And, because cap-and-trade programs include economic incentives for early action, Clear Skies would begin improving public health immediately.
Quantifiable health benefits under Clear Skies grow to $110 billion annually by 2020, and include prevention each year of: 14,000 premature deaths; 30,000 costly hospitalizations and ER visits; and 12.5 million days with respiratory illnesses and symptoms. An alternative methodology for calculating health-related benefits projects over 8,400 premature deaths prevented and $21 billion in health benefits - still far greater than the costs.
Would Clear Skies go far enough or fast enough?

If enacted, Clear Skies would deliver early human health and environmental benefits right away because its cap and trade program gives power plants incentives to begin reducing emissions immediately.
Clear Skies is designed to ensure that electricity generators are able to obtain financing and perform installation of the necessary pollution control equipment cost effectively. It would also ensure that the large-scale installation of emissions control technologies to achieve the necessary reductions can be accomplished, while allowing the power industry to continue to provide reliable service to American consumers at reasonable prices.
Would Clear Skies allow power plants to increase emissions beyond safe levels?

Clear Skies would maintain the protections provided by the health-based national air quality standards, the major provision of the Clean Air Act to protect local air quality.
In fact, together with other Clean Air Act provisions, Clear Skies would bring most of the country into attainment so that they meet the clean air standards.
Clear Skies also requires tough, technology-based new source standards on all new power generation projects and maintains special protections for national parks and wilderness areas when sources locate within 50 km of "Class I" national parks and wilderness areas.
Clear Skies is designed to reduce emissions by significant amounts over large geographic areas, and would improve air quality in every part of the country where power plants contribute significantly to air pollution.
Would the emission reductions under Clear Skies be voluntary?

No. The emissions reductions under Clear Skies would be mandatory. Like the successful Acid Rain Program, power plants not meeting the requirements would be subject to non-negotiable penalties.
The legislation would set aggregate emission limits, or caps, and let industry find the most cost-effective way to achieve required reductions.
Companies would have flexibility to choose how to comply, not whether they comply. This system rewards innovation, reduces costs and guarantees results.
Required continuous emissions monitoring and reporting would allow EPA and the states to know with certainty that emissions reductions occur.
Would Clear Skies prevent states from requiring additional controls on their own power plants?

Clear Skies would do nothing to change the fundamental provision contained in the Clean Air Act that permits each state to adopt more stringent regulations on power plants (and other sources) under its jurisdiction.
Will Clear Skies cause fuel switching?

As the President said in the State of the Union, one of our goals "is to promote energy independence for our country, while dramatically improving the environment." Clear Skies would help accomplish this goal by providing important environmental protection while maintaining energy diversity and security.
The emissions reductions under Clear Skies would be achieved primarily through the installation of control technologies, not through fuel switching, according to extensive economic modeling of the utility industry using EPA's Integrated Planning Model.
Under Clear Skies by 2010, 69% of U.S. coal-fired generation is projected to come from units with advanced pollution control equipment (such as scrubbers and SCR, which also substantially reduce mercury emissions). In 2020, the percentage is projected to rise to 81%.
Growth in electricity demand over the next 20 years is forecast to be met through an increase in gas-fired generation and some increases in coal-fired generation. Clear Skies does not significantly alter this forecast.
Will Clear Skies cause electricity prices to rise?

Retail electricity prices are expected to gradually decline from today's levels but then rise over time with or without Clear Skies. (Prices are expected to drop initially due to the increase of excess generation capacity; in 2010 prices would begin to increase due to new capacity requirements, which lead to higher capital costs and greater natural gas use, and higher retail prices passed on to consumers.)
Clear Skies would do so because it phases in large reductions over time and gives industry flexibility as to how it makes those reductions.

You cry because we're dependent on foreign oil, then you cry when Bush tries to do something about it. You can't have it both ways. Everything you wanted to know about coal bed methane in wyoming: http://www.deq.state.mt.us/CoalBedMethane/Wyoming.asp

The Healthy Forests Initiative was a bi-partisan effort that was widely supported because of all the benefits. Apparently only die-hard green freaks opposed it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/he...r-act-pg2.html

Bush Administration Actions to Promote Healthy Forests

In August 2002, in the midst of one of the worst fire seasons in recent history, the President launched his Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI). HFI focuses on reducing the risk of catastrophic fire by thinning dense undergrowth and brush in priority locations that are on a collaborative basis with selected Federal, state, tribal, and local officials and communities. The initiative also provides for more timely responses to disease and insect infestations that threaten to devastate forests. Using the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative, the Bush Administration has taken steps to establish a more effective and timely process to protect communities, wildlife habitats, and municipal watersheds from catastrophic fires.

The Forest Service has implemented at least 46 high priority thinning and restoration projects using new procedures established under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Bureau of Land Management is currently implementing more than 20 projects.
The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior have improved environmental assessments (EAs) for priority forest health projects.
The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have approved stewardship contracts using the new authority requested by the President and provided by Congress. Stewardship contracting will increase as NEPA work is completed in 2004. These contracts are a tool to restore landscapes, reduce hazardous fuel loads, and restore water quality and wildlife habitat.
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 will:

Reduce dense undergrowth that fuels catastrophic fires through thinning and prescribed burns;
Improve the public involvement in the review process by providing opportunities for earlier participation, thus accomplishing projects in a more timely fashion;
Select projects on a collaborative basis involving local, tribal, state, Federal and non-governmental entities;
Focus projects on Federal lands that meet strict criteria for risk of wildfire damage to communities, water supply systems and the environment;
Authorize the Healthy Forests Reserve Program, to protect, restore and enhance degraded forest ecosystems on private lands to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species;
Encourage biomass energy production through grants and assistance to local communities creating market incentives for removal of otherwise valueless forest material; and
Develop an accelerated program on certain Federal lands to combat insect infestations.
White House Office of Communications

Posted by: 97silverlsc

You post an article from the White house website, and from the
EPA website as evidence that the Shrub administration is doing something good? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
That's real independent evidence your posting, Kbob.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97silverlsc

You post an article from the White house website, and from the
EPA website as evidence that the Shrub administration is doing something good? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
That's real independent evidence your posting, Kbob.

You have just proven yourself to be the biggest hypocrit on this site. A partisan operative who will resort to anything to subvert the minds of free-thinking Americans. (not really, but I enjoyed saying that

) Here's a direct quote from you from another thread in this forum that I've linked to as evidence: http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/sho...1&page=6&pp=20

"I'm sure you've heard the old saying don't judge a book by its cover, so I don't think its fair to try to discredit an article just because it appears in . . ."

Play by your own rules, cause right now you're about as credible as Burkett. Good for Bush, but bad for Kerry. Think, man, think!

Posted by: 97silverlsc

If the fox is in the hen house, are you going to believe him if he says he's not chowin' down?
RFK jr's book details how Shrub has appointed lobbyists to positons of authority in the EPA and Interior Departments responsible for overseeing the very industries they were lobbyist for. I've seen these allegations elsewhere. Do you honestly believe I would accept info from these 2 sights to tell me how good their doing?

Come on Kbob, you're going to have to do better than that to convince me.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97silverlsc

Come on Kbob, you're going to have to do better than that to convince me.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything because you've made up your mind. I'm just exposing you for what you are. You believe the CIA's assessment on Iraq, don't you? Then believe the EPA too. You won't because you don't want to. You are not consistent. Editorials are worthless when trying to prove a point because it's mainly conjecture, unsubstantiated claims, and misleading information.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97silverlsc

Bryan,
You should be on tour with the Shrub/ Cheney 3 ring circus.

Actually, I hope to get to meet and shake hands with President Bush today in Racine Wisconsin. I hope to be onstage as part of the national advisory committee.

Posted by: 97silverlsc

Kbob,
The reason I believe the CIA assessment of Iraq is that the CIA hasn't been gutted yet( Goss will probably take care of that), whereas the EPA and Interior departments have, by Shrub himself.
Phil

Posted by: 97silverlsc

Bryan,
Make sure you ask him one of those hard hitting questions card carrying republicans (the only ones allowed near Shrub) like to ask at these campaign stops, like who is he rooting for in the world series, or what does he think of Janet Jacksons exposure at the Super bowl half time show. You know, something hard hitting, like he's used to answering at these staged events.

Phil

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97silverlsc

Kbob,
The reason I believe the CIA assessment of Iraq is that the CIA hasn't been gutted yet( Goss will probably take care of that), whereas the EPA and Interior departments have, by Shrub himself.
Phil

So you have newfound respect for the CIA now, huh? Keep changing your story, you're beginning to perfect it, just like Kerry.

Posted by: 97silverlsc

????????????????????????????

Posted by: 97silverlsc

[quote=Kbob](sigh) You asked for it, 97silverlsc. Maybe you should be the one who does the fact checking before you post ultra-liberal editorials. Oh yeah, I forgot, that's what I do, not you. You just hate Bush and believe everything negative about him you read. CBS has an opening for an investigative reporter; I think you should apply.

http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/faqs.html

[i]What is Clear Skies?

The Clear Skies Act sets forth a mandatory program that would dramatically reduce and permanently limit power plant emissions.
What would Clear Skies do?

Clear Skies would establish caps on sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and mercury emissions at levels 70% below year 2000 emission levels. The caps on emissions, coupled with rigorous monitoring protocols and automatic enforcement provisions, ensure that these reductions would be achieved and sustained over time. Clear Skies would provide these reductions faster, with more certainty and at less cost to America's consumers than would current law.
How does Clear Skies compare to existing air pollution laws?

The Clear Skies act allows higher emission of NOx, SO2, and Mercury than previous regulations. In other words, a loosening of already existing regulations.

Posted by: 97silverlsc

Is Nothing Sacred?

By Tai Moses, AlterNet. Posted September 27, 2004.

John Kerry and George Bush have deeply differing views ? and values ? when it comes to our natural resources and the quality of our air, land and water.

Some years ago I had a job working on the staff of a geological sciences journal. On the wall of the office was a bumpersticker that read: Earth First! We'll Mine the Other Planets Later.

Heh heh. But I soon learned that it was an accurate portrayal of the sensibilities of some of my colleagues; decent people who appreciated nature but whose obsession with minerals, gems and other geologic goodies tended to shape their worldviews. The earth was a container full of mysteries to be discovered and used.

My boss, a mining geologist, once showed me a photograph he had taken of Bingham Canyon, the largest open-pit mine in the world. Located near Salt Lake City, the mine measures nearly a mile deep and two and a half miles across, and in its 100-year existence it has yielded about 17 million tons of copper, as well as gold, silver and other ores.

This boss of mine was a good guy; generous, fair, intellectually curious. We agreed on many things, but when it came to the environment, we parted ways. To him, Bingham Canyon was a marvel of technology and science. To me, it was a poster pit for pollution: for poisoned rivers and groundwater; for arsenic and other toxic byproducts of mining ? not to mention sheer ugliness.

That conversation has been on my mind a lot lately, as the election looms and the differences between the candidates come into sharper focus. John Kerry and George W. Bush are polarized on many issues, but perhaps none so intensely as the environment. A look at their voting records, policies and platforms reveals that, when it comes to that diverse collection of concerns we call "the environment," the two candidates are standing on opposite sides of a philosophical abyss as wide and deep as Bingham Canyon.

Bush is intent upon gutting federal protections to our air, water and wildlands. He will drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska; slash the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency; and overturn the 40-year-old Wilderness Act, which protects tens of millions of acres of the country's pristine forests from the oil, gas, timber and mining industries. These aggressive attacks on the environment are a clear sign that the very air we breathe has become a casualty of what author John Carroll calls, "the slow-motion wreck of American values that has occurred over the past three years."

In a recent editorial, the New York Times observed that the Bush administration "seems to make no accommodation for anything besides humans' economic desires."

There is a simple reason for this: one of the core values of Bush conservatives is that natural resources are there to be exploited for the good of mankind. In their view, the world ? and especially nature ? is a hostile place that needs to be conquered and controlled. Bush's policies are the modern-day extension of Manifest Destiny, the 19th-century belief in bringing god, civilization and technology to the primitive, untamed lands of the West.

That became crystal clear in Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, when he declared that, "In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about not through endless lawsuits or command-and-control regulations, but through technology and innovation."

The Republican party platform includes a detailed discussion of environmental policy, but most of it is linked to the supply of energy. Environmental conservation for its own sake gets only a nod. The platform refers to "modernizing" the Endangered Species Act, and developing the Artic Refuge using the most "sophisticated technologies."

The Bush administration wants to reduce the role of government, dismantle pesky regulations and assert man's dominion over nature; in this, they avow they are doing "god's work."

Oddly, visiting shock and awe on the environment is hardly in concert with traditional Republican values. After all, we have President Eisenhower (a Republican) to thank for designating the Arctic Refuge, and Republican president Theodore Roosevelt was a renowned conservationist whose legacy includes the very Wilderness Act that Bush is dismantling.

More moderate Republicans ? that is, pre-Reagan administration ? have historically supported some measure of government regulation and acknowledged the need to protect and preserve forests, wetlands, rivers and oceans for future generations.

Aimee Christensen, executive director of Environment2004, says, "Conservation is deeply ingrained in the Republican ethos, and Bush is betraying his Republican roots."

A growing number of old-school Republicans, alarmed at the right-wing tilt of their party, are trying to foster some reforms. Martha Marks, founder of Republicans For Environmental Protection, told Sierra Magazine that the GOP has "been hijacked over the last two decades, catering to special-interest money and ideologues."

The result, Marks says, is "an anti-environmentalism that flies in the face of some of Roosevelt's most inspiring pronouncements: 'I do not intend that our natural resources shall be exploited by the few against the interests of the many.'"

Polls reveal that the majority of Americans, no matter what political party they belong to, desire stronger environmental protections. People want to breathe clean air and drink fresh water. They want their children to enjoy the same beaches, deserts and mountains as they did when they were kids.

As linguist George Lakoff says, the weaker the conservatives' positions, the more Orwellian their language. Since Bush knows that most Americans want a healthy environment, he employs deceptively labeled legislation like "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" to camouflage the fact that these bills are gifts to industry polluters and do little to protect the environment or the interests of the average American.

John Kerry, unlike Bush, talks about the environment in terms of responsibility and nurturance. Kerry recognizes that environmental issues are public health and safety issues: communities that are free of toxins are healthy, secure communities, able to care for healthy children and families.

As a strong believer in conservation, Kerry is upholding not just progressive values, but traditional American values. "As Americans," his website says, "we have the right to breathe unpolluted air, drink safe water, eat uncontaminated food, live in clean communities and enjoy our natural treasures. In the 21st century, we can have progress without pollution ? we can grow our economy while protecting our natural resources."

A clean environment, Kerry emphasizes, is an American right. Forests, rivers, wetlands and oceans, fish and wildlife ? these things have their own intrinsic value and are not to be recklessly exploited. Kerry promises that he will "defend our environmental values and protect our environmental rights."

George Bush wants to let power plants spew three times more poisonous mercury into the air than they currently do; John Kerry co-sponsored a bill in 2003 that would cut power plant emissions of mercury and other pollutants.

Bush and Kerry have warring visions on the environment, because the environment represents different things to each of them. Bush sees nature as a treasure trove of raw materials to be used for short-term gain. To John Kerry, wildlands, rivers and oceans are publicly held assets to be cared for and guarded for future generations.

Sometime it seems like I'm looking at that photograph of Bingham Canyon all over again. And I wonder: is it a shining example of man's domination over nature ? or just a big, ugly hole in the ground?

Tai Moses is a contributing editor of AlterNet.

Posted by: Kbob

"The Clear Skies Act would move the Clean Air Act forward by providing greater protection over the next decade. EPA's analyses indicate that the cumulative emissions reductions and health and environmental benefits over the next decade from Clear Skies are markedly greater than could be expected under the current Clean Air Act.
These benefits would happen at a considerably lower cost, and with greater certainty, than would occur under the current Clean Air Act."

For the U.S. to be less dependent on foreign oil, we cannot blindly ignore our own resources. Tough and responsible choices have to be made, and Bush is making them. You may disagree and prefer a president who will allow the U.S. to be held hostage by foreign interests.