Bush Rips the Environment a New One

Bush Rips the Environment a New One

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/timep.environment.tm/index.html

Way to show foresight, Bush. It's not like we'll, y'know, need the environment in the future.

 

As my first post since the apocalypse let me just say "Uhrk!"

In response to the Bush administration, I can only say "Uhrk!"

 

Great, who cares about that wussy greenhouse effect and the new ice age and all... He'll just invade another country and all the problems will go away.... Right?

.|.. ..|. , Bush.

 

Predictable.

eleven words.

KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

 

We'll have all the resources we'll ever need and no environmental issues on Mars. Just you wait....

 

Anyone else notice that the "scientific" arguments of anti-environment types sound suspiciously like the ramblings of tobacco executives in the 70s and 80s?

 

Actually a change in the Gulf Stream could prove beneficial to the american economy.


Imagine Northern Europe being freezed to subarctic temperatures. The areas affected such as England, northern Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and southern Scandinavia are all major agricultural areas with a bombastic surplus. If an "ice age" were to happen here it would perhaps open up a window for american export as Europe would no longer be as self-reliant on foodstuffs.

(Note: I don't believe in this conspiracy theory myself.)

 

People, try to be reasonable here.

Bush is the single best thing to happen to the envirnoment since... well, ever.

He has an agressive plan to help the environment.
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2002/112602.asp

also, increased logging HAS been shown to decrease forest fires. when's the last time you saw a fire in a tree farm?

[/sarcasm]

seriously though, the article was clearly slanted. while there may be problems with the bill being passed and the logging industry coming in, the article seemed to just want to cast doubt on the fundamental idea of cutting trees to save other trees. As the aricle did admit at one point, several environmentalists agree that planned cutting of some trees can reduce forest fires. I'm pretty sure a lot of camp grounds already do this. the problems Australia has been facing with forest fires are similar to the problems we have been having. as we fight forest fires and put them out we remove the forests way of clearing the brush and everything that can help spread the fire. thus when we have fires there is more brush and they tend to be worse.

logging can be done resposibly too. plant two trees for every one cut. this would help ensure we had trees in the future while still allowing us to use the resource today.

 

The idea that forrest fires are caused by not cutting down trees is a myth perpetuated by conservative pundits.

There has been an explosion of people building homes in densely forrested areas. People do it because it's farther away from the "unwashed masses," and their homes look so cute all nestled between the trees like that. In the past forrest fires didn't generate so much property damage because people kept their homes in cities and suburbs and not amid dense forrests. These people are singlehandedly costing the government a lot of money protecting their homes every year and the end result of this is going to be that they're going to lose their scenic little forrested vistas. Unfortunately those trees are also going to be lost to hikers, hunters, or anyone else who plans on enjoying the beauty of nature in those particular areas.

But of course, why blame them when you can use this as an excuse to curry favor with logging industry lobbyists?

 

1994, although it was set intentionally.

It's an editorial, it happens.

Like Underseer rightly pointed out, if you build your dream home in the middle of a forest, far away from everyone else (including fire, police, and medical services), you may get boned.

What bothers me more than the logging is the reclassification of Hg (mercury) to a category of 'less danger'. It's now in the same bin as ozone, nitrogen oxides, and CO2. This means that it's not as heavily regulated and companies that emit Hg, primarlily coal-fired power plants can release more than ever before. Hg can't travel that far in the air, so it's nothing to worry about, right?

As for the ANWR drilling, it's going to happen sooner rather than later. Given the dependence of the U.S. on fossil fuels and Middle East instability, it becomes a necessity. Well, we could develop alternative energy sources like solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear, but that would make supporters of Bush/Cheney unhappy and you can't make them unhappy.

 

Its part of plan "United Blizzard".

 

Oh God, mercury? **** me, we're ****ed. I don't want heavy metal poisoning! It kind of makes sense though, from the Bush administration's perspective. Heavy metal poisoning is most well known for its effects on the mind. Maybe they think we won't notice the bad decision making once we're brain-dead.

 

Just another argument that supports my position of mandatory moats.

 

You knew I'd reply to you didn't you, Mac?

Any idiot that builds his house in the middle of the forest (especially in dry areas) gets what they deserve. Kinda reminds me of the lunatics that built houses near Austin, TX in an area with a heavy deer population...the brochures even depicted cute little bambies frolicking in the pristine wilderness.

Of course if they had had any actual experience with deer they'd have known that they were some of the most destructive and annoying pests around...which the new homeowners subsequently found out. Their city council actually passed a resolution to have marksmen come in to start killing them. The Parks & Wildlife department took a dim view of this plan for some strange reason.

Stupidity abounds...

Anyway, on to the logging.

It's pretty obvious that our present way of dealing with our forests is not adequate. In fact the editorial cited not a fire in a residential area, but an area in a national forest that had 150,000 acres burned. The yellowstone fires were horrible as well (no data on actual acreage lost).

Some new tack has to be taken if we want to keep any of these forests around. The Forest service has been trying for years to be able to remove some of the undergrowth and trees to prevent buildup of fuels. Yet they've been stymied at every turn by environmentalist groups...so we get more rampaging fires.

Mac, about airborne Mercury...I wasn't aware that it had been reclassified. I know there's been some discussion about it recently, but I was under the impression that nothing had been changed. Got a reference for me?

 

Why does the logging industry want brush growth and bug infested or disease riddled trees that are more likely to burn?

 

*puts on Hellfire mask*

Why are you all questioning Bush like this?!?!?!? He's a patriot with all of our best interests in mind. He only wants to log the forests to SAVE them!! And you all NEED wood to wear those fancy Birkenstocks that are the rage right now!!

*takes off hellfire mask*

I feel so..... dirty....

*goes to take a shower*

 

Unfortunately I don't have any more idea on what the full proposal is than you.

*shrugs*

I suppose I do have another plan...we could just let em burn.

 

Crap, I jumped the gun. It's not enacted yet. Sorry about that, sometimes the long hair in me gets out.

Clear Skies Act -2003. They're proposing a cap and trade policy for mercury. It worked for stuff that can be carried long distances by wind (SO2, NOx), but I'm not that sure about the Hg, Mercury weighing much more.

Turns out I wasn't crazy, I thought I heard and/or read this. This is from NPR's Morning Edition on Dec. 4 2003. Click on the speaker icon.

Yes, some of you will dismiss it due to the source. But take a listen anyway.

Edit: Rocks, I thought you had given up this haven from working. Loser

 

You mean kinda like what it's been doing for millions of years?

For some reason I don't like the idea of letting loggers take the prime cut of forests under the guise of "evironmental issues"

If they need more trees, fine, say so. I don't like the "We're saving the forest!" talk.

Healthy living trees actually burn the worst. Anyone who has cut and sold firewood (like me) at least knows that cured wood burns best. I can only assume this works the same would work for forests.

 

Those forrests survived just fine long before lumber companies existed, I'm pretty sure they'll survive just fine without them.

The national forrest service was created for the express purpose of keeping logging out, yet not only are they allowed to traipse in and butcher what they like, but the forrest service is basically a giant subsidy for the logging industry.

I mean, why should they spend the money replanting, managing forrests and all that other stuff when the government will do it for you for free. People complain about the money and benefits we provide to the agricultural industry (sadly most of that money goes to corporate agribusiness and not family farms like it oughtta), but what if the government paid to plant and grow crops every year, paid to water the crops, fertilize the crops and keep it pest free, then agribusinesses were allowed to just come in after all the work's been done and harvest what they want, all for free. We wouldn't accept it if the government built cars for Detroit for free. We wouldn't accept this in any other industry, so why should we allow it in logging?

The national forrest service was created so that we could have tracts of land untouched by development. Not only are we spending huge money to not accomplish what that service was created for, the whole thing is nothing more than a giant subsidy for the logging industry.