Bush Rips the Environment a New One

Rocks_Off

Diabloii.Net Member
maccool said:
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 :D
Yeah, I don't think the cap and trade system can work for Mercury, simply because of the weight involved. You can't apply a regional cap and trade to something that for all intents and purposes is a localized pollution issue.

I think this is simply a bite-the-bullet issue, and the industries emitting the mercury are just going to have to spend the money. I don't see any other alternative.

Hmm, just listened to the NPR broadcast (LOL...I love the lead-in, they just have to subtly insert their bias :)). After listening it seems that we don't have all the data we need to make a comprehensive decision one way or another. One thing that was noted in passing though, the problem in the Everglades was addressed at the state level. Perhaps it's an issue that would be easier to address that way.

Damascus, yeah that's pretty much what I mean. I think, however, it would lead to an overall decrease in the amount of forest cover we have.
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
Rocks_Off said:
I think this is simply a bite-the-bullet issue, and the industries emitting the mercury are just going to have to spend the money. I don't see any other alternative.
Well, apart from contributing large sums of money to politicians. It's much cheaper in the short term to fight than it is to clean up. Problem is, the future gets the shaft.

But yeah, NPR is biased, but they're more fair and balanced than anything out there except Pacifica Free Radio (remember, NPR is financed by corporate sponsors too).
 

dantose

Diabloii.Net Member
I'd definately be in favor of letting most fires burn. have a grace period though so people can find new homes if they don't want to risk their little cabin going up in smoke

for those that took the second half of my post to be in favor of logging the forests, i was just saying the idea of limited cutting to help with fire is theoretically sound not that I trust the logging industry to do it.

"the logging industry is more interested in protecting the forests then the pinko commie liberals because the loggers depend on the forest for their jobs" -a conservative friend of mine
 

Rocks_Off

Diabloii.Net Member
dantose said:
"the logging industry is more interested in protecting the forests then the pinko commie liberals because the loggers depend on the forest for their jobs" -a conservative friend of mine
Heh, the enviros are just as dependent. Ttheir 'job' is intimately tied to the ability to create as much fear that the environment is about to collapse as possible. That's why I take anything coming from one of the activist groups with a grain of salt.

I think you're kinda missing my point though, Dantose...we're talking about massive fires that will be worse simply because of our intervention in stamping out smaller fires over the course of years. Essentially our previous efforts to preserve forests have led to a problem that if allowed to burn 'as nature intended' will most likely wipe out large amounts of our forests.

It's always an option, but I don't think it's a very good one (I was being kinda facetious when I mentioned it).

Mac, I guess that would be a solution from the company's perspective...not a very good one from mine. As long as you are aware of the bias of 'any' news source you can usually pick through to get the truth. I just wish they'd (they being a general term) stop 'editorializing' straight news. If wishes were horses (or fishes) and all, I suppose.

Underseer, you're post is so full of nonsense that I can't even respond to it. Obviously we're operating in different realities.
 

Munch

Diabloii.Net Member
dantose said:
"the logging industry is more interested in protecting the forests then the pinko commie liberals because the loggers depend on the forest for their jobs" -a conservative friend of mine
Sorta. Except that both groups define "forest" much differently, and that's the battleground their argument takes place on.
 

Underseer

Diabloii.Net Member
"the logging industry is more interested in protecting the forests then the pinko commie liberals because the loggers depend on the forest for their jobs" -a conservative friend of mine
That's a myth brought on by carefully planned marketing campaigns run by logging companies. They don't replant trees unless required to by law, and every time they do, they make a big production out of it to make it seem like they do it a lot more often than they do. Any time they can clear cut a forrest and not replace a thing, they will, although they're careful to leave up the trees that happen to be right next to any passing highways (it wouldn't do to let passing citizens inconveniently see what's going on).
 

redneck hater

Diabloii.Net Member
From what I can tell Bush's views on the enviroment is "You got to kill part of it to save it". I haven't seen Bush set up any National Parks or anything of that sort. Clinton set aside many acres of land for national parks. Although he might not be the worst president for the environment he certainly is not the best.
 
Top