| Author |
Message |
    
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 741
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 8:59 am: | 
|
Andy - let me know when the 40 mpg SUV comes out. Then if I still choose to buy the one that gets 19 mpg you can reprimand me. Deal?
What I mean by extreme is that you do not allow for the possibility that in this day and age corporations will more often than not do the right thing. I think that you and tom both view the people that run corporations as evil. Regulation is a good thing, don't get me wrong, its just that it can become too much of a burden without really knowing what the ultimate detriments are going to be. That's where I have the problem. Its all about compromise. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 1907
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 9:13 am: |
|
Absent any regulation, there will be free market solutions to all of our environmental issues. However, they are not likely to be pleasant. The problem is that the business profitability cycle is much shorter than global environmental cycles. The attention span of politicians is shorter still in some cases. That means that we really do need to seriously address issues such as global warming and fine-particulate pollution issues (e.g. powerplants in the midwest) and the, so far, relentless population growth. If we assume that the free market will take care of these things, then we will go through a boom-bust cycle. In this case, the bust will be drastic changes to the environment that will result in the death or impoverishment of hundreds of millions of people.
It isn't useful to characterize corporate officers as evil. Their job is to make profits. They are rewarded on a fairly short-term basis and have not real incentive to worry about the consequences of their decisions thirty or forty years down the road.
The options are to let the free market take care of things or regulate industry. The free market solution will work only if consumers are almost universal in demanding that industry deliver goods and services in an environmentally sustainable way.
One thing is for sure. Mother Nature bats last. And Mother Nature hasn't really gone to bat in the last two hundred years or so. Perhaps our species needs another year without a summer (1816) to relearn humility with regard to our natural environment. |
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 10:56 am: |
|
Sportsnut,
Do you deny that such technology exists?
Jeep has been selling a Turbo-diesel in Brazil and most of South America for somewhere around 5 years, if not longer. When I last looked into importing one, it was getting 35 plus mpg. Diesel has its problems with sulfur, however even that can be fixed,
The oil industry goes where the profits are,
I will propose a more likely scenario than what you did to me.
If the government mandated higher mpg requirements for cars and SUV's, let's say from 23 to 33 mpg, how much revenue would the oil and gas industry lose?
How would that effect quarterly profits and dividends.
This is what oil industry lobbyists want to avoid.
You may view it as environment extremism, however, these contentions are also based on the concept of efficiency.
The argument I proposed to you is, Why not build an internal combustion engine that can achieve 65% efficiency?
Maybe it's the scientist in me, no, I will restate.
It is the scientist that seeks to improve current technology, or atleast be a part of such efforts.
Quarterly profits and dividends mean little to me, it's not my realm. As science may not be yours.
Our current policy on energy is a waste of knowledge, a waste of technology and a waste of energy.
Should market forces (ie quarterly profits and dividends) dictate we embark on wasteful policies should we stand by and simply acept it? Have we become so short sighted?
This concept hold sway despite global warming and air quality. For it is also is a matter of developing efficienct technologies
You can own a 40 mpg SUV. The technology exists, and has so for many years.
For me it boils down to a matter of philosophy regarding technology, efficiency, evironmentalism and energy independence.
Did you read this weekend's edition of the NY times business front page? |
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 169
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Sportsnut
Here is a comparison of mpg specs for petrol vs TD Cherokee
http://www.autoworld.com/news/archives/CelebratedRENEGADENameReturns.htm
Higher efficiency SUV's are quite possible, and are not extremist |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 742
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 12:59 pm: |
|
I never claimed they weren't possible. Are these available here in the states?
"Jeep has been selling a Turbo-diesel in Brazil and most of South America for somewhere around 5 years, if not longer."
That's great. Too bad I don't live there nor do I want to. I'm all for companies trying to do what they can for the environment. You've presented your side of the story. Now I'll look up the other side. Did you know that auto emissions made up only 1/3 of all air pollutants?
I think your views are best directed at those other nations where absolutely no one cares. I think that we do a good enough job here in the states. If you'd like to make it your own personal crusade go ahead. I don't see it as a problem. That's not to say that I won't change my mind, you haven't convinced me yet. Look where auto emissions have come over the last 25 years. I have no doubt that they'll continue to get better.
tjohn - interesting about 1816. Funny how an extreme variation in temperature can be a natural occurance. While the summer of that year was unbelievably cold the year overall did not show much in the way of variation. Kind of like the last twenty years here. Soon we will be in for a colder than normal summer (hey didn't we just have one?) and the ice age cometh people will be out in full force.
|
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 170
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 2:38 pm: |
|
Sportsnuts,
You miss the point. Emissions are only a part of the rational for more efficient vechicles. Higher efficiency vehicles would also lessen our dependence on foreign oil imports. As your know, oil is a matter of national security.
What is the rational for not creating a strategy that simultaneously improves emissions, mpg's and improves our energy independence?
Higher efficiency turbo-diesel cars and SUV's are also available in the UK.
Why are you so complacent and willing to accept sub-standard fuel efficiency?
Yes emmissions are down, but that average mpg for consumer vehicles have actually decreased over the last 20 years. |
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 171
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 3:07 pm: |
|
Sportsnut,
What are the possible detriments you are referring to, as related to the possibility of higher mpg cars and SUVs? At least list some potentials.
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 1911
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 7:09 pm: |
|
Sportsnut,
That's true. Events such as the summer of 1816 are one reason why it is so difficult to fully understand the magnitude and costs of the human-induced portion of global warming. |
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 7:21 pm: |
|
President George Bush has brought the international treaty aimed at repairing the Earth's vital ozone layer close to breakdown, risking millions of cancers, to benefit strawberry and tomato growers in the electorally critical state of Florida
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=466406&host=3&dir=507 |
Redsox
Citizen
Username: Redsox
Post Number: 366
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 7:58 pm: |
|
i hereby renounce the demon rum.....
so i won't have to be beholding to andy
for removal of my liver |
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 174
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 8:02 pm: |
|
Redsox
You can make all the adolescent comments you want
Grow up, use your mind and debate the issues |
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 9:24 pm: |
|
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1123-08.htm |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 744
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 9:44 pm: |
|
"Higher efficiency vehicles would also lessen our dependence on foreign oil imports. As your know, oil is a matter of national security."
Yes, so would drilling in ANWR. And I take it from the second statement that you believe the war is about oil? If so we disagree again.
I don't think I mentioned that there were detriments to higher mileage SUVs and the like.
"Why are you so complacent and willing to accept sub-standard fuel efficiency?"
The truth is that I don't think that the fuel efficiency in our cars is sub-standard.
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 274
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 10:13 pm: |
|
Of course the war is about oil. Security of America's oil supply has to be a top concern of every president, and since this means dealing with countries in the Middle East, the stability of that region is of crucial importance.
Bush's priorities in this area are sound, and Al Gore would have had the same priorities if he had become president. The problem is in Bush's miserably poor execution, which has severely damaged American prestige and influence in the world, and which ultimately makes the country weaker and more vulnerable.
|
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 12:09 am: |
|
Sportsnut
These are your quotes
"Regulation is a good thing, don't get me wrong, its just that it can become too much of a burden without really knowing what the ultimate detriments are going to be. That's where I have the problem."
So what are the detriments to higher fuel efficiency cars and closing loopholes allowing SUVs to have substandard mpgs?
Rather than improving vechicle mpg standards and closing loopholes that allow SUV's to have poor mpg ratings, do you support drilling in ANWR? If so why?
Isn't national security being used as a reason to drill in ANWR?
Why is it legitimate to drill in ANWR and not to increase mpg ratings and close SUV loopholes? |
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 177
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 12:12 am: |
|
Sportnut
By what critieria are you determining mpg ratings are not sub-standard |
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1163
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 12:19 am: |
|
If there's a 40 mpg SUV, there's a 60 mpg car, so the relative moral superiority, if there is any, still exists.
Furthermore, we have built a society where it is damned easy to drive a heavy machine, with big engine, large distances, quickly, and frequently. We are all guilty, not just the ones with "big" vehicles, because all our vehicles are big. I'm at least as bad as the next guy. I have had long and short-ish commutes, and still, my annual mileage is always around 24,000 miles!
sportsnut says that private vehicle emissions account for only 1/3 of pollution. That's alarmingly high to me, although I thought it was 1/2. That means there's no single guilty entity, it's all of us.
I like to fantasize about living in a place where walking, cycling, and public transport can replace private motor vehicles. In that case, it hardly matters how efficient those motors are. So many communities are built around the car, excluding all other ways of getting around. Sure looks good on paper. But it excludes the young, old, sick, and poor. This is one reason I moved to Maplewood. At least we can walk to some useful places. Have you seen the rest of New Jersey? It's practically illegal to walk in some towns, with the way they lay the roads out.
Andrew, it's clear to me you misunderstood sportsnut when he spoke of detriments. He was speaking of environmental detriments by existing technology.
Tom Reingold
There is nothing
|
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 178
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 1:20 am: |
|
Tom,
I'm not quite clear on the meaning of the last paragragh.
However, wouldn't closing SUV loopholes and increasing mandated mpg ratings decrease environmental detriments by the use of such technologies and legislation?
As far as emissions, it depends what emissions your tracking.
According to the EPA, 60% of CO emissions, nearly 50% ozone-forming emissions and 41% of hazardous air pollutants come from mobile sources, such as motor vehicles.
http://www.epa.gov/air/aqtrnd97/brochure/co.html
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 747
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 8:29 am: |
|
http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/feb99/021899g.htm
and numerous other places.
Andy why do you insist on one extreme or the other? I am not advocating abandoning research on better fuel efficiency. I am not against finding alternatives which would aid in strengthening our national security.
Again, you continue to mis read my posts - the detriments I refered to were not from the production of higher mileage SUVs. The detriments of the impacts from auto emissions on such things as global warming are unknown. Show the direct link between the two.
AGAIN, I AM NOT AGAINST HIGHER MILEAGE SUVs. FWIW, I agree that SUVs should be held to similar standards. Like I said when their available here IN THIS COUNTRY, we can talk.
"Why is it legitimate to drill in ANWR and not to increase mpg ratings and close SUV loopholes?"
Why can't we do both? That is what I meant by your extremeism on this topic. For you there is no compromise. You made the comment that our war with Iraq was about oil. I did not. I still don't think that it is. Since you think it is why won't YOU support drilling in the ANWR? If it helps reduce our dependency on foreign oil why not?
Tom, unfortunately your dream of living in a society where people walk and take public transportation requires that most people have access to such things. That's not going to happen in our lifetime. Many people view their cars as giving them freedom. The freedom to come and go where and when they want. Besides many places it is just not feasable to put in a public transportation system. People have been sold on the need for a car. I'll admit I'm one of them. |
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1167
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 9:56 am: |
|
sportsnut, certainly I agree that it's just a dream. But we can build it one bit at a time. I think moving to Maplewood is a step in the right direction. And if they propose a mega-mall with giant entrance ramps from the interstate, I'll say no. Efficiency of car travel is at odds with my goals for a town to live in.
I, too, rely on a car, as I pointed out. I'm not sure what a perfect world would be, because while I support the concepts of public transit and self-propulsion (i.e. walking and cycling) I don't know how we can do everything with that. The best way to go to the supermarket is indeed with your private car. When I lived in NYC, I wished I could own a car, especially when I went to the supermarket or bought anything big.
Interestingly, they have car-sharing programs in the Netherlands and Switzerland and places like that.
Tom Reingold
There is nothing
|
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 764
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Let's keep in mind that drilling in ANWR would do just slightly more than nothing to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil, and nothing at all to alleviate our dependence on non-renewable fuel. (Unless you're willing to wait a geological age or two for supplies to regenerate.) |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 486
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 1:43 pm: |
|
Due to it's size, the US economy will always be dependent on foreign energy until the market determines there's a viable economic alternative to those hydrocarbons. ANWR and coastal drilling will only increase supply and therefore generally ease the upward pressure on the price of energy, ensuring economic expansion and diminishing the influence of OPEC in the process. |
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1174
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Size isn't the only factor. We consume a lot more per capita. In one way of thinking, this can be a measure of success. I.e. the more you consume, the more wealth it indicates. But I believe there can be breakthroughs, such that increase wealth can be correlated with reduced consumption. Japan made this a priority, and they succeeded.
Tom Reingold
There is nothing
|
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5751
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 1:46 pm: |
|
We can kill fish or be creative. This administration isn't trying in the least to be creative. |
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1175
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 1:51 pm: |
|
Wow, Dave, you put it in far fewer words than I ever could.
Tom Reingold
There is nothing
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 487
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 1:58 pm: |
|
That article is full of 'might', 'may' and 'maybe.' The science there -- as in global warming -- isn't near complete or conclusive.
The Earth Island Institute published 50 things you can do to save the earth. Among my creative favorites:
bury you car
liberate a zoo
grow your own food
don't have children
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2476
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Another "crime against nature":
quote:The Queen is furious with President George W. Bush after his state visit caused thousands of pounds of damage to her gardens at Buckingham Palace.
Royal officials are now in touch with the Queen's insurers and Prime Minister Tony Blair to find out who will pick up the massive repair bill. Palace staff said they had never seen the Queen so angry as when she saw how her perfectly-mantained lawns had been churned up after being turned into helipads with three giant H landing markings for the Bush visit.
The rotors of the President's Marine Force One helicopter and two support Black Hawks damaged trees and shrubs that had survived since Queen Victoria's reign.
...
The Palace's head gardener, Mark Lane, was reported to be in tears when he saw the scale of the damage.
"The Queen has every right to feel insulted at the way she has been treated by Bush," said a Palace insider.
"The repairs will cost tens of thousands of pounds but the damage to historic and rare plants will be immense. They are still taking an inventory."
Source: The Sunday Mirror. |
Earlster
Citizen
Username: Earlster
Post Number: 76
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 2:09 pm: |
|
sorry for starting the thread and then disappearing over the weekend. Thanks Andy and Sport for keeping it so busy. Double thanks to Andy for defending my point of view ;-)
sport: You complain about Andy's generalization, but in the same sentence you say that all environmentalists have a "holier than thou" attitude.
"Without big industry you'd be living in a cave with no electricity and no other comforts that you take for granted today. But that would probably be ok for you, not for me." As I wrote earlier, we don't need to go back to a pre industriealized world. Industry has done and is doing marvelous things for all of us, but when there are ways to achieve the same goal more or less clean then, in most cases the cheaper in the short term method is chosen. And Bush's administration is helping this trend, while actually talking the clean talk.
"Now I'll look up the other side. Did you know that auto emissions made up only 1/3 of all air pollutants?" - 'Only' is hardly the right word here. If we can say half the emissions from cars by building more efficient cars, then we sould reduce air pollution by more then 16% that is huge. (I used your numbers here, didn't verify them for accuracy).
Pollution from cars has come a long way in the last 25 years, agreed. But that didn't happen because of market forces, but because of government regulation. The catalytic converter was mandated, car makers didn't introduce it for the fun of it.
When it was introduced long after the US in Germany, German car makers faught it with huge PR campaigns. Saying it would make German cars uncompetitive in the world, increase full consumption, reduce horse power, raise the price of cars, made them less reliable, what not. Regulation was intruduced, that gave cars with catalytic converters a tax break. Guess what, people even retrofitted cars. Now it is assumed as a given, that the standards for the tax break are made more and more stringent every few years, and the car makers never have a problem with meeting the standards. Many advertise that they are meeting the guidelines set to be introduced years in the future. And no German car maker became less competitive through the measures.
The same goes for fuell efficiency, raise the price of gasoline and people will start buying smaller and more fuel efficient cars. The whold diesel craze in most of the world is, because diesel is cheaper then gasoline in those countries and you get better gas mileage. These cars don't feel like diesel any more either, they are quiet, fast, powerfull and clean. They do need low sulfur diesel, though which is available in most countries, but not the US. Why? Because it's cheaper and there is no regulation.
Tom R: Growing up in Germany, I fully share your view on Maplewood and other NJ towns. Some of the main reasons for me to move here were:
- Sidewalks, so I can walk into town.
- A town center with stores.
Living in Germany, I only used my car when I had to go large distances, or move heavy things. Any other occasion I walked, rode my bike or took a bus. The way most of the US is build around the use of cars impedes such a lifestyle.
I just saw a car parked in Princeton that had a decal saying it was part of a car sharing program. http://www.zipcar.com/ |
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1176
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Cars pollute less per mile than before and will continue to get better once the anti-environmentalists lose their current power. But we are probably creating more pollution per person, because we use our vehicles so much more than before. I'm at least as bad as the last guy, as I said before.
cjc, I like those creative tips for helping the environment. They show how hard it is to make a difference as an individual.
Tom Reingold
There is nothing
|
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 765
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 2:15 pm: |
|
The gist from the right seems to be that things aren't actually bad, and there aren't any really good alternatives worth adopting anyway. These opinions seem to be coded into their chromosomes.
You can throw 1000 massive, peer-reviewed research projects at them that find human-created pollution is the single largest factor in raising temperatures and exacerbating violent weather, and they will only pay attention to 2 or 3 other studies that reach a different conclusion. You can mention the hundreds of kids sick or dying from asthma and related conditions caused by diesel exhaust and other pollution as close as Harlem, Camden, and Paterson, and they will change the subject. You can point to a hundred brilliant technological innovations that will make our lives cleaner, safer, and SAVE MONEY over the long term, and they will complain that they can't buy that innovation at their local store and it isn't cheap enough. The philosophy seems to be that the only right choice is the easy one.
Wake up, people. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 302
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 2:29 pm: |
|
Why does this always end up in some ridiculous back and forth over Kyoto and global warming, or dire predictions of economic suicide, or a dead planet?
Here's the real reality without any diversions into hyperbole about the death of the planet, or the opposing view that environmental concern will send us back to the Stone Age.
What most of us want is simply this -- keep the environmental regulations that were enacted between 1970 and 2000. It would be idiocy to go backwards now, and that is what the Bush Admin is pushing. Sure, sometimes they offer regs that may even look tougher than the old ones, but what they'd like to do is make all the regs voluntary. Folks, NONE of the environmental progress we've made in the last generation was accomplished voluntarily by industry -- NONE, NADA, ZIP, ZERO! The auto, oil, coal, electricty, chemical industries have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to any advancements in efficiency or pollution reduction.
Why should we go backwards now, after a generation of progress? Rivers and lakes that used to catch fire in the '70s are now clean enough to fish in. Surf that had more fecal matter in it than toilet water is now pure. Voluntary regs will take us back to those days. Alarmist? I don't think so. Those scenarios are not fantasies, but realities that most of us remember from our youth.
Argue global warming if you like, but that's a distraction to the real issue. Most Americans want clean air to breath, and clean water to drink, swim in, and fish in.
To have that, we cannot move backwards.
Of course, it would be wonderful if we could move forward, with new regulations for cars' fuel efficiency and emissions, but for now that's pie in the sky. I'm more concerned that the current administration would like to go back to the bad old days many of us thought were behind us. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 488
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 2:29 pm: |
|
We're wide awake, and the air is getting cleaner year after year and we know that the earth has temperature fluctuations both up and down throughout history, most of which occured sans any notable human activity. We don't say that human activity doesn't contribute to the overall temperatures of the world (because man, after all, is part of Nature, which also 'pollutes' via volcanos, ocean floor oil seepage and forest fires, not to mention the Sun), we just don't believe it's the tipping point or determinative factor in global warming.
Add to that Kyoto at best will lower temperatures .19 or a degree or so while exempting mucho-polluters like China and India has us seeing what this movement is all about-- penalizing the US.
Sorry....I bought all this doomsday stuff when the first Earth Day came out. But that was when I just believed everything people told me. |
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1179
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 2:45 pm: |
|
Not that you had a chance, since your posts were seconds apart, but it's clear you didn't read Dr. O'Boogie's post preceding yours. If we conceded that global warming doesn't even matter, the point remains that we have to address pollution in other ways. Global warming has been used lately as a gauge for how we're doing. Maybe we can and should use another gauge or several, for all I know.
Tom Reingold
There is nothing
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 277
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 3:24 pm: |
|
Nature managed to avoid plutonium, and left a lot of toxic chemicals locked up in rocks, minerals, and buried petroleum, where their release into life-sustaining areas was naturally slow.
Even if modern industrial processes do not add appreciably to the chemical burden that our living things have to cope with, they often put these chemicals into crowded or sensitive places at harmful concentrations.
The people that benefit from these kinds of destructive industries are stealing from the people they harm, and in some cases polluting their minds as well as their bodies, judging by some of the specious logic one hears from their apologists.
|
Earlster
Citizen
Username: Earlster
Post Number: 78
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 4:53 pm: |
|
I don't think that everybody posting here read the article that I linked to when starting the thread. It kind of became a Kyoto, global warming and SUV gas mileage thread, and I wrote some posts regarding that, too.
What I really liked about the article, was that it doesn't just discuss one little section of environmental issues, but it shows the total assault of this administration on most every facet of the environment.
And if there are arguments or scientist out there, that are not in line with official policy, then there won't be a re-evaluation of those policies, but they will simply bend the facts and discredit/lay off the scientist until things fit.
This country is just way to beautifull to let it get destroyed by these 'ideologists'. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 766
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 5:57 pm: |
|
Thanks for a fine post, Doctor. And Earlster, the article is a good one. The Bush administration has really been trying to make a wholesale rollback of environmental legislation that has been very effective.
Here's another cool article about a clever little wind turbine that is designed to mount on virtually any roof and produce up to 15% of the average British household's electricity - and it costs only around $1300, allowing it to pay for itself in about 2.5 years.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1091763,00.html |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 303
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 6:06 pm: |
|
you know,
even if the war turns out ok, and the economy turns around, I can't vote to reelect Bush. The Bush Admin is trying as hard as they can to turn back the clock on environmental protection, consumer rights, and worker safety. I'm not saying they just don't want to advance those agendas, I'm saying they want to go backwards, to where we were in the 50s and 60s. All the progress we've made will evaporate if these guys get their way.
And US businesses seemed to do pretty well in the 80s and 90s under those rules, so why feel the need to get rid of them now? |
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 179
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 9:45 pm: |
|
Dr WO
I think it's called ignorant greed
Notehead
Thanks for the great link! Would work well to complement my solar panels
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page