Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   

Your Ad Here

Fox Attacks Black America
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Liberal Corner
Author Message
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1530
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
We aren't slowly poisoning anything.

By virtually every measure the environment of the continental United States is cleaner now than 35 years ago. Water and air quality are greatly improved, and we have more forest cover now than 100 years ago.


I'm not sure if you are actually referring to this planet or not. There is no way that the planet is more clean than it was in 72'. In 72' there was still clean refreshing country air to breath. And you could fish in any stream without the worry of being poisoned by the fish you ate. There might be more regulation now, but they come from ineffectual beauracracies who don't enforce anything.

The Doe Run Company (Lead mining) has poisoned all of the streams and rivers in S.E. Missouri and no action has ever been taken. And their crimes are not limited to this country, either. They are in a lot of poor S. American countries, as well, poisoning the environment there. I am most certain that every state has similar horror stories of how some company has trashed out their state and was never punished, or if they were, it was just a slap on the wrists. Plus, most of the table water in the US is infected with the microbe Giardia.


So, if you say the planet is cleaner now than it was in 72', then I say you need to share some of that good stuff that you have been smoking.

Here are some articles that show this administration's attempts to silence scientists who did not provide the environmental feel-good news that was expected of them. I guess you have read the sanitized reports that was prepared for public consumption. That is the only thing that the Bush administration and the government took the time out to actually clean.


NASA Scientist on Democracy Now:
http://www.democracynow.org/ar.....31/1543215

Yet another NASA scientist from the Goddard Institute rips this administration: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/

Guardian/Pentagon's warning to Bush:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk.....13,00.html
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
On one hand, you're right xerxes - this administration has been trying its damndest to loosen regulations.

On the other hand, you're wrong - it is, in fact, true that the environment is cleaner now than it was in '72. That doesn't mean the job is finished, it's just the way things are.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 524
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Xerxes wrote:
TrespassersW wrote:
We aren't slowly poisoning anything.

By virtually every measure the environment of the continental United States is cleaner now than 35 years ago. Water and air quality are greatly improved, and we have more forest cover now than 100 years ago.

I'm not sure if you are actually referring to this planet or not. There is no way that the planet is more clean than it was in 72'.

Okay, I did some digging and found ample support for my claim regarding air quality in the US, but not for my claim regarding water quality. It turns out that tackling water pollution at a national level by working to alleviate large-scale pollution sources hasn't netted the gains predicted. A change in course seems to be in the works, to focus on more local solutions to the myriad smaller impacts on water quality.

As for air quality, here's this from the EPA:

Quote:
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/.....tsdAir.htm

In 1970, Congress responded to concern over visible air pollution, irritating smog, and associated health and ecological effects by enacting the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). As a result, total national emissions of the six criteria air pollutants decreased by 25 percent between 1970 and 2001. Emissions of air toxics have declined as well, dropping 24 percent between 1990 and 1993 (the baseline period) and 1996. One of the major components of acid rain, wet sulfate deposition, has also decreased substantially (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002).

These improvements occurred during a time of significant growth in the nationís population and economy: from 1970 to 2001, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased by 161 percent, the number of people increased from about 203 million to more than 280 million, energy consumption increased by 42 percent, and vehicle miles traveled increased by 149 percent (Exhibit 1-1) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002).

There are problem areas, and there's more work to be done, but considering the huge growth in population and energy usage the success in reducing air pollution in the US is nothing short of miraculous.

Anyhow, perhaps we can meet at the midpoint between your "all hope is lost" and my "everything is peachy" and agree that there will always be work to be done, but that only by acknowledging our successes can we hope to leverage them across the globe.
Back to top
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1530
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
Xerxes wrote:
TrespassersW wrote:
We aren't slowly poisoning anything.

By virtually every measure the environment of the continental United States is cleaner now than 35 years ago. Water and air quality are greatly improved, and we have more forest cover now than 100 years ago.

I'm not sure if you are actually referring to this planet or not. There is no way that the planet is more clean than it was in 72'.

Okay, I did some digging and found ample support for my claim regarding air quality in the US, but not for my claim regarding water quality. It turns out that tackling water pollution at a national level by working to alleviate large-scale pollution sources hasn't netted the gains predicted. A change in course seems to be in the works, to focus on more local solutions to the myriad smaller impacts on water quality.

As for air quality, here's this from the EPA:

Quote:
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/.....tsdAir.htm

In 1970, Congress responded to concern over visible air pollution, irritating smog, and associated health and ecological effects by enacting the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). As a result, total national emissions of the six criteria air pollutants decreased by 25 percent between 1970 and 2001. Emissions of air toxics have declined as well, dropping 24 percent between 1990 and 1993 (the baseline period) and 1996. One of the major components of acid rain, wet sulfate deposition, has also decreased substantially (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002).

These improvements occurred during a time of significant growth in the nationís population and economy: from 1970 to 2001, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased by 161 percent, the number of people increased from about 203 million to more than 280 million, energy consumption increased by 42 percent, and vehicle miles traveled increased by 149 percent (Exhibit 1-1) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002).

There are problem areas, and there's more work to be done, but considering the huge growth in population and energy usage the success in reducing air pollution in the US is nothing short of miraculous.

Anyhow, perhaps we can meet at the midpoint between your "all hope is lost" and my "everything is peachy" and agree that there will always be work to be done, but that only by acknowledging our successes can we hope to leverage them across the globe.


I would not use the EPA to cite any thing, they are a joke! It is staffed by the people who's former jobs are in conflict with the actual mission or purpose of the EPA
http://www.goveg.com/government_epa.asp
Or:
http://webexhibits.org/bush/6.html
And:
http://www.wwmt.com/onset?id=3.....ticle.html

My point is that The EPA is not trustworthy. They are another bloated bureaucracy that is beholden to whoever controls their budgetary strings at any particular point in time. They turned their eye from G.E. dumping PCB's in the Hudson river:
http://www.cleanupge.org/epareversal.html

Bush's environmental issues are laughable. By Bush backing out of the Kyoto treaty proves this "theory".

G.E. is one of the biggest polluters on the planet:

http://www.cleanupge.org/
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 524
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bush couldn't back out of the Kyoto treaty, since Clinton never signed it. Bush has chosen not to sign it, true; but then so did Clinton.
Back to top
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1530
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
Bush couldn't back out of the Kyoto treaty, since Clinton never signed it. Bush has chosen not to sign it, true; but then so did Clinton.


I am aware of that. That just goes to further prove the actual level of corruption.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 524
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Xerxes wrote:
TrespassersW wrote:
Bush couldn't back out of the Kyoto treaty, since Clinton never signed it. Bush has chosen not to sign it, true; but then so did Clinton.

I am aware of that. That just goes to further prove the actual level of corruption.

Seems to me that there can be reasons for not supporting Kyoto other than corruption. Also, being aware of that and yet claiming that Bush backed out of Kyoto does further damage to your credibility. If you know something isn't true, how about not claiming it is?
Back to top
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1530
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
Xerxes wrote:
TrespassersW wrote:
Bush couldn't back out of the Kyoto treaty, since Clinton never signed it. Bush has chosen not to sign it, true; but then so did Clinton.

I am aware of that. That just goes to further prove the actual level of corruption.

Seems to me that there can be reasons for not supporting Kyoto other than corruption. Also, being aware of that and yet claiming that Bush backed out of Kyoto does further damage to your credibility. If you know something isn't true, how about not claiming it is?


Not signing it is synonomous with "backing out" I am not defending Clinton, either. I think that he was a piece of doo doo too.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Xerxes wrote:

Not signing it is synonomous with "backing out"


That's obviously not true. In order to "back out" of it, you have to "back in" first. That never happened with kyoto.
Back to top
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1530
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Xerxes wrote:

Not signing it is synonomous with "backing out"


That's obviously not true. In order to "back out" of it, you have to "back in" first. That never happened with kyoto.


....Whatever, skip the semantics of it. Bush had the opportunity to acknowledge the fact that "We" as a responsible industrialized nation need to greatly reduce our emissions. Is it that that you take issue with or just the semantics of micing my phrasing? Because that is the meat of this topic. "Does Bush's policies towards the env. issues differ from "Slick Willie" Clintons" ...And how do corruption and evironmental oversight become entwined.
Back to top
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Liberal Corner All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics