Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Now lets see you wave this off as Democratic/liberal politics. Also note the only person defending GW is the guy who works for him now.
Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Six former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency -- five Republicans and one Democrat -- accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming and other environmental problems.
"I don't think there's a commitment in this administration," said Bill Ruckelshaus, who was EPA's first administrator when the agency opened its doors in 1970 under President Nixon and headed it again under President Reagan in the 1980s.
Russell Train, who succeeded Ruckelshaus in the Nixon and Ford administrations, said slowing the growth of "greenhouse" gases isn't enough.
"We need leadership, and I don't think we're getting it," he said at an EPA-sponsored symposium centered around the agency's 35th anniversary. "To sit back and just push it away and say we'll deal with it sometime down the road is dishonest to the people and self-destructive." All the former administrators and the EPA's current chief, Stephen Johnson, raised their hands when asked whether they believe global warming is a real problem -- and again when asked if humans bear significant blame.
Agency heads during five Republican administrations, including the current one, criticized the Bush White House for what they described as a failure of leadership.
Defending his boss, Johnson said the current administration has spent $20 billion on research and technology to combat climate change after President Bush rejected mandatory controls on carbon dioxide, the chief gas blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere like a greenhouse.
Bush also kept the United States out of the Kyoto international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases globally, saying it would harm the U.S. economy, after many of the accord's terms were negotiated by the Clinton administration.
"I know from the president on down, he is committed," Johnson said. "And certainly his charge to me was, and certainly our team has heard it: 'I want you to accelerate the pace of environmental protection. I want you to maintain our economic competitiveness.' And I think that's really what it's all about."
His predecessors disagreed. Lee Thomas, Ruckelshaus' successor in the Reagan administration, said that "if the United States doesn't deal with those kinds of issues in a leadership role, they're not going to get dealt with. So I'm very concerned about this country and this agency."
Bill Reilly, the EPA administrator under the first President Bush, echoed that assessment.
"The time will come when we will address seriously the problem of climate change, and this is the agency that's best equipped to anticipate it," he said. Christie Whitman, the first of three EPA administrators in the current Bush administration, said people obviously are having "an enormous impact" on the earth's warming.
"You'd need to be in a hole somewhere to think that the amount of change that we have imposed on land, and the way we've handled deforestation, farming practices, development, and what we're putting into the air, isn't exacerbating what is probably a natural trend," she said. "But this is worse, and it's getting worse."
Carol Browner, who was President Clinton's EPA administrator, said the White House and the Congress should push legislation to establish a carbon trading program based on a 1990 pollution trading program that helped reduce acid rain.
"If we wait for every single scientist who has a thought on the issue of climate change to agree, we will never do anything," she said. "If this agency had waited to completely understand the impacts of DDT, the impacts of lead in our gasoline, there would probably still be DDT sprayed and lead in our gasoline."
Three former administrators did not attend Wednesday's ceremony: Mike Leavitt, now secretary of health and human services; Doug Costle, who was in the Carter administration; and Anne Burford, a Reagan appointee who died last year.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Maybe this Neocon crowd has another planet to live on when ours becomes uninhabitable. Either that or the underground siloes they periodically retreat to are really neat.
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire
Well, let me see. They are all EPA adminstrators whose sole purpose in life is to do away with pollution. The fact that they could care less about the economy of this country as it is not in their scope of expertise makes them somewhat suspect as to knowing the full extent of any EPA proposal.
You have to balance economic strain in implementing these proposals and compare it to how much good it will accomplish. That's why these people mean as much to me as Ted Kennedy does.
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
Well, let me see. They are all EPA adminstrators whose sole purpose in life is to do away with pollution. The fact that they could care less about the economy of this country as it is not in their scope of expertise makes them somewhat suspect as to knowing the full extent of any EPA proposal.
You have to balance economic strain in implementing these proposals and compare it to how much good it will accomplish. That's why these people mean as much to me as Ted Kennedy does.
If environmental hazards, such as increased hurricanes and droughts, are caused by global warming...then the costs of repairing such disasters is astronomical compared to the cost of helping to protect the environment.
Ultimately combatting global warming will save money, lives, and make sure we have a true legacy to give our grand children.
If environmental hazards, such as increased hurricanes and droughts, are caused by global warming...then the costs of repairing such disasters is astronomical compared to the cost of helping to protect the environment.
Ultimately combatting global warming will save money, lives, and make sure we have a true legacy to give our grand children.
Chris, the problem is that we don't know that for sure. There are as many weather scientist saying global warming is not what is causing increased hurricanes as there are who think it is.
No one can know for sure. It is worth ruining our economy to find out?
Any pollution control (and I am in favor of this) needs to be done over a period of time to give our factories, etc. time to switch to new methods that emit less pollution. The problem is that these new methods have to be tested to make sure they are effective before they can be implemented.
All of us at one time or another have groused about how many jobs Americans have lost to other countries. We don't want to add to the misery by shutting down plants and putting our own workers out of work.
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
Chris, the problem is that we don't know that for sure. There are as many weather scientist saying global warming is not what is causing increased hurricanes as there are who think it is.
No one can know for sure. It is worth ruining our economy to find out?
Any pollution control (and I am in favor of this) needs to be done over a period of time to give our factories, etc. time to switch to new methods that emit less pollution. The problem is that these new methods have to be tested to make sure they are effective before they can be implemented.
All of us at one time or another have groused about how many jobs Americans have lost to other countries. We don't want to add to the misery by shutting down plants and putting our own workers out of work.
I agree we don't know for sure. That's why I specifically said "If".
However, the startling amount of weather occurences this last year and if models hold true...this year as well...bears immediate and thorough investigation. If we think Phoenix is packed now...wait until another round of wildfire drought, hurricanes, blizzards, ect hit through America.
I agree we don't know for sure. That's why I specifically said "If".
However, the startling amount of weather occurences this last year and if models hold true...this year as well...bears immediate and thorough investigation. If we think Phoenix is packed now...wait until another round of wildfire drought, hurricanes, blizzards, ect hit through America.
Bring em on. Every time 25,000 more people move out here, we need another sewage treatment plant and another water treatment plant. If we can just keep this going for another 2 years, I'm set.
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
Isit worth destroying our planet to answer those questions? Your viewpoint is very short lived.
LOL the planet will destroy us long before we destroy it.
Eventually Mother Earth is going to shake us off like fleas, the way we burn her resources.
This is why...without a doubt in my mind...space exploration MUST remain an important American institution. With the way our population is increasing...we face war and famine unless we expand. It's a historical fact.
LOL the planet will destroy us long before we destroy it.
Eventually Mother Earth is going to shake us off like fleas, the way we burn her resources.
This is why...without a doubt in my mind...space exploration MUST remain an important American institution. With the way our population is increasing...we face war and famine unless we expand. It's a historical fact.
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
Chris, the problem is that we don't know that for sure. There are as many weather scientist saying global warming is not what is causing increased hurricanes as there are who think it is.
This is not true. There are quitera few who say that as yet they cant make a causual connection between global warming and increased hurricances. This is not the same as saying they are not linked.
Also note that the very statement shows that those same scientists are convinced global warming is real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 40yearfan
No one can know for sure. It is worth ruining our economy to find out?
How does scientific research hurt our economy ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 40yearfan
Any pollution control (and I am in favor of this) needs to be done over a period of time to give our factories, etc. time to switch to new methods that emit less pollution.
This is true but it is also true that most [not all] companies in America will only work on reducing pollution when they are forced to do so.
History has shown that most companies are quite content to pollute the environemnt if it saves them a dime and leave the tax payer to foot the bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 40yearfan
The problem is that these new methods have to be tested to make sure they are effective before they can be implemented.
We have many methods of reducing pollution now, just requiring [with a reasonable ramp up time] high mpg in cars would help immensely. The other problem is that American industry has no incentive to do anything about pollution or green house gas emmisions so why would they do anthing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 40yearfan
All of us at one time or another have groused about how many jobs Americans have lost to other countries. We don't want to add to the misery by shutting down plants and putting our own workers out of work.
Here we have the fear mongering of GW at it's finest. In reality there is money to made in this. Were we to 'officially' admit that global warming is real and heavily influenced by humans, then maybe there would be some funds for technology development. We could then sell that technology to the rest of the world and make cash.
I have seen reseach plants using algea to convert emmitted CO2 to bio desiel but it needs capital funding to go further. Our goevernemtn refuses to recognise the reality of global wraming and so underfunds possible solutions.
I'll give you a simple question 40. You contend that taking steps to reduce global warming would cost US jobs. One of the primary causes of CO2 emissions are autos.
Why would increasing the mpg of the average US car/truck cost us jobs ?
Simple, none contreverisal [I hope] question. Do you have a simple answer ?
Here we have the fear mongering of GW at it's finest. In reality there is money to made in this. Were we to 'officially' admit that global warming is real and heavily influenced by humans, then maybe there would be some funds for technology development. We could then sell that technology to the rest of the world and make cash.
nidan, this doesn't make sense. What does GW have to do with the loss of American jobs? This has been going on for 25 years. You may feel global warming problems are imminent, but others don't so don't be surprised that we don't feel your urgency.
I have seen reseach plants using algea to convert emmitted CO2 to bio desiel but it needs capital funding to go further. Our goevernemtn refuses to recognise the reality of global wraming and so underfunds possible solutions.
I'll give you a simple question 40. You contend that taking steps to reduce global warming would cost US jobs. One of the primary causes of CO2 emissions are autos.
Why would increasing the mpg of the average US car/truck cost us jobs ?
nidan, I defy you to show me where I said this. How can you go off on such tangents? I said the loss of jobs would be from shutting down factories that pollute. Steel mills, battery producing factories, any production requiring the use of lead, gas refineries, etc. They all produce pollution, but are all necessary to keep this country running. What do we do about them?
Simple, none contreverisal [I hope] question. Do you have a simple answer ?
See above.
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
Actually I was talking about global warming as in the title of the thread 40.
Also I didn't accuse you of anything, but you did spout GW's line that to do anything about global warming would hurt the US economy.
You also neglegted the fact that a major part of the CO2 problem here the US is from autos. So why won't our current administration enact legislation to require improved mpg standards for cars and trucks ?
This would help the problem, reduce our dependancy on foriegn oil [far, far more so that drilling in ANWR] but I hear nothing from the White House. So I was asking you ?
If you are saying that requireing higher mpg stds would not hurt our economy then I ask why arn't we doing it ?
As for the factory pollution, I see you ignored my remarks, possibly to close to the truth to argue ? American industry will not do anything until there are forced to or are you suggesting otherwise ?
There is no incentive to change at this time, none. For now they are content to let the rest of the world pick up the tab [economic and social] for their polluting.
They will lobby, complain in fact do/say almost anything to avoid making changes.
Linear Mode
