Bush swings ax of environmental devastation

The U.S. was also responsible for the last ice age. Shame, SHAME!


You seem to be against any environmental plan on the drawing board. [/quote]

No I am for recycling if it makes economic sense. I am for improved fuel efficiency. America has become incredibly efficient over the past 20 years in terms of energy efficiency. I am confident that these trends will continue. I do not see that the plan put forward by most environmentalists is practical or feasible. Bad plan. Good intentions are not enough for me. I am not that stupid.

Oh I believe that global warming is occuring, I just disagree with the causes or with the plan to “remedy” it. I just do not believe that it is primarily caused by humans or human activities and that even if it were, there is no rational economic way of dealing with it. Given that Greenland was much warmer before, I see no satisfactory explanation for why humans are to blame for a world that is essentially becoming more like it was in 1100 to 1350.

risk away.

Wrong. I am 40.



I read and digest information very quickly. I type 100 to 120 words per minute depending on the day and I am very efficient. That is why I am a natural fit for the Republican Party. You on the other hand are spewing out the usual noxious blatherings. Think of what you are doing for global warming. Best to take your own advice and keep quiet to save the planet.

Fish today, but very nice with caviar sauce. MMMMMM

No. It was an Italian Sangioviese.

and it is getting bigger because of that. See how I suffer?

Isn’t life wonderful?

Wrong. I am in Taiwan. Where did you get the idea that I was in Europe?!!

Define abstract.

I am.

I will.

So far so good. You never know though.


:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Sorry must add this to make this post relevant. I like your post Hobbes. Very humorous. Yes, I was old enough to have read all those global cooling scenarios and fears. Plus ca change, plus ca change.

That was an interesting exchange but Fred the world could stand a lot more in the way of discouraging pig mobiles and you know it. An increased tax on gasoline to be used to build affordable, effecient mass transit is the way to go, along with less urban planning structured around continued automobile use. Yes, yes I know political suicide, this is a democracy and all, but what some of us are suggesting is that the billion or so automobiles likely are having an impact on global warming and we are sick of living in cities that are full of traffic congestion anyway. We believe in democracy, in the free exchange of opinions and we recognize that democracy is a battle of ideologies and values. What we are saying is that some people’s freedom to enjoy their automobiles is interefering with everybodies right to peace and quiet, clean air, safe and pleasant living environments. This isn’t actually such complicated stuff despite whatever obfuscation is coming next.

I am on record as saying I would support higher gas and oil taxes to fund public-transport systems and to reduce our dependency on oil. So back to you.

What I am not in favor of doing is pretending that anyone really knows that this is contributing to global warming and even if it is that the Kyoto Protocol is the way to go forward. I disagree with the methods used by environmentalists. They smack of similar efforts in other areas. I am not impressed with the “accomplishments.”

Sorry Fred I wasn’t aware you already agreed with we rational ones on that score. Anyway, it is certainly a point worth repeating as I am sure you’ll agree.

Here’s today’s BBC news report on the G8 meeting.

[quote]Environment and development ministers from the G8 group of leading countries have committed themselves to tackling the problem of illegal logging. They have also agreed that action is needed to protect Africa from the consequences of climate change. Their statement of intent came at the end of a meeting in Derby, UK, and will be considered at the G8 summit in July. Britain’s Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, said there had been “an interesting dialogue”. “What was most noticeable was the degree to which everyone was singing from the same hymn-sheet,” she told reporters at the conclusion of the two-day meeting.

However, other delegates spoke of dissent behind the scenes, with the United States delegation determined to block any mention of linkages between climate change and issues such as trade and agricultural subsidies. Today, I am a bit disappointed because it was not possible to have a strong and engaged statement. Louis Michel, EU Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Affairs “Unfortunately there has been an apparently concerted effort by the United States to try to isolate climate change,” Dr Benito Mueller, of the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies, told the BBC News website.[/quote]

I think therefore that what we were seeing earlier was European attempts to force Kyoto Protocol type provisions on the US by including such clauses in this particular treaty. Now, we know the true reason for the US govt memo which was “never adopted” and I believe that the true reason for the earlier opposition mentioned was this inclusion of global warming. It therefore had nothing to do with US govt opposition to a ban on illegal logging.

Once again, we see the media bashing America and Bush. I did not notice any follow up in this report to correct the impression made earlier that Bush was against a ban on illegal logging. This is how the leftwing media plays dirty pool. Any comments from the original poster of this thread to acknowledge this? I rather doubt I will get such satisfaction but let’s take it as an object lesson and all learn from it. The media has an agenda. Let’s keep that in mind.

I’m glad you live here in Taibodia. I’m never leaving. You are a Republic, obviously. The environment has always been on their back-burners, always will be. Under Bush it seems worse than ever. America has influence -the EU dropped plans to lift the China Arms Ban. Anymore references needed???/

How did you guess I was a Republican? Was it that obvious?

As to the environment, no we Republicans are not the types to fund 1,001 NGOs so that some lazy schmuck who barely graduated from San Francisco State can take an all-expense paid trip to Rio once a year while doing little to nothing in his nice little NGO office here at home.

My father was a huge Republican and so am I. He owned several farms in central Minnesota where he was the forerunner of all kinds of environmental farming from countour stripping to releasing wild game birds to using unproductive land to develop habitat to protecting ponds and lakes from runoff (watersheds, contour stripping) to digging duck ponds for migrating birds etc. Remember Teddy Roosevelt another Republican was also the one to have developed our national park system.

The point is that we do not need these little dipshits spouting development crap that they barely understand (why does Alien come to mind? :twisted: come on Alien bite bite) while wearing Che Guevara t-shirts. Guess who can do all this? The people who own the land themselves. They have a vested interest in taking care of it and while yes there are corporate farms etc etc. I do not see that they are any less inclined to husband their resources wisely and despite all the hew and cry about the takeover of American agriculture by large corporations, we also have people with day jobs who are doing hobby farming to a fairly large extent in the rural areas. Think teachers, local businesspeople and government officials. So not all is the dire picture that it is painted to be, but let me ask you one question since I find your condescending attitude that because I am a Republican that I do not care about the environment intolerable: What have you and your ilk “accomplished” compared with what someone like my father has Accomplished?

Big difference and that is why precisely because I do care about the environment that I will continue to vote Republican. Want to talk pollution. You should have seen Taiwan 20 years 30 years ago. Why is it clean today? Because of development. Because of education. THAT would have never occurred if you had kept the country in the pre-development phase. In fact, the Thames in London is now cleaner than at anytime in 500 plus years. why? Development. So please get off this idea that because you have “studied” the issue a bit that you are somehow an expert who can dictate to those of us who have been actually doing things hands on with regard to this issue for nearly 40 years. We KNOW better than you. Feeling that you have to show concern for the environment is a fine thing but actually doing something that will have REAL and BENEFICIAL results in something else and it takes more knowledge of the subject than you currently possess.

Remember that woman who got DDT banned? How did that help development? How many people have died because of malaria in Africa? Did it ever have the disastrous effects that she claimed it did? NO but she felt it was bad and corporate America was making the chemical ergo she is good and DDT was bad. Wrong.

There. How’s that for a pontificating stream of preachifying? Just wanted to return the favor. Now, want to talk about these issues fine. Want to preach at me, you will get more of the same. Fair?

The DDT ban was a tragedy that deserves more attention than it gets. It must certainly rank high on the list of “victories” of which any environmentalist of conscience would be most ashamed.


At the time your father was tending to his farm, the Earth had more ‘give’ left in it. Unfortunately, currently, the Boreal forest has been devastated, Amazonia is being annilihated, and with Bush’s policies (shit, …ugh, yes, for god’s sake, if you demand it, I will dig around provide links) have sold out Alaska and state parks in New Mexico and California. We cannot afford to lose much more, and what is left, Bush seems very ready to sell out to US energy companies. I’m not blaming ‘you’. I’m not expecting you to stop it. But at least acknowledge that George W. Bush is the probably the worst environmental president we’ve had in 75 years. 75 years, three-fourth’s of a century. That’s saying a lot. Again, he is a spoiled, silver-spoon fed brat that makes a Taiwanese ‘Little Emperor’ look like a ‘Thai Lao’.

Can you provide any support for this opinion? Any stats that show how the environment has actually been harmed during W’s presidency?

I believe that most developed countries including Japan have experienced increasing levels of reforestation over the last half century. What you are talking about is devastation and deforestation in the developing world and how does one reverse those trends which have gone on since man first walked the earth? Development. When societies reach a certain level of development they do more for the environment. My father still owns land in that area so I imagine that he is still doing what he did before and therefore I am quite confident the ecology of the region is probably still improving.

Can you provide any support for this opinion? Any stats that show how the environment has actually been harmed during W’s presidency?[/quote]

Aside from totally ignoring the “myth” of global warming, there’s cute little things like this:

Healthy Forests Initiative
wyomingoutdoorcouncil.org/ne … orests.php

He tried to get away with the following, but the Senate rejected it:

Clear Skies Plan

I just wonder what he’s going to do about energy? Whether or not you’re a treehugger, you’ve got to wonder just how America is going to fulfill it’s growing energy needs. Bush’s “energy policy” seems to be “import oil”. I hope you can see what this is neither good for the environment, nor good for the economy.


I’ll provide the links -please give me about 40 hours to recover ,but, yes, I’ll prodide sources. I have no problem with going through the searching of obtaining the links, what I does anger me is that most likely many people will not thoroughly read the link, and simply want to see a glowing blue strip on the page. Even with the BBC article I postled -which was the foundation of this thread- I got the feeling that many forumbodians had not actually read the article. Like I said, the sources will be posted soon -for christ’s sake it’s friday night and the booze will not allow me to do this sor to scavenging- but it will be here and skeptics ought better read it, otherwise you detract from this site.

Start here: nrdc.org/bushrecord/2004.asp

That’s your source of information? A partisan site that quotes its own news sources for links to prove that Bush is bad for the environment? More water for California imperils endangered fish? Oh for the love of God. This is the best that you can do?

What’s NOT a partisan site? And what’s a “news” source?
I’d like to know.

MOST Greens are endemically progressive, dum dum!
They want to SAVE the environment, not corrupt it further in order to help line the pockets of the ruling class.

Therefore, does it not make sense that the Sierra Club (and others) blast Bush’s euphemisticly named “Clear Skies” initiative (that allows increased toxic emissions) and the “Healthy Forests” initiative (which promotes destructive logging of old-growth forests), just to name two examples?


Question: If the Bush administration is all it SAYS it is, then why do they go to SO MUCH trouble to hire people like Luntz and Rove to create “coded” language that belies their TRUE agenda – corporate coddling? Answer that.
Call it “Final Solution” or “Project for a New American Century”…but call it like it is, please.

Perhaps you’ll believe a NONpartisan site (ha ha!) that caters to corporate America instead? This from Nov 2003:
businessweek.com/magazine/conten … 856106.htm

Why would the Bush administration pull out of Kyoto?
Bush was asked why in Debate 2 – 8 October 2004
“But I thought it would cost a lot – I think there’s a better way to do it.”

What is that ‘better way’, Bush? We’re waiting… And for WHOM would it cost a lot, Bush? Take a wild guess.


Ex-Clinton Aides Admit Kyoto Flawed

Ha ha! This is your ‘source’, Tigerman? USA TODAY?
Gannett owns USA Today, USA Weekend, USA Today Sports Weekly, and the USA Today Information Network.
Gannett owns 100 daily newspapers in the USA; the Army Times, Navy Times, Navy Times Marine Corps, Air Force Times, Federal Times, Defense Times, and Military Market.

Even if Kyoto IS going to cost much more, who cares? Shit, the price of gas has gone up to 2.5 bucks even HERE and those SUVs with ONE moron inside are still all over the friggen roads (with their obligatory Support Our Troops magnetic stickers–lying fuckwits!)
The US doesn’t have the public transportation that even “developing” nations such as the Philippines has, and there’s a reason for that: Rich oil and car corporations with a plethora of lobbyists.

So, what’s Bush’s “better way”? Waiting…waiting…waiting…tap…tap…tap.
Oh, Alaska! Damn fine place to do some “environmentally responsible exploration”.
Another Luntzamism.
Which in English is: drilling for oil, cutting alternative energy programs and subsidizing oil companies.

Been breathing toxic emmissions in Taipei too long?