I wish every American could read this - another environmental indictment

Arts & Sciences Science & Nature
1

This one is BRUTAL:

INDICTMENT

“…Under the guidance of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the Bush White House has actively hidden its anti-environmental program behind deceptive rhetoric, telegenic spokespeople, secrecy and the intimidation of scientists and bureaucrats. The Bush attack was not entirely unexpected. George W. Bush had the grimmest environmental record of any governor during his tenure in Texas. Texas became number one in air and water pollution and in the release of toxic chemicals. In his six years in Austin, he championed a short-term pollution-based prosperity, which enriched his political contributors and corporate cronies by lowering the quality of life for everyone else. Now President Bush is set to do the same to America. After three years, his policies are already bearing fruit, diminishing standards of living for millions of Americans.”

“…In a March 2003 memo to Republican leadership, pollster Frank Luntz frankly outlined the White House strategy on energy and the environment: “The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general and President Bush in particular are most vulnerable,” he wrote, cautioning that the public views Republicans as being “in the pockets of corporate fat cats who rub their hands together and chuckle maniacally as they plot to pollute America for fun and profit.” Luntz warned, “Not only do we risk losing the swing vote, but our suburban female base could abandon us as well.” He recommended that Republicans don the sheep’s clothing of environmental rhetoric while dismantling environmental laws.”

2

I am still more inclined to worry about China’s pollution problems.

3

[quote=“Vay”]

INDICTMENT

"…Under the guidance of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the Bush White House has actively hidden its anti-environmental program behind deceptive rhetoric, telegenic spokespeople, secrecy and the intimidation of scientists and bureaucrats. … blah blah blah…[/quote]

So a Democrat lightweight speaks in Rolling Stone… :unamused: Same old same old…

[quote]POLLUTED COVERAGE: The latest example of the media standing on its head regarding George W. Bush’s environmental policies is the treatment accorded the White House announcement, last week, that Bush would impose a substantial reduction in emissions from Midwestern power plants. Did you even know this happened? Of course not, because news organizations either buried the story or twisted it to make it sound negative.

tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1074[/quote]

4

See, you can’t argue with the Bushco evangelists. They even turn environmental destruction into partisan hogwash.

5

ON MONDAY, April 14, 2003, the power went out at the Motiva refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. The massive plant shut down instantly and, as is common when something goes wrong at a refinery, the “product” in the pipes – tens of thousands of pounds of highly pressurized liquids and gases – was released through the smokestacks. In this particular incident, 256,653 pounds of toxic chemicals were hurled into the air over the next 24 hours. . .

It wasn’t the first such incident, or “upset,” at the 3,800-acre plant, a century-old, grime-stained industrial giant . . . Motiva had experienced seven in just the previous 11 weeks, and the record of Port Arthur’s other refineries wasn’t much better; during one six-month period last year, barely a day went by without a toxic accident of some kind. . . This, in other words, is the kind of place the federal government promised to start cleaning up a generation ago, when Congress passed a series of sweeping environmental laws including the Clean Air Act of 1970. . .

Now, the Bush administration has pulled back on that effort – and, according to critics, demolished the foundation of the Clean Air Act itself. It has issued rules that relax key provisions of the act, allowing thousands of dirty power plants and other industrial sites to increase pollution without any Fines or penalties. Fifteen states have filed suit to block the changes; a national group of state and local air-pollution officials says the rules will result in “unchecked emissions increases that will degrade our air quality and endanger public health.”

. . . “What is so profound is that this is the First time in the history of the Clean Air Act that we are going in the wrong direction,” says Judith Enck, a policy adviser to New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer, who has Filed suit challenging the administration’s new rules. "For 30-plus years, there had been a gradual tightening of standards. This is the First time the federal government has tried to weaken the act.

motherjones.com/news/feature … 96_01.html

The Clear Skies Initiative

As covered in NOW’s story “Clearing the Air,” a new EPA rule weakens the “New Source Review” provision (1977) of the Clean Air Act. This means that when industrial facilities make upgrades to plants that increase air pollution, even by hundreds of thousands of tons, if the improvements cost less than 20% of the replacement value of the “process units,” the plant doesn’t have to install modern pollution controls. According to one study, the failure to install modern pollution controls at 51 plants (involved in enforcement cases) is responsible for 5,000 to 9,000 premature deaths and 80,000 to 120,000 asthma attacks every year. . .

pbs.org/now/science/clearskies.html

6

First, two things. Global warming and the particular factory in Texas are two different things.

As to global warming, we have seen from the reaction to Bjorn Lomborg’s very detailed statistical analysis of global warming that the sources of the warming are not clear, it is not necessarily bad to have global warming and third, there is no proof that we can do anything to stop it.

When presented with a treaty such as Kyoto which will postpone global warming by six years in the next century and will involve a severe economic impact, what are we to do? If we refuse to sign on despite the lack of convincing evidence that we can do anything at all to stop global warming, does that make us unconcerned with the environment or just skeptical regarding a poor plan?

Now as to this Texas factory, I have two questions: first what is the “toxic” substance? Smoke can be classified as toxic. Gases can be labeled “toxic” but how serious is the “toxic” substance in question? I believe that there is an awful lot of hysteria that goes hand in hand with discussions of the environment. This may or may not fall under that category.

7

No one said anything about global warming Fred – you’re dreaming. And you may deem it hysteria for people to be concerned about the following, but I’d call it justifiable concern, particularly in light of shrub’s other environmental protection dismantling.

From the above link:

“a new EPA rule weakens the “New Source Review” provision (1977) of the Clean Air Act. This means that when industrial facilities make upgrades to plants that increase air pollution, even by hundreds of thousands of tons, if the improvements cost less than 20% of the replacement value of the “process units,” the plant doesn’t have to install modern pollution controls.”

8

MT:

Sorry my point there was more directed to Alien’s comment since there was a previous thread on global warming. Sorry if that was confusing.

I think, however, from what I understand, there are actually positive reasons for opting these old plants out of the process. This was to make it feasible for them to make small improvements to their plants that they might put off making under the present rules. Why? If any changes were made, they would be obligated to implement very costly upgrades to bring their plants in compliance with the stricter standards. So many were leaving their old equipment untouched because they could not afford to do so or were unwilling to do so and as such these grandfathered plants were actually polluting more than they would if small improvements were allowed.

So again, I sense that there is a strong “partisan” interest in blasting Bush and his environmental policies. Yet, these plants were polluting just as much under the Clinton administration. The Bush plan actually allows them to cut pollution by a smaller amount than would have been the case if they had upgraded completely but surely that is better than leaving them alone entirely?

9

Uhhh, I hate all this partisan crap. 3 points that everyone should take into account.

  1. Try to upgrade or build a refinery or power plant. It’s practically impossible because of NIMBY and enviromentalist groups, even when a clear lowering of pollution can be shown.

  2. This all was going on under Clinton. He didn’t do anything to try to solve the problem. Bush is. Is Bush’s strategy correct? The way I see it pollution will be lowered, investment will be made and output might be increased. Is this bad? It won’t redo the whole plant, but would they revamp the whole plant anyway? Return on investment from a refinery is 2-3%, if your lucky. Treasury bonds offer a no liability risk free return of 4%. Where would you put your money? This is the main reason why none have been built in the US for a long time.

  3. 3rd most polluted state/province in North America is Saskechtawan(sp?). Texas and Tennessee are 1 and 2. It doesn’t mean anything. Over time pollution decreases as societies develop. Lake Erie is no longer spontaneously combusting.

For a more detailed look at Climate change check out the Economist:
economist.com/science/displaySto … id=2299998

If you want to bash Bush, go ahead, just be honest and fair about it. A lot of these problems didn’t just spring up on his term, but have been around for awhile. Fixing something that will eventually catastrophically F$#% up in the future now, stimulates safety and promotes investment. The owners of that refinery are doing the same thing you or I would do in there place. Depreciate the asset and get the last dollar out of it before it finally blows. It’s not right, but that is the enviroment that they are currently in.

CYA
Okami

PS Where’s my “laoban” title?

10

[quote]Last December 17, the Guardian published its Eco gongs. The author of The Sceptical Environmentalist, Bjørn Lomborg, won an award that cited his “scientific dishonesty” and described his book as “not comprehending science”. That citation came from a report on Lomborg’s book by the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD). Their condemnation followed an 11-page trashing of Lomborg’s book in the influential Scientific American.

In one of those coincidences that all journalists dread, the Guardian published its put-down of Lomborg on the very day that the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation heavily criticised the DCSD’s negative verdict as “completely void of argumentation”. Unsurprisingly, the Guardian did not publish the news of Lomborg’s reprieve.

telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main … stid=86203[/quote]

11

Tiger,

You have to give us more commentary. Ever since you became a moderator we hardly hear from you anymore. Pile in!

12

[quote=“Fox”]Tiger,

You have to give us more commentary. Ever since you became a moderator we hardly hear from you anymore. Pile in![/quote]

Well, its not necessarily due to my appointment (is that the appropriate verb?) to the moderator post… I’ve been tremendously busy lately with real work, and I end up spending most of my time on Forumosa simply looking out for over-the-top transgressions. That said, Alien did tell me that my posting style would likely change after becoming a moderator.

Comment re the cited article? I guess I just wanted to point out that the issue of global warming, indeed many environmental issues, is not as clear cut as some would like to make it / them appear. Bush takes lots of gruff for his allegedly harmful acts per the environment… but maybe some of the criticism of his actions re the environment and or global warming is based more on the hate people feel for Bush as a person rather than on his ideas regarding the environment.

Its easy to be concerned about the environment. But such concern shouldn’t trump facts or reasoned disagreement with certain aspects of the so-called green agendas. What the Danes did to that scientist (and what the Americans did subsequently) was inexcusable. Its easy to be concerned for the environment. Its difficult to know what to do about it sometimes, however.

13

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3390901.stm

sounds like court-packing practice to me. very suspicious.

reminds me of a good movie line:

[quote]
Ishmael Boorg: You should try to quit. They say its bad for your heart, your lungs. It quickens the aging process.
Roy Munson: Who’s done more research than the good people at the American Tobacco Industry? They say its harmless. Why would they lie? If you’re dead, you can’t smoke.[/quote]

14

Doug,

this is from the article you posted:

And how did they try to do that?

From the same article:

So, they wanted to include material that challenged the accepted mantra. That’s “sowing confusion”?

15

[quote=“tigerman”]Doug,

this is from the article you posted:

And how did they try to do that?

From the same article:

So, they wanted to include material that challenged the accepted mantra. That’s “sowing confusion”?[/quote]

i agree that the article is not the best. that’s why i didnt quote those statements. in fact, i didn’t say i endorsed the article. should have made that clear.
i just quoted the fact that those people were hired. that’s what i was talking about only. i probably shouldn’t have linked the article as that may have been misleading, but someone asked me to link all my quotes before so now that’s what i do.
i think the kingpin movie quote sums up my feelings about these appointments and the state of affairs at the EPA nicely though.