Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post - Bush Administration an Ecological Disaster?

pritchke · 04-22-2003, 10:39 AM

The Bush administration reversed a Clinton proposal to ban the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park in return for the adoption of more stringent controls on snowmobile exhaust.

I don't think snowmobiles were banned from Yellowstone park because of exhaust. Possibly more due to noise, I hate how those things sound (hurts my ears) and I am quite sure animals don't like the sound either. As far as stringent controls on snowmobiles for exhaust, it is good idea but a very small step. Why not on all vehicles? I am sure people in states like Texas, Florida, and California will have no problem with stringent controls on snowmobile exhaust. I wonder even just how many Americans own snowmobiles and will be affected?

One of the most controversial environmental-policy initiatives of the Bush administration is a series of changes to "New Source Review" (NSR) regulations under the Clean Air Act. These regulations require utilities and industrial facilities to install costly pollution control equipment on major new sources of air emissions, including modifications to existing facilities. The Bush team's proposed policy changes are aimed at allowing routine maintenance and repair at older industrial facilities — including steps to maintain or improve efficiency at existing plants — have environmental groups up in arms.

Environmental critics ignore the fact that the existing rules can discourage efficiency improvements and repairs that are environmentally beneficial.

I have no problem with improving efficiency as it gives more bang for the buck and reduces pollution for the amount of production. But it possibly could mean that the plant will produce more so the end result will be the same amout of waste just less waste for the amount produced. I think environmental groups big problem could be that he is catering to business. CEO's make millions yet they are to cheep to install, and upgrade existing facilities. What are the penalties for not following regulations? Maybe the reason that upgrades are not made is the consequence(cost) to add upgrade is more than the consequence for not upgrading(fine). I am quite sure that there isn't enough information presented in this article to show the real reasons why people could be justified in being angry with Bush in this article.

[ 04-22-2003, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

04-22-2003, 10:39 AM	#5
pritchke Bastet - Egyptian Cat Goddess Join Date: September 5, 2001 Location: Calgary, AB Age: 50 Posts: 3,491	The Bush administration reversed a Clinton proposal to ban the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park in return for the adoption of more stringent controls on snowmobile exhaust. I don't think snowmobiles were banned from Yellowstone park because of exhaust. Possibly more due to noise, I hate how those things sound (hurts my ears) and I am quite sure animals don't like the sound either. As far as stringent controls on snowmobiles for exhaust, it is good idea but a very small step. Why not on all vehicles? I am sure people in states like Texas, Florida, and California will have no problem with stringent controls on snowmobile exhaust. I wonder even just how many Americans own snowmobiles and will be affected? One of the most controversial environmental-policy initiatives of the Bush administration is a series of changes to "New Source Review" (NSR) regulations under the Clean Air Act. These regulations require utilities and industrial facilities to install costly pollution control equipment on major new sources of air emissions, including modifications to existing facilities. The Bush team's proposed policy changes are aimed at allowing routine maintenance and repair at older industrial facilities — including steps to maintain or improve efficiency at existing plants — have environmental groups up in arms. Environmental critics ignore the fact that the existing rules can discourage efficiency improvements and repairs that are environmentally beneficial. I have no problem with improving efficiency as it gives more bang for the buck and reduces pollution for the amount of production. But it possibly could mean that the plant will produce more so the end result will be the same amout of waste just less waste for the amount produced. I think environmental groups big problem could be that he is catering to business. CEO's make millions yet they are to cheep to install, and upgrade existing facilities. What are the penalties for not following regulations? Maybe the reason that upgrades are not made is the consequence(cost) to add upgrade is more than the consequence for not upgrading(fine). I am quite sure that there isn't enough information presented in this article to show the real reasons why people could be justified in being angry with Bush in this article. [ 04-22-2003, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]