Bush Administration an Ecological Disaster?

[Thorfinn]

For decades, I felt as though wanting smaller gov't was a pipe dream, and that I had best learn how to work with Leviathan. As I get older, though, and read more and more from the classical liberals, I understand that the mindset I formerly held was simply a preference for a taskmaster who was the most lenient with his application of the whip. I had not considered the alternative -- that humanity might want to discard the shackles entirely.

Actually, I think the collapse of the federal government is inevitable, and within a couple generations of happening, but that is another topic.

And, no, I don't believe we differ in *extent* but in *type*. I am opposed to anyone initiating force upon anyone. I believe all transactions should be voluntary and consentual. I believe that it makes no difference whether government swings the cudgel or some thug does so. I see precious little difference between the highwayman and the IRS man. I believe that we will come to realize that government itself is the bane of humanity, and that future generations will look at the serf system in the world today as a quaint, but backwards religion, as sincerely held but as wrongheaded as the notion of Zeus tossing lightning bolts from Mount Olympus.

Regarding computers, first, they are not just consumer goods. They are also producer goods, as I have installed hundreds into businesses running automation and control systems. But even if they were merely consumer goods, what difference does that make? Do the laws of supply and demand apply to only consumer goods, not producer goods?

[ 04-22-2003, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

Originally posted by Attalus: MagiK, don't you know that the Administration can do no right in the eyes of the Left?

Right, left...Im so confused [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by pritchke: 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? They were banned due to emmissions. Yellowstone is a VERY big place, bigger than some countries...you need some form of transport to get around....especially in witertime when the place is snowbound. 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. As for the whole article I believe the complaints against the eco-groups are legitimate, they rant and rave about anything tied to bush, several thousand of them signed a petition for banning Dihydrogen Monoxide because one person told them Bush was a Big proponent of its use.......Dihydrogen Monoxide is water. Edit: Actually I think the petition said something like: Dihydrogen Monoxide can cauuse persperation, frequent urination and vomiting when used in large quantities, that at least trace amounts have been found in every lake, river, stream and aquifer in the nation and that President Bush and Dick Cheny were big proponents of its wide spread use.

[ 04-22-2003, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Sorry, MagiK, I refuse to comment on an article by the NRO assessing Bush and environmentalism. The NRO is just an online news site the article was not written by the NRO. A less biased source would be more appropriate. I've read waaay too many articles quite to the contrary - it would take me an hour just to decide what parts of the ABA Section of the Environment and National Resources article I would want to toss out to refute this. Suffice to say that in a fair grading system with enviro's on one side and industry on the other, Bush got cumulative bad grades, ranging from a "D" (climate change and international environmental law) to a "B-" in renewable energy (based solely on his promise to get a no emission vehicle to market). Are you claiming that the statments that I posted are fales or inaccurate? However, the one thing that I think best sums it up is that EPA (Bush directs Whitman of course) has been handing out harsh penalties and settlements on current EPA cases while the administration has been fighting pretty hard to back off on the rules that determine those cases. It's a schizophrenic approach, and it has both sides disliking the situation. His adjustments to the New Source Review under the Clean Air Act are especially threatening. The Clean Air Act requires new plants (power plants, chemical factories, etc) to adopt the BEST industry standards - it is a "race to the top" scheme. The Act grandfathered older plants. How do we fix the old BigDirties? Well, when they grow, expand, or update those plants to increase output, the modifications must meet the New Source standards. Thus, the grandfather plants slowly get pulled under the umbrella. Bush wants to back off on this "modification rule" and allow these old BigDirties (actual words from Congressional hearings from the 70's, btw) to grow without adopting today's technology at the newly-built parts. Does that make sense??? Now, the biggest thing touted by industry about the New Source Review scheme is that it creates Oligopolies, whereby the big old rich plants get to remain the same while new entries to the market must struggle to meet tougher standards. Two points here. 1) almost all new entries into the chemical or power plant market are owned by the big plants anyway, though they hide it because each plant is a separate "mini corporation" LLC (remember the corporate liability wall?) 2) Bush's retraction of the provisions requiring modifications to meet New Source Review standards actually serves to make this Oligopoly problem worse, because those old plants never get under the Clean Air Act New Source umbrella. Just to note: avoiding New SOurce Review doesn't just avoid addressing how much CO2 (arguably, global warming) you throw in the air, or SO2 and NOx(acid rain), or Volotile Organic Compounds (Ozone precursors), but also all HAPs (Hazardous Air Pollutants) that these facilities can emit, including such favorites as formaldehyde, sulphur, and chlorine. In other words, Mr. "I get paid by industry" picked the wrong bone to gnaw on when he picked New Source Review.

While I do appreciate informationt hat you provide you ignored the issues I had hoped you would address All I will say is that you can't actually link "Global Warming" to CO2 levels with any real science. I know what the ice cores have shown and I have kept up with fairly current information on that one particular issue. So far as hard science can determine we are experiencing only normal natural warming trends after a mini-iceage that hit the globe circa 1300. As it stands the current hottest recorded year in the last 100 (before which records are spotty at best) was 1995, are we now headed into another ice age? how do you explain the cooler temps since 1995?

[img]smile.gif[/img] really I was just wanting you to comment on the issues I po9sted nto trying to start a whole new Enviro-debate.

TL, in your discussion with Thorfinn you both touched on one of the main issues in the portion of the article I posted....rather than accept the Bush administration of making something 20% more efficient they scream because ti isn't the 30% that the previous administration proposed....why not take what you can get then try again later for the 20%.....no sad to say, I am sorry but to all appearences and those are what coun't here rather than admit that something Bush did will make things better, they twist and spin it because it wasn't as much as their home boy had tried to shovel out.

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Attalus: MagiK, don't you know that the Administration can do no right in the eyes of the Left?

Oh goody - a right wing pep rally!!

When in doubt go to the National Review Online to stir up an argument. [/QUOTE] While the commentary is quite biting, it would be much nicer and less irritating if you could at least comment on the issues involved instead of just going after Attalus. I only posted part of the article, the part that deals with facts and left out most of the spin and clutter that went with the article.

Everyone seems to be bending over backwards to avoid looking at what is actually in there and instead bitching about the source.

Im starting to suspect that the Bush administration is not the "Ecological Armageddon" that the eco-groups are screaming about and that the people who are screaming would scream no matter who was in office. I am seeing no difference between the protestors of 1973 and 2003....same old complaints, same old ignoring the facts, same type of "joiners" dancing and beating on drums,(and really would a little deoderant hurt them or the environment so badly?) and the same lack of real information on the issue.

[Attalus]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Attalus: MagiK, don't you know that the Administration can do no right in the eyes of the Left?

Oh goody - a right wing pep rally!!

When in doubt go to the National Review Online to stir up an argument. [/QUOTE]I stand by my statement, and I think these posts prove me right. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Thorfinn]

Yes, or better yet, mandate no changes in efficiency. Part of the reason that the mandate for air conditioner efficiency was decreased was that independent estimates suggested that you could make an air conditioner 20% more efficient for only about 30% more money, but to make it 30% more efficient, with present technology would cost somewhere around 150% more. I don't remember the figures exactly, but the cost of a 30% more efficient model was estimated to be over twice the price.

Now for working poor, or pensioners, you might be able to afford an air conditioner for one room. You definitely could not afford one if it were suddenly to become twice as expensive. You would have to make do with what you have, or do without. Sure, those who can afford more expensive air conditioners will end up with cheaper cooling bills, but you have condemned people of more modest means to going without anything at all. And when the summer heats up, we see the effects of expensive air conditioner units on the poor population in the cities...

I'm all for the environment and all, but when your policies are starting to kill people, you should really sit back and consider what you are doing.

[ 04-22-2003, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: I don't remember the figures exactly, but the cost of a 30% more efficient model was estimated to be over twice the price. Now for working poor, or pensioners, you might be able to afford an air conditioner for one room. You definitely could not afford one if it were suddenly to become twice as expensive. You would have to make do with what you have, or do without. Sure, those who can afford more expensive air conditioners will end up with cheaper cooling bills, but you have condemned people of more modest means to going without anything at all.

Possibly but what would the cost of energy savings be? Isn't it true that in the long run it may be possible to actually save money? The people who would do without can afford it (get rid of cable, budget their gas money to only use a certain amount/ month and not go over, take out a loan to pay for the air conditioner.) Maybe 20% efficient is actually more affordable than 30%, but things like life of the air conditioner will also need to be taken into account. I would actually like to see a cost analysis of both to see which saves consumers the most money over the life expectancy of the air conditioner before siding on the issue of which is better. This may be dependent upon what you pay for electricity, which could vary depending on were you live. Why not have both types available to let the consumer decide? Is it possible that some of these things are being forced on us because people many abuse what they have by turning on an air conditioner when simply opening a window may be sufficient. Or turning up the heat when a sweater will do and the person is still wearing a short sleeve shirt. People in North American tend to have the attitude that I own (can afford it) so why not use it and that is why we as North Americans are notorious consumers of energy in the world. I even catch myself in this from time to time and I probaly do it more than I am aware.

[ 04-22-2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]