Gore speaks on global warming... on coldest day in 50 years?

[Sxotty]

Nothing? While you might not agree with it, the Clear Skies Initiative was passed.

Clear skies is mainly an initiative to relax pollution controls. It is called clear skies to make people feel better, calling it smoggy cities just doesn't have the same ring.

Oh I see Natoma already stated this, and he is correct overall it is simply a relaxation of laws already in place, this was done to "help" the economy.


BTW I have a plan the should really help the environment.

Place a tarrif on all imported goods based on how much pollution is generated in their production. Then China would suddenly lose their edge (although they still have cheap labor of course)

The reason I say this is it would allow us to promote jobs in the U.S. because we produce much less pollution in the production of most materials like steel and what not, and it would go way farther towards protecting the environment the kyoto ever would, b/c money is the bottom line.

p.s. I just got back from vacation

 

[Silent_One]

I could have sworn I said the last figures I read ranged from $20 Billion to $50 Billion..... Didn't I write that sometime somewhere? Forgive me, my mind slips away from me.

Yeah, I know- $20-$50 billion. Just enforce the laws. That will do it. Yeah.
The point is that you have no experence in dealing with the EPA or DEP. When Joe asks "at what cost" there is more than just a dollar value. The EPA and DEP (and other agencys. like OSHA) are punitive agencys in their enforcement. God forbid if you ever have even a small chemical spill - the paper work, manifests, paper trail nightmare will trip you up everytime. And the fines. Samll spills can carry enormous fines. Hundreds of thousands of dollars even if your innocent of intent. You have to understand that the DEP, EPA, and OSHA are punitive agencys, and their tactics are intimidation and enormous fines. Their behavior is sometimes described as gestapo like. It would be one thing if they would treat companys as equals, go to sites and in a helpful manner point out violations of codes and/or laws. Then give a citation with the stipulation to clean up the mess or face fines, ect...But they do not. If a problem is found they impose heavy fines and you have to prove your clean, or that the problem is not to the extent they claim. Your basically guilty until you prove you innocent. do they care if you go out of business? Hell no, that's not their concern.

Untill we change the rules of how the DEP and EPA enforce laws we face a serious problem with goverment agencys running amuck.

 

[Natoma]

You talk about "cost" to companies. How many people suffer from asthma every year because of pollution? How many children are born with birth defects because of mercury poisoning? How many people come down with Cancer? What is the human cost of this? What was the human cost of the Industrial Revolution? How many people died in those factories working 14hr days, being exposed to unfiltered soot and pollution? How many children died being sent to these factories? But it must be ok since corporations came out ahead and our economy boomed.

Yes, if it comes down to choosing between corporations and choosing between human beings, I'll choose human beings every time. That is not an either/or mind you. But my opinion is to put the human first, and do what's necessary to make sure we're protected as much as possible, then worry about the corporations. After all, corporations are made up of people too, and they're affected as well by the "business first" mentality that we currently have.

 

[Natoma]

Nothing? While you might not agree with it, the Clear Skies Initiative was passed.

Clear skies is mainly an initiative to relax pollution controls. It is called clear skies to make people feel better, calling it smoggy cities just doesn't have the same ring.

Oh I see Natoma already stated this, and he is correct overall it is simply a relaxation of laws already in place, this was done to "help" the economy.


BTW I have a plan the should really help the environment.

Place a tarrif on all imported goods based on how much pollution is generated in their production. Then China would suddenly lose their edge (although they still have cheap labor of course)

The reason I say this is it would allow us to promote jobs in the U.S. because we produce much less pollution in the production of most materials like steel and what not, and it would go way farther towards protecting the environment the kyoto ever would, b/c money is the bottom line.

p.s. I just got back from vacation

Only problem of course would be getting the rest of the world to go along with that suggestion. But I agree that would force developing countries like China and India to use cleaner technologies to prop themselves up.

 

[Silent_One]

Yes, if it comes down to choosing between corporations and choosing between human beings, I'll choose human beings every time. That is not an either/or mind you. But my opinion is to put the human first, and do what's necessary to make sure we're protected as much as possible, then worry about the corporations. After all, corporations are made up of people too, and they're affected as well by the "business first" mentality that we currently have.

Oh please. Spare me your over-the-top righteous attitude. I talk about some of the realities of the EPA and DEP enforcment policies and you take this holier-than-thou attitude that "People Come First". Again you have no experence of how the EPA and DEP enforce the laws and rules.

How many people suffer from asthma every year because of pollution? How many children are born with birth defects because of mercury poisoning? How many people come down with Cancer? What is the human cost of this? What was the human cost of the Industrial Revolution? How many people died in those factories working 14hr days, being exposed to unfiltered soot and pollution? How many children died being sent to these factories? But it must be ok since corporations came out ahead and our economy boomed

I never said that those are exceptable "costs". I said that the enforcement tactics of the agencys are deplorable and ought to be changed. I've had first hand experence dealing with the DEP, the EPA, and OSHA, on both State and Federal levels. I have first hand experence in courts dealing with OSHA and extreamly excessive and outrageous fines. I have been trained in hazardous waste emergency responce and am current in my HAZWOPER license.

Your responce is typical of those who don't understand how the system works but just spout off at the mouth about how they ought to "enforce the laws" without knowing what your trying to enforce and how. That dosen't mean that there arn't some bad people or corporations doing harm to the enviroment, but that we ought to take a look at what these agencys are doing as well.

 

[Sxotty]

Only problem of course would be getting the rest of the world to go along with that suggestion.

The great thing is we don't have to do anything to get others to go along. We simply use the tarriff and suddenly China would want to clean up their industry, and if they don't clean it up then no big deal more jobs remain in america. The only real problem is that the prices of goods would go up. It is funny though, many liberals would rather pollute China to a much greater extent and keep the US with less pollution, unfortunately this NIMBY syndrome will eventually come back to haunt us.

 

[Natoma]

Silent_One,

I don't consider any of what I said to be "over the top" at all. If you took it as some condemnation then hey that's your problem. Maybe you've got a guilty conscience.

Seriously though, I don't see a weakening of our clean air and water laws as helping anyone. Unless of course you enjoy breathing in crappy air and drinking polluted water for the sake of the almighty dollar.

As I said before, if it comes down to choosing between unnecessary environmental bespoilment, I will choose the human side over the corporate side. If you have some specific laws that you want me to take a look at as patently unfair, then that's one thing, and we can discuss that.

But if you are going to go over the top with blah blah blah about what the bad bad man did to you and your company, without actually providing any examples that I could read about as reference, then you can see that what you wrote is pretty useless to me.

 

[Natoma]

Only problem of course would be getting the rest of the world to go along with that suggestion. But I agree that would force developing countries like China and India to use cleaner technologies to prop themselves up.

The great thing is we don't have to do anything to get others to go along. We simply use the tarriff and suddenly China would want to clean up their industry, and if they don't clean it up then no big deal more jobs remain in america. The only real problem is that the prices of goods would go up. It is funny though, many liberals would rather pollute China to a much greater extent and keep the US with less pollution, unfortunately this NIMBY syndrome will eventually come back to haunt us.

And get into a trade war? I doubt that will happen.

 

[Silent_One]

**Sigh**
Natoma wrote:

I don't consider any of what I said to be "over the top" at all.

You never do Natoma, you never do....

I don't see a weakening of our clean air and water laws as helping anyone.

Irrelevant, as I was not talking about that......

If you have some specific laws that you want me to take a look at as patently unfair, then that's one thing, and we can discuss that.

Again, I'm not talking about laws.
I've been talking about enforcement of laws.
Specifically, "at what cost", as Joe asked. Your answer is billions of dollars, of which you apparently feel is justifiable considering the "human cost". These "costs" would be the result of just a "matter of enforcing them and providing the funds to the EPA for that enforcement'. My point all along has been that there is serious abuse in the system in that enforcement and that that "cost" is unacceptable.

But if you are going to go over the top with blah blah blah about what the bad bad man did to you and your company, without actually providing any examples that I could read about as reference, then you can see that what you wrote is pretty useless to me.

Hum...time for the "I don't consider any of what I said to be "over the top"at all" statement...
But fair enough...
http://www.heartland.org/archives/environment/sep99/conference.htm

EPA enforcement practices were the subject of remarks presented by James DeLong, vice president and general counsel of the National Legal Center for the Public Interest. DeLong pointed out that EPA interprets environmental laws and regulations through its enforcement office instead of its offices of air or water. "EPA," he said, "has no interest in environmental actions outside its enforcement office."

Rather than having an environmental enforcement system in which the penalties are roughly commensurate with the violations, decisions on such matters are frequently arbitrary, he said. "If you offend the agency, you are likely to end up in jail," DeLong observed. At EPA, enforcement officials often can't resist the temptation to "bean" violators--that is, rack up as many sentences as possible irrespective of the amount of environmental degradation involved.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12286

Trumped-up charges, tampered-with evidence, and armed police raids--these are just some of the tactics known to be employed by foreign dictators against their own people.

It may be less widely known, however, that such tactics are also employed on domestic soil, by agents of our own federal government ... including the Environmental Protection Agency.

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0DXK/15_17/66380076/p1/article.jhtml?term=

A new kind of SWAT team is surfacing on campuses that can ruin even the toughest college president's day.

The special weapon? Environmental law. The special tactics? Big fines.

If the hunt uncovers pollution violations, the price tag can rival the impact of a drag bust, a tax audit or even an FBI sting.

A van with federal government license plates rolls onto campus. Compared to what's in store, an Internal Revenue Service audit or a drag mid is child's play for today's crisis-hardened college administrators.

When that innocuous-looking government van rolled through Lincoln University last September, few on the tiny, rural Pennsylvania campus realized that the pollution-control equivalent of a SWAT, or Special Weapons And Tactics, team, was descending on the school. By the time the smoke cleared, the nation's oldest historically Black university, founded in 1854, had the dubious distinction of being the first HBCU to wear the polluter label

.

Lincoln's episode is an example of what lies in store for small institutions, says Gall Hall, an environmental health and safety manager at Boston College. She says that it has been her experience that the EPA inspectors will nit-pick on even the smallest schools. "Your spill prevention containment and control plan had better address everything, right down to the cooking oil in the snack bar," she says.

http://www.pushback.com/justice/Womack/CalEPA/

One item central to the Womack case is this document, the Cal/EPA's manual on enforcement of the states enviromental regulations and laws. it describes the procedures and tactics used by the agency and by local enforcement agencies to convince citizens and businesses to comply with the rules. Some of the text decribes things that can easily be viewed as pure intimidation, while others are designed to spread propaganda.

http://www.freedombyfaith.com/PATRIOT/TurtleRaid.txt

In May, 1995, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) conducted an *ARMED* raid on a man's home. His crime was breeding an "endangered species" of turtles without theblessing of NJDEP bureaucrats.
I contacted a victim of this assault, Mrs. Albert, age 66.
She said the family has spent nearly $35,000 in legal fees to try
to get the turtles returned to the natural habitat that the Alberts constructed on their property. She said she was told by a state bureaucrat not to fight them in court "because we have 450
lawyers." It's no wonder New Jersey is a "tangled legal web of a
mess." Clearly the government is no longer a "servant of the
people."

An armed raid over turtles! The agency should be ashamed of itself!

With the thousands of new laws and regulations implamented every year it gets harder and harder to keep abreast of the laws
and regulations. Small businesses can easily be overwhelmed. Once your caught up in a legal web it's a costly and offten impossible fight to complete. Most give up and roll over.
There are a growing number of lawyers (surprise?) and agencys who help in trying to curtail abuse such as the following:
National Ombudsman Fair Enforcement of Federal Regulations
http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman/

The Rights of the Regulated Communityhttp://www.fowlerwhite.com/pubs/environmental/Summer01.shtml

It is important to be aware of basic rights before finding yourself as the target of a criminal investigation. The general attitude of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Enforcement Division, DEP, is to utilize tactics successful for general criminal investigations against targets of environmental cases. Effective law enforcement tactics include searches, seizures, paid informants, intense interrogation (considered intimidating to some), and the pursuit of trivial infractions in an attempt to broaden the scope of the investigation.

So Natoma, sometime the "cost" is not just in dollars. You, for one, who have always be a crusader for rights (hate that Patriot Act) of the lone citizen, should be more aware of the abuses of governmental power when it comes to enforcement of existing environmental laws.

 

[Natoma]

This is why I said provide examples. Because frankly I was not aware of this. My point remains that the EPA should be better funded, but certainly the abuses of the system need to be ironed out. Just as I feel about Homeland Security. It needs more funding, but the abuses in the system *Cough* Patriot Act, as you pointed out *Cough*, need to be ironed out.

 

[DemoCoder]

Natoma, it is possible to take two steps forward and one step back. It is also possible for regulations to be "too strong". What levels of arsenic do you think should be in drinking water? ZERO parts per million? 1 part per trillion? There is something called diminishing returns and cost-benefit, look it up.

 

[Natoma]

I assume you're talking about the reversal by the bush administration of the Arsenic Level law that was signed by Clinton in his last days. A few details regarding the measure:

1) The proposal was 10ppb, where the existing standard was 50ppb. I believe the 50ppb standard was in place since the 1950s. The improvements in industrial technology since that time would certainly call for a significant reduction, just looking at the situation blindly.

2) The EU and the WHO successful adopted the 10ppb standard in the mid to late 90s.

3) The cost of implementing that level was estimated at $3-$5 increase a month in terms of utility bills, while the EPA released a study stating that the risk of cancer would decline significantly by the 80% reduction of arsenic in the drinking water.

4) The new rule would have required local water utilities to inform their customers how much arsenic was in their drinking water.

Considering the benefit to public health, and the relatively low cost to consumers, I see no reason why this was rescinded save for lobbying by the the industries that dump arsenic and other pollutants into our drinking water.

 

[DemoCoder]

#1 It wasn't rescinded. Get your facts straight.
#2 I was just making the point that people who oppose Bush scan through every piece of legislation he passes looking for the least little thing they disagree with and blow it up to massive proportions. Like I said, a bill could be two steps forward and one step back.


Case in point, the Healthy Forests Initiative. The environmentalists have so-indoctrinated people into the idea that logging == evil, that they are willing to allow ecosystems to be incinerated wildfires rather than admit any logging activity whatsoever. Forest fires are natural, but mankind's fire management over the last 50 years has allowed an unnatural state to evolve with too much fuel packed into the forest (2000 trees per acre compared to 40 trees per acre before Europeans arrived), that creates fires that burn much hotter and higher which makes it take much longer for the ecosystem to recover and often alters the ecosystem completely by changing the mixture of animals or allowing alien species to gain hold. Sierra Club's bait and switch is to claim that HFI does nothing to protect homes of people who live near forests and that it would be better to just reduce fuel loads near communities where people live, but the point of HFI isn't to protect human property, it's to protect from massive forest fires.

The solution is to remove dead trees and small underbrush. There are two ways to do this: the government could pay someone to do it (e.g. fire/park service, financed by our tax dollars) Or #2, the government could allow someone to come in and take away the dead trees (salvage timber) and small brush "for free" (much of it is saleable) or some other incentive (increase logging quota)

Despite the fact that the Healthy Forests Initiative was merely a nationwide version of what Tom Daschle implemented for his own state, and despite the fact that HFI was supposed by Boxer and Feinstein and there was a version that was passed anyway by Feinstein (Quincy Library Group plan), the environmental crowd are using HFI as an example of some orwellian double speak anti-environmental policy, whereas they did not do so when similar plans were proposed by Democrats. All HFI does is allow companies to log #1 dead trees that were killed by fire. These trees often get infected by disease because of damaged and slow the recovery of the forest and #2 remove underbrush and small trees to thing out the forest and limit catastropic fires. #3 slightly increase their logging quota to pay for the removal

But in enviro-speak, you can't possibly make a forest healthy by logging it. The HFI is simply the QLG pilot plan passed at a national level. It was designed by local environmentalists and timber executives working together.

Maybe Sierra Club members should live in steel and concrete houses, give up their hard wood floors, cabinets, and tables, all benefits of logging.

 

[Natoma]

#1 It wasn't rescinded. Get your facts straight.

The Bush Administration instructed the EPA to discard the new law just days before it was due to go into effect. This is public record. What in the world are you talking about?

#2 I was just making the point that people who oppose Bush scan through every piece of legislation he passes looking for the least little thing they disagree with and blow it up to massive proportions. Like I said, a bill could be two steps forward and one step back.

It's only gotten to this point now because of his long track history of environmental nonchalance and/or bespoilment. People in general do not trust Bush on anything environmental because of his track history.

Case in point, the Healthy Forests Initiative.

Ah yes I remember that very controversial proposal. The main opposition to the Healthy Forests Initiative was the fact that it was handing our forests over to the Logging Industry, with little Government oversight and accountability. It also limited the requirement to assess the environmental impact of the projects to thin the forests, as well as repealing the ability of the public to fully examine logging projects for forest thinning to see whether or not it is something they want for their community.

Btw, I read the Sierra Club's proposal. It calls for controlled burns and removal of detritus. So you are wrong in that regard. However it puts control of that in the hands of the communities that are in the areas directly affected, in cooperation with the Forest Service. The vast portions of the Forest would still be in the hands of the Forest Service directly, and it could choose which projects to allow, rather than giving the Logging Industry impunity to clear away whatever they wish, be it for environmental reasons or for pure profit reasons.

 

[DemoCoder]

#1 It wasn't rescinded. Get your facts straight.

The Bush Administration instructed the EPA to discard the new law just days before it was due to go into effect. This is public record. What in the world are you talking about?

Wrong. The Bush Administration reviewed all pending rules passed on Clinton's watch. The EPA was asked to review the 10ppb standard. The EPA put out a Request for Comments, and various public representatives made comments (economic, medical, environmental). You can read the reports on the EPA website. The 10ppb rule was delayed unti February 2002. After the EPA got feedback, it decided to let the 10ppb stand in October 2001. Public water systems must comply by January 2006.

It's only gotten to this point now because of his long track history of environmental nonchalance and/or bespoilment. People in general do not trust Bush on anything environmental because of his track history.

And I don't trust the anti-Bush people, because of their obvious bias and non-rigorous research into legislation and spin. People like you Natoma, will take a Sierra Club or IndyMedia article on Bush legislation at face value and never go read the original source material yourself, or spend time looking at dissenting views.

Case in point, the Healthy Forests Initiative.

Sierra Club spin regurgitation deleted "Handing forrests over to loggin industry" boooo-scary ...

Btw, I read the Sierra Club's proposal. It calls for controlled burns and removal of detritus.

Controlled burns cannot reduce a forest with 2000 trees per acre down to proper density levels. And the last couple of "controlled burns" actually resulted in major fires (Los Alamos incineration)

yadda yadda yadda more propaganda regurgitation "Sierra Club puts Forest Service in control"...

Show me the part of a Healthy Forests Initiative bill that hands control of the forests over to "Logging Industry" to "clear away whatever they wish". This is blantant propaganda!

This bullshit really annoys me. I just went to the Forest Service website to check, and I read the actual text of the bill passed by congress and signed by Bush. It in fact, contains many many restrictions

any hazardardous fuel reduction project must
#1 be in compliance with all existing environmental laws and regulations, in general, areas designated as protected ecosystems, or with endangered wildlife are exempted, except in cases where the endangered wildlife is threatened by the fire itself

#2 do environmental impact analysis and provide a public report

#3 the EPA/FS must study what the alternative of "no action" would be

#4 if the local community has their own "at risk" fire plan, the EPA is
forced to consider the local community plan, and it must be reconciled in required public meeting

#5 only trees at urban interfaces are allowed

#6 old trees are restricted

#7 projects which keep more taller trees are to be given priority. small diameter trees are the priority

#8 judicial review is mandated

#9 injuctions are allowed. the only modification is that the maximum injunction time before the court must review and renew the injunction is 60 days

This is hardly "handing our forests over to the logging industry". Puh-lease. At best, logging companies have to propose a project plan to the government for thinning out forests near the public, and it must be reviewed on environmental grounds, it must be criticized in open public meetings, the local community can propose their own alternative plan which gets priority, and the total sum of all land that can possibly be harvested in the worst case if everyone got every project approved for every inch of land is 20 million acres.


Everytime I get into a debate on this board over government policy or statistics, I go directly to .GOV, .INT, or .EU websites to get the actual text of the laws (e.g. patriot act, HFI, CSI, etc BLS, IRS, DOL statistics, etc). Meanwhile, it seems the "progressives" on this board spend time parroting indy sites with hyperbolic rhetoric and blatant propaganda.

 

[pax]

Fine rules demo but as someone living near major logging operations I can tell you all the rules in the world might not make enough of a diff in the forest. I agree we can use private contractors for thinning to prevent forest fires in national parks but leave the profit motive out of it in terms of logging. To let loggers in there will mean more than thinning. Thinning here in Canada still is usually clearcut. Some of the reasons is that you cant retrieve logs without seriously wiping part of the forest to gain access.

Heck around here they dont even respect minimum distance rules from rivers and lakes to avoid erosion... Yet Canada is considered a much more 'progressive' country than the US.

 

[DemoCoder]

You want someone to haul wood? Someone's gotta get paid. It's really naive to expect to take the "profit motive" out of thining. You want someone to do it for charity?

 

[pax]

No hiring private thinners doesnt necessarily mean having to haul wood. In some very overgrown forests you might have to but in many cases thinning means leaving wood to rot. Once a proper thinning process is up and running in parks you can simply thin and never haul a single log.

The risk of fire is more related to thick stands of trees...

 

[jvd]

I thought the fire was due to the way we have been replanting forests .

 

[Sabastian]

WRT the topic Gore on the coldest day of the year ... Evan Maloney from the Brain-Terminal did one of his videos at the event outside. Yet another gem IMO.

Hello,

Last Thursday, New Yorkers awoke to single-digit temperatures and a
few new inches of snowfall. The low in Manhattan's Central Park that
day was 1 degree Fahrenheit; the all-time low for the date was zero
degrees, a record set back in 1957.

Al Gore--whose sense of political timing has always been
suspect--chose that day to deliver a speech on global warming. The
speech was sponsored by MoveOn.org, a website that raises money for
Democratic candidates.

Recently, MoveOn.org gained notoriety by hosting two political ads
equating President Bush with Adolf Hitler. Although such comparisons
were common at the peace protests, I still wasn't sure whether this
mindset was now a common infection among the Democratic base--the
sort of folks who'd brave the cold to hear Al Gore speak.

To find out, I spent a few shivering hours outside the Beacon Theatre
where the speech was held. The results can be found here:

http://brain-terminal.com/video/nyc-2004-01-15/

Lastly, because I always get this question, I'll answer it in advance:
I interviewed ten people, all of whom appear in this video.

From a still-frigid NYC,
Evan

PS: I get mail notification of his latest stuff, the above is a quote from that just in case you were wondering.