America the Beautiful? (Controversial!)

[jonza]

I'm wondering what Americans think about the environmental problems that Bush seems to be generating at a high rate of knots. He and his administration may be causing a lot of problems for Europe and the rest of the world, but are you aware of what he's doing to your own country? This is for people who are interested enough and have time enough to read through it all and are willing to give their own assessment. Of course, if you just think it's all a pack of lies or not significant, you're welcome to say so, but keep it short.
I happen to think that it's rather important. (No frivolous jokes thank you Richard).

Both Democrats and Republicans are welcome to state their opinions!

"The destroyer" Wednesday September 1, 2004 The Guardian
George Bush's war on terror may have made the world a more dangerous place. But it is his atrocious record on the environment that poses the greatest threat.


'Prosperity will mean little," declared George W Bush while on the stump as presidential candidate, "if we leave to future generations a world of polluted air, toxic lakes and rivers, and vanished forests." By the time Bush departed his job as governor of Texas in December 2000, Texas had - according to a report from within the ranks of his own party - become the number-one state in the nation in manufacturing-plant emissions of toxic chemicals, in the release of industrial airborne toxins, in violations of clean water discharge standards and the release of toxic waste into underground wells. Under Bush's governorship, Houston had even passed Los Angeles to become the city with the worst air quality in America. The Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP) study could find not a single initiative by Bush during his term as governor that sought to improve either the state's air or its water. What would he do as president?

On January 20 2001 - Bush's first day in office - he called in the chief of staff, Andrew Card, and told him to send directives to every executive department with authority over environmental issues, ordering them to put on hold more than a dozen regulations left over from the Clinton administration. The regulations covered everything from lowering arsenic levels in drinking water to reducing releases of raw sewage.

Big Republican donors expected a return on their investment following the 2000 presidential election, and Bush was more than willing to deliver. Bush convened his National Energy Policy Development Group nine days after taking office. This was the panel that came to be known as the vice president's Energy Task Force. For four months, Dick Cheney, energy secretary Abraham, other cabinet secretaries and their deputies formulated the nation's energy policy behind the closed doors of the vice president's office and the cabinet room. Eighteen of the Republicans' top 25 donors from the energy industry were invited in and asked to contribute to the plan.

Kenneth Lay of Enron, who had loaned Bush his company jet during his presidential campaign, met the group numerous times. Executives from such companies and organizations as Chevron, ExxonMobil, the Nuclear Energy Institute, Westinghouse, Edison Electric Institute and the American Petroleum Institute consulted with the committee between six and 19 times. Upwards of 400 executives from 150 corporations and trade associations met with the task force from February to May 2001.

The Cheney group did not speak to a single environmentalist during the hearings. Abraham said he didn't have time to meet them, and Cheney's office denied their requests for inclusion.

Cheney and his colleagues emerged with a National Energy Plan in May 2001, which included 100 proposals and led to a massive energy bill with tax breaks for US energy interests estimated by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation at $23.5bn (£13bn) - a pretty good return on the $44m (£24.5m) it had donated to the Republicans during the previous year's election.

There wasn't a single line in the energy bill requiring an increase in the fuel efficiency of the nation's 204 million passenger vehicles. (Nor, for that matter, was there any mention of global warming.) The plan did include proposals that would have a new power plant built every week for the next 20 years, however. Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who joined the Democrats in eventually getting the legislation watered down, called the bill the "Leave-No-Lobbyist-Behind Act". After its passage, McCain said: "With a half-trillion dollar deficit, we're giving tax credits, for guess who, the [oil] industry in America, which last time I checked was doing really well."

The Bush White House has produced its assault on the environment with little in the way of public scrutiny, which is especially remarkable considering the devastating effects its initiatives will have on America's land, air and water for generations to come. Reports or programmes that the administration must by law announce, but would rather go unnoticed, it gives to low-level officials to deliver.

Environmental enforcement at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has plunged under Bush. Since 2001, monthly violation notices - the most important tool against polluters - are down 58% compared with Clinton's monthly average.

Partly as a result, three decades after the passage of the Clean Air Act, almost one in three Americans still breathe air filled with nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, coal dust, mercury, and hundreds of other toxic pollutants. The pollution comes from myriad sources, but within the energy business, the prime culprit is coal, which powers half of the US's electricity and causes 90% of the electric power industry's pollution. Two years after Bush took office, the rollbacks of pollution regulations meant that dirty coal plants that upgraded their facilities would not necessarily have also to upgrade their pollution-control equipment.

This easing of controls has been calculated to cause the release of an additional 1.4m tonnes of air pollution. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that the change in the law will result in 30,000 American deaths.

In December 2002, an alliance of attorneys general from 24 states and attorneys from 30 cities and municipalities sued the EPA, arguing that the new rules would violate the Clean Air Act. A year later, the DC circuit court agreed, for now, and issued a temporary injunction preventing the EPA from implementing the new laws until the case is settled.

Undeterred, Bush announced in 2002 that his Clear Skies initiative would lower most power plant emissions by 70% by the year 2018. In fact, environmental groups all say that Clear Skies targets are dramatically lower than those of the existing Clean Air Act. The EPA produced its own programme for reducing power plant emissions that was much tougher than the White House's plan. The White House rejected this proposal. And Congress rejected the Bush administration's plan. The Clear Skies legislation remains stalled in Congress.

The other major source of air pollution, of course, is motor vehicles. The US has 5% of the world's population and uses between 25% and 30% of the world's oil. (The UK, by comparison, has less than 2% of the world's population and uses 2% of the world's oil.) The US imports 63% of that oil, and more than two-thirds of that foreign oil is burned as transportation fuel. Incredibly, overall fuel economy ratings in the US are worse now than in 1988. By comparison, in Europe, petrol mileage in 1998 was already close to 30 miles per gallon, and now averages almost 35mpg. Japan, by 2002, was averaging more than 34mpg, fast approaching its 2010 goal of 35.5 mpg. Even the Republican-controlled EPA estimates that a three-mile per gallon increase in overall fuel efficiency standards would save Americans $25bn a year in oil costs and reduce annual CO2 emissions by 140m tonnes. Why is America so far behind? Simple: the 2.5m SUVs sold every year.

SUVs produce almost 45% more air pollution than average cars. The federal government sets fuel economy standards for new passenger cars at 27.5mpg. But this excludes SUVs, which are not even categorised as "cars"; they are on the books as "light trucks" and therefore only have to average 20.7 mpg. Because of the complexities of the regulations, it is technically possible for SUVs to have fuel efficiency standards as low as 12mpg.

Not only did the White House energy bill not set fuel standards for SUVs, the Republican-led Congress maintained a bill offering a tax benefit that encourages the purchase of the largest, least-efficient brands. If you're in the 35% tax bracket, and you buy a $106,000 Hummer for "business" use, the IRS gives you a refund of $35,000 on the purchase in the first year.

Another of Bush's first-day-in-office moves was to order a moratorium on Clinton-era Clean Water Act regulations controlling the discharge of raw sewage from what the waste industry likes to call "sanitary sewers". By November 2003, the administration took the moratorium a step further when the EPA announced a plan to allow sewage treatment plants to release biologically untreated waste into rivers and other waterways. But only on rainy days.

Clean water has been under systematic attack by the Bush administration, whose policies have sought to remove protection from 20m acres of wetlands and allow mountaintop mining companies to dump their waste directly into waterways.

The Clean Water Act, passed by Congress over Nixon's veto, was established in 1972 not only to regulate the nation's drinking water, but to protect its rivers and lakes for activities such as fishing, swimming and other water sports. According to the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), 30 years later, 75% of Americans live within 10 miles of a polluted river, lake or coastal water.

With water safety standards declining, the administration, ever mindful of the next election, was faced with two options: make water cleaner, or just tell the public its water was cleaner. The Bush White House being the Bush White House, it chose the latter. In early 2004, the EPA's own Office of the Inspector General issued a report that said the agency had repeatedly made false and misleading statements about the purity of the nation's drinking water. In 2002, the EPA claimed that 91% of Americans were drinking safe tap water. In 2003, it upped the number to 94%. According to the NRDC, scientists within the EPA say the percentage of Americans drinking safe tap- water can be estimated at only 81%.

Much of this pollution is due to insufficiently regulated industrial activity. By the 1980s, mining interests had pretty much given up on traditional coal mines, and had come up with a new technique that involved literally blasting the top off a mountain and then digging straight down. In the Appalachia region of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia and Virginia, millions of tons of mountaintop waste has buried 1,200 miles of streams.

A September 2003 EPA report finds nearly 300 Clean Water Act violations by the mountaintop mining industry. How does the Bush administration react? It moves to change the law by establishing the Mountaintop Mining Self-Reporting Programme, which would allow the industry to police itself and issue small fines for violations. The mining industry donated $3.3m to the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign and other Republican candidates.

The despoliation of Appalachia is but a portent of things to come if the Bush administration gets its way. Three months after taking office, Bush announced that all public lands, including wilderness areas and national monuments, would be considered for oil and gas drilling. The industry, by the way, donated $46,620,134 to Bush-Cheney, the Republican National Committee and other Republican candidates in the 2000 and 2002 elections, according to the Centre for Responsive Politics.

In order to prevent hundreds of thousands of acres from being placed under the protection of the Wilderness Act, the Bush administration is allowing the gas industry to stockpile leases and drilling permits on 34m acres of public lands in the Rockies, even though oil and gas is being produced on less than one-third of that land. Once an oil and gas company puts a road on a leased parcel, the land can no longer be protected by the Wilderness Act.

It is something of a mystery, however, why the administration has been so fixated on giving up the 19m-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with its 1.5m-acre coastal plain, to oil interests, since 95% of Alaska's North Slope is already open to drilling. Deputy interior secretary Griles has said that opening it up is his "greatest wish". Naturalists have called the ANWR, which is teeming with all manner of vegetation and wildlife, "America's Serengeti". Interior secretary Gale Norton calls it "a flat, white nothingness".

Proponents of drilling in the ANWR coastal plain claim it "may" contain between 6bn and 16bn barrels of recoverable oil. The Geological Survey estimated that the coastal plain could profitably produce 3.2bn barrels of oil - enough for six months' worth of US consumption. In the end, even the Republican-led Senate felt the administration had overreached. It blocked all the White House's proposals for drilling in the ANWR. Bush vowed to keep on trying.

Bush's attitude can be seen in the favors he has done to the logging firms, which donated $6,854,321 to the Bush-Cheney campaign and the Republicans in 2000, and which gave a further $3,617,921 in the 2002 electprogramion cycle. Almost a third of the US is covered in forest - some 737m acres. Only around 6% of that is protected by federal law. According to the NRDC, there are already over 380,000 miles of roads that cut through national forests - eight times more than the entire interstate highway system. The Clinton administration, under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, sought to protect a third of the true wilderness national forest area from further road- building. In its first month in office, the Bush administration set in motion a program to reverse that plan. Henceforth, the industry would get logging and road-building permits whenever it asked for them.

And the Bush administration has taken its reckless approach to the environment far beyond American shores, not only causing damage to global ecosystems, but also further eroding the US's already spotty reputation as a responsible superpower. In its first three years in office, the Bush White House has rejected, undercut or ignored many of the world's international environmental treaties.

On February 14 2002, the day Bush announced his Clear Skies proposal, he laid out his plans for tackling global warming. "My administration is committed to cutting our nation's greenhouse gas intensity - how much we emit per unit of economic activity - by 18% over the next 10 years." In fact, the proposal's wording and its accounting would allow emissions actually to increase by 14% over the next decade, according to the NRDC - exactly the rate of increase for the previous decade.

The Bush White House inherited an environment that had been all but saved by the Clean Air and Clean Water acts of the 1970s. The administration thus turned its back on more than 30 years' worth of advances in environmental legislation and global treaties in order to reward its campaign backers from the oil and gas industries - from whose ranks of executives so many important government posts have been filled. As with the environment, so it is for everything else: it is difficult to point to a single element of American society which comes under federal jurisdiction that is not worse off than it was an administration ago. One can only hope that this is not to be the story of our times, a terrible dream from which we will one day awake only to realize what we've lost.

This is an edited extract from What We've Lost, by Graydon Carter, published by Little Brown on September 9.

[leslie]

THANK YOU! One of our national television stations tried to do a piece on global warming several months ago (it is so obvious- Florida has had two hurricanes within 3 weeks, no scientists, no matter what party they belong to are denying this is global warming- people have had to be relocated from their island homes for good...etc) Anyway, the network was told, by an oil firm, if they run the piece, they will no longer get the ads of the oil holder (big money) piece was pulled. Of course.
Again thank you!

[cali]

while I am definatly all for the enviroment(and always hated Bush) would anyone care to send some of this "global warming" they are complaining about this way? because we had the coldest summer on record, and I am not exaderating, it was predicted that because of global warming this summer was supposed to be abnormally Hot, boy were they ever wrong when we got the coldest summer on record. +27*C was the warmest temp we had this summer, and we had about 2 days of that, when normally we get weeks and weeks of +40*C temps. this morning is was 0*C and we had severe frost in the middle of July. to be honest that just makes me want to kill people who complain about global warning right now lol but other then that I do care about the enviroment, but I really havent seen the situation in the states, so I cant pass a whole lot of judgment.

[leslie]

see, that your weather is so unpredictable is worth noting. keep track of it. My latest National Geo. is dedicated completely to Global Warming. If I see anything pertaining to what you have experienced, I will let you know! Weird, huh?

[heinz57_79]

I'm so glad someone else sees what the Bush Admin. is doing to this country!! :) Yet another reason why I hope to GOD he gets voted out this coming November.

Global Warming doesn't neccessarily mean that the whole world is going to be warmer immediately. Unusual weather, in general, is usually blamed on the effects of Global Warming, because of the way it messes up the environment. Some places may have a warmer winter, some may have unexpected snow, others may have numerous hurricanes, etc.

[jonza]

Of course, all these discussions are very difficult, since the global environment is so complex. I don't actually believe that global warming is necessarily 100% man made, but what we're doing is just exaggerating the situation at a very unfortunate time, and upsetting a natural balance in a very dangerous way. What I find so unnerving is that it is the huge Corporations (in league with the White House) who are responsible for this, and how their greed is taking away so much which was traditionally community owned and making it private, for the good of the privileged few.

I just do not understand how it can be that so many presumably intelligent people cannot see where this is leading us. Nobody seems to care about the world that we are leaving to our children, it's all about ME, ME, ME, get rich NOW, somebody else can sort out the problems later. The Corporations are of course very devious, playing on peoples self interest and greed. They say they are working for the common good, when in actual fact it's all about satisfying their shareholders and increasing their profit and power. Nothing else. This is built into the very charters of Corporations. "A Corporations' legally defined mandate is to pursue, relentlessly and without exception, it's own self interest, regardless of harmful consequences it might cause to others".

They now seem to have practically as much power as government, a most disturbing thought. They determine what we eat, what we watch, what we wear, where we work, and what we do.
Where's our all important DEMOCRACY in all this? We have to have more regulation, not less. The Enron scandals and all the others are examples of what happens when you weaken the regulations to appease your big business buddies.

We don't need more Corporations, we need more cooperation.

[lizzielou742]

Hrmmm, Bush says: "Prosperity will mean little if we leave to future generations a world of polluted air, toxic lakes and rivers, and vanished forests," but he does exactly that? I'd call that flip flopping!!! hahahahaha "flip, flop, flip, flop, flippity, floppity, floo.." as Al Franken said yesterday on his Air America show. :D

Let me just quote the masterful P. Diddy on this one:

It's all about the Benjamins, baby.

[lizzielou742]

Originally posted by sirrahbed
You feel like pointing fingers - how about pointing at the Soviet Union where they have next to no environmental controls for air, water, etc.

Soviet Union? Thought that broke up in '91? :p ;) :D

[lizzielou742]

Seriously, though, I think the Guardian is an exteremly reputable international news source. I don't think they can be written off as propaganda.

[lizzielou742]

Originally posted by sirrahbed
DUH! I still dial phone numbers too :o

LOL!! ;) :D

[Soledad]

Originally posted by sirrahbed
Traditionally, Democrats are seen as being more concerned about the environment and so of course it must follow that President Bush does NOT care about it and I do NOT believe this is the case. I also do not believe many of the statements in that article that claim he has suspended so many environmental compliance acts are based on facts either.


What would it take for you to believe that Bush has not been an environmentally concerned president? Would you need the legislation he's signed? What organization do you trust?

I think you're letting your feelings about Bush distort the facts. I'm not a huge environmentalist, but I know enough to know that the environment is most definitely not on Bush's list of priorities.

[Soledad]

Has he? Tell me, what is so important on his plate these days that he isn't prevented from taking vast amounts of vacation down on the ranch?

[leslie]

There are no scientists that disagree on this issue. Across the globe. This is not an arguable issue. It's cut and dry. the depletion of the ozone layer is not theory. There have been 2 and now are 3 hurricanes in FL. I hate to repeat myself, but people are losing land. Boston is losing land.. Insurance companies know it's global warming and they were prepared and are ok.

[jonza]

Thank you Sirrahbed, I admire your courage in sticking your fingers into this little hornets nest! Especially when the evidence against your views is so overwhelming. ;)

I agree with you that one must be very careful in relying on the media for all these statements and statistics, but there are now so many of them, and so well documented, that there has to be some truth in them somewhere. As you say, it isn't hard to find articles full of negativity, but what do you think of all the hate and negativity coming from the Republicans? Just listen to what Dick Cheney, the Swift Boat Veterans or Zell Miller are saying! How condescending, primitive and hateful can you get? Not to mention false and misleading. What is all this Republican talk of "girlie men" and the shameless attacks on decorated war veterans then? Bush promised at the convention that in a second term he would continue to ensure that the rich get richer, no matter how many unfair tax breaks, wasteful military contracts or union-busting laws it takes.
The hypocrisy is astonishing.

You admit to being a bit "behind the times" as it were regarding telephones etc. but I'm afraid you are behind the times regarding global warming too. There is very little doubt left in the scientific community about what is happening there. (Those scientists who aren't on the payroll of a large Corporation that is).
To state that "Global warming is largely unknown and largely scientific theory" is not true. It's not "largely unknown" anymore, it's largely accepted as a real problem. And to say that it "makes a great movie though" is just superficial and condescending, and ignores the issue.

And pointing at the Soviet Union where they have next to no environmental controls for air, water, etc. does not in any way condone the actions of your own government.

I must also disagree over your argument that "Democrats are seen as being more concerned about the environment and so of course it must follow that President Bush does NOT care about". That is not a forgone conclusion, or at least a very weird argument, the facts seem to suggest very strongly that Bush is NOT taking the condition of our environment seriously.

You also state: "The article is nothing but propaganda. - I would not have to look far to find a similar article that states everything from an opposing viewpoint"
No, you wouldn't have to look far, but would the article be factual, or would it just be government/big business propaganda? Surely there can be bits of truth in both of them?

"Why are YOU picking on America anyway? You don't even live here do you? Are you American? Then come back and do something about what you are complaining about. If not, how about closing your mouth."

See! Now you've blown it! How disappointing. Typical Republican rant, a rather insulting remark. I am not American, I'm British, living in Denmark ("a small, insignificant country" to some Americans). I live in a society where there is freedom of speech and a reasonable degree of tolerance and compassion. It's called a democracy. Apparently your attitude is that if people say things you don't agree with, then they must "close their mouth". Not very democratic or tolerant I fear.
If you really want to know, I'll tell you exactly why I'm "picking on America" as you fallaciously put it. It is because your manipulative, secretive, possibly corrupt President and his administration are causing horrific problems for me and hundreds of millions of other people in the world. Are you aware of this? This administration wants globalization and deregulation of business, but doesn't want to have to respect other nations rights. They want to give huge Corporations the right to plunder and misuse the rights of the people for their own ends. This isn't just an American problem by any means, but America happens to be by far the biggest and most effective exponent of it.

If you think it's just me who's got a problem with this, here's a recent CNN news story:
Bush-bashing a favorite sport for Europeans (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-RTO-PLS&idq=/ff/story/0002/20040830/0653944694.htm)

Or this from a recent poll:
The world wants President Bush out of the White House, according to a poll released on Wednesday that shows in 30 of 35 countries people preferred Democrat candidate John Kerry.
Kerry was particularly favored in traditionally strong U.S. allies and beat Bush on average by more than a two-to-one margin, 46 percent to 20 percent, the survey by GlobeScan Inc, a global research firm, and the University of Maryland, said.
"Only one in five want to see Bush re-elected. Though he is not as well known, Kerry would win handily if the people of the world were to elect the U.S. president," Steven Kull, director of the university's program on international policy attitudes, said.
Asked how the foreign policy of Bush has affected their feelings toward the United States, a majority or plurality of respondents in 30 countries said it made them feel worse about America, while in three countries more respondents said they felt better.

You can think that this is irrelevant or unimportant, and I'm sure you think it's none of my business, but as I said, hundreds of millions of people would not agree with you. Nor about half of America it appears.

Do you really not care at all what the rest of the world thinks of your country? Do you really think that other peoples opinions are irrelevant? Don't you want to regain the respect that has been lost under the Bush Administration? I'm sure that you are concerned for the fate of your children and the coming generations, don't all these claims concern you at all? When you see such conflicting statements don't you begin to wonder whether there may not be enough truth in them that they should be published and discussed, and that something has to be done about it? Or should we all just close our mouths and ignore it?

This is the Internet, a global communication form, let's keep the right for freedom of speech here at least. ;)

[carole]

I have to say Sirrahbed I am shocked at how defensive you are regarding this subject, it's like how dare Jonza point the finger at America, its not about pointing fingers, who is the worst and who is the best, its a world-wide problem that just has to be addressed.

NZ is well known for its clean green image, however I think we have a long way to go to achieve this, and I would be in total agreement with anyone who pointed out what we are doing wrong in this country.

As much as I love my country and am proud to be a New Zealander, I am not above criticism of Aotearoa, and we just all have to get on with it and protect our world to make it a better place for us all and future generations.

I agree with a lot of your comments Jonza, and I am not even going to attempt to say anything about Bush or US politics, because I simply donot know enough about them.

Regarding Global warming, its here and its not going away in a hurry, and yes we all have played our part.

[RICHARD]

At least we have an enviromental agency in place.

Look at the gold mines in the Africa where arsenic is still being used to sluice off the material to gather the stuff.

Look at how many acres of rain forest that disappear each day because other South Am countries are too poor to stop it.

Look at the sanitation issues in India. They aren't kidding when they stand at the edge of the Ganges and say, "Holy Sh-t, that water is bad."

Yes, We americans are concerned about our enviromental issues.

And MORE concerned about everyone else mucking up the planet.


Since you have managed to hold on to my "small insignificant country" quote, why not add "really small" to the quote just to change things up a bit.


Is Bush bashing a real sport???

I guess it could be......You can tell from that 'football' you guys play over there......you can't use your hands and riot when your team loses.

THAT'S SPORTING!

That article makes it sound that Bush is polluting the US, all by himself.........If that is the case he really is a bad guy, no??

And I am really surprised at a Brit taking such shots across our bow like that........I always thought our countries were friends..

But then again I should be bitter about Washington D.C. being torched by you guys in 1814.

It's all part of war.....and we got over it.

Your 'distant' views of our prez and EPA are kinda skewed. We do have what's called and Enviromental Impact Report that is taken when we build ANYTHING out here.

We have had plants and animals stop huge construction projects until we can figure out how to keep them safe a flourishing. We have National Parks and protected areas that cannot be developed, In California, we pay the highest prices for gas because of the Cal Air Resouces Board.

It sounds kinda funny because the "brown stickleback groundhog"
stops a road project....

But you have to do a little more research to find out these things.

While we do have a problem with pollution in our country, It's our problem, no one elses.

So when you can give us a hand, come on down, we'd appreciate
it......talking about it doesn't do us any good, it's just more hot air into the atmosphere.

[lizzielou742]

Originally posted by RICHARD
While we do have a problem with pollution in our country, It's our problem, no one elses.

Richard, I am shocked at that statement!! Do you really think our pollution isn't anyone else's problem? The air pollution from all Ahnold's H2s just hangs above Sacramento and doesn't go anywhere else? The mercury-filled waters of the Mississippi River flow out of the Mississippi and....right back into the Mississippi??? :confused: Toxic fumes from our factories don't get blown over the Canada and the North Pole as the Earth orbits the Sun? Other countries are concerned about our pollution because they have to deal with it too. We have to deal with their pollution too, but the US produces roughly 25% of the Earth's pollution. The US is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, yet only has 5% of the Earth's population. So to say that our pollution is only "our problem" is ludicrous.

If you mean that it's just our problem to deal with, then you agree with Bush on his decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol two months after entering office? Yes, as you stated, we do have protected area like National Parks and Forests...but George Bush wants to log them (like the Daniel Boone National Forest here in KY) or drill for oil in them (Alaska) or put roads in them (Yosemite). Why would he want to do something like that? HRMMMMMMMMMM let's think, could it be because of Mark Rey, the former timber industry lobbyist and Bush made his Agriculture Undersecretary, the post charged with overseeing the U.S. Forest Service??? I could go on...

A road not being built because of an endangered species isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about things on a much much larger scale. Things that will effect the survival of this planet.

I am really disspointed in your opinion on this one. :(

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/popclock
http://www.xist.org/global/pop_data2.php
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000178.php
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/177937_woods16.html
http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/rey.html

[Soledad]

Pollution is NOT one country's issue, it's EVERYONE'S issue in the world. There is no possible way to refute that. It's call the food chain, people.

Also, are we supposed to be proud of the fact that the world's richest country and only super power can at least say it has an EPA? How is that for lowering the bar? Comparing our environmental systems to Africa and India? Jeez, how sad...I guess America must only be compared to the lowest common denominator. That's patriotism for you!:rolleyes:

[Edwina's Secretary]

And of course....meddling in the affairs of another nation is something the U.S. nor any of its citizens would THINK of doing...nor offering opinions on the actions of other nations....nor the leaders of those nations...

[heinz57_79]

Originally posted by Edwina's Secretary
And of course....meddling in the affairs of another nation is something the U.S. nor any of its citizens would THINK of doing...nor offering opinions on the actions of other nations....nor the leaders of those nations...


Brilliant! My thoughts exactly!!!

[Soledad]

Why are you so afraid to back up your beliefs? You seem scared to death to actually follow through on your convictions. Why don't you research the web and find something you think Bush has done re: environment that can really teach people? Why just lash out and assume that criticism=hatred?

I guess it takes time, effort, and brain power for that. And I'm sure you have the last one....

[leslie]

Deb- I don't think anyone is talking hatred here- just about the bills that stopped pollution etc and he signed to be ineffective (to put in a nutshell). It's just a matter of facts. not who lives where, who's family fought what war, you know. just particular environmental bills that he undid. All by himself, yes. With the blessing of big oil execs who had stopped nbc from running the news that global warming was causing these multiple bad weathers across the globe. Because it will hurt the oil industry. And television execs can't afford to loose the backing of their money. It's really very simple and like soledad says, just read the facts. It's very black and white and nothing that the White House is denying! There is no denial here, they have justified every move for undoing all the environmental acts. Also see in Dog house the reasoning for animal bills being changed. and the harm it has caused. Not to say anyone hates anyone! just dealing with reality! Our voters need to be aware, do you not agree my friend?

[leslie]

also- I don't see anywhere in the story where it implies that America or Bush are alone responsible for world pollution. If you and Richard read that, please quote and let rest of us know- to me, it is specific to particulars... right or wrong? I don't see anything arguable in the article. it is all facts. Can be verified easily and Bush doesn't deny them. He can't.

[RICHARD]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lizzielou742
[B]

I am really disspointed in your opinion on this one. :(

[B]

Shoot,

you mean I dont think like the borg?

Actually,

I am more paranoid than most, I just don't show it.....

It's not becoming and it makes me look real stupid farther down the road-skip over my posts and i'll once again shine in your eyes....


Since I stuck this knife in my forehead I have had trouble thinking.

Excuse me, I am going to do some self loathing.

[lizzielou742]

eh? what is 'the borg?' :confused: duh

I guess I should clarify - what I am really dissapointed in is the comment - "While we do have a problem with pollution in our country, It's our problem, no one elses" because it's a baseless argument...& it appears to show a lack of awareness of the rest of the world on your part.

You still shine in my eyes Richard ;) Come on now, pull the knife out. ;)

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by lizzielou742
& it appears to show a lack of awareness of the rest of the world on your part.



Look at the gold mines in the Africa where arsenic is still being used to sluice off the material to gather the stuff.

Look at how many acres of rain forest that disappear each day because other South Am countries are too poor to
stop it.

Look at the sanitation issues in India. They aren't kidding when they stand at the edge of the Ganges and say,
"Holy Sh-t, that water is bad."

You are right, I don't know anything about the rest of the world

[lizzielou742]

I said "it appears to" which is why it didn't make sense with the rest of your agument, because you did mention those things about African mining, etc.

It's all good. All the problems in the world just boil down to money, you know? And about who/how/where people want to spend it. Now, if only I could figure out a way to change that.... ;)

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by lizzielou742
I said "it appears to" which is why it didn't make sense with the rest of your agument, because you did mention those things about African mining, etc.



I just wanted to bring up a this point.

People outside our borders are always Bush/America bashing on the points that affect the citizens here in the states.

While our EPA/enviromental policies AREN'T the best on the planet, there are countries out there that really don't care about their citizens, enivroment or animals within their borders.

We aren't perfect, but WHAT laws we have here in the US are a smidge better than the rest of the world.

I usually don't have a point to make or a side to choose. I just like to shake the tree.

[jonza]

Well Richard, it seems we just can't agree on much can we. The interesting thing is, that in all your posts, I have not yet found out what you really stand for. Do you think the environment should be protected? Do you think that Bush should get a second term of office? Do you think it's OK that the huge Corporations are taking over so much of our lives? Are you prepared to state your beliefs? If you're going to shout and threaten, you should at least have something relevant to say or some sort of concrete argument. What are you REALLY against? (apart from upstart foreigners daring to criticize your president). If you think that I'm just picking on America, then you haven't understood what I'm talking about. I would just like to make people more aware of what is really happening in the "developed" world (not just America), think long and hard about it, and check the facts. And think about the world that we will leave to future generations.

"At least we have an enviromental agency in place".
If you read my post, you will see that monthly violation notices are down 58%, that the EPA announced a plan to allow sewage treatment plants to release biologically untreated waste into rivers, and the Bush administration has sought to remove protection from 20m acres of wetlands and allow mountaintop mining companies to dump their waste directly into waterways. Do you think this is all just lies? Perhaps YOU have to do a little more research to find out these things.

"Look at how many acres of rain forest that disappear each day because other South Am countries are too poor to stop it".
Come on! You must be joking again. Who's most interested in destroying all our forests? I'll tell you - The Bush administration and his friends in the timber industry.
Could it be that American Corporations have something to do with the plight of the South Americans?

"Yes, We americans are concerned about our enviromental issues. And MORE concerned about everyone else mucking up the planet.
I think you should clean up in your own back garden before you start accusing others of "mucking up the planet".

"Since you have managed to hold on to my "small insignificant country" quote, why not add "really small" to the quote just to change things up a bit".
Sorry to disappoint you Richard, it's not your quote, it was jackiesdaisy1935. Perhaps you would have liked to have said it, it has a nice contemptuous ring to it, doesn't it!

"And I am really surprised at a Brit taking such shots across our bow like that........I always thought our countries were friends".
Well maybe the Prime Minister is, but it appears that a majority of the British don't like your ADMINISTRATION. That's not the same as not liking America or Americans.
Could it have anything to do with the way the Bush Administration is running things?

"We have National Parks and protected areas that cannot be developed, In California, we pay the highest prices for gas because of the Cal Air Resouces Board".
Cannot be developed YET. See how long they last under a Bush administration. And Americans must surely have some of the cheapest gasoline in the world. Don't come to Europe and buy a gallon of gas, you couldn't afford it!

"While we do have a problem with pollution in our country, It's our problem, no one elses".
I think that others have answered that much better than I could.

"So when you can give us a hand, come on down, we'd appreciate it ...... talking about it doesn't do us any good, it's just more hot air into the atmosphere".

(sigh) … so NOT talking about it will help more, perhaps the problems will just go away? I've been around too long to believe that.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by jonza
Well Richard, it seems we just can't agree on much can we.

Well Jonza, why would I want to agree with you?

I was just defending the colonies.

The motherland and all that stuff.

I really hope that Bush does win another 4 years. I bothers me to think that the Bush Bashers won't have anything to do with their time and thoughts. I'd hate to think what would happen when they start to contemplate their own little space on the planet.


I have always admired the Brits and their 'stiff upper lip' approach to life........The Brits that I have had the privilege to meet were kind, soft spoken and well mannered-even when they had an ax to grind....

I haven't had the opportunity to meet you.....make an apppointment...

And about my back garden......
Why is it so important to YOU that my back garden stay clean??
I thought it was a typical 'US citizen' thing to stick our noses where they don't belong!

It cracks me up to see you waste your time rebutting my comments......they have no basis, no concrete facts behind them and no facts to back them up......

So why bother?
Or does it make you feel good to beat up on a poor defenseless moron like me???

We pollute and so does the rest of the planet.

Now what?

[Soledad]

Bush: Global warming is just hot air
The planet's getting hotter, ecosystems are going haywire, government scientists know it -- and still the president denies there's a problem. Guess which industry continues to fuel his campaign?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Katharine Mieszkowski



Sept. 10, 2004 | Don't expect President Bush to discuss global warming -- the world's most serious environmental problem -- on the campaign trail in the next eight weeks. The former oilman from Texas doesn't dare alienate his friends in the fossil fuel and auto industries, prime purveyors of global warming. Bush still refuses to admit that burning Chevron with Techron in our Jeep Grand Cherokees, not to mention megatons of coal in our power plants, has brought us 19 of the 20 hottest years on record since 1980.

"You're talking about a president who says that the jury is out on evolution, so what possible evidence would you need to muster to prove the existence of global warming?" says Robert F. Kennedy Jr., author of the new book "Crimes Against Nature." "We've got polar ice caps melting, glaciers disappearing all over the world, ocean levels rising, coral reefs dying. But these people are flat-earthers."

In fact, Bush's see-no-evil, hear-no-evil stance on global warming is so intractable that even when his own administration's scientists weigh in on the issue, he simply won't hear of it.

In a report sent to Congress at the end of August, government scientists argued that the warming of the atmosphere in recent decades cannot be explained by natural causes but must include such human sources as energy consumption and deforestation. It's a conclusion that a consensus of the world's climatologists reached years ago but that Bush has ignored throughout his presidency.

When the New York Times quizzed Bush about why his scientists had shifted their positions on what caused global warming, he appeared entirely ignorant that they had. "I don't think we did," he said. When tipped off to the paper's coverage of the report, he added: "Oh, OK, well, that's got to be true." Maybe he really doesn't read the newspapers. His aides then assured reporters that, no, this report wouldn't signal any change in his policies around climate change.

In other words, Bush will continue to delay regulatory action related to global warming, while pledging to invest in more study of the issue in the name of "sound science," before doing anything about it.

"The Bush administration has been playing whack-a-mole trying to beat back its own scientists on global warming; every once in a while they miss one," says Jeremy Symons, who worked at the Environmental Protection Agency in 2001, when the president reneged on his campaign promise to regulate global-warming pollution -- a move, Symons says, done for "no reason other than to appease polluters."

"The strength of the science is overwhelming and it's reflected in this new report," adds Symons, now climate change program manager for the National Wildlife Federation. "It doesn't leave the administration anywhere to hide about the fact that it's not doing anything. The science hasn't changed, but when it comes to policy the Bush administration still has its head in the sand."

It's a repeat of a situation early in Bush's presidency, when he asked the National Academy of Sciences to look into global warming and they found that it is happening and is likely caused by such human activities as burning fossil fuels. The response? The administration just continued to call for further study and even infamously censored mentions of the harmful impact of global warming from a federal environmental report.

"Since the first time President Bush has marginally said global warming could be real, he has delayed, denied or tried to derail any advancements to address it," says Betsy Loyless, vice president for policy for the League of Conservation Voters, which has endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004.

The Bush administration has refused to allow climate experts to even participate in climate policy discussions, asserts Rosina Bierbaum, a former director of the White House science office. Rather than consult with its own scientific advisors when devising a strategy on climate change, the White House constructed a plan primarily from conversations with the National Economic Counsel.

"I wasn't asked anything," says Bierbaum, now dean of the University of Michigan's School of Natural Resources and Environment. "In fact, I was told to stop sending weekly science updates to the White House, as had been the tradition with the previous administration."

Now that Bush is seeking reelection, he's certainly not going to bring up global warming, which he's done so little about. "Bush is not mentioning it because it goes against the major interest of his supporters," says Ross Gelbspan, author of a new book on global warming called "Boiling Point," which calls for buying out coal miners to speed the transition from CO2-intensive coal to electricity made from renewable sources. "Bush has given the reins of our climate and energy policies to the coal and oil industries completely."

Oil and gas companies have contributed more than $2 million to Bush's reelection effort, making him the largest recipient of the industry's campaign dollars, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; and the coal industry has given his reelection effort more than $200,000, making the president that industry's biggest beneficiary too.

When you dig into Bush's reelection campaign, you find that he euphemistically refers to global warming as "climate change," and that his 2005 budget includes nearly $2 billion for scientific research "focused on reducing significant uncertainties in climate science."

"His response to everything is we still need more study," adds Kennedy. "You're never going to get a scientist to say there is an absolute certainty that this consequence is going to happen. You're standing on a railroad track and a train is coming. A scientist is not going to say that there is a complete 100 percent certainty that that train is going to hit you, but it's still a good idea to get off the track."

When Bush does address climate change, he brags about his programs "Healthy Forests" and "Clear Skies," chipper names that mask what they actually do. The programs allow companies to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas intensity, not overall greenhouse gas emissions.

That means that as the economy grows, the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output should not grow as quickly. Yet that phenomenon is already happening on its own; as the economy becomes more service-oriented, it's naturally becoming less CO2-intensive. According to the Government Accountability Office, emission intensity was already projected to drop 14 percent between 2002 and 2012.

"The core of the Bush policy was a voluntary goal of reducing emissions 'intensity' by 18 percent by 2012," says Aimee Christensen, executive director of Environment 2004, a political action group. So what the policy really calls for -- but does not require -- is a mere 4 percent reduction in intensity. What's lost in the discussion about "emissions intensity," says Christensen, is that actual greenhouse gas emissions will increase 12 percent.

Compare that to the targets set by the Kyoto Protocol, which would have mandated that by 2012 the U.S. return to emission levels 7 percent below those of 1990, or the McCain/Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act, which asked that the U.S. return to year 2000 levels of emissions. Both those plans would result in actual reductions, not just intensity reductions. The Bush administration walked away from the first proposal on the international stage and opposed the second here at home.

"Clearly, if the White House took a different position, the McCain-Lieberman plan would have had a good shot," says Symons. "If President Bush put half as much energy into doing something about global warming as he does to opposing the efforts in Congress, we may actually have gotten something done."

While the U.S. rests on its voluntary plan for just slightly reducing the growth rate of its global warming emissions, it continues to account for more than 20 percent of the man-made greenhouse gases produced in the world. "It didn't take 9/11 and the war on Iraq to begin to make the United States the pariah in international circles," says Randy Hayes, founder of the Rainforest Action Network and director of sustainability for Oakland, Calif. "Bush's fight against the Kyoto Protocol, and the U.S. opposing setting firm targets and timelines for the reduction of greenhouse gases, did that."

Further evidence that the voluntary Bush program is not doing much of anything can be found in how few companies participate in its much ballyhooed Climate Leaders program. Fifty-six companies got involved, with fewer than half of those agreeing to set targets to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. "The bottom line is, in the absence of a mandatory program you're not going to have the kind of participation you need," says Vicki Arroyo, director of policy analysis for the PEW Center on Global Climate Change.

After all, why should companies participate if they don't have to? "With this voluntary framework, it just creates so little incentive for people to do anything, even if you have a good program in place to help them do the right thing," says Christensen.

And then there's Bush's Climate VISION program, which allows industry sectors to set their own voluntary emissions intensity reduction targets. Not surprisingly, the industry associations set very modest goals for themselves. For instance, the electric power industry pledged to reduce carbon intensity by 3 to 5 percent within the decade, while complaining that this would be "very difficult" to accomplish.

With his ideological opposition to forcing industry to do anything, Bush has focused on funding research initiatives into new technologies that could help CO2-intensive industries emit less carbon in the future -- the far future. For instance, he's trumpeting his investment in a demonstration power plant, which would capture and sequester the CO2 emissions under the ground. But concerns about catastrophic CO2 leaks and possible aquifer contamination have left some unconvinced. "Certainly, the verdict is not in on coal sequestration, and until it is, we're highly skeptical of that," says Dave Hamilton, director of global warming and energy programs for the Sierra Club. Gelbspan is more direct. "Carbon sequestration is a huge misuse of money that could be put into renewable energy," he says. "This would be a boondoggle for Halliburton and Bechtel. If you simply use that money to put up wind farms, you'd be doing the right thing."

Some environmental groups favor government investment in research to try to make carbon sequestration work -- but not without corresponding mandatory limits on C02 emissions. "We're not going to support them in a separate fashion because that's a way to get swindled," says David G. Hawkins, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center. So even if carbon sequestration does show promise, subsidizing its research and development without also forcing the coal industry to emit less C02 amounts to a giveaway to a polluting industry.

Bush has adopted the same new-technology-is-our-savior approach with the auto industry, funding research into hydrogen fuel-cell cars, while only marginally raising the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards that regulate how many miles per gallon cars on the road must get. He's hyped the promise of hydrogen fuel-cell cars, which would emit nothing but water from the tailpipe.

But despite his campaign's claim that such cars would "emit no air pollutants or greenhouse gases," using hydrogen could actually end up creating a lot of CO2 emissions, according to Joseph Romm, the author of "The Hype About Hydrogen: Fact and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate," who was in charge of clean energy in the Department of Energy in the Clinton administration. That's because the hydrogen has to be derived from somewhere and today 95 percent of hydrogen in the U.S. comes from natural gas -- a fossil fuel. And since hydrogen is such a diffuse gas it would take a lot of energy to compress or deliver it. Even those who continue to be more optimistic about getting hydrogen from renewable sources in the future don't see them on the road in large numbers for decades.

While Bush bets on new technologies saving us from global warming, the atmosphere continues to heat up. "Climate scientists are divided on whether or not there is global warming the same way that Americans are divided about whether or not Ralph Nader should be president," says Eban Goodstein, an economics professor at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Ore., who is founder of the Green House Network, a nonprofit working to stop global warming. Which is to say, they're not divided at all. "And without presidential leadership and given the hold that anti-government Republicans have, especially in the House, nothing will happen."

With the topic largely off the table in the presidential reelection bid, the nation loses not only more time, but an important chance for the president to educate the public about the biggest environmental threat to the country today.

"Global climate change is going to require a global solution," says Nigel Purvis, an environmental scholar at the Brookings Institution. "The president is a very important player on the issue of climate change. The power of the office to educate the American people does matter." But apparently not in the office of this president.

[RICHARD]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

If Bush wanted to help his oil buddies he would have opened ANWAR to keep them busy...

Why send us all across the planet to 'colonize' oil producing nations???

Bush playing whack-a-mole.......great visual.....


Soledad,

Your slip is showing....it would be far more productive (economical) for Bush to OK drilling here in the states....wouldn't it???

Why lose 10 zillion dollars taking over Iraq for oil when we can stay at home and drill to our little capitalist heart's content?

Or do we need to make sure that the enviros have gas for their cars so they can go and protest?

----------------------------------------------------

Lizzie,

While I am a casual Star Trek fan, the Borg is..

The Borg are an immensely powerful race of humanoids from the Delta Quadrant. Stregnthened with cybernetic implants, Borg awareness is as a collective. Individual thought is considered primal and should be "assimilated" into the collective. Each borg is part of a giant subspace communications network, called the Borg Collective.

The borg is a huge clot of humanoids that can't think on their own.

Sorta like sports fans....;)


---------------------------------------------
whack a mole!!!!


http://www.upchucky.com/flash-games-whack.html

------------------------------------------------


And why the animosity about Kool-Aid???

I make my own.....that way I don't get sick.

[jonza]

Richard. Only knowing you through reading your posts, I would say that it is you, and people like you, who are one of the reasons that hundreds of millions of people are losing respect for America and what it stands for. How sad, especially as you are not representative of any American I have ever met in Europe or through the Internet. You should be ashamed (if you know what that means). You are doing your country a great disservice. But apparently you don't care. Anything for a laugh at others expense, I suppose.

Your posts are incoherent, your arguments are irrational and rarely have factual basis, you seem mostly to be motivated by hatred. Have you no tolerance or respect for other people at all? You may think that this is all very funny, but I can assure you it isn't for the rest of the world (and about half of America). Ranting and raving is exactly what we DON'T need in such serious situations.

Why do your posts have to be so often full of intolerance and contempt? :confused:

[carole]

Yes Richard I have been totally blown away by your comments, now mate you know I have the utmost respect for you, and I like to consider us friends, but mate you are way out of line in this thread, just MO.

No-one should be so defensive here, the facts are the facts, we can go on comparing our country with another, but whatever excuses we come up with,it does not change the problem, we all need to work together on this, and make the changes needed to ensure a better future for the next generation.

Putting people down, being sarcastic, because they dare to criticise your administration, just seems rather immature to me,I am not proud of everything my country stands for or does, and I would be the first person to say so.

Jonza has not made this an anti-american thread, by any means, he has made valid points, and just because he is British, there is no need for name calling, he is stating facts, and backing up his comments as I see it.

I vaguely remember a summit being held some time back, where our country and others and of course America were involved, and America would not agree to participate, our country did and others, and it was to do with pollution and the enviroment, I cannot for the life of me remember the details, but if anyone can shed light on it for me, great.

[Soledad]

Kyoto, Carole.

[Lady's Human]

Kyoto would have hamstrung the US while doing nothing about third world polluters like China. The brown clouds blowing across the pacific could continue unimpeded, but the US would have had to severely cut industrial activity to comply with the treaty.

Just a little piece of trivia......


Did the state of massachusetts have more acres of undeveloped forest in 1800 or the year 2000?


the answer is the year 2000

[carole]

Thanks for putting me in the picture.:)

[leslie]

Hi there! Ladie's Human- please if you can explain Kyoto to me and others who may not be familiar? Thanks!

[RICHARD]

Carole,

I seem to have missed the thread where I called someone a name.

Could you please copy and post that?

My comment about him being British was directed at the people I have met from GB and how nice and polite they were.

Someone else seemed to think I called them a liar and asked them to post the reply where I did.

I will be more than happy to apologize for being outlandish.

I expect someone else to do the same.

People talk trash all the time on these threads and when they are called out on a statement they make they can't back it up...


Just like the Assault Weapons comments...someone says that a citizen here cannot purchase a weapon that our military uses and them said my comments were BS...

I expect that people would cry foul when they make statements out of the blue and then I mock them.....

A funny story always deserves a good laugh.

I apologize to you if I seem to much of a cowboy.

Cowboys always seem to ride to the rescue when the fit hits the shan.

We await the global response to help the people who were hit by the hurricanes in Florida.

[Miss Meow]

Originally posted by RICHARD
...
We await the global response to help the people who were hit by the hurricanes in Florida.

I'm sure America's allies and global aid agencies will offer aid. It's hard for countries to offer (and the sufferer to accept) specific monetary or physical aid until the disaster has passed. I think you're being a bit too cynical there.

If that's the case, where is America's offer of aid for the bombing of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta last week? Our current government has always been quick to jump to Bush's aid but nothing has been forthcoming so far.

[dukedogsmom]

Way off topic but I just had to say that I love the Borgs! They're one of my favorite things about Star Trek.

[carole]

Richard I never mentioned your name, when I said name calling, perhaps that was the wrong choice of words, plain darn rudeness would be more appropriate and it was NOT you I was referring to OK, that thread appears to have been deleted, still I stand by what I have said regarding your comments on this thread., but I am not about to get into a hissy fight over it, that just is not my style.

IMO Jonza has backed up alot of what he had been saying, and he has been around on this planet a lot longer than you and I, and therefore he has, had I believe more experience than either of us, and seen many changes in his life-time, that has to be respected.

[Lady's Human]

The Kyoto protocals would have limited the CO2 output of a given INDUSTRIALIZED nation in proportion to their output in 1994, eventually forcing the country to return to that level. Notice, industrialized nations only. Also, it limited CO2 output, not total emissions. China as an "emerging nation" would not have been limited by the treaty, while Russia would have been limited.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by dukedogsmom
Way off topic but I just had to say that I love the Borgs! They're one of my favorite things about Star Trek.

Picard does too.


Kinda.


Miss Meow.,


http://www.usembassyjakarta.org/press_rel/US_aid_kuningan.html

We are a tad slow......:(

[RICHARD]

For the record.

Freedom of speech is exactly that. Freedom of speech.

It does not end when you put the period at the end of the sentence.

I think that allows people to reply to an issue in any way they choose- It's a two way street.

I just find it rather funny that someone would offer up an article with "Bush the destroyer" in the first paragraph the word "controversial" in the thread title, without expecting a response.


Quoting articles is a wonderful way to exchange information and for making your opinions known, It's more honest when you use your own words and let it all hang out.

That way you know exactly where a person stands and what they mean when they say it. I may have jerked a few chains and will continue to do so....I am merely using my FOS.

I have always invited people to 'mock back' at me, it is their right-
I can take it.

I am sticking to my guns about my comments. And I reserve the right, just as most of you do, to comment on others.

Freedom of speech and expression is just a buch of vowels and consonants-unless you are willing to believe in it-good, bad and indifferent.

It's amazing how fast FOS loses it's meaning when someone opposes or makes light of your opinion.

Then it's time to shut a perSon down!
:eek:

[carole]

Whatever Richard.

[lizbud]

Originally posted by jonza

Your posts are incoherent, your arguments are irrational and rarely have factual basis, you seem mostly to be motivated by hatred. Have you no tolerance or respect for other people at all? You may think that this is all very funny, but I can assure you it isn't for the rest of the world (and about half of America). Ranting and raving is exactly what we DON'T need in such serious situations.

Why do your posts have to be so often full of intolerance and contempt? :confused:

Jonza,

I think you expect too much of Richard. Coherent? Rational?
Factual? America is much too conditioned by national media
to respond to any situation with a one-liner. Serious debate
is a very rare event in most peoples lives. Sad, but true.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by lizbud
Jonza,

I think you expect too much of Richard. Coherent? Rational?
Factual? America is much too conditioned by national media
to respond to any situation with a one-liner. Serious debate
is a very rare event in most peoples lives. Sad, but true.

Kerry on, my wayward son!:rolleyes:

Conditioned by national media, But I haven't had my brain shampooed by the political pundits.

P.S. My friends call me by my nickname, Dick.

You can too!:D