It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is the environment important to you?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 04:59 PM
As you may well know, the environment will be a major factor in the upcoming debates. I therefore wish to inform those who aren't sure on the subject.

Knowing that many of you aren't one issue voters, this is just here to educate and spark intelligent discussion. I repeat, intelligent discussion.

The following will be focused mainly on the incumbent and his direct opposition . But please feel free to discuss Badnarik's or Nader's take on the issues. I will at the end post links to 3rd party candidates.

I won't type all of it out, but this is taken from an EVEC (Environmental voter education campaign):

George Bush and John Kerry: Who shares your priorities?

Clean Air

George Bush:

George Bush is seeking to allow coal-fired power plants to put three times more mercury into the air than the current Clean Air Act allows. The administration is also seeking to delay smog reduction and exposing millions of Americans to air pollution for longer than the Clean Air Act allows.

John Kerry:

John Kerry was an original co-sponsor of the Clean Power Act of 2003 which would cut emissions of mercury, carbon dioxide and other pollutants.

Clean Water

George Bush:

Has proposed a policy directive to allow a combination of untreated and treated sewage to be discharged into waterways during rainstorms.

John Kerry:

Has repeatedly advocated for increased enforcement of clean water laws and for strengthening the Safe Drinking Water Act (Though I wouldn't trust the drinking water under any administration).

George Bush

Suspended a more protective standard for arsenic in drinking water set during the previous administration. He was forced to reverse his policy due to public outcry.

John Kerry

Voted to prevent the Bush administration from returning to a standard tht would have allowed more arsenic in drinking water.

George Bush

Under pressure from hunting and fishing groups, stopped a threatened rulemaking that would have removed many of the nation's wetlands and small streams from Clean Water Act protection. However, he issued a directive to agencies not to enforce the Clean Water Act for these small streams and wetlands without first obtaining permission from national headquarters, leaving 20 percent of America's wetlands at risk for dumping, filling, or pollution.

John Kerry

Co-sponsored a legislation that would restore Clean Water Act protection for wetlands.

Toxic Waste Cleanup

George Bush

Refuses to support the principle of "polluter pays" and believes taxpayers, not polluters, should pay to clean up abandoned toxic waste sites.

John Kerry

Co-sponsored legislation that would take the burden off the taxpayers and reinstate taxes which would hold polluting companies responsible for paying to clean up abandoned toxic waste sites.


George Bush

Approved the creation of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

John Kerry

Has consistently voted against establishing a nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

George Bush

Backed away from the Kyoto treaty to reduce international greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming and reversed his campaign promise to cut emissions of carbon dioxide.

John Kerry

Introduced legislation to address global climate change and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

George Bush

Proposed cutting energy efficiency research and development by 27 percent overall.

John Kerry

Voted against defunding renewable energy programs.

Wild Land Protection

George Bush

Has pushed repeatedly to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling for oil.

John Kerry

Voted repeatedly to block oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and co-sponsored a bill to protect a portion of the refuge as wilderness.

George Bush

Opened millions of acres of National Forests to increased logging in the name of wild fire protection. (By removing parts of forests so fire couldn't spread (Remember, fires are good for forests and will naturally occur every once in awhile))

John Kerry

Has voted to cut subsidies for logging in national forests.

The aforementioned is an un-biased look at the issues and contrary to first glance, is not skewed in any way. If you have a problem with anything mentioned, I will happily tell you where I got it or provide a link. I in no away advocate either of the above candidates (Though ones record seems much better than the others).

Ralph Nader:

Michael Badnarik:

And, finally,

So, let's hear your thoughts.

[edit on 21-8-2004 by coronamoz]

[edit on 21-8-2004 by coronamoz]

posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 07:53 PM
Yes the enviornment is very important to me. I would think it would be to everyone, but who can figure people? Obviously not me. The enviornment is the air we breathe, the water we drink and bathe in, the world we inhabit. Vainly I hope to live a long time, I would like to live in as serene a place as is possible. If i don't live long i at least would like for subsequent generations not to look back at us with hate for the world we left them to live in.

Without breathable air you die in 10 minutes.
Without drinkable water you die within about a week.

Is that so hard to understand?
Even most billionaires in this country are breathing the same air and using the same water resources as everyone else.
Do they hate their kids? Do they want to degrade their own existence?

I'm baffled.

posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 08:23 PM
Environment issues are extremely important to are animal rights/welfare....these two issues for me, are looked at as much, and are considered as much, as any of the others! I know many, many people who feel the same way.

You do know who I am voting for...don't ya..?

[edit on 8/21/2004 by LadyV]

posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 08:52 PM
you are forgetting bush dedicated more money (over a billion dollars) then any prior administration to clean fuel research (i.e. hydrogen fuel cells, H2O-based fuel, etc.).

posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 09:14 PM
Well, there Bush may deserve a point or two. But that doesn't depreciate the fact that he proposed cutting energy efficiency research and development by 27 percent overall.

I provided a link to back that up.

Realizing that Bush has a rather lax record on the environment, does that really help his stance much?

posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 09:39 PM
of course it doesn't coronamoz, i agree completely. i only stated it in the interest of total disclosure. my opinion...bush has connections to big business. that doesn't mean he's evil or doesn't care about the little guy, but it does mean environmental worries aren't high on his priority list. that is something i can understand, and i'm willing to wait to get a democrat into the white house until i put pressure on the environment button.

posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 02:06 AM
I totally agree. There is no problem at all. I don't mind another "clean coal" factory opening next door which will be releasing tons of mercury.

Let's not push any buttons.

posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 02:09 AM
This is kinda of off topic but I found this Blog the other day that alot of people on this thread will find interesting.

posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 02:15 AM
I'm certainly no fan of Bush but I can't complain about the mercury one. Please correct me if I am wrong but the mercury study showed no evidence of increased cases of birth defects, illnesses, etc with what had been the previous accepted safe level of mercury. So if it was found to be safe then why did we change the level? Who picked the current random number out of a hat. If we are so concerned about mercury and safety that we will reduce a number that has already been shown to be safe why not just make it illegal to put any mercury in the water?

posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 02:34 AM
indy, you da man! that's a good question. and psilocin, love the sarcasm, but would you change your name, it's a real pain to spell. anyway, i didn't say there isn't a problem, simply i'm willing to contend there's not going to be any change under bush. even if he wasn't distracted by the war on terror, i'd still not expect much. afterall, he's a republican, and the environment issue is much more suited for a democrat.

posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 02:54 AM
Yes, the environment is very important to me! Intelligent land use in particular (while maintaing private property rights at the same time) is a particular concern of mine. I did some looking around for land use statistics in the U.S.:

According to this website (which is run by the USGS and uses their data), the approximate percentage of the total land area of the U.S. that is urbanized (which is, for all practical purposes, also covered in concrete) is about 3%. (But it just seems worse to me sometimes... maybe it's because I've lived my entire life on that 3% of the land?)

Urbanized land includes all city areas, roads, parking lots, factories, military areas (but not open, sparse testing ranges in the deserts), and even landfills... (Landfills, by the way, appear to take up 0.1% of the total land area of the U.S.)

Another 3% of the land in the U.S. is classified as rural residential; unlike the densely populated urban areas, rural residential areas are thinly populated, and contain such places as ranches and plantations. Single houses seperated by miles and miles...

So, almost all the U.S. population lives on 6% of the land!

Also, 40% of the total land area of the U.S. is used as pasture land for livestock; and 15% of the total land area of the U.S. is used for crop lands for food (interestingly, 12% is for food for the livestock, and only 3% is the food for us humans).

So, 61% of the land in the U.S. is used by humans. The remaining 39% of the U.S.'s land is basically left alone in its natural state (whether that land is tundra, desert, forest, or mountainous areas)...

Interesting statistics! There are few things I hate worse than urban sprawl, wasted land, abandoned buildings, etc. Is there a crisis in land management in the U.S.? (What about the whole planet?) What do you think?

posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 02:56 AM

If we are so concerned about mercury and safety that we will reduce a number that has already been shown to be safe why not just make it illegal to put any mercury in the water?

This has to be done, but I doubt it will happen for a while now. Allowing Mercury to build up in aquifers is a bad idea IMO. Any amount of Mercury that is due to Human activities should be banned. I believe they have found that mercury builds up in the system over time but I not sure about that since I lost that Magazine of Nature a while ago. Trying to find the link now.

posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 11:04 AM

Originally posted by sardion2000
This is kinda of off topic but I found this Blog the other day that alot of people on this thread will find interesting.

excellent link sardion

posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 04:32 PM
in regards to mercury..

More than half the fish in US lakes and reservoirs have mercury levels that exceed government standards for children and women of childbearing age, according to an analysis of EPA data by Clear the Air, an activist organization seeking stricter environmental standards for coal-burning power plants.


And are you saying that mercury is safe at a certain level?
Can be back that up?

Common behavioral symptoms of mercury toxicity include depression, irritability, exaggerated response to stimuli, excessive shyness, insomnia, and emotional instability (4). In occupational exposure studies, workers with urine mercury concentrations greater than 56 ug/L exhibited neurotoxic effects such as decreased performance on verbal concept formation and memory tests (5). Neurobehavioral tests and other standardized test batteries have been used to assess persons exposed to mercury and other neurotoxic agents in environmental and occupational settings (6-10).

estimated daily avarage mercury intakes.

The neurotoxicity of inorganic and organic mercury in experimental animals is manifested as functional, behavioral, and morphological changes, as well as alterations in brain neurochemistry. The cerebellar cortex appears to be especially sensitive to mercury toxicity.

the Journal of Neurochemistry ran a study showing brain cells exposed to even minute levels of mercury developed the exact set of neuro-deformations associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

Journal of Neurochemistry
Volume 74 Issue 1 Page 231 - January 2000

Exposure of neuroblastoma to molar mercury
increases increases Tau phosphorylation. Both of these events occur in Alzheimer’s diseased brain.
Amyloid Amyloid plaque formation is the plaque formation is the
“diagnostic hallmark” of Alzheimer’s disease. “diagnostic hallmark” of Alzheimer’s disease. Olivieri Olivieri et et
al. J. Neurochemistry, 74, 231, 2000. al. J. Neurochemistry, 74, 231, 2000.

Exposure of cultured neurons to mercury rapidly causes the stripping of tubulin from the from theneurofibrils forming the neurite leading to the processes to the
formation of formation of neurofibillary tangles, a “diagnostic tangles, a “diagnostic
hallmark” of Alzheimer’s disease. Leong Leong et al. et al.
NeuroReports NeuroReports 12(4), 733, 2001 12(4), 733, 2001


[edit on 22-8-2004 by psilocin]

new topics

top topics


log in