ENVIRONMENT: Bush's Clear Skies program.

It is becoming more and more of a problem getting people to look at the facts behind the environmentalist claims. The Libertarian and Republican party both think the free market has and can fix their own environmental problems.


Recently, I received an off topic challenge to defend Bush�s Clear Skies program in another thread. I could think of no other topic more deserving of its own thread. Below is the challenge I referred to.

originally posted by scottsquared Is there any evidence that any industry in history has ever voluntarily enacted procedures towards the clean up of the environment of waste that the industry itself is contributing? I challenge you to give an example.

Here is the evidence.

�At the time the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, our air was becoming progressively cleaner, not dirtier; had been doing so for a long time, precisely because of industrial progress. According to Professor Matthew Crenson at Johns Hopkins, sulfur dioxide pollution had been declining for decades.�
-Dr. Andrew Bernstein

Crenson of Johns Hopkins wrote, in 1971 (right around the same time the EPA was started,) �In some cities the sulfur dioxide content of the air today is only one-third to one-fourth what if was before World War II. Measurements in 14 U.S. cities in 1931 showed an average particulate concentration of 510 micrograms per cubic meter. In 1957, it was down to 120 micrograms. In 1969, the measurement stood at 92 micrograms per cubic meter. The major reason for this positive trend was the conservation to cleaner burning fuel, such as oil and gas, from coal or wood. Improvements in technology in a free market caused this trend, not environmentalists� propaganda or government legislation.�

So there is the �evidence that any industry in history has ever voluntarily enacted procedures towards the clean up of the environment of waste that the industry itself is contributing.�

Continuing on.

The "clear skies" argument goes: that by relaxing regulations on emissions from industry, enough savings will be realized that industry will have incentive to clean up emissions on their own.

Joseph Kellard, a journalist, wrote �Stringent pollution standards ultimately cost Americans billions of dollars in retarded or halted technological development which is the best means to keep or make air and water clean. In reality, environmentalists set the philosophical foundation policy at the EPA.�

Who do you think developed those cleaner burning fuels? If you guessed Greenpeace, you are wrong. If you guessed the government or the EPA, you are wrong. It was the dirty capitalist pigs who just want to kill our planet. Isn�t it just strange how they went about it by developing cleaner burning fuels? Do you suppose they got the funds to develop those fuels from the money tree growing in their back yards? No, sadly, they had to use their own money, money the environmentalists don�t think they should be able to put into clean fuel R & D, so they want to continue to take it from them.

Here is an interesting tidbit of information to leave you with. Did you know that 85% of the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from natural sources? To quote Vin Suprynowicz, editor of the Las Vegas Review Journal, �Volcanoes have been spewing heat-trapping greenhouse gasses since the Earth�s mantle was formed. All the smokestacks and tailpipes in the world couldn�t compete with Mount St. Helens� or Mount Pinatubo�s carbon belches.�

[edit on 24-8-2004 by scottsquared]

Why dont we just try to make a filter that filters air or so?

We do it with water

Make dirty water into clean water

Make "Dirty" air into "Clean" air

Then we can use this and still continyou with our tech development

Originally posted by Crash
Why dont we just try to make a filter that filters air or so?

We do it with water

Great idea, I've never thought about that before.

While I will not pretend to know the science behind this possibility, we must allow the free market to research such things. Right now their hands are tied, and there is no need. There is no need because when the government sets a standard, whether it be environmental, wage related, or anything else, there is no motivation to exceed that standard. In fact, there is a justification for not exceeding that standard, being that they are "up to code." Not until the people take the initiative to pressure those companies to fix their problems will see true progress. The angry masses don�t play politics like a congressman, and "We the people" have forgotten the power we hold.

The water purification systems were developed because people can make money by selling them, there is a market.

The air purification tech. (I don�t know if it exists or not) has less marketing capability. If the government says a company can produce a certain amount of pollution, and that company meets the standard, why would they spend the extra money to purchase or develop an air purification system? They already spend enough money maintaining the government standard.




Edited for reasons of personal temporary retardation




[edit on 24-8-2004 by cavscout]

Originally posted by Crash
Why dont we just try to make a filter that filters air or so?

We do, Volvo makes a radiator that eats smog

www.car.volvo.se...

Anyone who cooks here knows that you salt boiling water before you add your pasta....the water is boiling already....add some salt and the water will go nuts for a few seconds - same thing....of course our environment produces plenty of natural greenhouse gases, but we are adding the salt, if you see what I'm saying....

Here's an interesting quote I pulled:

In the past few weeks, the administration diluted federal rules governing air pollution from old coal-fired power plants; emissions that cause global warming; ballast water on ships contaminated with foreign species of plants and animals; sales of land tainted with PCBs; drilling for oil and gas on federal land; and scientific studies that underpin federal regulations.
.....
The decisions included:


Two controversial changes in a rule governing expansion of old coal-fired power plants, dramatically easing the rules requiring companies to install new pollution controls when they make big upgrades.

Two legal opinions ruling that carbon dioxide, which most scientists say is the chief cause of global warming, isn't a pollutant that the EPA can cite to regulate emissions from cars and power plants. The rulings reverse a Clinton administration legal opinion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

An EPA legal opinion declaring that it won't regulate ships' ballast water under the Clean Water Act, turning the issue over to the Coast Guard. The ballast water contains billions of tiny fish, plants and other foreign invasive species that scientists say are major threats to native species in American waters.

An edict changing a 25-year-old rule to allow the sale of land tainted with toxic PCBs.

An order to Bureau of Land Management field offices in the West telling them to speed up the process permitting drilling for oil and gas on federal lands.

A new Office of Management and Budget policy governing scientific studies used to justify costly federal regulations. The policy orders more stringent peer review; environmentalists fear it will slow the enactment of environmental regulations.
"There's a lot of dramatic change going on. And a good bit of which would be thought of by many as not very environmentally sound," said Dan Esty, who was the EPA's deputy chief of staff in the first Bush administration and now heads Yale University's Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

The rule changes that affect air pollution from power plants "are really breath-taking in terms of the scope of regulatory change," said Chuck Davis, a Colorado State University political scientist who specializes in environmental policy. "And there's not a whole lot environmentalists can do about it, except challenge it in courts."

Unable to get bills that would weaken environmental laws through Congress, the administration made all these changes as administrative rulings.
Source

That says enough by itself....

Here's another interesting quote from an article I found:

Politicians are constantly trying to reframe and invent rights in response to political demands. One of the more curious notions to emerge from the constant stream of political rhetoric on the environment is that Americans have an inalienable right to breathe clean air. If we take this as a religious truth, it follows that costs should be no object in pursuing our goal. But what about the goal itself- how clean is clean? Again, if we are to interpret "clean" literally, as is frequently done in legislation, clean means "zero pollution." With this simple truth, it follows that benefit-cost analysis on environmental issues is irrelevant. Indeed, any notion of balancing that makes tradeoffs between the environment and other things we value cannot be undertaken.
Source

EnronOutrunHomerun, I think the articles you quoted would be more effective on someone who automatically accepts the common lies of most environmentalists without thinking first. If I fell prey to the environmental hype that is drilled into us from Kindergarten onward, I would probably not question what you posted. This is a major problem in our society, that we accept the overtones of such slanted articles because we feel guilt if we don�t support environmentalism. Question the green claims at all and you are an extremist, a right wing nut, part of the �lunatic fringe� as one ATS member is fond of calling those who think objectively.

I think environmentalism is more akin to nature worship than science. We just accept certain ideas as fact, even if nothing is actually said about those ideas. We are trained to think a certain way. Say the air gets cleaner under the watch of the free market than under the deal making of politicians, and you must be stupid, because of course everyone knows the air is so filthy that if the government doesn�t do something right now, we will all die from it in the next 50 years. Of course, no one is making that claim, and no one would actually say it, but it is engrained in the subconscious of most of us. Environmental un-truths are one the largest groups of knee-jerk reactions and thoughtless belief we as a society have undertaken.

What I would like to see is proof. Proof that the actions of man have been more harmful to the air than the actions of nature. Who is the greatest air polluter of all time? Mother Nature herself. A single volcanic eruption is the equivalent of your boiling salt argument. I would like to see an argument for environmentalism that does not involve any emotion or �truths� that are not based on fact and are simply commonly accepted beliefs.

Well - I see where you're coming from cavscout....and like many others, I don't take every environmentalist's opinon and doomsday predictions as holy scripture....what I do is analyze it on the basis that basically says, "Hey - this is important...what can I do to help?"

If someone suddenly discovered tomorrow that we don't need trees - it's all been a big hoax...Do you think we would really stop recycling?? I don't....

And like I mentioned before the articles - of course we have plenty of naturaly caused gases and disturbances that amplify what we as humans do....but to proove that we have been more destructive to our environment than nature has is ludacris first off....b/c what nature does to its own environment is what is bound to happen anyways, so how can one truly call that destructive?

Humans have permanently spoiled much of the earth's water supply....have added more and more chemicals to the air which decreases our UV protection, air quality, land mass.....have hunted species as a form of sporting to extinction.....I could go on and on...and we've only done this in our short time spent on this planet, whereas Earth has existed for billions of years before we came along.

I don't know how much more proof you need....it seems pretty obvious to me - you don't have to read an article on the left or right side to see what is happening right in front of you....If you doubt the opinions of these academics and professionals so much, then make your own calculations of what they present as statistical proof and compare...enlighten us....

Enron,
Don't waste your time trying to argue with a frozen viewpoint. Accepting when one has erred is the height of wisdom, don't expect to see it expressed here.

I'm sure that great humans, like Ken-Boy in your avatar, left to their own devises; would do nothing to harm the environment, help the least advantaged of their employees, work towards world peace, cure all disease, feed the poor, support our elderly, etc., etc. If only we would stop the unholy regulating of these bastions of society.

The fact that we've had a never before seen in US history number of resignations within a first term, say something, and it says it LOUDLY:

George Tenent & James Pavitt can be added to the running total kept HERE.

It's an historic number of resignations with several months left to the term; where do you think it will stop?
Do you think that the CIA will follow the EPA, in having it's head person resign along with the top deputy directors, as listed in the link above? These two agencies were the most co-opted, politicized and dishonored by the Bush political machine. Regardless of party, every professional has been required to hold their nose & corroborate their president's agenda. But here you have two agencies that were asked to build wholsale fabrications that have harmed or killed 100's of thousands of people. I'd like to think it was conscience on their part that motivated, finally, their respective resignations @ the EPA & CIA. But, I fear that it was simply a matter of cutting their losses & avoiding the taint.

The EPA has had all of it's Senior management resign. Why? Was it's Free Market enabling of the twisting of Science by this administration too much to stomach? Could it be that they have kids too, and , well, breath like the rest of us?

eport: Bush EPA's Bad Science "Stacks Deck" On Pollution Rules --
New industry-drafted rules being put in place by the Bush Administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ignore the risk of fine-particle pollution in order to ease pollution controls for air toxins from industrial boilers to save companies a meager $170 million, even though the EPA's own estimates show that the increase in pollution will result in a far greater $1.7 billion toll in higher public health costs, according to a new report from the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), a nonprofit and nonpartisan group. The report shows that the EPA knows that the minor industry savings will be achieved at a major public health cost: 230 deaths a year, 720 admissions to hospitals and emergency rooms, 18,000 asthma attacks, and 20,000 respiratory symptoms among children with asthma.

The postulate of absolute free marketism policing it's self is false.
Read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair to understand the short comings of absolute free marketism.

See now, everyone keeps saying all this is bad, but no one is posting proof, just speculation. If I believed in environmentalism, I would be shocked by the relaxation of the standards. I don�t, so I am not. Lacking a knee-jerk reaction to this issue, I am not worked up by the EPA or green liberals simply saying this is bad. I am not asking for yet one more article of someone�s opinion. Those articles say this is bad as if there was some proof that the actions taken by industry will be, for a fact, bad.

I posted that, under the eye of the free market, and with no government control or mandate, measurements in 14 U.S. cities in 1931 showed an average particulate concentration of 510 micrograms per cubic meter. In 1957, it was down to 120 micrograms. In 1969, the measurement stood at 92 micrograms per cubic meter.

This was done without the EPA, it was done without Greenpeace, and it was done without the government regulating industrial pollution. The free market did this. Industry itself did this.
People tired of never seeing the sun through the brown haze did this. 510 to 92. Has it dropped this significantly under the watch of the EPA? Has it dropped at all?

Assume I don�t see the horror in the relaxation of these regulations. You all are posting as if was just mislead into thinking this was something the EPA came up with and that is why I support it. Yes, I do get it. Fewer restrictions on the amount of �pollution� industry can put out of a smokestack, and I can put out of my tailpipe. So you can stop posting articles that explain that.

Convince me why this is bad. Convince me that this will not result in cleaner industrial practices in the future.

Scott, this is not the pit! Go make bitter comentary somewhere else. If you don�t have an actual argument or a platform to post, don�t post. You violated the rules set forth by SO when you called Joseph Kellard a hack. SO said violating this rule would result in removal from the project, I am assuming that is why you edited that post into non-existence. I would suggest you retreat and be careful to insure that what you post is contributing to the topic and the purpose of this forum. Thank you, sir.


[edit on 25-8-2004 by cavscout]

Originally posted by cavscout
I am not worked up by the EPA or green liberals simply saying this is bad.

The EPA, staffed with scientists, are of less viable information than Joseph Kellard, a journalist?

I posted that, under the eye of the free market, and with no government control or mandate, measurements in 14 U.S. cities in 1931 showed an average particulate concentration of 510 micrograms per cubic meter. In 1957, it was down to 120 micrograms. In 1969, the measurement stood at 92 micrograms per cubic meter.

A study testing for a single type of pollution particulate going back before many of the carcinogens that affect us today were even invented, as well as most of the world not even going through their own Industrial revolution, is a thin supposition to hang ones hat on. Of course it's logical to see better outcomes from advances in technology, but again, it's a single particulate.

Convince me why this is bad.

Go into your garage, close the door, and run the car for 1 minute. Open the door & air out, then run it for twice as long. God forbid you do that, but it is anologous to what's detailed below, from the study I linked to prior:

According to the report, EPA expects that exemptions in the two rules will increase hazardous air pollutants by a combined annual total of 13,300 tons, fine particle emissions by nearly 24,000 tons, smog-forming volatile organic compounds by 13,000 tons, and sulfur dioxide by more than 60,000 tons. The ill health effects of the EPA rules will be experienced nationwide, since nearly 1,000 industrial plants are expected to increase their pollution levels. EPA anticipates that at least 147 out of 223 plywood plants potentially subject to fall within its new formaldehyde exemption. Additionally, the EPA anticipates that 448 coal-fired boilers and 386 wood-fired boilers used by a variety of industries will increase pollution levels under the new boiler rule.

Here is an interesting tidbit of information to leave you with. Did you know that 85% of the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from natural sources? To quote Vin Suprynowicz, editor of the Las Vegas Review Journal, �Volcanoes have been spewing heat-trapping greenhouse gasses since the Earth�s mantle was formed. All the smokestacks and tailpipes in the world couldn�t compete with Mount St. Helens� or Mount Pinatubo�s carbon belches.�

I looked upt the Las Vegas Review Journal....it's a local paper. Vin happens to be a former Op/Ed editor, but I found no credentials as to his erudition on amtmospheric science. But let's move beyond that & go with the 85% quoted: given that the science to reverse atmospheric damage does not exist, why would we want to rush to account for that other 15% & push the Earth beyond it's "scrubbing" capabilities?
We can agree that old growth forests are part of the Earths scrubbing mechanism, as well as the water cycle with our oceans. Yet, we lose miles of it to logging in the Rain Forest each day, as well as having constant ocean dumping giving us acid rain clouds.

Most of the technologies being accomodated by the Bush agenda are 19th century tech. To quote Mr. Kerry on anthing concerning Bush, "We can do better". Even taking the false point that we "don't have proof of the ill effects", granted that we can't reverse..... isn't metered, educated & cautious the way to go?
The aspect that a Libertarian should grasp, more that the absolute free marketism, is that Kerry is delineating the economic benefits of going green. We're a service based society that can have the dual bump to our service sector and manufacturing sector, in the way of job creation & new market sector leadership, by enacting the Kerry environmental plan.