A campaign issue forgotten..

Sure we can sit back and wonder where it all went wrong for John Kerry, and how things went extremely well for George Bush. Christian soccer moms and nascar dads across the nation were voting diehard for Bush. Mostly to keep the sanctity of marriage between man and woman, to preserve the value of life on quest to abolish abortion forever, and keep those well cherrished morals close to heart.

With that being said, did anyone noticed how neither candidate even mentioned a single peep regarding the issue of our Enviroment? I'm just really upset that exit polls are contributing George W. Bush's win to "moral" & "value" issues when the direction of our enviromental policies wasn't even discussed. Was it not, "immoral" to walk away from the kyoto agreement? Is it not, "immoral" to sit back and produce 40% of the worlds CO2 emissions and not be ambitious in the pursuit of clean enegry sources? Should we not combat high emission automobiles and manufacturers more so today than during the 90's? George W. Bush will continue to turn back the enviromental clock and his administration will further surpress enviromental report/issues until 2008 now.

How can good hearted republican people avoid this issue?

I'm well aware this topic is unpopular and will hardly receive a response, I just wanted to clear my conscience regarding a forgotten moral value that will nip our children in the butt one day.

It was completely absurd that this wasnt a bigger issue. I believe the only time the enviroment was even addressed was in the last debate, and it was answered like a miss america question on both sides. The morality vote is all worried about abortion and gay marriage, but arent even thinking about what there 2.5 children are going to be experiencing if its not taken care of.

Originally posted by syntaxer
George W. Bush will continue to turn back the enviromental clock and his administration will further surpress enviromental report/issues until 2008 now.

Suppress environmental issues? It's, oh, so much worse than that.

The Bush administration has:

**removed clean water protections for 20 million acres of American wetlands and tens of thousands of miles of streams, lakes and ponds.

**relaxed air pollution limits for oil production and exploration operations on Alaska's North Slope, with the result that "emissions of nitrogen oxides on the North Slope are now as high as those for the entire metropolitan area of Washington, D.C."

**increased funding for programs supporting the oil, coal and nuclear industries, while cutting funding for proven clean energy programs.

**introduced an energy bill that included "an exemption for a method of gas drilling invented by Halliburton -- Vice President Cheney's former employer -- that would prevent the EPA from regulating it under the Safe Drinking Water Act."

**streamlined the permit process for coal mining companies, even though the administration had produced its own studies showing that "more than 1,200 miles of streams and 350 square miles of forests and mountains have been destroyed by such mining."

**allowed the Pentagon to attack a national drinking water standard proposed by the EPA "as a matter of national security;" the proposed standards would "require cleanup of drinking water tainted with more than 1 part per billion of perchlorate," an additive in rocket fuel.

**exempted Nissan in April 2004 from fuel economy standards when it was shown that their domestically-produced cars would not meet those standards

**gutted the Montreal Protocol, signed in 1987 by Pres. Reagan, which "bans ozone layer-destroying products, including the pesticide methyl bromide, which is also known to cause skin cancer," by applying for more exemptions than all of the other 169 countries that also signed the treaty.

**disregarded a Pentagon-commissioned report clearly stating the dangers of global warming, including weather changes that could lead to "massive political and social instability."

Tragically, this doesn't even come close to covering all of Bush's transgressions.

sources:
www.bushgreenwatch.org
www.sierraclub.org

With all the talk about biological, chemical, and nuclear terror attacks, there may not be an enviornment left. Nuclear winter sure wouln't mean clean snow.

I hope it doesn't happen.

With all that aside, I agree with you. We all need a healthy earth to be healthy.

Thanks to sandge for providing us with some above the top Bushisms regarding his assault on our most fragile enviroment. I hope Bush supporters wake up one day and realize the water in our fish bowl cannot be replaced when it gets cloudy (2008).

I suppose if the democrates took the enviromental angle,

They would have been bashed for being weak on terrorism and nothing but liberal windsurfing hippies that love to hug trees and drive toyoto echos.

Oops some of that bashing actually took place.

notice how quiet this thread is? if you're wondering why, it is because environmental issues are on the back burner, there's no money in saving the earth, only in exploiting it.

Republicans and Democrats should both be ashamed for not raising their voices on this issue.

But I can understand why the Bushies don't care about the earth, they seem to be confident that armeggedon will be arriving soon, so there's no need to waste precious dollars on something that God will destroy anyways in their eyes.

Worldwatcher I remeber back few months ago I started to defend the eviroment on a thread and nobody really care.

Yes I am for the enviroment and I care about our earth, but when your have people in power that does not give a darn about it, well we just stay in the background until somebody has the guts to bring it back to light again.

Few months ago I even mention the kyoto prtocol and some did not even know what in the heck it was.

Right now the world is moving on and US is behind when it comes to clean air and polution control.

I agree that we must protect our environment.

sandge, you seem to be the only poster with actual information. Could you give me links to where you got this information?

The Kyoto treaty seems to be back in the news. Because headlines are: "Bush won't sign it". Do you know why? I'm only going by skimming the articles. If you have better information please share.

Back in 1997 the cost to the citizens of America was to much to bear.

How is it going to be any different today? People are already crying about the cost of gasoline, heating oil, electric energy. And what about the costs to put the appropriate filters on the plants? That would probably put more people out of their jobs.

I do think this is an important subject, but not for just throwing dirt and blame around.

Well, the US is the biggest polluter in the world it spews out 25 percent of all greenhouse gases.

Bush before taking office said that the treaty would criple American industry, but he forgot to add that the industry to be affected was the oil refineries in texas.

He tried to persuade Putin from rejecting the kyoto protocol but Putin went ahead and sign it, now US is out of a multibillion-dollar trade in global emissions credits.

In the Financial Times, it said that this trade will make companies to devise ways to cut their emisions, but US is out of it.

Now the rest of the world is into this trade and eventually US will have not other choice but to join or lose on the money.

DISCUSSION: According to projections by the U.S. Energy Information Administration
(EIA), ratification of the Kyoto Protocol would have a devastating effect on the U.S.
economy. EIA estimates gasoline prices would rise 14 to 66 cents per gallon by the year
2010, electricity prices would go up 20 to 86% and compliance with the treaty would cost
the U.S. economy $400 billion per year.

A study commissioned by six African-American and Hispanic organizations found that
the requirements of the treaty would put 864,000 black Americans and 511,000 Hispanics
out of work.



www.nationalcenter.org...

Can you live with this?

1997 was the year alternatives should have begun. If we had, over the years, taken care of these problems it would have worked. I don't think that our economy can take a hit like this.

Well actually a lot of people has lost just as many jobs also from the change in the enviromental laws, the people that used to work for companies making sure that the industries will keep their part of keeping the envirioment cleaner.

Originally posted by marg6043
Well actually a lot of people has lost just as many jobs also from the change in the enviromental laws, the people that used to work for companies making sure that the industries will keep their part of keeping the envirioment cleaner.

That's encouraging. Can you send me a site where you got that informaiton?

It was from a private contractor here in albany, he used to own a company and PNG was one of the industrial sites invloved, he lost his business in the Albany area, and he went of comenting about how many other business contracts were lost. It was in the local news.

If I find a site I will give it to you, I got the Kyoto information from, The Week magazine october issue.

Originally posted by marg6043
It was from a private contractor here in albany, he used to own a company and PNG was one of the industrial sites invloved, he lost his business in the Albany area, and he went of comenting about how many other business contracts were lost. It was in the local news.

If I find a site I will give it to you, I got the Kyoto information from, The Week magazine october issue.

Thanks marg, I believe that your example can and will happen. And let's not forget the trickle down results from these contractors losing their business. Many more people would lose their jobs.

I do have sites for the Kyoto Treaty. It is a good idea and I wish that it could work.

One of the parts that I read is that pollution would not be lessened only the polluting countries would be paying the non polluting countries in fees.
These fees combined with the economic problems that would be caused in the US would be dreadful. I think this treaty needs more work. Perhaps some kind of better time line?

I was reading also on another side that one of the problems when the laws about some of the industrial sites in the US were lessened is that no only they become a hazard to the enviroment but to the people that work in this places to, lower standards on safety also includes the working enviroment.

It is sad but that is they way things are now, I can tell you places like PNG here in albany, Proctor and Gamble, and Cooper tires are releasing at night most of their poputants and is not control anymore on the amoung they can releases.

And they are big companies that can afford to have better standards. Can you imagine small outdated industrial sites, out there.

Albany is not a very good place to live if you have asma or allegy problems. And if you are a allergy doctor you make a killing working in this area.

Marg,

As you probably noticed, I live in New Hampshire. We have a big problem here. This is where all of the pollution in the mid-west ends up.

So I am not against finding solutions to these big problems for our environment. I just have not heard anything sensible that will work overnight.

We cannot do anything that will accomplish all goals immediately and pull down our economy at the same time.

I believe that we need a stated goal and a plan with teeth in it to accomplish cleaning up our environment. I have seen this type of plan work before.

Why not take the extra tax money that you have received or saved over the last 4 years (thanks to Bush) and use it to do something for the environment? Also, for the next four years, apply all tax savings to the environmental causes you are most passionate about.

I think one of the most important issues in enviornmentalism is personal responsibility. I cannot stand seeing people who drive SUV's when they have no use for them and then sit around chain smoking bitching about how the Government needs to do something about the environment. Come on, the Government should not be there to clean up our messes. Granted they shouldn't make the messes larger, but until our actions start supporting the 'save our environment' words, it clearly is NOT a priority to people.

There is a lot that WE as individuals can do to protect the enviornment. Put your Bush tax refund money to good use and ask others to do the same thing. Buy a hybrid car, get rid of non-essential SUV's, pick up litter, etc. Just do something.

Jemison

I couldn't agree more! In fact, to me, environmental issues are one of the number one things I look for in a candidate...

We live in time where all the focus is on what's next and the here and now...the only time we intervine is when we see potential for an outbreak of war...so then we just create one ourselves...

Being the big kid on the block, America should stand up as a model nation for others to follow...and although I didn't vote for Kerry (or Bush) THAT'S why Kerry was so concerned about passing a "global test"...or at least, that's the image he wanted to convey...I would have like to have seen the proof...

It's like the Water thread I started in the Campaign 2004 forum way before the elections...I got some pats on the back and thumbs up, but for the most part, that thread remained silent...more people were interested in war and gay marriage and so on...b/c it's imminent...it's happening now...

Why do you think people used to be so bored in your history classes? B/c it's old - it's not new - and much the same can be said for the future - it's untamed and "distant"

The truth is, people need to start paying more attention to this...it's absurd that we've let it get to the point where we actually have more people thinking about how best to evacuate this planet if the time comes as opposed to stepping up to the plate and solving the issues ahead of time...

[edit on 11/5/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]

Originally posted by Jemison
Why not take the extra tax money that you have received or saved over the last 4 years (thanks to Bush) and use it to do something for the environment? Also, for the next four years, apply all tax savings to the environmental causes you are most passionate about.

I do agree with you about the personal responsiblity part. SUV, smoking, giving tax refund to environment....

These are only small drops in the bucket of pollution.

How would you propose to regulate the big plants. These plants do provide many many jobs. It is also necessary to take into account the trickle down aspects created from these plants to their communities.

Also I don't "hate" the people who have investements in industry. Are not some of the 401's, and pension moneys involved here too? Not all investors are rich people. So bottom line is necessary for the little guy as well as the big guy.

Well in my case we pay taxes we do not get anything back, and for driving big vehicles we own small compact car because my husband and I care, we are waiting for prices to go down a littler big to get into an alternative car.

Its so sad what is going on with our enviroment.