Bush Administration's Proposal Found to Mirror Industry's

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
In 2004, the US EPA continues to find that 90%+ reductions in mercury are achievable using current technology. IT ISN'T FREE!!!! Why are you not understanding that no one says it is impossible. It has to be purchased though. To purchase and implement these current technologies will take too long and too much money within the timeframe that Clinton proposed. It CAN and SHOULD be done but NOT at the breakneck/breakwallet speed that Clinton agreed to so he could appease the environmentalists.

In regards to the wording.... No, I see nothing wrong with that. Especially if it gets the companies to even START the process. The way Clinton penned it, most of the companies didn't even bother to begin since they knew it wouldn't be doable (financially and logistically). Those that did begin are the places that needed to begin to gain federal funding and had to show they did something to fall inline with the Clinton regulations. As anyone that has ever been a contractor or had a contractor work for them, they do the minimum required to get the money they need. With the new proposal, they will actually have the funds to implement the "simple" regulations that will "simply" lower the mercury emissions.

I also still fail to see what is wrong with an administration that takes the time to actually listen to the companies that they are creating regulations for that will directly effect their industry. To me, that sounds like the proper way to deal with any business. The administration noted that there is an issue and put a realistic limit on the issue with an understanding that future administrations will add onto the regulations down the road as needed.

There is a big difference between administration listening to companies and companies crafting administration's policy. Considering the history of Bush administration and the way it rolls back environmental laws it is not an isolated case but a prevalent pattern. When a government is putting polluters' interest before the public interest, it is a major problem that should make everyone worried.

Even if some companies cannot afford to make the necessary adjustments in a time span given to them, it should be in the governments best interest to provide incentives to make it happen. Instead the Bush administration is going in the opposite direction, giving breaks to coal power plants, oil refineries, pesticide industry etc.

At this point, we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't see the evils and you don't see the good. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[dannybin1742]

So you're saying we should increase the deficit further to provide some relief for the environment? Oh, you're Canadian - of course this is easy for you to say

the deficit started with a huge tax cut by our unelected president...... stop running in circles, osha rules are set by the epa, go look at msds for methyl merucury and mercury, its another story, and ovbiously you don't understand any environmental priciples, yeah mercury is not in high enough concentrations to kill anyone in the air, but in a pyramid scheme, if you go eat a fish the doseage size is substantially higher. like i said, uniformed and no grasp on how the enviroment works. how do you think high levels of DTT got into birds in the 70s?


mercury

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So you're saying we should increase the deficit further to provide some relief for the environment? Oh, you're Canadian - of course this is easy for you to say. :roll:

I?m not sure if you?re trying to waste my time or you really are that feebleminded. But I will bite anyway?

If I were an American I would be outraged about the deficit and the tax cuts for the rich that are partly responsible for it. At the same time I would welcome government subsidies for the just causes like environment protection. Is that too hard to understand?

Or maybe this will be clearer ~ some tax cuts are good, some are bad.

PS: rolling your eyes won't make you look smarter nor help you prove your point.

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

So you're saying we should increase the deficit further to provide some relief for the environment? Oh, you're Canadian - of course this is easy for you to say

the deficit started with a huge tax cut by our unelected president...... stop running in circles, osha rules are set by the epa, go look at msds for methyl merucury and mercury, its another story, and ovbiously you don't understand any environmental priciples, yeah mercury is not in high enough concentrations to kill anyone in the air, but in a pyramid scheme, if you go eat a fish the doseage size is substantially higher. like i said, uniformed and no grasp on how the enviroment works. how do you think high levels of DTT got into birds in the 70s?


mercury

I tried explaining that already in my previous posts, yet he still does not get it and keeps posting his fluff. Ohh well?

 

[bdude]

The robber barons of the 21st century.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
...

Yet, despite all these things, air and water quality are both up over the last four years. So, I ask again: is the environment better off than when Bush took power?

Originally posted by: Siwy
I?m not sure if you?re trying to waste my time or you really are that feebleminded. But I will bite anyway?

If I were an American I would be outraged about the deficit and the tax cuts for the rich that are partly responsible for it. At the same time I would welcome government subsidies for the just causes like environment protection. Is that too hard to understand?

Or maybe this will be clearer ~ some tax cuts are good, some are bad.

PS: rolling your eyes won't make you look smarter nor help you prove your point.

Bottom line: helping the environment in no way increases tax revenues - it will decrease them no matter how you swing it. Therefore, the programs that get cut or taxes that get raised to make up that deficit are a matter of opinion, not fact.

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Bottom line: helping the environment in no way increases tax revenues - it will decrease them no matter how you swing it. Therefore, the programs that get cut or taxes that get raised to make up that deficit are a matter of opinion, not fact.

What are you talking about? Where did I say that helping the environment increases tax revenues. It's a given that government subsidies mean decreased tax revenues, I was never trying to imply otherwise.

What I mean, for the nth time, is that some tax incentives - like incentives to decrease pollutants - are more worthwhile than for example cutting taxes for the rich. Protecting 100% of population form toxins should be more important to the government than making already rich 10% of population richer.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
...

Yet, despite all these things, air and water quality are both up over the last four years. So, I ask again: is the environment better off than when Bush took power?

Link? to? Facts?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Siwy
What are you talking about? Where did I say that helping the environment increases tax revenues. It's a given that government subsidies mean decreased tax revenues, I was never trying to imply otherwise.

What I mean, for the nth time, is that some tax incentives - like incentives to decrease pollutants - are more worthwhile than for example cutting taxes for the rich. Protecting 100% of population form toxins should be more important to the government than making already rich 10% of population richer.

That's your opinion. The balance of capitalism and socialism in our country swings more towards capitalism than does Canada's. You can live there and I'll live here.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Link? to? Facts?

Already posted in this (or other recent environmental) thread. Legwork yourself.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Already posted in this (or other recent environmental) thread. Legwork yourself.

You said it, you prove it.

Furthermore, I don't believe we've seen the full impact of Bush's environmental policies yet. Even the EPA is only showing 2003 data and that's apparently "preliminary" still ... That said, however, the only impact the current administration's policies can have are negative. I can site hundreds of examples of environmental policies and regulation revised in favor of industry. Regulations designed to protect the environment being repealed, softened, reduced, etc. The net effect will be quite obvious: a negative impact on our air and water.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Already posted in this (or other recent environmental) thread. Legwork yourself.

You said it, you prove it.

Furthermore, I don't believe we've seen the full impact of Bush's environmental policies yet. Even the EPA is only showing 2003 data and that's apparently "preliminary" still ... That said, however, the only impact the current administration's policies can have are negative. I can site hundreds of examples of environmental policies and regulation revised in favor of industry. Regulations designed to protect the environment being repealed, softened, reduced, etc. The net effect will be quite obvious: a negative impact on our air and water.

Do your own legwork. I waste enough time trying to puzzle out what exactly you're trying to say half the time. If you're going to say Bush is an environmental disaster, the burden of proof is on you. So, prove it with air and/or water quality data or kindly STFU.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Already posted in this (or other recent environmental) thread. Legwork yourself.

You said it, you prove it.

Furthermore, I don't believe we've seen the full impact of Bush's environmental policies yet. Even the EPA is only showing 2003 data and that's apparently "preliminary" still ... That said, however, the only impact the current administration's policies can have are negative. I can site hundreds of examples of environmental policies and regulation revised in favor of industry. Regulations designed to protect the environment being repealed, softened, reduced, etc. The net effect will be quite obvious: a negative impact on our air and water.

Do your own legwork. I waste enough time trying to puzzle out what exactly you're trying to say half the time. If you're going to say Bush is an environmental disaster, the burden of proof is on you. So, prove it with air and/or water quality data or kindly STFU.

Maybe the reason you can't figure out what I'm saying is that you're retarded.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Maybe the reason you can't figure out what I'm saying is that you're retarded.

Oh, you lost the debate? Better result to personal attacks! Sir, kindly go back to your cave. You trying to compare intelligence with me is laughable. I'm usually pretty modest about it, but stating that I'm retarded proves the superior intellect here. I highly doubt you want to get into an intellectual argument with me, which is why you have thus far refrained from doing so.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Maybe the reason you can't figure out what I'm saying is that you're retarded.

Oh, you lost the debate? Better result to personal attacks! Sir, kindly go back to your cave. You trying to compare intelligence with me is laughable. I'm usually pretty modest about it, but stating that I'm retarded proves the superior intellect here. I highly doubt you want to get into an intellectual argument with me, which is why you have thus far refrained from doing so.

Modest? Oh please. Perhaps I can try talking more slowly for you:

Weakening ... repealing ... and removing ... environmental ... protections ... will have a net effect ... of impacting the environment ... in a negative ... way.

There. You got all that? I can rephrase it using smaller words if that helps you.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Modest? Oh please. Perhaps I can try talking more slowly for you:

Weakening ... repealing ... and removing ... environmental ... protections ... will have a net effect ... of impacting the environment ... in a negative ... way.

There. You got all that? I can rephrase it using smaller words if that helps you.

Yet you still can't prove that any damage has been done. Next?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Modest? Oh please. Perhaps I can try talking more slowly for you:

Weakening ... repealing ... and removing ... environmental ... protections ... will have a net effect ... of impacting the environment ... in a negative ... way.

There. You got all that? I can rephrase it using smaller words if that helps you.

Yet you still can't prove that any damage has been done. Next?

And you can't prove that damage hasn't been done. Next...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
And you can't prove that damage hasn't been done. Next...

Difference is, I'm not the one whining about how bad Bush is treating the environment. Your arguments are baseless and you know it, which is why you won't perform the simple search to produce the relevant data.

 

[CycloWizard]

Well, since apparently the call for papers finally shut you up, I'll produce the evidence myself.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://Surprise: Air and Water Are Cleaner
Under Bush Administration">http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/June0104AirandWaterPG.pdf</a>

? Both air and water quality have improved in recent years, contradicting the charges by
administration critics alleging President Bush is a poor steward of our air and water.
? During President Bush?s tenure, air pollutants monitored by the Environmental
Protection Agency ? nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter,
carbon monoxide, and lead ? all have fallen. Water quality violations in the nation?s
rivers and streams also have fallen. These and other trends are the continuation of
decades of improvements in the environment.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Maybe the reason you can't figure out what I'm saying is that you're retarded.

Oh, you lost the debate? Better result to personal attacks! Sir, kindly go back to your cave. You trying to compare intelligence with me is laughable. I'm usually pretty modest about it, but stating that I'm retarded proves the superior intellect here. I highly doubt you want to get into an intellectual argument with me, which is why you have thus far refrained from doing so.

Dear Mr. Superior Intellect:

Resort. The word is resort, not result. Resort to personal attacks. Like you do when you lose the debate. Often. You are right about laughable. Your superior intellect is laughable. Your superior ego, on the other hand.....

Yours Truly,
Not Impressed


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
That's your opinion. The balance of capitalism and socialism in our country swings more towards capitalism than does Canada's. You can live there and I'll live here.

The problem with it though is that despite the fact that you live there and I live here, I?m still affected by your administration?s short sited regulations. But hey?U.S. is the center of the universe ~ who cares what kind of effect it has on the outside world, right?

I won?t even get into how witless it is of you to think that health of all Americans is less important than making a small percentage of Americans richer.

 

[kage69]

Amazing, he spews his own pompous opinion and labels it as fact, then ignores commenting on the merit of the links and info provided, but then later dismisses them as opinion. What we have here is a Bush apologist of the highest order.


<-------- Also not impressed.

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Well, since apparently the call for papers finally shut you up, I'll produce the evidence myself.

Under Bush Administration">...e0104AirandWaterPG.pdf]http://Surprise: Air and Water Are Cleaner
<b[/L]

? Both air and water quality have improved in recent years, contradicting the charges by
administration critics alleging President Bush is a poor steward of our air and water.
? During President Bush?s tenure, air pollutants monitored by the Environmental
Protection Agency ? nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter,
carbon monoxide, and lead ? all have fallen. Water quality violations in the nation?s
rivers and streams also have fallen. These and other trends are the continuation of
decades of improvements in the environment.

Trying to prove your point with the above data is very deceptive as it shows pollution changes mostly up to 2002. What you did not consider is that most of the disastrous regulation changes by Bush administration (about 150 from the total of about 200) were made starting in 2003.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Well, since apparently the call for papers finally shut you up, I'll produce the evidence myself.

Under Bush Administration">...e0104AirandWaterPG.pdf]http://Surprise: Air and Water Are Cleaner
<b[/L]

? Both air and water quality have improved in recent years, contradicting the charges by
administration critics alleging President Bush is a poor steward of our air and water.
? During President Bush?s tenure, air pollutants monitored by the Environmental
Protection Agency ? nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter,
carbon monoxide, and lead ? all have fallen. Water quality violations in the nation?s
rivers and streams also have fallen. These and other trends are the continuation of
decades of improvements in the environment.

Trying to prove your point with the above data is very deceptive as it shows pollution changes mostly up to 2002. What you did not consider is that most of the disastrous regulation changes by Bush administration (about 150 from the total of about 200) were made starting in 2003.

and that it takes some time for any changes to have an effect either way

 

[kage69]

*watches CW gag on shoelaces* 😀

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Siwy
The problem with it though is that despite the fact that you live there and I live here, I?m still affected by your administration?s short sited regulations. But hey?U.S. is the center of the universe ~ who cares what kind of effect it has on the outside world, right?

I won?t even get into how witless it is of you to think that health of all Americans is less important than making a small percentage of Americans richer.

That's your take on it. Am I not entitled to my own? I hardly see drastic health effects of Bush's purported devastation of the environment.

Originally posted by: Siwy
Trying to prove your point with the above data is very deceptive as it shows pollution changes mostly up to 2002. What you did not consider is that most of the disastrous regulation changes by Bush administration (about 150 from the total of about 200) were made starting in 2003.

Well, as soon as the relevant data becomes available, feel free to post it and show me how 'disastrous' these regulations really are. So far, it's just a bunch of hand-waving.

Fact: Air and water quality have improved while Bush has been in office, according to available, relevant data.
Fact: Everyone else still posting in this thread are claiming that he has been an environmental disaster.

DM realized this and finally got out. None of you are as smart as he is, apparently. Your statements are baseless. Until you have any real information to back up your claims of Bush's environmental devastation, you have nothing to say.