Bush says easing of pollution rules will aid environment and jobs

[BOBDN]

What the hell has Bush been smoking?

Easing environmental rules and increasing pollution will "keep Americans working"?

Someone please tell this idiot Americans AREN'T working. Bush has the worst jobs record, and the only negative job creation record, of any president since Herbert Hoover.

From the Star Ledger

Bush says easing of pollution rules will aid environment and jobs

"I'm interested in job creation and clean air, and I believe we can do both," he said.

The president's remarks provoked a torrent of criticism from environmentalists and Democrats. Protesters used an inflatable power plant with black smokestacks to deride Bush's environmental policies, but they were kept a mile from his event.

"The backdrop of President Bush's latest environment photo op -- the dirtiest power plant in Michigan -- says it all," said Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), a presidential candidate. "Under Bush's policies, this antiquated coal-burning plant will get a free pass to keep pumping smoke and soot into the air with impunity."

The Detroit Edison plant is one of the dirtiest in the country, emitting nearly 150,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides every year, said Eric Schaeffer, the chief of civil enforcement under the Clinton administration's Environmental Protection Agency. It is also one of the biggest in the country.

The plant "is the perfect place for the White House and the energy lobby to celebrate their latest rollback of the Clean Air Act," said Schaeffer, now the director of the Environmental Integrity Project."

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

This is a much better home for this post . . .

Walter "Let's Call Them Freedom Fries" Jones is a dim wit but he's definitely hit the nail on the head this time. Bush has offered NOTHING that will promote job creation in manufacturing/textiles or agriculture (with the exception of massive subsidies). Furthermore, one of the few industries that might survive foreign competition (tourism) will be hurt by Bush environmental policy. The Great Smokey Mountains have been significantly degraded over the past decade due to emissions from coal-fired plants (under grandfather provisions in the Clean Air Act). The great vistas of the Smokies are now blighted with tree-kills (pollution), haze (pollution), and clear-cuts (poorly-regulated logging). From the mountains to the coast we can degrade our natural beauty in just a few years but it will take decades to fix . . . assuming it can be reversed.

 

[XZeroII]

No flame, please read http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1141220&STARTPAGE=1 first.

As mentioned in that thread, as business' get more money, they will have more money to dole out to workers. Pollution laws cost business' lots of money and that's lots of money that they can't pay their employees and must let some go. This is the logic behind Bush's statement.


As you will notice, I'm trying to be civil here. I'm trying to give up the Bush Bashing stuff and would appreciate some reciprocation(sp?). Thanks

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
No flame, please read http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1141220&STARTPAGE=1 first.

As mentioned in that thread, as business' get more money, they will have more money to dole out to workers. Pollution laws cost business' lots of money and that's lots of money that they can't pay their employees and must let some go. This is the logic behind Bush's statement.


As you will notice, I'm trying to be civil here. I'm trying to give up the Bush Bashing stuff and would appreciate some reciprocation(sp?). Thanks

The flaw in that logic is that businesses will NEVER spend money to lessen emissions if they don't have to. They're all about pleasing the shareholders and not the Sierra Club.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
No flame, please read http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1141220&STARTPAGE=1 first.

As mentioned in that thread, as business' get more money, they will have more money to dole out to workers. Pollution laws cost business' lots of money and that's lots of money that they can't pay their employees and must let some go. This is the logic behind Bush's statement.


As you will notice, I'm trying to be civil here. I'm trying to give up the Bush Bashing stuff and would appreciate some reciprocation(sp?). Thanks

I agree with what Fausto said. If there are any cases in history where a company has proactively clened up their pollution on their own initiative, they are undoubtedly overwhelmingly outnumbered by the ones who distribute the extra revenue as bonuses to their top executives.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: XZeroII
No flame, please read http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1141220&STARTPAGE=1 first.

As mentioned in that thread, as business' get more money, they will have more money to dole out to workers. Pollution laws cost business' lots of money and that's lots of money that they can't pay their employees and must let some go. This is the logic behind Bush's statement.


As you will notice, I'm trying to be civil here. I'm trying to give up the Bush Bashing stuff and would appreciate some reciprocation(sp?). Thanks

The flaw in that logic is that businesses will NEVER spend money to lessen emissions if they don't have to. They're all about pleasing the shareholders and not the Sierra Club.

I'm just explaining the logic behind Bush's claim. I'm not saying it's foolproof or that it's good logic or anything. BOBDN didn't seem to understand why Bush said that, so I clarified it.

And you are correct, the point of having a corporation is to please the shareholders. However, that is not a flaw in Bush's logic. It is simply an unaddressed concern that some people have.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Alliteration aside "Bush Bash" means nothing. We've endured a "Love Fest" from the media that culminated in an unpopular war (internationally) that has now become relatively unpopular at home (considering the expense and expected duration).

You cannot pit the economy against the environment b/c most people would prefer to be poor than dead. Even Bush's EPA concedes airborne pollution is a significant factor with regards to public health. The explosion in respiratory disease amongst the young means we will be paying for our bad air quality for decades to come. Responsible environmental policy can be very economical. For instance, ending all subsidies for fossil fuels and investing that money into the development of next generation energy technology would provide bountiful jobs in R&D plus construction. By definition many of the older plants were inefficient to begin with so it is a net drag on the country to allow them to survive. Furthermore, the technology can be exported to other countries . . . preferably for a fee.

Said technology would not be confined to commercial/industrial eneryg production but every other aspect of the economy dependent on the efficient use of energy resources . . . say real American hybrid vehicles.

It's idiotic . . . and that's not a Bush Bash just reality . . . to think you can ease emission rules on the worst offenders . . . and expect improvement in the environment. As I've said before, some plants are so inefficient they will certainly be decommisioned over the next decade. Virtually all of Bush's environmental progress will be dependent on the closing of older plants.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The Bushies have proposed reducing emissions from offroad sources (particularly disel). The problem with that initiative is that industry will likely water down any proposal . . . since it is quite clear they have great influence with this administration. And of course, Bush will propose phasing in the regulations (unlike the environmental rollbacks which often are abrupt) and will grandfather current equipment. For those of you that don't know, a diesel tractor can run for decades.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Alliteration aside "Bush Bash" means nothing. We've endured a "Love Fest" from the media that culminated in an unpopular war (internationally) that has now become relatively unpopular at home (considering the expense and expected duration).

You cannot pit the economy against the environment b/c most people would prefer to be poor than dead. Even Bush's EPA concedes airborne pollution is a significant factor with regards to public health. The explosion in respiratory disease amongst the young means we will be paying for our bad air quality for decades to come. Responsible environmental policy can be very economical. For instance, ending all subsidies for fossil fuels and investing that money into the development of next generation energy technology would provide bountiful jobs in R&D plus construction. By definition many of the older plants were inefficient to begin with so it is a net drag on the country to allow them to survive. Furthermore, the technology can be exported to other countries . . . preferably for a fee.

Said technology would not be confined to commercial/industrial eneryg production but every other aspect of the economy dependent on the efficient use of energy resources . . . say real American hybrid vehicles.

It's idiotic . . . and that's not a Bush Bash just reality . . . to think you can ease emission rules on the worst offenders . . . and expect improvement in the environment. As I've said before, some plants are so inefficient they will certainly be decommisioned over the next decade. Virtually all of Bush's environmental progress will be dependent on the closing of older plants.

I agree. Those old plants should be closed and replaced with newer, more efficient ones. Perhaps we should focus on that, rather than this silly policy?

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: XZeroII
No flame, please read http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1141220&STARTPAGE=1 first.

As mentioned in that thread, as business' get more money, they will have more money to dole out to workers. Pollution laws cost business' lots of money and that's lots of money that they can't pay their employees and must let some go. This is the logic behind Bush's statement.


As you will notice, I'm trying to be civil here. I'm trying to give up the Bush Bashing stuff and would appreciate some reciprocation(sp?). Thanks

The flaw in that logic is that businesses will NEVER spend money to lessen emissions if they don't have to. They're all about pleasing the shareholders and not the Sierra Club.

I'm just explaining the logic behind Bush's claim. I'm not saying it's foolproof or that it's good logic or anything. BOBDN didn't seem to understand why Bush said that, so I clarified it.

And you are correct, the point of having a corporation is to please the shareholders. However, that is not a flaw in Bush's logic. It is simply an unaddressed concern that some people have.

Yeah, "some people" like me who are sick of choking on Georgia Power's emissions every summer. :|

EPA lowers rating for Atlanta air quality.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Alliteration aside "Bush Bash" means nothing. We've endured a "Love Fest" from the media that culminated in an unpopular war (internationally) that has now become relatively unpopular at home (considering the expense and expected duration).

You cannot pit the economy against the environment b/c most people would prefer to be poor than dead. Even Bush's EPA concedes airborne pollution is a significant factor with regards to public health. The explosion in respiratory disease amongst the young means we will be paying for our bad air quality for decades to come. Responsible environmental policy can be very economical. For instance, ending all subsidies for fossil fuels and investing that money into the development of next generation energy technology would provide bountiful jobs in R&D plus construction. By definition many of the older plants were inefficient to begin with so it is a net drag on the country to allow them to survive. Furthermore, the technology can be exported to other countries . . . preferably for a fee.

Said technology would not be confined to commercial/industrial eneryg production but every other aspect of the economy dependent on the efficient use of energy resources . . . say real American hybrid vehicles.

It's idiotic . . . and that's not a Bush Bash just reality . . . to think you can ease emission rules on the worst offenders . . . and expect improvement in the environment. As I've said before, some plants are so inefficient they will certainly be decommisioned over the next decade. Virtually all of Bush's environmental progress will be dependent on the closing of older plants.

I agree. Those old plants should be closed and replaced with newer, more efficient ones. Perhaps we should focus on that, rather than this silly policy?

We should do both. If a President has a silly policy, well harmful really, then it needs to be addressed. No president should get a pass because of party.

BTW, I understand when you say that making operations less expensive by reducing pollution standards MAY increase jobs, but Bush also said that doing so would help the enviornment. Now what logic is behind this policy?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I agree. Those old plants should be closed and replaced with newer, more efficient ones. Perhaps we should focus on that, rather than this silly policy?

You've lost me . . . how can you agree? Bush's policy makes it a certainty that older plants will remain viable for decades. Plus these plants will produce even more pollution b/c Bush's policy allows them to expand. Contrary to the BS promoted by the administration, these plants were NOT prohibited from doing maintenance. They were prohibited from expanding production capacity if that expansion did not include greatly improved emissions controls.

The whole point of the Clean Air Act was to allow industry to build new, more efficient and cleaner plants while retaining production capacity at the dirty ones. Natural history would lead to the gradual retirement of the dirtbags over time. Said retirement would be in the companies best interests b/c inefficient plants are a burden to maintain and in the nation's best interests b/c they are the worst pollution offenders. Bush turns that policy on its head. Now inefficient pollution plants . . . well I guess they could be called efficient pollution plants . . . ala The Arrival . . . will continue to despoil our air for the forseeable future. Let's hear it for the Bush Legacy.

 

[Corn]

Yeah, "some people" like me who are sick of choking on Georgia Power's emissions every summer.

Go nuclear dude.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Corn

Yeah, "some people" like me who are sick of choking on Georgia Power's emissions every summer.

Go nuclear dude.

GA gets almost 30% of its power from nuke plants IIRC.

 

[Corn]

GA gets almost 30% of its power from nuke plants IIRC.

Sounds like is isn't enough.

 

[phillyTIM]

Good lord - this will make us the most polluted nation in the World, if Bush is left to his policies.

Remember how bad Texas was when Bush left it?

Bush is a walking Weapon of Mass Destruction, and this proves it!

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Corn

GA gets almost 30% of its power from nuke plants IIRC.

Sounds like is isn't enough.

Nope, and I seriously doubt we'll see any new nuclear plants as they scare the crap out of people.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Sounds like is isn't enough.

GA is part of the Southern Compact that was sending its waste to SC. NC was to host the next nuke dump but . . . well . . . we were a little slow. Anyway, you cannot build a bunch plants without having a reliable plan for storage.

Furthermore, even if GA went totally nuke they would still bask in the pollution (which knows no borders) from neighboring bass ackwards states. Not to mention all those damn cars.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: XZeroII
No flame, please read http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1141220&STARTPAGE=1 first.

As mentioned in that thread, as business' get more money, they will have more money to dole out to workers. Pollution laws cost business' lots of money and that's lots of money that they can't pay their employees and must let some go. This is the logic behind Bush's statement.


As you will notice, I'm trying to be civil here. I'm trying to give up the Bush Bashing stuff and would appreciate some reciprocation(sp?). Thanks

The flaw in that logic is that businesses will NEVER spend money to lessen emissions if they don't have to. They're all about pleasing the shareholders and not the Sierra Club.

I'm just explaining the logic behind Bush's claim. I'm not saying it's foolproof or that it's good logic or anything. BOBDN didn't seem to understand why Bush said that, so I clarified it.

And you are correct, the point of having a corporation is to please the shareholders. However, that is not a flaw in Bush's logic. It is simply an unaddressed concern that some people have.

I understand why he said it. I just can't rectify the statement with the reality of the Bush administration's job creation record and environmental policies.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Sounds like is isn't enough.

GA is part of the Southern Compact that was sending its waste to SC. NC was to host the next nuke dump but . . . well . . . we were a little slow. Anyway, you cannot build a bunch plants without having a reliable plan for storage.

Furthermore, even if GA went totally nuke they would still bask in the pollution (which knows no borders) from neighboring bass ackwards states. Not to mention all those damn cars.

This is semi-true. We do get some "secondhand" emmissions from other states, but a LOT of what's in the air (metro Atlanta area) is from GA power (the largest point emitter) and all the cars. Unfortunately GA Power is in no hurry to clean up and people here are amazingly resistant to the notion of not using their cars once in a while (partially because public transportation sucks) so I guess we're screwed.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The Bushies have proposed reducing emissions from offroad sources (particularly disel). The problem with that initiative is that industry will likely water down any proposal . . . since it is quite clear they have great influence with this administration. And of course, Bush will propose phasing in the regulations (unlike the environmental rollbacks which often are abrupt) and will grandfather current equipment. For those of you that don't know, a diesel tractor can run for decades.

For you people that missed the other thread....

BioDiesel can be used in existing Diesel engines.. as a blend. BioDiesel is cleaner(to a point)and is reportedly alot safer to handle. I have yet to verify what if any modifications are needed for a Diesel engine to run 100% BioDiesel.

Big Oil doesn't have a choice in this BioDiesel wave, they can whine a bitch all they want but new Bio Plants are being built all over bringing JOBS...AMERICAN Jobs to the areas. Crops-grown here, Processed here, delivered here, used here - wouldn't that be a nice F-you to OPEC?

some info on BioDiesel

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Crops-grown here, Processed here, delivered here, used here - wouldn't that be a nice F-you to OPEC?

And the 300hp, 3-ton SUVs prowling America's highways still burn Gulf Premium Blend . . . with the notable exception of some Ford offerings.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: XZeroII
No flame, please read http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1141220&STARTPAGE=1 first.

As mentioned in that thread, as business' get more money, they will have more money to dole out to workers. Pollution laws cost business' lots of money and that's lots of money that they can't pay their employees and must let some go. This is the logic behind Bush's statement.


As you will notice, I'm trying to be civil here. I'm trying to give up the Bush Bashing stuff and would appreciate some reciprocation(sp?). Thanks

The flaw in that logic is that businesses will NEVER spend money to lessen emissions if they don't have to. They're all about pleasing the shareholders and not the Sierra Club.

I'm just explaining the logic behind Bush's claim. I'm not saying it's foolproof or that it's good logic or anything. BOBDN didn't seem to understand why Bush said that, so I clarified it.

And you are correct, the point of having a corporation is to please the shareholders. However, that is not a flaw in Bush's logic. It is simply an unaddressed concern that some people have.

I understand why he said it. I just can't rectify the statement with the reality of the Bush administration's job creation record and environmental policies.

What would you rather have, a clean environment? or a job? That's the big decision that has to be made.

Also, I can't explain how he is saying that he will promote clean air. I believe that he is refering to existing policies which promote clean air.

 

[DealMonkey]

It seems that Bush has tied his environmental policies to the latest public concern: joblessness. The two have virtually nothing in common, but then again, neither did Iraq and 9.11. Typical.

 

[jahawkin]

Here's an article from the LA times on the same subject matter where Bush contradicts himself

"When we talk about environmental policy in this Bush administration, we don't just talk about clean air, we also talk about jobs. We can do both," the president told cheering workers at the Monroe Edison coal-fired power plant about 40 miles south of Detroit.
"The old regulations on the books made it difficult to either protect the ... environment or grow the economy," the president said. "Therefore, I wanted to get rid of them. I'm interested in job creation and clean air, and I believe we can do both."

So its these restrictive environmental laws that keep the economy from growing.....but then Bush goes on to say this:

Bush said air pollution data released Monday demonstrated that the country was making good progress in cleaning the air. He said the new EPA figures showed that since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, emissions of six major pollutants had fallen by 48 percent while economic output had increased 164 percent.

"Since 1974, the power generated from here has increased by 22 percent ... and yet the particulate matter emissions have fallen by 80 to 81 percent," Bush said. "You're good stewards of the quality of the air."

What great support for his argument! What a genius!!
Oh ya, and I love how the power plants are deemed "good stewards of the quality of the air." Right........