so tell me, what does the EPA do and why is it doing what it does?Originally posted by: charrison
I had no idea the whitehouse was without advisors,consultants, academia and industry contacts.
Originally posted by: Czar
so tell me, what does the EPA do and why is it doing what it does?Originally posted by: charrison
I had no idea the whitehouse was without advisors,consultants, academia and industry contacts.
It is as the name says, Environmental protection agency, but like any other goverment agency they are not above oversite.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
so tell me, what does the EPA do and why is it doing what it does?Originally posted by: charrison
I had no idea the whitehouse was without advisors,consultants, academia and industry contacts.
It is as the name says, Environmental protection agency, but like any other goverment agency they are not above oversite.
So the EPA is not there to advice the Administration about enviromental and scientific issues?
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
so tell me, what does the EPA do and why is it doing what it does?Originally posted by: charrison
I had no idea the whitehouse was without advisors,consultants, academia and industry contacts.
It is as the name says, Environmental protection agency, but like any other goverment agency they are not above oversite.
So the EPA is not there to advice the Administration about enviromental and scientific issues?
Yes they are, but that does not always mean that this or any goverment agency is always right.
Actually this administration took over a year and a half to appoint a chief science advisor. Furthermore, the industry contacts, consultants, and advisors are all the same with this administration . . . anybody heard of Cheney's Energy Task Force?
My understanding of the EPA report was that it went through the office of political operatives (Rove) not an expert scientific review panel. But I guess that counts as advisor/consultant in your book.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Actually this administration took over a year and a half to appoint a chief science advisor. Furthermore, the industry contacts, consultants, and advisors are all the same with this administration . . . anybody heard of Cheney's Energy Task Force?
My understanding of the EPA report was that it went through the office of political operatives (Rove) not an expert scientific review panel. But I guess that counts as advisor/consultant in your book.
My understanding is probably as good and yours, and I dont know who did the review. I doubt it was Rove.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I understand that you want to defend Bush, but surely you can't believe what you're saying. The EPA's mandate is protecting the environment. The EPA has the scientific expertise and technical credentials to perform this job well. The EPA spent how many years collecting and analyzing research and data from all over the world, and compiled it into a comprehensive report using their best, well-qualified judgment.
Yet this extensive effort by dozens (if not hundreds) of dedicated professionals was overturned by a handful of professional bureaucrats and political strategists in the White House, transparently because it's not the message they want to hear. To pretend that Bush and his minions' scientific credentials are somehow superior to the EPA's is simply not credible.
I'd like to also point out that this is the same brain trust that coerced the CIA into altering its intelligence reports re. Iraq's weapons of mass distraction. We all know how well that's worked out.
So why would you defend the actions of a White House edit which is unlikely to have basis in best environmental stewardship . . . it's not like the White House is filled with ex officios of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, or World Wildlife Fund. From all press accounts . . . a scientific summary went to the White House and then exited with significant modifications. Saddam didn't edit the document. Can you name anyone in the White House with an exemplary record for environmental protection? Can you name anyone in the White House with an exceptional record in environmental resource extraction? Get the picture?
By the same token most hardcore enviromentalist are out to make Bush look bad. I am looking at the middle ground.
Do I have proof that Bush admin modified the report? I dont and no one does either. The folks that hate bush are
all to eager to beleive a report that he did, even though Whitman stated she did not include a section on global warming. Was this section deleted? I dont know and you dont know either. If the EPA wanted to publish things that are scientifically questionable, they need corrected. If the admin did in fact edit good sound scientific data, the EPA should have stood its ground and published what happened.
So far the president has passed legislation to reduce off road deisel pollution.
Better forest management to help prevernt large forest fires.
Proposed stricter pollution standard( a similar planned proposed by a democrat is like by environmentalists)
Increased cafe standards.
I think his environment record is going to stand for itself.
And when are you going to produce the original unedited report? Anyone at the EPA should be able to do this.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Two points. I don't believe the EPA is dominated by hard-core environmentalists. It is staffed with professionals from many specialties who, as a whole, understand the balance between the utopian and the pragmatic approach to protecting the environment.
Second, I think you're reversing cause and effect. Most hard-core environmentalists aren't trying to make Bush look bad. They are focused on protecting the environment, first and foremost. They object to Bush because of his poor track record on the environment. If he changed his tune, they would happily embrace him.
As far as I know, we don't have any EPA employees who have come forward and publicly said this. But there were articles published in several papers (sorry, no links handy) that discussed receiving copies of EPA memos addressing changes being demanded by the White House. These memos were reportedly confirmed to be authentic by people inside the EPA. In particular, as I remember it, one of them said they should pull the global warming section entirely because they would lose all credibility in the scientific community if they published it in the bastardized form demanded by the Whitre House. This is ultimately what happened. Even Whitman herself acknowledged that this section existed in earlier versions of the report, but she declined to confirm it was pulled because of the White House.
So, can I prove this? No. I am willing to accept the general accuracy of multiple, independent articles from multiple publications, however. It was covered fairly widely a few weeks ago.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I'm not an expert on the environment, but even I know that this is a code-phrase for opening up previously unspoiled, old-growth forest lands to logging. It's another give-away to industry -- who contribute heavily to Bush, coincidentally -- at the expense of the overall benefit of the public.
You right that means logging. Do you want massive forrest fires, or do you want of controlled logging.
We either need to stop putting out forest fires and let mother nature manage its own forrests, or we are going to manage(cut a few down) ourselfs.
Daschle seeks environmental exemption
Interesting code phase that Daschle used. It's funny, it sounds a lot like the one that you said that Pres. Bush used. I will agree with one statement that you made- "I'm not an expert on the environment". That's pretty obvious.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Caught with his hand in the cookie jar! Buahahaha I don't blame him though - he better start doing something for SD besides pumping gas. From the sounds of it - he's going to have a hard time being re-elected if the GOP can muster even a halfway decent candidate to oppose him.
CkG
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
(Gotta get a cheap shot in every post, don't you?)
Please show me where I suggested that Daschle or other politicians of either party are immune to the sway of big political contributions, especially when they're also creating jobs and revenue for their home states. I just said that Bush's environmental record is poor. The fact that Daschle sold out too doesn't make Bush's record better. Two wrongs still don't make a right.
What has bush done to earn a poor environmental record?
And as much as I dislike Dashole, he is doing the right things for those forests.
When I'm tired I emulate the liberals on this board. Want to discuss your code-phrase quip some more? Do forest need to be cleared and thinned to prevent massive forest fires?
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
You guys are so blinded by your unquestioning support for Bush-lite that you can't even conceive of someone disagreeing with him on its merits. You assume that anyone who suggests Bush has even a tiny flaw must be a Bush-hater and an ultra-liberal, tree-hugging, pot-smoking, hippie, communist, blah, blah, blah (too lazy to go back and look for the thread where someone unleashed a spew just like that).
Guys, I'm usually disgusted by most things most politicians do. The higher they are, the more disgusting they are. Most of the D.C. bunch are there because they lust for power and they've agreed to be a tool for the highest bidders. Very few of them show any significant integrity. Actual leadership is like Bigfoot; lots of people claim to have seen it, but there's rarely any evidence to support it. Statesmanship is truly mythical, like unicorns. No one even claims to have seen it in centuries.
They all support bigger government because, in their hearts, they all believe government is the solution rather than the problem. They just differ on which parts of government need to be bigger. Voters still have enough sway that on really high-profile issues, politicians can sometimes be swayed to do the right thing in spite of their baser instincts. More often the interests of a major lobbyist happen to coincide with the public interest, so good things happen because of that. In general, however, whenever lobbyist interests conflict with the public interest, you're a fool to bet on the public regardless of political affiliation.
I can (and have) give(n) a long diatribe on all the things I find appalling about Bush-lite. Don't think for a moment that this means I'm a big fan of the Democrats.
So in the past 3 years, what has bush done bad for environment and what has he done good?
Simple question.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Where in my post did I talk about Bush? Who is blinded? Who seems to be hell bent on trying to taint a politician?
Hint: nowhere,
, and Did you ever stop and think that maybe there are things I dislike about the man? Ever read my posts about Gov't spending? Opps I guess I must be a tree hugging, pot smoking communist hippie
Bow - the "right" isn't out to get you - so get over yourself.
CkG
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter