My guess is they'll fire a few people at OMB and cut their budget. OMB's next report will show that environmental regulations are strangling the economy, even if Cheney has to go over and write it himself.Originally posted by: BOBDN
Well, I guess this means the Bush administration will have to reverse their entire environmental policy now.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
My guess is they'll fire a few people at OMB and cut their budget. OMB's next report will show that environmental regulations are strangling the economy, even if Cheney has to go over and write it himself.Originally posted by: BOBDN
Well, I guess this means the Bush administration will have to reverse their entire environmental policy now.
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Its nice to hear some good news for a change here.
Probably busy digging up dirt on Clark. Give then time. The Conservative Think Banks, I mean Tanks will shred this soon enough I should think.Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Strange that the people who are usually so vocal in these enviornmental policy threads are absent. I guess they can't just dismiss the source as biased liberal/enviro wacko tripe so they keep thier mouths shut.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Clearly, these wonks are holdovers from the liberal/envirowacko Clinton administration.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I don't think anyone can dispute the longterm savings of having "cleaner pollution", the problem is the relative short term. I'm all for promoting the "cleanest pollution" via gov't standards, but I also don't think that they should come at the short term expense of the companies. I also think that Bush's policies have been discussed at length here and I haven't participated in them much as other's because they just end up in an anti-Bush hate fest. I find it interesting that people who support Bush's policies are branded as anti-environment and such. I support his environment platform even though I think it could be stronger in certain areas. Infact I have expressed my 100% support of using an entirely renewable sources such as wind power- it's too bad in some areas of the country have been diagnosed with the "notinmybackyard" syndrome
This report is fine by me, just as long as it isn't used to shove new expensive regulations down the throats of industries that can't handle them.
CkG
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I don't think anyone can dispute the longterm savings of having "cleaner pollution", the problem is the relative short term. I'm all for promoting the "cleanest pollution" via gov't standards, but I also don't think that they should come at the short term expense of the companies. I also think that Bush's policies have been discussed at length here and I haven't participated in them much as other's because they just end up in an anti-Bush hate fest. I find it interesting that people who support Bush's policies are branded as anti-environment and such. I support his environment platform even though I think it could be stronger in certain areas. Infact I have expressed my 100% support of using an entirely renewable sources such as wind power- it's too bad in some areas of the country have been diagnosed with the "notinmybackyard" syndrome
This report is fine by me, just as long as it isn't used to shove new expensive regulations down the throats of industries that can't handle them.
CkG
In other words clean up the environment as long as it doesn't cost anything even though the cost of improving the environment is more than offset by the improvement.
Sounds like the same policy the Bush administration implemented that got us here in the first place. And will wind up costing more than cleaning our environment.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Again your preconceived ideas about me and/or Bush have skewed your comprehension skills.
I did NOT say that it couldn't cost anything - it just can't be more than the industry can bear. You also seem to not understand long-term/short-term implications. How many "short-term" layoffs or closures would you be comfortable with so these industries can comply with new regulations and increase the longterm benefits that the regulations supposedly provide? There is a balance that needs to be struck. Too strict of regulation will force closings, layoffs, closures in the short term for industries that can't afford to pay for the improvements immediately - but on the flip side, they need to adopt better/cleaner regulations.
CkG
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Again your preconceived ideas about me and/or Bush have skewed your comprehension skills.
I did NOT say that it couldn't cost anything - it just can't be more than the industry can bear. You also seem to not understand long-term/short-term implications. How many "short-term" layoffs or closures would you be comfortable with so these industries can comply with new regulations and increase the longterm benefits that the regulations supposedly provide? There is a balance that needs to be struck. Too strict of regulation will force closings, layoffs, closures in the short term for industries that can't afford to pay for the improvements immediately - but on the flip side, they need to adopt better/cleaner regulations.
CkG
I'm not comfortable with the 2.7 million "short term" job losses we've suffered under Bush already. I'm not comfortable with any more. I'm also not comfortable with energy companies blackmailing America by claiming their responsibility to clean up their act will cost jobs. Wouldn't the new construction an upgrade of plants create jobs?
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
See? Tangible economic benefits from pro-environmental policies. Bush should have left well-enough alone, rather than chipping away at environmental protections. The policies that were in place were working just fine.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
See? Tangible economic benefits from pro-environmental policies. Bush should have left well-enough alone, rather than chipping away at environmental protections. The policies that were in place were working just fine.
note that the policies that got rolled back were mostly those put in place by clinton in his final couple of weeks. obviously he didn't believe in them enough to make them anything more than a talking point when bush predictably repealed them.
George W. Bush is not responsible for anything, Clinton is responsible for everything.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
See? Tangible economic benefits from pro-environmental policies. Bush should have left well-enough alone, rather than chipping away at environmental protections. The policies that were in place were working just fine.
note that the policies that got rolled back were mostly those put in place by clinton in his final couple of weeks. obviously he didn't believe in them enough to make them anything more than a talking point when bush predictably repealed them.