The President's environmental policy

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
In this country the Free Market is being cheated. Small business owners are the backbone of this economy, yet they will never be able to compete with the multi-national corporations. These institutions can out compete small businesses because they can produce good and pollute as much as they want, meanwhile ensuring that small business owners do not have the same rights. Corporations get rich through political clout and by making others poor to increase their margins. Pollution = subsidies = big government = the Bush Administration = corporate despotism – a new type of government – a government that the Bush Administration is striving to create despite the visions of our forefathers. And this science fiction nightmare is directly attributable to the selective anti-regulation of the Bush Administration.

Environmental costs reflect the true cost of bringing a cost to market. Cheaters pass the costs off on those around because that is the only way they can corner the market. Look at hog production in our North Carolina. 15 years ago 27,000 farms in North Carolina alone existed. Now only 2,200 corporate facilities exist. Hogs produce 10 the amount of waste as humans. A facility with 50,000 hogs will produce as much waste as city with 5,000,000 people and this waste can be dumped directly into the water and onto the land because of subsidies and anti-regulations. Because these hogs are fed so many antibiotics and these go right through the hog into their waste, no plants can grow on them because they are too polluted. The land is ruined. If these corporations were held to the same standards as small business, they would not be able to produce a pound of bacon for less then a family farm.

How does this happen? First of all, these giant corporations control the media and convince a large block of voters that by voting for their pet politicians they are voting ideals like “free markets” and “property rights.” The problem is that it is only free markets and property right for them and not all. The Bush Administration provides a convenient case study on this concept. They have operated with obfuscation and subterfuge ever since they stole the White House from the democratic process. They have created a secret government inaccessible from the public eye and here is why.

In all of recent history there has not been an administration that has harmed our environment more. As of this moment the Bush administration is ignoring the current laws, strong arming others to stop prosecution and changing policies to bring about a short term polluted growth that will make many rich quick, but, in the end will stick the taxpayers with the bill for cleaning it up. For instance according to executive orders, solid waste is no longer enforceable as environmental degradation, so debris, garbage, and contaminated earth can be dumped on land in into water by large corporations at will. Much of this has been the result of the firing of 250 EPA enforcers for prosecuting Bush Campaign donors. In the future, the administration will bring 200 major policy changes about through congress and executive order and if all of these changes go through, we will have absolutely no significant environmental laws left. We will be like Mexico where the air melts your face despite the flowery regulations on the books.

Already we can see the harm that this administration has caused. Its energy bill can safely be called the “No Lobbyist Left Behind” energy bill. Inside this bill are subsidies and anti-regulations that basically roll back the entire clean water and air acts and allow power plants to pollute at will by law. In fact, oil, gas, and coal companies will NEVER be required to clean up the messes they make under this legislation. The bill does nothing to cut our dependence of foreign oil and will only enrich those companies who have interest in such products – these companies include those owned by the Bush families themselves, those owned by princes of Saudi Arabia and by those owned by the Bin Laden family. (So much for the war on terror) This is a pork barrel bill with a few nods to alternative energies sprinkled over it like diamonds on a mound of feces.

Meanwhile the environmental damage goes on. In the Bush years as of this date, we can measure our water getting dirtier (look at the EPA’s recent announcement), the dead zone in lake Erie is getting larger because of dioxin production, a measurable 10% decrease in our fisheries from historic levels can be linked to increases in pollution, one in four kids in New York now have asthma because of Bush’s deregulations, the non prosecution of mercury polluters has led to a direct increase in birth defects, and as of this moment 28 states do not have fish in them that are safe to eat with more lakes added to the list every day.

We need a “regime change” in this country. We cannot ignore the Bush Administration’s actions because the price we will pay in the future will be more then anything we can imagine. We will experience a short term period of growth from this pollution frenzy and when this is all done, the companies responsible will run off to Brazil or some other country they have slated for domination and use. And we will be left with no jobs, no health, and a huge clean up job and no resources to do it. In the end, the environmental movement is not about hugging trees or protecting spotted owls in the forest as it has been so characterized by those it opposes. It is about protecting out culture, our values, our history, and our very lives.

Upnorthkyosa
 

Ender

Black Belt
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
684
Reaction score
21
*yawn

More inane rhetoric. You're just spouting off the same old line heard over and over hoping that it's true..give us some facts.

The example of larger farms is just so silly it's funny. first off, the smaller farms are going away because of inefficiency. The same thing that happens to the auto industry, the supermarket industry, the retail store industry, etc..... and why?.....Because the consumer demands lower prices. and those that can add value or lower prices will prevail. if you go shopping and look for the lowest price,YOU are contributing to this.

And as far as the environment is concerned, we here in Calif are paying the price for the so called "do gooder environmentalists". Because the Clinton and Grey Davis administration had a policy of leaving the forests alone and NOT tending to them and maintaining them, we had several forest fires that ran out of control quickly. there was massive amounts of undergrowth that usually got cleaned up, but didn't because "it's bad for the forest".
These fires were on national news, destroyed hundreds of houses, killed several people, and cost us millions to fight these fires. Silly rhetoric like you propose only compund the problem. Try offering sensible solutions instead.
 
OP
Makalakumu

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
Show me how Industry will police itself?

They can't and won't. The temptation of short term gains is too great meanwhile the price of pollution will be picked up by you and I. Hopefully history won't be rewritten so much that our kids can't learn from the president's mistakes.

And, by the way, a 150 years of fire suppression caused the tragedy in California. Not Bill Clinton. Who the hell said this crap? Probably Limbaugh. Great, I wonder what you'll say if I pull another string?

Look, logging will not solve the problem of our forests. Its too big. Only fire will solve it. This kind of rhetoric is so typical of the current neo-con claptrap. "Here, lets see how much money we can make of the latest tradegy? I'm sure people are so scared they'll believe anything!"

PS - there are plenty of facts in the first post - you ignored them.
 

Rich Parsons

A Student of Martial Arts
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
16,849
Reaction score
1,084
Location
Michigan
Well I happen to know in the 1980's they did do brush burning. ANd Controlled burning. I do not know who stopped or if they stopped at all. How do I know. I was caught with the sun gone down, being stalked by a big cat. I cut across the zig zag path to save time to get back to the bottom. I came across a section that was still smuldering. My shoes were singed and covered in ash. And of course once I was down and about 50' yards from the car with my buddie, then we got caught by the Ranger and was lectured about the dangers. We just smiled and said yes sir.
 
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
"The smaller farms are going away because of inefficiency."

That's hilarious, dude. In a sick way.

Smaller farms are vanishing--have largely vanished--because of corporate capitalism. Beatrice Foods ring a bell? Essentially, they've made it economically impossible to survive with small-scale, community linked, environmentally rational farming methods. They're converting the Midwest to large scale, corporatist, "farm factories," which--I seem to remember--screwed up the Soviet Union's agricultural system past all recall. Efficiency? Got nothing to do with it. The stock market, international markets, that's what's up with that.

It's just hilarious to me that folks are actually supporting this grotesque dismemberment of everything in the United States that gave rise to the sort of meaningful flag-waving, meaningful patriotism, that the very people who are presently flag-waving are helping to eradicate.

Small scale farming, with help, produces farming methods that sustain the land. Small scale farming supports the small communities that, when I was a kid, were--and still should be--the backbone of this country. And the goddamn food tastes better...which is why French food has generally been better.

Just to really throw a grenade in here, let me paraphrase Cornel West (who was in the last two "Matrix," movies, and boy did they smell bad) addressing Pat Robertson: "Don't you see, Reverend, that your economic beliefs are diametrically opposed to the Christian values you espouse?"

Some of you are arguing for wiping out the entire way of life that created the patriotic ideals you espouse.

And don't even get me started on the minor questions of what happens once we suck the Ogallalla aquifer dry, the salination of irrigated farmland, the pollution of the environment with farm runoff from corporate farms, or the fundamental truth of, "Chicken Run."

"I was born in a small town..."
 
M

MisterMike

Guest
They have operated with obfuscation and subterfuge ever since they stole the White House from the democratic process

That's about where I stopped reading. :rolleyes:
 
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
I agree. Nothing subtle or even sneaky about it--just plain ol' corporate capitalism. Hell, these guys have been as clear as clear aboutwhat they stood for.
 
T

TheRustyOne

Guest
Small business owners are the backbone of this economy, yet they will never be able to compete with the multi-national corporations.

True. I agree with this one.


We need a “regime change” in this country.

Alright, you make Bush sound like a Nazi here...


We will experience a short term period of growth from this pollution frenzy and when this is all done, the companies responsible will run off to Brazil or some other country they have slated for domination and use.

You are stating this in an article about pollution. True, it has a spot here, as long as the administrators turn their heads at some of their polluting. But the reason a lot of them run off is that they CAN'T escape some regulations. And the enforcers. Our EPA acts a police force. Greenpeace does, too, but thems are pesky. The various groups in the US WILL lobby once there are adverse, or not so adverse, effects are shown. They run off not because they over pollute and become unproductive (tho that happens), they run off because of our regulations for both pollution and safety. Like in China, there are very few, if any, worker safety programs. The Chinese can be paid cheap and work in much worse conditions than the Americans.


In the end, the environmental movement is not about hugging trees or protecting spotted owls in the forest as it has been so characterized by those it opposes.

No, that's just the preservationists :p

The environmental movement is much more than that, but that's the stereotype that we've been stuck with. Once Americans get something into our collective heads, it seems hard to get out.



I think I'm just running from a different end of the environmental stick here...i'm just a student and haven't yet taken environmental policy...
 

Ender

Black Belt
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
684
Reaction score
21
Originally posted by rmcrobertson
"The smaller farms are going away because of inefficiency."

That's hilarious, dude. In a sick way.

Smaller farms are vanishing--have largely vanished--because of corporate capitalism. Beatrice Foods ring a bell? Essentially, they've made it economically impossible to survive with small-scale, community linked, environmentally rational farming methods. They're converting the Midwest to large scale, corporatist, "farm factories," which--I seem to remember--screwed up the Soviet Union's agricultural system past all recall. Efficiency? Got nothing to do with it. The stock market, international markets, that's what's up with that.

It's just hilarious to me that folks are actually supporting this grotesque dismemberment of everything in the United States that gave rise to the sort of meaningful flag-waving, meaningful patriotism, that the very people who are presently flag-waving are helping to eradicate.

Small scale farming, with help, produces farming methods that sustain the land. Small scale farming supports the small communities that, when I was a kid, were--and still should be--the backbone of this country. And the goddamn food tastes better...which is why French food has generally been better.

Just to really throw a grenade in here, let me paraphrase Cornel West (who was in the last two "Matrix," movies, and boy did they smell bad) addressing Pat Robertson: "Don't you see, Reverend, that your economic beliefs are diametrically opposed to the Christian values you espouse?"

Some of you are arguing for wiping out the entire way of life that created the patriotic ideals you espouse.

And don't even get me started on the minor questions of what happens once we suck the Ogallalla aquifer dry, the salination of irrigated farmland, the pollution of the environment with farm runoff from corporate farms, or the fundamental truth of, "Chicken Run."

"I was born in a small town..."

you may think it's funny, but it happenes in EVERY industry..just pick one....the auto industry?..there were dozens if not scores of automakers at one time. They all start out competing with other and the ones that can't provide the lowest price will wither and die because of competition...software?...same thing there, there were thousands of software companies. eventually the industry becomes consolidated with the more efficient producers gobbling up the smaller ones. now there are the giants, SUN, Microsoft, etc.......the paper industry?...now there are only 3 major companies in the US that provide these products now.....and it's happening in the food industry. soon Walmart will take over that industry and the others will be fighting for scraps. Aerospace?...there were also dozens of companies making rockets and airplanes, again, only a few left....EVERY industry goes thru it...until a paradigm shift occurs and those industries become obsolete or irrelevant...the trick is to be one of the companies that can add value (lower costs for better products) or be one that innovates.
 

Ender

Black Belt
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
684
Reaction score
21
Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
Show me how Industry will police itself?

They can't and won't. The temptation of short term gains is too great meanwhile the price of pollution will be picked up by you and I. Hopefully history won't be rewritten so much that our kids can't learn from the president's mistakes.

And, by the way, a 150 years of fire suppression caused the tragedy in California. Not Bill Clinton. Who the hell said this crap? Probably Limbaugh. Great, I wonder what you'll say if I pull another string?

Look, logging will not solve the problem of our forests. Its too big. Only fire will solve it. This kind of rhetoric is so typical of the current neo-con claptrap. "Here, lets see how much money we can make of the latest tradegy? I'm sure people are so scared they'll believe anything!"

PS - there are plenty of facts in the first post - you ignored them.

nah...just rhetoric...and no critical thinking..if you had done your homework you would have seen that the current policy of not "touching the forests" began with the Clinton administration and filtered down to the states. No forest maintenace was done and the result was large amounts of under brush that quickly caught fire that became uncontrollable. I know you can become blinded with your hate for the president, but thats no excuse for ignoring the facts.
 
OP
Makalakumu

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
Ender

Its sad that you've been so victimized by this neo-con fear spectrum. If you honestly think that a policy that Clinton set in motion regarding a no cut ban on some forests CAUSED the tragedy in California, then you have no idea what you are talking about. You are ignoring a 150 years of history. Look, Ender, we have the same problem up here in Nothern MN. You can't pull the conservative wool over the eyes of this biologist. Worse, your logical fallacy is just going to contribute to a downhill slide in the environments in this country. Your reply is a symptom of a larger issue - the one brought to your attention above, but are too lost in ideology to see.
 

Blindside

Grandmaster
Founding Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2001
Messages
5,175
Reaction score
849
Location
Kennewick, WA
nah...just rhetoric...and no critical thinking..if you had done your homework you would have seen that the current policy of not "touching the forests" began with the Clinton administration and filtered down to the states. No forest maintenace was done and the result was large amounts of under brush that quickly caught fire that became uncontrollable. I know you can become blinded with your hate for the president, but thats no excuse for ignoring the facts.

Ender, I'm afraid I will have to heavily disagree with this. Effective reduction of widescale forest fires began in the 1930's. At the time it was believed that prevention of forest fires was preventing destruction of a valuable economic resource (correct). It had little or nothing to do with the embryonic environmental movement.

What was not understood was the linkage between natural fire regimes and forest health. It is 70 years of severe fire supression that has led us to this point, not the result of any recent administration.

Is there a problem with the health of the current forests, yes, I think any reasonable biologist will tell you that. Right now the question is what mechanism do we use to get our forests back to a somewhat healthy condition.

Lamont

Wildlife biologist and occasional wildland firefighter
 
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
Sparky, that "evolution," is how capitalism works. It has zip to do with improving things for people--remember people? It has nothing to do with helping America or Americans. It has nothing to do with creating a better world, or a happier one, or even a more-efficient one--though those are certainly alibis we hear all the time, and though "efficiency," is certainly the claim that gets made.

If you think that ANY of this is important to capitalism, you know zip about the economic system you are espousing. The only thing that's important to capitalism is the expansion of markets, the maximation of profits, the flow of capital in all its forms. Nothing else counts. Go read Adam Smith, go read Ricardo, go read Sir James Goldsmith--and if you think they're commies, you REALLY don't know the economic system you're espousing. The word you want is, "Taylorization." I recommend looking up Frederick Jackson Taylor's seminal work on "effficiency," so you'll know the argument you're making.

I'm an old-fashioned American. I go with John Muir and Thoreau ("In Wilderness is the Preservation of the world"), with the Wobblies, with Wendell Berry and Gary Snyder. Read 'em and tell me I'm wrong. Of course, if you WANT a world of strip malls...

I see that, again, the point I keep raising gets overlooked: don't you understand that the economics you espouse is eradicating the world you claim to prefer...

Oh well, not my politest post. Sorry.
 
M

MountainSage

Guest
rmcrobertson,
I'm disappoint you used Wendell Berry and Muir in the same sentence. They are on opposite side of the same issue. Muir was an old fashion preservationist/socialist, lock it up and let no one in and get no use. Berry is more the maintain the land at its best so it will produce for many generation. Muir was a government offical with an axe to grind, Berry was a famer and scholar with a small family farm to protect. Most people have no clue about farming, just what they hear or read from the self supporting newsgroups. I gave up the big time farming a couple years ago, now raise food for my family and friends and make as much money as I did before.

Mountainsage

"I don't play a farmer on TV or the newspaper, I am an AMERICAN FARMER."
 
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
Well, at least you know who Wendell Berry IS.

I'd argue that what they share is: "Let's not trash everything just so the wealthy and the witless can make a ton of money and pave everything."

But you'vee brought up an worth-considering point about the limitations of Berry's approach to reality. Nice point; thanks.
 

OULobo

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
33
Location
Cleveland, OH
Originally posted by Blindside
Ender, I'm afraid I will have to heavily disagree with this. Effective reduction of widescale forest fires began in the 1930's. At the time it was believed that prevention of forest fires was preventing destruction of a valuable economic resource (correct). It had little or nothing to do with the embryonic environmental movement.

What was not understood was the linkage between natural fire regimes and forest health. It is 70 years of severe fire supression that has led us to this point, not the result of any recent administration.

Is there a problem with the health of the current forests, yes, I think any reasonable biologist will tell you that. Right now the question is what mechanism do we use to get our forests back to a somewhat healthy condition.

Lamont

Wildlife biologist and occasional wildland firefighter

I have to weigh in with the people who work with and in nature, for a living, like Lamont, when in comes to facts about the cause of forest fires. I think its a fairly well known fact that forest fires are natural and are usually responsible for clearing the underbrush that caused the current, and much more aggressive fires that happened in California. If urban sprawl and constant expansion didn't push further and further into the forests, the fires would be much less of an issue.
 

Latest Discussions

Top