Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Bush: the Pollution President

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    21,441
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 1,982 Times in 1,405 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 287 Times in 274 Posts

    Default Bush: the Pollution President

    This has been the most proactive admin in my lifetime regarding weakening federal standards for the environment & giving free reign to corporate polluters. It's been an all-out assault on the planet from day 1.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23631398/

    What has this guy done besides kill the economy, kill the environment & kill our reputation around the world? What a terrible 7+ years this has been. 2 terms! What a stupid country...

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    49,801
    Thanks
    1,830
    Thanked 7,353 Times in 5,599 Posts
    Groans
    238
    Groaned 801 Times in 749 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Onceler View Post
    This has been the most proactive admin in my lifetime regarding weakening federal standards for the environment & giving free reign to corporate polluters. It's been an all-out assault on the planet from day 1.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23631398/

    What has this guy done besides kill the economy, kill the environment & kill our reputation around the world? What a terrible 7+ years this has been. 2 terms! What a stupid country...
    Doesn't this article state that the result is an increase in standards? Just not as much as the EPA wanted?
    Quote from Cypress:
    "Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.

    They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    My shanty
    Posts
    52,839
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I agree Onceller

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,788
    Thanks
    35,476
    Thanked 50,287 Times in 27,095 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    It's a problem, when political appointees with no technical or scientific background, consistently over rule the recommendations of their technical staff.

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    My shanty
    Posts
    52,839
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    The new meaning of political science Cypress.

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    49,801
    Thanks
    1,830
    Thanked 7,353 Times in 5,599 Posts
    Groans
    238
    Groaned 801 Times in 749 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8007697

    "The Environmental Protection Agency is calling its new multibillion-dollar smog restrictions "the most stringent standards ever."

    "Scientists suggest lowering the allowable levels of ozone in the air even further to reduce related heart and asthma attacks.

    Johnson said he took those recommendations into account, but disagreed. He says he didn't consider the cost. The EPA estimates compliance could cost as much as $8.8 billion a year by the time counties are expected to meet the requirement."
    Quote from Cypress:
    "Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.

    They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    21,441
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 1,982 Times in 1,405 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 287 Times in 274 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    It's a problem, when political appointees with no technical or scientific background, consistently over rule the recommendations of their technical staff.
    It's also a problem when the admin hires people like petroleum lobbyists to head up their environmental efforts.

    During Bush's 1st term, there was an executive order almost every single Friday for awhile there; usually late in the day, so it would miss the news cycle. Unprotect a few million acres here, ease a few regulations there.

    It has been an absolute assault on the environment. Their idiotic "Clear Skies" act was anything but, and would have gutted the old Clean Air act completely.

    This kind of stuff keeps flying under the radar, but it's criminal. It will be the biggest part of his legacy next to Iraq.

Similar Threads

  1. Congratulations President Bush!
    By CanadianKid in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-18-2008, 02:35 PM
  2. Jay Leno on President Bush
    By Chapdog in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-11-2008, 12:16 PM
  3. Thank God Bush Senior wasn't President after 1992!
    By TheDanold in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 09-17-2007, 07:40 PM
  4. WHO fears over Beijing pollution
    By uscitizen in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-18-2007, 08:37 AM
  5. President Bush, October 2002
    By Care4all in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 08-02-2006, 08:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •