Bush and the Environment

[bach2yoga]

from www.time.com, reprinted in Garden State Environmental News re: George Dumbya Bush...(oops) :prop:

HOW BUSH GETS HIS WAY ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Date: 030120
From: http://www.time.com/

WITH THE NATION DISTRACTED BY TERRORISM AND THE ECONOMY, THE PRESIDENT
HAS QUIETLY MANEUVERED TO CHALLENGE LIMITS ON DRILLING, MINING,
LOGGING AND POWER GENERATION

By Terry McCarthy, Time Magazine, Jan. 27, 2003

As she ascends to a 4,500-ft.-high ridgeline overlooking the Kern
River in the California Sierras, Ruby Johnson Jenkins says she smells
trouble. Stretching out before her is a vast panorama of blackened
slopes, a grim legacy of the fire last August that burned more than
150,000 acres of the Sequoia National Forest. But it isn't the charred
timber that makes her wrinkle her nose. The ill odor, she says, is
coming from Washington, specifically from President George W. Bush's
controversial plan to increase logging in national forests in the name
of reducing the risk of fires.

"There are two battles for this forest," says the sprightly Jenkins,
77, who has co-written three books on hiking the Sierras. "The first
was the fire itself. Now there's the battle to save the trees." Not
everything in the forest burned. Clumps of oaks still show green
against the blackened slopes, and the fire stopped short of the
ancient stands of sequoias. But among the Forest Service's restoration
options is a plan to take out as much as 10 million board feet of
timber from Sequoia National Monument. Although some ecologists say
it's a necessary treatment for forests that will wither without
resuscitation, from the mouths of Bush allies, it smells rotten to
many environmentalists. "It seems as if they've been looking for an
opportunity to log," says Jenkins, "and the fires have suddenly handed
them a way to get around the usual restrictions."

If she is right, it is yet another example of how the Bush
Administration has managed to get what it wants on the environment.
For two years, the President has found ways to bypass restrictions on
oil and gas drilling, mining, logging and coal-fired power generation.
Within days of the Republican gains of last November's elections, the
Administration stepped up what critics view as an all-out assault on
the environment with a series of pronouncements: that snowmobiles
could operate in Yellowstone National Park, oil drilling could expand
in Padre Island National Seashore in Texas, the National Marine
Fisheries Service would ease salmon protections in the Pacific
Northwest, and Washington would soften rules on logging and energy
conservation. Opponents predict a new wave of even bolder measures in
the coming months that could affect water and air quality and renew
efforts to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil
drilling. In response to the critics, White House spokesman Scott
McClellan says, "There are a number of alarmist groups out there that
are trying to promote fear in order to boost their own fund raising."

Bush has paid a low political price for his aggressive steps, partly
because his opponents have been largely ineffectual: environmental
groups ritually accuse the Administration of trying to reverse three
decades of environmental policies, but they are preaching mostly to
the converted. Earlier this month, the attempt by Senators John McCain
and Joe Lieberman to launch a bill to limit greenhouse gases met with
stern disapproval from the White House - and little apparent interest
from the public. Although Americans as a whole are uneasy about the
President's environmental stewardship - a CBS News/New York Times poll
taken in November said 46% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats thought
that the Federal Government should do more to regulate environmental
and safety practices in business - there is scant sign of public
outrage on any single issue.

This is partly due, no doubt, to the more immediate threats
preoccupying the nation. Green issues played almost no role in the
midterm elections. "The environment is not going to be the defining
issue in an election when terrorism, war and a limping economy are
stacked on top of it," says Philip Clapp, president of the National
Environmental Trust. And it's partly owing, surely, to the fact that
conservationists have been crying wolf for too long: by opposing every
tree- cutting and development project across the West, they have
diluted their credibility on the big issues.

But credit Bush for a successful strategy, in particular for having
learned from previous mistakes. When former House Speaker Newt
Gingrich used Republican control of Congress to assault regulations
governing mining, oil drilling and air and water pollution in his 1994
Contract with America, the measures were quickly derailed in committee
or vetoed by President Bill Clinton. "Gingrich thought he had a
mandate to push antienvironmental measures, and he just put a huge
bull's-eye on his back," says Scott Stoermer, communications director
for the League of Conservation Voters.

Bush, by contrast, has learned to stand oblique to the current of
public opinion on the environment, allowing criticism to slide off his
back. His lieutenants in Interior, Agriculture and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) have quietly focused on the regulatory route,
using administrative guidance and legal loopholes to achieve what
Gingrich could not obtain in the full glare of the legislative
process. "They are rejecting the full-frontal-assault approach that
gets a lot of media attention in favor of death by a thousand strokes
of the pen," contends Stoermer. The Republicans are also learning how
to spin environmental issues in their direction. In a confidential
document distributed to G.O.P. Governors and members of Congress just
before last November's elections, Republican pollster Frank Luntz
advised party members to refer to themselves as "conservationists."
The document said, "The first (and most important) step to
neutralizing the [Republican environmental] problem and eventually
bringing people around to your point of view on environmental issues
is to convince them of your 'sincerity' and 'concern.'"

Instead of announcing new logging quotas, for example, Bush traveled
to Oregon last August to announce the Healthy Forests Initiative.
Judicious thinning of trees - which the Forest Service calls
"management-caused changes in vegetation"--would prevent the fires
that were raging across the West, he suggested, pointing to ecological
research. It was left to bureaucrats to explain later that the
initiative would provide for the logging of trees as much as 30 in. in
diameter and would make it easier for forest managers to circumvent
time-consuming environmental- impact statements when drawing up
logging plans.

But ecologists' views vary widely on the right ways to manage
forests. Wally Covington, a Northern Arizona University professor,
believes the President's forest- restoration project is on the right
track, although he acknowledges the potentially corrupting role of
private logging interests. "Suspicions are not unfounded, based on
history, that when you start [restoring], commercial interests might
be the tail that wags the dog," he says. "None of us in conservation
ecology want to see that happen."

When more intractable environmental disputes arise, the
Administration tends to shunt them toward its allies in Congress.
Bush's recent proposals on amending the Clean Air Act allow older
power plants to avoid installing costly pollution controls that are
mandatory for newer ones. The White House says the plan will encourage
old power plants to pollute less, but environmentalists say it's a
free ticket for power generators to keep polluting. Nine states are
suing the government to block the proposal, and it will also face a
strong battle in Congress. The EPA's announcement two weeks ago that
it was considering scaling back protections under the Clean Water Act
was equally controversial. And attempts to open the ANWR to drilling
are likely to set off another fierce struggle. The new chairman of the
Senate Energy Committee, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, said last week
that he would try to attach the anwr proposal to the budget bill,
which would deny Democrats the chance to filibuster (the budget bill
requires a simple majority to pass).

Despite its loyalties to the extractive industries, the
Administration ultimately runs on political expediency, not
ideological conviction. When Bush's decision to drop a Clinton-
introduced standard on arsenic in drinking water caused a public stir
in 2001, the President quickly reversed his position to avoid wasting
political capital. Although several recent court rulings have gone
against Bush - blocking attempts by the Administration to start
logging in 58.5 million acres of areas declared roadless by Clinton,
drill off the coast of California and explore for oil and gas near
Utah's Arches and Canyonlands National Parks - the Administration has
tried to find ways to fight back. Many of these efforts are being led
by Bush appointees in Interior and Agriculture who came from the
industries they now regulate. "They were very familiar with the
regulations they wanted changed," says Gloria Flora, a Clinton-era
supervisor of the Lewis and Clark Forest in Montana. "These people
were on a mission from the day they walked in the door."

How far they will get is uncertain, particularly as the President
becomes preoccupied with a possible war in the Middle East and an
election campaign next year. "Every corporate lobbyist is faxing their
legislators' offices, saying, We need to get everything out of 2003,
because 2004 is too close to the elections," says Clapp of the
National Environmental Trust.

Ruby Johnson Jenkins, who routinely takes 10-mile hikes, will keep
trying to save the 30-in. trees in the forest she has known for years.
"They'll have meetings, and I'll go, and I'll write letters," she
says. "I have to. I consider this my forest, not theirs."
Unfortunately for Jenkins, the Bush Administration doesn't appear to
agree.

- - -

AIR THE BUSH PLAN would decrease sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and
mercury emissions from power plants via the Clear Air Initiative

CRITICS SAY it makes no mention of carbon dioxide, considered a major
cause of global warming

WATER THE BUSH PLAN would reduce the bodies of water protected by the
EPA, freeing the land for development

CRITICS SAY it could leave 20% of the country's waters unprotected and
agricultural waste insufficiently regulated, as at this hog farm, left

LAND THE BUSH PLAN is for the Bureau of Land Management to facilitate
increased oil and gas drilling across the West

CRITICS SAY environmental damage to such sensitive areas as the
Arctic, left, and the Rocky Mountain Front is too high a price to pay

LOGGING THE BUSH PLAN proposes to reduce the fire danger in forests by
thinning trees as much as 30 in. in diameter

CRITICS SAY that it's actually a veiled attempt to bypass restrictions
and increase commercial logging in the U.S.'s 155 national forests

NATIONAL PARKS THE BUSH PLAN overrides a Clinton ban by allowing
snowmobiles to operate in Yellowstone National Park

CRITICS SAY snowmobiles disturb wildlife, create noise and pollution
and are opposed by local park-service officials and 80% of public
comments

* * *

With reporting by Dan Cray/Kernville, Pat Dawson/Billings and Eric
Roston and Adam Zagorin/Washington
Copyright (c) 2003 Time Inc. All rights reserved.

[JeffD]

I surmise that the stink from the burned timber didn't phase the tree hugger, because IT'S NATURAL. :crazy: :prop: :roll:
Fire and heavy smoke is hazardous to your health no matter where it originates.

The common sense, down-to-earth plans W and his allies in congress have to undo the nonsensical policies driven by the Disney Ecologists for three some decades is a breath of fresh air.

The forests are unhealthy because of the wilderness cult policy of neglect. Ironically, the hands-off-don't cut policy has resulted in the same mess created by logging abuse in the 19th and early twentith century which John Muir helped clean up. The loggers have cleaned up their act, and are working with true environmentalists, such as Patrick Moore, who use science and common sense to practice good stewardship of the earth and use, but not abuse, our resources, as Mr. Muir advocated. It's about time for the environmentalists to clean up their act. I applaud W and members of congress for reforming the tyranical, silly laws that proport to protect the environment but do little to do this but line the pockets of certain environmentalists and empower politicians.

I hope W and congress make a clean sweep! 8)

It's time for we the people to get our way, and not a tyrannical bunch of conning elitists from the environmental priesthood!

Let's go up to Alaska where there is way to much land just sitting idle and get some home-grown oil, and stop buying the pitch from snake oil salesmen!

[JeffD]

THE ARTICLE READS

But credit Bush for a successful strategy, in particular for having
learned from previous mistakes. When former House Speaker Newt
Gingrich used Republican control of Congress to assault regulations
governing mining, oil drilling and air and water pollution in his 1994
Contract with America, the measures were quickly derailed in committee
or vetoed by President Bill Clinton. "Gingrich thought he had a
mandate to push antienvironmental measures, and he just put a huge
bull's-eye on his back," says Scott Stoermer, communications director
for the League of Conservation Voters.

Bush, by contrast, has learned to stand oblique to the current of
public opinion on the environment, allowing criticism to slide off his
back. His lieutenants in Interior, Agriculture and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) have quietly focused on the regulatory route,
using administrative guidance and legal loopholes to achieve what
Gingrich could not obtain in the full glare of the legislative
process. "They are rejecting the full-frontal-assault approach that
gets a lot of media attention in favor of death by a thousand strokes
of the pen," contends Stoermer. The Republicans are also learning how
to spin environmental issues in their direction. In a confidential
document distributed to G.O.P. Governors and members of Congress just
before last November's elections, Republican pollster Frank Luntz
advised party members to refer to themselves as "conservationists."
The document said, "The first (and most important) step to
neutralizing the [Republican environmental] problem and eventually
bringing people around to your point of view on environmental issues
is to convince them of your 'sincerity' and 'concern.'"

TALK ABOUT SPIN. :roll: The steps Newt Gingrich, et al took were not anti-environmental but were taken to stop the nonsensical, onerous boondoggling environmental regulations - environmentalism out of control. I remember reading a column by Cal Thomas awhile back where Cal said that the water quality regulations promoted by Algore, et al were so stringent that wetland plants would die due to lack of nutrients. He also said Algore was a "pseudo-environmentalist, pseudo-theologian" and a "pseudo-statesman."

Let me give this a New Jersey angle. Several years ago, around the time of the mass exodus of disenchanted Democrats from the party and the contract with America, I saw on the New Jersey public cable station an item about Newt Gingrich and Christy Whitman working with some environmental group to protect land needed as a watershed from developers. Around that time, Mr. Newt hosted Larry King Live, where he had Jack Hanna(?), Betty White and other guests, who had an interesting Jefferson-like discussion about "the environment." Jack said that if some of his collegues learned he was cavorting with Newt, they would give him a hard time. Mr. Newt was depicted by the fringe, but powerful, element in society, as wanting to poison the air and water, and all the other Gorey details. As was the case with DDT, his loss of power was a result of demagoguery.

Likewise, in the Pine Barrens, cranberry grower Garfield DeMarco has been the subject of a Green Gestapo witch hunt and has been demonized. All I can say is that I hope and sincerely wish the New Jersey Conservation Foundation takes as good care of the land Mr. DeMarco gave them a price break on as he did. As some environmentalists are realizing, to be a good steward of land, one needs not just to aquire it, but manage it properly. In some cases and in some parts of land, it may be best to just leave it alone. But not in every case. At any rate, the public is benefiting from the hard work and wise management done by people who have managed the land in the past. It was interesting to read recently that the vast majority of the DeMarco Enterprises land about to be acquired by the foundation contains lots of flora and fauna, such as cedar trees and tree frogs. As described by the foundation's president, Michele Byers, it is pristine. This is the result of hard work and good management, not Disney Ecology and onerous regulations.

The Clinton/Gore era is begging to fade away. As Elton John sang in THE LYIN' KING:

Ca-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-an you see that W's right?
Can you see that far?
We've had enough
of that sandal-clad dope-smoker
So we can live the very best...

[bobpbx]

Ca-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-an you see that W's right?
Can you see that far?
We've had enough
of that sandal-clad dope-smoker
So we can live the very best...

Whats that Jeff; Ca-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-an you see that W's WHITE?

Hey, I was a sandal clad dope-smoker, and proud of it! Back off Jack!

[JeffD]

That's OK, as long as you don't interfere with us living the very best by running the country and dictating environmental policy. Hug trees to your heart's content, really, but just don't get in the way of people's livelihoods when people manage forests and harvest trees in a responsible manner. The will of the people is being represented by some of our leaders. And no :crazy: Disney Ecology. It's time for it to fly the coop.

[Ben Ruset]

Whats that Jeff; Ca-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-an you see that W's WHITE?

Hey, I was a sandal clad dope-smoker, and proud of it! Back off Jack!

The more I hear about your history, the more I like you Bob.

[JeffD]

Read about the summit in Johannesburg that W Bush did not attend. Read about the hypocracy and who really are the fat cats who are out of touch with everyday people. And the Bush Bashers from the environmental extreme criticize Bush, who they say is out to destroy the environment, for not attending this fiasco. Note that the author of this piece, from SUN ONLINE, is not exactly in the Bush camp and appears to buy into the notion that the U.S. is grossly misusing the environment, as you'll find in the line about us being the world's biggest polluter. Actually, the old Soviet Union created more pollution that we did. I also remember seeing a newsstory where a bus in Mexico City was polluting so badly it looked like it was on fire. But truth is truth, as even Friends of the Earth can see. As in George Orwell's ANIMAL FARM, where the animals took over the farm, we see who the real capitalist pigs are (Sorry I couldn't get the photos to come up):



Lobsters, caviar and brandy for MPs at summit on starvation



Opulent ... plush dining room
where bigwigs will eat for ten days




RELATED STORIES
• Chew Jags




By NEIL SYSON

THE sickening champagne and caviar lifestyle being enjoyed by Earth Summit delegates was exposed yesterday.
They are gorging on mountains of lobster, oysters and fillet steak at the Johannesburg conference — aimed at ending FAMINE.

As the summit began yesterday, desperate kids in nearby shanty towns queued for water at standpipes.

Bigwig politicians among the 60,000 delegates, including Deputy PM John Prescott, also get vintage bubbly and brandy.

Taxpayers are footing the £500,000 bill for the 70-strong British party. Friends of the Earth called the extravagance “deplorable”.

The head chef of the swanky hotel hosting Earth Summit bigwigs described the mountains of posh food he is laying on for their pleasure.



Desperate ... little boy drinks from a standpipe


And Desmond Morgan declared: “Money is no object.”

The chef is in charge of meals at Johannesburg’s five-star Michelangelo Hotel, where world leaders and other VIP delegates are staying during the “save the planet” conference, which opened yesterday.

While people are going hungry at shanty towns just a couple of miles away, Mr Morgan told how he had stocked up with an extraordinary array of delicacies and fine wines.

It includes 5,000 oysters, more than 1,000lbs of lobster and other shellfish, buckets of caviar and piles of pâté de foie gras.

He has also got in more than 4,400lbs of fillet steak and chicken breasts, 450lbs of salmon, 220lbs of a tasty South African fish called kingclip — and more than 1,000lbs of bacon and sausages.

The huge bill is paid for by taxpayers of participating nations including Britain.

Mr Morgan said: “Whether they want Beluga caviar, foie gras or bacon sandwiches — we have it all.

“In my experience, heads of state don’t decide what they want to eat or drink until the last minute.

“So I have to make sure I have everything they can possibly want.”

Vintage champagne, fine wines, spirits and liqueurs have been flown in from around the globe so the VIPs can wash down their meals in style.



Squalor ... shanty woman must get by on scraps


A new kitchen has been especially created for world leaders, including the Sultan of Brunei, who have their own cooks and tasters.

The £35million summit — aimed at combating hunger, poverty and pollution — is centred around Sandton, the most exclusive suburb in Africa.

Its streets are lined with expensive restaurants, gated villas and gleaming shopping malls.

Yet close by, families scratch a desperate existence in the sprawling shanty town of Alexandra.

They live in corrugated shacks. Hungry children play among piles of rubbish and queue for water at standpipes.

The average weekly wage for the few who work in the township is less than the cost of a vintage brandy at the Michelangelo.

Aid agencies say southern Africa is facing its worst food crisis for more than a decade.

More than 14million people — most of them children — are threatened with starvation.

The 60,000 summit delegates from 182 countries are expected to drink 80,000 bottles of mineral water during the conference.

Yet each day 6,000 African children die from diseases caused by contaminated water.

Since the last Earth Summit in Brazil in 1992, the number of Africans living in poverty has soared from 220million to 300million.

Several other environmental issues will be discussed at the ten-day summit, organised by the United Nations.



Feast ... John Prescott


But in another ironic twist, hundreds of trees have been felled around the conference centre so fleets of limousines will have unhindered access.

The 70-strong British delegation, led by Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett, is costing taxpayers £500,000.

Most other countries fund their delegations too — but the poorest nations get financial help from the richest countries.

Tony Blair is scheduled to address the summit for half an hour. He will spend less than 12 hours in his £550-a-night suite, complete with butler service, at the Michelangelo.

Globe-trotting Deputy PM John Prescott arrives at the hotel, which boasts an “executive lifestyle” fitness centre, tomorrow.

He and the British team, which also includes Environment Minister Michael Meacher, have five Mercedes cars at their disposal, plus two people carriers for aides.

Tories have branded Mr Prescott’s trip to South Africa — the 16th country he has visited since April last year — a waste of money. He has no official speaking role at the summit.

The conference’s lavish nature was blasted by environmental campaigners Friends of the Earth last night. Spokesman Mike Childs said:

"It is to be deplored, especially as politicians are scrabbling to do nothing about the problems of environment degradation and poverty.



Welcome to the beanfeast ... doorman
will greet guests arriving for summit


"They are living it up while not taking action for the millions around the world who will die because of inaction.

"The people of Alexandra would be gobsmacked if they could see how people live in such opulence on their doorstep.

"How can delegates sleep soundly in their beds knowing such suffering is just down the road?"

He added: “We have been working closely with communities in places like Alexandra to help them get a voice.

“But delegates from rich countries just don’t want to listen to the poor in society.”

Friends of the Earth have sent a ten-strong delegation to Johannesburg to have their say. They flew out economy class and are sleeping on the floor of a school.

Tory MP Sir Teddy Taylor dismissed the summit as “absurd”.

He said: “The whole thing makes me feel sick. When you think about the starving people in the world and then see this sort of lavish display it just isn’t right.



Expensive ... we're paying for brandy, lobster, caviar and champagne


“I’m sure nothing will be achieved at the meeting except for photo opportunities allowing politicians to say how great they are.”

The criticism was brushed off by Downing Street last night.
A spokesman said: “I don’t think we will be going into these aspects of the summit.”

A spokesman for the Department of Environment said: "This is not a jolly, it is a very serious conference.

“Delegates will not be living it up. And it is their duty to be conscious of costs.”

US President George Bush is NOT attending Johannesburg, even though he is the leader of the world’s biggest polluter.

The American delegation is being headed instead by Secretary of State Colin Powell.

The summit will discuss how an increasing population can boost and spread wealth without destroying the environment.

But climate change is not directly on the agenda. Former top UN climate scientist Robert Watson yesterday claimed it was left off because of pressure from the US.


JOHN “Two Jags” Prescott has already spent more than £150,000 in taxpayers’ cash on trips over the past year. He has earned a new nickname — Jet Lags. Since April last year he has clocked up more than 75,000 miles.