Great artcle on environment

“The Sacramento Bee did a special on global environmental impact, one of the better I've read & really worth your time if you're interestd in our planet.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/news/projects/denial/”

“It's the same old eco-crap. We all need to feel guilty and ashamed because we are a wealthy and successful country.

The only decent part of it was how the environmental industry are really hypocrites.

I put the article to a good use. I used it to build a fire last night and snuggled with the wife in our wasteful middle class single family home and watched a DVD.”

“"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought"
JFK”

“I didn't take it that way at all. What it had to do with was the impact we have on other countries by passing environmental standards that preclude drilling, logging, etc. in OUR country while consuming the resources of others that don't have equal standards.

To me it was a good NIMBY article... "I want to do whatever I want to do but I don't want the consequences".”

“"Pen mind = Open mind"”

“does the sand get up your nose gordon?

No-one is suggesting you feel guilty - although I guess you can if you want to. You should only feel ashamed of America because the current administration is shying away from the environmental issue when most of the rest of the world has started to try to do something about it. Kyoto was far from perfect, but it was more something to build on, not something to get rid of altogether.

Keep your home, but when you replace things like light bulbs, think about buying low power consumption ones (IKEA sells them for $3 now and they last longer and cost you less to run) when you replace the car just think about fuel economy as one factor among the others - when you replace the dishwasher, take note of its energy usage. You can help without changing your lifestyle, just by making sound decisions.
I think the big myth which many believe is that helping the environment has to hurt economically, it's not always true.”

“I buy what I want when I want for whatever reasons I choose. The only concern anyone should have is whether you can afford it.

This administration is a breath of fresh air after the eight years of idiocy and the environmental vandalism of klintongore -- two of the worst environmental leaders in the history of the world. It's going to take decades to fix the problems created by klintongore in eight years.

My new goal in life is the increase my footprint to the maximum possible. You go ahead and be as eco-friendly as possible. That will just leave more planet and more resources for me.”

“And I still don't understand why replacing the letter c with a k at the start of Clinton is an insult?”

“and I'm sure your influence on the world's environment will not be too significant Gordon.”

“Well, Bush just might turn out to be eco-friendly and gordon unfriendly - ifn he manages to bring thre economy to a crashing halt, Gordon won't be able to afford nothing and polluting factories will all hafta shut down.”

“Yawn, oh, is Gordon back?”

“Ynami, back in the sixties, a lot of revolutionary literature and postings of various kinds would spell America with a K instead of a C. That was considered part of the revolutionary movement and I suppose it is the same concept. Frankly, I thought the idea went out with the times, because the only time I've seen that re used was right here on this board by a few of the angry ones who have this perpetual need to show disdain for Clinton, even though he hasn't been a factor in the political landscape for years...”

“Then there are people who don't know the difference between a C and a K ...”

“Well, that's true Geo, but I wasn't going there because they would call me a word that has a c and a k in it (and probably misspell it too)”

“ahhh, that would explain it - thanks treebeard.”

“U got it, my man!”

“..."worst environmental leaders..."


Worst how?

More pollution?

More restrictions on resource extraction?”

“http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/12/bush.outdoorgear.ap/index.html


GRANTS PASS, Oregon (AP) -- Arguing that protecting forests is good for business, major manufacturers of outdoor gear, including footwear giant Nike, are urging the Bush administration not to open roadless areas of national forests to logging.

Organized by environmental groups, Oregon-based Nike, Adidas, Columbia Sportswear and others sent a letter this week to Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey urging him to retain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The rule, put in place by the Clinton administration, bars logging on 60 million acres of undeveloped national forest.

The Bush administration has exempted the Tongass National Forest in Alaska from the rule to settle a lawsuit brought by the state and has proposed giving governors power to exempt their states.

"The modifications to the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule have the potential to negatively impact our nation's natural resources, our citizens' outdoor experience and ultimately, our industry's financial health," the May 7 letter said.

The letter came on the heels of a similar campaign by the Outdoor Industry Association of Boulder, Colorado.

"We are an $18 billion industry," said Menno van Wyk, CEO of Montrail, a hiking shoe company based in Seattle. "The reason we are a big and growing industry is a reflection of the fact that people are choosing to spend a significant amount of their free time enjoying these wild places."

The campaign represents a broadening of the environmental lobby, said Jay Ward, conservation director of the Oregon Natural Resources Association, which helped organize the letter.

"The Bush administration at its base is interested in listening to corporate America," Ward said from Portland. "It is interested in doing things it views as reinvigorating the economy. Heretofore, that has been mostly viewed as a way to produce more two-by-fours and plywood."

The administration wants to protect roadless areas, Rey said, but is left with legal uncertainty since the roadless rule has been challenged by nine separate lawsuits, including one in Wyoming that resulted in a federal court injunction setting it aside nationwide.

Chris West, vice president of the American Forest Resources Council, said the timber industry no longer viewed the issue of logging in national forests as one of jobs versus the environment.

"We are talking about the future of forests, wildlife and watersheds," West said. "As we saw in the Biscuit fire (which burned 500,000 acres in southwestern Oregon in 2002), whether it's roaded, unroaded or wilderness, catastrophic fire sees no boundary and destroys millions of acres of critical wildlife habitat and key watersheds."”

“Who would have though Nike would be pro-environment. problem is, they're also pro-sweatshop”

“given the choice between an anti-sweatshop anti-environment company vs. pro-sweatshop pro-environment

i'll side with the sweaty environment any day.”

“I guess what they say is true IJ- You can't have it all.”

“What cracks me up (well sort of) is that the pretendedent loves to be photographed in the outdoors and even uses photo like this one of him and Gale Norton at Sequoia National Park



on his campaign website to make people think he is some kind of nature lover when the Forest Service under his direction approved a plan for the Giant Sequoia National Monument that permits the logging of 7.5 million board feet of timber per year.

Maybe he and Gale were scouting places to clear cut?

Orwell would have loved this guy!”

“He makes me wanna puke!”

“I did puke!”

“dubbya came to the adirondacks (ny)two years ago.

instead of having the usual police entourage he used a ton of rangers instead to try to give the impression of what an outdoorsman he was.

i work for the dept. of envir. cons. and it was a big hub bub around here.

it made me sick.”

“Bush looking out over the forest:

"You see. That's beautiful. Just beautiful...heh heh...This is what America is really about ($$$)

These magesterious trees ($$$$$) are a symbol of this countries strength and historical roots."

We have to preserve these forests so that all Americans can have access to and enjoy them." (....loggers, snowmobilers, ATV riders)

I look out over this view and it give me hope for the future of this great nation." (.......this would be a great location for shopping malls, maybe a factory,)
we could test missils here, heh heh. (oops, did I say that out loud?)”

“If Bush gets re-elected, our grandchildren will still be trying to develop solutions to the problems he has caused, and the news ones he will cause in a new term. I might cry if he wins.

YAK-ROLF”

“I rarely chime in on threads like this and try to even avoid reading most of the political rants and pissing contest that sometimes seem to consume this board. However, because I deal with environmental policy pertaining mostly to the gov’t activities everyday, I'll throw in my $.02 for what its worth.

I'll begin by stating that I'm not pleased with the current administration's environmental precedence, but to be fair I'm not pleased with any Presidential Administrations precedence on the environment. Yeah, some have preserved a little more land than others, and/or placed higher standards for water and air (which almost like clockwork are set in place during the final moments of office as a burden on the predecessor). All the same, each administration only rejoices for its own environmental reform and has failed in the area of much needed environmental overhaul; stuff that really makes a difference and sets in place a paradigm environmental shift that will continue progress from administration to administration.

This prosperous nation needs and should hold its politicians to real environmental changes, what they say they are going to do and quit #&%!$in along political lines in the name of the environment. I really believe this political/media fueled fuss is one of the greatest challenges to breaking this political environmental cycle. The agenda is not environmental but political. In my job I especially witness this with several environmental groups. They are part of the problem often promoting or actually facilitating the environmental problem along political lines in the name of the environment.

As I mentioned before I’m not satisfied with the Bush administration’s enviro bearing but ok I know someone will try to discredit my opinion and experiences by giving me a comparative list of Bush vs Clinton. While Bush’s legacy is still being written, it will continue to improve, or at least on the surface or reform level as I mentioned earlier almost like clockwork during the final moments of office. Of course, Clinton’s enviro record is better than most, and while completed is not all rosey. Hats off to him; some very good things were accomplished. However, because of the lack of media attention we soon forget or were never told about the bundles like the Salvage Tree Bill often described as the worst public lands legislation ever. The bill was written so generically that it gives permission to allow unrestricted logging in many healthy forests; including national forest. Also, there was the public lands vs cattle issue where after the bill was challenged cattle farmers were able to actually lease land at subsidized rates. And several unique landscape preservations that were not unique or very scenic. Ok I’ve said enough. Simply, I just want to see things done in the name of the environment with the purpose of the environment. Why are we not #&%!$in about the entire political problem instead of one guy? Of course, bottom line is the environment is still each individual’s responsibility.”

“the day bush appointed gale norton as sec. of int. it was over for me.

appointing that #&%!$ to sec of int is like appointing bin laden as sec of defense.”

“trailhound57, I agree with you whole heartedly! I agree that with the jobless rate and Iraq a lot of citizens don't put the environment at the top of the list (like I do) and the media doesn't follow the environment decisions nearly enough. You wrote eloquently, thank you for your informed point of view. What is it you do?”

“tango - i agree.

many people say that bush is in trouble over iraq.

i disagree. the more controversy caused by iraq, the more he gets away with his environ. policies.

what i find amusing (in a sick sorta way) is that i have not once in the last 3 years talked to a single bush supporter who even knew who gale norton was. coincedence?”

“I only knew because I try to read other sources on environmental issues and they were up in arms about the appointment.”

“I'm an enviro specialist. We work as the middle man between the gov't, enviro groups, individuals, special interest groups etc by writing analytical enviro documents. Much of our effort is trying to push the agendas aside and getting down to the facts. Sometimes it’s difficult, especially in an election year no one wants to reveal their true reason for their opposition or support.”

“Sounds like cool job trailhound.

I sometimes think of voting for Nader, but balk at the thought of helping Bush get elected another four years.

Why, why, why can't we have a REAL person run for the top job.

I'll tell you. After studying sociology for many years, I've realized that those who run for political office (especially the higher you go) are of a certain mindset. There are a lot of people out there that have some really good ideas for this country that would probably work, but they're not heard because they don't want anything to do with politics and they're not represented by anyone with the same mindset.

I think for there to ever be a real change in politics, there is going to have to be a drastic shift in thinking that will have to be spearheaded by some courageous individuals who have the balls to take this country back to some basic common sense issues.

Am I making any sense at all?”

“I saw a 60 Min show where they followed newly elected congress people. It was amazing, they went there with all good intentions to represent the people. They were optimistic about being able to make a difference until they were indoctrinated into the 'club'. This included knowing that if they didn't vote along party lines and kowtow to their senior congress people they wouldn't get on the powerful committees and of course be able to do less. It was very eye opening...and sad. They as a group were very changed and mostly disillusioned by the end of their first year.”

“trailhound, that was well written, I enjoyed the read! And you nailed by noting how so many Presidents do things in their last minutes in office and pass it off on the next guy. I never understood that.

I'm all for serious challenges to the two-party system, but I have no idea how that would realistically come to fruition.”

“It's not just gonna pop up over night and there are going to be a lot of defeats. It has to start grass roots and build. It will take many many years. But, it's not impossible.”

“Allz I can say is...

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NADER!”

“How is ya buck? though i was only one around tonight. Nader's ok on some issues, but a little wishy washy on others. I think he might scare me as a president, but he is the only one really trying to become a viable alternative right now”

“as best as i understand nader is one of the few pulling for legalization...so hes got my vote...lots of money to be made from the taxation of legal sales...could help pay for that little IRAQ expense later down the road...although the one thing i do like is that Bush(appears) to support the military...i have family and friends in service and they sometimes seem that no one cares for what they do...although if having a president that supports the military means that we get to do without as much greenspace then i say boot 'em out...

Atlanta was in the news recently about over development and not protecting enough greenspace...what else is to be expected from a city that grows this fast though? anyone out there live in a city that has been commended for this?? just wondering...”

“i live in one of the fastest growing areas in the nation, and my city has, per capita, more parks than almost any city around. big deal. all those parks have to be taken care of by city employees and tax payer dollars. there has to be a limit.

smae with national forrest. there has to be reason and logic brought into the equation. it would be great ifwecould just have zillions of acres untouched but we can't. i've said over and over that IMO a major problem with logging is uncontrolled immigration.all those people have to live somewhere, so we're A)running out of land and B)using more trees for building. politicians wont tackle the problem for fear of losing the votes of hispanics.

so we need trees, they gotta come from somewhere. any suggestions, other than just puke about Bush? anybody have a viable alternative? let's think here people. we need trees.......hmmmm....where are the trees gonna come from?”

“CANADA!!!! THEY ARE WILLING AND ABLE TO BE RAPED OF TREES!!! TAKE EM!!”

“Tree farms.”

“"there has to be reason and logic brought into the equation......"



you should follow your own advice......”

“As someone living in the most densely populated states, I can tell you folks in growing areas not to wait before setting aside land. It's a lot cheaper to do it early and makes neighborhoods far more livable.


As far as ways to elect a candidate more to their liking, have you heard about the Showtime 'reality' program, American Candidate?”

“laq, do you have anything to offer other than childish insults?

tree farms? that's what national forest are, tree farms. good answer, tango!”

“ahem...

that's state”

“Bush imposes Canadian lumber tariffs

Administration slaps tariffs on Canadian softwood imports to protect U.S. lumber jobs.
March 22, 2002: 6:30 PM EST
By Major Garrett, CNN White House Correspondent



MONTERREY, Mexico (CNN) - The Bush administration Friday slapped average tariffs of 29 percent on Canadian softwood lumber imports in a bid to protect U.S. lumber jobs from subsidized Canadian imports.

Link

This move was expected to raise the cost of a new house in the US by $1500.00.

Explain that one, strat.”

“us jobs are important to him. outsourcing would be better to you, i assume?”

“Well since I pay taxes and own those 'tree farms' I say no to logging!”