or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bush's final actions adverse to the environment
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush's final actions adverse to the environment

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
On his way out of office, Bush is attempting to relax a number of environmental laws that could affect anything from the quality of our drinking water, increased pollution, and endangered species.

Your thoughts?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/55441.html

Why is this suddenly important to them?
Quote:
The administration is widely expected to try to get some of the rules into final form by the week before Thanksgiving because, in some cases, there's a 60-day delay before new regulations take effect. And once the rules are in place, undoing them generally would be a more time-consuming job for the next Congress and administration
post #2 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
On his way out of office, Bush is attempting to relax a number of environmental laws that could affect anything from the quality of our drinking water, increased pollution, and endangered species.

Your thoughts?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/55441.html

Why is this suddenly important to them?

Good grief, all it is, at this point, is speculation. Geesh.
post #3 of 17
Thread Starter 
Actually, some of this has been going on for a while now. He's already violated law regarding uranium mining close to the Grand Canyon.

http://gregornot.wordpress.com/2008/...ranium-mining/

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/10/15/111114/73/

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2008/10/27-15

And on mountain top removal (there are more out there):
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/pre...ning-rule.html

I can find a lot more sources to confirm this report. It's not speculation at all.
post #4 of 17
Oh dear heaven, hasn't he done enough damage already! I guess he intends to go out with a bang.
post #5 of 17
This is a trick pulled by every administration, trying to rush through things that in ordinary times would get blocked. The Clinton administration put almost 60,000 pages of new regulations on the books just before December 15, so they would go into effect just before he left office.

I'm personally expecting a new final ruling on the Hours of Service regulations for truckers in the next few weeks. They've only been fighting about for 10 years now.
post #6 of 17
He needs to put political agenda aside and for one darn minute start giving a care about his country and the rest of the world that us and our future generations will have to live in! This makes me furious I've done a fair bit of research on this and similar things he's planning to do and it's just upsetting.

He has no reguard for our environment or the prescious animals that live in it. Without our air, without plants, without animals- we will cease to exsit- these things are fundamental and improtant. To neglect thing, to contaminate them, to kill them...and then to wonder why we have problems is just inexcusable in my book. I do my part- I want my president to do the same and to care. I wish he would recognize that these are not miniscule things that can slip by the way side, they're important and deserve to be protected.

I understand he has his reasons for wanting to be lax towards certain things, maybe he feels by sacraficing some things, he will improve others. I disagree when it comes to things like this though.I do not think that it's justified or the right thing to do...this is going to harm us, not help us....and all for the almighty dollar This is pathetic!

Don't even get me started on his policies towards wolves (keep in mind I had a beautiful wolf x for 13 yrs before she passed on.) It's maddening.

He's pretty much a lame duck right now so whatever he can do in his last few weeks to push his agenenda, he'll try as many other presidents in the past have. I can understand trying as far as positive things go- but nothing good will come out of his stance towards the environment or wildlife- this is going to hurt us and make us regress.
post #7 of 17
Well, if there is any good news there is some speculation that Robert Kennedy Jr may end up heading the EPA.

He'd had his work cut out for him, but actually having an environmentalist in charge of the EPA would be a refreshing change.
post #8 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
Well, if there is any good news there is some speculation that Robert Kennedy Jr may end up heading the EPA.

He'd had his work cut out for him, but actually having an environmentalist in charge of the EPA would be a refreshing change.
Are we talking about the same Robert Kennedy who has kept the Cape Cod Wind Farm from being built?

http://www.people.com/people/archive...139605,00.html
post #9 of 17
Shame on you mrblanche, Democratic politicians don't have to, actually, walk the walk, they are just required to talk the talk.

Everyone knows that the Kennedy's are all big environmentalists for all of us, just not for their own environment. We can't really expect the Kennedy's to have those big, huge, unsightly, wind thingies in their line of sight can we? Oh the horror of it.
post #10 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Are we talking about the same Robert Kennedy who has kept the Cape Cod Wind Farm from being built?

http://www.people.com/people/archive...139605,00.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Shame on you mrblanche, Democratic politicians don't have to, actually, walk the walk, they are just required to talk the talk.

Everyone knows that the Kennedy's are all big environmentalists for all of us, just not for their own environment. We can't really expect the Kennedy's to have those big, huge, unsightly, wind thingies in their line of sight can we? Oh the horror of it.
I don't see where the contradiction is... wind farms are damaging to migratory birds.
post #11 of 17
I've read in the NYT and Washington Post that Obama's team is already busy making up a list of executive orders to reverse.
post #12 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
I don't see where the contradiction is... wind farms are damaging to migratory birds.
His opposition to this one is just because it's visible from his own house. NIMBY is alive and well on the left, as well as the right. He is perfectly willing to build it on the other side of the Cape, where there are also migratory birds. Or in Texas, where we have more migratory birds (we're on the major flyway) than Massachusetts will ever see.

No, this one is hypocrisy at its finest. Kennedy has a great record otherwise, but I've heard him debate this issue several times, and he always comes out the loser.
post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Good grief, all it is, at this point, is speculation. Geesh.
Almost everything you've said about Obama's forthcoming Presidency has been baseless speculation. In this case, we know quite a bit about Bush and what he is likely to do, so it's more accurately a well-educated guess and besides there is some evidence for it.
post #14 of 17
Not baseless speculation, in my opinion. Time will tell won't it?

Putting the ban back on drilling is a bad first step IMO.
post #15 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
He is perfectly willing to build it on the other side of the Cape, where there are also migratory birds. Or in Texas, where we have more migratory birds (we're on the major flyway) than Massachusetts will ever see.
That makes all the difference then.
post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
I don't see where the contradiction is... wind farms are damaging to migratory birds.
Ummm...just asking, but we are talking about birds, right? The kind with wings and can fly? How is it damaging to them if they can fly over or around it? If the concern is a big thing put in their path, I will bet birds migrated before we had skyscrapers in our major cities and they still manage to get south before winter.

I admit, I'm not very educated on the issue but that post just didn't make any sense to me. No offense hon, but if you could post links that explains how it is damaging to migratory birds I would appriciate it.
post #17 of 17
Thread Starter 
There has been a lot of controversary and speculation on the impact of wind turbines on birds (migrating or otherwise). If they fly into the propellers, they can die, and its actually been shown that it does happen. But when compared to the number of bird deaths due to polluting sources, their is no comparison. Clean energy thru wind turbines is far safer to birds than dirty pollution. It's the lesser of 2 evils for the bird population.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bush's final actions adverse to the environment