Bush tearing apart protection for America's wilderness

Originally posted by RRconservative
Maybe if there were more logging operations there would be less major wildfires?

California has the most restrictive enviromental policies when it comes to tree-hugging, yet they have the most devasting fires. Coincidence? I think not.

Last week when I saw the raging fires, I actually yelled at the TV coverage screaming "Cut the trees down before they burn!"

California has a regular wildfire regime so no suprise that it is burning now seeing as it is fall and the winds have started. Many plants and trees are adapted to this fire prone ecosystem such as the knobcone and bishops pine, Sequoias and scrub oaks, etc. etc. What is "tree-hugging" as you used the word in your post?

[edit on 11/22/08 by stikkinikki]

heres an idea dont build your houses around the trees.im sure they were there long before you. are you really that selfish.

reply to post by jsobecky


Josbecky I have been saying since the late 70's that if we began pushing alternative energies... wind, solar, tidal, geothermal etc. hard and couple that with a concerted effort to retool industry to take advantage of those alternative sources and retrofitting existing homes and buildings to be more energy efficient... we would not only stretch our available oil reserves, but create an economic boom that could last decades.

We should have started that 30 years ago but we didn't.

Considering just the tooling up to do that would create new businesses and new jobs explain to me how I am anti-business again?

I am not opposed to business I am opposed to giving business a carte blanc to do as they please without regulation and oversight...

we've been down that road before and it wasn't pretty...
can you say Love canal?
How about Boupal?
Remember when the Detroit river caught on fire?
Or mercury in the food supply?

I could go on but I bet that you think those things are inconsequential.

[edit on 23-11-2008 by grover]

reply to post by RRconservative


RR you never cease to amaze... and trust me that is not a compliment.

A huge part of the fires out west in case you haven't noticed is that the area is bone dry and has been suffering a drought that in some places is entering its second decade. You think lake mead is half empty due to evaporation?

When you couple an already naturally arid region with a long term drought and a large population increase taxing an already depleted aquifer then the area becomes a tender box.

Bush has never had issues with actions that show his true colors. He is in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry for sure, of that there is no doubt.

My point of view is that we need to get ourselves off this petro economy as fast as we can. All the drilling etc. is for naught because someday it will be gone and our continued addiction is posioning us and the planet. I'm really hoping we get a big initiative from the Obama White house that takes us into a clean energy future and not more of the smoggy petro past.

I hate to say it, but here's the reality.

One of the fundemental reasons why Democrats have been posting steady gains in the western frontier states for over a decade, is BECAUSE of Bush's disasterous environmental policies.

When Colorado and Montana and North Dakota get mined out, and left rancid and bare, and unhuntable, it will simply give Democrats an even larger majority. When Utah becomes an irradiated, burned up oil field, they might have to reconsider casting their Republican votes.

Let Bush, and his voters, have their way, because it will simply increase our majority and keep them out of power even longer. Sure, the posters in this thread might feel content in the short term, but they were all the same people defending Bush when he ran against Kerry in 04, and look where that got'em.

Their ideology lost them the Senate and the House in 06, and the White House in 08. By 2010, they might have to hide out on the moon.

[edit on 23-11-2008 by brimstone735]

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by jsobecky

 

Look into it Josbecky... shale oil extraction is the dirtiest oil extraction in the business.

Well, somebody has to be the dirtiest, don't they? That in itself is not a reason to abandon the technology.

I have faith in our engineering and scientific abilities. We can solve any problem.

Intelligent growth does not look at what is now, and make every decision based upon today's technology.

True intelligent technology looks at what can be, and works toward that goal.

[edit on 22-11-2008 by jsobecky]

Just as grover said.. you are really naive
If we are talking about profits.. do you REALLY think that those industries will conduct R&D to minimize the impacts of their activities? It costs them MONEY! Hello?? Anybody there?? You really dont seem to think for yourself do ya?

On the other hand, on your defense, we could argument, on a general tense that environmental laws are very rigid, yada, yada, yada..
Well they could be mid-term.. while allowing them to proceed their activities, they HAD to demonstrate the power and the will to minimize their impacts..

For clean energies debate.. my country (Portugal) is making a big bet on renewables, but not in isolation.. its a mix of with wind, solar, river and sea/ocean... guess what? we are already exporting materials and technology.. this as already generated thousands of jobs! (keep in mind that we are a small country will over 10 million people) and eolics alone power 15% of our energy needs and combined with other renewable sources more than 50%.

reply to post by Picao84


Your country has less people than LA County. You think you can compare your energy needs to ours?

Pffft!

:shk: :shk: :shk: Josbecky... energy needs are energy needs... if you have limited resources it doesn't matter what size the nation is... Don't you understand that?

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionaryYou mean like the "sensible" offshore drilling already occurring in the Gulf of Mexico that has helped to create a dead zone hundreds of miles in diameter in which nothing can survive?

Which dead zone is greater? The one created by oil or the one created by US agriculture?

The dead zone in the gulf of Mexico is 7000 square miles. Nothing lives in it. A condition of hypoxia related to fertilizer run off from American farmers.

USGS

Nutrients, especially nitrogen, discharged to the Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi River have been identified as the primary cause of the annual development of a zone of hypoxia in the northern part of the Gulf. Hypoxia is characterized by depressed levels of dissolved oxygen in water, which adversely affects marine life. Nitrogen is introduced to streams from diverse point and nonpoint sources, and the influx of nitrogen to stream waters has increased as a result of human activities.

toxics.usgs.gov...

The Guld of Mexico is under attack not only by oil but by the release of fertilizers that run out of our rivers into the gulf creating a massive dead zone.

toxics.usgs.gov...

You cant just look at the oil, we have to look at the whole picture.
This isnt Bush, this is about all of us including every day farmers. Nitrogen based fertilizers that make it to the river and creating an unforseen hazard somewhere else. Stream run off from our fields and yards...

This is about all of us being accountable and taking personal action on an individual basis.

Peace


[edit on 23-11-2008 by HIFIGUY]

The thing is that we can maintain our standard of living, produce more energy and protect the environment all at the same time if we make sure that companies who would rather pollute than spend the extra money to be cleaner don't snowball us into thinking that their way is the only way... it isn't and never has been... with record profits in the tens of billions and more do you really think the oil industry is going to be hurt by environmental regulations?

reply to post by jsobecky


Yup i know.. but you have more area and natural resources than us! Gezz.. Think before you answer.. is people like you that give americans a bad image!

[edit on 23-11-2008 by Picao84]

[edit on 23-11-2008 by Picao84]

Look man- If I locked you in a dome that was perfectly ecologically "clean", had more than enough plants to feed you (no animals because plants are good enough), and had special filters that could keep the water sparkling clean, you would probably be bored. There's no doubt about it. You would have nothing to do. However, if I walked in with a bunch of AIDS infested individuals with inflammatory bowel disease and they proceeded to take a dump in your water supply, I bet that you would do whatever you could to protect it from contamination. Oh yeah... Did I mention that the dome is airtight and the trees provide the oxygen (Don't ask where the other gases [Nitrogen, Carbon, etc.] come from.) that is needed to make air. Oh no!!! A flamethrower!!! Goodbye trees!!! Well... I gotta go... Hope you can breathe after I shut the airlock doors...

All I'm trying to show you is that our actions have consequences to the enviroment and those around us. In fact, imagine what it would be like if the "dome" was a planet... If you still don't feel guilty for your actions (which could eventually kill millions of innocent people), there is something wrong with you.