"White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Thursday the intent is to give industries greater flexibility as they perform repairs maintenance on plants and expand electricity production without having to install a whole range of other emissions controls."
"The current regulation, he said, often discourages companies from investing in new pollution reduction projects and other new investment. He said the new approach will actually lead to less pollution, not more."
''Many of these people who are affected have chosen to leave in place old equipment, which pollutes more, rather than replace it and modernize it, which pollutes less,'' Fleischer said.
"Environmentalists have maintained that the current regulations, pressed in lawsuits filed by the Clinton administration, ensure that utilities install additional pollution controls when they modernize or expand the plants to produce more electricity."
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer is well-known for his outright lies and propaganda, often so blatant that Pres Reporters are stunned into silence at the audacity of the scope of lying not seen since Joesph Geoblles, that only the most dense Bush supporter could believe it.
posted on June 13, 2002 03:23:45 PM new
Actually, Linda, she is not politically motivated at all and I seldom discuss politics with her or anyone else in person; although she does lurk here quite a bit.
The problem that I have with Ari Fleischer's constant statements are like what was quoted above. Take another look at it.
In the second paragraph, he says, more or less, that without the need for coal companies to invest in new modern equipment, they can perform repairs and plants and "expand electricity production" as mentioned in the first paragraph above it.
"Expand electricity production" means that without the controls in place, they can burn much more coal than before, thereby increasing pollution without penalty from the EPA.
Then, he talks out of the side of his mouth in the third paragraph. He says, "many of these PEOPLE." What People? Consumers? Neighbors? School kids downwind? WHAT PEOPLE?
Linda, by People, he means the Owners of the Coal Burning Plants! Why doesn't he just say-so; you know, why obscure who is being referred to? Wouldn't that be sensible, a more honest way to speak? A person listening to him would think that he's actually AFRAID to say Who these "People" are. And you'd be right.
In that third paragraph, he states again that they will leave their old coal burning equipment in place instead of investing in newer, cleaner technologies as the rolled-back EPA rules would have enforced.
Lastly, that third paragraph is not meant to be read, it is meant to be heard. If you were to listen to Ari in person or on TV, you would have thought that he said: "This loosening of the rules means that it will pollute less." He said nothing of the sort!
You see, Linda, there is a very sophisticated technique on speaking and speechmaking that is meant to get people to hear what they want when it was never said. That means deniability later on if someone objects to what they thought that they heard. You have to be really careful listening to any politician. Bush does it by pausing every third or fourth word so that you can't connect the dots, unless you read it UNEDITED by the White House.
NOTE: Bush did make comments on this issue today in a speech, but I could not find a copy at the time that this thread was made. in it, he double-talks worse than Air, simply saying BullSH*T to the tenth-power!
Excited? Me? At being lied to this way? No, sadly shaking my head at all of the stupid voters in America who think that this idea of eradicating the EPA is just dandy!
Are you one of them?
sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Jun 13, 2002 03:27 PM ]
posted on June 13, 2002 03:55:57 PM new
Borillar - Just heard a great statement that I wanted to SHARE with you.
President Bush doesn't want us breathing soot. But compare it to an old light bulb that needs changing....you can just put in a new energy saving bulb....you don't have to replace all the wiring.
Now....I'm off to list some more.
posted on June 13, 2002 04:24:39 PM new
That fat black lady with the wimp husband that sells milk of Magnesia - they should get her for these announcements. She won't let you get all cramped up. No.
posted on June 13, 2002 04:45:12 PM new" like listening to Ari and I liked listening to clinton's press secretary, Mike McCleary (?), too."
Of course they did, Linda - that's their job! But you might wish to concider the importance of being educated as to what they are really up to and take your head out of the fog that they create for you to live in. I know that it requires effort, but the truth seldom comes easily. The choice between living in a fantasy world or in reality is, of course, your choice.
posted on June 13, 2002 04:48:08 PM new"President Bush doesn't want us breathing soot. But compare it to an old light bulb that needs changing....you can just put in a new energy saving bulb....you don't have to replace all the wiring."
Thank you for sharing that, Linda. If only it were really that simple, there would be no need to have an Environmental Protection Agency. Unless you think that the EPA only reccomends the more expensive solutions for no good reasons.
posted on June 16, 2002 04:24:05 PM new
Regulations frequently hog-tie progress because of their stupidity.
A simple illustration would be the 1950s law regulating that all cars in the US be required to have sealed beam headlights. The law didn't specify the requirements for better lighting just "sealed beams" because they were the best thing in the early fifties. So we had crummy headlights for 40 years while the Europeans used up to date technology.
I was watching a documentary on combustion systems developed in Europe the other day. The newest technology uses coal or even wood and burns it so cleanly, a chimney is not even required. The combustioon process actually uses the super-heated gases coming off the fuel source. Virtually nothing is left.
I'd be willing to bet the laws in question are not "goal" oriented. They probably require specific things which are unnecessary in certain instances.
posted on June 16, 2002 05:31:14 PM new
Watch out DeSquirrel - people around here will be accusing you "Perpetual Motion Machine Madness" if you continue to talk about how the Combustion engine could be improved.
posted on June 16, 2002 05:50:49 PM new
I think that his point was that most regulations inposed by gov authority are either watered down or just plain absurd.
posted on June 16, 2002 08:39:38 PM new
No, AN, the point is that when someone posts about alternative fuels or greater efficiency for combustion engines, DeSquirrel is always there with notihng to contribute or debate, but just posts mockery -- unless it's HIM posting the information!
BTW, DeSquirrel -- could you post a link or two to that information?
posted on June 16, 2002 10:48:51 PM new
Again Borillar you're too busy blathering on about things you haven't a clue about and patting yourself on the back about it. Anybody who has looked into wood/coal burning equipment to heat their houses in the last few years knows about thermolytic gasification furnaces in use in Sweden, Switzerland and Germany. The wood processors in the US use huge versions to heat their newest plants.
The following descibes a older Swedish designed system which even then was at 95%.
There are many more designs out there including designs which grind coal into microdust and inject it into a combustion chamber for spontaneous ignition with extreme efficiency.
I'd be willing to bet that current regulations are written in such a way that prevent retro-fits with newer technology without adding things that would be superfluous with the technology.
posted on June 16, 2002 11:44:11 PM new"I'd be willing to bet that current regulations are written in such a way that prevent retro-fits with newer technology without adding things that would be superfluous with the technology."
THERE, now! Wouldn't that be a wonderful way for you to finally input something useful into this forum? Why don't you go research it and FIND OUT? Then, you can report back here to the RT and Tell Everyone Where To Go with Authority! I mean, that would be the end of the arguement -- wouldn't it? Unless, you'd rather stick to your usual routine . . .
