"The Bush administration announced plans yesterday to streamline the process of conducting environmental reviews before opening national forests to logging, drilling and other activities."
"Administration officials say the change is needed to speed up an overly burdensome, time-consuming process in which it is too difficult to make justified changes in national forest policies. Environmentalists say the proposal will eliminate important safeguards against unwise policy changes -- and invariably lead to more mining, drilling and logging in forests -- by reducing the number of scientific reports and the opportunity for public comment."
Great. Bush has been after ripping out our forests since he ran for President. Our national lands are already fouled by nearly unrestricted mining of our national treasures. What we will eventually be left is Mordor.
posted on November 27, 2002 11:06:00 PM new
>Your propaganda is making me sick? Quit lying to us Americans.
Try reading the article so you can sound like you know what you're talking about! Sheese!
Here's the whole article, with Bold to answer you.
"The Bush administration announced plans yesterday to streamline the process of conducting environmental reviews before opening national forests to logging, drilling and other activities."
"The proposed regulations, which closely track recommendations by the timber industry, would reduce the number of scientific and environmental reviews required when 15-year master plans are developed for the 192 million acres of the nation's 155 national forests. The plans, similar to a zoning process, specify where recreation, mining and other development can take place."
"The proposal, overturning regulations issued by President Bill Clinton two months before he left office, would give local forest managers more leeway in complying with a 1976 law mandating the preservation of diverse plant and animal species. The rule, now open for public comment, will not take effect for at least nine months."
"Administration officials say the change is needed to speed up an overly burdensome, time-consuming process in which it is too difficult to make justified changes in national forest policies. Environmentalists say the proposal will eliminate important safeguards against unwise policy changes -- and invariably lead to more mining, drilling and logging in forests -- by reducing the number of scientific reports and the opportunity for public comment. "
"The rule proposal is the third administration announcement in the three weeks since the midterm elections to be condemned by environmental groups. Some say it is a harbinger of rollbacks of environmental regulations to come next year, when Republicans will control the Senate as well as the House."
"Administration officials say the current planning process imposes wasteful requirements that divert resources from the outdoors. Under the new system, public input would be restricted, and form letters and preprinted postcards would be disregarded."
"Forest Service officials, billing the proposed procedures as simpler and more efficient, said reviews would take about two years to conduct, compared with seven years now. The streamlined studies would cost about one-third less, saving the government $1 billion over 10 years, mostly in salaries and publications, officials said."
""This new rule cuts out a lot of red tape," said Sally Collins, a former Forest Service planner who is now the agency's chief operating officer. "You shouldn't need to have a Ph.D. to understand this process. Our planning process was intimidating for the average citizen." She said the plan would "better harmonize the environmental, social and economic benefits" of national forests."
"Environmentalists said the proposal amounts to a repeal of crucial sections of 20-year-old regulations governing forest use. Opponents of the measure said they considered it no accident that the proposal was released with Congress out of town and on the eve of the Thanksgiving holiday, when the public is less likely to be following news."
"Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), a White House ally on some issues, said the plan "poses a danger to the long-term health of our forests" and "ignores science and the public's right to be heard on key forest management issues.""
"Congress can influence regulations through appropriations, investigations and review powers. But Republicans will control both chambers beginning in January, reducing the likelihood that lawmakers will interfere with the administration's environmental plans."
""The administration feels empowered by the new Republican majorities, and invulnerable to Congress," said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. "The administration's rollbacks of environmental protection are likely to become even more radical.""
"Eight Senate Democrats and six House Democrats wrote a letter to the chief of the Forest Service, Dale N. Bosworth, asserting that the rule "eliminates any assurance of protection for fish and wildlife and their habitat.""
"The proposal was similar to a draft of the rule that environmental groups publicized in September. The groups acknowledged that the new version toughens provisions for scientific oversight, although they remain optional."
"Conservationists released a chart showing similarities between the proposal and the recommendations by the American Forest & Paper Association, the timber industry's trade group. Michael L. Klein, a spokesman for the group, praised the proposal, saying it would reduce the danger of wildfires and insect infestation posed by overgrown forests. "What the Forest Service is doing is restoring some common sense and some balance to the forest-planning process," Klein said."
"Collins, the Forest Service official, said when asked about similarities between the plan and the industry's wish list: "If there's any similarity, it's a coincidence.""
"The Forest Service is part of the Agriculture Department and the undersecretary overseeing it is Mark E. Rey, a lobbyist and executive for timber trade associations from 1976 to 1994. A Forest Service official said Rey was "in the chain of command" on the proposal, but did not elaborate."
"Rodger Schlickeisen, president of the Defenders of Wildlife, called the proposal "a clear abuse of the regulatory process for the benefit of the timber industry," a major contributor to Republicans."
"The Forest Service submitted the plan to the Federal Register yesterday. It likely will be published next week, beginning a 90-day comment period. A Forest Service official said the staff is likely to take at least six months after that to prepare the final rule."
"The version released yesterday left unresolved the delicate question of how to comply with the 1976 National Forest Management Act, which requires officials to protect sensitive species, even if they are not threatened or endangered. The rule included two options for consideration in the final rule. Environmentalists maintain that both options would give local forest managers too much discretion."
[ edited by Borillar on Nov 27, 2002 11:06 PM ]
posted on November 27, 2002 11:32:50 PM new
That doesn't prove Bush is selling America's Forests; it doesn't prove anything negative. The new rules saves taxpayer over $1 billion over ten years that was being wasted in red tape. Should it really take seven years to conduct procedures?
"poses a danger to the long-term health of our forests" and "ignores science and the public's right to be heard on key forest management issues."
There's no proof reducing procedures from seven years to two, and trashing mass produced mailings from grass roots organizations will pose long term danger of the health of forests. Think of all the paper saved if environmentalists stop sending mass mailed postcards knowing it won't be read! That will save a lot of trees.
The new prcedure doesn't ignore science or the public right to be heard. It reduces the time they can be heard. I know it doesn't take seven years to hear scientists and the public views.
posted on November 28, 2002 06:26:28 AM new
This is only the beginning...Bush's arrogance abroad will begin to show itself at home too..maybe then we'll have the backlash we need in time for the next election. Unless of course the Dems continue to roll over and spread 'em the way they have lately...
posted on November 28, 2002 07:57:41 AM new
Right, profe51,
As Feingold said, "The problem isn't that the Democrats haven't been "moderate" enough; the problem is, they haven't been bold enough. Until they get bold, they will see more days like November 5."
More mining, drilling and logging, with no consideration for the habitat of fish or wildlife is the business of what may be called environmental entrepreneurs with their focus only on whatever makes the most money. Next, they will be selling water.
Another sneaky move by the Bush administration...while congress is out of town and people are preoccupied stuffing their turkeys, this hits the news.
posted on November 28, 2002 09:04:24 AM new
Quickdraw, you are a fool. What do you think, we make these things up? Are Bush supporter's illiterate? Even if you can't comprehend the written word watch the news. Every day there is a news story concerning Bush's relaxation of laws for pollution, drilling, forest's, and you say we are lying to you!
posted on November 28, 2002 09:38:45 AM new
Republicans and other conservatives seem to think that all that is good, though. Recently I began listening to talk radio regularly, with rather horrified fascination. One of the regular themes for rants on these stations have been conservationists. How terrible conservation & conservationists are. How silly conservationists are. How conservationists obstruct "progress." How wonderful it is that Republicans are now in charge so that conservancy can be done away with.
I greatly fear that California (& most likely the entire country) will end up entirely paved over and the air, which we have managed to clean up so much, will go back to the polluted mess it once was. The earth means absolutely nothing to these people if it gets in the way of making money. They seem willing to ignore the fact that we have only one planet to live on... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on November 28, 2002 11:12:39 AM new
This is only the beginning....to cutting more red tape? Good, Bush is smart to realize that Independant parties votes are growing each year and if Republicans can win them over by doing things like cutting red tape, Republicans will dominate for a long time.
posted on November 28, 2002 11:28:26 AM new
chococake, no you don't get it, Bush is doing what the people who elected him is telling him to do. If he doesn't, he won't get relected. See how that works? That's how our system operates.
Just because Democrat supporters can't present their story intelligibally, doesn't mean Bush supporters are illiterate. Understanding your B.S. and not being able to read are two different things.
From what I read in this threads story about Bush cutting red tape, it doesn't mention anything about more mining or deforesting. It seems you have the trouble of comprehending newsstories.
Seeing how you twist stories I can only imagine how you have twisted everything else Bush has done concerning the environment.
posted on November 29, 2002 10:49:42 AM new
Seven years of "Safegaurds." You liberals really are good at propaganda. It doesn't take seven years to figure the best way to manage a forest.
We've had a hundred years of forest management, I think they've learned a thing or two from it.
posted on November 29, 2002 11:03:55 AM new
Quickdraw, Republicans hate all those pesky rules and regs. Just so hard to abide by, you can't do what you want with those hanging over your head, right?
posted on November 29, 2002 11:29:35 AM new
We can thank Theodore Roosevelt that we have much left in the way of forests here in the US.
The majority of our Forest Plans, which guide our natural resource management activities--& include setting allowable logging levels per Forest--are up for renewal between 2001 and 2004. This means the Bush Administration will have a major impact on the long-term future management of our National Forests. And guess who Bush appointed as Undersecretary for Natural Resources & Environment? Mark Rey--a former long-time lobbyist for the imber industry. This is a man who advocates clear-cut logging as viable forest management. But what else can one expect? The timber industry contributed over $3 million to Bush. As did the mining industry...
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on November 29, 2002 11:39:55 AM new
You're right, Republican's hate all these unnecessary rules and regs because it is costly, and it slows down progess. It's just plain good management that seeks efficiency. It's also hard to abide by, you're right, in states with string regulation businesses, some businesses never get off the ground because of the costs of all the licence approvals, that take years. It hurts economic growth.
In the end it comes down to consumer demand. These logging businesses are concerned with their income, just like a Union worker is only concerned about their income. Consumers can learn to recycle and stop waste.
posted on November 29, 2002 12:51:48 PM new
And when there is nothing left, that progress, that economic growth, is down the toilet--along with everything else. The time has come that people need to look at *long-term* costs and benefits. There are no handy-dandy liveable planets close by to move to if we totally trash this one. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on November 29, 2002 01:07:49 PM new
There is always the space station.The plumbing is being repaired,as we speak,and those bi-weekly space shuttles......What the hell are they doing? Millionairs and Billionairs in space after the planet earth is fried? Trees are our oxygen,When they are gone,so are we.
posted on November 29, 2002 02:51:27 PM new
"and when there's nothing left.."
That's a brilliant statement. Everything is going to go up in smoke...poof!
First, the process has only been shortened, not eliminated. Second, do you think citizens would stand by and watch their water supply get undrinkable? Third, you have no facts to back up the cause and effect of eliminating a few steps. Fourth, in Minnesota they started smog checks, then a study came out that showed the smog checks had zero effect, so they eliminated that. Fifth, we have seen what overregulation has done with the Smokey the Bear campaign, it caused a situation of danger because the underbrush wasn't being killed off in a natural cycle. Sixth, trees are being replanted. Seventh, states still have their own regulations. Eight, if you don't like what Bush is doing, don't vote for him. Ninth, there are countries with all the problems you mentioned, yet our planet is still livable, and the people there haven't died off. Tenth, and final one, if there's a problem, it can be fixed. No end of the world; no- this world is doomed.
posted on November 29, 2002 03:11:28 PM newFirst, the process has only been shortened, not eliminated.
And this is a good thing for you??? Maybe we should shorten meat inspection...JUST FOR YOUR MEAT. We'll also shorten other food inspection JUST FOR THE FOOD YOU EAT. Also, safety inspections ONLY FOR THE CAR YOU DRIVE. We'll shorten all those unneccessary little things THAT KEEP YOU ALIVE!
Second, do you think citizens would stand by and watch their water supply get undrinkable?
Has already happened in many places even with all those unneccessary regulations in place. Many places have undrinkable water. Most of the lakes and streams in the Adirondacks can not support life.
Third, you have no facts to back up the cause and effect of eliminating a few steps.
Case in point...Meat packing plants were having alot of trouble with sanitary violations. The goverment solution...eliminate most of the gov't meat inspectors and have inspections be under the control of the local plants. Result...Food poisoning and deaths are way up.
Fourth, in Minnesota they started smog checks, then a study came out that showed the smog checks had zero effect, so they eliminated that.
Huh? Effect on what? Smog checks do nothing except CHECK for smog, doesn't eliminate it.
I could go on and on. All your statements lack anything...hell, just anything. However, this I couldn't resist
Eight, if you don't like what Bush is doing, don't vote for him.
A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DIDN'T!!!!
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
posted on November 29, 2002 03:30:39 PM new
Efficiency is always a great thing. No one said there are corners being cut. No one said the quality of the process has been compromised. Your assumptions are just that, nothing more.
Meat inspecton doesn't take seven years. Would I like the length of time shortened? yes, if it can be done without sacrificing the quality of inspection. Safety inspections? Yes, if the quality is not sacrificed.
"Many places already have undrinkable water."
So you admit a seven year process does nothing to improve it!
"Eliminate meat inspector's...under of control of local plants"
That has nothing to do with the seven year process. Eliminating quality inspections and eliminating duplication of inspections is also a whole different matter.
"HuH, effect on what?"
Pollution, what the hell else? Smog checks are designed to reduce pollution, I didn't say eliminate it.
"All your comments lack anything."
Brilliant moron. The monkey gallery is getting restless! Before you criticsize, make sure your statements aren't full of hot air.
"Majority of Americans didn't."
Wow, we actually agree on one thing. However, enough did to elect him President, more than Gore as a matter of fact.
"The National Research Council estimates that in the United States, the costs of cleaning up the known 300,000 to 400,000 heavily contaminated sites where groundwater is polluted will be as high as $1 trillion over the next 30 years alone.
One third of the wells tested in California's San Joaquin Valley in 1988 contained the pesticide DBCP at levels 10 times higher than the maximum allowed for drinking water-more than a decade after the chemical was banned.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that about 100,000 underground storage tanks for gasoline are leaking chemicals into soil and groundwater.
In Santa Monica, California, wells supplying half the city's water have been closed because of dangerously high levels of the gasoline additive MTBE.
Since 1943, billions of gallons of radioactive wastes have been dumped into soils and aquifers in Washington state by the Department of Energy's Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Some of this waste has a half-life of 250,000 years.
15 percent of shallow groundwater sampled below cities and farms in the United States in the mid-1990s had nitrate concentrations that exceeded the guideline for drinking water.
Almost half of the nutrients that pour into the Chesapeake Bay are carried there by aquifers.
Third, you have no facts to back up the cause and effect of eliminating a few steps.
Use common sense. Think what we had before regulations..and consider what will happen if those regulations are rescinded.
Fourth, in Minnesota they started smog checks, then a study came out that showed the smog checks had zero effect, so they eliminated that.
In California smog checks, along with other strick air policies have resulted in a dramatic improvement of our air quality. Why, I can actually see the nearby mountains these days...
Fifth, we have seen what overregulation has done with the Smokey the Bear campaign, it caused a situation of danger because the underbrush wasn't being killed off in a natural cycle.
Actually, I agree with you on this. The problem was that forest fires were totally suppressed, when in fact they are vitally necessary to the health of a forest. It is the small regular fires that do away with excessive underbrush as well as making it possible for certain trees & plants to propogate. HOWEVER, that has nothing to do with allowing more loggers in.
Sixth, trees are being replanted.
The tree being replanted are all the same species--not condusive to a healthy forest ecology. And they are being replanted "orchard style" in rows (to facilitate logging), also not a healthy practice.
Seventh, states still have their own regulations.
And once Federal regulations are relaxed due to pressure from Bush & his cronies, just how long do you think before the same pressure began to be applied to state regs?
Eight, if you don't like what Bush is doing, don't vote for him.
Actually, I *didn't* voted for him. And won't in the future, either.
Ninth, there are countries with all the problems you mentioned, yet our planet is still livable, and the people there haven't died off.
Our planet is getting less liveable all the time. Plant & animal species dying off. Rainforest shrinkage (at a rate of 78 million acres per year), groundwater pollution, ice caps melting, land being paved over in the US at an increasing rate), etc. etc. etc.
Tenth, and final one, if there's a problem, it can be fixed. No end of the world; no- this world is doomed.
Famous last words. We have a way of shutting our eyes until it is too late. Not to mention the fact that we never consider how changing or doing away with one thing affects others. And often don't find out until years after we've affected the change. A few years back a species of tree found only in one spot began dying out. No one could figure it out--old trees were dying and new trees weren't being propogated. They finally discovered that a necessary biological agent in the tree's life cycle had been destroyed 300 years before--the dodo. We go along merrily destroying things--one day we may discover that we've done away with something that is vital to *our* survival.
edited for UBB
and more UBB
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
[ edited by bunnicula on Nov 29, 2002 05:27 PM ]
[ edited by bunnicula on Nov 29, 2002 05:29 PM ]
[ edited by bunnicula on Nov 29, 2002 05:30 PM ]
posted on November 29, 2002 06:02:58 PM new
"We already have."
Whose we? I travel around a bit and drink local water where ever I may be and haven't died or get sick. If the problem is contained in certain areas it's not going to cause a national alert. Are there water problems? Of course. Are they contained? Of course.
"Use common sense, think what we have before regualtions..."
If we have problems with regulations doesn't that tell you the cause of the problem goes beyond regulation?
"In California..."
In Minneosta I could see miles everyday before the smog checks, there was no change during the smog check, and no change after the smog check.
In the end, pessemists always are wrong. Our world is geared toward improvement one way or another. Of course we need rules, we don't need overregulation.
posted on November 30, 2002 10:33:06 AM new
You are invited to visit Baytown Texas,and suck up the air for 2 weeks,Be sure and drink the water.LOL
Senator Slams Environmental Rule Changes
By JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP)--President Bush has moved the nation backward on environmental issues by weakening clean air and water laws, Sen. James Jeffords said in the Democrats' weekly radio response aired Saturday.
``The Bush administration has continued its pattern of sacrificing our environment to the demands of special interests,'' said Jeffords, outgoing chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
``This year the power industry is getting a nice Christmas gift, the biggest weakening of the Clean Air Act in history,'' said the Vermont senator, an independent who generally associates himself with the Democrats.
Democrats awarded Jeffords with the chairmanship of the environment committee after he left the Republican Party in June 2001 to become an independent, a move that gave Democrats control of the Senate. He will lose that position in January when Republicans again become the majority party following gains in the midterm election.
He said he feared that attacks on the environment will accelerate in January, when Republicans will control both the House and the Senate.
``Hopefully, moderates in both parties can do what we've done before: stand up to block these anti-environmental initiatives, and instead pursue policies that protect and respect our environment,'' he said.
Jeffords complained that newly announced regulations on power plant emissions ``will gut clean air laws'' that he helped formulate with the first President Bush.
The Bush administration on Nov. 22 announced plans to relax air pollution regulations to make it easier for older factories, refineries and power plants to modernize without having to install expensive new anti-pollution equipment.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christie Whitman said the changes would encourage emission reductions by providing new flexibility to plants and factories when they upgrade equipment, but environmental groups and Democrats said the administration was putting industrial interests above environmental protections.
Jeffords also faulted the administration for delaying implementation of a rule to reduce sewage in waterways, for underfunding Superfund, the program responsible for cleaning out toxic waste sites, and for allowing oil and gas drilling on national lands.
He said secrecy clauses inserted in the just-signed law creating the new Homeland Security Department will make it more difficult for people to get information about dangerous chemicals that may exist near their homes.
Although an Independent, Jeffords was chosen to give Saturday's Democratic radio address by Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Senate's Democratic leader.
``For him, it's an honor,'' said Jeffords' spokesman, Eric Smulson. ``Senator Jeffords caucuses with the Democrats and aligns with the Democrats for organizational purposes.''
AP-NY-11-30-02 1117EST
Copyright 2002, The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP Online news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
posted on November 30, 2002 01:00:59 PM new
Whose we? I travel around a bit and drink local water where ever I may be and haven't died or get sick. If the problem is contained in certain areas it's not going to cause a national alert. Are there water problems? Of course. Are they contained? Of course.
------safe drinking water is kept pretty much that way because of the regulations you so despise. It has only been 25 years since the EPA put up the first federal drinking water quality controls in place. I say pretty much, because we still have polluted drinking water problems. Try looking up:
Hinkley, California & PG &E
Pines, Indiana & Brown, Inc.
Concord, Massachussets & Starmet Corp.
Denver, Colorado & Warner Electric Brake and Clutch Co.
Greenforest, Arkansas & Tyson Foods
Salem, Massachusetts--where 25 of 28 city wells are polluted, so much so that the governemnt is giving residents bottled water to drink...
Just to name a few.
"Use common sense, think what we have before regualtions..."
If we have problems with regulations doesn't that tell you the cause of the problem goes beyond regulation?
-------The problems we have *with* regulations in effect are far, far fewer than when we had none.
"In California..."
In Minneosta I could see miles everyday before the smog checks, there was no change during the smog check, and no change after the smog check.
----------smog checks, as has been pointed out to you, are only one component of a system which has made great strides in cleaning up our air.
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 1, 2002 09:19:40 AM new
How many of you have read,and understand the Bible? It's all there. Believe it or not.
People will be the destroyers of Earth.
posted on December 1, 2002 02:54:51 PM new
True. All that you have to do is to look at the scientific evidence to note that those cultures where humans treat the earth like it's a gift from God to them to do with as they please, reguardless of the permanent damage it does, to see how incrediably stupid and destructive such policies are. Those are the ones that Republicans love, because it creates more wealth for them and leaves the rest of the population behind in the polluted devastation - including their deluded supporters! EXAMPLE: Texas after G. Bush.
