Damn! Don’t suppose I can substitute a dumpster buffet, a Thunderbird/Nyquil cocktail, and a tarantula?
Advise.
(aside, to pantom as well) Don’t get me wrong - I’ll be the last person to say the failures of the past excuse the failures of the present - in fact, I feel that the present should learn from the failures of the past, and thus repeating the same failures is very poor. I’m sure you would agree with me on that general principle.
I actually was hoping for a CAFE increase under Clinton, as IIRC that was a campaign promise of Clinton’s (but I could be wrong). I’ll hazard that the effort spent on the assault weapons ban would have benefitted society much, much more if it had been spent on CAFE. But Clinton was no different than many other Presidents of both parties, who let fear of hurting the economy drive him to a choice that turned out to be dreadfully wrong.
Out of curiosity, what are the current harms you feel have been done by the Bush Administration - that is, actually making environmental standards worse, rather than better compared to the prior Administration? You know we don’t agree on NSR already, and we do agree on the ANWR issue, so aside from those two what else are we considering?
I’m all for the gas tax solution but just to play devil’s advocate a bit, I think there are some reasons to argue in favor of CAFE standards:
(1) Politically, CAFE standards enjoy a much higher rate of support than a gas tax. To be honest, I question whether Cato really supports an increased gas tax. (Their words were kind of vague, to put it mildly, on whether they really thought it was a good idea…it was all couched in “If the government really wants to…then…” language.) I think they may be proposing it precisely because they no it is unlikely to go anywhere politically…And, because the higher CAFE standards were what was on the table when they wrote that piece.
(2) Although Cato does make some good points about why a gas tax could be better, there are some reasons to argue in favor of CAFE standards besides just political palatability. The gas tax idea assumes that the market responds effectively to this, which is predicated on the ideas that people will correctly comprehend the costs of buying less fuel-efficient vehicles and that the automakers will effectively respond to the demand for more fuel-efficient cars (rather than deciding it is more cost-effective to use advertising to convince consumers that they have an unmet need to be able to drive their vehicles through mountain streams). I have some doubts on both fronts. For example, now people who go out and buy lightbulbs seem to go for the lowest price, oblivious to the fact that the lightbulb’s price is only a small fraction of it’s total cost with most of the cost due to the electricity usage you pay to run it. (100 W bulb run for 1000 hr life at 8 cents per kilowatt hour uses 8 dollars of electricity.)
Well, like you said, we disagree on NSR. As for other things that come to mind:
(1) Clear Skies Initiative. [The idea of cap-and-trade emissions trading is fine, modulo some issues about regional effects, but the caps are too high. And, in fact, there is evidence that they really fudged the numbers for what would happen under current law in order to make it look like their caps were more aggressive.]
(2) Healthy Forest Initiative.
(3) Reversing the ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone.
(4) Rescinding…or considering rescinding…the roadless rule that was slated to go into effect. I’m not sure what the current status of this is.
(5) Changes that they are apparently close to finalizing regarding the Clean Water Act and wetlands protection.
(6) Backing out of Kyoto and not proposing or endorsing even any half-serious alternative (such as the McCain-Lieberman bill).
(7) The energy bill with its minimal emphasis on conservation and lots of tax breaks for fossil fuels.
is an article in Rolling Stone Magazine by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. mentioning many more, and while I know you will find the rhetoric in there to be quite partisan. And, [url=http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/default.asp]here is the National Resources Defense Council’s take on the Bush record.
So much to be dismayed about, so little time! Where to begin? Perhaps with a generalized conclusion, expressed as a nuetron-density understatement.
This is too friendly to corporate interests
Just to concentrate on a provision I find especially terrifying: the provision to exempt the makers of MBTE from legal consequences resulting from pollution. (Would it surprise anyone that this Congressional pustule is due to the genius of Tom DeLay?)
I won’t dwell on the particulars here, though I encourage you to horrify yourself.
But I am especially appalled at what appears to be a recent trend of creating legal exemptions for certain beloved corporations. Its somewhere between and pardon and a papal dispensation. And it stinks up the room.
A comparison can clearly be made to the “thermisol” case. You will recall that a provision exempting the makers of this drug preservative from lawsuits from parents who claimed their children had been injured. Now, I am persuaded, given what I know, that the preservative in question almost certainly had nothing to do with it. Were I on a jury, thats what I would vote given what I know now
But in the process of trial, things oftime come to light that otherwise wouldn’t. Sunshine is a good thing. Splendid disinfectant.
But to legislate that a given company is immune to civil suits means, in effect, that thier innocence is presumed, effectively rendering a verdict in advance. This is obnoxious.
elucidator: I hesitate to ask what’s in a dumpster buffet, but I’ll ask anyway. Sounds like if you keep eating that stuff on your passing they’re going to have to bury you in an EPA certified toxic waste dump. Actually, just drinking Thunderbird/Nyquil cocktails would probably qualify you.
jshore:gas guzzlers generally are more expensive to begin with, unlike an inefficient light bulb. So if buying one is more expensive up front, and you know you’re going to have to pay megabucks to keep it running, that’s a powerful disincentive towards buying one. And once you have one, if you live in an area with good mass transit, you’re going to be wondering just how worth it it is to drive the beast to work every day if you’re using it for that every time you fill up the tank. As it stands now, no such thought runs through anyone’s head, except for the lower classes who, paradoxically, probably have more efficient cars because a) they’re cheaper to buy and b) the larger SUVs only recently came out and haven’t yet trickled down, as it were, to the used car market in any numbers.
I must admit to having linked to this article before I read that much of it. Having read it all, I would say that Kennedy has an unfortunate tendency to play somewhat fast-and-loose with the truth himself. But, it gives a sort of lay of the land, as long as one doesn’t take his brief summaries of the specifics of what Bush has done to be literally correct in all the details.
I’m sorry, but I’m afraid I don’t understand. You said that the Administration was guilty of “active harm being done”. How does Clear Skies harm emissions standards relative to where they are now? Hasn’t the HFI been debated numerous times and isn’t that really not that clear-cut an issue? Wasn’t that legislation in a similar form proposed by the previous Administration? Didn’t we back out of Kyoto before Bush took office? Wasn’t there a 95-0 vote in the Senate, which oddly included almost every Democrat in there? How does a rescinding a ban on snowmobiles in a single National Park result in an environmental catastrophe? You’re not sure if (4) even applies, but you feel strongly enough about it that you say it causes harm? What specific items regarding changes in the Clean Water Act are going to cause active harm? What exactly in the Energy Bill does “active harm”?
I’m sorry, but you made the claim that active harm was being done by the Bush Administration, and it’s unclear why this is so on those points. Excepting I suppose the issue of snowmobiles in Yellowstone, which although I don’t know the specifics of I have a hard time seeing as something of National Import.
In addition, your RFK (whose engineering and scientific credentials I find somewhat lacking anyhow) link is dead, seeing as there’s no hypertext in it.
elucidator - did you not bother to read a single thing I wrote? I did “dwell on the particulars” (or, at least, the facts) and it seems pretty clear-cut to me. CARB themselves approved the use of MTBE for pollution reduction under EPA CAA mandate. I even had links and quotes.
Gasoline is a known toxin to wildlife. If a local gas station has leaky tanks, should you be allowed to sue BP for making the gasoline?
Yes, I quite take your point. On the face of it, entirely plausible. Since I have nothing but the highest regard, etc., I fully expect a court case brought would fail. Unless, of course, in the process of “discovery”, new information comes to light.
By indemnifying the producers in advance, the Congress, essentially, renders an effective verdict of not guilty. Period. The evidentiary process is bypassed, the verdict is rendered.
It is entirely plausible that in a court of law, the producers would be held blameless. But that’s where something like this is to be decided, Mr. DeLays judicial philosophy notwithstanding.
Do I suspect if this sort of thing becomes acceptable, it would be abused?
Bet me.
I guess we have a different definition of “active harm”. In my book, it means making things worse than not changing the law would have done. Thus, while it may be true that emissions will continue to improve, they would not do so at the rate they would have under the original law.
Well, from what I understand, it is pretty clear that the Administration and the House’s approach is not really addressing the problem of forest fires … But using it as an excuse to allow more logging. The Senate compromise bill is more ambiguous…at least it includes some actually money for tree thinning.
Not that I know of.
We were still very much involved in the negotiating process over the details of Kyoto when Bush took office. We had not backed out of it. The Senate vote was a before-the-fact vote on what our negotiating position should be. But like I said, the real crime beyond that is that the Administration offered nothing serious in place of Kyoto and fought against the McCain-Lieberman bill.
Where did I say that it would be an environmental catastrophe? I just said it would cause harm.
Well, it is hard to keep track of the status of all of these things. The Bush Administration is taking on these environmental regs at a rapid rate.
Here is a link to an article about this.
Well, the subsidies to fossil fuels for one.
Whoops…Well, here it is. I didn’t say he was a scientist or engineer but I tend to think that this does not disqualify people from speaking on environmental issues. Do you? But, like I said, you ain’t gonna like this article…It is very partisan and pretty sloppy with the facts. Even I wasn’t a big fan of it once I read it, except to remind me about various issues that I would go to other sources for a better accounting of the details.
OK, I’d have to study the wetlands issue better to comment intelligently on it. I’ll concede that I do not know enough to dispute your claim at this time.
My point on the snowmobiles in Yellowstone is that you’ve listed it along with other items that are far, far more broad in their impact and potential danger in your view. It certainly casts that you feel that snowmobiles in Yellowstone are as big a potential problem as issues such as wetlands protection for the entire US and fossil fuel emissions. It’s nitpicking on something that would not even be noticed except for the word “Yellowstone”. Under other Administrations, local authorities changed the Rules in other National Parks on ATVs back and forth, both for fire protection issues and for pollution issues. IIRC the Buffalo National River has allowed and disallowed ATVs in several wilderness areas at different times. So if for example ATVs were allowed in certain areas of the BNR during Clinton’s Administration (specificaly, near the Erbie area, where I used to camp) when in the previous Administration they weren’t, you will post now in this very thread, out of fairness and impartiality, that the Clinton Administration “caused harm” to the environment? Which would be silly, but there you have it - it’s silly. What is the actual environmental impact, on a National Scale, of snowmobiles in Yellowstone? Not much at all - which is my point. How does this compare to the other issues?
How exactly do you understand that the HFI is not addressing the issue of forest fires and instead is an excuse for logging? Do you say that because you’ve read the legislation? How did you come to this understanding? You must have had a factual basis for this, I just want to know what it was.
Are any of the subsidies on fossil fuel use in the areas of improving efficiency and reducing emissions and pollution? Do you know exactly what they are? Does a subsidy that sponsors research which improves efficiency on a technology that supplies roughly 70% of our electric generation not have some value in helping to reduce emissions?
Regarding Kyoto: The Byrd-Hagel Resolution was a pretty clear bipartisan rejection of Kyoto, in that its statement was that the Senate would not pass any treaty that did not impose binding limits on developing nations and which would “result in serious economic harm to the economy of the United States.” Come on now - unless Kyoto is re-written pretty heavily, that resolution, passed 95-0, says that the Senate has no chance of ratifying the treaty. I’ve seen no move to re-write the Kyoto treaty to suit that resolution, so I guess it’s going to stick.
Regarding RFK: I don’t expect many non-scientists to understand the intricacies of many aspects of technology and environmental issues and legislation. If for no other reason than working in the field, I’ve found it takes a large amount of focus, experience, and training to properly understand just the laws we already have. There is a reason why Part 60 and Part 75 experts get paid so much money and have to work so long before they become competent. And then there’s the technology standpoint - for eaxmple, take such things as NSR. My experience has been that people who don’t have actual experience with the way that power plants work IRL really can’t understand all the details of what is involved in the issue. Or people who don’t understand emissions control technology, who fall for claims from snake oil people that “special additives” will remove ALL the mercury from coal, or environmental experts who are shocked - shocked! - to discover that SCRs use ammonia and thus require disaster plans, evacuation maps, and gas masks being passed out within a certain radius of the plant.
Seriously, you’re throwing out some very broad generalizations here regarding “harm” that I fear are not borne by the details. You’ve made your point in innumerable threads before on the subjects of energy and the environment - you hate Bush and everything about him, regardless of the specific issue. I understand that, but if that’s the backbone of your beef, then I won’t argue with you any more since, like in our NSR discussion, nothing I could say could ever convince you that there might be some rational reason or driving factor that does not involve Bush==evil.
Una,
I feel like we are hijacking this thread, so I think I will refrain from long answers to your questions. Maybe my more basic point is this: The previous Administration committed a lot of sins of omission on the environment, i.e., there were lots of things I would have liked them to do that they didn’t, presumably in large part because they were unwilling to expend the political capital on them. This Administration is committing a lot of sins of commission, i.e., they are actively weakening many environmental regulations. Do you deny this basic fact even if you think they are only going after ones that are not that important, or where there are justifiable arguments why these regs are harming business without helping the environment much, or are you even unwilling to grant me this?
Well, I am not saying it is a huge issue of national importance. But, just for the record, I was aware of this Yellowstone snowmobiles issue before this Administration. In fact, I am almost sure I signed on to a letter supporting the ban of snowmobiles in the park when it was first being considered under Clinton. So, the implication that noone ever cared until the Bush Administration did this is just not so.
The facts as I understand them are these:
(1) Bush’s proposal and the House version essentially deal with the issue of the fires by weakening the ability for the public to challenge forest service projects that cut trees and by allowing logging of large trees also in areas where they want to thin brush in order to create an economic incentive for the logging companies to go in there. There is no money actually set aside for thinning projects.
(2) There is little to no evidence that environmental challenges to brush thinning projects have been a problem. This was shown by a GAO study. The problem has been simply a lack of money to do the thinning perhaps along with some questionable decisions about priorities of thinning projects.
(3) The idea of allowing the logging companies to log lots of bigger trees is counterproductive to reducing fire danger since these trees tend to be fire-resistant.
Yes, although I would prefer to subsidize them in an overall neutral or net negative way…e.g., through a tax on conventional fossil fuel use. I.e., these should only be subsidized relative to other fossil fuel use and not relative to other alternatives.
But, many of the subsidies in the bill are for exploration and such, I believe. They are not just, or even primarily, for improving efficiency and reducing emissions.
As I’ve pointed out before, the political climate on this issue has changed markedly in the years since then (partly in response to changes in the scientific understanding). Back then, the Global Climate Coalition was going strong with companies like BP a part of it. As you know, BP now endorses Kyoto and has already implemented a Kyoto-like cutback in their emissions.
I admit that Kyoto was going to be a hard sell in the Senate. But, if the President is going to decide to scrap it, then the least he could do is to propose some real alternative or at least not fight against an alternative like McCain-Lieberman (which got 40-something votes in its favor, showing the change that has occurred on this issue).
Here is a link to the Environmental Media Services’ webpage concerning the Healthy Forests Initiative with lots of links and such.
OK, let me pass you a point - I admit, for example, that the changes to NSR do weaken the enforcement and standards, but I also believe that under the CAA the old enforcement standards were not technologically sound, and as I pointed out they were found unconstitutional. If they want to change the law via further legislation that’s a different matter entirely. And I do note that there are many States suing, so the issue is far, far from resolved - it may even go to the USSC.
I also admit that the push for drilling for oil in the ANWR just does not seem needed. I do think that some minimal-impact natural gas well creation could be done there which would be beneficial as a supplement to many current strategies of hydrogen extraction from methane, alternate fueled vehicles, and supporting replacement of coal with gas in primary power production.
My understanding was that some, if not all, of the funding required to create firebreaks and fire access roads was to be dervied from sales of the trees which were removed for those breaks and roads. Thus, it sounded like a win-win: key firebreaks are built, access roads for Parks and Wildlife firefighters are made, and the taxpayer doesn’t foot the bill.
Well, my response would be - which ones? I’m not trying to beat a dead horse or be obstinate, and we don’t have to micromanage the Energy Bill if you are busy at work or just busy (thankfully, I’m taking my first freaking vacation of the whole freaking year, and as such have waaaaaay too much time on my hands) but many objections that I run across seem to be based on media bites which are not borne by the facts, or are the result of bills or items “under consideration”. I’m not saying you are victim of this, and I’m not saying you are doing this, but I’m just trying to understand how you came to your position of such strong objection. Look at the MTBE controvery as another example. When even Reeder agrees with me, something must be going on. 
My point is that the current Administration does not seem to be “environmentally friendly” in that they are not actively pushing things as hard as they could or should. But I also think that they are not “environmentally hostile” either, just more trying to “keep the status quo lest something go Terribly Wrong with the Economy”.
What can I say about GHG efforts and the lack of any good plan in place? It’s pretty bad, but I’m not sure that any Administration could functionally get the Senate to vote for Kyoto. To my view, it seemed like the Administration recognized a lost cause, but is uncertain what to do at this point. Since the economy really crashed around 9/11, I don’t think the public or the Congress, regardless of which party was in power, would support something which would or could really threaten the economy.
Whereas people like you and I feel there must be something done quickly, in terms of efficiency increases and reduction of use. And that even if there is some risk to the economy, which may be very difficult to quantify, some plan of action must be started on. That’s a really hard sell to the person laid off from their $70k IT job and now working their $24k Pizza Hut manager job (like someone I know…) who sees that their electric bill might go up 10% a year. Or gasoline by $1.00 a gallon. Yes, they are small amounts to many people, but large amounts to others.
I feel that a gradual, but steady effort must be made on these fronts, and sadly I do agree with you that those gradual, steady efforts are lacking in some points. I do however fail to understand the strident opposition to Clear Skies from one side of the Congress. Clear Skies does and would reduce emissions, under a clear timetable. There is little political chance of Democrats being able to change its makeup in any large way, so they have seemingly taken a scorched earth tactic of blocking it at every move so there will be a net NO new legislation. Which seems silly to me - my tactic would be to argue over it, but once you see it’s a fait accompli, get it passed, and then re-open the issue next session. Because although it may not be as strict as some would like, it would make matters better. Environmental and Energy legislation gets modified and passed every single year - they should at least take what they can get, and try to improve on it themselves later on - maybe when their turn to controll Congress happens.
Me, I’d love to be put in charge of the DoE and a consolidated Energy Department for just 4 short little years. I could be the Energy Czarina. CAFE of 40mpg in 2010! $1/gallon gasoline tax for renewables! Hemp power plants! 
But those bastards have something against me so they won’t appoint me; it makes no sense. 
I do respect your understanding of the intricacies of NSR. However, as I recall, while you felt the way the law was being enforced was perverse and needed revision, even you admitted there might be other solutions like phasing out the grandfathering altogether. The point is that the Bush Administration chose to remedy these problems by weakening the law. I see no evidence that they worked out a compromise that neither party was particularly happy with but both could live with.
And, while I respect your knowledge of NSR, I have to also believe that when our Republican governor, George Pataki, supports a lawsuit against the Republican administration, he likely has a good reason for doing so.
Well, as you and I exemplify, reasonable and intelligent people disagree. And Governors and the Federal Government disagree too. Without knowing the specific complaint of New York and its legal basis I cannot comment more. I’ll be watching the courts closer in Q1.
I envy you being on vacation! I will admit that I don’t have the time to read the details of every bill and such so I do necessarily rely on third-party info. But, I also strongly believe that the third party sources that I trust are generally reliable (groups such as Union of Concerned Scientists) and, of course, I do on issues that I follow more closely (such as climate change), read more directly (e.g. the actual scientific literature, the IPCC reports, …)
See, I read these three paragraphs and, quite frankly, I find them to be pretty politically naive. “Not actively pushing things as hard as they could or should”?!? I disagree…I think they are pushing things very hard. But they are the wrong things!
In my opinion, this Administration is not carefully trying to balance different voices, walk a middle ground or anything like that. They are actively pushing one side of the political debate! For example, how was McCain-Lieberman necessarily a lost cause? It got 40-something votes in the face of active opposition from the President.
I don’t think they are doing this out of evil in their hearts. But, I do think they are captive to an extreme ideology that believes that the market is way too restricted due to these environmental and other regulations and we need to create a more business-friendly climate and so on. (Do you read the Wall Street Journal editorial pages? It will really help to understand the underpinning of this ideology. It also often gives you a preview of legislation and arguments to come from the Administration.)
For heaven’s sake, I was at a conference on policy stuff where a political appointee of Pataki’s spoke, giving a very partisan “Pataki is wonderful on the environment speech.” (He is actually fairly good, and quite spectacular for a Republican who is not even on many other issues in the most liberal wing of the party.) And, I was sort of thinking it would be fun to ask her how they feel about the current Administration of their party in the White House …But, this question became superfluous when it became clear that she had no interest in defending in any way the White House environmental policies and was in fact implicitly and explicitly criticizing them.
Yes, but as I understand it, Clear Skies is meant to supercede strict enforcement of the existing Clean Air Act regulations. And, the evidence presented before the Edison Electric Institute a few months before Clear Skies was announced shows that the reductions in pollutants would be less under the Clear Skies caps than under the “business-as-usual” scenario, i.e., continuing with the current Clean Air Act regs. (In the release of Clear Skies, the predictions for how much emissions would occur under current regs had increased so that they were now a little higher than the emission caps under Clear Skies.)
Well, I’d definitely support your appointment to such a position. But, I won’t hold my breath that someone like you will be appointed in that position or that their arguments will carry the day under this current Administration.
To be fair, there are worse people on these issues, such as Tom Delay and Sen. Inhofe. Heaven help us if they were in charge! But, for the most part Delay and Inhofe seem to be pretty satisfied with this Administration’s approach (from what I know) and that alone scares me.
And, I think that we will probably learn over time (as we have already from the few glimpses that this tight ship has given us) that there has been intense in-fighting in this Administration between the ideologues and the more moderate people like Whitman. (Whitman is apparently writing a book and I will be interested to see what it says.) I don’t know who are the ones who are most antithetical to the environmental point of view although I suspect that Cheney is pretty high up there on the list.
Just wanted to interject that you two can hijack away. Assuming your respective spice are OK with it, that is.
Because 40 votes in the Senate may as well be 0. As we’ve seen recently with many, many close votes. 40 votes can be a straight Democratic party-line vote. Which is cool and all but won’t pass a bill, period. How is that naive?
How do you understand it? You see, we’ve been going around on this for a few posts.
According to the EPA:
According to the EPA, our total Zone 1 and Zone 2 NOx emissions under the current CAA are 5.1Mton/year. Under Clear Skies, this is subject to a cap of 2.1 Mton in 2008, and 1.7 Mton in 2018.
According to the EPA:
This is all from Section A of the EPA report on Clear Skies. I invite people to read it, as it’s very simply presented and has nice graphs and charts:
http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/03technical_package_sectiona.pdf
I’m confused as to the reference to the Edison Electric Institute in opposition of Clear Skies, as they seem to be highly supportive of it. Here are two reports of theirs, in fact, that say as much:
From: http://www.eei.org/newsroom/press_releases/030227.htm
So which is it - you say they show that reductions would be less. They say that the reductions might be too strict?
In fact, they characterize the current “business as usual” as “complex and contentious”:
Respectfully, jshore, if we want to really narrow the focus down here, all I just want to discuss now is exactly what evidence you base your claim that “reductions in pollutants would be less under the Clear Skies caps than under the “business-as-usual” scenario, i.e., continuing with the current Clean Air Act regs.”?