Shameless Plunderers in Power

[70/30]

"Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) will take over leadership of the crucial Environment and Public Works Committee, which reviews almost all major legislation concerning conservation and environmental enforcement. He will succeed Senator Jim Jeffords, I-VT. The League of Conservation Voters, a nonprofit group which monitors the environmental voting records of all Congress members, gave Inhofe a 0 percent rating for his lifetime voting record, noting his support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and opposition to increased fuel efficiency standards."

http://ens-news.com/ens/nov2002/2002-11-14-06.asp

 

[70/30]

Wonder why Jeffords jumped, the answer's easy,

http://ens-news.com/ens/nov2002/2002-11-22-10.asp

"Today's package of final and proposed regulations on New Source Review violates the spirit and the letter of the Clean Air Act," said Senator Jim Jeffords, an Independent from Vermont and chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "The administration has failed to do an honest, credible assessment of the net impact on the environment, public health and air quality.
"This early Christmas gift to industry means more pollution and less protection," Jeffords added. "If the administration is so proud of these regulations, you have to ask yourself why they would wait until after the election, after Congress adjourns for the year and on the Friday afternoon before Thanksgiving to release them?"

 

[70/30]

Always hear talk about Accountability

Superfund Cleanups Running Out of Money

WASHINGTON, DC, July 1, 2002 (ENS) - Funding for 33 Superfund cleanup sites will be eliminated under a Bush administration proposal, "The New York Times" reported today.
The inspector general of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has given a report to Congress on which toxic waste sites will see their funding cut due to a lack of money in the Superfund program. Superfund was set up to clean up the worst polluted sites in the nation.

The Superfund program once drew on billions of dollars in taxes paid by polluting industries. But the authorization for those taxes expired in 1995, and Congress has refused to renew them, leaving a mere $28 million expected to be left in the fund next year, and a complete lack of funding in 2004.

That means hundreds of Superfund cleanups could be left incomplete, unless other federal funds are used to pay for the cleanup. Critics say using taxpayer money to pay for industrial pollution undermines the so called polluter pays principles on which the Superfund program was founded.

In 1995, taxpayers paid about 18 percent of Superfund program costs, and in 2003 they will pay 54 percent of the costs.

"Superfund cleanups are already running on fumes and if the Bush administration has its way, the program will be completely out of gas," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. "The administration should be demanding that the polluters who made these messes pay for cleanup, but instead they're slowing down or stopping cleanups. The Bush administration is telling communities that have waited for years to get rid of toxic chemicals in their water and soil that they'll just have to wait some more."

Under the plan detailed in the EPA inspector general's report, 33 sites would see their cleanup funding vanish, while another 15 would get reduced funding. More than 1,200 toxic sites that have not yet been cleaned up remain on the EPA's National Priority (Superfund) List.

A study Congress commissioned from Resources for the Future showed that an estimated 23 to 49 new toxic sites could be added to the list each year.

Meanwhile, the pace of completed cleanups has slowed in recent years. The EPA completed construction on only 47 sites in 2001, less than the 75 it had projected and far less than the 87 achieved in 2000.

While the Bush administration has indicated that it will not reinstate the Superfund taxes on industry, bills introduced in the House and Senate would reinstate the polluter pays program.

"We applaud those members of Congress, including Senators Barbara Boxer and Lincoln Chafee and Representative Frank Pallone, who have introduced legislation to reinstate the same 'polluter pays' funding program that Congress authorized in 1986," said Pope. "We urge Congress to pass this legislation to help communities who have been living too long with toxic waste."

 

[SoulPole]

I'm going to admit that I'm not a big time environment guy, but I find it hilarious that Jumpin Jim jumped so he could retain his spot as committee chairman, but now that the Repubs retook Congress he wants back in with them.

 

[Don K Dyck]

Crazy Philosophy

I'm going to admit that I'm not a big time environment guy, but I find it hilarious that Jumpin Jim jumped so he could retain his spot as committee chairman, but now that the Repubs retook Congress he wants back in with them.

And the rest of the world wonders why the US won't sign the Kyoto Agreement . . . a policy that allows polluters to pay to pollute rather than clean up their act . . . oh boy, oh boy . . . have the Americans got SOME BIG PROBLEMS . . . no wonder health insurance is so expensive . . .

 

[TWB]

Right on 70/30

 

[SINthysist]

It may be indicative, that as a nation, we've identified and cleaned up those problems which were overwhelming local governments (who allowed the pollution to go on, btw...). At some point in time, you have to phase out programs and give the problem back to the people whom need to deal with it.

To the victor goes the spoils. Stop think of Bush in terms such as moron, respect him for a twice-proven capable opponent and go back and read Rachael Carson and the other doom and gloomers from the late 60's early 70's and realize that it didn't come true...

I would generally support an end to this type of activity in order to prepare for greater tests in the years to come as more and more third-world tyrants gain access to the bomb. And the war the Chinese have planned. Don't forget that their target date in in 2006 for moves on Russia and Taiwan. (And South Korea and THEY STILL haven't forgotten about what the Japanese did to the too... Okinawa will probably be in play, too.)

 

[70/30]

YANKs aren't so bad

I have my eye on Chafee, the Northeast is largely pro-Environment. Last year's House vote to protect ANWR resulted in 63 in support and 8 against. That's 47 democrats, 1 independent, 23 Republicans voting. In 2001 The overall vote as 223 to protect and 206 to plunder. Bush is going to try to push it through in 03, perfect opportunity for Pelosi to rally the troops. Bush really is dismantling the Green Party, wonder where they'll go? In Russert's hour interview of Rush, he even admitted REPubs are vulnerable when environmental issues arise. I say education and abortion will resurface.

BTW-Carson and Nader sparked wide ranging change in the 60's, we'd already have the broomstick up our ass without their work.

Sinth, you sound like a doom and gloomer yourself, start digging the bomb shelter-it's a hearty task. I still say Russia, China, and North Korea are on the same team, they've been signing annual agreements since 92. Us helping to cleanup Russia and electing an international diplomat as president will mute China's takeover plans. Russia's the link, we need to both bring them up and help refine them. We can only hope they find a way to keep NK afloat.

CONN
Larson (D) Yes
Simmons (R) Yes
Delauro (D) Yes
Shays (R) Yes
Maloney (D) Yes
Johnson (R) Yes

Delaware
Castle (R) Yes

Maine
Allen (D) Yes
Baldacci (D) Yes

MASS
Olver (D) Yes
Neal (D) Yes
Mcgovern (D) Yes
Frank (D) Yes
Meehan (D) Yes
Tierney (D) Yes
Markey (D) Yes
Capuano (D) Yes
Delahunt (D) Yes

New Hampshire
Sununu (R) No
Bass (R) Yes

New Jersey
Andrews (D) Yes
Lobiondo (R) Yes
Saxton (R) Yes
Smith (R) Yes
Roukema (R) Yes
Pallone (D) Yes
Ferguson (R) Yes
Pascrell (D) Yes
Rothman (D) Yes
Payne (D) Yes
Frelinghuysen (R) Yes
Holt (D) Yes
Menendez (D) Yes

New York
Grucci (R) No
Israel (D) Yes
King (R) No
Mccarthy (D) Yes
Ackerman (D) Yes
Meeks (D) Yes
Crowley (D) Yes
Nadler (D) Yes
Weiner (D) Yes
Towns (D) No
Owens (D) Yes
Velazquez (D) Yes
Fossella (R) No
Maloney (D) Yes
Rangel (D) Yes
Serrano (D) Yes
Engel (D) Yes
Lowey (D) Yes
Kelly (R) Yes
Gilman (R) Yes
Mcnulty (D) Yes
Sweeney (R) Yes
Boehlert (R) Yes
Mchugh (R) No
Walsh (R) Yes
Hinchey (D) Yes
Reynolds (R) No
Slaughter (D) Yes
Lafalce (D) Yes
Quinn (R) No
Houghton (R) Yes

Rhode Island
Kennedy (D) Yes
Langevin (D) Yes

Vermont
Sanders (I) Yes

 

[70/30]

I'm going to admit that I'm not a big time environment guy, but I find it hilarious that Jumpin Jim jumped so he could retain his spot as committee chairman, but now that the Repubs retook Congress he wants back in with them.

Jeffords doesn't want in with them, he hates them. The quote I provided was from Friday Nov 22, 2002. Bush is finding ways to override the Clean Air Act and keep the media coverage down. He'll keep giving us ammo, it'll all come back to him with ANWR and Rocky Mountain drilling, he can't force those back page. Last year he caved with the Everglades but the only reason was it would have ended JEB's political career. Without JEB, GWB would be a private CEO driving a couple more companies into bankruptcy.

 

[SoulPole]

Jeffords doesn't want in with them, he hates them. The quote I provided was from Friday Nov 22, 2002. Bush is finding ways to override the Clean Air Act and keep the media coverage down. He'll keep giving us ammo, it'll all come back to him with ANWR and Rocky Mountain drilling, he can't force those back page. Last year he caved with the Everglades but the only reason was it would have ended JEB's political career. Without JEB, GWB would be a private CEO driving a couple more companies into bankruptcy.

Shortly after the elections Jeffords was putting out "feelers" to test whether or not he could return to the Republican party, ultimately so he could keep his seat as committee chairman. That was part of the deal when he jumped last time. He would leave the Republicans, become an independent, vote with the Democrats and keep his chairman spot. I'm not an environmental expert but I like to think I know enough of politics that Jeffords would be willing to put aside his distaste for Bush, no pun intended, in order to keep his chairmanship.

 

[REDWAVE]

Dempublicans

Still trying to encourage illusions in the Dems, eh, 70/30? Nancy Pelosi is just as much of a corrupt, bought-by-big-money politician as Gephardt. Only the mobilization of the working class, and a fighting workers' party, can present genuine opposition to Bush and his police state drive.

 

[Texan]

Damn, you guys are funny. Thanks for the laughs.

 

[70/30]

He wants to be chairman because the seat allows him to help introduce environmentally friendly legislation. That is a credit to his committment to the correct cause. GWB is at war with the planet earth, Jeffords hates him. We all got lucky with the everglades, but eventually we'll vote the plunderers out. Pollution isn't always a silent and vague weapon, it'll make some headlines.

The biggest question is how much damage will be done in the interim. The population centers in the east and west are already pro-environment because they've felt the pressure for quite some time. Cognitively southerners are pretty slow but they won't rule the presidential palace forever. The DEMs now are going to get the GREEN PARTY activists to help them campaign in 04. It'll probably please many ultraCONs, I think they should be very frightened of that prospect.

 

[70/30]

Damn, you guys are funny. Thanks for the laughs.

I'm genuinely curious Texan, do you think companies should clean up their toxic sites? what about taxpayers? or should citizens absorb it all in their blood stream?

GWB is making sure Superfund is over, we live in Texas, do you have faith in the TNRCC? Considering there are no DEMs that hold major offices here, I think it'll go the way of the EPA. Remember what Colin Powell said about states' rights "it's a transparent argument".

Redwave, GWB is so far over-the-line that Greens really have no choice but to support DEMs. Texan can't handle this issue, really none of them can intelligently. It should mute their slogans that include: responsibility, accountability, compassion, reform...

The environment shows the entire party is just a corporate run fleecing operation with some racism, religion, and war to rouse people up.

 

[SoulPole]

He wants to be chairman because the seat allows him to help introduce environmentally friendly legislation. That is a credit to his committment to the correct cause. GWB is at war with the planet earth, Jeffords hates him. We all got lucky with the everglades, but eventually we'll vote the plunderers out. Pollution isn't always a silent and vague weapon, it'll make some headlines.

The biggest question is how much damage will be done in the interim. The population centers in the east and west are already pro-environment because they've felt the pressure for quite some time. Cognitively southerners are pretty slow but they won't rule the presidential palace forever. The DEMs now are going to get the GREEN PARTY activists to help them campaign in 04. It'll probably please many ultraCONs, I think they should be very frightened of that prospect.

Well I don't exactly know what the "correct cause" is but I think its fundamentally wrong to endeavor to switch from party to party in order to retain a committee chairmanship. Pick a party and stay with it, ideally the one you campaigned as a part of.

The Green Party?!?! Bring them on. The Green Party is a Republican's wet dream. If there's anything the the Republicans are afraid of in '04 its John Kerry, not the Green Party. The Republicans will welcome the Green Party like they welcomed Nancy Pelosi as House minority speaker. The way its looking right now, the next time America will see a Democrat as President will be 2008 at the earliest, but more likely 2012.

 

[70/30]

Bush killed the GREEN party, they're assimilating back into DEM Party. Now we'll be able to bring up domestic issues again. Bush can't handle certain domestic issues. He finds ways to announce them on Fridays after Congress has left and the media is researching new ways to tell the same story, you know the one about the busy airport before Thanksgiving.

 

[70/30]

I already told you, in 2001 Northeastern Representatives voted 63 to 8 in the bill to protect ANWR. GWB ran as a moderate, nothing is more false than the banner he ran under. Jeffords called him out on it, Rove wouldn't budge and decided to bully JJ around instead. I expected nothing different, GWB will continue to give anti-Republicans all the ammo he can handle. He doesn't balance, he pushes and his people continue to tell us we're wacko enviro freaks. Wake up! the guy overrided the Clean Air Act and Superfund is gone. Drilling in ANWR and the Rockies of Colorado and Wyoming will start soon. He can't hide them.

Show your patriotic spirit and take your next vacation to GWB's town of Midland, TX-that's his vision for America.

 

[Don K Dyck]

Panic Merchant

It may be indicative, that as a nation, we've identified and cleaned up those problems which were overwhelming local governments (who allowed the pollution to go on, btw...). At some point in time, you have to phase out programs and give the problem back to the people whom need to deal with it.

To the victor goes the spoils. Stop think of Bush in terms such as moron, respect him for a twice-proven capable opponent and go back and read Rachael Carson and the other doom and gloomers from the late 60's early 70's and realize that it didn't come true...

I would generally support an end to this type of activity in order to prepare for greater tests in the years to come as more and more third-world tyrants gain access to the bomb. And the war the Chinese have planned. Don't forget that their target date in in 2006 for moves on Russia and Taiwan. (And South Korea and THEY STILL haven't forgotten about what the Japanese did to the too... Okinawa will probably be in play, too.)

Geez, SIN . . . you are really doin' a fine job of creating hysteria . . . your CIA mates will be real proud . . . I don't think that the Okinawa Islands will support the whole US population, dispalaced by the pay to pollute policies of successive US governments . . . the local Okinawans have been trying to get the US Military out of the islands for years because too many US servicemen rape their children . . . and are allowed to get away with their criimes by the US Military . . .

 

[SINthysist]

Did I mention Brazil? The Brazil whose new Leftist Leader wishes to remove Brazil from America's sphere of influence and develop a Nuclear Bomb...

I thought the Left was all about Peace and feel good and environmental cleanup and each according to his needs.

Panama is in a state of collapse and the Canal is owned by China!

Three guesses on whom Brazil wants to be cozy with in order to get a bomb.

Don, you won't be so smug when NZ gets their bomb !

 

[Texan]

Did I mention Brazil? The Brazil whose new Leftist Leader wishes to remove Brazil from America's sphere of influence and develop a Nuclear Bomb...

I thought the Left was all about Peace and feel good and environmental cleanup and each according to his needs.

Panama is in a state of collapse and the Canal is owned by China!

Three guesses on whom Brazil wants to be cozy with in order to get a bomb.

Don, you won't be so smug when NZ gets their bomb !

Sin, don't worry about Brazil getting the bomb. With the current exchange rate, they can't afford one.

Seriously, Brazil doesn't like China. You have to remember that the largest population of Japanese outside of Japan is in Brazil. The Japanese community in Brazil is the result of expatriation after WWII. They don't like China. Brazil also sees China as their largest competitor for exportation to the north American markets. There is no love lost between Brazil (even Lula) and China.

Lula isn't stupid, (well yes he is), but he sees that Embraer is the biggest success story in the Brazilian economy. (Embraer is a company that manufacturers airplanes.) Lula wants to expand that manufacturing base to produce more military aircraft for sale to the highest bidder. They are actively courting the aisian and middle eastern markets. Lula knows that the U.S. and the E.U. could stop his production of military aircraft in a heart-beat. Ninety percent of the commercial airplanes built by Embraer are sold into the U.S. and E.U. countries. If the U.S. or E.U. countries put a stop to purchases of commercial airplanes from Embraer, that would KILL the biggest cash cow in Brazil.

just some thoughts. It's a complicated subject.

 

[SINthysist]

- Great point on the exchange rates!

 

[SINthysist]

What makes you think I wasn't refering to Pakistan, India, France, or Iraq?

 

[Don K Dyck]

What About the Right-Wingers??

Don, you won't be so smug when NZ gets their bomb !

heheheh . . . why do the Kiwis need the bomb when they've got the All Blacks??? They cause annual devastation in the Bledisloe Cup . . . Rugby is a religion in NZ . . .

But SIN . . . you have forgotten the RIGHT wing terrorist countries like the one that just passed the Home Defence Bill/Act, the misnamed Patriot Act and the "subsidies for all' US Farm Act . . . now that the FBI and CIA are unfettered by common law restraints stolen from the American people by an out-of-touch Congress . . . ah, the advantages of being the Fourth Reich . . .

 

[TWB]

Today's NYT

Every Breath You Take

By PAUL KRUGMAN



Last week the Bush administration announced new rules that would effectively scrap "new source review," a crucial component of our current system of air pollution control. This action, which not incidentally will be worth billions to some major campaign contributors, comes as no surprise to anyone who pays attention to which way the wind is blowing (from west to east, mainly — that is, states that vote Democratic are conveniently downwind).

But this isn't just a policy change, it's an omen. I hope I'm wrong, but it's likely that last week's announcement marks the beginning of a new era of environmental degradation.

Some background: The origin of new source review lies in a big policy mistake 30 years ago. The original Clean Air Act imposed strict rules on new sources of pollution, but it grandfathered existing power plants, refineries and so on. The idea was that over time, as old facilities closed down, strict rules would become the norm.

What happened instead was predictable: In order to keep their exemptions, polluting industries poured money into existing facilities rather than build new ones. In an attempt to close this loophole, the Environmental Protection Agency began requiring companies that invested in existing facilities to demonstrate that they were merely doing maintenance, rather than creating new capacity that was supposed to face stricter regulation.

Everyone agrees that this was an awkward fix. It was a recipe for endless legal battles between companies and the E.P.A., and in some cases it deterred investments that would actually have made the air cleaner. Most experts also agree on the solution: a so-called cap-and-trade system, in which existing facilities are granted emissions licenses that they can sell to others if they succeed in reducing their own pollution. This would end the litigation, and provide businesses with broad-based incentives to clean the air.

But in the early years of the Clean Air Act, environmentalists didn't trust market solutions enough to endorse cap-and-trade. By the time they changed their minds, it was too late. Polluters had lost interest in improving the way the emission-control system works, figuring that in a political scene increasingly dominated both by money and by conservative ideology they could buy themselves the right to spew at will. And so it has turned out.

True, the Bush administration says that it favors a cap-and-trade system; it has even introduced legislation to that effect. I could explain the defects of the Clear Skies Initiative — its conspicuous failure to deal with greenhouse gases, the glacial pace at which it proposes to reduce emissions of those pollutants it does control (many estimates say that it would actually allow more pollution than would a strict enforcement of current law). But it's a moot point: Last week's announcement is, I believe, a signal that even Clear Skies isn't going to happen.

Aside from cynicism (which has been an almost infallible guide to administration environmental policy so far), how do I reach that conclusion?

Here's one reason: If a cap-and-trade system is just around the corner, why not wait and introduce the whole system at once? As the E.P.A. press release last week correctly declares, "under the Clear Skies Initiative, NSR [new source review] would no longer be necessary." But then why did polluters so badly want an immediate end to such review before a new system could be put in place? And why was the administration willing to accept lots of bad press for a clearly anti-environmental move, if it was seriously planning to impose new controls in the next year or two? The obvious answer is that both the polluters and top administration officials know that Clear Skies is, figuratively and literally, a smokescreen.

Here's another reason: As long as new source review was in effect, the regulated industries had an interest in fundamental reform; a sensible cap-and- trade system could have both reduced pollution and increased profits. But now the polluters have gotten what they want; they would be hurt, not helped, by new restrictions. There's no longer any basis for a deal that clears the air.

Administration officials still insist, of course, that they plan to proceed with clean air measures. And it's possible that they will eventually do the right thing. But don't hold your breath waiting. In fact, it might be a good idea to breathe deeply now, while you still can.

 

[REDWAVE]

That Krugman

He is a smart fellow, isn't he?