Brad,

>>Well Jim, you are really good at pointing out problems. Maybe you should set your mind to solutions?

Solutions yes, I’m all for them but, what “they” plan on doing is not THE solution. This is no longer about the environment or animal conservation…Their original tenents have long since been absorbed into the agenda collective. It’s now about the money and the power of control. From reading your posts, it is clear that you obviously read the newspapers and watch the television news…And nothing else. I’ve worked in the environmental field since 1982 and while I do not consider myself an expert, I believe I have an informed opinion. Also, if you read my posts carefully, you’d have seen that the solution is: until “they” have a demonstrable, usable (on a national scale), inexpensive means of providing energy for the country, we should do NONE of what they are recommending. I know that this goes against the grain with you but, which century do you want to live and work in? Everything that is recommended in “their” plan is a regression in our economy, way of life and our own freedom. OK, I know where you stand and I’m cool with that…No worries.

>>Cap and trade is aimed at putting the most powerful solution-MONEY-to work for clean energy. Once in place, and once the true cost (in health and environmental degradation) of fossil fuels is reflect in their price, then the switch to cleaner energy sources will be automatic and swift.

How much are you willing to pay for the energy for your home? Obviously what you are currently paying is not enough and you would rather pay more for your energy than you are already paying to switch energy sources (along with EVERYBODY else). Man, you must be very well off my friend. Also, it is clear to me that you do very little research about this stuff and you have obviously have not read the “cap and trade” legislation. You also did not read any of the other information either as if you did, you’d have seen that ALL of this is designed to create a new market…A market in trading carbon credits. A market that will make millionaires out the new wealthy class of ECO-ites and make billions for mutual and hedge fund marketeers (these are some of the supporters of cap and trade)…All at our expense. None of what “they” are selling has much to do at all with cleaning up or protecting the environment. Finally what ever it is that you do read or listen to, you keep on believing it and you’ll remain in bliss…For the moment, we live in a free country…No worries.

>>You can always find reasons to not do something new. But I've been on this planet now a half-century, and I have seen with my own eyes the great good that environmental regulations have done in this country. These things are not always apparent over the short term. For example:

I did not suggest not trying something new Brad, rather I suggested waiting until the “new” is proven that it can work BEFORE we implement it on a national scale. All of the ideas (solar, wind, plasma, etc) have demonstrated that they are only ready for very limited applications or still in the laboratory. Read what I said…No worries.

>>The White River, near where I grew up in Indiana, is now a great place for kids to go fishing and wading, thanks to the Clean Water Act. When I was a child-no fish at all, and we were not allowed to go near the White, it was THAT toxic! This success was repeated countless times throughout North America. Remember the "river that caught fire, the Cuyahoga in Cleveland? Well, that river is so clean now that it sports runs of salmon and steelhead! That is something to be proud of.

>>Thanks to the Clean Air Act, lead levels and sulfur dioxide have been reduced to trace amounts-when I was young these substances were causing a variety of health problems, especially in Urban areas. Also, Acid rain has been substantially reduced, to the point that life is returning to many high-altitude lakes.

I agree but that was then and industries were doing what they were permitted (or lobbied congress to pass public laws that were promulgated into regulation) to do and it was an environmental disaster…Which was corrected by scientific research that resulted in a change in the way things were done…For the better of us all and the places where we live, work and play. Also while this was happening, we the people paid a price with chronic diseases that resulted in numerous lawsuits (justifiable) that forced ALL of us to pay for their errors in judgment – Industries do not pay, we do as consumers with the embedded “costs” with higher prices. I’ve been on some of these site clean-ups myself…But as I stated earlier, that was then.

>>Endangered species like the eastern peregrine falcon, whooping crane, California condor (there were only a couple dozen individuals of these three left) and even bald eagle were literally on the brink of extinction-all exist now in multiple, safe populations, thanks to the ESA.

Yes, these are a few (along with the American Alligator) success stories of the ESA but these are far and few between…In fact, according to Table 4a of the “Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures” report by the USFWS, FY-2007, they spent a total of $1,663,370,090 (both federal and states) tax dollars on “Species and land expenditures, including other ESA expenses and foreign species” – note that not ALL of the US tax dollars were spent in the US (foreign species). Of this amount, $1,537,283,091 was spent on the animals (species) and $126,085,909 on land expenditures. Now compare the 2007 expenditure with total expenditure from 1989 which was $43,724,800. In just 18 years, the expenditures from this SINGLE program went from $43 million to $1.66 BILLION!

So what are the results of the ESA program in saving “listed” species? Well, in 1989, there were 554 “listed” species and by 2001, there were 1,114 “listed” species (an increase of 560 species in 12 years). Between 2001 and 2007 (six years), there was a decrease from 1,114 to 986 (decrease of 128). Well, on the face of things, it would appear as though the “trend” is towards success but, the devil is in the details as most of the animals “delisted” were for “other” reasons that included non-intentional but faulty data (there were actually more animals than originally “estimated” and therefore removed from the “list”). Now depending on the source (there are several), the reality is that between 1-3% have actually been “delisted” (removed) when once “listed” as a RESULT of the ESA.

Now consider the following expenditure data (all from the Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures” reports…

2007=$1.66 billion
2006=$1.70 billion
2005=$1.46 billion
2004=No Data (cannot find)
2003=$1.20 billion
2002=$1.19 billion
2001=$2.44 billion
2000=$0.61 billion
1999=$0.51 billion
1998=$0.45 billion
1997=$0.30 billion
1996=$0.29 billion
1995=$0.29 billion
1994=$0.24 billion
1993=$0.22 billion
1992=$0.29 billion
1991=$0.17 billion
1990=$0.10 billion
1989=$0.04 billion

The 18 year expenditure total of the ESA is $13.16 BILLION dollars. And for this money, the ESA has “delisted” between 1-3% of “listed” animal species in BOTH the US and internationally. What an absolutely stunning level of achievement for a government program! Brad, this is just ONE example of style (propaganda) over actual substance (results) by our government! There are many, many others Brad…As another example, why don’t you research the Brown Tree Snake Eradication and Control Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-384) and The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 (Public Law 108-136) amended Section 101(g) of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a(g))…How long have ALL of the government’s scientists and experts been working on that problem on the island of Guam?

If you read Public Law 108-384, note the following data…

How much money is being delegated to the actual eradication of the Brown Tree Snake versus the total amount appropriated in the law (hint: it ain’t much)?

How much money is going to the “infrastructure” (local economy) and which government agencies get the rest of the money?

If you read Public Law 108-136, note that in addition to PL 108-384, the Department of Defense was working on the eradication and control problem on the island of Guam…How much did they spend on this problem?

Here are some links to help…

http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/laws/108/publ384.108.pdf
http://www.afpmb.org/docs/bts/TAB%20B%20BTS%20REPORT%20TO%20CONGRESS%20Aug%20FINAL.pdf
http://www.fort.usgs.gov/resources/education/bts/resources/pdf/Colvin2005BrownTreesnakeReviewPanelReport.pdf

The point here is that at some point in time, a shift occurred where the animal became the source of tax payer money for programs rather than successfully bringing an animal (or plant) species back from the brink…After all, if the animals are all off of the “list”, it’s kind of hard to justify more money before a congressional committee. They are using the animals as a propaganda banner to preserve (eagle or condor) or eradicate (brown tree snake or python) an animal species but a 1-3% success rate indicates an abysmal result…Both for the “listed” animal species and the American tax payer.

>>Now we're supposed to believe that we should go on like we always have because change would be "too hard"??? Well, you can stuff it.

Ahhh yes, the politics of change…Amazing results so far I must say but, no worries as I’ll just “stuff it”…

Later,
Jim.

-----
CSRAJim

[ Show Entire Thread ]