Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.

Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You
Click for ZooMed
Click here to visit Classifieds

the environment!

pulatus Oct 24, 2003 08:50 AM

If you care at all about the environment in this country it is important that you vote in next fall's elections. The below is just one example of the irreperable damage this administration is responsible for. This is the time to get involved!

Joe
================

EPA Biologist Resigns in Protest of Wetlands Study

WASHINGTON, DC, October 23, 2003 (ENS) - A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) biologist has resigned in protest of the agency's acceptance of a controversial study that concludes wetlands discharge more pollutants than they absorb, according to a statement released Wednesday by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
The EPA's approval of the study gives developers credit for improving water quality by replacing natural wetlands with golf courses and other developments, PEER says.

"In the Bush administration's bizarre world of 'sound science,' wetlands cause pollution and there is no evidence of global warming," said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "EPA's new position that wetlands pollute stands the Clean Water Act on its head and sends the all clear signal to developers that no project is out of bounds."

The report was financed by a group of local developers in Southwest Florida. It concludes that wetlands generate pollution and recommends that developers be allowed to avoid federal wetlands restrictions by allowing a few cattle to graze in the wetland so it can classified as "improved pasture."

The agency's acceptance of the report was too much for Bruce Boler, a former state water quality specialist to take - he resigned after three years with the EPA.

In his resignation statement, Boler cited the stance taken by the EPA Regional Administrator Jimmie Palmer that the agency "would not oppose state positions, so if a state had no water quality problems with a project then neither would EPA."

The state of Florida has already signed off on the controversial wetlands report.

"Ultimately, the politics in southwest Florida have proven to be stronger than the science," Boler wrote in his resignation letter.

Replies (22)

chris_mcmartin Oct 24, 2003 01:05 PM

>>If you care at all about the environment in this country it is important that you vote in next fall's elections.

Yep, I care about the environment and I will vote for Bush. If you're reducing a campaign to a single issue (albeit an important one, but not from a political standpoint), you're going to get blindsided by the rest of the planks in the platforms.

The below is just one example of the irreperable damage this administration is responsible for. This is the time to get involved!

Very little factual content in the "article" which was a thinly-disguised editorial by a group with an obvious agenda. It's as if they think (or more accurately, parrot without thinking) "Republicans don't care about the environment but Democrats do."
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

pulatus Oct 24, 2003 02:20 PM

Environmental groups agree that Bush has done more damage to our natural heritage and environment than any president in recent history. If you care even a tiny bit about the world we leave our kids, you'll work hard to get him out of the Whitehouse.

Joe

thebronze Oct 24, 2003 07:58 PM

Its not his fault he's a Texan!
But seriously Bush has been bad news ever since
he failed to ratify the Kyoto pact saying it was unfair
to big business' and might result in job loss.
I also remember him saying mercury levels in tap water
are not worth examining. Only now they are finding that
its unsafe to eat large quantities of fish due to the cancer
risk from the increased mercury levels. I hate to bash the guy, the australians did a good enough job.

shadowman_1_ca Oct 27, 2003 03:16 PM

The Kyoto agreement which is aimed to cut greenhouse gases is a double edged sword. The Mickey Mouse action does little to reduce the world's greenhouse gas emisions and if the big polluters in developing nations such as China are exempt from it. Canada (which has signed it) only contributes 2% to the global greenhouse gases and by signing, it will ultimately hurt our economy by slowing down industrial production to comply with the Kyoto's standards. Why did we sign? Because our Eastern prime minister is an idiot and has no idea the ramifications it will have on the western oil producing part of the country.
Bush is an oil man plain and simple. He backed out of the agreement because it doesn't make buisiness sense. Untill you get the likes of him and other large green house gas emitting countries to get on board Canada's contribution and other small populated counries won't contribute sweet F--- all.

chuckelliott Nov 02, 2003 10:24 AM

Kyoto would have been a disaster, Most enviromental groups are leftist bordering on communist and there are as many reputible scientist who refute global warming. Bush is demonized because he's a capitalist. poeple who own private property should be allowed to develop it. If you don't believe that then move out of your house and live in the wild off the land so your position will have some integrity!

Ps, my suv puts out less emmissions than a Yugo and the hypocritical Sierra club has a fleet of chevy suburbans!!

Chuck
An over-taxed capitalist American with children.

chuckelliott Nov 02, 2003 10:29 AM

The ocean leaks more oil daily than all tanker crashes combined and Prince William sound produces perfectly today and has since the year after the exxon V. crash.

Some of you reading this who doubt what I say should read; "Trashing the planet" and "Global Greening" both dispel the myths of the planet being killed -off by human activities.
Chuck

Fundad Oct 24, 2003 01:06 PM

And please include your conclusion on why you think the Bush administration is responsilbe for the EPA's decision.

Please post source...... for any information you give.........

This way we can all see the truth..

thanks
Fundad

pulatus Oct 25, 2003 07:11 AM

The below summary if an overview of a very detailed explanation of the Bush environmental record from the NRDC. The details are available at:

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressReleases/030116.asp

If you care even a little bit about our natural heritage, please help get out the environmental vote next Novemeber - your kids and grandkids will thank you!

========================
New Report Documents the Bush Administration's Sweeping Assault on the Environment
NRDC Says White House "Rewriting Rules" for Industry

WASHINGTON (January 16, 2003) -- For the second year in a row, the Bush administration undermined America's landmark environmental laws, as federal agencies announced -- on almost a daily basis -- regulatory changes to weaken safeguards for our air, water, forests, wildlands, wetlands, wildlife, and public health. That was the principle finding of a new report by NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), which details more than 100 anti-environmental actions over the past year and highlights the fact that the administration intensified its assault after the November mid-term congressional elections.

"Last year, the White House escalated its efforts to weaken or roll back our bedrock environmental laws," said Gregory Wetstone, NRDC's director of advocacy. "And it's going to get worse. America's environmental protections have been challenged before, but never have they faced a threat as far-reaching, insidious and destructive as one posed by the Bush administration and the new Congress."

The report, Rewriting the Rules, Year-End Report 2002: The Bush Administration's Assault on the Environment, shows that the White House has enlisted every federal agency that oversees environmental programs in a coordinated effort to relax regulations for oil, coal, logging, mining, chemical, automakers, and other industries. The report also shows how the White House Office of Management and Budget played a central role in coordinating this onslaught.

Additionally, the report found that the administration, emboldened by the results of the November elections, accelerated its efforts to make major policy changes that benefit industry at the expense of the environment and public health. Some of the most glaring examples documented in the report include:

* Changes to the Clean Air Act by the Environmental Protection Agency that provide the nation's oldest and dirtiest power plants and refineries with loopholes exempting them from installing modern pollution controls when they upgrade or expand their facilities in ways that increase emissions.
* New EPA and Army Corps of Engineers policies to relax and, in some cases, end Clean Water Act protection for millions of acres of wetlands and other waterways; eliminate corporate liability for "factory farm" pollution; and exempt mining waste from regulation as a pollutant under federal law.
* A series of proposals by the Forest Service and other federal agencies to eliminate requirements for environmental review and public participation when considering logging, mining, drilling, development and other projects in all 155 national forests and on millions of acres of public lands.

"It's no accident some of the Bush administration's biggest handouts to corporate interests happened after Election Day," said Wetstone. "Americans voted for many things in November, but they didn't vote for a sweeping attack on the environment."

The report also notes how the Bush administration routinely tries to minimize public scrutiny of its anti-environmental policies by withholding information from the media until late on Friday evenings or around major holidays. For example, the EPA announced its major changes to the Clean Air Act a few days after Thanksgiving and on New Year's Eve. The administration also uses environmentally friendly euphemisms to mask the true intent and impact of its policy proposals. For example, the White House dubbed its plan to allow timber companies increased access to old-growth forests -- under the guise of fire prevention -- the "Healthy Forests" initiative, and refers to logging as "thinning."

"America's landmark environmental laws have safeguarded our health, improved our quality of life, and preserved our natural heritage," said Wetstone. "The Bush administration's quiet, back-door assault on environmental protections is no less an attack on the air we breathe, the water we drink and the last remaining special places we hold dear."

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, non-profit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 500,000 members nationwide, served from offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

chris_mcmartin Oct 25, 2003 07:35 AM

>>The below summary if an overview of a very detailed explanation of the Bush environmental record from the NRDC. The details are available at:

Again, PLEASE consider the sources you're quoting--these are not journalistic sites but rather, biased political groups with an agenda.

The article you quote states NRDC has 500,000 members; their "about us" portion of their sites says they have over a million. If they can't even get a fact about their own organization straight, I don't know how much faith I'd put in any of the other material they produce.

Web Sites like the NRDC one are designed to "make mountains out of molehills," i.e. use scare tactics and alarmist information by reading into events the worst-possible outcome. Don't worry--conservative sites do the same thing. That's why it's important to take EVERYTHING you read with a grain of salt.
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

pulatus Oct 25, 2003 12:20 PM

Check their web site. They have a point by point, factual listing of the actual actions of the Bush administration related to the environment. Its pretty scary.

I did a little research to find out what conservatives are saying about the Bush environmental record - even the CATO Institute says its nothing to crow about - and that says reams coming from them!

There is simply no way to defend Bush's unprecidented environmental distruction. We will see the damage long after he is voted out of office next November.

Joe

chris_mcmartin Oct 25, 2003 07:02 PM

>>Check their web site. They have a point by point, factual listing of the actual actions of the Bush administration related to the environment. Its pretty scary.

Again, I must reiterate that it's partisan politics as the agenda, and not necessarily bona fide concern for the environment. Why won't they lambaste Clinton's environmental record? Was it in fact rosy compared to Bush? No:

By failing to address affluence as a problem, Clinton not only limited his own agenda but failed to set meaningful strictures for future policy. For example, many of us now fear that President Bush will open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration, despite its protection under federal law. But how surprised should we really be? Clinton's commitment to economic growth, like those of all his predecessors, was premised on greater energy use and, since the industrial revolution, this has meant burning more fossil fuel. Had Clinton taken a strong stand against fossil fuels and begun the necessary transition to an alternative fuel-based economy or addressed the ecological problems of an ever-growing economy, Bush's threats would seem grossly out of step. To many Americans, however, they are clearly in line with our historical orientation toward energy and, aside from heartfelt concerns about caribou, bear, and stunning landscapes, have a certain common sense behind them.

Clinton toyed with the idea of moving beyond fossil fuels very early in his administration when he proposed raising the price of oil, coal, and natural gas through a BTU tax (based on measuring energy in British thermal units). This would have reduced energy consumption and spurred investment in alternative fuels. Like many of his retreats, however, Clinton rescinded the proposal after critics complained that it would cripple the economy. To show that Clinton got the criticism, he twice offered to open-up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to keep gas prices down. (He did this shamefully during the 1996 presidential election to boost his own chances at the voting booth and during the 2000 election as a campaign gift to Gore.) Clinton's attempt to keep the economy growing by subsidizing oil reveals how difficult it is for even a progressive president to tackle those structures that feed ecological degradation. Clinton never really questioned the hierarchy of social goods as he inherited it, and his actions ended up wedding us closer to fossil fuels and the religion of consumerism and economic growth.

This is from www.tikkun.org, whom I know nothing about, but a 10-second Google search on "clinton environmental" yielded this among many others.

Hardly a glowing report--it basically comes down to the fact that in general, politicians aren't in it for the greater good, no matter what they say; be it social or environmental concerns. They're in it to get in office, and stay in office.

If one is so concerned about the environment, go out and DO something like clean up a stream or a park; don't just send money to groups of dubious intent or show up at a protest.

Vote with your dollars: what if a corporation made a product at the expense of environmental concern, and no one bought it? Government isn't to blame. We can blame only ourselves for being too lazy to shop around for "environmentally conscious" goods.

-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

pulatus Oct 25, 2003 09:33 PM

Chris,

I hope you didn't think your post actually showed us anything. The article you quoted also said,

" Clinton's commitment to economic prosperity blinded him to other issues, including environmental protection. Yes, he preserved much land, cleaned many brownfields, and set stronger standards for air and water quality. Furthermore, he understood the scope and challenge of global environmental problems. For all of this, we should be thankful. But he pursued his environmental agenda under the more immediate one of economic prosperity, and this limited his achievements."

Do you want to re-read that? Go ahead...I'll wait....OK? They list a number of important steps Clinton took to protect the environment, they say how he *understood* the environment - even the global environmental problems, then they add he could have done even more if he wasn't also very concerned about economic issues!

No one will *ever* say anything even vaguely similar about George W. Bush. He obviously knows very little about the environment, and apparently even less about economic issues.

And seriously Chris, you're quoting a web site that even you don't know. Thats pretty seriously flawed. I quoted NASA and the Natural Resources Defense Council - highly regarded institutions to say the least.

As other have, you have made assertions that you apparently can't support. The fact is, Bush has been more destructive to the environment and our natural heritage than possibly any man in recent history. Now if you want to ignore that fact and vote for him for your own personal reasons, feel free to do so. But to continue to pretend that he is about like other presidents, and that the environmental concerns are unfounded is disingenuous.

Joe

chris_mcmartin Oct 25, 2003 10:55 PM

.
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

beazalbob Oct 26, 2003 07:05 PM

I have to agree with Pulatus. I have read some very scary things that the Bush Administration are doing behind the voting publics back and trying their hardest to keep out of the papers. Bush is a businessman and most if not all businessmen only care about filling their pockets and nothing else. The enviornment is just a resource for them to exploit. Just look at how badly polluted parts of Texas are what makes you think he would treat the rest of the country any differently? I live in Florida and the rate that wetlands and oldgrowth forest are being bulldozed for development is sickening. Do you think the people responsible for this destruction care about all of the wildlife they are destroying? No I dont think so it's all about money. Well I will get off my soapbox now. Just my 2 cents.

chuckelliott Nov 02, 2003 10:52 AM

Knock down your would house and make the land a refuge!
Chuck

chuckelliott Nov 02, 2003 10:43 AM

Once again I'll point to the fires! thin the forrest and the enviroment will be better in the long run. Clinton started that backward "wilderness protection" crap!

Chuck

chuckelliott Nov 02, 2003 10:41 AM

Its much easier to scare the sheeple than to train (educate) them!
Chuck

chuckelliott Nov 02, 2003 10:39 AM

If the Wonderfull Clinton Admin. would have allowed people to cut and manage the forrest and clear dead lumber, California probably would have had are far better chance at getting these fires out much faster. The wonderful friend of the Enviroment; gray Davis had 2 (two) c-130 tankers (water bombers) sitting at an airbase the whole time during the fires. Why would a great left-wing pro-enviroment guy like him not want to protect the forrest and all the bunnies? (oh, and the polluting evil people who live in them.)

Just some thoughts,
Chuck

jpenney Oct 26, 2003 12:50 PM

Joe,
I won't indulge in your long winded (all be it someone else's) political babbling. That is not the purpose of this forum. You have posted your propaganda on more than one forum trying to incite reaction. Hopefully the forum moderators here see fit to delete your message.
Cheerfully,
Jason Penney
-----
Snakes of Hudspeth County, Texas

flynryan Oct 29, 2003 11:06 PM

This is a good example of why I chose to herp alone. I couldn't stand driving around in my gas guzzling 4x4 SUV for 3 or 4 hours listening to some idiot enviromentalist. A lot of good conservative republicans like to hunt, fish, herp and generally enjoy and wish to protect the enviroment but also understand humans need to live and make a living as well. Here in California the enviromentalist lobby to stop offshore drilling because it is ugly, it leaks oil, it can hurt the wild life. I've even heard some in Santa Barbara claim that the oil that washes ashore on the beach is because of the oil drilling. The truth is the oil naturally seeps into from the ocean floor and drilling the oil actually reduces the seepage. It is just another example of the self important over educated morons from the left. Just like Hillary Clinton claiming that a warm day in Miami is evidence of global warming. Get you [bleep] together or just move over to france.

chuckelliott Nov 02, 2003 10:50 AM

Touche'

Well said!

Chuck

chuckelliott Nov 02, 2003 10:51 AM

And we have snow here in salt Lake city on Halloween!

Site Tools