Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Schwarzenegger pick for state EPA bashes Bush

By: - Associated Press

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) -- Just days after being chosen by Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger to lead the state's environmental protection agency, Terry Taminem spoke out against the Bush administration Thursday for failing to reduce greenhouse gases or prevent forest fires.
Tamminen, executive director of Environment Now in Santa Monica, said a federal decision earlier this year "undermines our ability to control greenhouse gases."

"We can't just stick our head in the sand, and pretend it doesn't exist," said Tamminen, in his first public remarks since his appointment was announced. He was referring to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's decision earlier this year not to regulate carbon dioxide, a contributor to global warming.

Tamminen's remarks came at a conference of the Bay Planning Coalition, which includes representatives from business and industry, environmental groups, unions and other associations.
He suggested that the Schwarzenegger administration could challenge several Bush administration environmental policies, including the EPA's ruling that the federal Clean Air Act doesn't apply to carbon dioxide.
Environmental groups have applauded the appointment of Tamminen but have criticized the appointment of James Branham, an executive at timber giant Pacific Lumber, as his deputy.
In the end, the administration will have "strange bedfellows," Tamminen said. "The governor listens to a lot of people, reads a lot of material and decides for himself."
Tamminen also criticized President Bush's so-called Healthy Forests Initiative. He said the policy fails to remove underbrush in the residential and wildlands interface where fires cause the most damage -- a view widely held by environmental groups.
Tamminen, 51, has worked as a sheep rancher in Wisconsin, real estate developer in Florida and pool contractor in Santa Monica. He met Schwarzenegger through Robert Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer in Washington D.C.

Well, finally something I have heard from the EPA that makes sense.--"the EPA's ruling that the federal Clean Air Act doesn't apply to carbon dioxide"

(I almost didn't vote for Bush because of a speech he gave where he mentioned CO2 as a problem and that it needed to be reduced. Don't people realize that every living thing produces CO2? Sure, plants consume it when they are making carbohydrates during growth, but it is all re-released when they are decomposed by bacteria, fires, or by animals that eat them!) It is made by bacteria, plants, animals, volcanoes, etc. When you consider how much CO2 insects and bacteria make, the production of it by all the people in the whole world (by factories, cars, breathing, etc.) doesn't even come close. Don't those same people realize that the more CO2 in the environment, the faster plants grow and the more CO2 (and heat) they remove from the environment? Don't those people also know that water vapor (clouds) is also a green house gas? How many environmentalists want to eliminate all the clouds? Or how about the hydrogen they want us to use in our cars? That is a green house gas also. And because it must be contained under high pressure in tanks, it is very susceptible to large amounts of leakage into the atmosphere. (It's a lot harder to contain gasses at high pressure than liquids at low or no pressure) Did you know there are a groups of scientists that think hydrogen will cause more "global warming" than fossil fuels do, due to the problems of producing it and containing it?

And to blame Bush for not doing anything to prevent the fires is total nonsense! He has been pushing for the "healthy forest" initiative for quite a while. The democrats have been stalling and fighting him every inch of the way! Anyone who has been following this knows that! Terry Taminem was appointed to the position because he is know as a left wing democrat. Schwarzenegger has really impressed me so far. He has been appointing both democrats and republicans to posts so that he can listen to both sides and decide which is the correct thing to do (instead of only getting democrats or only republicans and believing their rhetoric only, like most governors seem to do.)

It's also well known that Senator Dashell got a bill passed in his state (South Dakota I believe) that prevents all environmentalist suits in his state. He got it passed just before the last election, when the democrats lost the majority! But this same legislation is supported by republicans and not supported by democrats everywhere else! Isn't that ironic. Protect your own state and to h*** with everyone else in the nation!

Here in California, we have a "good" democrat Senator (Diane Feinstein) that has been fighting all the other democrats in the state to clean up our forests to prevent or reduce forest fires. While I disagree with her on a lot of issues, I totally respect here for doing the right thing even though it goes against her party. She has been pushing this bill for over a year. After the big fires in San Diego, the democrats that all opposed the bill for the past year, all immediately signed the bill. Now that the fires are over, and there have been some significant rains, the bill goes into a committee (to reconcile the state senate's and congress's position on it), and the same people that were originally blocking it, then for it during the fires, now won't even meet for the final vote! A couple of weeks ago, those same democrats were all bragging about how they were working hard and helping the forests and the state by supporting this important bill! It takes a disaster to get them to do what is right, and now that the disaster is over, it's back to their old ways!

Reminds me of the same thing they are doing to Bush's judicial nominees. At least when Clinton was in office, the republicans let the process play out instead of blocking it! The modern democrats moto-"If you have to play fair, don't play at all! or maybe it should be, "If I can't cheat, I won't play, and neither can you!"

Rodney

Rodney,

Its sorta funny to read your post taken from the Weekly Standard and then the next one where you bash the "liberal media". You do know about the Weekly Standard don't you?

And just to fill you in with some facts (I hope you can hear them over your hysteria)...The fires in souther california had nothing to do with Bush's "forest plan"

Feds Turned Down Request to Fight Beetle
Friday October 31, 2003 2:46 AM

By TOM CHORNEAU
Associated Press Writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Just as the Southern California wildfires were beginning late last week, the Bush administration quietly turned down a six-month-old emergency request by Gov. Gray Davis for help in removing dead and dying trees in the same forests now being consumed by flame.

In April, Davis asked for a federal emergency declaration in three counties where bark beetle infestation had left thousands of acres of dense woodland vulnerable to fire.

If approved, the presidential proclamation would have paved the way for millions of dollars in federal support for clearing dead trees in San Diego, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

``We made the request in the hope of making a horrific situation less serious and we were turned down,'' Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio said.

A spokesman for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which handled the Davis request, said it decided against the proposal largely because Congress had already agreed to provide $43 million this year for fighting the beetle infestation in Southern California and the sum seemed appropriate at the time.

But state officials say the money represented only a small part of the $450 million needed to clear the forest of dead trees and eliminate the fire danger.

State officials have estimated the fires - which have burned about 2,600 homes, blackened about 730,000 acres and killed at least 20 people - could take a $2 billion toll on California's economy.

After four years of drought, nearly a half-million acres of dense woodland in Southern California had become infested by the bark beetle. Local and state officials had warned that the forests were a disaster waiting to happen, and some have criticized Davis for not moving more aggressively to combat the problem.

In an April 16 letter to FEMA officials, Davis said, ``Supplementary federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health and foster safety.''

A response from the letter has still not been received by the governor's office, Maviglio said. The state was notified by the office of Rep. Mary Bono, R-Calif., last Friday that the request had been turned down.

The FEMA denial came a few days after the first of the major fires began to rage out of control in San Diego and San Bernardino counties.

Rodney,

I think I figured out why these little debates are so unrewarding.

You obviously are a true ideologue, you have no interest in trying to understand anything. You just jump on here with absurd accusations, a blind faith in what is apparently the only source of information available to you - right wing atlk radio. You believe everything you hear from the right wing entertainers whose only job is to keep the uniformed hanging on the line. Your being duped by these simpletons Rodney, and it makes you rather boring to discuss anything with.

For example. You said:

"Reminds me of the same thing they are doing to Bush's judicial nominees. At least when Clinton was in office, the republicans let the process play out instead of blocking it!"

Which is NOT something you know - it IS something you regurgitated from right wing radio. You actually don't have a clue about Clinton's judicial nominees or what happened to them, do you? But you get on here and pretend like you do, when in fact your just apeing something you heard on the radio - its pretty sad really. (Now run out and find a web site to copy and paste to show the depth and breadth of your understanding...)

When you get an education one of the first things they try to teach you is to look at the facts and think for yourself. You obviously haven't learned that. For you, facts are just weapons in your endless effort to defend yourself against your perceived enemies. You can't afford to try to understand any of these complex issues because to do so would upset your fragile world view.

You couldn't be more dogmatic (and boring) if you were the most fundamental of the fundamentalist muslims or christians.

Joe

First, under Clinton, there was a 50% majority needed to confirm a nominee. That rule was changed to a SUPER majority just prior to Bush being elected--the first time in history that it has needed more than 50% plus one. On top of that, all of Clinton's nominees were either turned down in committee or voted down. The 4 Bush nominees that haven't been confirmed, haven't been confirmed because the democrats have been blocking the vote! Not allowing a vote to take place is totally different from voting no on something.

Can you name one Clinton nominee that was stopped by the republicans refusing to vote on them for over a year?

Isn't it true that the Bush nominees were rated very highly by the bar association and most analysts agree they would very easily be confirmed because virtually all republicans would vote for them and a fair number of democrats would too?

Isn't it also true that Clinton's nominees were for appointments to high courts and most of Bush's that have been approved have been to lower courts? -percentage wise. (Thus the disparity in total numbers and percentages between the two.)

Is any of this false? If it is true, I don't care if it came from liberal or conservative media. I only care that it is true.

And, yes, I do listen to both liberal and conservative radio. I then use logic and references to deduce which one is telling the truth. I know that in every independent poll done, both the British and the Americans and the Iraqis approve, by a substantial majority, of the war on terror (Iraq) but that is never emphasized in the mass media, and rarely mentioned. (yes, the US polls now show only about 51% approval, but the British and Iraqi polls are still over 60% in approval). But the media only talks about the (minority) protesters and that tends to sway a number of proponents a bit. I also know that the UN estimated anywhere from 2,000 to 6,000 Iraqis were being killed every month by Saddam and that the UN, after going into Iraq, said that it was far worse than even they imagined when they saw so many people living in dumps and the mass graves of 300,000 but that is also very rarely mentioned, but every day you hear about one or two service men who have died. I have never seen one story in the media saying, "Today, the total Iraqi civilians that the war has saved from Saddam is at 30,000 and it only took 400 Americans to save them! By the end of the year, the Americans will have prevented the deaths of 40,000 Iraqi civilians." If you are going to say how many Americans have died, night after night on the news, to be fair you must look at the other side of the equation and say how many have been saved, even if it is an estimate based on Saddam's record in the past. You don't have to be an ideologue to open your eyes and see the big picture instead of just looking at small pieces that that try to prove your point of view. It's quite easy to see how only one side of an issue is covered and how the other side is ignored or just barely mentioned by the media, regardless of your political views. If you try to view the media from a liberal point of view, and then try to view it from a conservative point of view, it is very obvious that there is an extreme liberal slant to it.

Just like the trees and O2/CO2 controversy. If you look at a tree growing, it looks like it is doing something. If you look at its entire life cycle, you will see that it does not. I have never seen this fact talked about in the media, liberal or conservative. This idea comes from my love of science. The media will tell you about the O2/CO2 aspect in every environmental report they do, but they will ignore the decomposition aspect which totally negates the O2/CO2 aspect.

Just like the environmentalist groups. If you look at their brochures, they look great. If you look at the fact that they have been taken over by a bunch of lawyers who are making a killing off of their supporters and tax money, or how many of them also use the environment for their own gains, they don't look so great.

I know the weekly standard is a conservative publication. I never said it wasn't. Reading it brings balance to my reading of other newspapers or viewing the news on television. But that doesn't change the fact that the 16 page memo, and the 50 connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, or the fact that Congress knew about this report, or the fact that the liberals on the intelligence committee, who also knew about this connection, were ignoring it to try to bring down Bush by ignoring it, or..... aren't true. It's funny, but it seem like every time you confront someone who is on the liberal side of things with a fact, they start calling you biased! If you can disprove anything I have said, fine, show me. If it's a fact, don't call me biased just because I am telling the truth and most liberals do not. Telling the truth and giving facts only makes you look biased in the eyes of a liar or propagandist.

It sounds to me more like we are disagreeing because I try to listen to both sides and figure out which one is true or makes sense, and you are the ideologue because you only listen to sources on the left.

As for the fires issue, why should the state even ask the federal government for money to clean up a state problem? And why would the feds ever agree to giving the state this money? It's the state's responsibility, not the fed's! After all, it is the state that allowed the forests to get into the mess that they are, not the federal governments. States are supposed to manage their own forests! The state courts are the ones that the "environmentalists" filed all the suits under to stop the thinning and logging that was needed. State funds were paid to the environmental lawyers that filed these suits, not federal funds. And anyone who knows anything about this problem knows that it takes at least 2 years to get the forests healthy once you start thinning them. It's a lot of work that takes a lot of time. Trying to get some federal funds to solve a fire, as the fire is starting, is ludicrous. And to blame Bush because he should agree to pay for what the state of California is responsible for is just another case of Bush bashing, if look just slightly below the surface. If the state had asked for funds two year ago, and if the feds. were responsible to pay for it, (which they are not) then I could agree with the article you showed me. Unfortunately, that article also makes no sense to me when I reason it out. I'm sorry if reasoning things out makes me an ideologue in your eyes. In my eyes, it means I am not a sheep following blindly like the masses.

Guess what the Sierra Club and other environmental groups are now saying here? The fires were good for all the animals that it killed because healthy, stronger animals will now take their places after the forest recovers. What a bunch of hypocrites! They won't let someone remove a couple trees from an overcrowded forest because it affects all the animals and environment adversely, but total devastation from a huge intense fire is good for them! Guess what? I figured out that one all by myself, too!--no media, I didn't hear it on the radio or anything!

Rodney

Pulatus, I'm disappointed in you. You ignored Rodney's complete lack of scientific understanding. You really must learn to go for the jugular when dealing with fanatics. My comments are in BOLD.

Don't people realize that every living thing produces CO2? Sure, plants consume it when they are making carbohydrates during growth, but it is all re-released when they are decomposed by bacteria, fires, or by animals that eat them!) You forgot the billions of tons locked up in the ocean as the precipitate Calcium Carbonate, CaCO3. If it were all released by a massive deep sea volcanic event, we would suffocate. In fact, there are theories that the Permian extinction (the BIG One) was caused by CO2. It is made by bacteria, plants, animals, volcanoes, etc. When you consider how much CO2 insects and bacteria make As a waste product., the production of it by all the people in the whole world (by factories, cars, breathing, etc.) doesn't even come close. Don't those same people realize that the more CO2 in the environment, the faster plants grow and the more CO2 (and heat) they remove from the environment? This is true provided we stop cutting down all of the trees. Don't those people also know that water vapor (clouds) is also a green house gas? Water vapor does contribute to the greenhouse effect but it is not a greenhouse gas. How many environmentalists want to eliminate all the clouds? Not one has made this claim. Or how about the hydrogen they want us to use in our cars? That is a green house gas also. Wrong again. Greenhouse Gas List
And because it must be contained under high pressure in tanks, it is very susceptible to large amounts of leakage into the atmosphere. Your point, considering it's not toxic? (It's a lot harder to contain gasses at high pressure than liquids at low or no pressure). Well, duh. Again, point? Did you know there are a groups of scientists that think hydrogen will cause more "global warming" than fossil fuels do, due to the problems of producing it and containing it? Let's see the literature on this claim. Making H must be harder than I recall from basic Chemistry.

And to blame Bush for not doing anything to prevent the fires is total nonsense! He has been pushing for the "healthy forest" initiative for quite a while. The democrats have been stalling and fighting him every inch of the way! Anyone who has been following this knows that! Yes this is completely true because the bill would allow logging in old growth forests which don't burn like new secondary growth forests. It's just a concession to the logging industry. Terry Taminem was appointed to the position because he is know as a left wing democrat. Yawn... name calling again. For clarity, please define left-wing and don't skip the details. Schwarzenegger has really impressed me so far. Really? Which movie? I liked T2 best. He has been appointing both democrats and republicans to posts so that he can listen to both sides and decide which is the correct thing to do (instead of only getting democrats or only republicans and believing their rhetoric only, like most governors seem to do.) Funny you should mention this - Will Gov. Schwarzenegger be green?

It's also well known that Senator Dashell got a bill passed in his state (South Dakota I believe) You "believe" a so called "well known" fact? Weak. Real weak. Post your source or don't bring it up. that prevents all environmentalist suits in his state. He got it passed just before the last election, when the democrats lost the majority! But this same legislation is supported by republicans and not supported by democrats everywhere else! Isn't that ironic. Protect your own state and to h*** with everyone else in the nation!

Here in California, we have a "good" democrat Senator (Diane Feinstein) that has been fighting all the other democrats in the state to clean up our forests to prevent or reduce forest fires. You mean cut them all down so there's nothing left to burn, right? While I disagree with her on a lot of issues, I totally respect here for doing the right thing even though it goes against her party. Herein lies your point of agreement - her disagreement with the Democratic Party

Rodney, were it not for the fact that your poorly contrived views amuse me, I would say you have no real use at all. Cut back on the time you waste listening to The O'Reilly Factor and develop a mind of your own.
-----
Who is like Set...

1.1 Vietnamese Blue Beauties
2.0 Taiwan Beauties
2.3 Cave Beauties
0.1 Bull Snake
1.0.0 Argentine Blk & Wht Tegu
2.5 Box Turtles

you said that "Water vapor does contribute to the greenhouse effect but it is not a greenhouse gas"

If there is a gas that causes the green house effect, exactly like both you and I have said, why is it not a green house gas? Isn't the definition of a green house gas, a gas that causes the greenhouse effect?

The only reason I see not to list it as such, is because it is politically incorrect to list it or any other gasses, (like hydrogen) because the environmentalist only consider gasses that are produced by man(evil) as green house gasses and any common, naturally occurring gasses that do the same thing are not on that list, again for politically correct reasons, and to produce law suits. If you are an "environmental" group, you can sue a company that produces some gas you consider evil, but you can't sue nature.

I'll get back to you on the references on some of the other points. I have to go take care of a bunch of my animals first. (I assure you, I can find the references on them, I haven't posted anything that I can't prove, as far as I am aware).

Rodney

Here is a short excerpt, and the URL it came from. Interesting, it basically prevents all lawsuits from environmentalists regarding logging and clearing in his home state, and if you read the whole article, it clearly shows how many other states wanted this provision but couldn't get it! And how it is basically the same thing as Bush's healty Forest Initiative that he doesn't support for anyone else.

That is considerably more leeway than Senator Tom
Daschle allowed prospective dissenters when inserting
"Secton 706" into a sure-to-pass supplementary defense
appropriations bill in July. That proviso absolutely
curtailed all judicial review of forest cleanup
dispositions it made. But it only applied to a section
of national forest in Daschle's home state, South
Dakota. Hearing of it, western states' senators and
other public officials demanded equivalent
consideration for their own flaming woodlands. The
Healthy Forests Initiative, a version of a
long-under-development plan proposed by the Western
Governors' Association and submitted to Congress in
various versions, without results, in previous years,
was the upshot of those demands.

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/Sept_2002/senate_democrats.htm

Rodney

Two questions Rodney,

What do you know about the Providents News Service? (Where your story came from)

Did you actually read the quote you posted?
It doesn't support your initial assertion.

Your a funny guy...

Joe

What's interesting is that the "sure-to-pass supplementary defense appropriations bill" isn't cited! How's THAT for journalistic integrity???? And what would forest cleanup be doing on a defense bill?

And since WHEN has a defense appropriations bill (even a PRIMARY one, much less a supplementary one!) been "sure-to-pass". Whenever the topic of defense comes up, legislators start digging foxholes!

Finally, NO LAW can curtail judicial review. Such a thing would be unconstituational. Of course, that would be a double-edged sword, since who would find it unconstitutional if the judicial branch cannot review it? 'Tis such an enigma wrapped in a riddle blah blah blah....

I'm tired of you now

You, AND YOUR SOURCE, just simply like to make things up!

first, you said, "And since WHEN has a defense appropriations bill (even a PRIMARY one, much less a supplementary one!) been "sure-to-pass". Whenever the topic of defense comes up, legislators start digging foxholes!

Ever heard of 9/11? That's since WHEN a defense appropriations bill has been sure to pass. 9/11 and the war on terror is a big deal if you haven't noticed! Virtually everyone, including the democrats in congress, in the nation was supporting this until the liberal media was able to sway a few weak minds.

As for the reference, are you not able to use a search engine yourself? There are many articles about what Daschell has done. And you could easily find the appropriations bill and read it yourself. I gave you a pretty good starting point to investigate it if you were interested in the truth.

And since when can't the Federal government regulate what can and can't be litigated in State courts?

If you can't look things up for yourself, you are just plain lazy. Don't ask me to do it for you! Besides, any more facts that I dig up you will just say were made up. Maybe if you find them yourself, you won't be so quick to make that accusation!

Rodney