Crimes Against Nature

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Crimes Against Nature
23
Tue, 12-23-2003 - 2:14pm
If you care about the environment this is a must read article. It is too long to post here so I just included a few paragraphs.


Bush is sabotaging the laws that have protected America's environment for more than thirty years

By Robert F. Kennedy Jr

George W. Bush will go down in history as America's worst environmental president. In a ferocious three-year attack, the Bush administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws, weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public lands and wildlife. Cloaked in meticulously crafted language designed to deceive the public, the administration intends to eliminate the nation's most important environmental laws by the end of the year. Under the guidance of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the Bush White House has actively hidden its anti-environmental program behind deceptive rhetoric, telegenic spokespeople, secrecy and the intimidation of scientists and bureaucrats. The Bush attack was not entirely unexpected. George W. Bush had the grimmest environmental record of any governor during his tenure in Texas. Texas became number one in air and water pollution and in the release of toxic chemicals. In his six years in Austin, he championed a short-term pollution-based prosperity, which enriched his political contributors and corporate cronies by lowering the quality of life for everyone else. Now President Bush is set to do the same to America. After three years, his policies are already bearing fruit, diminishing standards of living for millions of Americans.

_________________________

In a March 2003 memo to Republican leadership, pollster Frank Luntz frankly outlined the White House strategy on energy and the environment: "The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general and President Bush in particular are most vulnerable," he wrote, cautioning that the public views Republicans as being "in the pockets of corporate fat cats who rub their hands together and chuckle maniacally as they plot to pollute America for fun and profit." Luntz warned, "Not only do we risk losing the swing vote, but our suburban female base could abandon us as well." He recommended that Republicans don the sheep's clothing of environmental rhetoric while dismantling environmental laws.

__________________________

After one meeting with Enron CEO Kenneth Lay, Cheney dismissed California Gov. Gray Davis' request to cap the state's energy prices. That denial would enrich Enron and nearly bankrupt California. It has since emerged that the state's energy crisis was largely engineered by Enron. According to the New York Times, the task-force staff circulated a memo that suggested "utilizing" the crisis to justify expanded oil and gas drilling. President Bush and others would cite the California crisis to call for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

_________________________

Although congress will have its final vote on the plan in November, the White House has already devised ways to implement most of its worst provisions without congressional interference. In October 2001, the administration removed the Interior Department's power to veto mining permits, even if the mining would cause "substantial and irreparable harm" to the environment. That December, Bush and congressional Republicans passed an "economic-stimulus package" that proposed $2.4 billion worth of tax breaks, credits and loopholes for Chevron, Texaco, Enron and General Electric. The following February, the White House announced it would abandon regulations for three major pollutants -- mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

___________________

Growing up, I was taught that communism leads to dictatorship and capitalism to democracy. But as we've seen from the the Bush administration, the latter proposition does not always hold. While free markets tend to democratize a society, unfettered capitalism leads invariably to corporate control of government.

http://www.rollingstone.com/features/nationalaffairs/featuregen.asp?pid=2154

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Fri, 01-02-2004 - 4:05pm
Thank you.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Fri, 01-02-2004 - 5:00pm
I realize that, I was speaking about my part.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 01-05-2004 - 11:09am
I read the New Republic article you posted and found it to be a pretty weak response to a very strong article (Kennedy's Roling Stone piece.) The fact that Adler found about five arguable points in a ten page, fact dense and very damning piece only strengthens Kennedy's writing in my mind. Some of Adler's points are so slim as to boil down to mere grammer (repealed...would repeal...Kennedy clearly states that the vote wasn't until November and built a strong case that the administration was working around the law anyway, setting its policies in motion without waiting for legislation). And if, as he claims, Kennedy makes hundreds of errors, why does he correct so few so weakly? Maybe he had better re-read Luntz's memo.

As far as New Source Review, conservatives are claiming the matter is finally settled (and I agree that the energy industry needs to have the ground rules nailed down so they can have some certainty in planning and running their business) but environmentalists point to the gaping loopholes kindly left open by Bush Administration policies for the coal industry. I've been reading alot about this and it seems one side says there are firm caps on how much pollution a plant can emit, and the other side says the ways around these caps are so numerous as to be ineffective. I can't seem to get past the "he said, she said" thing here, so if you have any facts about NSR and increased emissions, please post them. Here's a press release that argues there are massive loopholes.

http://www.cleanenergy.org/pressroom/June13NSRrelease.html

I'll post more on this later, gotta go.

Pages