What do you think about this....

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
What do you think about this....
23
Sat, 10-30-2004 - 2:54pm
I realize some of you don't feel the environment is an important issue, but please read this information that I posted earlier.....does this change your mind just a little? BTW....the Dr who wrote this is **NOT** affiliated with either party.

***Some information that was sent to me by a very respected Dr in NY regarding the environment, I encourage you to read;***



"Again and again, this administration has done everything and more

> to roll back major environmental protections in favor of whatever

> de-regulations accommodate big business, especially the major energy

> companies. This is directly harming us and wasting our valuable natural

> resources.

One quick example: there are approximately 1,100 coal burning plants in

> this country that are operating illegally by spewing out excessive

> levels of major pollutants (mercury, co2, particulate, etc.). The EPA

> estimated that the 70 worst offenders were directly responsible for the

> annual death of approximately 5,000 Americans each year. One in four

> African-American children have asthma, greatly irritated by this

> pollution. One in six pregnant women have mercury levels that would

> result in permanent cognitive impairment to their child (a 5-6 point IQ

> drop). All states have at least some fish that people are advised never

> to consume due to mercury toxicity. Under Clinton these 70 companies

> were being sued by the government to upgrade and adhere to the Clean Air

> Act. During his run for president, Bush was given over $43 million by

> these 70 companies for his campaign financing. Three days after being in

> office, Bush ordered the EPA and the justice department to drop the

> cases against these coal companies. On top of that, Bush is pushing

> forward a policy that will allow all 1,100 companies to upgrade their

> facilities without meeting current pollution standards. Shocking. And

> the most horrific thing about this is that it is just the tip of the

> iceberg. Bush has implemented over 200 major rollbacks of environmental

> law and protection. This example is just one."






Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Sat, 10-30-2004 - 10:17pm
One problem that we do have is pollution from other contries affecting the US as well.
Avatar for mom2noodles
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 10-30-2004 - 10:26pm
I think all of the issues that you bring up are relevant, but it is still horrifying how much ground we have lost in terms of protecting the environment in the past 4 years.

Carrie, Mom of Alex & Anna

 <

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Sun, 10-31-2004 - 9:01am
That's right. We can't stop trying. My father worked in the factories his entire life. He was willing to lose his job if it meant his company would adhere to the standards. The older generation of my family is made up of farmers and factory workers and we have all had to make sacrifices in order to help protect our resources. My Grandparents lost money in their efforts to use more sustainable farming practices, not using pesticides, feeding their milking cows a healthy diet, not using antibiotics on a regular basis etc....they retired poor but at least they new they did their part, my grandfather retired in his late 80's and lived to 99 (something to be said for a healthy lifestyle).

I realize there are many folks that can't afford to lose their jobs but we can't afford to ignore the fact that we are slowly killing this planet. And it's true, this isn't just a US problem, it's a world problem. In my job I visited Taiwan, southern Taiwan in particular. The polution there was horrific, white air. Sadly we, the US, contribute to much of that polution. Our goverment needs to get involved in world efforts but we need to make more effort here at home.

Each of us can do alot in our every day. I won't list them all out, but it's simple; conserve energy and water, recycle as much as possible, compost (if you have the space), use fertilizers and pesticides conservatively etc...it's amazing what we could accomplish by just doing this.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2004
Sun, 10-31-2004 - 9:48am
Jumping in with a question.

I will admit that I am not well versed in environmental issues. We do what we can in my house. I am one of the people who looks at the "environmentalists" as tree hugging nut cases that don't care if people lose their jobs as long as some obscure ant is allowed to build its mounds. In my head, I know there is a middle ground, but the people who get the most press are the ones that make the most noise, so unfortunately, many people like me just get turned off to the issue in general.

Thank you all for sharing different ideas and opinions.

So here is my question:

<>

Could you explain this statement a little better (include links or whatever supporting data that you have, please)?

Avatar for mom2noodles
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sun, 10-31-2004 - 12:39pm

I don't know much about Taiwan but I can assure you that the environmental movement is a much broader set of issues than a couple of tree-huggers.

Carrie, Mom of Alex & Anna

 <

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Sun, 10-31-2004 - 1:02pm
Sorry, I meant in my travels for work. I personally saw the affects in this city Kaoshung (sp). It was horribly polluted and the marjority of factories there were US owned companies. Now I'm not blaming the US, there were Japanese companies there as well and I'm sure others. I was *attempting* to say that we need, as a world community, do better to stop this problem. I also have a friend who works for the EPA and get info from him.

As for your "tree hugging" comment. I understand your feelings here. Extremist in any group really hurt the cause. BUT these people, like the strict Baptists that feel they need to convert everyone to spare them a trip to he&&, are passionate and truly believe in what they are trying to save and it's impact on the world. I know it's frustrating but you are VERY correct, there is middle ground. The little things that each American does, and thank you for your contribution, really will help. Just cutting down on the landfills and keeping pesticides and fertilizers out of our drinking water, will really help.

Thanks for your comments.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2004
Sun, 10-31-2004 - 3:12pm
Thanks for the links.

I guess the reason why I struggle with this so is because the information is either from one side (the conservationists) or the other (the evil oil industry/business). For someone with just a basic knowledge of both sides, it's hard (and overwhelming) to sort out. I haven't had a chance to read all of the articles yet, but I'll give you an example of what I mean from the first article.

First, IMO, the article taints itself with a political motive <> Whether El Paso Corp is a large donor or not, has nothing to do with the rest of the article in terms of whether or not there should be drilling in that preserve.

So, political bias aside, here's my dilemma. I see that there is an estimate that there could be 500 wells there. From an economic standpoint that seems to be a good thing. The article also says that proceeds from the natural gas industry play a key part in the state's finances. Again, drilling seems to be a good thing to me. Then it says, "The Valle is only a small part -- one percent according to Simpson -- of a much larger Raton basin that is already being explored for oil and gas development" so okay, maybe they shouldn't drill in the preserve because there are other places they could drill. But then the article says nothing about whether they actually think there might be gas anywhere else in the Raton basin, or whether any of the rest of the basin is protected.

The article tells why people don't want drilling there, "I have Texans mad as hell because this is their recreation area." Now I am all for recreation, but this doesn't seem like a reason not to drill. Again, I admit, this is not an area that I have much knowledge in, but it seems like having our own natural gas would be a good thing, and maybe people could recreate somewhere else.

Now here is something that makes sense, "it would threaten wildlife including roaming elk herds and 200 species of birds." The problem for someone like me who doesn't know too much about this, is that it doesn't go into anymore detail, like whether or not this is the ONLY place those elk and birds live. If that were the case, then it seems like a no brainer not to drill. Here is a more indepth comment on what will happen if the drilling is allowed, "Simpson said the interlinking road system for hundreds of wells is what most destroys the habitat. If the habitat is fragmented, the Valle Vidal's enormous elk population will not mate. Noise from compressor stations, 24-hour maintenance trucks and the pollution of groundwater are also concerns." On its face, this seems to make the case for why they shouldn't drill there. But, the question on the elks pops back up. My first reaction about them not mating is "who cares?" Before you jump all over me, remember, I don't have a lot of knowledge about this. I know we are looking for alternate energy sources. There apparently is a good chance to get gas from the preserve. Seems like a good thing to me, and if we are trying to free ourselves from relying on outside sources, maybe we need to compromise on the elk mating thing. But, there is no room for compromise, "Simpson said opponents to the plan are fighting for permanent protection of the area and that any drilling would not be worth the trade off."

Then the article ends with a dramatic quote, "If they drilled the entire area, it would only produce one to 30 hours -- a half day of gas -- for the nation. But we would lose the Valle Vidal forever."

And..... But, alas, there is no more information. I would have liked the article to have gone on and explained how that output compares to what you expect to find when you drill for natural gas. If that is a miniscule amount compared to what you get from other places, the article would have made a much stronger case against drilling by pointing that out. If that output is pretty average for what you would expect, then maybe you should look elsewhere, because there does seem to be more at stake in this particular place. If that output is HUGE compared to what you would get from somewhere else, maybe we should drill there, and then find a way to compromise on the elk.

I realize that the article cannot be a dissertation on the effects of drilling in the Valle Vidal, but I didn't get enough usable information from it to make a decision. Most of the articles I read are the same way. <> I agree with you (imagine that). I just don't have the time or the patience to be wading through the spin from both sides.

So there is my confession as to why I am not passionate about hugging trees (j/k... I know you are not all a bunch of tree-hugging nut cases LOL).









Avatar for mom2noodles
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sun, 10-31-2004 - 5:48pm

Well, first of all it's a CNN article so it's not going to go in-depth or be overly obnoxious about taking sides.

Carrie, Mom of Alex & Anna

 <

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Sun, 10-31-2004 - 6:00pm
Hi Carrie,

Thank you for your comments and the information. I'll read over the material/links you posted previously. You make some very good points, which I appreciate very much.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-01-2004
Mon, 11-01-2004 - 9:25am
Hi Kubala,

Don't have much time but wanted to quickly post my support. I too am very concerned with our environment. I'm very active in my community to get people to conserve, recycle and compost. It's small I know but it makes me feel like I'm making SOME contribution.

At the risk of sounding like a "liberal", to quote Joni Mitchell "don't it always seem to go that we don't know what we've got till it's gone"

We can't afford to ignore this issue anymore.

Pages