for Aniita and the Bush Hatersgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread
From someone with the State of Texas (non-political and a Y2k contact).
re: the diatribe against G.W. Bush at: http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003jBt LINK
=========================================================================== If ignorance were bliss, they'd be an enormous collective blister.
The mental giants should drive the texas/mexico border with me. I'll show them why we're almost dead last in several categories: WE'RE SUPPORTING UPWARDS OF 10% OF MEXICO'S POPULATION.
It's the longest border with Mesico. It's impossible to police it well enough to keep the illegal immigrants out. And frankly, I'M NOT SURE WE SHOULD EVEN TRY!
For the most part they come over here, work hard usually at the lowest of jobs, send their money back to Mexico, and in general behave as well as any of the anglo population (they certainly have a lower divorce rate). They learn English (more or less), see the benefits of democracy and capitalism, and work for a better life for their families. We provide education for many of them without asking questions. We provide hospitalization and medical care--it's illegal for medical facilities to turn people down in critical care situations. They can enroll in state universities at resident tuition rates (!)
This is the best, most direct foreign aid we could give any country. It develops cultural and economic ties and fosters deeper cooperation and understanding between the two nations (Texas and Mexico). It's far more effective than throwing billions upon billions at a chimerical Middle-East "peace process."
But WE get precious few federal dollars to help us.
The only other state with similar economic attraction is California, and they've had a running battle over the same issues for years. They fought tooth and claw over paying for federally-mandated welfare programs for illegal immigrants.
There are numerous other downsides. El Paso has some of the worst smog in the nation. But it's coming across the border. The Texas side could produce NO pollution at all and they still wouldn't meet any federal clean-air standards. If you factor out the international issues, Texas ranks about in the middle in all those oh-so-important categories.
'Course you gotta remember that these are the same MENSA candidates that swallowed Jim Lord's comic book fantasy of "Mr CEO." They have a collective IQ of table salt, so we can't expect them to grasp subtle details of geography and demographics.
-- cpr (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 29, 2000
You should have also brought up that the Dem. party has largly controlled both houses of TX and the Gov. for the past 100 years or so. GWB could hardly undo and then redo everything they've done in a little over five years. One has to wonder why the air is so bad now since Anne Richards and company were in power for so long. Surely he couldn't have undone all of their good works in such a short time.
-- The Engineer (email@example.com), August 29, 2000.
Please do not disturb them with any problem questions.
-- cpr (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 29, 2000.
CPR raises some good points, I think, mainly about the effect of the Mexican influx. Nonetheless, I think there are problems with his wholesale exoneration of George W.
A couple of examples, far from exhaustive:
(1) Five years ago, at the end of Ann Richard's term, I don't think Houston was in contention for having the worst air pollution of any major American city. I think LA was still the undisputed champ. Now it's Houston that has that "honor."
(2) Any state that doesn't do its utmost to combat teen pregnancy is just flat out deplorable IMHO.
Watch out, pal. I may team up with Anita (AKA Ms Table Salt of 2000) and we'll just kick your ass. (Since it's you I'm addressing. I guess I have to explain that I'm speaking figuratively and not literally.)
-- Peter Errington (email@example.com), August 29, 2000.
Texas is THE most polluted state in the nation, thanks to the shrub and his corporate oil buddies. Sure glad I don't live there. Just look at the brain damage it causes to people like creeper who live there. If that sleazy bastard thinks he can do that to the rest of our nation, he ain't gonna be around very long.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 29, 2000.
And Clinton did any better? Do a little research - I particularly remember back in the '90 election Clinton evaded questions about his allowing Tyson to pollute quite a few areas in Arkansas. Poisoned quite a few waterways as I recall...
I also seem to remember that there were serious issues about some small Arkansas towns dying off because of uncheck corporate polluters. Pot calling the kettle black, it is!
Yes, that's Clinton, but if you think Al Gore is any better, think again. Try reading the last few back issues of Backpacker Magazine - they've trounced Gore's environmental record. They're calling for the enviro cause to vote for Nader, NOT Gore.
Chew on that awhile.
-- Deb M. (email@example.com), August 29, 2000.
Good points cpr but you could have left off the last paragraph. Your mind is as one-track as al-d's.
-- Lars (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 29, 2000.
Propaganda is easy for gullible people like you to believe, but I prefer facts. Check out the progress made by the EPA under the Clinton administration, it's all documented on the net. Factories are cleaner under greater restrictions, we have a new cleaner-burning gasoline, and they are now in the process of going after diesels, one of the worst polluters. That is a hell of a lot more than the shrub would ever do. He welcomes more polluters as long as they fatten his wallet.
Suck on my schlong for a while.
-- (email@example.com), August 29, 2000.
As for propaganda, how do you know you're not reading more of the same?
A new cleaner burning gasoline (?) - is this the same one that's being changed because it's been found harmful to humans AND to the environment? As for the factories - how do you know for sure? Finagling of the reported results? The last I heard, acid rain is still going on strong as ever (in fact a few Ohio electric companies are being sued by the State of New York), smog is getting even worse in the national parks like Smokey Mtn Nat. Park, the Grand Canyon, etc...
Somehow, I don't think it's really changed as much as you'd like to believe...
-- Deb M. (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 29, 2000.
Okay, so you're too biased and too lazy to search for the facts, I'll help you. "Chew on this"...
Chevron Pays $7 Million For Clean Air Act Violations
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. has agreed to pay a record $7 million to settle claims that it violated the Clean Air Act at its offshore loading terminal near El Segundo, Calif., the EPA and the Justice Department announced today. The settlement includes a $6 million penalty, the highest ever paid under the Clean Air Act for a single facility, and environmental improvement projects valued at $1 million.
The agreement, part of a consent decree lodged today in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, requires Chevron to pay $500,000 to help build and operate a health clinic in Wilmington, Calif. to diagnose and treat respiratory diseases. The facility will provide medical care to people in the South Coast Air Basin who have experienced health problems that can be traced to air pollution.
"This settlement sends a strong message that any company violating the Clean Air Act rules to reduce smog will pay a heavy price. This is especially so in the Los Angeles area, which has one of the most serious smog problems in the nation," said Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General for Environment and Natural Resources at the Department of Justice. "Our citizens are entitled to breathe clean air, and compliance with the Clean Air Act is not optional."
San Francisco-based Chevron also has agreed to spend $500,000 to install leakless valves and double-sealed pumps at its El Segundo refinery. These devices are effective at preventing significant emissions of air contaminants.
"The Clinton-Gore Administration holds polluters accountable for violating environmental laws," said Steve Herman, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "Besides paying a significant penalty for failing to control harmful emissions in the past, Chevron will improve technology at the terminal to reduce emissions in the future. People who live in the vicinity of the terminal will literally be able to breathe easier from now on."
In 1997, the nonprofit Communities for a Better Environment filed a lawsuit against Chevron, alleging that vapors known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) escaped into the atmosphere as petroleum products were transferred to marine vessels from underwater pipelines connected to the Chevron refinery. In November 1999, the United States filed suit against Chevron alleging the same charges.
The Clean Air Act regulates VOCs because they directly contribute to smog, which aggravates respiratory diseases such as asthma, particularly in the young and elderly. The Los Angeles region does not comply with the EPA's smog standards, and it is one of the worst smog areas in the nation.
To reduce VOCs, California regulations required companies as of 1995 to achieve a 95 percent reduction in emissions from marine terminals such as Chevron's. However, the company's own records show that from 1995 to 1998, the El Segundo facility did not use the pollution-control technology required by the regulations.
Today's settlement with the United States also prohibits Chevron from using its marine terminal until the EPA and Chevron agree on a plan to keep air emissions so low that they are not required to be controlled. Until then, the company will conduct its petroleum-loading operations at a third party's marine terminals, which are equipped with emissions-control equipment required by the Clean Air Act and California's regulations.
Communities for a Better Environment, based in Huntington Park, Calif., and Chevron have settled the group's lawsuit by a consent decree requiring Chevron to perform the environmental projects and reimburse CBE for its attorney's fees.
Today's settlement agreement is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval.
Bush would look the other way, in fact even loosen controls over these corporations. They're all his buddies!
-- (email@example.com), August 29, 2000.
FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 2000
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS AGREEMENT SIGNED WITH UNITED NATIONS
The United Nations announced an international agreement, that goes into effect Aug. 25, to develop globally uniform environmental regulations for motor vehicles. These regulations will help to uniformly provide greater environmental protection, energy efficiency, vehicle safety and pollution reduction from automobiles for countries who are members of the United Nations. Current levels of environmental protection and vehicle safety will not be compromised in order to achieve this regulatory uniformity called harmonization. This agreement ensures that regulatory activities will be carried out in an open manner and will consider the best available technology, the cost effectiveness of these technologies, as well as the benefits to public health. Participating countries may submit candidate regulations that will be included in a compendium of regulations that other countries can adopt. These countries may also collaborate in the development of new global regulations which they could propose to adopt in their country. Any regulation that the United States chooses to adopt would be subject to the formal United States regulatory process. The development of the Agreement was spearheaded by EPA and the Department of Transportation. The United States was the first to sign the agreement, followed by Canada, Japan, France, England, the European Union, Germany and Russia. South Africa also signed the agreement and is waiting to be ratified. For more information about the "Agreement Concerning Global Technical Regulations, under the United Nations= Economic Commission for Europe and administered by its World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations."
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 29, 2000.
FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 10, 2000
CLINTON-GORE ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES NEW PROTECTION FOR THE NATION'S WETLANDS
The Clinton-Gore Administration today proposed significant new protection for tens of thousands of acres of environmentally valuable wetlands across the United States. Under today's action, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers are proposing to address a major regulatory loophole in the Clean Water Act by clarifying the types of activities that can harm wetlands and thus, require regulation.
"The Clinton-Gore Administration is committed to protecting America's environment. Wetlands are essential to preserving clean and healthy water for all Americans," said EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner. "Unfortunately, due to a legal loophole that has been exploited, an additional 20,000 acres of wetlands have been lost in this country over the last two years. The action we take today strengthens the protection of these vital resources for future generations."
"Today's proposal will allow us to go as far as we can through administrative reforms to close this loophole and protect wetlands. We also call on Congress to strengthen the Clean Water Act to fully protect and restore America's wetlands," Browner added.
Wetlands are a collective term for marshes, swamps, bogs and similar wet land areas generally located between dry land and bodies of water. They are an invaluable part of the ecosystem, filtering and cleansing the nation's waters, helping to retain flood waters, and harboring emerging fish and shellfish populations. Destruction of wetlands can increase flooding and runoff potential, harm neighboring property, cause stream and river pollution, and result in the loss of valuable habitat.
Since the late 1700s, over half the nation's wetlands have been lost to development and other activities. Seven states have lost more than 80 percent of their original wetlands.
EPA and the Corps are proposing to regulate certain activities that often destroy or fill in wetlands. Today's proposal will clarify the current regulations under the Clean Water Act, Section 404, to address environmentally destructive earth-moving activities (such as mechanized land clearing, ditching, channelization, and in-stream mining) associated with draining wetlands.
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps issues permits after it completes a careful environmental review of dredged material from proposed projects, including the potential adverse effects on wetlands. This permit program is designed to minimize the environmental impact on wetlands, while also requiring off-setting actions, such as creating or restoring other wetlands.
To protect wetlands, EPA and the Corps first clarified in August 1993 that Clean Water Act permits were required for any discharges associated with draining wetlands. Referred to as the "Tulloch" rule, that definition was challenged by a number of trade associations and overturned in January l997 by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Affirmed in June 1998 by the U.S. Court of Appeals, the Court's decision resulted in a loophole in the wetlands regulatory program, leaving certain forms of environmentally destructive activities essentially unchecked.
Since the l997 District Court decision, EPA and the Corps estimate that nearly 20,000 acres of wetlands have been destroyed and more than 150 miles of streams channeled without environmental review or mitigation.
Today's new wetlands proposal is expected to protect tens of thousands of acres of wetlands from destruction each year. In addition to realizing no net loss of wetlands through the Clean Water Act regulatory program, the Clinton-Gore Administration's Clean Water Action Plan has already committed to an annual net gain of 100,000 acres of wetlands beginning in 2005 through wetlands restoration programs.
The proposal to change the definition of dredged materials will be published in the Federal Register soon and will be open for public comment for 60 days. A fact sheet, additional information and a pre-publication version of the Federal Register notice are available on EPA's Office of Water home page at: http://www.epa.gov/ow . Click on "What's New" or contact the wetlands helpline at 800-832-7828.
-- (email@example.com), August 29, 2000.
EPA AND DOJ ANNOUNCE RECORD CLEAN AIR AGREEMENT WITH MAJOR PETROLEUM REFINERS
As part of an ongoing enforcement effort to ensure cleaner, healthier air for all Americans, the Environmental Protection Agency and Justice Department today announced record agreements in principle with two of the nation's largest petroleum refiners -- BP Amoco and the Koch Petroleum Group. The agreements, valued at nearly $600 million, are the largest ever for clean air reached with companies from the petroleum refining industry. When fully implemented this agreement will eliminate almost 60,000 tons of air pollution every year.
"Today's action by the Clinton-Gore Administration will provide all Americans with significantly cleaner air," said EPA Administrator Carol Browner. "This action is the largest ever reached with oil refiners to ensure significant reductions in air pollution that triggers such illnesses as childhood asthma and cancer."
"We appreciate the unprecedented cooperation from BP Amoco and Koch Petroleum Group in stepping forward to work with us to reach this innovative and comprehensive agreement," Browner added. "We hope that other companies will follow suit. If they do not, however, the Clinton-Gore Administration is prepared to take whatever enforcement action is necessary to protect public health by upholding environmental laws."
Together the agreements with BP Amoco and Koch Petroleum Group account for 15 percent of total U.S. refining capacity. Under the agreement, BP Amoco, the nation's second largest refiner, is expected to spend more than $500 million on up-to-date pollution-control technologies and work practices at nine refineries that will reduce all emissions sources - from stacks, leaking valves, wastewater vents and flares. Koch Petroleum Group, the first refiner to enter into an agreement, will invest as much as $80 million at three refineries to achieve the same goals.
"I am proud that we've reached agreements in principle that will slash emissions from these refineries," said Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. "The result of these unprecedented agreements will be cleaner air from California to the Eastern Seaboard."
The agreements represent a major breakthrough in EPA's enforcement strategy for U.S. refineries by achieving comprehensive, across-the-board compliance on a cooperative basis under the Clean Air Act.
The air pollutants addressed by today's agreement can cause serious respiratory problems, exacerbate cases of childhood asthma, and in the case of toxic air pollutants can cause cancer and death. They include toxic-air pollutants and smog-causing compounds such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides and volatile organic compounds.
Today's agreement will cut nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions 49,000 tons annually from the 12 refineries by 2004, and an additional 6,000 tons by 2008, by upgrading the use of new technologies. Improved leak detection and repair practices and other pollution control upgrades will reduce smog-causing volatile organic compounds by 3,600 tons per year and the carcinogen benzene by an estimated 400 tons per year. The agreement also includes measures to improve safety for workers and local communities that will sharply reduce accidental releases of pollutants.
In addition, BP Amoco agreed to pay a $10 million dollar penalty and Koch agreed to pay a 4.5. million dollar penalty.
BP Amoco and Koch took the initiative to begin talks with EPA earlier this spring rather than wait for possible EPA enforcement action. In return for the company's cooperation and ambitious commitment to a cleaner environment, EPA has offered a "clean slate" for certain past violations, and greater flexibility and incentives for new technology. EPA is conducting a sector-by-sector enforcement strategy that also includes coal-fired utilities and the paper manufacturing sector. In the past several months, EPA and the Department of Justice have taken major enforcement actions in those areas, the most recent coming last week against Willamette Industries.
The agreements in principle with BP Amoco and Koch Petroleum Group set the framework for a comprehensive consent decree, which is expected to be completed within the next several weeks. EPA has consulted with the states in the negotiations and invites their continued participation as the consent decree is finalized.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 29, 2000.
Much more progress against Shrubby's polluting buddies, all documented here...
chew, chew, chew!
-- (email@example.com), August 29, 2000.
Nice press releases, Chew. Now, do you have any non- affiliated 3rd party findings which substantiate those claims? Or is it more propaganda?
From what I've seen, Gore is no better than Bush. He talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk... Gore makes better pro-enviro speeches, but the conclusions are just the same. So sad, so funny...
- Tell that to people living in Blue Island, Ill. where the Clark refineries keep blowing up and the polution is so bad, continuously, that asthma is a normal respiratory illness there. Air conditioning is mandatory, continuously, for my grandparents living there.
- Again, the smog in many national parks, etc... still hasn't gone down, much less acid rain. Where's the improvement there?
-- Deb M. (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 30, 2000.
'Course you gotta remember that these are the same MENSA candidates that swallowed Jim Lord's comic book fantasy of "Mr CEO."
You may not be aware of this, but the folks over on EZ-Board are far more pro-Bush and certainly more anti-Gore than the folks here.
-- (email@example.com), August 30, 2000.
Screw Gore and his friend Moses.
-- Archiver (Archiver@archiverrr.xcom), August 30, 2000.