Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich4eagle who wrote (214817)	1/4/2002 5:53:43 PM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

If the bloody liberals care so much about the environment, why are they silent on Daschle's latest hyocrisy? Mining for pork in South Dakota Published January 4, 2002 In the annals of congressional pork, the sweetheart deal engineered late last month by Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle for a mining company in his home state of South Dakota is relatively small--more like a pork chop. It's Daschle's hypocrisy and double-talk that ought to gall the taxpayers. Hours before Congress adjourned on Dec. 20, it approved a defense appropriation bill for 2002 that included an unrelated amendment, crafted by Daschle, to protect South Dakota's Homestake Mining, which is shutting down, from any liability for environmental damage caused by its 125 years of operations. Under current federal Superfund regulations, owners of toxic waste sites can be held liable for the costs of clean-up. But thanks to the Daschle amendment, the taxpayers will pick up Homestake's clean-up cost, as well as assume liability for any related lawsuits. As The New York Times reported Thursday, the federal government is considering building an underground physics laboratory in one of the mine shafts, 7,400 feet inside the earth. Homestake said it would not turn over part of the shuttered mine site unless the feds assumed liability and the clean-up costs. There are at least three problems with the Daschle amendment. Pork-barrel appropriations usually build something for local residents--a road, a school or a bridge--but in this case the taxpayers will merely get stuck with the cost of cleaning up someone's toxic mess. Though one environmental group put the cost from $30 million to $40 million, no one really knows what the final tab will be. Exposed to rain and the elements, the earth in and around the mine's 500 miles of tunnels turns acidic, in addition to the cyanide contamination created during the extraction of the gold. The cost of pumping and treating this contaminated pool of water could well go on forever. Third, Daschle's stealth amendment also pollutes the National Science Foundation's decision-making process for siting the laboratory. Whatever flexibility NSF had is now gone, in a case of science being overrun by politics. On second thought, make that four problems: The last and most glaring one is his hypocrisy. Daschle and the Democrats have argued strenuously in favor of environmental protections and against limitations on liability for private corporations. What's more, one of the partisan disagreements that stalled passage of an economic stimulus package stemmed from the objection by Daschle and the Democrats that Republicans were being overly generous to corporations. Apparently they had just picked the wrong corporations. Daschle wants to shield a profitable mining company from tens of millions in potential liability, to pave the way for a science lab that will create an estimated 200 jobs in western South Dakota. Economically hard-hit South Dakota needs help. But Daschle's way of providing it stinks as much as the mining site taxpayers will now have to clean up. chicagotribune.com

To: rich4eagle who wrote (214817)	1/4/2002 5:57:15 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

The problem is how to use energy efficiently rather than finding more places to use it more quickly. I think the administration thinks the problem is how to send drilling business to Halliburton to cover up their asbestos losses. interactive.wsj.com It's not about finding oil, it's about finding places to drill. TP

To: rich4eagle who wrote (214817)	1/4/2002 6:00:05 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

<<According to a study released in October by the Union of Concerned Scientists, if the US adopted a clean energy policy which includes making cars more fuel efficient we could by 2020 reduce the use of natural gas by 31 percent and coal by 60 percent and save more oil in 18 years than could ever be removed from ANWR in sixty years.>> Whoa up Vern. Cars run on gasoline which comes from oil. Now if our cars are powered by fuel cells, which the leading candidate for fuel is natural gas or electricity which is largely coal powered you won't be cutting use of either.

To: rich4eagle who wrote (214817)	1/4/2002 6:08:46 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The last time we tried to make cars more fuel efficient, by passing madatory MPG requriements, we tossed out the station wagon and replaced it with the SUV. The Union of Concerned Scientists is a neo-marxist group which advocates the adoption of the Kyoto Protocols. Nuff said about their intelligence... Having said that, a plan which gave tax incentives to consumers who purchased small fuel efficient cars would be a move in the right direction. Safely mining for oil in Alaska doesn't mean other initiatives to reduce our dependence on imported oil should be halted. I'm not foolish enough to see things as either black or white the way Dashle and liberal Democrats are. Closing our mind and making statements like "I never would drill for oil in Alaska, no matter how safe!" is a foolish closed minded way of looking at America's energy equation.

To: rich4eagle who wrote (214817)	1/4/2002 9:37:57 PM
From: d.taggart	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

rich I read your post where you seem to be confusing energy efficient cars with missle defense,your right it was a stupid take.There are in fact cars that get better than the average you mentioned but people want their suv`s and in my town it is lawyers,doctors,and union members who can afford them,so I guess you party members are the culprits,republicans drive hondas,nissans,volvos,2wd chevy trucks small tasteful cars as they do not have the access to money like democrats do/