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 : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (2899)	2/17/2002 4:31:46 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 15516

Hot Air "This policy falls short; Congress now should step in and take on the responsibility that Mr. Bush has shirked. The Washington Post Sunday, February 17, 2002; Page B06 THERE WAS more air than substance in the global warming policy President Bush outlined last week, a disappointing program that aims too low, asks too little and waits too long to assess the need for tougher action. The president spoke of America's commitment "to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate," but set a goal to slow, not stop, the growth in U.S. emissions during the next 10 years. In fact, the goal he set isn't far from what the economy would be likely to achieve without any government intervention. Having cashiered Kyoto, an ambitious but flawed international protocol aimed at controlling climate change, Mr. Bush has replaced it with . . . not much at all. It's right to keep economic growth as a priority; prosperity, as Mr. Bush declared, "is what allows us to commit more and more resources to environmental protection." But what's needed here is balance; after all, severe climatic turbulence could do more to harm the economy than environmental regulation. The president offered no convincing evidence to rebut the contention that economic growth could coincide with more ambitious goals to protect the environment. What's more, Mr. Bush offered no binding steps to make sure that even his modest goal is reached. He would rely on a mix of exhortation and tax incentives to encourage companies to voluntarily reduce emissions. He referred to mandatory programs that have an effect on emissions, such as auto fuel efficiency standards, but his administration has yet to come up with any concrete proposals for raising those standards, and he has endorsed a House energy bill that falls far short of what could be done in that respect. He proposed to improve the existing registry in which companies can report their emissions. Mandatory reporting could help spur improvements simply by exposing big emitters to public scrutiny: The EPA's registry of toxic emissions has had that effect. But under Mr. Bush's plan, even participating in the registry remains voluntary. The president said Thursday that he's convinced his program will bring real improvements. If that turns out to be wrong, he said, "the United States will respond with additional measures." But he's leaving those decisions for somebody else: He calls for a review of progress in 2012, well after he'll be out of office even if he seeks and wins a second term. Meanwhile he continues to emphasize the uncertainties that exist in the science of climate change. He's right to acknowledge that questions remain to be answered, and to support, as his program does, more research into science and improved technology. But it's wrong to use those questions as an excuse for sticking so closely to business as usual. The longer the nation waits to initiate action, the more extreme will be the needed solutions. The president has a responsibility to protect the economy but also one to protect Americans, to the extent possible, from the potential long-term consequences of climate change. This policy falls short; Congress now should step in and take on the responsibility that Mr. Bush has shirked. © 2002 The Washington Post Company

To: Mephisto who wrote (2899)	2/17/2002 9:51:02 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

BUSH GIVES VALENTINE'S DAY GIFT TO POLLUTERS Global Warming Proposals Are Sweetheart Deal for Energy Industry February 13, 2002 lists.sierraclub.org Contact: David Willett, 202-675-6698 202-491-6919 (cell) Washington, DC: The Sierra Club voiced serious concerns about President Bush's upcoming speech on global warming, calling it "a Valentine's Day gift to corporate polluters." President Bush's proposals are expected to inadequately protect America's clean air and public health and will do virtually nothing to curb global warming. "Unfortunately, the Bush Administration is using Valentines Day to give a sweetheart deal to the corporate polluters that funded his campaign," said Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club. "Enron asked for the voluntary emissions trading scheme that the President is expected to propose. The Bush administration is sticking to the polluting policies that the energy industry asked for rather than taking the sensible steps that can protect our health, help the economy, create jobs, and cut the heat-trapping gases that cause global warming." The Bush climate policy is supposedly a substitute for the Kyoto Protocol, but it would do little to cut pollution. Under the Bush Administration plan, emissions would grow to 36 percent more than Kyoto levels by 2010 and 50 percent more than Kyoto target levels by 2020. Instead of Kyoto's absolute emission limits, the Bush Administration plan would peg emissions to a certain percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). This turns US global warming protections into a fair weather friend, reducing emissions slightly but only while GDP is robust. If the economy falters, global warming protections would be dumped. Additionally, the Bush Administration's plan is expected to rely on polluters voluntarily cutting their emissions, but when it comes to global warming pollution, voluntary measures don't work. The expected Administration policy also fails to adequately curb other kinds of air pollution, allowing some factories and power plants to pollute more in return for purchasing "credits" from other facilities that are polluting less. This proposal comes while the Administration considers how much to weaken New Source Review, an important Clean Air Act program that requires antiquated power plants and factories to install modern pollution control equipment when they expand. "Unfortunately, the Bush Administration isn't helping local communities that are faced with polluting power plants," said Pope. "This program still leaves families vulnerable to serious pollution in their backyard. This is an attempt to distract the public with a pleasant promise while quietly dismantling a key protection Americans currently enjoy." To get serious about curbing global warming and providing for America's energy needs, the Bush administration should instead adopt cheaper, cleaner and safer energy solutions. The biggest single step America can take to curb global warming is to raise the mile-per-gallon standards for cars, SUVs and light trucks to 40 miles per gallon. This would save 345 million tons of the global warming gas carbon dioxide by 2012 -- and save more oil than we currently import from the Persian Gulf and could hope to find in the Arctic Refuge, combined. In addition, increasing America's use of renewable energy like wind and solar power could eliminate the need for dirty fossil-fuel power plants, and stabilize carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation. ###

To: Mephisto who wrote (2899)	2/25/2002 12:13:45 AM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

Lieberman Rips Bush on Environment Politics: The Democratic senator, in a California visit, criticizes the president's policies on Alaska oil drilling and clean air. Los Angeles Times February 21, 2002 THE NATION By RONALD BROWNSTEIN, TIMES STAFF WRITER SAN FRANCISCO -- On a campaign-style swing through California, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) on Wednesday denounced President Bush's environmental record and pledged new legislative efforts to block the administration's proposals on global warming and energy production. "While President Bush has provided strong and principled leadership in the war against terrorism, I think he's been AWOL in the war against environmental pollution," Lieberman told the California League of Conservation Voters in a lunchtime address here. The speech was one of the most stinging Democratic assaults on any aspect of Bush's domestic record since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, which pushed such disagreements to the sidelines. Lieberman's talk was spiked with barbed language, and he repeatedly charged that Bush is pursuing a backward-looking agenda on a series of environmental issues. Lieberman visited California as part of a four-state, four-day Western swing; he also will stop in Colorado, Washington and Oregon. Officially, he is traveling to campaign for other Democratic House and Senate candidates and to raise funds for a new political action committee he has established. But Lieberman, Al Gore's running mate in 2000, acknowledged that he is "thinking about" a bid for the top spot on his party's presidential ticket in 2004. Lieberman arrived in California just days after Sens. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, John Edwards of North Carolina and John F. Kerry of Massachusetts--three other potential contenders for the Democratic presidential nod--addressed the party's state convention in Los Angeles. Gore also has heightened his public profile of late, keeping alive prospects that he will again seek the White House. Lieberman has said he will not run if Gore does. Jockeying to Attract Environmentalists Environmentalists are an important constituency in some Democratic presidential primaries, among them California. Kerry has already been courting them aggressively, promising to filibuster any effort to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling in the energy legislation the Senate is due to consider next week. On Wednesday, Lieberman said he also would filibuster the administration's push to drill in the refuge, adding that he would do so "until the caribou come home . . . or Vice President [Dick] Cheney releases the energy task force records, whichever comes later." Congress' investigative arm, the General Accounting Office, has threatened to sue to obtain the records of the task force, which Cheney presided over as the administration formulated its energy initiatives. In his speech, Lieberman announced that the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which he chairs, will convene hearings next month on the administration's environmental record. "In its first year, the Bush administration has undercut environmental protections and undermined . . . [a] growing spirit of environmental innovation and collaboration," he charged. 'Breathing the Air Isn't Optional' Lieberman focused most of his rhetorical fire on two aspects of the administration's environmental agenda: the proposal Bush recently announced to reduce emission of greenhouse gases, and the production-oriented energy plan that has cleared the House but faces substantial Democratic resistance in the Senate. Lieberman derided as "feeble" Bush's call for voluntary reductions in carbon dioxide, which has been linked to global warming. "Breathing the air isn't optional, and therefore reducing the greenhouse gases in it shouldn't be either," he said. A spokesman for Bush dismissed Lieberman's comments as "election year rhetoric." "Economic growth and environmental protection can go hand in hand," said the spokesman, Scott McClellan. "That's why [Bush] has outlined an innovative approach to protect the public health, clean our skies and promote environmentally responsible growth." McClellan contended that the "clear skies" proposal Bush unveiled last week would lead to the "most significant reduction in power plant emissions ever." Of Lieberman's plan to launch a committee inquiry into the administration's environmental policy, McClellan said: "That's his prerogative." Lieberman said he was preparing an alternative environmental plan with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), lately a frequent collaborator with Democrats. Their legislative proposal would require mandatory carbon dioxide reductions but would allow firms that exceed the targets to trade "credits" with firms that don't meet the goals. The United States has used a similar system to reduce pollution associated with acid rain, and Lieberman argued that the approach would encourage firms to find innovative solutions by allowing them to profit from controlling their greenhouse gas emissions. On energy, Lieberman echoed the common Democratic argument that Bush's plan was weighted too heavily toward new oil production and slighted both conservation and the development of renewable energy sources. Lieberman's environmental credentials were reinforced Wednesday when the League of Conservation Voters ranked him as one of 15 senators--all Democrats--with a 100% score on votes of interest to the group last year. latimes.com *

To: Mephisto who wrote (2899)	2/28/2002 11:38:47 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

EPA official quits, rips White House Regulatory chief cites push ‘to weaken the rules’ By Miguel Llanos MSNBC msnbc.com Feb. 28 —" The head of regulatory enforcement at the Environmental Protection Agency has stepped down, MSNBC.com has learned, claiming in a resignation letter that the EPA is “fighting a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce.” Eric Schaeffer complained specifically about what he saw as attempts to weaken Clean Air Act regulations on coal-fired power plants. "