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.

Pastimes : NNBM - SI Branch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mannie who wrote (19427)	12/6/2002 8:36:06 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 104155

Scott: We have the cold weather here in Chicago....its about 10 degrees this morning. Yet, I know you're looking for the snow <G>... seattlepi.nwsource.com

To: Mannie who wrote (19427)	12/6/2002 9:19:30 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 104155

Bush: no compassion for conservation Froma Harrop Syndicated columnist Thursday, December 05, 2002 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific The Bush administration was never much into compassionate conservationism. This is a real weak spot for the president and Republicans in general. Americans tend to like Bush personally but can't stand his environmental policies, according to a recent New York Times/CBS poll shows. More than half opposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Two out of three said that protecting the environment was more important than producing additional energy. And seven out of eight respondents opined that Bush does not feel likewise. The Bush people, of course, are no dummies politically, and so they've developed several strategies to confuse the public on this issue. Here are three: Strategy No. 1: Front load the most offensive policies right after the election. Did you notice the post-Nov. 5 string of environmentally hostile proposals? Exactly one week after the votes were counted, the administration called for opening Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks to increased snowmobile traffic. A few days later, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) presented plans to weaken the Clean Air Act. (The unpopular announcement took place on the Friday afternoon before Thanksgiving week.) On Nov. 27, the administration supported relaxing rules on logging in the National Forests. This came on top of earlier plans to cut new roads through what's left of the forests' undeveloped land. Perhaps the most troubling trend is the administration's gradual assault on the National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA requires federal regulators to conduct environmental-impact studies before embarking on major development projects. Environmental groups use these disclosures to sometimes stop, but more often alter, developments deemed harmful to the surroundings. A similar pattern of anti-environmentalism came on the heels of the 2000 election. Shortly after his inauguration, Bush broke his campaign pledge to limit carbon-dioxide emissions. He suspended new rules limiting arsenic in drinking water. And he abandoned some cleanup requirements for mining companies. Who knows what environmental bombshells will be dropped during the holiday season, when Americans are preoccupied with family and the 2004 elections lie well in the future? So, among other things, the next few weeks may be an especially perilous time for America's endangered species. The good news is that the bad news will probably dissipate as the 2004 presidential election approaches. Expect Bush to announce a few flashy environmental initiatives in the weeks preceding the vote. Strategy No. 2: Downplay the toxic environmental policies by surrounding them in the sweet rhetoric of reason. Radical reductions in environmental protections are framed as "common-sense," "streamlining" or just plain "sensible." That's "sensible," as in: If the public, park rangers and the Environmental Protection Agency demand a total ban on dirty and deafening snowmobiles in Yellowstone, the sensible response is to increase the number of snowmobiles by only 16 percent. Another way to make attacks on environmental protections seem reasonable is to put a reasonable woman in charge of the EPA — then cut her off at the knees. Environmentalists breathed a sigh of relief when the president named Christine Todd Whitman to head the EPA. As Republican governor of New Jersey, Whitman pursued environmentally enlightened policies. Little did they know she would be stripped of power and virtually disappear. Nowadays, Bigfoot makes more public appearances than Whitman. Strategy No. 3: Protect only swing-state environments. This political calculus took center stage in the divergent treatment of Florida and California before the election. Florida is a battleground state, and the president's brother Jeb was fighting for re-election. So when it came to the Florida environment, George W. Bush found religion. Last spring, he pledged $120 million to retire mineral rights in the Big Cypress National Preserve. Then he promised to spend $115 million to buy back Florida offshore oil-drilling leases. Californians also demanded a halt in federal sales of new oil-drilling leases and drilling under existing leases. Forget about it. When old leases were about to expire, the administration extended them. Will these cunning tactics continue to confuse the generally pro-environment electorate? We shall see. Barring a heightened concern over national security — an issue that Republicans tend to handle better than Democrats — aroused voters may take their environmental concerns to the polls. In that case, Bush and company had better hope for short memories. _____________________ Providence Journal columnist Froma Harrop's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. Her e-mail address is fharrop@projo.com. Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company seattletimes.nwsource.com