Bush: Power Plant Profits More Important Than Protecting Kids’ Brains
If you caught that great RFK, Jr. speech I posted a few weeks back you know about this already, but man, this pisses me off. Critics had previously charged that the Bush team of political appointees atop the EPA systematically watered down legally mandated regulation of mercury released into the air by coal-fired power plants. The Bush appointees at EPA naturallly denied doing so, so a group of senators called for an internal EPA audit. Now, who do you think was telling the truth? EPA cooked mercury rule, agency inspector reports.
Keeping mercury out of the environment is not some abstract aesthetic goal of touchy-feely granola-eating backpackers. Mercury pollution has proven negative consequences for human populations, including severe impacts on proper brain development in young children.
So think what this means: In a choice between protecting America’s children or protecting energy companies, Bush sides with the energy companies.
Attention red-state voters: Your “moral values” are showing.
February 4th, 2005 at 10:39 pm
It appears that much of the disagreement is in the amount of mercury reduction from coal-fired power plants and in what kind of time period. The 70% reduction (versus nothing now) doesn’t sound very weak to me, other than the amount of time allowed to get there (2018). Clinton wanted 90% himself, but there were serious doubts that our technology and economic costs would allow it. Keep in mind that this “cap and trade” option within the EPA Plan is the path even Kerry reportedly was leaning toward, as he backed away, policy-wise, from Kyoto. Despite all this gnashing of teeth, the most productive way to avoid mercury exposure for most people is still avoiding certain seafood, much of which comes from overseas anyway.
And as for the sucker punch at the end of this post, somehow anything negative that can be argued to be the result, either directly or indirectly, of a representative of a given presidential administration, now means that all those who voted the party into office are fully supportive of it?
That’s as convoluted as assuming that all Democrats are fully supportive of marital infidelity due to the Clinton Administration!
February 5th, 2005 at 3:08 am
When the issue is how much mercury is okay to distribute over the landscape, Bush doesn’t listen to the scientists employed by his own Environmental Protection Agency. He overrules their findings, and puts into effect rules interpretations drafted by energy industry lawyers.
Yeah, his stooges obfuscate in an effort to reduce the issue to a he-said, she-said with the stats you obligingly repeat in your response, thereby creating an illusion that it’s just an honest misunderstanding between two sides, both of whom are working within the system to try to strike the appropriate balance between profits and societal costs. But the internal audit shows that that’s not what’s going on at all.
February 7th, 2005 at 8:56 am
It’s funny when you people send anti-electricity propoganda over the Internet – powered by electricity.
According to you guys, we cant have nuclear power, gas power, coal power or oil power….
So tell me, how SHOULD energy be generated?
February 10th, 2005 at 5:21 am
suddenly the great fountain of liberal ideas seems to have shut off the flow.
February 14th, 2005 at 9:52 am
This is a very simple direct question, folks! How should electricity be generated?
February 14th, 2005 at 11:46 am
you know, irony is also found in the fact that you are sending anti-military propoganda over the internet – which was invented by the military. (and not Algore)
February 18th, 2005 at 8:28 am
The Kyoto Protocol requires industrialized countries that have signed and ratified it to reduce or stabilize their emissions of six “greenhouse” gases, the principal of which is carbon dioxide (CO2).
FACT – These gases are mainly the byproduct of burning oil, gas and coal, the mainstay of energy since the Industrial Revolution.
FACT – The invisible pollution hangs in the atmosphere, trapping heat from the Sun instead of letting it radiate back out to space. The warming is already disrupting Earth’s delicate climate system, melting polar ice and glaciers and causing droughts, floods and storms.
FACT – The United States and Australia, together accounting for some 30 percent of total emissions — have refused to sign on.
Their argument is that the treaty, by requiring greater fuel efficiency and a conversion to cleaner sources, is too costly for their economy. Canada, the only G7 nation generating budget surpluses, has implemented the Kyoto Protocol and has one of the world’s strongest economies, growning faster than that of the US.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said climate change “is going to cause difficulty, if not catastrophe” in 30 or 40 years.
He pledged he would renew efforts to coax the United States “back into dialogue.”
German Environment Minister Juergen Trittin, also in a videotaped address, scolded the United States, noting that US carbon pollution was, per capita, two and a half times that of Europe, which had equivalent living standards.
February 18th, 2005 at 8:41 am
To answer your question Patriot, in Canada we’ve started to produce energy from Wind, Solar, Incineration (burning our garbage produces electricity, eleminating 2 problems at once)and using water for generation.
See by implementing the Kyoto protocol, countries are spurring innovative, environmentally sound ideas which is spawning a whole new aspect for their economies, while countries that refuse to cut pollution from fossil fuels will be left behind. The evidence is already mounting.
Funny thing is, Alberta has over 3 trillion barrels of underneath her and we are still exploring and researching renewable and sustainable energy. The goverments of a lot of these countries have also issued a’1 tonne challenge’ to their citizens. Simple things like switching to long lasting light bulbs, tax credits for energy saving appliances, fuel efficient cars all make a huge difference to the overall picture.
It makes me very proud to live in such a progressive, environmentally sound society.
February 18th, 2005 at 9:01 am
How much of this “pollution” is produced by nature?
March 16th, 2005 at 9:22 am
I just dont buy this crap that man is not a part of the balance of nature and is destroying the planet by driving automobiles.