We don't have enough oil refineries. The environmentalist wackos, like Kerry, cry big political alligator tears about the price of oil and then step on big oil.
Posted on 04/22/2004 1:12:37 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The differences between George W. Bush and John Kerry on the environment can be measured by the same yardstick that scientists often use to measure pollution: parts per million.
That's because the prize in the political battle over the environment isn't a huge number of voters, but the smaller number who haven't decided whom they'll support, or whether they'll vote at all.
Analysts say the environment, like many other issues such as education or crime, is rarely a prime factor for most voters. In an election dominated by the economy and the war in Iraq, the percentage of people who list the environment as their top political concern is in single digits.
But as Mr. Kerry's extended swing through some of the nation's environmental hot spots shows, the environment can make a difference in key states, pushing swing voters to the other side of the ballot. He was in Florida on Tuesday and Louisiana on Wednesday and will be in Houston today, Earth Day.
"When you drill down to swing states, such as Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Pennsylvania or Florida, Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry will spend a great deal of their time talking about the environment," said Jim DiPeso, policy director for Republicans for Environmental Protection, a group that has strongly criticized Mr. Bush on air, energy, global warming, public lands and other environmental issues.
The Bush campaign agrees on the issue's potential for tipping a race.
"Let's be honest – this is going to a close election," said Bush campaign spokesman Danny Diaz. "We recognize that there are a lot of different issues that drive a lot of different voters."
The differences between Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry on the environment weren't just cooked up by political consultants. The candidates diverge sharply on several points.
Mr. Bush – pictured on his campaign's green-tinted environmental Web page as standing resolute before a mountain range – advocates giving market forces instead of government rules a bigger role in curbing industrial air pollution, boosting oil and gas drilling and developing new technologies to reduce or eliminate pollution from cars in coming decades.
Mr. Kerry – whose environmental Web page features a similar mountain range, only this time with oil derricks as a swipe at Mr. Bush's energy plans – blasts the Bush agenda and calls for tougher pollution rules, no drilling in the most sensitive areas and an immediate crackdown on car emissions.
Both positions reflect the candidates' larger philosophies on governing. Mr. Bush promoted voluntary measures instead of regulation as Texas' governor. He has continued that as president, except for new rules on diesel emissions and some other pollutants.
Mr. Kerry scores high in annual rankings of the League of Conservation Voters, which rewards elected officials for supporting tougher environmental regulations.
"The distinction on these issues couldn't be greater," Carol Browner, head of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton administration, told reporters Tuesday while campaigning with Mr. Kerry. "This is simply the worst administration ever when it comes to protecting our air, our water, the health of our families and communities."
Mr. Diaz, of the Bush campaign, said Mr. Bush has acted to protect Americans' health as well as their pocketbooks.
"The president has a record of achievement in the environment," he said. "When you look at his record in air quality, national parks, national forests and a host of other issues, this administration has stressed innovation and technology."
Here's a breakdown of where the candidates stand on some major environmental issues:
Air: Clear Skies, the centerpiece of Mr. Bush's clean-air efforts, would rewrite the Clean Air Act to let utilities earn, buy and sell credits for cutting emissions of nitrogen oxides, which cause smog, and toxic mercury. A company that needs to cut its emissions could avoid actual reductions by buying credits from another company that reduced its pollution more than the law required.
That system has been applied with great success to sulfur dioxide, a component of acid rain. Mr. Bush says using the technique for other pollutants would reduce them 70 percent by 2018 and save $1 billion in compliance costs.
Clear Skies legislation has stalled in Congress, so the administration has proposed making many of the changes with regulations, which don't need congressional approval.
Mr. Kerry and many environmentalists say Clear Skies is flawed and actually works to the utilities' benefit by postponing pollution cuts far too long. One of the most controversial provisions would remove permit requirements that now limit industries' ability to boost emissions.
Mr. Kerry says Clear Skies would increase pollution by 21 million tons a year over the simple enforcement of existing law. By rejecting a more protective option that environmental officials proposed, Mr. Kerry says, the Bush plan would result in 100,000 additional premature deaths over a decade and a half.
Energy: Mr. Bush's energy plan hasn't gotten out of Congress, but as with Clear Skies, the administration has made its agenda plain. Mr. Bush is promoting more use of coal as well drilling for oil and gas on public lands, including Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
He also wants to spend $1.2 billion for research into hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles, homes and businesses. All of the initiatives are meant to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, Mr. Bush says.
Mr. Kerry also says he wants to wean the nation off foreign oil, but he says the country "can't drill its way to independence." Instead, he would create a renewable energy trust fund to speed up the adoption of cleaner technology and energy efficiency.
Mr. Kerry also favors hydrogen research, but in the meantime he wants to require more fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars in the next decade. And although he's for more use of natural gas because it's the cleanest fossil fuel, he's against drilling in the Arctic refuge.
Global warming: Mr. Bush has withdrawn the United States from the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty that seeks to limit emissions of carbon dioxide, saying the pact would put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage. He also backed away from a 2000 campaign pledge to cut U.S. emissions.
Instead, Mr. Bush has earmarked $4.4 billion for climate change efforts, including $1.75 billion for research and $500 million in energy-efficiency tax incentives.
Mr. Kerry accuses the president of abandoning the U.S. leadership on global warming and other worldwide environmental concerns. He has advocated new talks to improve the climate treaty but says the United States can't keep postponing action on global warming.
Such issues may become more prominent as the weather and the campaigns heat up, and even when such issues as the price of gas surface. Each camp says it's ready.
"This administration has put forth a record of achievement that has significantly improved the environmental quality of this country," said Mr. Diaz, the Bush campaign spokesman.
Ms. Browner, the former EPA chief, said the battle will be as intense as a Texas July afternoon.
"As we move into summer, air pollution's getting worse, the asthma attacks in our children become worse," she said. "I think the public will start to turn its attention to this issue."
E-mail rloftis@dallasnews.com
A recent nationwide poll found that voters are concerned about the environment but that the issue isn't one of their top concerns:
The Gallup poll on how much respondents worry about water pollution:
A great deal, 48 percent
A fair amount, 31 percent
Only a little, 16 percent
Not at all, 5 percent
About air pollution:
A great deal, 39 percent
A fair amount, 30 percent
Only a little, 23 percent
Not at all, 8 percent
On whether the Bush administration has changed environmental protections:
Strengthened them, 6 percent
Kept about the same, 53 percent
Weakened them, 39 percent
On whether protecting the environment or developing energy supplies should be the priority:
Protecting the environment, 48 percent
Developing energy, 44 percent
Both equally, 3 percent
The percentage identifying various issues as those they care a "great deal" about:
Health care, 62 percent
Drug use, 46 percent
Crime and violence, 46 percent
Terrorism in the U.S., 42 percent
The economy, 41 percent
Illegal immigration, 36 percent
The environment, 35 percent
The poll of 1,005 adults March 8-11 had an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Those undecided are not shown
| A recent survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press finds that the public believes the news media are politically biased. So what else is new? Several things, actually, all of which bode ill for both journalism and democracy. When the Pew Center did the same survey in 1987, a solid majority believed that election coverage was free of bias. Today, only 38 percent do – including the usually high number of conservative skeptics but now, notably, more liberals than ever. Fewer Americans of whatever political stripe trust the media to give them political news straight. And fewer Americans rely on traditional news media for political news. Pew found that more of us, especially young adults, are turning to the Internet for political news and – heaven help us – to political comedy programs. Naturally, those who get campaign information from The Daily Show prove to be poorly informed. An increasing number of us seem interested in learning political news only from media that tell us what we want to hear. That's dangerous for the press and the people. What should be done? It's time that we in the Fourth Estate admit that liberal media bias isn't a figment of Rush Limbaugh's imagination. Studies by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Knight Foundation have shown that, on average, journalists are much more politically and culturally liberal and secular than their readers. Given such a wide disparity in worldview, it's unsurprising that readers and viewers – that is to say, customers – find our products to be a less reliable guide to political and cultural reality than we do. We must do a better job of providing balanced coverage and analysis. That said, it's troubling that a rising generation sees no meaningful difference between news and entertainment. The first-century satirist Juvenal lamented that the Roman people had traded civic virtue for "bread and circuses." Because the Romans preferred to be amused and stimulated over anything else, they lost their capacity to govern themselves. It could happen here. The public should expect more from us in the news media. Our survival as a credible institution depends on it. The public also should expect more from itself. Our survival as a democracy depends on it. |
Surprise revival for iron mines of Minnesota ………..***Long term, some state officials hope other developments - like a value-added process allowing mills to turn out nearly pure and more valuable "iron nuggets" to be used by popular minimills - will help the region compete. They're also hopeful about tapping copper, nickel, and palladium deposits.
At the newly reopened United Taconite mine, workers are moving the 75,000 tons of rock that get processed every 24 hours. Yellow trucks that can move 190 tons crisscross the massive open pit, a wasteland of gray rubble.
Due in part to high World War II demand, all Minnesota's high-grade natural ore was exhausted by the 1950s. Since then, local mining has been taconite - a rock that's about 22 percent iron, and is processed into hard little pellets of more concentrated iron.
Drillers bore 16-inch diameter holes into the rock, which are filled with 2,500 pounds of explosives to break out the ore. The average age of miners here is 48, and they've worked at this mine an average of 25 years. It's not an easy life, notes Superintendent Craig Hartmann. Most miners work a rotating mix of shifts that's hard on family life.
But the prospect of retraining in a tight job market was far tougher, and Mr. Hartmann is glad to see his former workers back. "We rattle the town with our blasts," he says. "We make dust and noise. But I can't tell you how many townspeople were happy to feel those blasts again."***
® Females, African-Americans, and younger respondents were much more likely to indicate that the quality of the air is worse.
® People living in the North East and North Central regions were significantly more likely than those living in the South to indicate that the nations air quality has gotten better in the past ten years. Those with higher education levels were also significantly more likely to feel air quality has improved.***
I'll have a talk with our Dallas Morning Snooze writer and give him the insight of America past Oak Lawn. And while I'm on Oak Lawn, I'll set the writers for the Fort Worthless Startle Gram straight, too. They all seem to hang out at the same clubs on Oak Lawn.
/john
We don't have enough oil refineries. The environmentalist wackos, like Kerry, cry big political alligator tears about the price of oil and then step on big oil.
Ha!
And this is Texas. Where we have a history of ballot box revolutions. Without ever having to resort to the other boxes.
/john
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.