At 02:13 PM 5/1/01 +1200, you wrote:
>John D. Giorgis wrote:
>
> >Mr. Easterbrook, however, was arguing that Bush was, quote. "much greener
> >than you think" - because many people thought that Bush would be a
> >proactive force for the systematic rolling back of enviornmental
> >regulation. More importantly, it was widely thought that the Bush
> >Administration would be a step back from the pro-environmental policy of
> >the Clinton Administration.
>
>I missed the original posting of this article. Could someone repost the
>link, please?
>
> >IMHO, Mr. Easterbrook effectively demonstrates that there has been no
> >systematic rolling back of environmental regulation so far, that there is
> >no indication that there will be in the future (rolling back regulations
> >becomes much harder once you leave the statutory review period), and that
> >the Bush environmental policy is not substantially different from the
> >Clinton policy.
>
>I really must see this article, if nothing else in order to refine my
>appreciation of journalistic jerrymandering. I'll try and restrain my
>commentary for the moment, but... from what I've heard, way over on my
>side of the ocean, if Bush hasn't completed a "systematic rolling back of
>environmental regulation" it hasn't been for lack of trying. What about
>the damage done to the endangered species act? What about the Alaska
>Wildlife preserve? What about that bloody stupid move of backing out of
>the greenhouse gases agreement, which he justified by, if I recall the
>wording right, claiming that it "presented no benifits for America"
>(causing me to pound on the dashboard and scream "IT'S THE OZONE LAYER,
>YOU IDIOT! IT COVERS THE ENTIRE WORLD!" and my friend to pat me on the
>shoulder and explain that, one, nobody blamed me for being an American,
>and two, Bush didn't know what ozone was)?
>
Actually, the Kyoto agreement concerns global warming, not ozone, and the
principal objection to it is that its opponents believe that implementing
it would do nothing of consequence to slow global warming or alleviate any
consequences therefrom, and that the main effect of the agreement as
written would be to set up a system to transfer funds primarily from the US
to poorer nations. (Whether such a transfer of wealth would be good for
the nations on the receiving end is not the point: the _stated_ purpose of
the Kyoto agreement is to address global warming, and the question is
whether it would satisfy that goal.) In fact, I talked about this topic
this evening in class.
-- Ronn! :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Ronn Blankenship
Instructor of Astronomy/Planetary Science
University of Montevallo
Montevallo, AL
Standard Disclaimer: Unless specifically stated
otherwise, any opinions stated herein are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent the
official position of the University of Montevallo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
