At 02:13 PM 5/1/01 +1200 K. Feete wrote:
> What about
>the damage done to the endangered species act?
There was almost no damage done. Bush simply implemented a policy first
proposed by Bill Clinton, so as to let the EPA get a handle on ESA complaints.
>What about the Alaska
>Wildlife preserve?
I think I remember reading somewhere that the whole issue concerns 60 or so
acres. He could probably pave them with asphalt without seriously
damaging the environment.
>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!"
Uhhhhhh....... Kat - greenhouse gasses aren't responsible for detroying the
ozone layer - at least not directly.
>You say in another post that this agreement was doomed anyway, but you
>don't explain why, or remark on whether it was a good thing or not.
Pulling out was a good thing, as it gives the world the chance to implement
a greenhouse gas protocal that will be taken seriously.
1) The US Senate was on the record to the tune of 95-0 as opposing the
principles of the Kyoto Accord. The sooner the world moved on, the
better, as nobody - and I mean nobody - in the history of the known
universe has changed the minds of 51 Senators.
2) Exempting the entire developing world from emissions restrictions is
ridiculous - as it essentially gives a huge chunk of the world a free ride.
3) The Kyoto framework is based upon the notion of reducing emisisons below
1990 levels in just a few years. After a decade of solid economic growth,
the costs of these emissions restrictions would be astronomical. The
economic havoc caused might will bring on global depression - and thus do
incredible harm to the environment in the long run.
Even if global warming is happening, and even if human beings are
responsible - there is almost no evidence that drastic measures must be
taken immediately to save the world. IMHO, a much more moderate approach
is definitely called for.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"The point of living in a Republic after all, is that we do not live by
majority rule. We live by laws and a variety of institutions designed
to check each other." -Andrew Sullivan 01/29/01
