Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [mattm25] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Actually, he cut them from 70% to 28%. By the way, did you notice that federal income tax revenue nearly doubled during his tenure?

Keep on telling the people who disagree with you that they are stupid. That is a terrific vehicle to pursuading them, unless, of course, you want to win elections.
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ok, i've got some questions here, this will run the gamut so bear with me:

first, and i really don't mean this in a disrespectful way, but you have repeatedly mentioned your previous occupation as an environmental compliance officer. how does this make your opinion re: global warming any different than the other participant on this thread? in other words, and maybe i'm wrong, but i wouldn't think an issue such as global warming(especially given the lack of environmental regulations in the area) would have really been a part of the job description and thus i don't see how your background changes the fact that it is essentially a lay person's opinion.

second, doesn't the fact that your background with respect to environmental issues comes from the corporate side create as much of a bias against certain regs/positions as people who have worldviews similar to the sierra club or the nrdc? i only ask because it seems like you portray your professional experience as creating a more objective view point.

third, why is it that only the "anti" global warming side are the ones conducting fresh studies that back their thesis and the "pro" global warming side simply relies on older studies that are "junk science"? i just find it extremely difficult to believe that for every person in year 5 of a 10 year study on behalf of the "anti" side, there isn't someone on the "pro" side doing the same thing.

does the fact that the union of concerned scientists doesn't have some type of credential requirement automatically render all their opinions irrelevant? sure some of the membership might not have the first clue about climate change or lack thereof, but does that mean that there aren't some legit climatologists/meteorlogists/ecologists that created or endorsed the report? how can the entirety of the group be dismissed so easily?

ok, with respect to this quote: "Is it? Which was the first country to have an EPA? Why are we considering Kyoto when we should be reining in some of the wanton poisoning of water supplies by nations like India and China?"

where does the u.s. get the moral authority to rein in some of these developing countries? when the u.s. was moving from an agragrian to an industrial to a service based economy and in the process dumping tons of poisons into the air and water, there was no one telling us to slow down or change are methods due to environmental concerns. on the contrary, we dumped with impunity. now we are trying to tell a countries whose economies are closer to the u.s.' economy circa 1940 that they have to change how they do things because of the environment. isn't that hypocritical?




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, i'm not trying to persuade (yes, it's spelled with an "e") anyone. And i do believe that the majority of people in this country are stupid. Furthermore, my biggest problem with the current administration is not its tax policy, although i do think it is an absolutely absurd way to spur economic growth and recovery with the current budget deficit. It is their stance on the environment, social issues, and the war in iraq. But i guess when some people think that global warming is a "bullshit science" they don't really have to address it... Also, the pandering to the religious right in the conservative party makes me want to puke.

The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.

Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up only 91.3 percent during the 80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which is directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. Hence, the claim that the doubling of TOTAL revenues proves the effectiveness of tax cuts is including revenues which resulted from a tax hike to prove the effectiveness of a tax cut. This seems like the height of hypocrisy.

Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [mattm25] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You offer an argument to refute something I didn't say. I never said that reducing the tax rates resulted in more revenue. Maybe it did in this case, maybe not. There are certainly cases, such as the capital gain tax cut that Clinton reluctantly signed, in which it did generate more revenue. Other cases are less clear.

I don't know if you had an opinion on the tax cuts in the 80s. I can assure you that those that thought they were stupid then think, as you do, that the Bush tax cuts are stupid now. History proves them wrong, as illustrated by the fact that no one, including those that fought those cuts to the death, is advocating moving back to tax rates even remotely approaching those in place before Reagan. If you look at Kerry's proposed tax cuts, you can conclude that he thinks that 85% of the Reagan cuts were a good idea, but he wanted to take maybe 15% back.

Just keep on telling people that they and the leaders they elect are stupid. I heard this all through the 80's, and the stupid president changed the world. Keep on condescending. Keep on personally attacking those with whom you have policy disagreements rather than engaging in a debate on the merits of their plans. Keep on persuading no one and, most of all, keep on losing elections.
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
the clinton tax cuts were not the cause of increased revenue. it was an expansionary period due to the invention of the internet and dotcoms. had nothing to do with his tax cuts. what is a good idea in the 80s is not necessarily a good idea twenty years later. how about we just get rid of all taxes?
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [mattm25] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your statement that capital gain tax cuts had nothing to do with the increased revenue leads me to believe you have never had a substantial capital gain about which you have had the freedom to choose when to realize it.

Just keep telling people that tax policy does not influence their economic choices. It would be timely to tell them they were stupid at the same time in order to help them understand how it is that they have mistakenly taken tax policy into account in their work and investment decisions. That should pursuade them for sure. Please do this around the time of the next election.
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It appears the Repubs would rather err on the side of big business and the Dems would rather err on the side of the environment and the health of our planet. Fair statement?
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"how does this [former status as an EPA compliance officer] make your opinion re: global warming any different than the other participant on this thread?"
- - Fair question. I worked for a rotogravure printing company, and we [that industry] were a high priority target back in the early 80s. In dealing with them, I needed to educate myself in order to protect my company. I hired one of the world's top chemists, a man who had invented a great many items, held nearly as many patents as Tesla (OK, that's an exaggeration) and who enjoyed my company because I was truly interested in the subject matter and just barely smart enough to follow what he told me. I spent close to ten years studying all of the available scientific data and conferring with the aforementioned gentleman and others. I also sat on and chaired a couple of industry panels on the subject of whether our chemicals represented true environmental hazards, whether we truly needed to change, and what if anything we could do to make changes in our processes or to educate the bureaucrats who didn't know their butts from first base yet held our fate in their hands - guys a lot like Al Gore.

In the course of that, I learned a lot about air pollution, most specifically, what things were truly cyclic (non-degradable) and what things were ultimately harmless (CO2 for example). Ozone was a big item back then (about the time CFCs were a hot topic and everyone was terrified that the ozone hole was going to bust wide open) and I learned about the various mechanisms by which ozone maintains its own balance, and how the "hole" shrinks and grows periodically and independent of human causation.

"in other words, and maybe i'm wrong, but i wouldn't think an issue such as global warming(especially given the lack of environmental regulations in the area) would have really been a part of the job description and thus i don't see how your background changes the fact that it is essentially a lay person's opinion."
- - Again, a fair call on your part. Although global warming wasn't considered an issue in those days except to a few weirdos like Jerry Brown... and of course Paul Ehrlich (it was something all Americans used to laugh at). My consultant and I used to laugh about the fact that a) these crackpots started by saying the globe was cooling, and that we were doomed. b) Their data showed an actual increase in temperature in most of their test sites, so they switched to "the sky isn't falling, it's just going to heat up until we all die..." and c) The second law of thermodynamics pretty much makes it clear that the earth will ultimately cool to the point where it will be uninhabitable, but we're probably safe for a billion years or so, so d) these guys had it right in 1968, but changed their tune because they couldn't fiture out a way to make money trying to offset global cooling.
So no, I'm not an expert, just an afficianado. One of the guys I met through all of this is currently working on a long-term study to determine whether a) global warming is happening (other than short-term, transient shifts), b) if it's happening, is it the result of anything mankind is doing and c) most importantly, is there anything mankind can do to alleviate the problem, if it in fact exists. The early findings seem to refute the idea that there is any real warming trend going on, or that mankind even has the ability to cause one.

"second, doesn't the fact that your background with respect to environmental issues comes from the corporate side create as much of a bias against certain regs/positions as people who have worldviews similar to the sierra club or the nrdc?"
- - Again, a fair question. Before answering, I might ask why you would think orgs like the Sierra Club don't have an agenda for their on aggrandizement that isn't a thousand times worse than corporate motivation, which is simply to be (financially) successful in a chosen field. At least as a printer, I was busy trying to run a really good printing company (I succeeded) whereas the Sierra Club just wants to foist its "solutions" to nonexistent problems. Take a look at what they did with MTBE, which dwarfs all prior environmental disasters.
So now I'll freely admit that I am biased against organizations like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, most of whom don't know diddly squat about air or water pollution, other than their own pamphlets. As a libertarian, I absolutely believe that the people who create the wealth should decide how things are to be done. I would be OK with the environmental groups having a say, as long as they were held responsible when their hair-brained schemes go awry. If such were the case, the Sierra Club would currently be bankrupt due to lawsuits from the MILLIONS of people whose lives were ruined by MTBE. That would balance things out, and provide a mechanism for weeding out the lunatics (Rachel Carson, Paul Ehrlich and Al Gore for example) who toss out this half-baked nonsense and then we all end up paying for it.

"i only ask because it seems like you portray your professional experience as creating a more objective view point."
- - I personally believe it does for two reasons:
1- I was ain a position where I had to take responsiblity for what my company did, and the wrong call could put us out of business due to "cradle to grave" laws.
2- As a former hippy, I was once on the other side, and understand very well how and why they work. They're not bad people they just aren't accountable and can therefore run as amok as they like.

"third, why is it that only the 'anti' global warming side are the ones conducting fresh studies that back their thesis and the 'pro' global warming side simply relies on older studies that are 'junk science'?"
- - I don't think I'd call them pro and anti, I'd call them responsible and irresponsible. The GW loons keep proclaiming that their statistics and the IPCC report PROVE that the globe is warming and that we're all gonna die if we don't take action. Please NOTE, that the IPCC report clearly states that global warming is an unproven theory and that the data on hand at the time of generation of this report was INSUFFICIENT to make a definitive call on the matter. Again Al "Earth in the Balance" Gore wrote a book about it that is unmitigated horseshit, but GW is now a cause celebre and people can make money and get airtime crowing about it. Paul Ehrlich is still a god to these people despite the fact that his dire predictions keep failing to materialize.
Meanwhile, the responsible people are busy trying to undo the hysteria that the irresponsible morons have stirred up. They're doing so because their lives and all of our futures depend on getting this right. If the globe is warming, we want to take action, if it isn't then the actions being currently proposed (Kyoto) would severely damage the US economy for ABSOLUTELY NO VALID PURPOSE. Those of us on the responsible side think that just might be more important than a few checkered moths or a few spotted owls (which, BTW are far from endangered).

"i just find it extremely difficult to believe that for every person in year 5 of a 10 year study on behalf of the 'anti' side, there isn't someone on the 'pro' side doing the same thing.
- - There might be, and they might just fold tents if they're getting the same results as my friends group. But remember, these people already HAVE their data, even though it doesn't prove what they think it proves or what they've convinced you and a lot of other folks that it proves. But do you really think we should start fixing this tire that isn't flat but might be leaking, before we prove that it's actually leaking. You may have noticed that one of the posts on this thread is from a guy who works for the EPA, and he clearly stated that global warming is only a theory, and is far from being proven.

"does the fact that the union of concerned scientists doesn't have some type of credential requirement automatically render all their opinions irrelevant?"
- - Yes it does, because it's a fund-raising arm of the environmental movement, and it is deliberately deceptive. "Here, sign our petition and give us $100 bucks or the whole planet will overheat. You'll be joining thousands of concerned scientists all over the world..." but that just isn't true. When people lie, their crediblity should be nil.

"sure some of the membership might not have the first clue about climate change or lack thereof, but does that mean that there aren't some legit climatologists/meteorlogists/ecologists that created or endorsed the report?"
- - THe fact that the organization is a fraud certainly would not preclude a few credentialed individuals in the field of climatology from getting on board, and I believe that a few probably have. Three individuals in a group of thousands is not any reason to give them credence.

"how can the entirety of the group be dismissed so easily?"
- - Because they LIE about who they are. They present themselves as expert witnesses, when they are nothing of the sort.

"where does the u.s. get the moral authority to rein in some of these developing countries?"
- - Wrong question. The question should be "Where do China, India, France, et al get off trying to tell the US that it has to bear the lions share of the burden for a problem that has yet to be demonstrated as extant? The Kyoto Accords, if endorsed by the US (and even without it much of Europe is pressuring us to follow it's recommendations) would decimate our economy and send billions of dollars worth of industry offshore to places like India and China who would pollute more than we do, but could do so with impunity under Kyoto.

"when the u.s. was moving from an agragrian to an industrial to a service based economy and in the process dumping tons of poisons into the air and water, there was no one telling us to slow down or change are methods due to environmental concerns. on the contrary, we dumped with impunity. now we are trying to tell a countries whose economies are closer to the u.s.' economy circa 1940 that they have to change how they do things because of the environment. isn't that hypocritical?"
- - That's a subject that could take days to answer. Basically, we led the way. No one really thought about air pollution in the 1940s, and a lot of companies dumped things in holes in the ground or just burned them, thinking that was the best way to deal with waste. We've learned a lot, and we've taught the world a lot. How about we just start where we are and do what needs doing today?


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ok, another question, leaving aside certain issues(global warming, for instance because i can see a possible agenda there), what agenda do groups like the sierra club, earthjustice, nrdc, etc, have that would taint there opinion. caveat: i tend to agree with these groups the vast majority of the time. but i honestly don't see where they'd have an ulterior motive. they might be alarmist, but i don't see where they'd mislead to further a second agenda. so why shouldn't i believe a lot of what they say?




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
They are antigrowth, antibusiness and anti capitalism.

Standard operating procedure for anyone opposing any particular development project is to cry environmental damage, whether it is real or imagined. I have been there, seen that process up close and personal.
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Climate change is, as far as I am concerned, still completely up in the air. All the reasons you list for the temperature warming are very plausible, in addition to the fact that all our temperature sample sites are located on the outskirts of cities which have grown over the course of the last 50 years, skewing the results towards the warm side. I have a background in meteorology, climate change and geography. From what I know, arguments for human-induced global warming do have many holes in them. To be short, I wouldn't be surpised if humans had almost zero influence of global temperature trends, and if they did, I think we have equal chances of heading into another ice age as we do into a warm period. The earth has is a great equalizer. However, you have to understand that I am an idealist and have zero tolerance for greed. I support policies that protect our drinking water and food supply, and if they have the potentila to affect CO2 emissions, thats a bonus. I think there is very little need for gas guzzling cars, and I'd like to see a slow trend toward hybrid cars and more efficient gasoline engines. But as you probably know, cars are a small percentage of the national CO output; most of this is attributable to industry. I'd like to see better regulation of many toxin emissions in industry, and I think we could accomplish that over the course of say, 10 years with minimul economic impact. My complaint with Bush is that he has zero interest in that concept.

As for specific environmental roll backs, there have been many minor ones we haven't heard about. I will get back to you next week with specifics, but off the top of my head, Bush has turned down several water supply regulations that would have reduced the legal amount of certain toxins, the most important of which is arsenic, in our drinking water. Arsenic is know to cause lung, kidney and prostate cancer over long term exposure.
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
-- Standard operating procedure for anyone opposing any particular development project is to cry environmental damage, whether it is real or imagined. I have been there, seen that process up close and personal.

Except for a select few, standard operating procedure for any development project is profit at any cost. You either place environment before profits or profits before the environment. For the most part we as a society are choosing the latter.
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"i tend to agree with these groups the vast majority of the time. but i honestly don't see where they'd have an ulterior motive. they might be alarmist, but i don't see where they'd mislead to further a second agenda. so why shouldn't i believe a lot of what they say?"

These are people who believe that the end justifies the means. They're not bad people (well, some of them are but that's true of any group) they're just indoctrinated. They truly believe that the world will spin off it's axis if Republicans run the country. They're wrong of course, but that doesn't stop them, because THEY'RE NEVER HELD TO ACCOUNT for the bullshit they spread and the havoc they wreak. They're permitted to be blind zealots and no one makes them pay for their mistakes. If they had to pay the costs of their litigation gone astray, if they had to reimburse landowners for land they get the government to take away through legislation and the refusal of permits so that people who invest in property have their savings and their long-term plans wiped out... If the envirowhacks had to pay for all the lost jobs because they won't let the loggers have jobs or the sawmill workers (Plumas County, CA)... If they had to pay for the damage they do, they'd be out of business.


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [TTTorso] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"It appears the Repubs would rather err on the side of big business and the Dems would rather err on the side of the environment and the health of our planet. Fair statement?"

Except that the "err"ing on the side of the environment is based on rumor, inuendo and speculation, and it's reckless. Read my responses to mclamb6 just above.

I keep hearing people say "Well what if the globe really is warming and we don't do anything about it?" and "Why not sign Kyoto just on the chance that GW is real. Why take the chance that it might be and we could have stopped it?"

The problem with these statements is simply this: What if the globe is actually cooling and we accelerate that by our policies? What if the globe is maintaining itself just fine and we START the global cooling process by our policies? Best of all, why spend BILLIONS of dollars on a problem that doesn't exist?


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [B_Mo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Climate change is, as far as I am concerned, still completely up in the air."
- - Humor, I like that!

"From what I know, arguments for human-induced global warming do have many holes in them."
- - Nice to have some company on the intelligent side of this issue.

"I think there is very little need for gas guzzling cars"
- - True. Not much need for brain-wasting Nintendos for all the kids either. Don't need porn; don't need casinos; don't need a lot of potentially harmful things. So how much of our lives do we let the government control, and then what happens when people with an agenda get elected? The problem is that the Constutution never envisioned the kinds of intrusions into people's free choice that are happening today.

"off the top of my head, Bush has turned down several water supply regulations that would have reduced the legal amount of certain toxins, the most important of which is arsenic"
- - Not at all true. First, what he rolled back was an arbitrary and pointless reduction signed in by Clinton during his time as a lame duck. A lot of people saw that as forcing Bush to roll back a ridiculous and draconian regulation so the environmentalists could say "Look, Bush wants you to drink arsenic."

The reg Bush "rolled back" had never actually taken effect, and there was no evidence to indicate that it would have saved a single life or prevented a single illness... ever. Oh, and it would have cost billions to implement.


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [B_Mo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It is refreshing to hear an advocate for environmental policies that argues from a position other than the sky is falling and we are all doomed. If more environmental advocates were as realistic, America would be able to more efficiently worked out compromises between competing groups that benefited all sides. Instead, we get lawyers.

You are going to have a tough time on the environmental rollback list. Maybe you will find some, but your arsenic example is wrong. At the end of his presidency, Clinton greatly reduced allowable arsenic levels in drinking water via regulations that were, of course, to take effect after he left office. There is no science to justify the reduced levels. Bush delayed the regulations briefly, but they eventually took effect. I have no idea what those areas in the West which have naturally occuring levels of arsenic above those thresholds are doing. I know it was a serious problem in certain locations.

Even had Bush cancelled the regulations, it would not have been a rollback. It would have simply been a continuation of a decades old policy, Dashle's "Mommy, can I have a glass of arsenic?" commercial notwithstanding.
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [TTTorso] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree the developer has a profit at any cost mindset. We do need government regulation to enforce society's policy choices.

My answer was directed at the question of what agenda does the Sierra Club and other like minded organizations have other than the dispasssionate representation of the truth. So I answered.

I have to disagree that we are choosing pollution as a society. Nearly every environmental ballot initiative on the ballot in the last election passed. As I look around, my air and water are getting cleaner every year, and we are all living longer. How bad a job could we be doing?
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i've worked with environmental attorneys--earthjustice and a smaller firm in boulder that fought mining companies. it was a brief internship with their denver office. your characterization of them is off. they don't sue willy-nilly. nor are they looking for clients in the same fashion as a personal injury attorney. many times they represent citizen's groups that either dislike certain corporate developments in their area(mines, physical plants, etc.) who can't afford other representation. other times they represent other enviro groups in efforts to keep certain areas in pristine shape for recreational use/enjoyment.

moreover, most times, litigation is a last resort. sure they file papers, but it's more of a bargaining tool to let a business or the gov't know they intend to follow through and not sit idly by while they stonewall negotiation efforts.

finally, the relief sought is almost always an injunction rather than compensatory damages. so it's not a matter of lawyers pressing for litigation so they can get a hefty contingency fee. attorneys at non-profits work hard and they don't make much. they often fight up hill battles against opponents that have superior funding.

are some enviro groups unrealistic? absolutely--they forget that people should come before animals and things of that nature. but there are many groups that bring reasonable views to the table, but because their views cut into the bottom line of corporations, they don't get a lot of help at the negotiating table--especially in light of the fact that economic analysis of environmental issues is difficult at best(how do you quantify the value of clean air over the grand canyon?).




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, you proved my point. Your clients were citizen groups that didn't like a particular development. They didn't give a damn about the environment. Environmental regulation was just a means to stop development. They tasked the attorneys with finding some environmental excuse to stop the development, even though the clients didn't give a damn about environmental impacts.

Their agenda was to raise the cost of development via litigation or the threat of litigation. I will wager they were often successful.

Pardon me if I don't take environmental claims from such groups seriously.
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
no i'm not proving your point. this is long, so bear with me. here's what happens. let's say a paper company wants to put in a new production plant. now paper companies in the process of making paper use a lot of unsavory chemicals, most notably a LOT of chlorine, which produces some pretty bad bi-products(ever hear of dioxin? it's not good). the state, meanwhile, offers the company tax breaks and land because they want the company to build the plant in their state.

now the issue becomes, where to put the plant? certainly not in the affluent, middle to upper middle class neighborhoods, because they don't want that to breathe whatever is coming out of the smoke stacks, nor do they want a plant to drop the value of their property. the people also have the money to raise a hell of a ruckus if the company/state even attempted something as looney as putting the plant in the rich areas. but of course the affluent folks still want the plant, because, hey, it'll be good for the economy. so what to do? what to do? someone then says, hey, let's put it in the low rent district. those people don't have money. their property values stink. they aren't powerful politically. and those people can probably use the jobs. it's win, win.

in goes the plant. even though the people in the area didn't want it there. just because they don't have money, doesn't mean they are stupid. they don't want to breathe or drink that crap. nor do they like the sight of two giant smoke stacks out their front window. they'd like to move one day, so they need to at least maintain the property values. too bad. in goes the plant.

shortly after the plant goes in, the parents in the neighborhood notice their kids are getting sick more often. even the adults are suffering more. teachers notice test scores dropping and attendance rates decline. the local neighborhood gets together to decide what to do. they don't know what's going on--could it be the plant? they scrape together some cash and get someone to test the air, groundwater, and soil. lo and behold--the plant has contaminated the water, air, and soil all over the neighborhood with carcinogens and other poisons. the neighborhood group approaches the plant to get them to make changes. no good--they are making a ton of money and a change means less profits. they approach the state/feds. pretty much same story. these people aren't important enough politically to make it worth fighting a big company. the citizen's group doesn't have money to hire a big firm, so they look to a non-profit group like earthjustice for help. earthjustice takes the case. earthjustice approaches the company. no dice. earthjustice goes to the gov't to seek enforcement of the environmental regs. still very little help there. so they bring a law suit to get the plant into compliance or get them out because they are slowly killing these people.

and if you don't think this happens, read this: http://www.mapcruzin.com/...e/reportondioxin.htm. read more about "cancer alley" around lake charles, louisiana. and if you don't want to "take these claims seriously", that's up to you. but don't give me any non-sense about an "agenda".




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't doubt that there are some examples of what you describe, though I doubt that whole process has unfolded that way in the last 20 years, but I don't want to argue that issue since it is not my point.

The normal situation is an owner wants to put up some houses on his land. The neighbors don't want this since everyone wants to own the last home built in the neighborhood. They figure any vacant land is owned by them collectively, to hell with what some deed actually says.

They get together, determined to stop the development. Low and behold, someone claims that they saw burrowing owls on the property. They kick up a fuss, claim all sorts of environmental tragedies will result from the destruction of the endangered owl's habitat. Not one person in the group gives a damn about the burrowing owls, or about the fact that there were burrowing owls on their property before their homes were built.

Despite the fact that there never were any burrowing owls on the property, they raise a stink, drive up the costs of development of the property to the point at which the property becomes essentially worthless to the owner. All this in the name of the burrowing owl, which never even was on the property, and no one involved gave a damn about anyway.

That is the bulk of the environmental movement today. Been there, done that.
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
art, if that's who you think that organizations like the natural resources defense council, earthjustice, greenpeace, and countless other non-profit firms represent and what they do, you are sorely, sorely mistaken. if you think that is the bulk of "environmental" law, you are mistaken again. that's land use law. period. different animal. i don't care what they law they are using for their litigation--it's not environmental law.

most of environmental law deals with making sure the gov't enforces the laws on the books correctly and that private industries aren't exceeding their rights under said laws.




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well you may want to make a distinction between evironmental issues such as toxic emissions and natural resource issues like preserving wetland, preserving habit for things like the snail darter and the like, but it is a distinction without a difference. The same people are on the same side of both sets of laws and are always trying to stop development and commerce.

That is not to say they are always wrong. The issue raised earlier in the thread was what other agendas were hidden by such organizations. I answered.

As another example, a friend of my wife is trying to prevent a highway from being constructed near her home. She doesn't give a damn about environmental impact, but that is the only tool she has to force delays and drive up the cost, so that is the horse she rides.

Such approaches have cost me and my family big bucks over the years. I know of what I speak.

Again, that doesn't make environmentalists wrong, it is just that environmental arguments are used more often as part of anti growth agenda by people who don't care about the particular environmental impact than in legitimate cases.
Quote Reply
Re: John Kerry works to heal the national divide... [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
shortly after the plant goes in, the parents in the neighborhood notice their kids are getting sick more often. even the adults are suffering more. teachers notice test scores dropping and attendance rates decline. ...the citizen's group doesn't have money to hire a big firm


I'm sure you're right, but I think you used a bad example. The plant you described is breaking the law. When people are suffering actual harm they generally don't have any trouble hiring lawyers on a contingency basis. The link you show is pretty clear.

I think a better example would be a plant that stinks but doesn't really hurt anything other than property values. These people deserve to be compensated, but it's just not going to happen.
Quote Reply

Prev Next