Environmental Agenda

Boomers International Board: Election - Politics: Environmental Agenda
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By yingyangdingdon on Wednesday, May 30, 2001 - 01:33 pm:

Wednesday May 30 3:04 AM ET
Bush Presses Environmental Agenda
By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, Calif. (AP) - President Bush (news - web sites), eager to tout his commitment to protecting the environment, was touring the towering trees and stark granite peaks here Wednesday as he promoted initiatives to spruce up the national parks.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By yingyangdingdong on Wednesday, May 30, 2001 - 01:33 pm:

Bush to Announce New Step to Help National Parks
By Randall Mikkelsen

SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, Calif. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Wednesday will seek to burnish his green credentials with a speech in the Sierra Nevada mountains announcing a new step toward sprucing up America's national parks, White House officials said.

Bush is to unveil plans to require National Park Service rangers to prepare an annual ``state of the parks'' report describing the condition of the parks under their jurisdiction, White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said.

``The purpose would be to ensure a focus on environmental stewardship and the protection of our national parks,'' Buchan said. Bush, in his February budget request, asked Congress for $5 billion over five years to clear up a backlog of long-neglected repairs.

Bush arrived late on Tuesday for an overnight stay in a lodge amid the some of the world's largest trees in Sequoia National Park. He is to take a morning hike 800 vertical feet to the top of Moro Rock, a granite dome overlooking the craggy mountain landscape from 6,725 feet elevation, before giving the speech.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010530/pl/bush_environment_dc_2.html


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By yingyangdingdong on Wednesday, May 30, 2001 - 01:47 pm:

Liberal medias never mention his ranch which is an Environmentalist's model dream house.

Home on the Range
The Bush ranch is the way he likes to see himself — rugged and thoroughly Texan

By JOHN F. DICKERSON
December 17, 2000

http://www.time.com/time/poy2000/ranch.html

http://www.time.com/time/poy2000/mag/ranch.html


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Anonymous on Thursday, May 31, 2001 - 12:12 am:

YingYang you're quite amazing lol


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By yingyangdingdong on Wednesday, June 6, 2001 - 07:23 pm:

Here's a great opinion!

Bush is right to put his foot on the gas
By Mark Steyn - The Sunday Telegraph.

http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=002830376029449&rtmo=lnFnQAot&atmo=HHHH22NL&pg=/01/5/20/do03.html

Enjoy!!!
yydd


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By yingyangdingdong on Tuesday, June 12, 2001 - 06:09 pm:

Ex-Clinton aides admit Kyoto treaty flawed
06/11/2001 - Updated 08:45 PM ET
By Jonathan Weisman, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — As President Bush headed off Monday to face environmental critics in Europe, he fired a parting shot at the global warming treaty he has rejected. He called the Kyoto Protocol unrealistic, costly and "fatally flawed."

In that assessment, he has some unexpected supporters: Clinton administration experts.

Economists from the Clinton White House now concede that complying with Kyoto's mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases would be difficult — and more expensive to American consumers than they thought when they were in charge................

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2001-06-12-kyoto.htm

yydd


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By yingyangdingdong on Tuesday, June 12, 2001 - 06:10 pm:

GLOBAL WARMING yingyangdingdong
(35/M/McIndoe_Falls) 6/12/01 5:40 pm
"The Press Gets It Wrong
Our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty.
BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Monday, June 11, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

Last week the National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."

As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.

As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger--that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.

Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds)......

One reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling...............

The press has frequently tied the existence of climate change to a need for Kyoto. The NAS panel did not address this question. My own view, consistent with the panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming. Given the difficulties in significantly limiting levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a more effective policy might well focus on other greenhouse substances whose potential for reducing global warming in a short time may be greater.
The panel was finally asked to evaluate the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focusing on the Summary for Policymakers, the only part ever read or quoted. The Summary for Policymakers, which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. Within the confines of professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government..........."

Read the whole article at The WSJ Editorial Page:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606

yydd


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By yingyangdingdong on Tuesday, June 12, 2001 - 06:11 pm:

FROM THE HEARTLAND -Imported Whines
Europeans can't stop carping, so Bush must be doing something right.

BY THOMAS J. BRAY
Tuesday, June 12, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

The political punditry anticipates making a good meal out of the supposedly hapless George W. Bush as he heads off to Poland, Spain and several other European countries this week.

"Across Europe," inveighs the New York Times, "there is little love of America's new president and a growing perception that the United States, under his leadership, is looking out only for itself these days--polluting the skies, breaking treaties and flirting with the new arms races." Not only that, but "Europe" is supposedly "appalled" by America's retrograde habit of executing criminals who murdered 168 innocent people.

All of this gives Mr. Bush and his team the advantage of being drastically underestimated. By sticking to his guns, the president is likely to get a respectful hearing from ordinary Europeans and gain support at home. Polls may suggest that Mr. Bush has some work to do persuading his fellow Americans of the wisdom of his policies. But nothing is so sure to enrage average Americans as the spectacle of self-righteous foreigners purporting to look down their noses at them and their president.

Besides, it's not clear that Europe can claim the high ground on any of these issues. How, exactly, is it a sign of American barbarism that cold-blooded killers like Timothy McVeigh are put to death for what they have done? If there is some answering for barbarism to be done, Europeans might look to their own history over the past century. And when the killing started again in the Balkans, who was it that provided the muscle to do something about it?

It is not as if the Bush administration dragged Timothy McVeigh out of his house and shot him dead, as other countries with which America is constantly compared might do. McVeigh was arrested, informed of his rights and transferred to a different venue for trial by a jury of his peers. After being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and afforded the right of multiple appeals, he was executed, precisely as democratically established law provides. As any European should have reason to know, barbarism is the absence of rules, not the presence of individual accountability.....

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/tbray/?id=95000609

yydd


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By GEORGE on Sunday, November 4, 2007 - 11:27 pm:

Authentication Error

Your username/password combination was invalid, or you do not have permission to post to this topic. You may revise your username and password using the form at the bottom of this page.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By PEBBLES on Sunday, November 4, 2007 - 11:43 pm:

Authentication Error

Your username/password combination was invalid, or you do not have permission to post to this topic. You may revise your username and password using the form at the bottom of this page.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By PEBBLES on Sunday, November 4, 2007 - 11:43 pm:

Authentication Error

Your username/password combination was invalid, or you do not have permission to post to this topic. You may revise your username and password using the form at the bottom of this page.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By lynpasopq on Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 07:15 pm:

Authentication Error

Your username/password combination was invalid, or you do not have permission to post to this topic. You may revise your username and password using the form at the bottom of this page.

Add a Message


This is a private posting area. A valid username and password combination is required to post messages to this discussion.
Username:  
Password: