Bush steamrolling Last Minute Environmentally Harmfull Laws

[Tao_Equus]

From New Scientist:

Bush rushes 'harmful' environment laws - earth - 03 November 2008 - New Scientist Environment

As the US presidential candidates sprint toward the finish line, the Bush administration is also sprinting to enact environmental policy changes before leaving power.
The rule changes include getting wolves off the Endangered Species List, allowing power plants to operate near national parks, loosening regulations for factory farm waste and making it easier for mountaintop coal-mining operations. None have found much favour with environmental groups.


While everybody is busy he maintains his allegiance to the corporate destruction of the environment.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

From New Scientist:

Bush rushes 'harmful' environment laws - earth - 03 November 2008 - New Scientist Environment

As the US presidential candidates sprint toward the finish line, the Bush administration is also sprinting to enact environmental policy changes before leaving power.
The rule changes include getting wolves off the Endangered Species List, allowing power plants to operate near national parks, loosening regulations for factory farm waste and making it easier for mountaintop coal-mining operations. None have found much favour with environmental groups.


While everybody is busy he maintains his allegiance to the corporate destruction of the environment.

As far as I am concerned this is the basic political game that happens at the end of every presidency.


imo, yellowstone should be a power plant with its enormous geothermal activity....beyond that I'd like them to remove all electricity from our national parks...that would make them much more natural, much more to my liking and much less traffic (they are currently turning into amusement parks with food, tourist traps and insane traffic jambs)

wolves...I don't see them as endangered, their populations, like that of the bald eagle are enormously sustainable.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by wil

wolves...I don't see them as endangered, their populations, like that of the bald eagle are enormously sustainable.

We, humans, are very numerous....but are we sustainable?


tao

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

We, humans, are very numerous....but are we sustainable?


tao

no, and we are not worthy of being put on the list as we have no discernable benefit to the ecosystem. We routinely attempt to irradicate ourselves, but always stop short of the end and reinfect the globe.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by wil

no, and we are not worthy of being put on the list as we have no discernable benefit to the ecosystem. We routinely attempt to irradicate ourselves, but always stop short of the end and reinfect the globe.

I understand, agree with to some extent and sympathise with that position. But there is the great dichotomy. Has there ever been anything greater, however physically unsubstantial, than human love? You have kids, like me, you know what I mean. Has there ever been anything more 'meaningful' than the love of one human for another?


tao

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I understand, agree with to some extent and sympathise with that position. But there is the great dichotomy. Has there ever been anything greater, however physically unsubstantial, than human love? You have kids, like me, you know what I mean. Has there ever been anything more 'meaningful' than the love of one human for another?


tao

how can we know otherwise? Does a canine or feline not love its offspring, so much so it will clean its backside with its tongue? So much so that it will eliminate one who won't survive the rigors of life right there at birth?

I agree many, maybe even most love their children enormously. But you would argue, and have that religious education is wrong yet most of these loving parents do that. Most of these loving parents work jobs and buy products that not only contribute to the pollution and desecration of this planet, but also enhance human suffering and poverty around the world.

So is this selective, conditional love worth it?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

From New Scientist:

Bush rushes 'harmful' environment laws - earth - 03 November 2008 - New Scientist Environment

As the US presidential candidates sprint toward the finish line, the Bush administration is also sprinting to enact environmental policy changes before leaving power.
The rule changes include getting wolves off the Endangered Species List, allowing power plants to operate near national parks, loosening regulations for factory farm waste and making it easier for mountaintop coal-mining operations. None have found much favour with environmental groups.


While everybody is busy he maintains his allegiance to the corporate destruction of the environment.

He is doing nothing.

While China and India increase their GNP Europe and the US are suffering from loss of energy they've enjoyed for decades.

Choose. Blackouts, or fossil fuels. (there is no good replacement at this time). Use your head.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by wil

how can we know otherwise? Does a canine or feline not love its offspring, so much so it will clean its backside with its tongue? So much so that it will eliminate one who won't survive the rigors of life right there at birth?

I agree many, maybe even most love their children enormously. But you would argue, and have that religious education is wrong yet most of these loving parents do that. Most of these loving parents work jobs and buy products that not only contribute to the pollution and desecration of this planet, but also enhance human suffering and poverty around the world.

So is this selective, conditional love worth it?

Ok Ok Ok you are right...we are not worthy....release the mega-plague