Posted on 11/30/2004 11:52:15 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Environmentalists see some of their worst fears playing out as President Bush moves to cement a second-term agenda that includes getting more timber, oil and gas from public lands and relying on the market rather than regulation to curb pollution.
Bush's top energy priority - opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling - is shaping up as an early test of GOP gains in Congress.
"This is going to be a definitional battle, and we're ready," said Deb Callahan, president of the League of Conservation Voters.
Though the election didn't emphasize such issues, administration officials believe the results validated their belief that many environmental decisions are better made by the marketplace, landowners and state and local governments.
James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the administration will continue a "partnership with the oil and gas sector" but also will work with conservation organizations - as long as they are "willing to engage constructively on defining priorities and practices in domestic production."
Bush's environmental priority is to rewrite the Clean Air Act to set annual nationwide limits on three major air pollutants from power plants and to allow marketplace trading of pollution rights rather than regulation to meet those goals.
He does not plan to change his mind on his rejection of the Kyoto international climate treaty that would impose mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions. "Kyoto's unworkable," Connaughton said.
Because of an environmental group's lawsuit, the EPA is preparing to issue first-ever regulations to cut mercury pollution from coal-burning power plants and new standards for cutting soot in the air and reducing power plant pollution that drifts between states.
Mike Leavitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, foresees more EPA water monitoring and preparations against chemical and biological attacks.
"I believe the mission that the president has given me in a second term, and the agenda and the philosophy that was validated by the election, was more progress, faster, being achieved in a way that will maintain economic competitiveness as a nation," he said.
Republicans in Congress plan to re-examine other landmark 1970s laws: the Endangered Species Act protecting rare plant and animal species and their habitats, and the National Environmental Policy Act that requires the government to judge beforehand if actions might damage natural resources.
One area where environmentalists and the White House could find agreement is ocean issues. The administration is looking at setting catch quotas for individual fish species, new protections for fragile coral reefs and ecosystem-based management of rivers and streams, Connaughton said.
Some huge regional issues also will get attention. They include restoring the Florida Everglades, aiding the recovery of Pacific Northwest salmon, improving water quality in the Great Lakes and dealing with drought in the West and coastal erosion in Louisiana.
The administration put off until after the election a final decision on a plan to allow road building and logging on 58 million acres of remote forests where both are now banned.
Interior Secretary Gale Norton's agency is rewriting 162 plans for managing about one of every 10 acres in the United States. The decisions will affect whether wildlife protections or new oil and gas drilling projects are favored. Norton wants to give local governments more say.
Administration officials say they will more broadly apply the "healthy forests" law that Congress approved in his first term. It lets companies log large, commercially valuable trees in national forests in exchange for clearing smaller, more fire-prone trees and brush.
The administration wants forest managers to clear such trees and underbrush from up to 4 million acres at risk of fire, about 300,000 acres more than current efforts. It hopes to double that to 8 million acres within a decade, said Agriculture Department Undersecretary Mark Rey, who directs forest policy.
Environmentalists still view the courts as their last resort.
The day after the election, the staff of law firm Earthjustice "gathered to face the news that the most anti-environmental administration will be back for four more years," Buck Parker, the firm's executive director wrote supporters. But, he added, "We're more determined than ever to carry on.
That might go a long way to your edification.
These are the two biggies passed under Richard Nixon's administration that seriously need to be closely reexamined. The NEPA requires Federal agencies to examine how their proposals for action will affect the human environment but species listings by the USFWS and NMFS pursuant to the ESA essentially circumvent the NEPA requirements for the Federal agency to examine economic impacts of their action. Also NEPA requires public dislosure and participation in the decision-making process. ESA does not.
Muleteam1
Nixon created environmental and Democrats have tried to exploit it. Now, like other issues, it's liberals looking for a cause and are indifferent as to the effect. No thinking, no science, just something for them to fight for and draw attention to their incomplete lives.
"Environmentalists see some of their worst fears playing out ..."
I see dumb people.
Wonderful!
When I see the millions of them walking along the highways (foraging for food along the way?) to their next demonstration, I'll take them seriously.
The main reason it should be done is for security. Besides the oil there is natural gas. A pipeline running parallel to the Alaska oil pipeline could carry LNG to Valdez where it could be shipped to the lower 48 and used as the cleanest burning fuel for heating,etc. If you do some research and read information other than propaganda from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace,etc., you'll see there are very few negatives and many positives for drilling in ANWR.
Maybe there's hope for reducing the deer herd down here in Missouri. We're overrun with the critters.
This speaks the truth about enviroschizophrenia,ITS ALL IMAGINARY.
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry or both at their stupid tinfoil responses. You see, Bush has implemented a sinister and evil weapon, sonar that blows out the eardrums of whales and dolphins as uncaring imperialist warmongering sailors laugh and shoot their carcasses.
"All the whales will soon be killed by this device. Bush is the first human to deploy this underwater weapon."
"His destructive nature just never stops hurting innocents."
"Bush and his ilk in the oil companies. I am so sad and angry. It just never stops."
"if there's any justice in the world, next time Bush goes on an Aircraft carrier he'll fall off the side and get eaten by a whale."
"I'm ashamed to be human in this modern society. I've tried. I've tried my best."
Are they insane, or merely crazy? I rest my case.
I still come back to "How much is there there compared to what we use?" If what's there is virtually only a drop in the bucket, why drill?
The air is in trouble. The water is in trouble. Volcanoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes are in trouble. The moon and Mars are in trouble. The sun is in trouble. Christmas is in trouble. Blame must be placed.
oh no, Mr. Bill ! We're all gonna die!!!.....
The developer can produce 6 billion barrels of oil. That oil can be sold for some price and at some cost including development. If it provides net income the operation would be called profitable. That is the consideration, not whether it would affect gasoline prices somewhere sometime. It's a business, the oil business.
-Halliburton
That has got to be some of the funniest **** I've seen come from there.
I'm beginning to think being a liberal isn't learned but a genetic defect.
In 2003 according to the Dept. of Energy we consumed approximately 20 million barrels per day. Present estimates are that ANWR could produce 1.4 million barrels per day. Do some Google searches and check out ANWR.org. Do you think 1.4 million barrels per day is a drop in the bucket?
The oil business is certainly just that. But this is not private land, it is a wildlife preserve. The value of maintaining it as a wildlife preserve, which is not totally quantifiable, thus has to be balanced against the profits to be obtained by extracting and selling the oil and gas.
Best news of the week (except for the great progress in eradicating terrorist vermin in Iraq).
I have been there. It looks to me like oil development will have no impact on the environment or the creatures. In 20 years the oil field will be sucked dry and the gravel pads will eventually disappear, covered by the same kind of vegetation and creatures that are there now. There is no tradeoff. Produce the oil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.