Dirty Dozen Defeated
"We did it! Yesterday you helped us achieve major victories that set the stage for a safer, cleaner, smarter America.At least eight of LCV's Dirty Dozen – anti-environmentalists in Congress that we worked tirelessly to defeat – went down. We are keeping a close watch on the three races that are currently undecided, especially in Virginia where George Allen is expected to lose. Additionally, eight out of nine of our Environmental Champions prevailed."
- Gene Karpinski, President, League of Conservation Voters
Should we call this the Al Gore effect? Or is it more like, 'ITS the ENVIRONMENT STUPID!' I believe American citizens are way out in front of their leaders on this issue. These election results prove it. And they should.
We all breath the same air, play in and drink the same water, and eat the same food. Who wants to leave the world worse than they found it? The Democrats have a mandate to make our world a better place. Too bad they have to clean up so many messes. Well, at least they will no longer have deal with the Dirty Dozen.
Why have we not heard this story in the mainstream media?
QuestionItNow
posted by REB 84 at
11/08/2006 10:45:00 PM
17 Comments:
Sorry REB, not seeing it. If you think this election was a mandate towards budget-busting environmental policies that Al Gore wants to impose on the US, you better look again. Republicans were rebuked, not conservatism.
We'll see what happens.
By
Steve, at 11:11 AM, November 11, 2006
Sorry REB, not seeing it. If you think this election was a mandate towards budget-busting environmental policies that Al Gore wants to impose on the US, you better look again. Republicans were rebuked, not conservatism.
We'll see what happens.
By
Steve, at 11:11 AM, November 11, 2006
Sorry for the double comment. My fault.
By
Steve, at 11:12 AM, November 11, 2006
Steve,
"We'll see what happens" says it all. Is it possible that conservatives will embrase conservation?
By
REB 84, at 6:53 PM, November 11, 2006
Many already do. One of those who is called a "paleoconservative", someone's whose politics are like Pat Buchanan is someone many "liberals" love to hate. That is the No. 3 radio talk show host in the country, Michael Savage. He is very much a conservationist and trashes conservatives that aren't up to snuff as far as he's concerned when it comes to conservation. He will also bash liberals who are very hypocritical when it comes to conservation, someone like the "not-in-my-back-yard" (NIMBY) Ted Kennedy. He is probably more along the lines of a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist, and more "progressive" than others would think. He also is a big fan of raising the minimum wage, something I don't agree with him on completely (don't want to get into that here).
Of course, for me, it depends on what is to be conservation and what is just crap. I wish I had more time to discuss it, but I have my "honey do" list to get on with.
Speaking of Savage, I don't agree with everything he says, and definitely not in favor of everything he believes in. But he is entertaining and great radio, especially when he talks about his old New York neighborhood.
By
Steve, at 11:02 AM, November 12, 2006
Steve,
Michael Savage is so objectionable to me that I could not listen to him long enough to find out if ANYTHING he says makes sense. His poison does not grace the airwaves of central Ohio, and for that I am grateful.
I cannot imagine that he is any kind of conservationist except that he may say we have to keep some critters alive so that we can kill some of them.
Not having heard enough of Savage to make a judgment that he is/is not a conservationist, maybe my comment above is unfair, but what I have heard from him makes me think that he personally is quite reprehensible. The views I have heard him express have been generally limited to immigration issues and/or terrorists/terrorism, and I think his "solutions" are reprehensible and/or illogical.
That's my opinion. For comparison, he is about 10 times as objectionable to me as Rush or Shawn. Now that is saying something. OD1
By
Ohiodem1, at 6:15 PM, November 12, 2006
It seems to me, based upon readings and analysis of orwellian-named environmental legislation, lobbyists and lawyers who represented the industries being regulated being the regulators, and the like that some changing of the momentum may be in order.
It is unlikely that any environmental legislation passed in the last six years will be reversed, because the president has the veto power, and the slim margins in Congress make veto overrides unlikely.
Having said that, the momentum in the direction Congress and the administration have been traveling may be deflected and/or slowed down, such that less objectionable environmental legislation may in fact be enacted and signed.
Drilling ANWR is unlikely to be legislated by this new congress. The recent congresses could not get drilling ANWR through, but it will be on the table less frequently, I believe. Senate approval of some regulators with too cozy relationships with the regulated industry are less likely than in recent times. If the president wants such jobs filled, whe will need to submit candidates with lower potential conflicts. Or he will jam up the lame duck session with fairly low level appointments, which seems to be illogical.
So the net effect is not likely to be rollbacks, but a changing of direction and legislative emphasis will probably happen. I also do not believe that all envionmental legislation, rule making and implementation is budget busting and/or unprofitable. The people who own and manage the companies involved must still breathe the same air and drink the same water as everyone else. It is in their own long-term interest to have a clean environment as well.
OD1
By
Ohiodem1, at 6:37 PM, November 12, 2006
Welcome back OhioDem1,
Congratulations on the recent election victories! I was very suprised to see our neighbors in Indiana vote for sanity. I have a few Republican cousins there. My Aunt remains a die-hard FDR Democrat. I'm sure she is having a bit of fun at the expense of the in-laws:)
I have never heard Savage. I have been an NPR, Rock, and sports radio listener until the recent advent of progressive radio. From what I have seen of Savage's books at the bookstore, I have to agree with OhioDem. He seems to be a guy who believes in a 'shock & awe' style of propaganda. Dudes like him are not worth a second thought.
Ed Shultz is my current talk radio favorite, although it used to enjoy Nancy Skinner on 1310 WDTW before she decided to run for congress against Joe Knollenberg. I first heard of Tony Trupiano on her show. Tony ran against the undestinquished Thadeous McCotter in my home district.
Both of these progressive radio talkers lost their races to multi-term Republicans in historically Republican strongholds, yet they kept it interesting to the end. Trupiano stompted McCotter in their only debate. The Skinner/Knollenberg race was so close it was not decided until around 9:30 AM last Wednesday. Both have a long history of support for the environment and science.
Steve mentioned Teddy Roosevelt. Let's not forget he did not only say "Speak softy and carry a big stick." He also started the national park service and was a friend of John Muer. I have no doubt the League of Conservation voters would support him.
"Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generat to develop and use the nature resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste tehm, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that are to come." - Theodore Roosevelt
By
REB 84, at 10:22 PM, November 12, 2006
Yes, TR is our original conservationist. Nixon had a significant positive effect on the environment and workplace safety with the creation of the EPA and OHSH during his administration. I won'e even say Bush has been all bad, as he protected 140,000 square miles (nearly as big as California 158,000 sq miles) of an ecologically sensitive part of the Hawaiian Island chain. I also believe there have been setbacks during this administration.
Maybe the new folks will work to help with re-focusing and resetting of environmental priorities.
By
Ohiodem1, at 11:58 PM, November 12, 2006
OD1
I'm sorry you feel that way about Savage. But I'm not going to turn this thread into a "Savage rebuttal".
This statement of yours is telling [note what I highlight in bold]:
"It seems to me, based upon readings and analysis of orwellian-named environmental legislation, lobbyists and lawyers who represented the industries being regulated being the regulators, and the like that some changing of the momentum may be in order."
For years, the Dems in Congress have wanted oversight on the administration. But the problem you highlight has been going on for decades; Congress passing on its own investigative and oversight authority, which is how they are supposed to formulate the laws they write, to others, especially to the Executive branch.
Again, I don't have a problem with environmental legislation, as long as its sensible, just like anything else. REB noted in this post, how the Bush administration rolled back Clinton's federal funding to local government infrastructure. The problem is that it is the local governments that must make sure they have enough cops and firefighters, a basic necessity of local government, regardless of federal funding. Locals should not be paying for "perks" first, then infrastructure. Same with environmental laws. As long as they don't intrude on infrastructure, great. Pass them.
By
Steve, at 7:54 AM, November 13, 2006
Steve, in policy analysis, there is a concept called Pareto Optimal, which simply put is that if a public policy decision helps some, and hurts none it should be enacted or implemented. I believe what you say immediately above kind of says the same thing.
Generally most governmental actions also generate a need to pay for the action, whatever it may be. If your philosophy of government is that nothing should be taxed for any purpose (an extreme position, but fairly similar to the Grover Norquist stance), then no governmental action can be said to be Pareto Optimal, as if you are anti-tax on every question, than ANY expenditure for ANY governmental action hurts one with that philosophy.
Obviously, this is a case taken to the extreme, and I do not know anyone who doesn't agree that we need a military for national defense, cops and fire fighters for local security needs, streets, roads, highways, water and sewer systems, soil conservation districts and the like. In fact, when I was studying public administration, there were 90,000 local, state and federal taxing districts, each of which had taxing authority, and most of which went to the voters seeking tax funds necessary to carry out their legislated functions.
An American tragedy started in Detroit a few years ago, when an
Asian beetle, the Emerald Ash Borer came to America in shipping material which was opened in Detroit. This pest has killed over 12 million ash trees in Michigan alone. It is on the march in Ontario, Indiana, Ohio and is close to Pennsylvania.
I have seen estimates that there are over 1 BILLION ash trees in Ohio, and they are all at risk. A major timber industry also exists in Ohio, Michigan and elsewhere. Last year, the federal government chose to de-fund (a reduction in funds to fight the Emerald Ash Borer in Ohio form $6M to $2M and both the state legislature and the federal government failed to act to help protect our forest industry, and to check the spread of the insect.
This appears to me to be a place where the industry involved, the logging and forest products industry of Ohio, should implore their legislature and governor to impose a $4M (or larger if necessary)tax to protect the resource and the industry. Maybe a board-foot tax or a milling tax, or something. At any rate, the purpose of the tax would be to defend the urban environment (the city where I live has passed legislation to cut down every ash tree in the public right-of-way this year and next as a prophylactic measure), the forest environment and the forest services industry. Thus the faulure to act will csuse a severe diminution of the quality of life in our city and state.
I believe it would be Pareto Optimal for our legislature to enact this tax source in order to protect our forest industry. By extension, if we protect our own forest industry, we also protect that of Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia and ultimately New York. All of the white ash used in the manufacture of Louisville Slugger bats comes from a forest in uptate New York. Given the severity of the problem, and the multi-state, and when you consider Canada international nature of the problem, there is an overarching federal interest in funding research, mitigation and eradication of this dangerous insect. This federal government cut funding for this enormous and growing task. The insect is only one county from the Cuyahoga National Forest, and if it reaches this forest, and it probably will this year or next, it is possible that the entire Eastern Ash forest is doomed. Funding this fight is Pareto Optimal in my book, yet our federal government de-funded the effort. Did they give up? I hope not. I hope maybe the new direction will cause congress to see fit to take a more active role in protecting this valuable resource.
Illinois and Wisconsin have a huge forest resource as well. I hope you can see the importance of this effort and can agree that we, as a nation should take this effort on. OD1
By
Ohiodem1, at 5:32 PM, November 13, 2006
OD1
I believe we do agree that taxes are needed for those things governments are asked to do. What that is depends on one's philosophy of what a government should do. That's one of the reasons why we have political parties. There's more I'd like to say on this, but I want to comment on the pest problem you noted.
Question: Why isn't the lumber industry paying for getting rid of the Emerald Ash Borer themselves? For the amount of lobbying money they shell out for things like this (getting the government involved), they could probably pay for it themselves. So you might say the lobbying has to do with the cost of doing business. Yeah, but so is protecting your interests, if your business is logging. Besides, how do you think it works? The lumber people go to the federal government, who has to hire a private contractor anyway (bid or no-bid contract; right away politics are involved, and chances are its some company that has connections). Take the government out of it and the industry can hire (and pay) for it themselves, and they'd probably get a better job done, and for better money. If it affects their bottom line, business knows how to pass costs on to the consumer or reduce their costs. That's what business does.
We have commercials running on the radio and TV about this pest as well. If I want my tree sprayed (or whatever they do) to get rid of the pest, I have to pay for it myself. Why should I also pay for the lumber industry doing the same thing as well? Besides, nothing keeps state governments (and even provincial ones) from working out arrangements for handling this.
An argument could be made that something like this could impact interstate commerce, a key reason for having a federal government at all. I do think that is a valid point to get federal funding involved. But it doesn't mean endless funding, especially if the problem isn't being solved. Besides, you said the funding was cut from $6 million to $2 million. It could mean that $4 million was waste and unnecessary. Maybe not. Some groups are never happy with their funding levels; but, of course, these are one-issue groups, and the government has to look at all issues and budget accordingly.
Oh. By the way, welcome back.
By
Steve, at 6:55 PM, November 13, 2006
Thanks for the welcome back. The pest problem has not been amenable to spraying, because once the eggs are laid, the bug hatches and eats the cambrium of the tree, and it dies.
The standard treatment has been to cut down all ash trees in a five mile circle around or 5 miles past the front line of the advance, because this the extent of their ability to fly to infect other trees. Unfortunately, this approach does not take into account the fact that these bugs can hitch a ride on a storm and maybe find themselves 20 miles away. Then the stopgap measures need to be implemented once again, only to fail again.
There is a situation where no private logger or municipality has the power to enter someone else's property or city to cut down all the trees within 5 miles. In my suburb, the only trees they have the legal authority to cut down are in the public right-of-way. Similarly, Michigan has no authority, nor funding to go to Ohio to cut down trees, and we can't go to Indiana or Pennsylvania.
Bottom line, only the federal government has the resources and legal authority to take a comprehensive approach which covers stopping the spread, eradication and research. I recall seeing an experiment in Michigan where researchers had 7 trees, I think, 5 domestic ash trees and 2 Asian or Chinese trees, and the bugs were released near them. In all 5 North American varieties, the bugs attacked. In the two others, the bugs came close, but would not approach the trees. This probably indicates a genetic basis for the trees to repel the insects, but it appears that a multi-state, multi-university and US and State Depts of Ag all in search of a common goal of protecting this resoruce must be the way to go.
My initial comment was directed to an in-state approach to limiting or stopping the spread.
I simply think that this is too big for the industry, state and local governments to fight this environmental disaster. The federal EPA, Forest Service and potentially other agencies are the right place to spearhead this effort.
OD1
By
Ohiodem1, at 1:45 PM, November 14, 2006
I have been personally affected by the Ash borer. One of my trees was infected and I paid over $1,000 to have it cut down and the stump removed.
This is one example of an invasive species introduced into North America by global trade. Others are decmating the Great Lakes and other waterways, including the sea lampry, zebra mussels, and the new Asian carp.
These are all examples of how industry taxes all of us. Economists call these taxes on the general population from industry externalities. Other examples include adverse health effects and untimely deaths caused by pollution of the air and water.
By lax enforcement and/or poorly written environmental regulations, government officials are complicit with industry as it levies a tax on all Americans, especially those in poor neighborhoods located near refineries and other heavily polluting facilities.
By
REB 84, at 7:58 PM, November 14, 2006
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Anonymous, at 4:22 PM, November 25, 2006
Note to administrator. The comment #15 is completely off topic, and nonsensical, not to mention bigoted and too long. I recommend you take it down.
On-topic - the federal government initiated a three-state quarantine on Ash trees and wood Illiois, MI and Indiana (might be 4-state, I belive Ohio is included as well).
This problem is too big for a single state to handle, and I believe it is appropriate for the federal government to provide leadership and coordination of efforts. A huge economic and enviornmental issue exists and must be dealt with in a major way.
By
Ohiodem1, at 3:26 PM, November 26, 2006
#15 has been removed. It reminded me of Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstien, "The mad ravings of a lunatic mind!!!" or something to that effect.
OhioDem1 - Too many on the far right don't give credit to leaders like FDR or JFK. These president's understood that the federal government is the only entity capable of providing the services or vision to accomplish great things that will benefit the common good. By keeping government services small (starved) and privatizing public works, coservatives have jeoparidized American ability to respond to a host of problems from the Ash borer to Katrina.
By
REB 84, at 11:20 PM, November 27, 2006
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home