The Failed Presidency.

Tartarin - It's clear to me that you either simply fail to understand this issue, or are too partisan to see it for what it is.

Tartarin

I notice Scrat has decided that you are either not intelligent enough to understand her reasoning -- or too partisan to acknowledge the great truths she is revealing.

I'd sooner have Rush Limbaugh lecture me on self-control.

You have my sympathies.

and mine.

au1929'

The article you quoted was misleading and inaccurate in several important respects.

In the first place environmentalists do not have a right to participation in every discussion of energy policy. There are many aspects of electrical power production and distribution that do not directly involve major environmental issues. The government has a right to consult with whomever it wishes in gathering the information and understanding required for new initiatives.

Second, these same environmentalists are generally quite unwilling to give a seat to the representatives of people and businesses that will be affected by the decisions they make and influence during their counsels with government. Their hypocrisy in this matter is truly stunning.

Thirdly the current issue with respect to old powerplants grandfathered under the Clean Air Act has to do with unforseen disincentives built in to the law with regard to plant improvements. Plant operators are confronted with the need for plant upgrades that would pay for themselves by raising efficiency and therefore reducing the amount of fuel burned for a given power output. This would of course help the environment by reducing all forms of pollution emerging from the plants. The article simply misstates the facts when it says, " they increased harmful emissions by making major upgrades to their plants".

The original reason for the grandfathering of the old plants under the law was to protect the Federal government from a judicial finding that they were summarily taking the property of the utilities in an after the fact legislative action. While environmentalists may regard this as an unwarranted concession to utilities, it was done in keeping with the basic provisions of the constitution. The same principle applies in the matter of plant upgrades.

I don't doubt the industry will seek to plant loopholes and escape clauses in the amended rules. That, however is a different issue that has little do do with the basic accusations raised in the article. Moreover it can be addressed directly by the parties involved.

george, I'm no environmentalist, but your statement, "There are many aspects of electrical power production and distribution that do not directly involve major environmental issues." that is just plain wrong. You mean to say that fuel burning, nuclear, and dams don't affect our environment? Since when?

Also, ever hear of oil tankers leaking millions of gallons of oil into our oceans?

cicerone,

I said "many aspects". I would not include the proposal to burn more fuel or build new dams or nuclear plants in that statement. However there is still quite a lot to consider and discuss.

Moreover many environmentalists discredit themselves in the eyes of serious people through proposals that are patently unrealizable or which defy common sense, or by refusing to consider the economic and environmental consequences of the remedies they propose. How many times have you read some suggestion that with "proper incentives" we can replace 50% of our electrical power production with 'reneweable' sources including wind and solar power. Such people cannot be taken seriously by those with real work to do.

Neither Pollyanna nor Pandora are helpful in the pragmatic necessities of getting vital jobs done. One must first research and grasp the cold facts and implications of an issue before one is able to proactively and productively address that issue. It is my firm conviction that ill-thought environmentalist initiatives are directly to blame for much of the difficulty confronting America's physical infrastructure. I do not maintain that all environmentalist initiatives are ill-thought. I do however take exception to many on precisely the basis of their socio-economic impractictability, irresponsibility, and long-term deleterious effect.

george and timber, I agree with your conclusions about the extremism of many environmentalist's ill-conceived programs and proposals. I was just addressing your 'blanket' statement although conditioned by"many aspects," it still left open the obvious damage done by our energy industries to the environment.

"Moreover many environmentalists discredit themselves in the eyes of serious people..."

George, obviously environmentalists aren't serious people themselves but just wankers who set out to annoy mature, serious people!!

And there is absolutely no "ill-thinking" on the part of the energy concerns in corporations and government. Don't bend over forward too far guys or you'll actually feel the shaft.

The only environmentalists who discredit themselves in the eyes of serious people are those environmentalists who fail to accommodate accredited science, logical socio-economic impact, and practical implimentation in the formation of their proposals. Those types are much given to hyperbole, hysteria, and obstructionism for its own sake. Others have a clear understanding of the symbiotic relationship between man and environment, and strive to integrate the interests of both, thereby maximizing the potential of each. The latter group are the minority, I'm afraid.

And LW, get real ... no attempt has been made to blanketly absolve energy, or any other industry, from "Ill-Thinking", environmental or otherwise. The implication that such might be the case goes far to discredit the argument of the one leveling any such allegation. There are problems, challenges, and improvements to be addressed, not dismissed.

Glad you made that clear -- otherwise my Enron stock may never make it out of the bathroom.

I think its pretty safe to say that Environmentalism and Republicanism are not bedfellows with compatiblility.

dyslexia,

I think you are correct. However 'environmentalism', as it is usually used to refer to the vocal advocates of coercive measures intended to protect the environment, is not the same thing as concern for the environment. There are many people who share these concerns and who work to find solutions who would not classify themselves, or be classified by others, as environmentalists.

I happen to believe there are some safe, stable solutions readily available for the long term disposition of high level nuclear waste, and would favor increased use of nuclear power specifically to reduce the impact of the burning of hydrocarbons on our environment, without imposing a severe economic penalty on the world. That view is anathema in environmentalist circles. I could cite several other like issues as well. My point though is that 'environmentalists' do not have an exclusive possession of the virtue of a prudent concern for the protection of the environment, and that some of what they commonly advocate would be positively harmful if actually put into practice.

Apart from ideological bent, I am an avid outdoors type, who happens to live on a farm and own crop timber. I hunt, fish, trap, hike, camp, cross-country ski, go on lengthy horseback trecks, and just sit and watch sunsets and sunrises or enjoy the sounds of breezes and birds among the trees. I consider the environment a partner, not an adversary or a limitless resource. I practice, and lobby for, responsible agrarian technique, and, in concert with george, I advocate vastly increased reliance upon, and research into, nuclear energy. While tyhere are other "Alternate Energy Sources", none of those others even begins theoretically to approach practicallity in the face of current and projected energy demand. I favor clean air and clean water and accessible open land and vigorous forrests and the protection and promotion of wildlife. By evidence of Western Wildfires and our continuing reliance on fossil fuel for the production of electricity, along with the inadequate state of our electrical power distribution infrastructure, I am forced to conclude the same cannot be said of most so-called environmentalists, who's very actions have inflicted this mess upon us all.

The Western fires were brush fires and cutting forests would have a only a modicum of effect -- that there is no money provided to clear bush from property when the owners cannot afford it is another story.

I would indeed consider myself to be an "environmentalist" I also support the continued development of alternatives including Nuclear. I don't give the connotation "environmentalist" that you imply as that would be directed at the "fuzzy logic" weirdos. I will, on the other hand, credit the Colorado Republican Party with significant water diversion from agriculture to "economic development" suburban tracks. The 3 fastest growing counties in Colorado which are solid republican and happen to have very scare water rescources in the last week offered a voter initive of $3 billion to be spent for un-named water development projects (the voters said NO) The largest of these developments, HIghland Ranch with a population of 20,000 has municipal codes demanding the use of Kentucky Blue grass for every home in the jurisdiction, buying their water from the Denver water system that has been on water restrictions for as many years as I can remember. So what i see personally is that the new-comers being substantially republicans want their lush lawns in a semi-desert environment and to hell with the farmers and ranchers.

Idiots can register in any party they wish, Dys. Water Management, or Mismanagement, more appropriately, is an excellent example of that. Some years back, I lived in a community which was among a group of communities which endured a long and hard-fought battle over a unified water-and-sewer district. I favored the idea in prionciple, but as it developed and expanded and meandered, it grew from the initial $5-to$7 Million 3-year project originally proposed into a monster I figured would take a decade and cost $25 or $30 Million. Though a Republican, I withdrew my support as the developers and builders and the like kept adding on to suit their own aims. In the end, the measure was passed. I turned out to have been wrong. That was 12 years ago, the project is ongoing and has swollen to a bit over $50 Million. I no longer live there.

LW, I know funding is a problem, but environmental regulations hinder or even prevent homeowners, homeowners assocoiations, and governmental subdivisions fro clearing overgrowth, underbrush, and fallen timber in many cases, regardless of will or funding. That in my estimation is wrong, too.

The policy hasn't changed no matter who is the governor in California --in fact Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson both cut the budget drastically in this area of abatement. There is no environmental law in place to save weeds which is essentially what was burning. The only "forests" that burned here were dead trees around the homes of the workers which burned at Lake Arrowhead. Some of Cleveland National Forest where there were virtually no homes did catch fire from the brush fires -- those are mostly deciduous trees that were quite wonderful to drive through in the fall (one of the few places where California rather reminded one of Vermont).
Some noted the very small amount of area which was the home of indiginous fauna and was protected (and has been for many, many years)but the only ones who lost their "home" were not human. The Southern California basin is a desert by the sea -- this burning off is a part of our ecology and people insist on building thatch roofed houses right in the middle of it. The homes that were saved were tile roofs. Your attempt at characterizing the fires and the damage as a result of environmentalist influence is just so far out in left field, you're never going to catch a fly.