Kerry and the Environment

fot a good idea of Kerrys envirmental record go to http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2003/09/23/griscom-kerry/

 

Thank you for sharing. I've been looking for this info. Thank you for answering an unspoken question (or two).

 

Nice if it's all true! I gusee I'll find out in January. After the Innauguration.

 

His environmental record is stellar, which is one of the main reasons I'm voting for him. Thanks for posting.

 

we all hope he isn't pulling a fast one on us. at least he tends to lean towards environmental awareness.

 

John Kerry

 

Wheres' that picture from/

 

If he does intend to do all he says it's good news for the entire planet!

 

It's imperative that we vote for Kerry. If Bush is given another 4 years to continue trying to ruin the environment: our air, water, wilderness areas will be devastated, and the scars will show for generations.

Also, if elected, he'll be certain to appoint the most anti-environment Supreme Court justices imaginable so that even if future administrations and Congresses pass environmental laws they'll be shot down in court. Bush is nothing more than a patsy for the oil & timber industries. He's not representing us, so let's dump him before it's too late!

 

I absolutely agree that a vote for Kerry is a vote for at least healing the environment significantly.

I don't know if I could say Kerry will protect the environment as well as Nader or Cobb could had they had the ability to be elected, but you can bet Kerry will significantly improve environmental protection in comparison to Bush.

Three times the level of mercury is being released into the atmosphere from coal-burning power plants. In result, almost half of Americans, 130 million, are exposed to unhealthy air pollution levels. In result of this, premature deaths caused from pollution by coal-burning power plants have risen 24,000. As much as 16% of women of child-bearing age now, in fact, have blood mercury levels such that their fetuses may experience mercury levels in the womb at levels higher than what the EPA considers safe. They have rolled back many Clean Air Act protections and their so-called "Clear Skies" initiative is nothing but one of those Orwellian euphemisms which, in contrast to its pleasant-sounding name, has now allowed twice as much sulfur dioxide, one-and-a-half times as much nitrogen oxide, and as up to five times as much mercury up till 2018, into our skies.

In addition, this act has let corporate polluters off the hook in weakening "new source review" program requirements, allowing them to increase emissions without following any pollution control requirements.

What affects our air also affects our water dramatically. Mercury is emptying into our waters. Studies have detected over 5 million acres of polluted lakes. 218 million Americans are living within 10 miles of these lakes and streams. 300,000 miles of polluted streams and shorelines have been researched, and among them, 49% of estuary land and 61% of rivers and streams are unsafe for fishing.

Now, after six administrations with the much-loved Clean Water Act, the Bush Administration has approved big bucks and profit over health for everyone. 20 million acres of wetlands that Bush claimed he is protecting have lost protection from industrial pollution or unlawful development. In California, they have allowed 36 sites to start oil-drilling despite the objections of state officials. Logging in the West Everglades has now been permitted.

Once again, the winners are the polluters. Factory farms have been allowed to write their own pollution laws that the public and the EPA don't know about, and demand that factory farms monitor groundwater for contamination on routine. A quarter of the largest industrial plants violate Clean Water Act standards, yet few get penalized. Since Bush first took office, formal enforcement actions by the EPA under the Clean Water Act declined by 45 percent.

Same goes for environmental enforcement. New civil pollution enforcement cases referred by the EPA for federal prosecution are down by more than 25 percent since the start of the Bush administration, and new criminal referrals are down by more than 40 percent. Civil penalties assessed in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 declined by $35 million (14 percent), compared with the last two years of the Clinton administration, and criminal penalties dropped by $27 million (15 percent). Bush has reduced the EPA staff by 210. In fiscal year 2002, the EPA conducted 2,700 (13 percent) fewer inspections to detect violations of environmental laws, compared with those that occurred in 2000.

In result, the EPA is experiencing management and funding defiencies and are struggling to afford tackling major environmental crimes.

Deforestation is prominent, and our last remaining old-growth forests are in danger. The Bush Administration has even exempted the Tongass National Forest from the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, allowing commerical logging in previously "roadless" wilderness areas. Nine million acres that make up one of the largest forests in North America is endangered because of this, and 100-year sequoias are being cut down in the Sequoia National Monument.

Being a great lover and believer of the environment, I could go on and on and on and on and on about the terrifying environmental record of this Administration.

And, despite all the obvious signs of environmental degradation, Bush has successfully been able to deceive the public in saying his so-called "Clean Skies" plan has cut air pollution by 70 percent, and Bush has refused to listen to EPA's alternative suggestions of reducing emissions at an only slightly-higher cost.

Bush has successfully been able to label the time frame of October 18, 2002-October 17, 2003 as, "The Year of Clean Water," when in fact he's secretly been undermining the Clean Water Act by curtailing environmental inspections, etc.

Bush has successfully been able to claimed a record number of enforcement cases were initiated in 2002, while more than a fourth of these cases were anti-terrorism efforts not related to suspected environmental crimes, and four-fifths of the original EPA staff have vanished.

I mus be one of the most upset tree-huggers right now, and I am sure so many of these 73% of Americans who believe protecting our environment is an important issue feel likewise. And to see that the environment was never even mentioned as a question in the domestic policies debate, is saddening to me.

I can guarantee Kerry will do better on the environment if elected. ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE IT! No doubt whatsoever. Health care and the economy too. On the other issues, I wouldn't say it's a guarantee, but in all, proven Kerry's acclaimed environmental record by many environmental organizations, including a 93% grade from the League of Conservation Voters and the fact the Sierra Club awarded Kerry with an endorsement, the first time they have ever endorsed a presidential candidate since political conventions ever started, Kerry could not possibly do worse than Bush has on this particular issue.


Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

 

it funny how all the enviromental terriost groups like green peace, sierra club support kerry, and all the links that you people supply are from the most obscure web sites. you people are idiots.

 

did george w's father not care about environmental issues either? i know clinton did some work during his presidency.

 

You have anger issues, dude...there is no reason to be so insulting.

Although I think that Nader and Cobb would be a much better president, environmentally speaking, Kerry is our best chance to get someone environmentally-minded into office.

Bush's Clean Air Act is a joke.

"They have rolled back many Clean Air Act protections and their so-called "Clear Skies" initiative is nothing but one of those Orwellian euphemisms which, in contrast to its pleasant-sounding name, has now allowed twice as much sulfur dioxide, one-and-a-half times as much nitrogen oxide, and as up to five times as much mercury up till 2018, into our skies."

That is just scary...

 

Absolutely agree.

There's no doubt Nader or Cobb WOULD do the best for the environment out of all candidates if elected.

The fact is, though, Nader is expected to only get 1% of the national vote Election Day, and Badnarik, Cobb, Peroutka, and all other alternative candidates combined will also only get 1%.

Nader conceded himself he can't win this election, and as much as I'd like to vote for him, it would be insufficient when the mentality is set that this is a two-way race.

But Kerry will ABSOLUTELY do better protecting the environment than Bush. His Senate record proves it. The integrity in that interview proves it. His wife Teresa Heinz Kerry also being a great environmentalist proves it.

In my opinion, the environment and education have always been the two most important issues, for the Earth is our body, the water our blood, the wind our breath and the fire our spirit. Mother Nature is our home, our school, our church.

Education is the other one because I believe the way someone is raised or taught determines what kind of person he or she will most likely be. If a child isn't loved, or neglected or abused, the child will likely approach life with hate if not consoled and hatred is what makes those like terrorists in the world.

If all the children were loved and cared for as they should and taught the virtues of unconditional love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, etc. then the world would be a much better place and there'd be far less violence and hatred in the world.

I believe terrorists themselves were those children who were abused or neglected before, or saw their loved ones or families terrorized by other atrocious acts in the world. I believe terrorists themselves were terrorized, and being terrorized incited them to become terrorists.

A good education I believe brings out the good in all of us, and education is universally applicable to all other political issues.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

 

How dismally sad that we have to settle on our choice for president because people are so fucking stupid. What a sorry world we live in...

 

Yeah.....right.....good one.....

 

Why would soemone like "nohelmetlaws" belong to anything called a "hip forum" There are plenty of rightwing groups out there for him to rant and rave with. There seems to be a small number of right-wing jerks who post on this forum just to annoy people. They always just insult people and never try to say anything meaningful. Nothing hip about that.

Let's show 'em, Vote Kerry!

 

What in the world are you talking about? So people who think that there shouldn't be any laws forcing people to wear helmets are automatically #1 right wingers and #2 not hip????? Where are you drawing your conclusions from?

Not to mention that you accuse so called "right wing jerks" of being annoying and insulting as well as never making a statement of substance. The problem Greenhornet, lay with the fact that you have committed to all of these things that you accuse "right wing jerks" of doing, in one single post!

Nothing hip about that.

 

Now, if he does what he says...that would make him like Hitler...

Hitler is the only politian that stuck to what he said. He did everything he said he was going too, no bull shitting...

 

"sieg hal to the president gasman..
bombs away here's your punishment."


oh how i love green day and their bush bashing. can't wait to see them tomorrow.