| Subject: Re: dubya, dubya, dubya |
Author:
Nora
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 16:37:52 03/26/01 Mon
In reply to:
eric g.
's message, "dubya, dubya, dubya" on 09:24:31 03/26/01 Mon
I'm actually amazed to hear that Dubya had environmental campaign pledges. FYI: Electric cars are on the horizon. Honda has a hybrid that will get 72 mpg and run on batteries as well.Am I supposed to erase Eric's message that is below this one?
>okay, sara makes a very good point, as does roger, but
>that doesn't discount the problem that in two months,
>bush has already backed out on most of his
>environmental campaign promises. i know that special
>interest groups are nothing new, but i think that bush
>is showing that his motives are rather obvious,
>especially since his largest campaign contributions
>came from the mining groups.
>
>note that i understand that we can't just stop using
>oil for fuel until a viable option is here, but just
>exactly how is that option is to become a serious
>competitor with oil if we increase the oil drilling
>and mining for coal and if the automobile industry
>holds back alternatives like electric cars? it just
>seems like a step in the wrong direction. at what
>point does the consumer (i.e. the citizen who sits
>back and watches the businesses and governments
>dictate what the public can and cannot choose as the
>fuel for transportation) step up and seize control? it
>can't just be the individual's stance to say, "i'll
>just take the bus, or walk, or carpool" - although
>choices like this will help, not everybody can make
>these choices or is aware of these choices. the
>government should have an active part in setting a
>regulation that will benefit the people on a longterm
>basis.
>
> from usa today...
>"But environmental leaders -- even some from his own
>party -- say that in his first eight weeks in office,
>Bush has justified their concerns by:
>
>* Reversing a campaign promise to require that
>electric-power plants reduce emissions of carbon
>dioxide, which is considered a major contributor to
>global warming.
>
>* Proposing to open more federal land, including 1.5
>million acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
>in Alaska, for oil and natural-gas drilling.
>
>* Relaxing pollution rules on blending corn-based
>ethanol with gasoline to expand the fuel supply.
>
>Tuesday, the Bush administration said it will
>reconsider tough new limits on the amount of arsenic
>allowable in drinking water. Later this week, it is
>expected to propose suspending toughened rules for
>mining minerals on public lands."
>
>yeah, yeah, i know. we can't do anything about it.
>but, c'mon people! arsenic? i hardly trust the
>government to relax the standard on this, saying that
>we all have small amounts of arsenic in our bodies,
>thus making this decision okay. anyone remember john
>major and his burger? mad cow disease? is there
>anything we can do? and by the way, dc has reportedly
>run out of funds for its recycling program...
>
>eric
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 