Environmentalists Seek to Defeat Bush

[ShapeShifter]

The project will begin in and around Milwaukee and Madison, Wis., Albuquerque, N.M., Portland, Ore., and Orlando, Fla., and may extend to Nevada, Arizona and Ohio.

The four states were chosen because they were each decided by fewer than 7,000 votes in the 2000 presidential election, and because the environmental groups think voters there are more likely to consider a presidential candidate's environmental record.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=
/ap/20040420/ap_on_el_pr/environmentalists_bush&cid=694&ncid=1963&sid=96378798

[zachman]

Bush cannot defend that his administration dropped lawsuits on big polluters. That was a pathetic decision. Go get him on that Kerry.

[angus]

This was one of the few areas of fundamental difference between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000.  I agree with zachman that it will be difficult to defend Bush on this area.  Not because of anything he did however, but because of the guile of Bill Clinton, instituting last-minute changes in EPA rules just to put Bush in an awkward position, and because of the public's flawed understanding of what constitutes ecologically sustainable growth and environmentally sound government policy.

[Lunar]

OpenSecrets.org, a nonpartisan critical site has this to say about Bush's first 100 days on the environment:

Environment

In his first 100 days in office, President Bush has presided over a litany of initiatives derided by critics as anti-environmental. In his proposed budget, Bush cut funding for research into renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, by roughly half. He’s proposed a ban on private lawsuits that force the government to add new plants and animals to the endangered species list. He’s also backed out of the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty on global warming, and broken a campaign promise to impose further regulations on carbon dioxide emissions. And then there was the real headline-grabber: delaying implementation of a Clinton-era rule that would reduce the amount of arsenic allowed in drinking water.

The White House counters that Bush has made several environmentally-friendly pronouncements, such as upholding the ban on snowmobiling in national parks, backing lead rules, supporting regulations protecting wetlands and signing a worldwide treaty that would phase out the use of chemicals like PCBs. Environmentalists point out that the U.S. banned the use of those chemicals more than ten years ago and say they’re planning on making Bush’s environmental record a big issue in 2002. It’s hard to deny that some of Bush’s most generous campaign supporters will benefit from several of his early environmental decisions. Bush received more than $1.8 million in individual and PAC contributions from the oil and gas industry in 1999-2000. He got another $1.3 million from the automotive industry, and nearly $300,000 from the timber industry.

The most visible environmental battle, of course, is the fight over oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Bush has long been an advocate of drilling, touting it as a solution to the country’s burgeoning energy crisis. But a lukewarm response from Congress and the public has put the plan in jeopardy. Bush may have to content himself with opening up the gulf coast of Florida to oil exploration, despite the objections of Florida governor and his brother, Jeb Bush. Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney, who made more than $36 million last year as CEO of oil services company Halliburton and from the sale of Halliburton stock, is heading an energy task force looking for additional places in the West to explore for oil and gas.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/100days/

[lidaker]

OpenSecrets.org, a nonpartisan critical site has this to say about Bush's first 100 days on the environment:

Environment

In his first 100 days in office, President Bush has presided over a litany of initiatives derided by critics as anti-environmental. In his proposed budget, Bush cut funding for research into renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, by roughly half. He’s proposed a ban on private lawsuits that force the government to add new plants and animals to the endangered species list. He’s also backed out of the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty on global warming, and broken a campaign promise to impose further regulations on carbon dioxide emissions. And then there was the real headline-grabber: delaying implementation of a Clinton-era rule that would reduce the amount of arsenic allowed in drinking water.

The White House counters that Bush has made several environmentally-friendly pronouncements, such as upholding the ban on snowmobiling in national parks, backing lead rules, supporting regulations protecting wetlands and signing a worldwide treaty that would phase out the use of chemicals like PCBs. Environmentalists point out that the U.S. banned the use of those chemicals more than ten years ago and say they’re planning on making Bush’s environmental record a big issue in 2002. It’s hard to deny that some of Bush’s most generous campaign supporters will benefit from several of his early environmental decisions. Bush received more than $1.8 million in individual and PAC contributions from the oil and gas industry in 1999-2000. He got another $1.3 million from the automotive industry, and nearly $300,000 from the timber industry.

The most visible environmental battle, of course, is the fight over oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Bush has long been an advocate of drilling, touting it as a solution to the country’s burgeoning energy crisis. But a lukewarm response from Congress and the public has put the plan in jeopardy. Bush may have to content himself with opening up the gulf coast of Florida to oil exploration, despite the objections of Florida governor and his brother, Jeb Bush. Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney, who made more than $36 million last year as CEO of oil services company Halliburton and from the sale of Halliburton stock, is heading an energy task force looking for additional places in the West to explore for oil and gas.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/100days/

This is just awful. It's evil. I mean, why would you hinder people from putting plants and animals on the endangered species list? What bad can those plants and animals do to people? Maybe he thinks they cause pollution? Environmental policy in America really seems to be middle-aged.

[StevenNick]

David Brooks has an interesting column on Bush's environmental policy today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/20/opinion/20BROO.html?pagewanted=print&position=

[Lunar]

I don't want to register, can you summarize it?

[angus]

Here, read it for yourself.  

April 20, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Clearing the Air
By DAVID BROOKS
 
The journalist has the ultimate power, a cynic once said, the power to choose whom to be co-opted by.

That temptation is never greater than when you are writing about environmental policy. You can go to the environmental groups and get one set of facts. Or you can go to the industry groups and get an entirely different set of facts. Both sides have long histories of exaggeration and distortion, and there's no other realm of public policy in which it is so hard to find honest brokers, capable of offering a balanced perspective.

Nonetheless, over the past couple of decades, I've stumbled across a few, and I've been consulting them in the hope of getting a grip on the Bush clean-air record.

The first thing to be said is that air pollution trends are unchanged under President Bush. For the past three decades, the quality of our air has steadily improved. Air pollution from the six major pollutants has decreased by 48 percent over that time, even though our economy has grown by 164 percent. If you look at the charts showing that decline, you can't tell when the Clinton era ended and the Bush era began.

The Bush administration's biggest air pollution failure has been its inability to restart the global warming debate. There is ample evidence that we have a long-term global warming problem, and the sooner we address it the better. The old approach, the Kyoto treaty, was never going to be ratified by the Senate. But the administration could have moved aggressively to find another way forward. Instead it proposed a pitiable voluntary program, which has had no effect.

The administration's biggest success has been its regulation of diesel fuels. In the face of fierce industry hostility, the Bush crowd decided that the benefits of diesel regulation far outweighed the costs. The Bush initiatives were applauded by even its most ardent critics. An official from the Natural Resources Defense Council called the diesel emissions regulations "the most significant public health proposal in decades."

The most ambitious Bush proposal is over the nature of environmental regulation itself. Bush inherited a command-and-control regulatory regime called new-source review, which has metastasized into a regulatory behemoth. Bureaucrats try to issue rules site by site. Industries have a perverse incentive to rely on older high-pollution plants. The review process is opaque, expensive and riddled with litigation.

The administration is trying to supersede it with a cap-and-trade system, in which the government would set caps on overall emissions, allow companies flexibility on how to meet them and give firms the chance to buy and sell emissions credits. This general approach was recently embraced by a comprehensive study by the National Research Council. It builds on a phenomenally successful cap-and-trade provision in the 1990 Clean Air Act, which controls sulfur dioxide emissions at 25 percent of the cost of the old regulatory system.

Nonetheless, for two years Jim Jeffords and a Democratic-led coalition have blocked the Bush initiative. Many Democrats have in the past backed cap-and-trade reforms, but they don't want to allow Bush a victory. This has had several bad effects. The administration has tried to enact the reforms by administrative fiat, which means litigation and delay. More important, it means that there is no discussion or compromise on some remaining points of dispute.

How high should the caps be? Should we reduce emissions by 70 percent, as Bush wants, or by 90 percent? Would the benefits of that higher standard justify the costs? What about mercury? There are proposals to supplement the cap-and-trade approach with local measures to handle hot spots with high mercury concentrations. These languish during the deadlock. Finally, if utilities were given an incentive to switch to natural gas, would that decimate our coal industry?

All of these are open questions, which require a balancing of evidence and interests. These are exactly the sort of questions best hammered out through legislative wrangling. But, of course, that's not allowed to happen.

This is yet another issue around which it would be easy to build a sensible majority if things were judged on their merits. Instead, we've got paralysis.  

[ShapeShifter]

Bush proposes loosening protections of endangered species.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10660-2003Oct10.html

Bush uses EPA funds to make campaign ads.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26595-2003Oct14.html

Bush overturns limits on mining waste sites.

http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/ap_stories/other/1110/10-10-2003/20031010134506_66.html

Bush tries to cover up global warming.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1046363,00.html

Bush cuts Energy Star program.

http://www.ammagazine.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/news/news_item/0,2610,106400,00.html

Bush relaxes clean air rules.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34334-2003Aug22.html

Need I say more??? I got tons of links on this issue.

[dunn]

Bush proposes loosening protections of endangered species.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10660-2003Oct10.html

Bush uses EPA funds to make campaign ads.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26595-2003Oct14.html

Bush overturns limits on mining waste sites.

http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/ap_stories/other/1110/10-10-2003/20031010134506_66.html

Bush tries to cover up global warming.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1046363,00.html

Bush cuts Energy Star program.

http://www.ammagazine.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/news/news_item/0,2610,106400,00.html

Bush relaxes clean air rules.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34334-2003Aug22.html

Need I say more??? I got tons of links on this issue.

that's make you want to vote for Nader

[lidaker]

Here, read it for yourself.  

April 20, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Clearing the Air
By DAVID BROOKS
 
The journalist has the ultimate power, a cynic once said, the power to choose whom to be co-opted by.

That temptation is never greater than when you are writing about environmental policy. You can go to the environmental groups and get one set of facts. Or you can go to the industry groups and get an entirely different set of facts. Both sides have long histories of exaggeration and distortion, and there's no other realm of public policy in which it is so hard to find honest brokers, capable of offering a balanced perspective.

Nonetheless, over the past couple of decades, I've stumbled across a few, and I've been consulting them in the hope of getting a grip on the Bush clean-air record.

The first thing to be said is that air pollution trends are unchanged under President Bush. For the past three decades, the quality of our air has steadily improved. Air pollution from the six major pollutants has decreased by 48 percent over that time, even though our economy has grown by 164 percent. If you look at the charts showing that decline, you can't tell when the Clinton era ended and the Bush era began.

The Bush administration's biggest air pollution failure has been its inability to restart the global warming debate. There is ample evidence that we have a long-term global warming problem, and the sooner we address it the better. The old approach, the Kyoto treaty, was never going to be ratified by the Senate. But the administration could have moved aggressively to find another way forward. Instead it proposed a pitiable voluntary program, which has had no effect.

The administration's biggest success has been its regulation of diesel fuels. In the face of fierce industry hostility, the Bush crowd decided that the benefits of diesel regulation far outweighed the costs. The Bush initiatives were applauded by even its most ardent critics. An official from the Natural Resources Defense Council called the diesel emissions regulations "the most significant public health proposal in decades."

The most ambitious Bush proposal is over the nature of environmental regulation itself. Bush inherited a command-and-control regulatory regime called new-source review, which has metastasized into a regulatory behemoth. Bureaucrats try to issue rules site by site. Industries have a perverse incentive to rely on older high-pollution plants. The review process is opaque, expensive and riddled with litigation.

The administration is trying to supersede it with a cap-and-trade system, in which the government would set caps on overall emissions, allow companies flexibility on how to meet them and give firms the chance to buy and sell emissions credits. This general approach was recently embraced by a comprehensive study by the National Research Council. It builds on a phenomenally successful cap-and-trade provision in the 1990 Clean Air Act, which controls sulfur dioxide emissions at 25 percent of the cost of the old regulatory system.

Nonetheless, for two years Jim Jeffords and a Democratic-led coalition have blocked the Bush initiative. Many Democrats have in the past backed cap-and-trade reforms, but they don't want to allow Bush a victory. This has had several bad effects. The administration has tried to enact the reforms by administrative fiat, which means litigation and delay. More important, it means that there is no discussion or compromise on some remaining points of dispute.

How high should the caps be? Should we reduce emissions by 70 percent, as Bush wants, or by 90 percent? Would the benefits of that higher standard justify the costs? What about mercury? There are proposals to supplement the cap-and-trade approach with local measures to handle hot spots with high mercury concentrations. These languish during the deadlock. Finally, if utilities were given an incentive to switch to natural gas, would that decimate our coal industry?

All of these are open questions, which require a balancing of evidence and interests. These are exactly the sort of questions best hammered out through legislative wrangling. But, of course, that's not allowed to happen.

This is yet another issue around which it would be easy to build a sensible majority if things were judged on their merits. Instead, we've got paralysis.  

Although I generally find David Brooks to be an honest and intellectually independent republican, I definitely don't trust him on this one. All the facts I've read say Bush is the worst environmental president ever. I think I'm gonna go for the environmental groups when it comes to trusting people on this issue. Interest of corporations: earn money, whatever it takes. Interest of environmental groups: make the world a better place. Also, what does "find another way forward" means when it comes to the Kyoto Treaty? There are no other ways forward than to reduce the amounts of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

[angus]

funny, I usually think Brooks is a total jackass, but on this one I'm in fairly close (though not total) agreement.  Seriously.  Your misunderstanding on Kyoto is not based on a fundamental disagreement with Brooks, but more likely on confusion about what the document really says.  Look it up, read it, and get back to me.

by the way, you and I are opposite in other ways:  I am from the USA and am a liberal in Swedish terms.  

interesting.

[lidaker]

Allright, I've looked it up. It basically says that the countries bound to it (the industrialized countries exept for the US and Australia) must reduce the amounts of six different types of greenhouse gases with all in all 5% between 1990 and 2008-12. The developing countries are not bound to reduce their emissons. Although I still don't get the "another way forward" approach. Does Brooks mean doing something outside the reach of Congress?

I seldom agree with Brooks, however I find him quite honest. Sometimes a little weird and "back to front", but he's better on PBS than in the Times.

So you're a liberal in Swedish terms. That's interesting. I am too, although I would consider myself a "socially liberal" ("socialliberal"), which means to the left in the Swedish liberal party. The Swedish economist Bertil Ohlin developed a theory back here that has some similiarites with some J. S. Mill ideas. It basically means I think governments have a responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, which is why I favor more economical interventions than most classical liberals do.

But the most confusing thing of all is that you're a liberal in Swedish terms who would vote for Bush

[angus]

Allright, I've looked it up. It basically says that the countries bound to it (the industrialized countries exept for the US and Australia) must reduce the amounts of six different types of greenhouse gases with all in all 5% between 1990 and 2008-12. The developing countries are not bound to reduce their emissons. Although I still don't get the "another way forward" approach. Does Brooks mean doing something outside the reach of Congress?

I seldom agree with Brooks, however I find him quite honest. Sometimes a little weird and "back to front", but he's better on PBS than in the Times.

So you're a liberal in Swedish terms. That's interesting. I am too, although I would consider myself a "socially liberal" ("socialliberal"), which means to the left in the Swedish liberal party. The Swedish economist Bertil Ohlin developed a theory back here that has some similiarites with some J. S. Mill ideas. It basically means I think governments have a responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, which is why I favor more economical interventions than most classical liberals do.

But the most confusing thing of all is that you're a liberal in Swedish terms who would vote for Bush

There's a poster named MortfromNewYawk who's apparently a big fan of David Brooks, and actually he's the one who got me started on an occassional dose of Brooks' editorials.  I wish he'd chime in, since I am not totally clear on that phrase either.  The president does have some executive authority for temporary measures, but anything substantial must be done through congress.  My biggest problem with Kyoto is its exceptions for China and other 'developing' nations.  It simply won't work.  Also, it is false to claim that the biggest problem associated with emissions is warming.  Warming cycles come and go.  Surely we contribute to them, but we don't cause them.  The biggest problem, imho, is the extinction of living species.  But mostly, the USA should be a standard-bearer, not a limp follower.  If this administration is seen as dragged into an agreement kicking and screaming, then it's better not to become involved at all.  

Yes, what swedes call a liberal, americans call a libertarian.  but I'm not looking to quibble.  What americans call liberal is a total cluster because the term is very very arbitrary and somewhat issue specific.  Two problems:  I don't like being called a liberal as in some circles it is a pejorative term in this country.  I don't like being called a libertarian because it looks too much like Libertarian.  But anyway, in the sense that I favor the smallest government intervention possible (low taxes, free press, drug decriminalization, prostitution decriminalization, etc.) I am what swedes call a liberal.  Don't be confused, in this country we separate out those groups.  If you want less government interference you might be called a conservative (low taxes, second amendment rights) or you might be called a liberal (opposed to USA PATRIOT act, for example).  You see how arbitrary we use those terms?  It's frustrating, so I usually avoid using them at all, except you signature was so deliciously ironic that I had to comment.  

My vote for Bush is largely based on Iraq, as I was a fierce vocal opponent of US military involvement in Iraq.  And on my general disdain for the Democrat party.  Also, I am quite nationalistic.  I am a big flag-waver, like most republicans, I'd say that's the tie that binds us all.  The common thread.  Dems don't get that.  I'm on vacation in Cairo, we're asked where we're from, my buddy John the dorky democrat hangs his head down and lies, "Canada".  I hold my head up high and say, "Ana min al USA sadiq'ii."  and hold up my index finger.  See the difference?  

Two exceptions:  I like total freedom, damn near anarchy, with the exceptions of strong national defense and a public education system second to none, and am willing to be taxed appropriately to make it so.

[California Dreamer]

Environmental policy is a clear loser for Bush and winner for Kerry

the big question is...how many voters care enough about this issue?

Unfortunately the answer is...not enough

[ShapeShifter]

Environmental policy is a clear loser for Bush and winner for Kerry

the big question is...how many voters care enough about this issue?

Unfortunately the answer is...not enough

Yes, but selected areas in battleground states do care.

This is not a national issue but rather a selective area issue.

[angus]

Environmental policy is a clear loser for Bush and winner for Kerry

the big question is...how many voters care enough about this issue?

Unfortunately the answer is...not enough

I share the sentiment.  I'd only add that there is a business-friendly way to be stewards of the environment, and I have made lengthy posts to this effect before.  Just in case anyone actually believes the commercials the democrats are producing here in california, let me be the first to tell you:  Republicans do NOT want their children to breathe polluted air or drink foul water.  Believe it or not.

[California Dreamer]

well one of the best thing Progressives, Environmental Groups and the Green party can do is endorse Kerry and urge people to not make a Nader protest vote. Unfortunately the states with the biggest popluations of pro environment voters are already solid Democrat states. OR, and WI will probably stay in the Kerry column too. But in NM and FL every consticuency helps so it is a good idea.

NV is an interesting case. The Yucca mountain thing may yet come back to bite Bush on the ass.

[lidaker]

Allright, I've looked it up. It basically says that the countries bound to it (the industrialized countries exept for the US and Australia) must reduce the amounts of six different types of greenhouse gases with all in all 5% between 1990 and 2008-12. The developing countries are not bound to reduce their emissons. Although I still don't get the "another way forward" approach. Does Brooks mean doing something outside the reach of Congress?

I seldom agree with Brooks, however I find him quite honest. Sometimes a little weird and "back to front", but he's better on PBS than in the Times.

So you're a liberal in Swedish terms. That's interesting. I am too, although I would consider myself a "socially liberal" ("socialliberal"), which means to the left in the Swedish liberal party. The Swedish economist Bertil Ohlin developed a theory back here that has some similiarites with some J. S. Mill ideas. It basically means I think governments have a responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, which is why I favor more economical interventions than most classical liberals do.

But the most confusing thing of all is that you're a liberal in Swedish terms who would vote for Bush

There's a poster named MortfromNewYawk who's apparently a big fan of David Brooks, and actually he's the one who got me started on an occassional dose of Brooks' editorials.  I wish he'd chime in, since I am not totally clear on that phrase either.  The president does have some executive authority for temporary measures, but anything substantial must be done through congress.  My biggest problem with Kyoto is its exceptions for China and other 'developing' nations.  It simply won't work.  Also, it is false to claim that the biggest problem associated with emissions is warming.  Warming cycles come and go.  Surely we contribute to them, but we don't cause them.  The biggest problem, imho, is the extinction of living species.  But mostly, the USA should be a standard-bearer, not a limp follower.  If this administration is seen as dragged into an agreement kicking and screaming, then it's better not to become involved at all.  

Yes, what swedes call a liberal, americans call a libertarian.  but I'm not looking to quibble.  What americans call liberal is a total clusterf**ck because the term is very very arbitrary and somewhat issue specific.  Two problems:  I don't like being called a liberal as in some circles it is a pejorative term in this country.  I don't like being called a libertarian because it looks too much like Libertarian.  But anyway, in the sense that I favor the smallest government intervention possible (low taxes, free press, drug decriminalization, prostitution decriminalization, etc.) I am what swedes call a liberal.  Don't be confused, in this country we separate out those groups.  If you want less government interference you might be called a conservative (low taxes, second amendment rights) or you might be called a liberal (opposed to USA PATRIOT act, for example).  You see how arbitrary we use those terms?  It's frustrating, so I usually avoid using them at all, except you signature was so deliciously ironic that I had to comment.  

My vote for Bush is largely based on Iraq, as I was a fierce vocal opponent of US military involvement in Iraq.  And on my general disdain for the Democrat party.  Also, I am quite nationalistic.  I am a big flag-waver, like most republicans, I'd say that's the tie that binds us all.  The common thread.  Dems don't get that.  I'm on vacation in Cairo, we're asked where we're from, my buddy John the dorky democrat hangs his head down and lies, "Canada".  I hold my head up high and say, "Ana min al USA sadiq'ii."  and hold up my index finger.  See the difference?  

Two exceptions:  I like total freedom, damn near anarchy, with the exceptions of strong national defense and a public education system second to none, and am willing to be taxed appropriately to make it so.

Hmm. More confusion. When I think of the term "liberal" in the Swedish sense of the word, I think of the Swedish liberal party. However the policies you prefer are much more in the line with the Swedish right wing party Moderaterna, who basically agrees to the laissez faire theories of economists such as Milton Friedman. What you support would probably be labelled as nyliberalism ("new liberalism") back here. The term libertarianism is seldom used but sort of means the same. They also have a conservative, more nationalistic wing which supports a strong defense, is pro-family and so on.

I probably messed it up even more, the terms are really very vague. The policies of the European liberal, conservative and Christian conservative parties really shift from country to country.

[angus]

Hmm. More confusion. When I think of the term "liberal" in the Swedish sense of the word, I think of the Swedish liberal party. However the policies you prefer are much more in the line with the Swedish right wing party Moderaterna, who basically agrees to the laissez faire theories of economists such as Milton Friedman. What you support would probably be labelled as nyliberalism ("new liberalism") back here. The term libertarianism is seldom used but sort of means the same. They also have a conservative, more nationalistic wing which supports a strong defense, is pro-family and so on.

I probably messed it up even more, the terms are really very vague. The policies of the European liberal, conservative and Christian conservative parties really shift from country to country.

they do.  it's a mess.  well, if I'm not mistaken, I am what most americans call a "libertarian republican."  make of that what you will.  Anyway, with the exceptions as noted, I believe in the smallest amount of government possible.  Government certainly should not be in the business of promoting 'values' imho.  I always thought, in american parlance, of liberal being more socialist/authoritarian (from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs).  And conservative the opposite.  I'm definitely, by every test proferred on this forum, the opposite of socialist/authoritarian.  But 'conservative' also brings to mind Iraq war supporters, which I'm definitely not.  (though it boggles the mind that 'conservative' would have been associated with those who want to spend hundreds of billions on desert games.)  but I digress...

Back to the topic under discussion.  Enforced values are resented.  Internalized values are solid and well-kept.  The power lies in the purse.  What we have in California is a gluttony of progressivism.  Most californians are more environmentally aware than in other parts of the country because we have to be.  35 million people live in what is essentially a desert.  There's a thin strip of arable land on the coast where we all live, just in case you thought we were sparse.  Republicans and Democrats alike share these concerns.  If you make it economically feasible to recycle, people will recycle.  If you make it economically feasible not to pollute, people won't pollute.  I did a long diatribe about linked industries, california regulations, etc, but I'll not repeat it here.  Suffice it to say that this state's legislature has made it almost impossible to efficiently and economically promote waste recycling.

I often mention that I'm the only republican at the SF bay area chapter Sierra Club meetings.  I'm not kidding.  There are no others.  You should hear some of the authoritarian solutions these people come up with.  I got my PhD in atmospheric chemical physics and spent the following years as a rocket scientist in the private sector.  I've made a career of studying the environmental impact of greenhouse gases and jet fuel emissions, and when I give talks to other scientists and they listen.  It's great.  But trying to talk to California Democrats is like trying to talk to a brick wall.  Tell them you're a Republican and they turn off their brain.  It's very frustrating to try to reason with some of these people.  Okay, now I'm ranting...

and I still don't know exactly what Brooks meant by "alternatives" but I'd sure like to.  I'll think about it and post it if I think of it.

[lidaker]

Hmm. More confusion. When I think of the term "liberal" in the Swedish sense of the word, I think of the Swedish liberal party. However the policies you prefer are much more in the line with the Swedish right wing party Moderaterna, who basically agrees to the laissez faire theories of economists such as Milton Friedman. What you support would probably be labelled as nyliberalism ("new liberalism") back here. The term libertarianism is seldom used but sort of means the same. They also have a conservative, more nationalistic wing which supports a strong defense, is pro-family and so on.

I probably messed it up even more, the terms are really very vague. The policies of the European liberal, conservative and Christian conservative parties really shift from country to country.

they do.  it's a mess.  well, if I'm not mistaken, I am what most americans call a "libertarian republican."  make of that what you will.  Anyway, with the exceptions as noted, I believe in the smallest amount of government possible.  Government certainly should not be in the business of promoting 'values' imho.  I always thought, in american parlance, of liberal being more socialist/authoritarian (from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs).  And conservative the opposite.  I'm definitely, by every test proferred on this forum, the opposite of socialist/authoritarian.  But 'conservative' also brings to mind Iraq war supporters, which I'm definitely not.  (though it boggles the mind that 'conservative' would have been associated with those who want to spend hundreds of billions on desert games.)  but I digress...

Back to the topic under discussion.  Enforced values are resented.  Internalized values are solid and well-kept.  The power lies in the purse.  What we have in California is a gluttony of progressivism.  Most californians are more environmentally aware than in other parts of the country because we have to be.  35 million people live in what is essentially a desert.  There's a thin strip of arable land on the coast where we all live, just in case you thought we were sparse.  Republicans and Democrats alike share these concerns.  If you make it economically feasible to recycle, people will recycle.  If you make it economically feasible not to pollute, people won't pollute.  I did a long diatribe about linked industries, california regulations, etc, but I'll not repeat it here.  Suffice it to say that this state's legislature has made it almost impossible to efficiently and economically promote waste recycling.

I often mention that I'm the only republican at the SF bay area chapter Sierra Club meetings.  I'm not kidding.  There are no others.  You should hear some of the authoritarian solutions these people come up with.  I got my PhD in atmospheric chemical physics and spent the following years as a rocket scientist in the private sector.  I've made a career of studying the environmental impact of greenhouse gases and jet fuel emissions, and when I give talks to other scientists and they listen.  It's great.  But trying to talk to California Democrats is like trying to talk to a brick wall.  Tell them you're a Republican and they turn off their brain.  It's very frustrating to try to reason with some of these people.  Okay, now I'm ranting...

and I still don't know exactly what Brooks meant by "alternatives" but I'd sure like to.  I'll think about it and post it if I think of it.

Interesting. Really interesting. I might respond to it tomorrow. Must go to bed now. It's 4 in the morning here .

[??????????]

The enviroment is not in "terrible" shape as some whackos might have you think. Bush is not contaiminating everything and killing us all like the whacky greenies would have you think.

[lidaker]

Hmm. More confusion. When I think of the term "liberal" in the Swedish sense of the word, I think of the Swedish liberal party. However the policies you prefer are much more in the line with the Swedish right wing party Moderaterna, who basically agrees to the laissez faire theories of economists such as Milton Friedman. What you support would probably be labelled as nyliberalism ("new liberalism") back here. The term libertarianism is seldom used but sort of means the same. They also have a conservative, more nationalistic wing which supports a strong defense, is pro-family and so on.

I probably messed it up even more, the terms are really very vague. The policies of the European liberal, conservative and Christian conservative parties really shift from country to country.

they do.  it's a mess.  well, if I'm not mistaken, I am what most americans call a "libertarian republican."  make of that what you will.  Anyway, with the exceptions as noted, I believe in the smallest amount of government possible.  Government certainly should not be in the business of promoting 'values' imho.  I always thought, in american parlance, of liberal being more socialist/authoritarian (from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs).  And conservative the opposite.  I'm definitely, by every test proferred on this forum, the opposite of socialist/authoritarian.  But 'conservative' also brings to mind Iraq war supporters, which I'm definitely not.  (though it boggles the mind that 'conservative' would have been associated with those who want to spend hundreds of billions on desert games.)  but I digress...

Back to the topic under discussion.  Enforced values are resented.  Internalized values are solid and well-kept.  The power lies in the purse.  What we have in California is a gluttony of progressivism.  Most californians are more environmentally aware than in other parts of the country because we have to be.  35 million people live in what is essentially a desert.  There's a thin strip of arable land on the coast where we all live, just in case you thought we were sparse.  Republicans and Democrats alike share these concerns.  If you make it economically feasible to recycle, people will recycle.  If you make it economically feasible not to pollute, people won't pollute.  I did a long diatribe about linked industries, california regulations, etc, but I'll not repeat it here.  Suffice it to say that this state's legislature has made it almost impossible to efficiently and economically promote waste recycling.

I often mention that I'm the only republican at the SF bay area chapter Sierra Club meetings.  I'm not kidding.  There are no others.  You should hear some of the authoritarian solutions these people come up with.  I got my PhD in atmospheric chemical physics and spent the following years as a rocket scientist in the private sector.  I've made a career of studying the environmental impact of greenhouse gases and jet fuel emissions, and when I give talks to other scientists and they listen.  It's great.  But trying to talk to California Democrats is like trying to talk to a brick wall.  Tell them you're a Republican and they turn off their brain.  It's very frustrating to try to reason with some of these people.  Okay, now I'm ranting...

and I still don't know exactly what Brooks meant by "alternatives" but I'd sure like to.  I'll think about it and post it if I think of it.

Allright. Now I have a question. How do you make it economically feasible not to pollute by not using governmental intervention, tax adjustments and stuff?

[angus]

whoa, that's a *hard* question.  I still actually have a job to do.  but I'll think of it a while and get back to you when I decide I've earned a little break  

[lidaker]

whoa, that's a *hard* question.  I still actually have a job to do.  but I'll think of it a while and get back to you when I decide I've earned a little break