IS Bush America's worst environmental president?
September 17, 2005 7:27 PM Subscribe
How come the admin gets away with its environmental behavior?
I mean, do Bush’s policies and appointments only LOOK like ravenously abusive, irresponsible and short-sighted pandering to corporate greed of the most specious and unrepentant kind to those with a certain point of view? Are there some intelligent, credible folks proposing that there are actually long-term benefits for the environment to be gained by turning over the protection of nature to those with the highest stakes in wrenching short-term profits from it? Does Kennedy arguably have it wrong?
I mean, do Bush’s policies and appointments only LOOK like ravenously abusive, irresponsible and short-sighted pandering to corporate greed of the most specious and unrepentant kind to those with a certain point of view? Are there some intelligent, credible folks proposing that there are actually long-term benefits for the environment to be gained by turning over the protection of nature to those with the highest stakes in wrenching short-term profits from it? Does Kennedy arguably have it wrong?
How come the admin gets away with its environmental behavior?
Because they can.
posted by mischief at 9:00 PM on September 17, 2005
Because they can.
posted by mischief at 9:00 PM on September 17, 2005
Sadly, I think rdr is right.
I'm a cynic (without doubt) and I strongly believe that our current lifestyle and priorities will bring about the collapse of our current civilization if it continues the course. It's upsetting that the elected officials do not share the same concern or worry, but if the voting public does not there is no reason for their representatives to follow suit.
posted by purephase at 9:02 PM on September 17, 2005
Developedcountries (and developed means a strong private industry with government support) consistently view short-term benefits as paramount interest rather than long-term effect. I'm not debating the environmental policies in particular as you could use the same argument for social programs or foreign policy. You would notice that it's symptomatic of the societal view (voters) and it's reflected in their
democraticinstitutions.
I'm a cynic (without doubt) and I strongly believe that our current lifestyle and priorities will bring about the collapse of our current civilization if it continues the course. It's upsetting that the elected officials do not share the same concern or worry, but if the voting public does not there is no reason for their representatives to follow suit.
posted by purephase at 9:02 PM on September 17, 2005
...but if the voting public does not, then there is no reason...
posted by purephase at 9:03 PM on September 17, 2005
posted by purephase at 9:03 PM on September 17, 2005
YAWN @ anti-bush AxMes.
He was elected by a majority of Americans. Love him or hate him if you don't like his policies it's statistically more likely the person you're speaking to does.
That means if you say hi to an environmental scientist... well... you do the math.
posted by shepd at 10:09 PM on September 17, 2005
He was elected by a majority of Americans. Love him or hate him if you don't like his policies it's statistically more likely the person you're speaking to does.
That means if you say hi to an environmental scientist... well... you do the math.
posted by shepd at 10:09 PM on September 17, 2005
Democracy doesn't work. The sooner people realise this the better. And I consider myself a liberal.
posted by brautigan at 10:25 PM on September 17, 2005
posted by brautigan at 10:25 PM on September 17, 2005
He was elected by a majority of Americans.
In the 2004 election Bush got 62,040,606 votes, Kerry 59,028,109. That's out of approximately 295,000,000 americans.
posted by rdr at 10:27 PM on September 17, 2005
In the 2004 election Bush got 62,040,606 votes, Kerry 59,028,109. That's out of approximately 295,000,000 americans.
posted by rdr at 10:27 PM on September 17, 2005
He was elected by a majority of Americans who voted. Doesn't change the fact that he is the President.
posted by davidmsc at 10:37 PM on September 17, 2005
posted by davidmsc at 10:37 PM on September 17, 2005
Thanks rdr. If you really need it qualified, Bush is best by the majority of Americans that care enough to vote (or can vote).
Anybody who has a degree in just about anything is usually of voting age, although someone will find the one odd exception to that rule.
Hence my posit stands.
posted by shepd at 10:46 PM on September 17, 2005
Anybody who has a degree in just about anything is usually of voting age, although someone will find the one odd exception to that rule.
Hence my posit stands.
posted by shepd at 10:46 PM on September 17, 2005
IS Bush America's worst environmental president? I don't think so. Presidents who presided over decades of nuclear tests, nuclear power plant construction, clear cut logging, damming of our rivers, all of them were worse in protecting the environment than Bush. Is Bush the worst president of all time? Yep.
posted by Mack Twain at 11:11 PM on September 17, 2005
posted by Mack Twain at 11:11 PM on September 17, 2005
"Who knows, maybe the next guy will make Bush look like a hero."
Finally, something a democrat can do without fucking up. tsk tsk
posted by mischief at 12:10 AM on September 18, 2005
Finally, something a democrat can do without fucking up. tsk tsk
posted by mischief at 12:10 AM on September 18, 2005
Best answer: Are there some intelligent, credible folks proposing that there are actually long-term benefits for the environment to be gained by turning over the protection of nature to those with the highest stakes in wrenching short-term profits from it?
Gregg Easterbrook is the only non-partisan writer I can think of who attempts to defend Bush's environmental record, or at least argue that the charges against Bush's decisions on the environment are exaggerated.
The Economist, a market-friendly publication, is pretty negative. They give Bush credit for recognizing tradeoffs and costs, but criticize him for putting industry lobbyists in charge of regulation.
Some of the results have been predictably awful. Despite soaring petrol prices, the Bush administration fought efforts to raise fuel-efficiency standards and close legal loopholes that allow sports-utility vehicles to guzzle more petrol than other cars. On climate change, Mr Bush noisily pulled America out of the flawed Kyoto protocols, but offered only a sham domestic replacement based on voluntary targets and emissions “intensities”: goals that are either meaningless or toothless.
Bush appointees have also undermined greenery in subtler ways that help the resource industries. For example, they have left lands open for development that by law ought to have been set aside—by, for example, registering far fewer species as “endangered” than Mr Clinton did. The EPA has quietly halted or reversed lawsuits against power companies, and starved other enforcement efforts of money. Scientific evidence that is inconvenient for industry (on, say, the risks of climate change or mercury) has been censored out of government reports.
Does Bush have the worst US environmental record ever? My guess is yes. Even Nixon set up the EPA.
How does Bush get away with this kind of record? Most people who voted in November last year based their vote on a variety of issues, not just the environment.
Last question: why is he doing this? Why does he keep making such terrible decisions? I think the most likely answer is that Bush seems to be mostly concerned with catering to his conservative base, rather than coming up with good policies. Bush and his team (particularly Rove) seem to be very good at politics -- they were able to win two difficult elections -- and very bad at governing. It's a terrible combination for the country. I sincerely hope that the Democrats find someone who can both win the next election and govern.
posted by russilwvong at 12:21 AM on September 18, 2005
Gregg Easterbrook is the only non-partisan writer I can think of who attempts to defend Bush's environmental record, or at least argue that the charges against Bush's decisions on the environment are exaggerated.
The Economist, a market-friendly publication, is pretty negative. They give Bush credit for recognizing tradeoffs and costs, but criticize him for putting industry lobbyists in charge of regulation.
Some of the results have been predictably awful. Despite soaring petrol prices, the Bush administration fought efforts to raise fuel-efficiency standards and close legal loopholes that allow sports-utility vehicles to guzzle more petrol than other cars. On climate change, Mr Bush noisily pulled America out of the flawed Kyoto protocols, but offered only a sham domestic replacement based on voluntary targets and emissions “intensities”: goals that are either meaningless or toothless.
Bush appointees have also undermined greenery in subtler ways that help the resource industries. For example, they have left lands open for development that by law ought to have been set aside—by, for example, registering far fewer species as “endangered” than Mr Clinton did. The EPA has quietly halted or reversed lawsuits against power companies, and starved other enforcement efforts of money. Scientific evidence that is inconvenient for industry (on, say, the risks of climate change or mercury) has been censored out of government reports.
Does Bush have the worst US environmental record ever? My guess is yes. Even Nixon set up the EPA.
How does Bush get away with this kind of record? Most people who voted in November last year based their vote on a variety of issues, not just the environment.
Last question: why is he doing this? Why does he keep making such terrible decisions? I think the most likely answer is that Bush seems to be mostly concerned with catering to his conservative base, rather than coming up with good policies. Bush and his team (particularly Rove) seem to be very good at politics -- they were able to win two difficult elections -- and very bad at governing. It's a terrible combination for the country. I sincerely hope that the Democrats find someone who can both win the next election and govern.
posted by russilwvong at 12:21 AM on September 18, 2005
Democracy doesn't work. The sooner people realise this the better. And I consider myself a liberal.
Got a better system that hasn't already proven itself to be a victim of the influence and power weilded by the wealthy and influential?
posted by SpecialK at 12:40 AM on September 18, 2005
Got a better system that hasn't already proven itself to be a victim of the influence and power weilded by the wealthy and influential?
posted by SpecialK at 12:40 AM on September 18, 2005
Response by poster: Thanks for all the replies so far.
I actually WOULD like to hear from some persons who “like” his environmental policies what it is they like about them. I’m simply trying to figure out what values they are based on that so many apparently share... if they do.
And that is the point of the question.
posted by dpcoffin at 12:48 AM on September 18, 2005
I actually WOULD like to hear from some persons who “like” his environmental policies what it is they like about them. I’m simply trying to figure out what values they are based on that so many apparently share... if they do.
And that is the point of the question.
posted by dpcoffin at 12:48 AM on September 18, 2005
Response by poster: Thanks especially for the Easterbrook link. Good example of what I was looking for.
posted by dpcoffin at 1:13 AM on September 18, 2005
posted by dpcoffin at 1:13 AM on September 18, 2005
Does Bush have the worst US environmental record ever? My guess is yes. Even Nixon set up the EPA.
Nixon was pretty liberal by today's standards, this was when republicans were "democrat lite". I think Mack Twain meant people like Eisenhower, etc, people who were presidents back when no one cared about the environment at all.
That said, I don't really think nuke plants are very environmentaly unfriendly...
posted by delmoi at 1:29 AM on September 18, 2005
Nixon was pretty liberal by today's standards, this was when republicans were "democrat lite". I think Mack Twain meant people like Eisenhower, etc, people who were presidents back when no one cared about the environment at all.
That said, I don't really think nuke plants are very environmentaly unfriendly...
posted by delmoi at 1:29 AM on September 18, 2005
In the 2004 election Bush got 62,040,606 votes, Kerry 59,028,109. That's out of approximately 295,000,000 americans.
Alright, plurality.
posted by null terminated at 1:31 AM on September 18, 2005
Alright, plurality.
posted by null terminated at 1:31 AM on September 18, 2005
Reagan's interior secretary, James Watt, said, "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand." I don't think Bush is rapacious; I think his evangelical worldview makes him prey to cynical advisors. (Likewise, I worry that we got into Iraq because Revelations says the "fall of Babylon" will bring us closer to the Rapture.)
posted by futility closet at 2:21 AM on September 18, 2005
posted by futility closet at 2:21 AM on September 18, 2005
You could probably answer this question yourself if you assumed that Bush supporters, on average, are as thoughtful, intelligent and concerned about leaving the world a better place for their children as you are.
Seriously.
Far too much of what passes for political dialog in this country proceeds from the assumption that the other side is stupid, deranged or evil - instead of legitmately disagreeing on policy (of course it doesn't help that there are wingnuts on both sides that are stupid, deranged and evil.)
Take, for example, Bush's decision to postpone Clinton's order to reduce arsenic levels in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion. You probably remember a lot of headlines like, "Bush Favors Industry Over Public Safety," and "Bush Mandates Arsenic In Your Tap Water," and they were easy to believe because, well, Bush is the Enemy. And an Idiot. And an Evil Motherfucker who hates black people.
But consider this for a second. If 50ppb is so bad, then why stop at 10ppb? Why not mandate ZERO arsenic in your drinking water? I mean, if 50ppb is dangerous, do you really feel comfortable drinking water with only 1/5 of a dangerous dosage? What if you drink 5 glasses of water, what then?
And the answer is obvious, right? It would be enormously expensive for increasingly little return in actual public safety. So, 10ppb represents a specific tradeoff between cost and public safety and 50ppb represents a different tradeoff. Here's the rub: they both tradeoff cost and public safety. One is, possibly, more safe at a much greater cost. The other is, possibly, less safe at much less cost. And you can't afford everything. That cost must be borne by someone.
Now, I know next to nothing about safe levels of arsenic in drinking water and what enforcement would cost and so on, but on hearing this story, I, as a Bush supporter, immediately perceived it as a cost/safety tradeoff, one I'm comfortable having the government make, whereas many Bush non-supporters immediately perceived it as Bush wants to kill poor people by poisoning their drinking water.
Apologies for the long comment. This is my first (and probably last) political remark on Metafilter.
posted by zanni at 2:28 AM on September 18, 2005
Seriously.
Far too much of what passes for political dialog in this country proceeds from the assumption that the other side is stupid, deranged or evil - instead of legitmately disagreeing on policy (of course it doesn't help that there are wingnuts on both sides that are stupid, deranged and evil.)
Take, for example, Bush's decision to postpone Clinton's order to reduce arsenic levels in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion. You probably remember a lot of headlines like, "Bush Favors Industry Over Public Safety," and "Bush Mandates Arsenic In Your Tap Water," and they were easy to believe because, well, Bush is the Enemy. And an Idiot. And an Evil Motherfucker who hates black people.
But consider this for a second. If 50ppb is so bad, then why stop at 10ppb? Why not mandate ZERO arsenic in your drinking water? I mean, if 50ppb is dangerous, do you really feel comfortable drinking water with only 1/5 of a dangerous dosage? What if you drink 5 glasses of water, what then?
And the answer is obvious, right? It would be enormously expensive for increasingly little return in actual public safety. So, 10ppb represents a specific tradeoff between cost and public safety and 50ppb represents a different tradeoff. Here's the rub: they both tradeoff cost and public safety. One is, possibly, more safe at a much greater cost. The other is, possibly, less safe at much less cost. And you can't afford everything. That cost must be borne by someone.
Now, I know next to nothing about safe levels of arsenic in drinking water and what enforcement would cost and so on, but on hearing this story, I, as a Bush supporter, immediately perceived it as a cost/safety tradeoff, one I'm comfortable having the government make, whereas many Bush non-supporters immediately perceived it as Bush wants to kill poor people by poisoning their drinking water.
Apologies for the long comment. This is my first (and probably last) political remark on Metafilter.
posted by zanni at 2:28 AM on September 18, 2005
It's because Bush's crew are not conservatives in any real sense of the word. They are radical capitalists. If they were around in the 1920s, they would agree with Coolidge saying, "The business of America is business." From the day he took office, practically every official Bush act has been aimed at freeing Big Business from any sort of restraint. Make yourself a list, and see who (or what) benefited from Bush policies. Environmental safeguards are counter to Big Business' short-term profits (unless it's something like a cleanup contract for Halliburton), so they are opposed by the Radcaps.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:03 AM on September 18, 2005
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:03 AM on September 18, 2005
As an aside -- the lifetime risks of dying of cancer from arsenic in tap water, based on the National Academy of Sciences' 1999 risk estimates:
50 ppb: 1 in 100, or approx 2,957,000 of the 295m people living in the US today.
10 ppb: 1 in 500, or approx 591,000 of the 295m people living in the US today.
IAssuming these numbers (and my math) are accurate, reducing arsenic from 50ppb to 10ppb would save the lives of approx 2,365,000 of the 295m people living in the US today.
How much would it cost, again?
posted by Jairus at 6:39 AM on September 18, 2005
50 ppb: 1 in 100, or approx 2,957,000 of the 295m people living in the US today.
10 ppb: 1 in 500, or approx 591,000 of the 295m people living in the US today.
IAssuming these numbers (and my math) are accurate, reducing arsenic from 50ppb to 10ppb would save the lives of approx 2,365,000 of the 295m people living in the US today.
How much would it cost, again?
posted by Jairus at 6:39 AM on September 18, 2005
(I was being serious with my last question, in case there's any doubt. I couldn't google any sites that discussed the actual cost of lowering arsenic levels.)
posted by Jairus at 6:40 AM on September 18, 2005
posted by Jairus at 6:40 AM on September 18, 2005
Presidents who presided over decades of nuclear tests, nuclear power plant construction, clear cut logging, damming of our rivers...
Nuclear power is probably one of the most environmentally responsible ways of generating power. Replace that with coal and then you might have a point.
posted by electroboy at 8:34 AM on September 18, 2005
Nuclear power is probably one of the most environmentally responsible ways of generating power. Replace that with coal and then you might have a point.
posted by electroboy at 8:34 AM on September 18, 2005
Response by poster: Well, I guess this thread has had its day; thanks again for all comments. But I’d like to make one last effort to clarify the point of my original question:
It’s precisely because I WANT to “assume that Bush supporters, on average, are as thoughtful, intelligent and concerned about leaving the world a better place for their children” as anyone else that I’m confused. Does the average thoughtful Bush supporter truly think that their children’s natural heritage is in better hands now that it’s been given to big business, or do they not think that it HAS been handed over? DOES the average intelligent red-stater think that whatever’s good for Exxon/Haliburton/etc.’s bottom line, is good for all of us? That big business will take care of us because in the end, they are us and any evidence to the contrary is false? Or is it widely felt that the environment can take care of itself no matter what we need to do to live however we please, and therefore appalled environmentalists are bad scientists or deluded fanatics causing needless hassles over misunderstood facts? What IS the POV of actual environmentally concerned supporters of Bush’s environmental policies?
posted by dpcoffin at 10:19 AM on September 18, 2005
It’s precisely because I WANT to “assume that Bush supporters, on average, are as thoughtful, intelligent and concerned about leaving the world a better place for their children” as anyone else that I’m confused. Does the average thoughtful Bush supporter truly think that their children’s natural heritage is in better hands now that it’s been given to big business, or do they not think that it HAS been handed over? DOES the average intelligent red-stater think that whatever’s good for Exxon/Haliburton/etc.’s bottom line, is good for all of us? That big business will take care of us because in the end, they are us and any evidence to the contrary is false? Or is it widely felt that the environment can take care of itself no matter what we need to do to live however we please, and therefore appalled environmentalists are bad scientists or deluded fanatics causing needless hassles over misunderstood facts? What IS the POV of actual environmentally concerned supporters of Bush’s environmental policies?
posted by dpcoffin at 10:19 AM on September 18, 2005
"He was elected by a majority of Americans. Love him or hate him if you don't like his policies it's statistically more likely the person you're speaking to does."
No, its not. As others pointed out, he was not elected by a majority of Americans. In his first election it was even a minority of voters! Even if your assumption were true, your inference is completely lacking in statistical validity.
posted by Manjusri at 12:42 PM on September 18, 2005
No, its not. As others pointed out, he was not elected by a majority of Americans. In his first election it was even a minority of voters! Even if your assumption were true, your inference is completely lacking in statistical validity.
posted by Manjusri at 12:42 PM on September 18, 2005
James Watt, said, "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand."
That's actually not true.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:25 PM on September 18, 2005
That's actually not true.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:25 PM on September 18, 2005
electroboy:
I think you're confusing modern nuclear reactors with the older nuclear power stations that are being referred to here (decades ago).
A modern plant is clean partly because environment matters these days, and partly because we've learned from the mistakes made in earlier plants, and partly because we have a better idea of what we're doing, and partly because we've done most of the dirty work now (in these older reactors). In especially early plants, there was little or insufficient effort to contain waste, and the sites doubled as nuclear research facilities, with a range of weird and wacky experiments that make little sense today with the luxury of knowledge that we now have gained from those activities.
The Hanford site, for example, is the most super-polluted place on earth, with a partial cleanup expected to require an engineering feat equivalent in magnitude and difficulty today as putting the man on the moon in the 60's. Most of this stems from various research (particually military), rather than simple power generation, but you would be mistaken to try to make a distinction between research and power generation in that era - power stations back then were involved in a lot more than generating power.
posted by -harlequin- at 2:56 PM on September 18, 2005
I think you're confusing modern nuclear reactors with the older nuclear power stations that are being referred to here (decades ago).
A modern plant is clean partly because environment matters these days, and partly because we've learned from the mistakes made in earlier plants, and partly because we have a better idea of what we're doing, and partly because we've done most of the dirty work now (in these older reactors). In especially early plants, there was little or insufficient effort to contain waste, and the sites doubled as nuclear research facilities, with a range of weird and wacky experiments that make little sense today with the luxury of knowledge that we now have gained from those activities.
The Hanford site, for example, is the most super-polluted place on earth, with a partial cleanup expected to require an engineering feat equivalent in magnitude and difficulty today as putting the man on the moon in the 60's. Most of this stems from various research (particually military), rather than simple power generation, but you would be mistaken to try to make a distinction between research and power generation in that era - power stations back then were involved in a lot more than generating power.
posted by -harlequin- at 2:56 PM on September 18, 2005
I don't think I made my point very well. It's not that anyone thinks Bush is a great environmental president (Democrat or Republican). It's that Republicans and Democrats have different priorities on HOW to "leave the world a better place for their children."
You might believe, for instance, that the $200+ billion being spent on the war in Iraq would be better dedicated to environmental causes. Many others, myself included, believe that spending this money on Iraq will make the world a better place.
I guess I'm not trying to convice you that Bush isn't the worst environmental president ever. He may well, given his other priorities at the moment. I'd just like to convince you that his motivation is not "pandering to corporate greed."
One final thought: I believe that capitalism is as important to freedom as democracy. I also believe that people trump the environment.
posted by zanni at 3:18 PM on September 18, 2005
You might believe, for instance, that the $200+ billion being spent on the war in Iraq would be better dedicated to environmental causes. Many others, myself included, believe that spending this money on Iraq will make the world a better place.
I guess I'm not trying to convice you that Bush isn't the worst environmental president ever. He may well, given his other priorities at the moment. I'd just like to convince you that his motivation is not "pandering to corporate greed."
One final thought: I believe that capitalism is as important to freedom as democracy. I also believe that people trump the environment.
posted by zanni at 3:18 PM on September 18, 2005
Capitalism is a powerful engine. With proper controls, it can pull people's standard of living to ever higher levels. Without those controls, however, its natural tendency is in exactly the opposite direction. Bush and his people are very busily removing all controls from the engine. Expect a very bumpy ride.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:36 PM on September 18, 2005
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:36 PM on September 18, 2005
Response by poster: Thanks for your continued comments, zanni.
But I don’t see what fighting in Iraq has to do with environmental policy. It seems that the policy has from the start been to remove every possible ecological restraint from corporate ambitions, long before 9/11 or Iraq. Nor do I think that the dilemma is: Iraq? Or the environment?
I’m a capitalist, too, and in a crunch would instinctively save my famliy or myself first before rescuing any number of spotted owls. I simply don’t trust Ken Lay and his brethren enough to turn my planet over to them for safekeeping. Somehow, I don’t think your average robber baron sees me as family....or my little patch of earth as his problem.
posted by dpcoffin at 5:36 PM on September 18, 2005
But I don’t see what fighting in Iraq has to do with environmental policy. It seems that the policy has from the start been to remove every possible ecological restraint from corporate ambitions, long before 9/11 or Iraq. Nor do I think that the dilemma is: Iraq? Or the environment?
I’m a capitalist, too, and in a crunch would instinctively save my famliy or myself first before rescuing any number of spotted owls. I simply don’t trust Ken Lay and his brethren enough to turn my planet over to them for safekeeping. Somehow, I don’t think your average robber baron sees me as family....or my little patch of earth as his problem.
posted by dpcoffin at 5:36 PM on September 18, 2005
zanni, if you're still willing to take questions, what's your view of global warming?
dpcoffin, my guess is that Bush supporters think environmental concerns aren't that bad, certainly not as bad as they're made out to be by environmental activists. And they may think of a clean environment as something you can pay for, so that richer countries will be cleaner than poorer countries (compare Western Europe to pre-1989 Eastern Europe).
That was my own view (probably heavily influenced by my being an Economist reader) until I started reading what biologists have to say, e.g. Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee. The biologists are much, much more worried than the economists are.
Ultimately, civilization depends on food production. And that can get screwed up in all sorts of ways: climate change; deforestation and soil erosion; loss of agricultural land; species extinction or species invasion; unsustainable demand (the short-term need for food may degrade long-term capacity, like having to eat your seed corn). Some of these are pretty subtle, so they won't be obvious in advance.
I'm worried that we're in the grasshopper-vs.-the-ant scenario. Climate fluctuates, for example. If we see some adverse changes--in the climate, or whatever--are we going to be prepared to handle it? Or are we assuming that it's going to be summertime forever?
posted by russilwvong at 9:42 PM on September 18, 2005
dpcoffin, my guess is that Bush supporters think environmental concerns aren't that bad, certainly not as bad as they're made out to be by environmental activists. And they may think of a clean environment as something you can pay for, so that richer countries will be cleaner than poorer countries (compare Western Europe to pre-1989 Eastern Europe).
That was my own view (probably heavily influenced by my being an Economist reader) until I started reading what biologists have to say, e.g. Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee. The biologists are much, much more worried than the economists are.
Ultimately, civilization depends on food production. And that can get screwed up in all sorts of ways: climate change; deforestation and soil erosion; loss of agricultural land; species extinction or species invasion; unsustainable demand (the short-term need for food may degrade long-term capacity, like having to eat your seed corn). Some of these are pretty subtle, so they won't be obvious in advance.
I'm worried that we're in the grasshopper-vs.-the-ant scenario. Climate fluctuates, for example. If we see some adverse changes--in the climate, or whatever--are we going to be prepared to handle it? Or are we assuming that it's going to be summertime forever?
posted by russilwvong at 9:42 PM on September 18, 2005
Just to follow up on the problem of unsustainable demand, here's a couple diagrams, based on the case studies in Jared Diamond's Collapse. When a society is stable or growing, increased food production supports increased population or affluence, and vice versa.
As a side effect, there may be some environmental damage (deforestation, soil erosion).
If the environmental damage becomes severe enough to cause food production to decline--or if food production declines for some other reason, like climate change--we get a vicious cycle: when there's food shortages, people need to produce more food regardless of the long-term environmental consequences. Short-term survival takes priority over planning for the future. This exacerbates the environmental damage, reducing food production further. Jared Diamond gives a number of examples of isolated societies collapsing, e.g. Easter Island. On Easter Island, this didn't result in extermination of the human population, but it did result in warfare, cannibalism, and population collapse (to less than half of its previous level).
A modern example of this dynamic: Haiti is more than 90% deforested. "We know we need trees, but we also need to eat and to cook."
By the time food production starts to decline, it's already too late--you have to feed the population you have. (You can also try to reduce people's level of consumption, but that's very hard to do, especially when they're poor to start with.)
Before food production starts to decline, it's not obvious what's going on. So you need a lot of foresight to anticipate when you're going to run into this problem.
posted by russilwvong at 11:28 PM on September 18, 2005
As a side effect, there may be some environmental damage (deforestation, soil erosion).
If the environmental damage becomes severe enough to cause food production to decline--or if food production declines for some other reason, like climate change--we get a vicious cycle: when there's food shortages, people need to produce more food regardless of the long-term environmental consequences. Short-term survival takes priority over planning for the future. This exacerbates the environmental damage, reducing food production further. Jared Diamond gives a number of examples of isolated societies collapsing, e.g. Easter Island. On Easter Island, this didn't result in extermination of the human population, but it did result in warfare, cannibalism, and population collapse (to less than half of its previous level).
A modern example of this dynamic: Haiti is more than 90% deforested. "We know we need trees, but we also need to eat and to cook."
By the time food production starts to decline, it's already too late--you have to feed the population you have. (You can also try to reduce people's level of consumption, but that's very hard to do, especially when they're poor to start with.)
Before food production starts to decline, it's not obvious what's going on. So you need a lot of foresight to anticipate when you're going to run into this problem.
posted by russilwvong at 11:28 PM on September 18, 2005
zanni, I understand your argument about the arsenic issue, but aren't you just assigning your trust in one party over another? I could similarly argue that the 10ppb limit was set after research by the EPA and related agencies. Your "five glasses of water" argument is a little specious. Wouldn't the number be based on an average (or slightly above average) consumption of water? Are you going to make the argument that you should be free to drink as much water as you much so the levels should be at zero? I notice that you said there was a delay in the implementation of the policy, not a change in the number. That leads me to believe that the 10ppb number is significant to enough people that it still warrants enforcement, if at a later time. I don't believe that anyone was trying to change the number to 50ppb.
The question I'm left with is who would be paying the fine, and why have they not had enough time to implement the necessary changes? Usually policies like this end up with several companies paying the fine for several years until they can fix their operation -- if anything, it's motivation to assign higher priority to the issue.
This relates back to the question at hand: why give companies and communities a free ride in regard to environmental policies right now? There's only so much leeway that economic growth and differing priorities can account for. If your company is growing and pollutes, why would we have any reason to believe you'll be cleaner in the future when we've allowed you to grow your pollution unchecked? If anything, allowing companies to grow off of techniques that raise the level of pollution is the opposite of the message we need to send.
posted by mikeh at 8:59 AM on September 19, 2005
The question I'm left with is who would be paying the fine, and why have they not had enough time to implement the necessary changes? Usually policies like this end up with several companies paying the fine for several years until they can fix their operation -- if anything, it's motivation to assign higher priority to the issue.
This relates back to the question at hand: why give companies and communities a free ride in regard to environmental policies right now? There's only so much leeway that economic growth and differing priorities can account for. If your company is growing and pollutes, why would we have any reason to believe you'll be cleaner in the future when we've allowed you to grow your pollution unchecked? If anything, allowing companies to grow off of techniques that raise the level of pollution is the opposite of the message we need to send.
posted by mikeh at 8:59 AM on September 19, 2005
Best answer: To answer the original question...
If you read what Bush voters think Bush's actual policies are (and there are many fascinating surveys at PIPA), you'll see that Bush voters do care about the environment. And they like George. Hence, surely he cares about the environment too. And that's good enough.
In some ways, these surveys are heartwarming. Bush voters really are like you and me! They're not as monstrous as the people they elected. They're pretty nasty with regards to gay marriage, but on basically any other subject, they really do like the Democrat positions. (Including, e.g., bans on assault rifles.)
But like their president, they are uncurious. They don't bother to find out that Bush actually doesn't share their concerns. Basically, they treat politics as another chore like laundry. And that is how this admin gets away with it.
posted by Aknaton at 3:08 PM on September 19, 2005
If you read what Bush voters think Bush's actual policies are (and there are many fascinating surveys at PIPA), you'll see that Bush voters do care about the environment. And they like George. Hence, surely he cares about the environment too. And that's good enough.
In some ways, these surveys are heartwarming. Bush voters really are like you and me! They're not as monstrous as the people they elected. They're pretty nasty with regards to gay marriage, but on basically any other subject, they really do like the Democrat positions. (Including, e.g., bans on assault rifles.)
But like their president, they are uncurious. They don't bother to find out that Bush actually doesn't share their concerns. Basically, they treat politics as another chore like laundry. And that is how this admin gets away with it.
posted by Aknaton at 3:08 PM on September 19, 2005
If you read what Bush voters think Bush's actual policies are (and there are many fascinating surveys at PIPA), you'll see that Bush voters do care about the environment.
Thanks for the link -- very interesting.
Any particular survey you're thinking of? Looking through the page on US opinion, the only polls which seem relevant to the environment are the ones on global warming.
Some interesting findings from the most recent poll:
The new PIPA-Knowledge Networks poll asked, if, at the G8 Summit, “the leaders of these other countries are willing to act to limit the greenhouse gases that cause climate change, President Bush should or should not be willing to act to limit such gases in the US?” Eighty-six percent said that he should. Eighty-one percent of Republicans supported this as well as 89% of Democrats. ...
Consistent with this support for international cooperation on climate change, a large majority—73%—said the US should, “participate in the Kyoto agreement to reduce global warming.” Curiously, 43% still assume, incorrectly, that President Bush favors US participation in the Kyoto Treaty and another 14% are not sure. Only 43% are aware that he opposes US participation. ...
Perceptions of a scientific consensus on climate change continue to be partisan. Sixty-two percent of Democrats perceived a consensus, as compared to just 41% of Republicans. ...
Three in four Americans embrace the idea that global warming is a problem that requires action. Only 21% opposed any steps with economic costs. However, those who said some action is necessary were divided between 42% who said the effect of global warming “will be gradual, so we can deal with the problem gradually by taking steps that are low in cost,” and 34% who said the problem is “pressing” and“we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs.”
posted by russilwvong at 4:01 PM on September 19, 2005
Thanks for the link -- very interesting.
Any particular survey you're thinking of? Looking through the page on US opinion, the only polls which seem relevant to the environment are the ones on global warming.
Some interesting findings from the most recent poll:
The new PIPA-Knowledge Networks poll asked, if, at the G8 Summit, “the leaders of these other countries are willing to act to limit the greenhouse gases that cause climate change, President Bush should or should not be willing to act to limit such gases in the US?” Eighty-six percent said that he should. Eighty-one percent of Republicans supported this as well as 89% of Democrats. ...
Consistent with this support for international cooperation on climate change, a large majority—73%—said the US should, “participate in the Kyoto agreement to reduce global warming.” Curiously, 43% still assume, incorrectly, that President Bush favors US participation in the Kyoto Treaty and another 14% are not sure. Only 43% are aware that he opposes US participation. ...
Perceptions of a scientific consensus on climate change continue to be partisan. Sixty-two percent of Democrats perceived a consensus, as compared to just 41% of Republicans. ...
Three in four Americans embrace the idea that global warming is a problem that requires action. Only 21% opposed any steps with economic costs. However, those who said some action is necessary were divided between 42% who said the effect of global warming “will be gradual, so we can deal with the problem gradually by taking steps that are low in cost,” and 34% who said the problem is “pressing” and“we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs.”
posted by russilwvong at 4:01 PM on September 19, 2005
russilwvong, my view on global warming (since you asked), is that believers seem to be 1) srongly overstating their case and 2) largely politically motivated (as opposed to being motivated by a genuine concern for the environment or human welfare). Just my perception, of course, but there seems to be a strong anti-capitalist agenda among its adherents. The Kyoto treaty in particular seems to be geared more towards redistributing wealth from richer nations (particularly the US) to poorer nations, rather than actually reducing harmful emissions.
mikeh, Clinton lowered the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water from 50ppb to 10ppb as one of the final acts of his administartion (among a flurry of pardons), with enforcement to begin in 2006. He based his decision on a study from the EPA indicating this was a safer level and, in fact, the World Heath Organization advocates this level as well. Bush wanted to delay enforcement for 9 months to get results from a second study which he thought would be more accurate (he questioned some of the assumptions of the EPA study). Since it's not 2006 yet, nothing Bush has done has had any impact on arsenic levels in drinking water at all.
That said, the actual levels are irrelevant to my argument which is ... lowering the levels would have a cost (not a fine, just a cost in terms of additional filtering, quality control, etc.). The question becomes is the cost worth it? I don't know the answer but I believe it's a legitimate debate. Absent any specific knowledge to the contrary, then as a Republican, I believe a Republican administration will make a more accurate (or more in keeping with my beliefs) cost-benefit assessment than a Democrat administration. I believe this because of the Democrats propensity for things like National Health Care (which, of course would be wonderful but way too damn expensive).
dpcoffin, if you're still listening, the tradeoff isn't exclusively between Iraq and the environment - there's a continual tradeoff between everything and everything else. Can we save the spotted owl? Sure. How many jobs will we lose? Can we keep the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve pristine? Of course. But maybe drilling there would reduce our dependence on foreign oil and how many lives might that save if we could reduce our presence in the Middle East?
Incidentally, this has been perhaps the most civilized political discussion I've ever seen on Metafilter and thank you all for that.
posted by zanni at 1:14 AM on September 20, 2005
mikeh, Clinton lowered the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water from 50ppb to 10ppb as one of the final acts of his administartion (among a flurry of pardons), with enforcement to begin in 2006. He based his decision on a study from the EPA indicating this was a safer level and, in fact, the World Heath Organization advocates this level as well. Bush wanted to delay enforcement for 9 months to get results from a second study which he thought would be more accurate (he questioned some of the assumptions of the EPA study). Since it's not 2006 yet, nothing Bush has done has had any impact on arsenic levels in drinking water at all.
That said, the actual levels are irrelevant to my argument which is ... lowering the levels would have a cost (not a fine, just a cost in terms of additional filtering, quality control, etc.). The question becomes is the cost worth it? I don't know the answer but I believe it's a legitimate debate. Absent any specific knowledge to the contrary, then as a Republican, I believe a Republican administration will make a more accurate (or more in keeping with my beliefs) cost-benefit assessment than a Democrat administration. I believe this because of the Democrats propensity for things like National Health Care (which, of course would be wonderful but way too damn expensive).
dpcoffin, if you're still listening, the tradeoff isn't exclusively between Iraq and the environment - there's a continual tradeoff between everything and everything else. Can we save the spotted owl? Sure. How many jobs will we lose? Can we keep the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve pristine? Of course. But maybe drilling there would reduce our dependence on foreign oil and how many lives might that save if we could reduce our presence in the Middle East?
Incidentally, this has been perhaps the most civilized political discussion I've ever seen on Metafilter and thank you all for that.
posted by zanni at 1:14 AM on September 20, 2005
Thanks for your response, zanni. If you're at all interested in the science of global warming, I'd recommend this page by Spencer Weart, which discusses how scientists came to understand the greenhouse effect. Also see this graph of CO2 levels from 1958 to 2002.
posted by russilwvong at 3:46 PM on September 20, 2005
posted by russilwvong at 3:46 PM on September 20, 2005
« Older What is an adult male interest magazine that is... | Who decided on the sound that sirens (police, fire... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by rdr at 7:36 PM on September 17, 2005