Daily Kos

[Complete] Debate Questions 11 and 12 Rapid Response Posts

Fri Oct 08, 2004 at 01:15:39 PM PDT

This is the Debate Rapid Response diary for questions 11 and 12: Will Kerry raise taxes on the non-wealthy and is Bush an environmentalist
Question 11: Questioner: Varner, James Question: can you look directly into the camera and promise that you will not increase taxes on families that make less than 200,000

Kerry's 2 minute answer:

Yes Absolutely. Right into the camera, yes. I'm not going to raise taxes.

I have a tax cut - here's my tax cut: I raise the childcare credit by $1000 for families. I have a $4K tuition credit to parents and kids to pay for college. And I lower cost of healthcare as I described.

Every part of my program I've shown how I will pay for. And I've gotten good people like former secretary of treasury Bob Rubin who showed how to balance budgets to help me crunch these numbers and make them work.

I've even scaled back some of my favorite programs already to make them work, like the childcare program I wanted to fund, and the national service program, because the President's deficit keeps growing. And I've said as a pledge, I'm going to cut the deficit in half over four years.

I'm going to restore what we did in the 90s - pay as you go. We're going to do it like you do it. The President broke the pay-as-you-go rule. Someone here asked a good question: 'why haven't you vetoed something?' If you care about something, why don't you veto it? I think John McCain called the energy bill the 'no lobbyist left behind' bill. You've gotta stand up and fight somewhere, folks.

I'm pledging I will not raise taxes, I am giving a tax cut to people earning <$200K. Now, to the people >$200K, you're going to see a rollback to where we were with Bill Clinton. I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected -- the President, me, and Charlie, I'm sorry, you too.

Bush's 1 1/2 minute Rebuttal:
It's not credible. He talks about being fiscally conservative, it's not true. If you look at the record, he voted to break the caps -- the spending caps -- over 200 times. Here he said he's going to be a fiscal conservative all of a sudden. It's just not credible.

Of course he's going to raise your taxes. See, he's proposing $2.2trillion in new spending and you say 'how are you going to pay for it?' He said well, he's going to raise the taxes on the rich. OK that raises -- he says $800 billion, we say $600 billion. You got battling green eyeshades. Somewhere in between those numbers. And so there's a difference between what he promised and what he can raise.

Now either he's going to break all these wonderful promises he's told you about, or he's going to raise taxes. And I suspect given his record, he's going to raise taxes.

I think the way to grow this economy is to keep taxes low, to have an energy plan, to have litigation reform. We just got a report that said over the past 13 months we create 1.9 million jobs. We're growing. So the fundamental question of this campaign is how we're going to keep this economy growing so people can work. That's the fundamental question.

Kerry's 30 second extended discussion:
Gibson: I'm going to come back to how these numbers add up and how you're going to cut this deficit in half in four years given what you've both said.

Kerry response: First of all the President's figures of $2.2 trillion aren't accurate - those are fuzzy math figures put together by some group that works for the campaign.

Second, John McCain and I have a proposal jointly for a commission that closes corporate giveaway loopholes. We've got $40 billion going to Bermuda, all kinds of giveaways. We ought to be shutting those down.

Third, credible? In 1985 I was one of the first democrats to move to balance the budget and voted to balance it in 85 and 87 and we did it.

Bush's 30 second extended discussion:
He's got a record. He's been there 20 years. You can run but you can't hid. He voted 98 times to raise taxes. These aren't make up figures. People are going to have to look at the record. They don't name you "most liberal in the Senate" because you don't show up for many meeting, they name you for your votes. And that's reality. It's just not credible to say he's going to keep taxes down and balance budgets.
Question 12: Questioner: Hubb, James Question: Are you an environmentalist

Bush's 2 minute answer:

Offroad diesel engines; we reached an agreement to reduce pollution from offroad diesel engines by 90%. I have a plan to increase wetlands by 3 million. We've got aggressive brownfield program to refurbish inner city "sore spots" to useful pieces of property. I proposed to the Congress a Clear Skies initiative to reduce sulfur dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Mercury by 70%.

I fought for a strong title in the farm bill for the conservation reserve program to set aside millions of acres of land to preserve wildlife and the habitat.

We proposed a healthy forests bill which is essential in western states to make sure our forests were protected. What happens in those forest, because of lousy federal policy they are not harvested, not taken care of. As a result they're like tinderboxes. And over the last summers I've flown over there. So this is a reasonable policy to protect old stands of trees and at the same time make sure our forests aren't vulnerable to the forest fires that have destroyed acres after acres in the west. We've got a good common sense policy.

What I really think is going to happen over time is technology will change the way we live for the good of the environment. That's why I proposed the hydrogen generated automobile. We're spending $1 billion to come up with the technology to do that. It's why I'm big proponent of clean coal technology, to use coal but in a clean way. I guess you'd say I"m a good steward of the land.

The quality of air's cleaner since I've been president. Fewer water complaints. More land restored. Thank you for your question.

Kerry's 1 1/2 minute Rebuttal:
To listen to that, I don't think the President is living in a world of reality. If you're a red sox fan, that's ok. If you're a president, it's not.

Number one, don't throw labels around. Labels don't mean anything. I supported welfare reform. I led the fight to put 100K cops on streets of America. I have been for faith-based initiatives for years. I broke with my party in 85 to fight for a balanced budget when it was heresy. Labels don't fit.

When it comes to the environment, this is one of the worst administrations in modern history. The "Clear Skies Bill" is one of those orwelian names you pull out of the sky, slap it on something like "No Child Left Behind" then leave millions of children behind. Here they're leaving the skies and the environment behind. If they just left the Clean Air Act all alone today, no change, the air would be cleaner than if you past the Clear Skies Act.

In fact, his environmental enforcement chief air quality person at the EPA resigned in protest to what they're doing to the new source performance standards for air quality.

They're going backward on the definition for wetland. Backwards on water quality. Pulled out of the Global warming, declared it dead. Didn't even accept the science.

I'm going to be the President who believes in science.

Bush's Extended 30 second discussion
Well, if we joined Kyoto, which I guess he's referring to, it's going to cost a lot of jobs. It's one of these deals where in order to be popular in the halls of Europe, you sign a treaty. But I think there's a better way to do it.

And I just told you the facts, sir. The quality of the air is better since I've been President of the United States. And we'll continue to spend money on research and development because I truly believe that's how we'll get from how we live today to being able to live a standard of living we're accustomed to and being able to protect our environment better, the use of technologies.

Kerry's 30 second extended discussion:
The fact is, the Kyoto treaty was flawed. I was in Kyoto, I was part of it. I know what happened. But this President didn't try to fix it. He just declared it dead and we walked away from the work of 160 nations over 10 years.

You wonder, Nikki, why it is that people don't like us in some parts of the world. You just say "hey we don't agree with you, goodbye." The President's done nothing to try to fix it. I will.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 58 comments

  •  Thanks Mark (none / 0)

    I'll add your diary to the list.  Thanks for volunteering to become a member of the KRRT (Kos Rapid Response Team).  Things are finally coming together.  'Til tonight...

    John McCain doesn't think kids need health insurance

    by katerina on Fri Oct 08, 2004 at 05:31:45 PM PDT

  •  Suggestions: (none / 0)

    It'd be nice if you all would link up your diaries so people could navigate between them more easily. May I suggest a standardized header at the top of each diary that looks like this:

    Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9...

  •  Does he know what "steward" means? (none / 0)

    My first out-loud laugh of the evening: "I guess you could say I'm a... a good steward of the land."

    After he's struggled for 90 seconds to come up with ways he has been good for the environment, including doing something with "urban... sore spots."  Whatever that means.

  •  Bush and the environment? (none / 0)

    Sorry George, but even with your last name, you don't make me think of the environment.

    Cutbacks on off road diesel engines...what was he talking about...ATVs?

    Bush believes that we can live the same way and technology will save us.

    Kerry: I'm going to be the president who believes in science. That's great.

    Next Generation Vision & Accountability

    by C I A on Fri Oct 08, 2004 at 11:06:10 PM PDT

  •  Battling green eye shades ? (none / 0)

    WTF was that...
  •  I'm posting a separate comment (none / 0)

    for each point that Bush made (or tried to make). We can then reply to each comment and start a debunking thread for each statement.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:03:24 AM PDT

  •  Q11 rebuttal (none / 0)

    Kerry voted 200 times to break the spending caps 200 times.

    I'm not sure what spending caps he is talking about.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:06:03 AM PDT

  •  Q11 rebuttal (none / 0)

    Kerry has proposed 2.2 trillion in new spending and tax increases will only pay 600-800 billion - that difference is the "battle of the green eyeshades".

    Kerry says that these numbers were made up by a group working for Bush's campaign.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:10:47 AM PDT

    •  Tax increases (none / 0)

      During WWII the people of the United States bought US Savings Bonds, had rationing of many items and donated to the cause.  We didn't such a huge number of rich in proportion to the rest of the population as we do now.  So why can't people pull in their belts a little and provide the country with money to get this war done now, rather than borrow from the wealthy and foreign interests such as Japan and China to pay the debt?
  •  Q11 Rebuttal (none / 0)

    Bush will grow the economy by keeping taxes low.

    Not much growth yet, especially when the taxes were lowered mostly for the rich who don't spend much on consumption.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:13:27 AM PDT

  •  Q11 rebuttal (none / 0)

    Bush will grow the economy by having an energy plan.

    The energy plan that was written by the energy companies, including Enron. We know whose economy is going to grow.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:18:14 AM PDT

  •  Q11 rebuttal (none / 0)

    Bush will grow the economy by litigation reform.

    Or at least keep full the coffers of the companies that no longer have to pay for their product liabilities.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:20:50 AM PDT

  •  Off-Road Diesel Emission Controls (none / 0)

    The "off-road diesel engines" that the President referred to is a set of truly historic emission control rules.  The rules will reduce the particulate (i.e. smoke) and gaseous pollutant emissions from construction equipment, diesel generators and other off-road machinery by up to 90%.  Every enviornmental organization has applauded these rules (but most have pushed for faster implementation, of course).  

    So how did these rules come out of a Bush Administration?  My opinions:  

    1.  Clinton's EPA did the really tough work of laying a foundation by battling the diesel industry for years to establish rules for trucks and buses, and to clean up diesel fuel.  Multiple lawsuits were fought off by Clinton's EPA to make the rules happen.  A lot of political capital was expended.  Once the truck and bus rules were in place, it was a short leap to an off-road rule.
    2.  The rules were a huge concession to Whitman.
    3.  The rules are cost effective enough to be attractive to John Graham and his group at OMB (something like a 20-to-1 benefit-to-cost ratio).

    Answer #1 has some merit as a method of diffusing the importance of the non-road diesel rule, but it is a bit subtle for general use.  The best approach might be to change the subject to the insane level of influence that people from industry have in the EPA, Interior and other agencies.

    For background, see this from Environmental Defense.  

  •  Q11 rebuttal (none / 0)

    1.9 million jobs have been created in the last 13 months.

    But the job creation rate is not keeping up with the rate of population increase.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:29:59 AM PDT

    •  Jobs (none / 0)

      According to the US Census, 1.3 million people graduated from college in 2003.  Did all of these people obtain jobs?  I would like to see accoutability on the 1.9 million jobs in the past 13 months.  Why should we have colleges if we can't provide jobs for the graduates?  The US needs to reasses the education system accordingly.

      Watched and cheered the debate at the Dem Club of West OC Campaign Office at 18912 Beach Blvd in Huntington Beach, CA. Help elect Kerry, Boxer and Jim Brandt! 714 965-4121 and 965-4550

  •  Q11 extended discussion rebuttal (none / 0)

    Kerry voted to raise taxes 98 times.

    Over 20 years in the Senate?

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:33:31 AM PDT

  •  Q11 extended discussion rebuttal (none / 0)

    Kerry is the most liberal in the Senate.

    I actually think Bush said Kennedy. But I believe that this is only over the past year when Kerry was only present to vote on critical issues, and therefore the most "liberal" ones.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:36:02 AM PDT

    •  Not the most liberal (none / 0)

      The "most liberal statement" is highly misleading since that rating for Kerry is for 2003 ONLY---a period when Kerry missed a lot of votes while campaigning.  To correct the misuse of the their data, The National Journal wrote an editorial and published Kerry's career rating (3/6/04).  It shows that Kerry is #11 (and that Edwards is in the moderate wing of the Democratic Party).  

      More extensive coverage of the vote rating at Questions 9 and 10.

    •  ontheissues.org -- more scientific/objective (none / 0)

      OnTheIssues.org has a somewhat scientific way of classifying politicians based on their voting record.  They have Kerry as a Libertarian-Leaning Liberal.  They have Bush as a Hard-Core Conservative.  Note it's not a fact check site -- just a political stance site.

      Anyway, my point is that you can find others that are more liberal than Kerry like Leahy or Kennedy or Murray -- Hard-Core Liberals.

      Funny thing about Bush's quote -- guilt by association, then guilt by lying:

      BUSH: First, the National Journal named Senator Kennedy the most liberal senator of all. And that's saying something in that bunch. You might say that took a lot of hard work. [...]

      It's the largest increase in federal government health care ever. And it fits with his philosophy. That's why I told you about the award he won from the National Journal.

      That's what liberals do. They create government-sponsored health care.

      Buy Renewable Energy Now! Choose Your Power or Green Tags

      by drh on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 05:13:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Environmental Priorities (none / 0)

    Bush likes his trees.  The priorities he has are to make sure that natural resources are xploitable. Bush initiatives to make sure the forests are "properly" harvested. According to Shrub, properly taken care of means harvested.

    What is this off-road diesel engine thing? No mention of this in the whitehouse.gov listings.

    Bush hsa no clue what the environment is.

    "Bring it On!" is not a Foreign Policy

    by demdragon on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:36:36 AM PDT

  •  Q11 extended discussion rebuttal (none / 0)

    Kerry didn't show up for many meetings (presumable Senate hearings or votes).

    Yes, indeed Kerry was campaigning and didn't show up for votes where his vote would not have changed the outcome.

    But Bush has spent less time in the White House than any president in history (or so I believe - need to check this).

    You know, if I were president I think I'd be spending a huge amount of time there as opposed to a barren ranch in Texas.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:39:14 AM PDT

    •  500 days (none / 0)

      Bush is MIA -- i cannot imagine anyone can touch this statistic:

      500: Number of days Bush has spent all or part of his time away from the White House at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, his parents' retreat in Kennebunkport, Maine, or Camp David as of 1 April 2004.

      I wrote a comment about this the other day, 'cause it really pisses me off, i'll tell you what.

      Buy Renewable Energy Now! Choose Your Power or Green Tags

      by drh on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 04:49:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Q12 rebuttal (none / 0)

    Bush will decrease pollution by offroad diesel vehicles by 90% (are there a lot of those?)

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:41:39 AM PDT

    •  Diesel emissions one of the few good things (none / 0)

      the EPA did.

      I'm not sure if this hasn't been in the works for a while, though...pre-Bush.

      NRDC

      Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

      by willyr on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 02:55:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  this is the link that (none / 0)

        specifically addresses the off-road diesel reference. Note that the NRDC says it hardly offsets the Bush record on air pollution.

        off road diesel

        Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

        by willyr on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 03:00:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  specifically: (none / 0)

          This rule will go a long way toward reducing the significant pollution problem of non-road diesel engines," said Richard Kassel, the director of NRDC's national vehicles and fuels project. "Unfortunately, this positive step stands in contrast with the administration's backward slide on other air pollution issues, especially power plants," continued Mr. Kassel.

          NRDC cited as examples of the administration's backward slide: rules delaying pollution controls on old, coal-burning power plants; its proposal to extend deadlines for reducing mercury pollution; EPA's refusal to continue Clean Air Act enforcement; and its refusal to take steps to reduce global warming pollution.

          Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

          by willyr on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 03:03:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Q12 rebuttal (none / 0)

    Bush has a plan to increase wetlands by 3 million (3 million what?)

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:42:46 AM PDT

  •  Q12 answer (none / 0)

    Brownfield program to refurbish inner city "sore spots" to useful pieces of property.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:43:49 AM PDT

  •  Q12 answer (none / 0)

    Proposed to the Congress a Clear Skies initiative to reduce sulfur dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Mercury by 70%.

    Kerry says that the clean Air Act already in place is better.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:44:57 AM PDT

    •  The Dirty Skies Initiative (none / 0)

      The "Dirty Skies Initiative" is a gift to the power industry.  The power industry is one of the most generous contributors to the Republican Party.  The initiative takes a law that was working well and weakens it and increases the time allowed for industry compliance.  The Bush plan allows three times more toxic mercury emissions than current law would allow, and postpones forthcoming mercury limits by a decade. For example, it would allow 50 percent more sulfur emissions than current law and push back clean-up standards from 2012 to 2018. The plan puts industry profits ahead of public health, and bottom lines above lungs.

      Fortunately, it is stalled (I'm not sure where. In the courts?).

      NRDC's The Bush Record on Power Plant Pollution includes extensive coverage.

      Testimony by Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of New York, before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and Committee on the Judiciary, July 16, 2002.


      Even if the Administration were serious about "Clear Skies," the pollution reductions that program would offer are  too little, too late: the caps are too high and would not take affect until the distant future.  

      To be blunt, the "Clear Skies" caps are based on little more than politics.  They do not guarantee compliance with air quality standards.  The caps certainly are not based on sound science.  Every month, another study shows the need to reduce pollution more aggressively.  For example, a recent study finds new links between fine particulate matter (PM) and cancer.

      Nor does technical feasibility stand in the way of higher caps.  More aggressive SO2 and NOx cuts are clearly technically feasible even with existing technology.   Nor is it a question of rates that consumers must pay for power.  The Department of Energy itself determined that the country could cut NOx and SO2 by 60-80% by 2010 with virtually no rate impact.

    •  New Source Review and SOX/NOX redux (none / 0)

      The evil twin to Clear Skies is the issue of "New Source Review".  The Bush administration is pushing a very polluter-friendly alteration of the Clean Air Act to weaken NSR.

      The NRDC has a much better summary than mine... In a nutshell, the Clean Air Act allows old factories to adhere to weaker standards for a while, but factories are essentially rebuilding their factories under the name "routine maintainence" and getting to keep the weaker standards -- this is what "New Source Review" is supposed to prevent.

      If their alteration of NSR goes through, it could significantly offset whatever sulfur dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Mercury reductions they've proposed in Clear Skies.

      The EPA says this in the FAQ:

      Clear Skies would establish caps on sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and mercury emissions at levels 70% below year 2000 emission levels.

      I'll bet you that's exactly where Bush got the fact -- better get an alternate source on this one...

      Buy Renewable Energy Now! Choose Your Power or Green Tags

      by drh on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 04:42:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Environment and Healthy Forests (none / 0)

    One of my biggest fears about 4 more years of Bush is the "Healthy Forests" Initiative (also know as "Hell With Forests" or "No Tree Left Behind"). It's possible to be pro-logging and still oppose Bush's policy, and in fact I'm not anti-logging.

    Bush's plan is ass-backwards in dealing with forest fires and protecting lives and property. There is a lot of science and research on this which, as in other areas, Bush is ignoring.

    Here are some links if you want to pursue this:

    John Kerry's Environmental Issues Page
    John Kerry's Forest Plan
    Firefighters Oppose Bush's Plan (a letter from real fire-fighters)
    A Forester Looks at Healthy Forests
    Sierra Club Debunks Bush
    Summary with Links
    Heritage Forests Campaign

    Hope this helps somebody - it's a good topic for LTEs, especially in the rural west.

    Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho

    by badger on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:45:46 AM PDT

    •  Did I catch a gaffe? (none / 0)

      Something along the lines of

      "we're going to harvest... uh ... [improve or something]"  

      As I understand it, preventing forest fires by lighting small underbrush fires is new and good forestry.  The idea is that fires are normal and in fact necessary for things like Sequoia stands.  However, after a century of protection, the nature of a fire in heavily overcrowded forests is one where all the trees get burned down right to the dirt -- which also gets sterilized by the heat.  Removing the excess fuel is one thing, clear cutting is another.  I don't think Bush wanted to call attention to the fact that they mean to cut all those trees down instead of just getting rid of the excess.

      •  Harvesting and fires (none / 0)

        More or less correct (and I'm no expert). Sequoia or Ponderosa Pine and Douglas Fir to some extent will survive a low-intensity fire if over about 12 inches in diameter and the fire doesn't get into the crowns  of the trees. Brush and small trees carry the fire to the crowns and are needed to keep a crown fire spreading.

        Large trees also create a canopy which keeps brush and small trees down. The excessive fuel loads allow for much hotter fires and flame heights of 20 to 200 feet or more.

        In addition, the most effective use of resources is to cut small trees and reduce fuel loads near forest-human interfaces. In that case, firefighters can fight fire in back country by containment rather than direct attack near homes, which is cheaper and safer.

        So the "correct" process is to reduce fuel loads near homes, cut small trees, and retain larger trees. Healthy Forests calls for cutting larger trees, leaving small trees and allocates more money (which also goes to timber companies) for reducing back country fuel loads (brush grows back quickly when the big trees are gone). It does absolutely nothing to reduce the intensity or size of fires, or protect lives and property from fire.

        Worse, fuel load reduction should concentrate more on private lands, for which Healthy Forests does almost nothing at all.

        Kerry's plan addresses most or all of these issues.

        Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho

        by badger on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 03:34:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Q12 answer (none / 0)

    Bush's farm bill conservation reserve program to set aside millions of acres of land to preserve wildlife and the habitat.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:46:06 AM PDT

  •  Q12 answer (none / 0)

    Healthy forests bill – prevent forest fires

    Bush's Smokey the Bear imitation. I guess that there will indeed be fewer forest fires when there are fewer forests.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:48:05 AM PDT

  •  Thanks so much (none / 0)

    Mark, both for your work on this diary and on getting the chat room going.  And thanks, dirtgirl, for your yeoman work on providing transcripts.  Congratulations to both of you on a job very well done!

    John McCain doesn't think kids need health insurance

    by katerina on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:49:53 AM PDT

  •  Q12 answer (none / 0)

    Bush proposed $1 Billion for hydrogen fuel cell car.

    This was an excellent way to give the auto companies (and the president) an excuse not to improve gas mileage, since it will take at least 10-20 years to get to the point where there are significant numbers of fuel cell cars on the road.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:50:19 AM PDT

  •  Q12 answer (none / 0)

    Clean coal.

    This is an oxymoron but our guy says it too – Pennsylvania has lots of coal

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:51:10 AM PDT

  •  Q12 answer (none / 0)

    Bush says he has been a good steward of the land.

    Yeah, go figure.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:52:11 AM PDT

    •  opinion (none / 0)

      well, that's one man's opinion.  

      here's another man's opinion.  in fact, he has a quote about stewardship:

      This track record does not reflect the independence, sense of stewardship and respect for science and law that most Americans have the right to expect in our nation's chief environmental guardian.

      Buy Renewable Energy Now! Choose Your Power or Green Tags

      by drh on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 02:02:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  a complete look at his record (none / 0)

        on public lands and wildlife here:

        NRDC

        Suffice to say it is one of unprecedented BAD stewardship, characterized primarily by turning over public treasure for private plunder, eliminating wilderness and roadless areas, and industrializing the landscape.

        His "I'm a good public steward of the land" doesn't pass the laugh test.

        Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

        by willyr on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 02:45:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Q12 answer (none / 0)

    Better air quality, water quality, and more land restored since Bush was elected.

    Of course that was under Clinton's laws, which he has been trying to change as well as eviscerate with regulation changes and weakened enforcement.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:53:05 AM PDT

  •  Q12 extended discussion (none / 0)

    Kyoto would have caused job loss.

    Especially his if he didn't kill Kyoto and satisfy his petro-buddies.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:54:33 AM PDT

    •  cost-benefit analysis (none / 0)

      they base their analysis on this news release from 2001 when they walked away from Kyoto.

      "job loss" is a weak answer.  you need a full analysis, be it a cost-benefit analysis, etc. to determine a plan of action.  they punted -- look for the bush admin's detailed analysis of Kyoto. i've read a lot of books on Kyoto for my graduate program -- i never found one.  but, in the "analysis" above, they give 2% of GDP as a total -- that's the same as the Iraq war, roughly.

      the point is that if the cost (job loss) outweights the benefits (reducing oil consumption, reducing GHG emissions, reducing global change risk) beyond a doubt then it's a sound policy decision -- that's how many policy decisions are done -- and thanks to Regan (EO #12291), it's required that's it's explicitly a cost-benefit analysis.

      it also ignores the fact that the US has enormous leverage in negotiating with Kyoto as it was essentially pronouced dead because the US or Russia had to join in order for it to enter into force.  in other words, Bush did nothing to mitigate the potential job loss because he saw global warming as a non-issue.

      Buy Renewable Energy Now! Choose Your Power or Green Tags

      by drh on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 02:24:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Q12 extended discussion (none / 0)

    Air quality better since Bush became president.

    Same answer as in the Q12 answer item above.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:55:54 AM PDT

    •  air quality data (none / 0)

      First, let's look at what he said:

      BUSH: The quality of the air's cleaner since I've been the president. [...]

      And I just told you the facts, sir. The quality of the air is cleaner since I've been the president of the United States.

      Now, let's define "the quality of the air" as the average air quality in America as governed by the EPA's regulations on Air Quality as required by the Clean Air Act.  The EPA measures against the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) which in turn are divided into primary standards -- to protect public health (more strict) -- and secondary standards -- to protect public welfare, crops, etc (less strict) -- and cover 6 pollutants.  In order to simplify all of these variables into one variable, the EPA uses an "Air Quality Index (AQI)".

      The EPA publishes Air Pollution Data on the web. If you download the AQI data for 2000 and 2004 summarized by county, and then calculate the average AQI based on the mean AQI, you will find 32.2 and 32.8 respectively.  In fact, in 4 years, the EPA has done little to increase air quality: 32.31, 32.19, 31.95, 32.24, 32.82 (2000 for the baseline, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004).  Below is a chart of these data:

      Despite these data on the Air Quality Index, the EPA reported that the US had the cleanest air in three decades.

      Buy Renewable Energy Now! Choose Your Power or Green Tags

      by drh on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 04:23:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  support for Kerry's Kyoto comments (none / 0)

    Kerry is dead on with his final 30 seconds re: Kyoto.

    There was seriously Big News (tm) re: Kyoto last week, and a diary on the announcement that Russia is planning to ratify Kyoto and thus leave the US out of the Kyoto game as Kyoto would enter into force.

    Anyway, here are a few relevant comments I posted in that diary:

    how Bush walked away and

    various Kyoto resources and Bush speeches.

    Brief history: The UNFCCC on which Kyoto is formed was founded in 1992, and the first Kyoto negotiations were in 1995.  Kyoto was signed by the US in 1997, but never ratified.  Bush walked away in 2001.

    Current status of Kyoto -- lists 137 countries.

    Kyoto is known to be flawed  -- see my comment

    Buy Renewable Energy Now! Choose Your Power or Green Tags

    by drh on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:57:33 AM PDT

  •  Q12 extended discussion (none / 0)

    More money for improved technology.

    Actually not nearly enough for the fuel cell initiative - fuel cell industry experts say that the $1 billion is chump change compared to the amount necessary to create the infrastructure for hydrogen distribution alone.

    Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 01:58:09 AM PDT

  •  Clear Skies: Reduce Mercury by 70%? (none / 0)

    From the AJC 6/6/03:

    WASHINGTON -- President Bush's proposal for reducing mercury emissions from electric power plants was based on inaccurate estimates, a White House aide testified Thursday. The admission prompted some Republican senators to say the plan's cap on mercury pollution should be relaxed.

    "I am concerned that the cap is too stringent and creates too much uncertainty," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

    However, the senators were unable to pin down the White House witness, who was testifying before the air pollution subcommittee, on whether President Bush would support a relaxation of the caps.

    When asked if the administration wants to change the caps, Randall Kroszner of the White House Council of Economic Advisers responded: "Occasionally, Congress does change things the president proposes, and that could be a possibility." But, he added, "We support the president's plan."

    The administration's "Clear Skies" plan had projected that if pollution by sulfur and nitrogen compounds is reduced by 70 percent in 2010 as envisioned in the plan, it would automatically reduce mercury pollution from power plants to roughly 26 tons a year nationally. Today, the plants emit about 48 tons of the poisonous metal.

    However, new analysis now indicates this "co-benefit" reduction in mercury pollution would amount only to between 2 and 14 tons a year, Kroszner testified.

    The news was greeted with enthusiasm by power company lobbyists.

    By my calculations President Bush proposed reducing Mercury by 70% by 2010 but in was factually wrong about the science (per his own advisor) and off by anywhere from 8 to 20 tons of mercury per year.

    Mercury toxicity levels found here...someone may be able to translate the 8-20 tons of mercury Bush is off by into # of workplaces, # of kids, # of rivers, etc.

  •  Kennedy: Bush's Crimes Against Nature (none / 0)

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100904G.shtml

    Bush's Crimes Against Nature
        By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
        Eugene Weekly

        Thursday 07 October 2004

        Editor's Note: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is arguably the nation's most prominent environmental attorney. His new book is "Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy." On Sept. 23, he made an impromptu appearance in Eugene, Oregon. Below is an edited transcript of his talk.

        I've written a book about Bush's environmental record, but it's not so much about the environment as it is about an excess of corporate power and the corrosive impact of that on our democracy. And it's not about a Democrat attacking a Republican. I've been disciplined for 20 years as an environmental advocate about being non-partisan and bi-partisan in my approach to these issues. I don't think there's any such thing as Republican children or Democratic children, and the worst thing that can happen to the environment is if it becomes the province of a single political party. But you can't talk honestly about the environment today in any context without speaking critically about this president. This is the worst environmental president we've had in American history.

        If you look at Natural Resource Defense Council's website, you'll see over 400 major environmental roll-backs that have been promoted by this administration during the last three and a half years, and I tell you it's part of a concerted deliberate attempt to eviscerate 30 years of environmental law.

        It's a stealth attack. They have concealed their radical agenda from the American public using Orwellian rhetoric. When they destroy the forest, they call it the Healthy Forest Law; when they destroy the air they call it the Clear Skies Bill. And most insidiously they have put polluters in charge of virtually all the agencies that are supposed to protect Americans from pollution. The head of the Forest Service is a timber industry lobbyist. The head of public lands is a mining industry lobbyist who believes that public lands are unconstitutional. The head of the air division at EPA is a utility lobbyist who has represented the worst air polluters in America. The second in command at EPA is a Monsanto lobbyist. The head of Superfunds, an agency critical to quality of life here in Oregon, is a lobbyist whose last job was teaching corporate polluters how to evade Superfunds.

    <snip>

    Read the entire thing.

Permalink | 58 comments