TooCute
01-13-2003, 07:50 AM
All the talk on the board about abortion, religion, etc. got me thinking about another topic that is controversial; one that I think is equally as important as whther Roe v. Wade is going to be oevrturned, or whether children ought to be required to say the pledge of allegiance in school.
An article in yesterday's Newsday is what brought this to mind; the article is here: http://www.newsday.com/ne
ws/nationworld/nation/ny-us
envi123084471jan12.story and will be there for two weeks (now if some nice mod could help an IE user and make that into a real link). It does have a 'liberal' sort of pro-environment bent to it, however, the quotation by the rancher at the end of the
article (re: grazing his cattle on land designated National Monument under Clinton's regime) needs no editorializing to make the point clear:
They can
call it a monument, but to me it's just an arid, harsh desert.
It depresses me to think that such ignorance exists, and indeed is coupled with businesses that continues to dictate national policy.
Such issues are also not limited to ranchers out west, or oil-drillers in Alaska or fishermen off our coasts; they affect us even in New York City. For example, since the implementation of the Clean Water act in 1972, conditions in the Hudson Tiver have improved dramatically - to the point that many organisms which disappeared from the river decades ago due to pollution are now returning.
This is not simply of aesthetic value; the health of the Hudson River is crucial, for example, to many commercial fisheries (striped bass in our area spend the first year of their lives living in the Hudson River essentially from New York Harbor up to the GWB. Dirty water means not many invertebrates. Not many invertebrates means not much for the little fish to eat).
However, the Bush administration would like to
implement policies that, rather than enforce the Clean Water Act and encourage less pollution, essentially allow companies to pay other companies to reduce their pollution, while maintaining their own pollution output.
It is a very interesting story(I keep telling myself this over and over so I can convince myself that my research means something!!) about how the recent improvement in the quality
of the river may have a potentially negative effect on the ecosystem of New York Harbor; that is a different issue and one I can save for some other post if anybody is interested.
Mostly I was just wanted to share the Newsday article, and provide links to a couple of environmental organizations mentioned:
The first is on the Sierra Club website; it is a breakdown and summary of recent legislation in regards to the environment - very good if you have a short attention span like me: http://www.sierraclub.org/po
litics/bush/w_watch.asp
The second is the Defenders of Wildlife; they have pages on habitats, species, etc. which are threatened by legislation: http://www.defenders.org
Happy reading!
EDIT: Direct links added. No content changed.
<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
ADF makes great sigpics!
This message was edited by HordeKing1 on 1-13-03 @ 6:34 PM
An article in yesterday's Newsday is what brought this to mind; the article is here: http://www.newsday.com/ne
ws/nationworld/nation/ny-us
envi123084471jan12.story and will be there for two weeks (now if some nice mod could help an IE user and make that into a real link). It does have a 'liberal' sort of pro-environment bent to it, however, the quotation by the rancher at the end of the
article (re: grazing his cattle on land designated National Monument under Clinton's regime) needs no editorializing to make the point clear:
They can
call it a monument, but to me it's just an arid, harsh desert.
It depresses me to think that such ignorance exists, and indeed is coupled with businesses that continues to dictate national policy.
Such issues are also not limited to ranchers out west, or oil-drillers in Alaska or fishermen off our coasts; they affect us even in New York City. For example, since the implementation of the Clean Water act in 1972, conditions in the Hudson Tiver have improved dramatically - to the point that many organisms which disappeared from the river decades ago due to pollution are now returning.
This is not simply of aesthetic value; the health of the Hudson River is crucial, for example, to many commercial fisheries (striped bass in our area spend the first year of their lives living in the Hudson River essentially from New York Harbor up to the GWB. Dirty water means not many invertebrates. Not many invertebrates means not much for the little fish to eat).
However, the Bush administration would like to
implement policies that, rather than enforce the Clean Water Act and encourage less pollution, essentially allow companies to pay other companies to reduce their pollution, while maintaining their own pollution output.
It is a very interesting story(I keep telling myself this over and over so I can convince myself that my research means something!!) about how the recent improvement in the quality
of the river may have a potentially negative effect on the ecosystem of New York Harbor; that is a different issue and one I can save for some other post if anybody is interested.
Mostly I was just wanted to share the Newsday article, and provide links to a couple of environmental organizations mentioned:
The first is on the Sierra Club website; it is a breakdown and summary of recent legislation in regards to the environment - very good if you have a short attention span like me: http://www.sierraclub.org/po
litics/bush/w_watch.asp
The second is the Defenders of Wildlife; they have pages on habitats, species, etc. which are threatened by legislation: http://www.defenders.org
Happy reading!
EDIT: Direct links added. No content changed.
<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
ADF makes great sigpics!
This message was edited by HordeKing1 on 1-13-03 @ 6:34 PM