[MCaver]

I guess Bush's brand of conservationism doesn't include clean air. White House Loosens Clean Air Rules WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration will ease clean air rules, allowing power plants and refineries to avoid new pollution controls when expanding operations, administration sources said Friday. ----- To show that I do give credit when credit is due, it looks the the White House may be taking pollution emissions seriously at least one some level: White House to fund greenhouse gas removal projects even though the fuel efficiency increase recommended for light trucks last week (1.5mpg by 2007) is a bit of a joke. Better than nothing, I suppose, but just barely.

[MtnGoat]

IF this is the bill addressing changes in how and when upgrades are required to trigger even more upgrades, then I'll say this. Those controls formerly caused plant owners *Not* to repair and do maintainance because upgrades would trigger the clauses in the old law requring extremely expensive retrofits. The previously imposed law with the best intentions nonetheless kept old plants running with old equipment, even in cases where this meant they were not reworked as planned because it had been made costly to do so. This is a case of unintended consequences from a nice sounding law resulting in dirty air for longer, not clean air at will. If we are interested in what actually happens, instead of what is intended, this is an excellent example. This action is cast as an offense agaisnt the environment while in fact it will result in more equipment upgrades, which was the goal all along, right? We must accept that laws do not always work as intended and that regardless of this some extremists will cast any action taken by a conservative as antienvironment. While they take a jet to their next photo op...

[McPilchuck]

Personally, I am not waved or undaunted that the bill was not heard this congress session, it doesn't mean it won't be asap or when it's pushed again this next year. And to quote a statement from the most recent newspaper article on it: "a resilient agreement that had to satisfy such varied interests as the U.S. Forest Service, the Sierra Club and snowmobilers. They (Washington State Congressional Delegation supporters) are convinced that the coalition behind the bill remains powerful enough to push it through Congress next year." Given time and even more support I hope it flies right on thru and becomes the next designated wilderness, and herein Washington. By the thread expressions I see in reagrd to Pappy's great post reflecting what it means to each of us to have such wondeful mountains & peaks/forests/ect., at our beckon call to wander and or recreate in, I can only attest the majority here on this board endorse the idea of the Wild Sky bill. That in itself shows favorable broad support similar to much of what I've encountered elsewhere regarding the bill.

[MtnGoat]

I think you're right on the broad support. I decided to write in with my support only after seeing that the areas would include non roaded areas almost exclusively (except for rapid R upper, and trout creek) and allow surrounding roads open for snowmobiles and wheeled vehicle traffic. Protecting what is actually unspoiled while allowing other uses surrounding the area is a valuable compromise IMO. Otherwise, I and many others would be fighting this tooth and nail. It's nice to work together instead of being forced into opposition!

[McPilchuck]

Mtn. Goat, you hit it on the nail head, compromising is key to anything (also IMHO). If we encompass good minds from all walks to draw up plans for things such as this, things work out all that much better I think. I commend you. And though there are perhaps some land classifications that could be installed for specific areas that might be considered slightly better (example of land set aside next to the North Cascades Nat'l Park - ie. North Cascades Ross Lake Nat'l Recreation Area), in the Skykomish area case the wilderness designation is right for the circumstances and ecosystem I think. added note: for fishing & hunting enthusists...fishing & hunting is allowed in designated wilderness areas provided one obtains the proper licenses and permits to do so during the regulated seasons, under the 1964 Wilderness Act creation. I just thought I'd add that to dispell the notion that it wouldn't be allowed in the new proposed wilderness.

[Malachai Constant]

feget it it it will not see the light of day til 2004 at the earliest most likely 2008 cause we'll be fightn nother war in 2004 an ya caint swith horses in the middle da stream. THANKS RALPH!

[Allison]

In all fairness, the Dems ran a crappy campaign for Gore. It was his to lose. Where was Carville when we needed him? I'm sure he would have taken care of bidness if asked. Seems we continue to suffer from lack of leadership in the party, the midterm was a mess.

[MtnGoat]

dems don't own green votes, and green platform is not the dem platform. If dems want green votes, they are plenty able to adopt green planks and attract voters the way they ought to, by representing them. Dems shouldn't be asking why greens voted their consciences, greens ought to be asking dems why they are expected not to, to support a party they do not agree with! And greens like to hike a lot, and some will undoutedly hike in the Wild sky wilderness. Hows that for a save?

[Sore Feet]

[MtnGoat]

"it's that drilling in land set aside for the purpose of leaving it untouched by human influence is about as hypocritical as you can go." Anwar is not wilderness status! What if we add some land to Anwar to make up for the small areas that would be drilled, thus keeping the same area but merely gerrymandering a bit? "And then, if ANWR should be opened, why stop there. Why not open the Alpine Lakes, or Mt. Rainier? Or Yellowstone (lots of thermal energy there...)? If this land which was meant to be left alone is not left alone, then what's the purpose of protecting it?" Aren't you kinda mixing resources here? Mt Rainier and Yellowstone are both specifically developed *for* some human impact, for example. As for why stop there, that's entirely valid IMO, but lacking any evidence that anybody wants to drill the either, can't we disagree about what is, instead of what might be? It's not all or nothing after all, I for one am capable of supporting drilling ANWAR and at the very same time opposing drilling the ALW. "Look at Shrubya's "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" speach. That's about as black and white as possible." Yes, it is and rightfully so IMO. Either one approves of the fully intentional, planned targeting of civilians as primary and intended targets, or one doesn't. There is no it's kinda ok sometimes, because that would indicate byitself that yes, you do support it, even if it's sometimes. I fully support making that statement in order to sort out who thinks it's OK to do this, so we know who needs to be dealt with and who supports these actions. Some things *are* black and white, in spite of a complex world. Murder is wrong, it is always wrong, by definition, no matter how complex the supposed reasons for it.

[MCaver]

[MtnGoat]

For some reason can't edit above, so wanted to add a bit here. In comparison to "with us or 'agin us" on terrorism, I think I can make a very strong case no such bright line exists on environmentalism. No one can say drilling is entirely 100% wrong, because every single one of us uses the results of the earths resources. The only way a sharp line can be drawn over pollution or extractive activity is to deny *all* of it, partial acceptance indicates that it is Ok, somewhere, sometime. Very unlike intentionally placing crosshairs on the face of a civilian. So we get back to the point where enviros seem to oppose nearly everything. In discussions with other friends on this they grudgingly admit they too use resources, only because it's impossible to deny, but when we discuss their seeming opposition to any and all mining and drilling, and I ask them where it's actually *ok* to open a resource, they have no answer. This duality of complicity where they hate everything bad but like whats good, and will not actually commit to making the hard choices of how and where the bad will happen drives me nuts!

[MCaver]

[MtnGoat]

It became the mantra of the Administration and many ultra-conservatives that you either support everything the Administration suggests, or you are supporting the terrorists, to the point where questioning the motives and positions of the government were unpatriotic" where is this "mantra" spelled out, or is this your interpretation of someone elses words? Any quotes where someone in the administration calls someone opposing an initiative "unpatriotic"? What I have seen in discussion of this nature among my friends is that they think I'm calling them unpatriotic, when I have said no such thing. I am of the opinion that unless you can provide specific instances of the cases you cite, this may be the same thing. "Through this use of us/them, the Administration got support for questionable policies like pre-emptive strikes against sovereign nations." nothing preemptive about striking a nation known to support terrorists that have killed americans.

[Malachai Constant]

Then why not hit these guys? http://www.msnbc.com/news/838867.asp