The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

a snippet... In June 1989 President Bush proposed sweeping revisions to the Clean Air Act. Building on Congressional proposals advanced during the 1980s, the President proposed legislation designed to curb three major threats to the nation's environment and to the health of millions of Americans: acid rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions. The proposal also called for establishing a national permits program to make the law more workable, and an improved enforcement program to help ensure better compliance with the Act.

No question additional, and clearly overkill provisions were made in California, but the Feds, and George Bush specifically, started the California Power crisis over 11 years ago. Not completely, but this legislation was/is and has been a major factor. Other more timely factors included the run-up in energy prices due to imbalances caused by the Asian economic crisis of the late 90's and subsequent cutbacks by OPEC after the slump, pushing energy prices up 50%+. This run-up shoved California over the edge into crisis. Course the "now Bush" says to hell with ya Greenie nuts!

What if Jr tried the same as Pops did in 1989, now? Signing something as "radical" as this piece of Legislation? Limbaugh would probably die on the spot(assuming of course the dude is a human even). Yet another indication just how "fringe" these supposed rightwingers of 2001 are, they would freak!

So who was the Greenie?

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Answers

How about the environmental extremists who have such influence over the California legislature, to the point to where *not one single solitary* power generation plant has been built in the state of California in the past ten years?

Don't you think that might have a teeny tiny bit to do with the situation there?

I'm an environmentalist myself. But I also realize people have to have power. It's called "balance".

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

CL:

Balance is a difficult concept for the greenies. They want power, but won't support finding or extracting the fuel. They want paper and houses, but no trees should be cut down. They want electric cars, because they don't pollute (and they refuse to permit generating the power that would run these cars. That pollutes, see?). We could go on and on. Tradeoffs are for engineers, not for purists. There may be no such thing as a free lunch, but there *is* such a thing as a stolen lunch.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Flint,

There may be no such thing as a free lunch, but there *is* such a thing as a stolen lunch.

I may steal that one. :)

Chicken,

I tell people that I'm not an *environmentalist*, I'm a *conservationist.* Conservationists believe (strongly!) that nature should be preserved, protected and cared for, with a sensible harvest of its resources for the benefit of everyone else.

Teddy Roosevelt was the classic example; he founded the National Park system because of his conservationist views.

My father, who LOVES to fish off Southport, is a member of the Atlantic Coast *Conservation* Association. The ACCA supports the sensible harvest of marine life without damaging the environment.

Hey, they ain't just a bunch of beer-guzzlin' fishermen, either. They'll come after you with both barrels blazing if you start polluting their coastlands, overfishing or killing marine life. :)

I believe there are similar groups for hunters. That's how it ought to be. There's nothing wrong with exploiting resources SENSIBLY. Like I said in another thread elsewhere, the problem with the radical environmentalists is, they're not interested in ANY form of compromise. They believe that ANY attempt to harvest natural resources is an assault on the environment by default, which is silly, IMNSHO.

By the way, have you ever been to Emerald Isle? It's one of the most beautiful places on Earth. There's something that's worth conserving.

I love it here in the hills now, but sometimes I *do* miss the beach. :)

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

I think I will simply do as Poole does and provide no links, documentation. Why bother? Apparently most will not even read an original post before spewing the GOP crud, links or no links.

Bush signed the CLEAN air ACT. This bill mandated air quality standards be followed, and all but put an end to new power plant construction in California. The move to deregulate was an attempt to ease the problems caused by this Bill and the reality it created for many areas of California.

Like I said, no question alternatives and far better planning could have been done, and sooner. Who disputes this?

To ignore this piece of Legislation and its impact is simply ridiculous. To then spew pure pr baloney being fed you by folks with a very extremist agenda is toxic.

I know many here do not believe the current Republican braintrust ultra-extremist, but stay tuned, you will learn.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2001

Here is a real belly laugh for ya...White House Reviewing Calif. Request on Energy . Good thing Dick Cheney is heading up this "task force". and this is a task? Hate to see what they consider important.

dis-connect the many variations, ya gotta love it.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2001

Update, here from the linked story just above::``Our energy task force will review the letter,'' Fleischer told reporters.

He said he did not know how quickly the task force would issue a decision. The task force is led by Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites). ``I would not anticipate an answer today,'' Fleischer said.

So you ask what could be taking Dick Cheney so long? Well seems Dick had a date today with a guy with half his brain removed. Go here for the steamy details...http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020901/conte nt/eibinterview.html

Califonia? screw-em I have a date with Rush!

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001