[Leftcoast]

QUOTE

Bush has actually been hugely green. in fact, he just passed some new hvac regulations that force all new air conditioning systems to run on a new super efficient refrigerant. Bush has passed numerous bills of environmental concern in his terms, and i dont understand why he hasnt gotten credit. It as if people think he is raping th earth or something just because he "didnt sign the kyoto accords" Fact, is, almost all of our congressmen were against kyoto protocol, (which excludes india and china, massive polluters) Bush has also funded hydrogen power research.

You know, I'm not totaly in the closset, so I have to disagree that Bush is green. Why don't you show me some real proof that I'm wrong? I don't think you can, but I will ask any way.

It is funny that you call Bush green then point our that he did not support the Kyoto Accords. Guess what 3 things cause the most greenhouse emisions?

I also hope your not from the westcoast, if you were, you might know about what he is trying to do the forests in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. It's not very green, infact it seems to benefit large logging companies.

[The_man]

What you call "raping the forests" I call good forest management. Face it. Our forests are overly dense, specifically because we do not harvest trees and because we try so hard to put out natural fires. This leads to the commonplace megafires we see in many of our forests. Cutting down trees is actually better for the forest as a whole.
Its funny how environmentalists damage themselves.

And the Kyoto Accord is flawed, which is why it was rejected. I never said Bush was green, just that he does more green things than you give him credit for. Any way, there are much better ways to reduce pollution than signing flawed accords, avenues which Bush has pursued.

[ATK]

QUOTE (The_man @ Nov 30 2005, 19:57)

What you call "raping the forests" I call good forest management. Face it. Our forests are overly dense, specifically because we do not harvest trees and because we try so hard to put out natural fires. This leads to the commonplace megafires we see in many of our forests. Cutting down trees is actually better for the forest as a whole. Its funny how environmentalists damage themselves.

Not sure what you meant but, destroying forests may be good for themselves but not for us.

[Leftcoast]

QUOTE

What you call "raping the forests" I call good forest management. Face it. Our forests are overly dense, specifically because we do not harvest trees and because we try so hard to put out natural fires. This leads to the commonplace megafires we see in many of our forests. Cutting down trees is actually better for the forest as a whole.

You are correct about good forest management, but that's not what the Healthy Forest Act (or what ever it's called) does. The forest survace already cut down and maintined our forest. Bush plan lets private componies come in and clear cut national forest. Bottom line the forest in my neck of the woods were plenty healthy, if it's not broke don't fix it.

Why is the Kyoto Accord flawed, and where? Or is it that it did not profit the oil companies and car companies?

[The_man]

Ahem----China and india=exempt

That is flawed. Those places are so f*ckin polluted. And again, not only did Bush not support it but most of our Congressmen INCLUDING DEMOCRATS did not support it either.

For all the jabber about oil companies in their profits we still pay pretty low in comparioson to places like japan, russia, england and mainland europe.

You go ahead and be secure in your belief that your forests are healthy and wait for your next humongous fire. I know that about a year ago when I went to the west cost the forests I saw were way too dense, just begging for a fire. Of course im sure that in a scant year you have managed to make that all better now, yes all of your acres of forests have now been made so safe that you could dump hot coals into them and no fire would start.

There are hundreds of thousands more trees now than there were in the 1800s, and I think its time we went in and wiped large sections of dangerous overgrown forests of the face of the earth.

Or do you not want your houses to be built?

oh thats right. We shouldnt build houses, there are too many people, blah blah blah. Why dont we all just join the Zero Population Growth Movement? Or commit mass suicide. Either one works.

[Leftcoast]

QUOTE

Ahem----China and india=exempt That is flawed. Those places are so f*ckin polluted. And again, not only did Bush not support it but most of our Congressmen INCLUDING DEMOCRATS did not support it either. For all the jabber about oil companies in their profits we still pay pretty low in comparioson to places like japan, russia, england and mainland europe. You go ahead and be secure in your belief that your forests are healthy and wait for your next humongous fire. I know that about a year ago when I went to the west cost the forests I saw were way too dense, just begging for a fire. Of course im sure that in a scant year you have managed to make that all better now, yes all of your acres of forests have now been made so safe that you could dump hot coals into them and no fire would start. There are hundreds of thousands more trees now than there were in the 1800s, and I think its time we went in and wiped large sections of dangerous overgrown forests of the face of the earth. Or do you not want your houses to be built? oh thats right. We shouldnt build houses, there are too many people, blah blah blah. Why dont we all just join the Zero Population Growth Movement? Or commit mass suicide. Either one works.

Sersiously, this your argument is not cutting the mustard. For one thing, you're not from here, so you don't have the same frame of reference for what our forest should or should not look like. Secondly, I doubt that you have much education in science to back up anything techniacaly which even remotly relates to your argument. Lastly, please understand, that these forest (west coast, california) need fire to be healthy. Yes, they need forest fires to be healthy, some plants will only germinate after fires come through. In recent years controled burns have been used to keep forest healthy, and safe from larger fires. Show me where controled burns are to be used in Bush's little plan.

At any rate, you still have not backed up your argument with proof/evidence of Bush's green thumb.

[The_man]

Jesus buddy, who do you take me fore? OF course I know that fire is important. Bush's plan doesnt need to use controlled burns because controlled burns are already in place. And it is pretty obvious when a forest needs thinning, the trees are horribly dense, so much as new saplings can not grow. All Im saying is not to complain when you lose sections of your gigantic forests, its like a giant complaining about losing his belly lint.

I dont need to prove to you because Bush DOESNT have a green thumb, it is just more green than you give him credit for. You act like the world is about to come to its end, and all I'm saying is it is sensationalist bullsh*t.

If you would like to find out what bush has done for the envorionment, look it up yourself.