Yesterday, the Lake County News-Sun chose to gush over Bob Dold as an environmentalist because he went up 40 feet in a bucket lift while touring Illinois Beach State Park and Spring Bluff Forest Preserve. They went on to report that he was there because he was on his way to (or from) a ground breaking ceremony for a Macy's in Gurnee Mills. Apparently, that was enough to give him both environmental and bipartisan creds for the News-Sun. Dold is also touting his own environmentalism here on .
To see if the News-Sun is even close, let's take a look at Dold's environmental votes.
Back in April 2011, there was the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910). It wasn't exactly a tax prevention provision. It really stopped the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas. Dold voted yes. He voted to take greenhouse gases out of the definition of a pollutant, subject to regulation by the EPA. Most Democrats voted against this bill, so Dold gets no bipartisan kudos here either.
Then came the Air Quality Impact of Oil Drilling (H.R. 2021). This bill limited the area in which an agency could measure impact of oil drilling to the immediate shoreline. Dold liked this bill too.
Dold voted to repeal emissions standards for cement manufacturing plants in H. R. 2681. Then he voted to strip the EPA's power to regulate the disposal of coal combustion waste and leave it to the states (H.R. 2273). Divide and conquer on pollution from coal combustion. Then he agreed with his party that farm dust is not a particulate worthy of EPA regulation (H.R. 1633). The odd thing about the farm dust bill is that there was no existing or pending EPA regulation of farm dust. The other odd thing about the farm dust bill is that it didn't free up farm dust, but addressed "nuisance dust" which really has more to do with deregulating open pit and asbestos mines. Now that some polluting private industries were freed up from regulation under the guise of helping farmers, Dold helped his party divert water from fish, wildlife and habitat restoration efforts to private contractors working on the Central Valley Project (H.R. 1837) The Central Valley Project grows cities and intense irrigation required farming in areas of California where there isn't enough water to sustain them. The project has been very controversial and is said to have damaged natural river environments, Native American Tribal Lands and gutted the salmon population. But, no worried because the bill Dold favored also repeals legislation that required the Project to replace the dead salmon.
Then, Dold capped off his environmental votes with a vote in favor of the Keystone Tar Sands Pipeline with no plan on how to limit or deal with the environmental destruction.
So, Bob Dold managed to vote against the environment seven (7) times in 2011 and 2012 and voted with his party 7 out of 11 times on the environment, but going up on a bucket lift impressed the Lake County New-Sun.
Next time you claim I am giving false information, please check your facts. I stand by what I said. Forgive me for using the word "regionally" and not "nationally." By my calculations, that would in fact be a "vast majority," especially when the coal produced electricity out-produces any other source by more than a 2-1 margin. Source: http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/research/where-our-electricity-comes-from/
In fact, let me re-type what I posted, which you responded to: "Just pointing out how yet another thing you use on a daily basis and take for granted is bad for the environment, yet let's take up a cause that doesn't even exist yet, and turn it political. It shows your agenda is what matters to you, and your politics, not truly the environment." That's not defending the use of coal. In fact, it seems to be pointing out the exact opposite, so not sure why you took issue with what I said.
And watch how fast your electric bills skyrocket when they outlaw coal and start using more expensive natural gas-fired plants. Hate to tell you, but a lot of your environmental friends who tout that as a cleaner source of energy are the same ones now complaining that fracking (or drilling through the ground deeply) in search of that natural gas is harming the environment as well. You can't have it both ways.
They are then blasted as being "anti-environment" because someone blogging sees they voted against a measure, without first doing some research and finding out why, when in fact that individual often refused to vote for it because he or she wanted the wording in the legislation to be MORE strict. But no one ever talks about that.
Because the concept of man made pollution doesn't cover the reality of what we see, another look at the issue outside that of an alarmist is demanded. In the man induced theory, the depletion of ozone is due to release of man-made chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) compounds. Over time these heavier then air chemicals are believed to work their way up into the upper stratosphere. CFC's would break apart under UV radiation releasing chlorine atoms that would destroy ozone. (see many views above) Assuming this man induced theory on the origin of the ozone hole is correct, the area most affected would be the mid-Latitude Northern Hemisphere where the industry and population centers in the U.S., Canada, Europe, India, Asia, Russia, China and Japan exist. This is precisely what is not happening! This area is where the least action occurs. Instead, we are observing a substantial annual ozone hole in one area only, the Antarctic and then only during times of no sunlight (the polar winter). Once the sun returns, the hole disappears quickly. A substantially smaller hole (NASA calls this the dimple because it's so small) is also known to occur over the world's second cleanest area, the Arctic. A second issue exists. The sun generates explosions that produce bursts of high-energy protons. Ozone layer density on Earth can be dramatically affected by SPE's, which can locally decrease ozone content in the stratosphere up to 5%.
Some events that have caused serious dents in our levels of ozone levels can be measured using Nitrate Spike Signatures. They show us large thinning of our ozone layer occurred prior to the creation of CFC's in September of 1859 and in July 1892. Thirdly, There is growing evidence that ozone levels at the poles is directly connected to the strength of our magnetic fields. The ever weakening fields are believed to be assisting with the size and strength of the ozone hole. Projections for the hole, if tied to magnetic levels of the planet, are for an increasing hole, despite the banning of CFC's.
And BTW, you do have an odd interpretation of "vast majority." To me, the term means "way more than half" or "nearly all" or "all but a few." 48.7% doesn't seem to qualify. Does it?
It's a political discussion! Republicans believe Corporations will do the right thing. They won't when it comes to pollution. They are interested in a profit. Libertarians want complete hands off and no EPA. This leaves us with the Democrats to try to workout a solution. Clean coal is one. The Federal Government must be involved in solving our problem with pollution. Otherwise, you have Northwest Indiana polluting Chicago as it does today. You have dirty coal killing trees everywhere. No, I did not say the Republicans are the cause of pollution (another incorrect assumption on your part, similar to you saying I called you a Republican). Republicans are the 'drill baby drill party', but they did not cause all the pollution. They are in the pockets of big oil and big coal, so don't expect any solutions from them. Yes, it will take politicians to pass laws to protect us from profit driven pollution causing corporations....and, as you point out....help us to help ourselves.
I'm done with this ridiculous arguement. It's always this way on here. I make a valid point, then someone tries to skew the discussion to fit what makes them look better, and it becomes a bunch of childish nonsense. For the second time, forgive me for writing regionally and not nationally. Furthermore, I mever said my statistics were based on the state of Illinois specifically. You chose to take the conversation that direction, so it was completely out of context in regards to anything I posted. That's your fault, not mine. This began as a discussion about how things affect people nationally, so the only reason you brought the state's numbers up is because you are mad I pointed out that nationally, a lot more electricity comes from coal than any other single source. When coal is compared to any SINGLE source in my pie graph, it constututes a "VAST MAJORITY." So skew the numbers to make yourself feel better all you want, it doesn't change the fact that coal produces more electricity by a wide margin than ANY OTHER SINGLE SOURCE, as I have repeatedly stated. When comparing 48 percent to 19 percent, it is a vast majority. Again, you've skewed my words and tried to make it sound like I was referring to Illinois only. Which I never did. YOU put those words in my mouth. I said regionally, NOT in Illinois. YOU did. Go re-read it again, clear as day.
So does that mean Bush was a more environmentally-friendly president under your definition?
Is 48 percent larger than 19 percent? Apparently not in your world.
From Obama's own mouth: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/03/obama-oil-drilling-up-on-my-watch/1
Typical cry wolf right wing response, I'm not calling you a right winger, so don't pretend offense again. You're all bent out of shape about a post becoming political when that's exactly what the post is about. Politics. Alan Simpson just said this about your friends in the Republican Party....."I guess I'm known as a RINO now, which means a Republican in name only, because, I guess, of social views, perhaps, or common sense would be another one, which seems to escape members of our party," Simpson said. "For heaven’s sake, you have Grover Norquist wandering the earth in his white robes saying that if you raise taxes one penny, he’ll defeat you. He can’t murder you. He can’t burn your house. The only thing he can do to you, as an elected official, is defeat you for reelection. And if that means more to you than your country when we need patriots to come out in a situation when we’re in extremity, you shouldn’t even be in Congress." Oops, I guess I called you a Republican. If it quacks like a duck.....
Alan Simpson got it right yesterday when he said.... "I guess I'm known as a RINO now, which means a Republican in name only, because, I guess, of social views, perhaps, or common sense would be another one, which seems to escape members of our party," Simpson said. "For heaven’s sake, you have Grover Norquist wandering the earth in his white robes saying that if you raise taxes one penny, he’ll defeat you. He can’t murder you. He can’t burn your house. The only thing he can do to you, as an elected official, is defeat you for reelection. And if that means more to you than your country when we need patriots to come out in a situation when we’re in extremity, you shouldn’t even be in Congress."
I've been to the Mendenhall Glacier and am sorry to hear it receded so much.
I've never voted a straight party ticket in my life, nor will I ever. The blog topic was about politics. The comments me and others were discussing following Nightcrawlers comments were not, until you butted in and made it political. Quite poorly and in an uniformed fashion I might add. But since you are now insulting me, I can do the same. Typical liberal response. Get all angry and start whining, then throw some insults around instead of facts. Then blame everyone else, as if you've never done wrong in your life. Gee, how hard is that to do instead of having a civil discussion? Sorry if it hurts that someone is playing your game or taking a page out of your handbook. Then you start spouting off about white robes and burning houses in some odd crazy context I still don't understand....how weird. And about quacking ducks. Quite amusing. As if what one random person thinks about an entire party defines who they are. At least I have the courage to put my real name next to whatever I post instead of hiding and throwing insults. And at least the author of this blog has the courage to do the same.
Some top scientists even believe some of this may be from sunspot activity, and be completely unrelated to the ozone layer, etc. So I simply ask, what undisputable proof do you have that this is our fault as humans, other than circumstantial evidence and suppositions? See my posts above from 9:23 a.m. on Sunday, May 27.
How do you suppose that happened? Were humans polluting and getting it blamed on them too 10,000 years ago? The Earth goes through natural cycles, and I'm just wondering if some people simply assume all of this is caused by us based on them believing everything Al Gore and his film told them. I have yet to see one scientist show me undeniable proof that these occurences are directly linked to us. I'm not saying that might not be the case, but please, show me one rock solid study that proves it without question. It doesn't exist.
The answer you quoted from was in response to the question: "Why do some science experts feel the hole in the ozone layer is natural?". It also appears as "Another view" in response to the less-leading question: "What are the causes of the hole in the ozone layer?", which includes several other responses that reflect a more diverse range of viewpoints. In case you're curious: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_causes_of_the_hole_in_the_ozone_layer#ixzz1wCrg24nF Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_some_science_experts_feel_the_hole_in_the_ozone_layer_is_natural#ixzz1wCqy5P1j
http://www.louisvuittonbeltspc.com/ http://www.coachoutletsstorebm.com/ http://www.guccibeltsmh.com/ http://www.coachouletbtf.com/ http://www.coachoutletuse.net/ http://www.coachoutletb1.com/ http://www.coachoutlethcs.com/ http://www.coachoutletonlinetpc.net/ http://www.coachfactorystorebg.org/ http://www.coachoutletonlineeu.net/ http://www.coachoutletonlinesm.net/ http://www.coachfactoryonlinemb.com/ http://www.coachfactoryoutletion.com/ http://www.hermesbeltsoutletns.net/ http://www.coachoutletmls.com/