Bush officials plan to dial back environmental protections

Nov 07, 2008 By Renee Schoof

In the next few weeks, the Bush administration is expected to relax environmental-protection rules on power plants near national parks, uranium mining near the Grand Canyon and more mountaintop-removal coal mining in Appalachia.



Content from McClatchy-Tribune Information Services expires 90 days after original publication date. For more information about McClatchy-Tribune Information Services, please visit www.mctdirect.com .

Explore further: Nicaragua: Studies say canal impact to be minimal

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Rio's Olympic golf course in legal bunker

Sep 18, 2014

The return of golf to the Olympics after what will be 112 years by the time Rio hosts South America's first Games in 2016 comes amid accusations environmental laws were got round to build the facility in ...

Making drones more customizable

Sep 12, 2014

A first-ever standard "operating system" for drones, developed by a startup with MIT roots, could soon help manufacturers easily design and customize unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for multiple applications.

Top South America hackers rattle Peru's Cabinet

Sep 02, 2014

The Peruvian hackers have broken into military, police, and other sensitive government networks in Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Venezuela and Peru, defacing websites and extracting sensitive data to strut ...

Recommended for you

Nicaragua: Studies say canal impact to be minimal

11 hours ago

Officials said Thursday that studies have determined a $40 billion inter-oceanic canal across Nicaragua will have minimal impact on the environment and society, and construction is to begin next month.

User comments : 23

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

DGBEACH
3 / 5 (18) Nov 07, 2008
Why do we have to wait until January again to get rid of that idiot??????????????????????
Lord_jag
2.4 / 5 (15) Nov 07, 2008
He's been voted out. Noone likes him. Why does he still have control of the country?
Modernmystic
3.9 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2008
He's been voted out. Noone likes him. Why does he still have control of the country?


Gee...I'm not SURE, but I think it has something to do with a document called "The Constitution of the United States"...or some such.
Modernmystic
2.9 / 5 (10) Nov 07, 2008
Why do we have to wait until January again to get rid of that idiot??????????????????????


What's this "we" stuff? You aren't an American are you?
zbarlici
1 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2008
American? ... you mean Flamerican?
la7dfa
2.3 / 5 (10) Nov 07, 2008
I guess we have to be satisfied if we can avoid nuclear winter while GWB controls the red button.
On the other hand it would get rid of global warming for a while...
Rick69
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 07, 2008
Good ole' Bush have finally shown some BALLS!
jcummins
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 07, 2008
If the republican's had done this a year previous to this election it's conceivable that the republicans could have maintained a meaningful majority.

Most people who can still think and reason know or strongly suspect that greenism is merely a camouflaged political method of controlling the people and their employment horizons.

By the steady elimination of harvesting the natural resources we have become dependent and all the green ideologies won't make life better for the majority.

It will be at least 10 years before affordable alternative energy vehicles are manufactured to any extent. Furthermore, where's all the rare earth metals for these so-called clean cars going to come from when China has a LOCK on these elements. Wind power is fine, but won't replace either coal or oil for at least 25 years. And, Solar energy is not affordable and again where's the special minerals coming from?

THEY
3.3 / 5 (10) Nov 07, 2008
Gee...I'm not SURE, but I think it has something to do with a document called "The Constitution of the United States"...or some such.

Like we still use/follow the Constitution.......
Soylent
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2008
Furthermore, where's all the rare earth metals for these so-called clean cars going to come from when China has a LOCK on these elements.


The current favourite for battery vehicles, lithium, is not exactly rare. The resource reserve estimates are 28.4 million tonnes. And we've barely scratched the surface; no sane bussiness goes exploring for minerals when it has many decades worth of known resource at hand.

The chevy volt uses 16 kWh of lithium ion batteries. At ~0.3 kg lithium per kWh that amounts to 4.8 kg allowing ~6 billion chevy volts to be built.

Theoretically we can cut the lithium used in batteries in about half because only about half is actively involved in the reaction.

There's also Lead acid and NiMH batteries, which are not quite as good but a lot cheaper; they're not going anywhere.

We're not going to transition to all-electric vehicles overnight and we don't need to be. First priority is not AGW, it's just to reduce oil consumption to minimize the impact of peak oil. Most of the oil is wasted in oversized, unaerodynamic bricks with ~1.2 occupants and 4 seats. You can take an enormous chunk out of that simply by building a bunch of smaller commuting vehicles and increasing utilization of rail/bus lines. Most oil is used in commuter vehicles and those trips are mostly short, when PHEVs eventually start to ramp out you can take a big chunk of that without fully electric vehicles(PHEVs have only a short all electrical range, but enough to cope with the average commuting).

Wind power is fine, but won't replace either coal or oil for at least 25 years.


Wind power is not fine and will never replace coal or oil; infact it's heavily dependent on coal spinning reserve and natural gas turbines to provide meaningful quantity of dispatchable electricity at all. It's dependent on subsidized powerlines out to the middle of nowhere that it will utilize only some of the time unless you co-locate a gas turbine at the site. Gas reserves are fairly limited and you don't want to have an electrical grid that couldn't function without it. Wind power may be cost effective or even the cheapest solution only in a very special set of circumstances; when you don't care about intermittency and don't care about transmission(ammonia production directly at the farm using solid state synthesis? Irrigation? Desalination?).

Nuclear is what will replace coal. We managed to do so quite trivially here in Sweden and so did France; why can't you?

And, Solar energy is not affordable and again where's the special minerals coming from?


The cheapest, most effective application of solar power is rarely talked about by greens for some reason; it requires no "special minerals". It's simply to collect heat for hot water and space heating; and it can take a big chunk out of the use of other heating fuels in much of the world even in late autumn and early spring.
magpies
2 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2008
Oh man thats such bad news :( Its like the people who do everything wrong and you really really hope they do something right next time.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2008
Gee...I'm not SURE, but I think it has something to do with a document called "The Constitution of the United States"...or some such.

Like we still use/follow the Constitution.......
Well it protected your ability to make that post now didn't it.
MikeB
5 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2008
"Nuclear is what will replace coal. We managed to do so quite trivially here in Sweden and so did France; why can't you?"

Good question, Soylent. I think it has something with the decline and fall of America.
Velanarris
2.4 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2008
Nuclear is what will replace coal. We managed to do so quite trivially here in Sweden and so did France; why can't you?


Because there is a known limit to the amount of enrichable Uranium and Plutonium. If we completely cut just the US over to nuclear then you would see nuclear cease to be viable by 2080.

Coal is currently the cleanest and most efficient power source we have. Cleanest due to how we reduce and react the waste to make it inert and most efficient because it's one of the largest most widely available fossil fuels around the world. If you ran out of coal you could start burning paper without changing the infrastructure at all. Meaning a revitalization of the logging industry under sustainable standards.

Duude
2.5 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2008
Why do we have to wait until January again to get rid of that idiot??????????????????????


What's this "we" stuff? You aren't an American are you?

How out of the loop can one be? You don't have to be American to vote in our elections. You just have to buy an untraceable cash mastercard and donate no more than $200 over the Internet. Also best not to press your luck too much using names such as Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, Vladimir Putin, or even Donald Duck. These simple $200 donations can be run over and over as long as you have money. They go a lot further than Americans single votes anyway.
Noein
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2008
"Coal is currently the cleanest and most efficient power source we have."

Why, of course. Coal is so clean, I eat it all the time. Mix it in with mashed potatoes. Mmmmm...

This whole "coal is clean" campaign is so ludicrous it's amazing that king coal is even trying to push it. Coal is filthy. It is dirty. It is disgusting. Mining it decimates ecosystems and annihilates once-beautiful vistas. Burning it coats the landscape with poisons, ravages the tender lungs of the young, and is warming the planet at a geologically astounding rate. The quicker humankind weens itself from coal, the better.
Velanarris
3.2 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2008
"Coal is currently the cleanest and most efficient power source we have."

Why, of course. Coal is so clean, I eat it all the time. Mix it in with mashed potatoes. Mmmmm...

This whole "coal is clean" campaign is so ludicrous it's amazing that king coal is even trying to push it. Coal is filthy. It is dirty. It is disgusting. Mining it decimates ecosystems and annihilates once-beautiful vistas. Burning it coats the landscape with poisons, ravages the tender lungs of the young, and is warming the planet at a geologically astounding rate. The quicker humankind weens itself from coal, the better.


Sources and facts on that please.
DGBEACH
1.7 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2008
Why do we have to wait until January again to get rid of that idiot??????????????????????


What's this "we" stuff? You aren't an American are you?


...when the US sneezes, we (Canada) get a cold!
fizzbliss
2.8 / 5 (8) Nov 10, 2008
I take it some of you folks have never traveled through areas of mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia? Well, I have family who lives there and I have seen the damage this practice is doing and has done.

I am no environmentalist, but I have been fighting this practice for several years now. I am sick and tired of beautiful mountains being blown to bits and all of the other mess that comes along with MTR. The heritage of my ancestors being destroyed, bit by bit.

Shall we discuss the slurry ponds perched precariously above schools and communities, with nothing more than an earthen dam holding them? Shall we discuss the fact that the debris from the blasting that is dumped in these valleys and streams often contains everything from high levels of arsenic, sulfur and lead, which ends up find its way into the water table and into peoples homes.

I am not against coal mining - if it is done responsibly. Right now, it is not being done responsibly at all. Rather than continuing to wholesale destroy, it is time the coal industry stepped up to the plate and worked WITH their local community to mine responsibly.

For those interested, you can go to www.ilovemountains.org for more information.
Modernmystic
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2008
I take it some of you folks have never traveled through areas of mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia? Well, I have family who lives there and I have seen the damage this practice is doing and has done.

I am no environmentalist, but I have been fighting this practice for several years now. I am sick and tired of beautiful mountains being blown to bits and all of the other mess that comes along with MTR. The heritage of my ancestors being destroyed, bit by bit.

Shall we discuss the slurry ponds perched precariously above schools and communities, with nothing more than an earthen dam holding them? Shall we discuss the fact that the debris from the blasting that is dumped in these valleys and streams often contains everything from high levels of arsenic, sulfur and lead, which ends up find its way into the water table and into peoples homes.

I am not against coal mining - if it is done responsibly. Right now, it is not being done responsibly at all. Rather than continuing to wholesale destroy, it is time the coal industry stepped up to the plate and worked WITH their local community to mine responsibly.

For those interested, you can go to www.ilovemountains.org for more information.


I take it you've never been to Wyoming and been treed by a grizzly bear? Well I live here and have been (not a fun experience at all, thank God he finally left without tearing my head off). I grew up here and never been bothered by them until then and that's been within the last ten years...they are THICK here now.

Now I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but I AM saying that some de-listing needs to be done. There needs to be limited permits put out on some of these animals (the grizzly and grey wolf mainly). HOWEVER when WE decided this is what would be best for OUR state someone appealed the decision till it hit an activist judge's desk and that was that.

This argument is NOT an all one way cut and dried issue, and I for one am glad to hear we might be able to actually do some management that needs to be done now.
DGBEACH
4.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
Mmmmmmm....grizzly meat :)
fizzbliss
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2008
ModernMystic, you are comparing two completely separate things. I don't have a problem with responsible management of species.

What I am referring to is a coal company literally blowing off the top 700-900 feet of a mountain, and dumping the debris - which often contains high levels of arsenic and lead, into the streambeds and valleys, which then get absorbed into the water table.

Not to mention the slurry ponds, which have the potential to cause the deaths of children, if one of them should ever breach.

It is a human rights violation, as far as I am concerned. Yes, it bothers me to see the mountain destroyed - but what bothers me far more is the human cost. For instance, in one case a dragline dislodged a huge boulder, which rolled down the hill and into a toddler's bedroom, crushing him to death.

And where, in my post, did I say the issue was cut and dried? I didn't say anything of the sort. In fact, I clearly stated that I have no problem with coal mining in and of itself - what I DO have a problem with is the absolute destruction that is being perpetrated on Appalachia, both in human suffering and environmental cost.

I am not willing to allow my people to be destroyed for an industry that has never provided the benefit they claimed they would bring to Appalachia. If these companies would work with the communities, I honestly believe that they could come up with a better way to do the mining, that would benefit both the community and the company. Until they do this, people like me will keep protesting.
Velanarris
2 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2008
Replying to a post 2 to 3 weeks later is a sign that you don't want your argument viewed, let alone debated.

How many appalacian mountains have been pit mined over the past 50 years? How many deaths have resulted from slurry pond breaches?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.