damaged mountainside near AT in PA

[mountain Soul]

I was hiking the AT this past weekend near Palmerton, PA. I was appalled at the damage of the mountainside by past zinc refining and manufacturing plants. I read a bulletin about the area posted at the trailhead that gave a small amount of history of the plants. I wanted to know more about what caused this damage and did some research on the Internet. Apparently the waste byproducts of these factories killed all the vegetation for miles along the mountainside. They even named a large solid waste dumpsite, "The Cinder Bank" , which was 2 1/2 miles long and 200ft. high.There was no wildlife in the area-not even a chipmunk! Some of the area was completely white....all rocks and white dead stumps of trees. It was very eery! and it was very sad to see the damage that todays "modern world" has done to our beautiful mountains.:eek:

[the goat]

the rattlers love it!

[saimyoji]

http://epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/sites/PAD002395887/fs/1995-12.htm


Still a concern for the watershed.

[mountain Soul]

the rattlers love it!I would have been very suprised to see even a snake, it was so barren of any type of life. Jeez.....glad didnt see one while hiking though....am terrified of snakes!

[mountain Soul]

http://epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/sites/PAD002395887/fs/1995-12.htm


Still a concern for the watershed.
Yes I was on that website...they are still trying to reveg. the area. They even claim to have had success with reveg. 1,000 of the 2,000 acres..but I didn't see much. There was a "corridor" of some bushes, grass and weeds at one section along the AT. But most still looks barren. At one of the shelters, they had a posting of a nearby spring that listed the content of lead , arsenic ect.. in the water. The thing is they have been trying to reveg. it since the early 1980's. That's been 20 yrs without much success!

[the goat]

I would have been very suprised to see even a snake, it was so barren of any type of life. Jeez.....glad didnt see one though while hiking though....am terrified of snakes!
i saw one the size of my leg up there....i almost $hit in my duofolds:eek:

[Peaks]

It shows just how fragile our environment is, and how easy we can screw things up.

[mountain Soul]

i saw one the size of my leg up there....i almost $hit in my duofolds:eek:what time of year was it?...that is one reason I waited to hike the upper PA section until now. I love to scramble over the boulders but was afraid of coming in contact with snakes.I was hiking the AT in the Shenandoah National Park this summer-not as many rocks. I saw some while hiking the trail but I was aware of them being there and did not bother me much.

[fiddlehead]

Good practice for desert hiking.
Bush and his gangster buddies would love to do that to the whole country if it could make them richer.

[Blue Jay]

At one of the shelters, they had a posting of a nearby spring that listed the content of lead , arsenic ect.. in the water. The thing is they have been trying to reveg. it since the early 1980's. That's been 20 yrs without much success!

I think there has been a lot of success. There is much more vegetation on the top before you start to descend to the road. Last year there was more compared to 01, and much more than when I first went through in 98. I have heard the water from the spring has been analyzed and the heavy metal levels have returned to normal for American water. I still carried more than I needed, so I didn't have to use it.

[mountain Soul]

It shows just how fragile our environment is, and how easy we can screw things up.
I was aware of places like this. But it really wakes you up to the impact this has on our environment when you actually physically walk through it yourself (instead of just reading about it or seeing it on TV). And this is right here in my own backyard! of PA.

[LIhikers]

My wife and I hiked northern PA this past summer. When we went through that area I felt like I was walking on the moon. It was really wierd. I kinda figure that would be what an area would look like years after an atomic blast.

[mountain Soul]

Good practice for desert hiking.
Bush and his gangster buddies would love to do that to the whole country if it could make them richer.
That is exactly how I described it to people I have talked to today. That it was like walking through a desert! According to the posted bulletin at the trailhead. The plants were very active during the WW1 and employed over 3,000 people. I can't imagine 3,000 people working in that rural area during that time period. It also stated that the pollution continued to the 1980's. I thought we knew better by then!!!

[Newb]

Here in Virginia at the Prince William National Forest the EPA has almost completely reclaimed a small mine that had destroyed 30 or 40 acres. The trees that grow there are oddly stunted, but they claim the water that runs off of it is no longer dangerous. It takes a lot of time.

[mountain Soul]

My wife and I hiked northern PA this past summer. When we went through that area I felt like I was walking on the moon. It was really wierd. I kinda figure that would be what an area would look like years after an atomic blast.
Yes it was eerryyy.. at one section everything looked like it had a layer of white dust. I used my hiking stick to see if it was a dust and would wipe off. However it would not. I saw a couple fire rings in this section. Someone was a lot braver than me I wouldn't want to linger or eat in there.

[mountain Soul]

Here in Virginia at the Prince William National Forest the EPA has almost completely reclaimed a small mine that had destroyed 30 or 40 acres. The trees that grow there are oddly stunted, but they claim the water that runs off of it is no longer dangerous. It takes a lot of time.
What type of mine? We have a lot of coal mines and strip mines in upper PA but this is the first I have seen this type of damage. I have hiked in areas that have been striped mined above Scraton, PA but they still have trees and some sort of vegtation. This area in Palmerton had nothing but rocks...I have hiked the AT in VA almost to the end of the Shenandoah NP. It is very beautiful down there!

[the goat]

what time of year was it?...that is one reason I waited to hike the upper PA section until now. I love to scramble over the boulders but was afraid of coming in contact with snakes.I was hiking the AT in the Shenandoah National Park this summer-not as many rocks. I saw some while hiking the trail but I was aware of them being there and did not bother me much.
it was mid-september. the thing had 9 beads on its rattle, it used to be more (you could see where the top of the rattle had broken off). it had just eaten something too, so it was movin' slow....guess there's some rodents up there too.

[mountain Soul]

it was mid-september. the thing had 9 beads on its rattle, it used to be more (you could see where the top of the rattle had broken off). it had just eaten something too, so it was movin' slow....guess there's some rodents up there too.
I never saw a rattlesnake except on TV...you were close enough to count the # of beads on its rattle? scary!....how loud do they rattle?...is it loud enough to warn you they are there before you get too close???

[Topcat]

They rattle loud enough for you to hear them, but they dont always rattle. I was backpacking in New Mexico last summer and saw several, but only heard one of them. They always make me jump, but are so cool to watch

[mountain Soul]

They rattle loud enough for you to hear them, but they dont always rattle. I was backpacking in New Mexico last summer and saw several, but only heard one of them. They always make me jump, but are so cool to watch
I wouldn't mind seeing one but not when I am in danger or being surprised by it...that's not good if they don't rattle to warn you! I hear they are an aggressive snake and will actually go after you??

[Alligator]

What I want to know is why they route the AT up/down the rock face instead of along the blue-blaze bad weather route? I've been down similar stuff before (I was southbound), but it's such an artificial place, why not keep it a little safer?

Black snakes up there too.

[Toolshed]

I live about 25 minutes away and it is a stomping ground for me. I think it is absolutley beautiful the way it is. I like the views, the loneliness and the scars. It reminds me everytime I am up there what man can do, and I think it should be left that way as a reminder.

[Blue Jay]

I wouldn't mind seeing one but not when I am in danger or being surprised by it...that's not good if they don't rattle to warn you! I hear they are an aggressive snake and will actually go after you??

They are not aggressive. I've walked by 10 or 12 and they rattled after I was past. They could easily have bitten me. I also saw someone step on one by accident and even then it didn't bite.

[Teatime]

:datz This is about the STUPIDIST thing I've seen someone post on whiteblaze. Pure unfounded vitriol. Even if you disagree with Pres. Bush on enviromental issues, this is really over the line of rational thinking. Fiddlehead, why not go post this crap over on Trailblaze. I'm sure Wingfoot will be happy to agree with you. Anyway, this happed years and years ago, and it is Pres. Bush's fault? :-?
Good practice for desert hiking.
Bush and his gangster buddies would love to do that to the whole country if it could make them richer.

[fiddlehead]

:datz This is about the STUPIDIST thing I've seen someone post on whiteblaze. Pure unfounded vitriol. Even if you disagree with Pres. Bush on enviromental issues, this is really over the line of rational thinking. Fiddlehead, why not go post this crap over on Trailblaze. I'm sure Wingfoot will be happy to agree with you. Anyway, this happed years and years ago, and it is Pres. Bush's fault? :-?
Oh, i've seen much stupider, if you like, i'll forward some of them to you.
I don't like the way bush is opening up wilderness areas to mining, logging, oil exploration, etc. I like wilderness areas. they are a big reason why i hike.
He (and his gangster buddies) like to change wilderness into areas that are ugly. (go hike the PCT in WA and see how you enjoy those checkerboard areas)
Call my posts crap if you like, it doesn't bother me. I'm glad to see someone is watching. Possibly it'll even open you mind a little bit to what's going on in this country. I could go on and on. I'll take it private with you if you really care about my views. fh

[Lone Wolf]

I hope they drill Alaska.

[the goat]

I hope they drill Alaska.
ditto, and run a pipeline all the way to the mid atlantic!!! :banana

[fiddlehead]

you guys will most probably get your wish.

[MarcnNJ]

I assume Fiddlehead doesnt use zinc.....

[bfitz]

This is about the STUPIDIST thing I've seen someone post on whiteblaze. Pure unfounded vitriol. Even if you disagree with Pres. Bush on enviromental issues, this is really over the line of rational thinking. Fiddlehead, why not go post this crap over on Trailblaze. I'm sure Wingfoot will be happy to agree with you. Anyway, this happed years and years ago, and it is Pres. Bush's fault?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddlehead
Good practice for desert hiking.
Bush and his gangster buddies would love to do that to the whole country if it could make them richer
Yeah, thats typical of some of these libzombies. They're so indoctrinated with this anti-bush propaganda, they can't separate reality from the movies. I think they all really think Bush and Cheney sit around smoking cigars and laughing at the world while they plunder and kill with big grins on their faces. Kind of like the way some baptists view the pope, seems like. They are so brainwashed no reasonable argument is possible because they really beieve that GWB is this evil crimelord from out of some James Bond movie. It's so stupid it's laughable, except I think they are teaching it to their kids. Meanwhile us realists just think of their candidates as well meaning dumbasses. How will we ever compete in their propaganda war without sinking to their level...?

[weary]

Yeah, thats typical of some of these libzombies. They're so indoctrinated with this anti-bush propaganda, they can't separate reality from the movies. I think they all really think Bush and Cheney sit around smoking cigars and laughing at the world while they plunder and kill with big grins on their faces. Kind of like the way some baptists view the pope, seems like. They are so brainwashed no reasonable argument is possible because they really beieve that GWB is this evil crimelord from out of some James Bond movie. It's so stupid it's laughable, except I think they are teaching it to their kids. Meanwhile us realists just think of their candidates as well meaning dumbasses. How will we ever compete in their propaganda war without sinking to their level...?
Well, you might start with the facts. The Bush administration has proposed a general weakening of environmental regulations since coming into office. Some have been carried out. Some have been blocked by those you sneeringly call libzombies.

As a result water quality in this nation, which improved annually for a quarter century, I understand has declined during the past three years.

I can't think of a single significant environmental improvement that Bush has championed since coming into office. I can think of a lot of attempts and successes at lowering standards.

Only an alert citizenry (libzombies, according to you) forced a withdrawal, for instance, of proposed new rules issued last summer that would have allowed more untreated sewage to be dumped into the nation's rivers and ocean waters.

Only a similar protest forced the withdrawal this fall of new proposed policies that would have opened national parks to more ATVs and other off road vehicles under the guise of increasing visitor "enjoyment."

Weary

[the goat]

Healthy Forests Initiative
On December 3, 2003, President Bush signed legislation implementing key provisions of his Healthy Forests Initiative. The President's initiative is helping restore the health and vitality of forests and rangelands, and helping reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires. This is benefiting communities and wildlife habitats.
National Parks - Restoring the Quality of Our Cultural, Natural, and Historic Resources
The President is fulfilling his commitment to address the park maintenance backlog. To meet his commitment of $4.9 billion over five years for park maintenance and construction, the President has secured $ 2.8 billion, and proposed $ 1.1 billion in his FY 2005 budget, for a total of $3.9 billion to date. Additionally, for the first time in history, the National Park Service will have a full condition assessment and a facility condition index to prioritize ongoing maintenance needs.
2002 Farm Bill: Helping America's Farmers Conserve Their Lands
President Bush supported and signed into law a Farm Bill that enhances conservation and environmental stewardship. Under this Administration, funding has nearly doubled for these effective programs. The Farm Bill conservation programs are providing more than $40 billion over a decade to restore millions of acres of wetlands, protect habitats, conserve water, and improve streams and rivers near working farms and ranches.
Increased Funding for Cooperative Conservation
The President's FY 2005 budget proposes $507 million for cooperative conservation programs at the Department of the Interior. Within that request is $130 million for the Cooperative Conservation Initiative (CCI), a 25 percent increase over last year. Through CCI activities, the Department of the Interior's land managers are joining with communities, non-profits, States, and citizens to remove invasive species, reduce stream bank erosion, and enhance habitat for threatened and endangered species.
Improving Our Air Quality


Clear Skies Initiative
President Bush's initiative, which has been introduced in Congress, would dramatically improve air quality by reducing power plants' emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury, by approximately 70 percent over the next 15 years, more than any other clean air initiative. This historic proposal will bring cleaner air to Americans faster, more reliably, and more cost-effectively than under current law.
Clean Air Interstate Rule
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a proposal to require coal-burning power plants to make the steepest emissions cuts in over a decade. The Clean Air Interstate Rule will require power plants to substantially reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx). SO2 emissions will be cut by nearly 70 percent and NOx emissions will be cut by approximately 50 percent.
Mandating a Cut in Mercury Emissions for the First Time Ever
Mercury emissions from power plants are not currently regulated. For the first time ever, the Bush Administration will impose a mandatory 70 percent cut in mercury emissions from those sources by 2018. These cuts will be achieved by using either a proven market-based, cap-and-trade approach that will better assure compliance and enforceability, or a more traditional command-and-control approach utilizing Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT). Both proposals are currently receiving public comment.
Reduction in Emissions from Non-Road Heavy-Duty Diesels
In May 2004, the Bush Administration finalized a rule that will dramatically reduce pollution from heavy-duty diesel engines used in construction, agricultural, and industrial equipment. This will prevent up to 12,000 premature deaths, 8,900 hospitalizations, 15,000 heart attacks, 6,000 children's asthma-related emergency room visits, 280,000 respiratory problems in children, and a million work days lost due to illness once the rule is fully implemented. Soot and NOx emissions will decrease by more than 90 percent by 2014, and the sulfur content of diesel fuel will be cut 99 percent by 2010.
Fuel Savings From Light Trucks
For the first time in a decade, the Administration raised Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for SUVs, vans and pick-up trucks. Reforms are also underway that will save more fuel while protecting consumer safety and American jobs.
A Realistic, Growth-Oriented Approach to Global Climate Change: A Synopsis


18 Percent Cut in Greenhouse Gas Intensity
President Bush has committed America to meeting the challenge of long-term global climate change by reducing the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output by 18 percent by 2012 compared to 2002. Greenhouse gas intensity is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output.
$4.1 Billion in Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy and Hybrid and Fuel-Cell Vehicles
The President has called for tax incentives totaling $4.1 billion through 2009 to spur the use of clean, renewable energy, and energy-efficient technologies, such as hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles, residential solar heating systems, renewable energy produced from landfill gas, wind, or biomass, and efficient combined heat and power systems
A 42 Percent Increase in Climate Change Research Funding
The President's FY 2005 budget includes $238 million for the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI), a $70 million, or 42 percent, increase over 2004. This funding level includes $57 million to accelerate efforts to advance understanding of the role of aerosols on climate, better quantify carbon sources, and improve the technology and infrastructure used to observe and model climate variations. The CCRI focuses on reducing significant uncertainties in climate science, improving global climate observing systems, and developing resources to support policymaking and resource management.
Federal Energy and Carbon Sequestration Programs
The United States is sponsoring, with international and private-sector partners, a $1 billion, 10-year demonstration project to create the world's first coal-based, zero-emissions electricity and hydrogen power plant (FutureGen). This project is designed to dramatically reduce air pollution and capture and store greenhouse gases. Through the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by pollution-free fuel cells. The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and the FreedomCAR Partnership will provide $1.7 billion over the next five years to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells, a hydrogen infrastructure, and advanced automobile technologies that emit no greenhouse gases.
Climate VISION Partnership
In February 2003, President Bush announced that leading firms from 12 major industrial sectors and the membership of the Business Roundtable have committed to work with four Cabinet agencies (DOE, EPA, DOT, and USDA) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next decade. Participating industries included America's electric utilities; petroleum refiners and natural gas producers; automobile, iron and steel, chemical and magnesium manufacturers; forest and paper producers; railroads; and the cement, mining, aluminum, and semiconductor industries.
President's Initiative Against Illegal Logging
In July 2003, Secretary of State Powell launched the President's Initiative Against Illegal Logging to assist developing nations in combating illegal logging, including the sale and export of illegally harvested timber, and in fighting corruption in the forest sector. The initiative represents the most comprehensive strategy undertaken by any nation to address this critical sustainable development challenge, and reinforces the leadership role of the U.S. in taking action to counter the problem and preserve forest resources that store carbon.
Our Oceans - Improved Ocean Conservation in the National Park System 2002-2003


Restoration of Marine Ecosystems
In close cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and State and local governments, the National Park Service has begun restoring marine ecosystems. New management practices, networks of marine reserves, and natural area research have been established to restore coral reefs, kelp forests, and their diverse communities of marine life.
Improving The Quality of Our Waters and Wetlands, and Resolving Water Crises


New Strategy For Increasing Wetlands Acres and Quality
On Earth Day 2004, the President announced an aggressive new national goal - moving beyond a policy of "no net loss" of wetlands to have an overall increase of wetlands in America each year. The President's goal is to create, improve, and protect at least three million wetland acres over the next five years in order to increase overall wetland acres and quality. To meet this goal, the President calls on Congress to pass his FY 2005 budget request, which includes $4.4 billion for conservation programs that include funding for wetlands - an increase of $1.5 billion (53 percent) over FY 2001. The FY 2005 budget proposes to spend $349 million on our two key wetlands programs - the Wetlands Reserve Program and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants Program - which is an increase of more than 50 percent over FY 2001 for those two programs. New figures released in April 2004 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that, for the first time in history, America has reversed the annual net loss of wetl
Substantially Increased Funding for the Great Lakes
More than one-tenth of the population of the United States and one-quarter of the population of Canada live around the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes themselves are the largest system of fresh surface water on Earth, containing roughly 18 percent of the world supply. The President's FY 2005 budget includes an unprecedented $45 million for the Great Lakes Legacy Program, almost five times the 2004 level of funding. These additional funds will allow EPA, in conjunction with its community partners, to begin remediating contaminated sediments at six sites. Sediment remediation will help keep toxics such as polychlorinated biphenyls and heavy metals from entering the food chain, where they could cause adverse effects on human health and the environment.
Water 2025
The President's FY 2005 budget includes $21 million, an increase of $13.3 million, for Water 2025, a program that strategically addresses the problem of competing demands for a finite water supply. Water 2025 will help States, tribes, and local communities improve conservation, implement efficiencies, and monitor water resources. In some cases, collaborative approaches and market-based transfers can use water banks or other means to meet emerging needs. Federal investments in research and development will provide more affordable water treatment technologies, such as desalination, to increase water supplies in critical areas.
if you need some more, lemme know:D

[Alligator]

Put the link in Goat. Do you actually believe that laundry list? I know a goat will eat just about anything, but man, that's a lot of BS to swallow.

[the goat]

Put the link in Goat. Do you actually believe that laundry list? I know a goat will eat just about anything, but man, that's a lot of BS to swallow.
which are BS gator? educate me, please.:D

[Alligator]

First lesson. When quoting important factual data, the source should be cited.
Second lesson. It is up to the author to provide factual references when publishing. Therefore, either you researched all the above items, and can provide the sources, or the above is not worth my attention.
Third lesson. Believing everything the administration puts out makes you look like a goat.

[fiddlehead]

so, some of you think this strip mining of the palmerton area is a good thing. that's amazing. i happen to come from that area and think not.
do i believe our politicians think they are doing the best for us? (us meaning the poor to middle class) no way.
do i use zinc? i don't know, probably some. I drive a honda motorcycle, does that have zinc in it? i don't know.
do i think that Cheney sits around smoking cigars and thinking of ways to screw us? probably, after all he was CEO of the company who gets many of the no-bid contracts for the Iraq war and most recently the Katrina rebuilding. And, more outrageous to me, Cheney was in control when Halliburton made the decision to move it's headquarters to the Bahamas or wherever, so that they wouldn't have to pay taxes!
But, more important than money are many other issues that REALLY bother me about the crooks on top in this country: WAR, WAR, WAR! and the reasons for going and the way we fight them: Depleted Uranium,(and the horrible birth defects they cause) (in our soldiers babies too), booby traps that are still killing children 30 years later that were determed illegal by the Geneva Convention which bush refuses to sign. (i happen to live less than 200 miles from Laos and read in the paper aprox. weekly about children being blown up from these things)
When asked to give money to help get rid of them, we refused, Austrailia gave 18 million towards the effort. (you won't find this on Fox news or CNN, )
Also the fact that we really tear a country up when we go to war and leave it all behind when the going gets out of control because we shouldn't have been there in the first place. who has to deal with this? not us, we almost never do. It is a crime! We are breaking the law on this! it makes me mad.
Some of you people are being successfully brainwashed. May I suggest you start reading more than the front page and the funnies. Try another countries newspapers. You'll find out lots and even see pictures of the innocents being killed in our wars complete with blood, the torturing that goes on (again against the Geneva rules on war)
There's more, lots more, that makes me mad. I don't have time to explain it all to you. I just hope you look a little further than the US media for what's going on in the world. You might even discover the truth.
As far as bush being directly responsible for the zinc plants near palmerton: i know he was not, but i wouldn't put it past him for one second!
do i think that kerry would be doing these things? i don't know but i think he has more humanitarian tendencies than these crooks.
Do i keep an open mind towards these guys? i hope so, i try to. do you?
what else? bring it on. your insults don't bother me near as much as our foreign policy.

[weary]

For another perspective on the Goat's list of alleged environmental victories, here is what the Natural Resources Defense Council thinks:

After four years in office, the George W. Bush
administration has compiled an environmental
record that is taking our nation in a new and dangerous
direction. Last year alone, Bush administration
agencies made more than 150 actions that weakened
our environmental laws. Over the course of the first
term, this administration led the most thorough and
destructive campaign against America’s environmental
safeguards in the past 40 years.

Even more troubling than the vastness of the
onslaught is the fundamental nature of the policy
changes. These changes do not merely call for
updating regulations. They represent radical alterations
to our core environmental laws.

For example, the administration has attempted to
undermine the Clean Air Act by weakening the new
source review program that pushes old polluting power
plants and industrial facilities to clean up. It has tried
to narrow the scope of the Clean Water Act by stripping
environmental protections from thousands of wetlands
and streams. It is moving to hobble the Endangered
Species Act by eliminating uniquely effective programs
that protect habitat critical for threatened species. And
it is reversing the single most important forest protection
measure ever—the rule that protects 58 million
acres of pristine, roadless, national forest lands.

Beyond its focus on dismantling landmark environmental
achievements, the administration is turning
a blind eye to today’s pressing environmental challenges.
Scientists from around the world call for urgent
action to reduce global warming pollution, but the
United States now stands alone in opposing even the
most basic effort to move forward cooperatively.

While nearly every state warns about the threat
of mercury poisoning from the consumption of locally
caught fish, the administration promotes its misleadingly
titled “Clear Skies” scheme that would
dramatically weaken mercury pollution control
requirements in the existing clean air law.

Not surprisingly, after four years, the Bush administration’s
relentless anti-environmental agenda has
translated into real damage on the ground. A recent
Knight Ridder analysis of government data shows
that Americans now face a dirtier environment, while
polluters largely get a free pass. Since the Bush administration
began, health warnings to avoid eating locally
caught fish have doubled and completed cleanup of
toxic wastes at Superfund sites have fallen by 52 percent;
yet civil citations issued to polluters have dropped
by 57 percent and criminal prosecutions of polluters
have fallen 17 percent.

Meanwhile, the administration is making every effort
to keep the public in the dark about the policies that
contribute to these degraded environmental conditions.
It has taken unprecedented steps to cut citizens
out of the decision-making process for a number of
critical public health and land management policies.
For instance, just days before this past Christmas
holiday, the administration gutted its public comment
process for federal forest management plans. It also
routinely shares working drafts of public health
standards with polluters and chemical manufacturers,
and takes their suggestions, but gives the public only
60 days to comment on the final version.

There is ample data affirming that the Bush administration’s
destructive policies have had a significant
negative effect on our nation’s environment. The facts
are clear. The figures above and below, largely drawn
from the administration’s own data, show that environmental
protection is declining precipitously.


Toxic Releases Are Up After years of consistent
decline, the most recent annual inventory of industrial
“[O]ver the last four years, the Bush administration
has compiled a deliberately antienvironmental,
anti-conservation record that
will result in lasting damage to public health
and to America’s natural heritage.”

toxic releases shows an increase of 5 percent in
the release of toxic substances into our air, water,
and land. Data released in June 2004 document
toxic releases from industrial facilities of nearly
4.8 billion pounds.


Environmental Enforcement Is Down EPA data documents
a 75 percent decline in the number of federal
lawsuits filed against companies violating national
environmental laws in the first three years of the Bush
administration as compared to the last three years of
the Clinton administration. Civil citations for polluters
are down 57 percent since 2001 and criminal prosecutions
have fallen 17 percent.


Pollution-Related Beach Closings Are Up The EPA
reports a 36 percent increase in annual beach closings
due to unsafe water quality since 2001. Sewage
contamination is an important and growing part
of the problem.


Mercury Contamination Warnings Are Up A total of
2,348 fish consumption advisories for mercury contamination
were issued in 45 states in 2003. Every year
more than 600,000 newborns may have been exposed
to levels of mercury exceeding EPA health standards
while still in the womb.


Hazardous Waste Cleanups Are Down The pace of completed
cleanups of Superfund hazardous waste sites,
which increased dramatically in the later years of the
Clinton era, has declined 52 percent since 2001, according
to the EPA’s own estimates. The Bush administration
has refused to seek renewal of the Superfund
cleanup tax on polluting industries, allowing the fund
effectively to go bankrupt. The EPA reported 34 unfunded
Superfund cleanups in 19 states in 2004.


Perchlorate Contamination Is Widespread Perchlorate,
a toxic rocket fuel additive, is leaching out from military
dumps and contaminating the drinking water
of more than 20 million Americans. More than 90 percent
of lettuce and milk sampled nationwide showed
levels of perchlorate that may be unsafe for children.
Despite recommendations from scientific experts at
the EPA to severely reduce perchlorate contamination,
the Bush administration has refused to take action.

100
Approximate number of high-level officials in the Bush administration who help regulate industries they once
represented as lobbyists, lawyers, or company advocates, according to a Denver Post analysis

6,000
Number of scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 135
members of the National Academy of Sciences, who warn that the Bush administration’s overtly anti-science
bias undercuts scientific integrity.

75%
Decline in lawsuits filed against companies violating federal environmental laws in the first three years of the
Bush administration as compared to the last three years of the Clinton administration—from 152 down to 36

57%
Decline in civil citations issued to polluters since 2001 (with civil penalties assessed against polluters in
2004 at the lowest since 1990)

17%
Decline in criminal prosecutions against polluters since 2001

[the goat]

First lesson. When quoting important factual data, the source should be cited.
Second lesson. It is up to the author to provide factual references when publishing. Therefore, either you researched all the above items, and can provide the sources, or the above is not worth my attention.
Third lesson. Believing everything the administration puts out makes you look like a goat.
good point gator, here's the source (there's more stuff there too): http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/environment/index-cont.html

first lesson: gator- YOU were the one that said the above was "BS". usually when one calls something "BS" that have something to back it up. unless, of course, they're just pretending to know the subject they're speaking on.

second lesson: believing that GWB has done NOTHING for the environment, given the above facts, is naive and makes you appear to have a brain the size of an alligator's (i.e. a/b half a tablespoon or 8-9 grams).:D

[Sly]

A list of Bush's environmental policy propaganda taken right from the WH website, that's rich!

Like the pick-up cowboy he is, all hat, no cattle. ;)

[the goat]

Like the pick-up cowboy he is, all hat, no cattle. ;)
LOL, that's funny.
I'm not even a huge bush fan or anything. far from it, in fact. I just think it's rather silly and misguided to suggest the man has done nothing but rape and pillage the environment.
people gotta resist drinking the lefty-lib-kool-aid.:D

[Alligator]

good point gator, here's the source (there's more stuff there too): http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/environment/index-cont.html

first lesson: gator- YOU were the one that said the above was "BS". usually when one calls something "BS" that have something to back it up. unless, of course, they're just pretending to know the subject they're speaking on.

second lesson: believing that GWB has done NOTHING for the environment, given the above facts, is naive and makes you appear to have a brain the size of an alligator's (i.e. a/b half a tablespoon or 8-9 grams).:DNope, providing proof is fundamentally the proposer's responsibility in science and mathematics. Please provide better proof that the above is not a load of propaganda.

Next lesson RIF(Reading is fundemental). I didn't say GWB has done NOTHING for the environment. Given the WH's credibility problems (Mission Accomplished comes to mind) you have not established the above as "fact".

Besides, you should worry more about my bite.
http://www.fsu.edu/~unicomm/pages/releases/2002_03/release_2002_03_27a.html:eek:

You skipped the part about whether you actually believe that (all? some?) of those "facts" are true.

[MarcnNJ]

Im a libertarian, nowadays democrats and republicans just fight for power and not whats right...i think its funny how we look to government to patrol our air and water.....afterall they are the biggest polluters of them all....more so than any evil capitalist corportation......

using that mentality we should have our most violent criminals patrolling the streets to keep us safe......???

[Blue Jay]

Yeah, thats typical of some of these libzombies. Meanwhile us realists just think of their candidates as well meaning dumbasses. How will we ever compete in their propaganda war without sinking to their level...?

Your entire world view is fantasy based on talk shows. In the first place, you deny global warming in the face of scientific proof. Then you admit it exists and claim there is a scientific "fix" for it. To call your Pollyanna attitude realism, is like Hitler claiming he's a moderate. I want to know what talkshow host you stole "libzombie" from, thus making you a talkshowzombie. I know damn well you could never have come up with something original on your own. Polly only mimic.

[the goat]

I can't think of a single significant environmental improvement that Bush has championed since coming into office. I can think of a lot of attempts and successes at lowering standards.
Weary
you're right alligator....RIF, reading IS fundamental: my post was responding to this statement. it had nothing to do with you, until you inserted yourself with the "BS" comment. i still have yet to hear what is actually "BS".:confused:

[the goat]

[QUOTE=Alligator]Nope, providing proof is fundamentally the proposer's responsibility in science and mathematics. Please provide better proof that the above is not a load of propaganda.
this neither science nor mathematics. it's politics. do you really think the white house has posted lies on its site for the whole world to see, if so i think we've stumbled upon it first? someone better alert moveon.org. do i need to retrieve congressional records to prove this legislation was introduced?
[QUOTE] Next lesson RIF(Reading is fundemental). I didn't say GWB has done NOTHING for the environment. Given the WH's credibility problems (Mission Accomplished comes to mind) you have not established the above as "fact".
see above post.
[QUOTE] Besides, you should worry more about my bite.
http://www.fsu.edu/~unicomm/pages/releases/2002_03/release_2002_03_27a.html:eek:
i'll definitely survey the water carefully before swimming next time i'm down in SC & FL. that is some scary $hit:eek:
[QUOTE]You skipped the part about whether you actually believe that (all? some?) of those "facts" are true.
are the facts true? yes.
are they "glossed over" to make bush look good? of course, it's his website.
is there stuff left out? i'm sure.
has bush done some bad stuff for the environment? undoubtedly.

[Blue Jay]

Goat's list of propaganda is impressive. For example, the so called Clear Skies Initiative actually is a huge roll back of air quality protection. The one on Mercury Reduction mandates higher mercury levels than the vast majority of the states already regulate against. The entire list is outrageous deception, but as we all know, when suckers want to believe something, they cannot be pursuaded to stop. All those who keep citing actual scientific studies keep it up, even George has finally accepted global warming, he just dosen't give a ****.

[the goat]

Goat's list of propaganda is impressive. muchas gracias.

[Alligator]

...
are the facts true? yes.
are they "glossed over" to make bush look good? of course, it's his website.
is there stuff left out? i'm sure.
has bush done some bad stuff for the environment? undoubtedly.Sounds like bull***** to me.

bull·**** (bʊl'shĭt') http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif Vulgar Slang.
n.

Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.
Insolent talk or behavior.

[bfitz]

Your entire world view is fantasy based on talk shows. In the first place, you deny global warming in the face of scientific proof. Then you admit it exists and claim there is a scientific "fix" for it. To call your Pollyanna attitude realism, is like Hitler claiming he's a moderate. I want to know what talkshow host you stole "libzombie" from, thus making you a talkshowzombie. I know damn well you could never have come up with something original on your own. Polly only mimic.
I'll buy beers if you ever find another source of the term libzombie. I have a huge grin on my face right now...I was actually paraphrasing a short story title, and a related song..."All you Zombies..." By R.A. Heinlein and the Hooters, respectively...more of a meaningless literary reference that popped into my head, but I guess it isn't entirely original. I put the "lib" in and liked the resulting term so...you are all now libzombies til I come up with something better or get bored of calling you that. The story is about being locked into a particular fate no matter what you do (sort of a twisted version of "groundhog day" where a man becomes his own mother and father...anyhow the plot is pretty complicated but it was a fun story) One character gives the line "I know where I came from, but where did all you zombies come from?" So anyhow...the rest is whiteblaze history :bse As to my supposed inconsistent argument, I did not claim there is no phenomena, I merely said there are conflicting interpretations of the data, and conflicting data, and that the science is polluted by politics to the degree that I refrain from all out panic at the thought of not supporting the kyoto accord or what have you. Nor did I claim there was a technological "fix" for the phenomena itself (if it turns out to be a threat...) I claimed that technology and human adaptation will be the human element in the equation that rescues us from nature's wrath, or minor irritation, or whatever it turns out to be, and that in fact we were up to whatever sociological or meteorological challenges that may confront us as a species in the future. I'm not much of a talk show guy actually, though I do enjoy the daily show. I guess I am partial to that fair and balanced news channel though!

[bfitz]

Now that I think of it, I pulled "prophets of disaster" from the Iron Maiden song 'If You're Gonna Die, Die With Your Boots On" also.

[shades of blue]

As a country, we are like a patient who has been told they have cancer...We are in denial of the facts...to accept the fact that we are sick, would mean we would have to uproot our lives and change our total way of living. 2/3 of the world's scientist tell us we are on the road to perdition...we are melting the artic summer ice, destroying the air quality, polluting the water...pregnant women are even discouraged from eating some types of fish because of the mercury levels...
What do we do...we listen to the politicians (repub or dem) who tell us that it REALLY isn't all that bad and we listen...we listen because it's easier to listen to the lies, than to listen to the truth. If the doctor is right...we die without taking steps to kill the cancer. If the scientists are right...we destroy our environment or hurt it so much we wouldn't recognize our world in 100-200 years. If the scientist is right...it doesn't matter that Bush says there is no global warming...or my scientists say it isn't that bad. Bush only listens to people who tell him what he wants to hear...and gets rid of the rest. You know it's true...
We live in a world which is shades of grey
Seeing only what makes us feel safe
Believing only the things we are told
Doing the things that make us feel good

We won't listen to the truth tellers
They only tell us lies
They tell us things we don't want to hear
We only listen to the lies

To listen means to accept
To accept means to change
Why look in the mirror and see that we are the lies.

[Blue Jay]

I'll buy beers if you ever find another source of the term libzombie. I have a huge grin on my face right now...

Right ditto head, a certain fat drug addict used it years ago. Polly only mimic. If you're going to steal someone's phrases, pick someone less popular.

[the goat]

Right ditto head, a certain fat drug addict used it years ago. Polly only mimic. If you're going to steal someone's phrases, pick someone less popular.
he stole that from bill clinton? :confused:

[bfitz]

If the scientist is right... And then you put a quote from Galileo, a famous fact fudger (he fudged his math about planetary orbits to fit his own theory...)and arrogant ass, who did as much to get himself charged with heresy as the church did. Who claimed the invention of telescopes that he stole from dutch merchants, and refused to send a telescope to Kepler, because of his fear that Kepler's observations would be more accurate and contradict his own, though he made gifts of them to his political friends in venice (he was right, and even so Kepler made better observations using a wooden staff and string to sight stars, and a telescope he borrowed from one of gallileo's freinds for a month). He stole his supposed tower of pisa revelation about falling bodies from Lucretius (who had it in the 1st century BC) Claimed he could "prove" copernicism but he could not (if only he had given Kepler the time of day, his theory of tides might have saved galileo from the inquisitors, or at least convinced the scholars of the time...) In fact he was a "scientist" who played politics, insisted others accept what he felt to be true based only on his word. And he was essentially wrong. He felt he could ridicule those that disagreed with him and felt his political connections with the pope would keep him outta trouble, but he eventually offended too many people. Even Einstein accused galileo of vanity, regretting his treatment of Kepler.
He was right about one thing...the earth moves around the sun, and that was figured out by Aristarchus of Samos in 260 BC. So it seems that the galileo you quote in your posts is just the type of scientist you prefer to beleive even now...a plagiarizing politician.

[bfitz]

Right ditto head, a certain fat drug addict used it years ago. Polly only mimic. If you're going to steal someone's phrases, pick someone less popular.
Did he really...? Brilliant minds think alike, I guess...can you give the particulars...I guess a catchy term like that would pop up lots of places...oh well. Mabye it's one of those George Harrison things, although I've never watched Rush or heard the term. I guess I'm buyin the beers at the next in person debate...you comin to Trail days next year...?
Here's a good quote, in line with my previous post as well:

"Everything of importance has been said before by someone who did not discover it..."
-Alfred North Whitehead

[bfitz]

More good quotes:
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. "

"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine. "
Bertrand Russell

[shades of blue]

Bfitz....Pretty hardline slam on Galileo
I would never claim that ONE scientist would have all the answers to all things...I liked his quote and the fact that he didn't allow church doctine to define what he believed. It's interesting that you didn't really defend GW's current "scientific" beliefs...you attacked the person (Galileo) and did your best to discredit him. This is the same thing Rove, Libby, Cheyne(however you spell his name) and Bush have done throughout their national careers (see Plame, McCaine, Kerry and countless others). If they don't like the idea, they attack the person, throw mud, then declare that the mission is accomplished. At least you are true to your hero's philosophy.

There is an accumulation of scientific data that there is a problem with global warming. All scientist don't agree on how it's going to play out, but a majority of scientist agree that it's serious problem that needs attention...now. I'm not saying totally destroy our way of life, but there are technologies we could use in our industries right now that would curtail the growth of pollution....even this is being set aside by the current administration to help "grow the economy". Essentially, the philosophy is that we give the big corps tax breaks, and allow them to choose cheaper technologies to build and run their business, and it will trickle down to the little guy. Even if this was reality (which I certainly don't see with the corps going overseas to find tax loopholes and outsourcing their work to other countries) should we destroy our environment for it? What will be left? I think it was you that boasted of how technology can solve our problems....it can only HELP solve our problems if we use it. There's no excuse to have current plants being built on 30 year old polluting technology, when we have the knowledge to do better. Especially when oil companies are making record profits while the consumer is paying out the nose for fuel.

Keep on attacking Galileo.....the mudslinging has worked for the Bush administration....maybe it will work for you too.

[the goat]

[QUOTE=shadesofblue68]If they don't like the idea, they attack the person, throw mud, then declare that the mission is accomplished. At least you are true to your hero's philosophy.
[QUOTE]
come on man, all politicians do this, with very few exceptions. only the ones that actually win get blamed for it.

[shades of blue]

Goat...of course you are right....all politicians do sling mud...the public responds to it well. But YOU have to admit...the Bush admin under Rove has made this into an art form. They take bits of truth (sometimes no truth at all) spin it until it looks like the truth, then hammer it home. They attack and destroy the person...and they are SO good at it. In my adult life time, I've never seen such masters at this technique. I get so angry when I see this that I apply it to all Republicans...but that probably isn't so. Just the main ones in power now...Delay and others. The abuse of power has been great. I hope the democrats remember this so they don't fall into the same trap (as they did 20 odd years ago or so) with congressional power plays.

[MarcnNJ]

"Especially when oil companies are making record profits while the consumer is paying out the nose."


Well....first off....Exxon Mobil Corp. has a net profit margin of 10%......if my company operated on such low margins......id be bankrupt........

Secondly, what you pay at the pump doesnt go to big oil companies.....it goes to the owner of the gas station believe it or not......Just because the gas station has an Exxon sign, doesnt Exxon sets the station's price, margins, etc.

Thirdly, instead of blasting Oil Companies.....take a look at OPEC.....

[bfitz]

Bfitz....Pretty hardline slam on Galileo
I would never claim that ONE scientist would have all the answers to all things...I liked his quote and the fact that he didn't allow church doctine to define what he believed. It's interesting that you didn't really defend GW's current "scientific" beliefs...you attacked the person (Galileo) and did your best to discredit him. This is the same thing Rove, Libby, Cheyne(however you spell his name) and Bush have done throughout their national careers (see Plame, McCaine, Kerry and countless others). If they don't like the idea, they attack the person, throw mud, then declare that the mission is accomplished. At least you are true to your hero's philosophy.

There is an accumulation of scientific data that there is a problem with global warming. All scientist don't agree on how it's going to play out, but a majority of scientist agree that it's serious problem that needs attention...now. I'm not saying totally destroy our way of life, but there are technologies we could use in our industries right now that would curtail the growth of pollution....even this is being set aside by the current administration to help "grow the economy". Essentially, the philosophy is that we give the big corps tax breaks, and allow them to choose cheaper technologies to build and run their business, and it will trickle down to the little guy. Even if this was reality (which I certainly don't see with the corps going overseas to find tax loopholes and outsourcing their work to other countries) should we destroy our environment for it? What will be left? I think it was you that boasted of how technology can solve our problems....it can only HELP solve our problems if we use it. There's no excuse to have current plants being built on 30 year old polluting technology, when we have the knowledge to do better. Especially when oil companies are making record profits while the consumer is paying out the nose for fuel.

Keep on attacking Galileo.....the mudslinging has worked for the Bush administration....maybe it will work for you too.
Yeah, I've always had a personal beef with galileo, actually. The myth of his trial has been blown way out of proportion by those that would like to use it to illustrate the supposed conflict between "the church" and science. There's lots of interesting literature about this, but galileo was good at the talking game and writing his stuff in italian (rather than latin) to appeal to the masses and self-promote...his most favorite pastime.
In fact this is one of the best posts arguing this particular point. I'm afraid I have a bad habit of confusing you and Bluejay when reading these posts, and my ad-hominem attack on galileo was more inspired by his remarks than any of yours...Interestingly, many republican lawmakers are now calling on the oil companies to update their installations with new technology (probably more to increase production than save the environment but....). There is debate about the profits of the oil companies, but even without this summer they are certainly making a profit. One which consumers control...this is one of those great oppurtunities for consumers to exert control over industry ..if only they would. Certainly many scientists have observed the raw facts that there has been some warming. The data has been interpreted as many different ways as the bible, so there really is nothing for us lowly nonscientists to go on other than common sense. The fact that cycles like this have gone on in the past, before mankinds technological ascension, indicates that perhaps it will happen again, inevitably, no matter what we do. I'm not putting down any research I'm just saying all of it is incomplete and likely biased. I think in a hundred years we still wont be living on waterworld. I think the fossil fuel thing will ride out the supply no matter what we say or do, so we better be prepared to accept it and deal with whatever happens next in our species' usual adaptive manner. We should be putting our scientists to work learning how to exploit other sources of energy, and a wider supply of resources (space, the ocean, etc. etc.) rather than arguing about how to stop a ball rolling downhill that clearly cannot be stopped. We should argue from a place of unified goals...the individual rights of each person living on the planet right now.

[Blue Jay]

Keep on attacking Galileo.....the mudslinging has worked for the Bush administration....maybe it will work for you too.

You nailed that one, Shades. I prove this loser plagiarized Rush Limberger (smelled correctly). His response, justifying it by attacking Galileo. In one post he claims not to believe in global warming and another he agrees that it is true but we have nothing to do with it. His credibility is shot, not that he ever had any. Even George ducks logic better than fitz.

[Blue Jay]

We should be putting our scientists to work learning how to exploit other sources of energy, and a wider supply of resources (space, the ocean, etc. etc.) rather than arguing about how to stop a ball rolling downhill that clearly cannot be stopped.

I don't believe it you actually got something ALMOST right. As for the ball rolling down hill, there are several steps that could easily at least slow the ball. Actually implementing the fuel efficiency requirements that were passed decades ago, would have lowered overall CO2 levels. Requiring existing technology to lower emmisions from coal burning plants. All or most of the policies your God, Bush, is against, could help the situation dramatically.

As for your Polly response, "we need to do more studies". That has been also used for decades to justify dumping large scale garbage into the air. The studies are in, you, your bloodsucking friends and unfortunately all coming generations have lost. Yet you keep doing it.

[the goat]

i hope cheney runs in '08.

[Blue Jay]

i hope cheney runs in '08.

Can you say "Obstruction of Justice"? If you can, do you truly think he will go down alone? Another Dick once rode a high horse into his second term, in fact some of the same thugs were with him.

[the goat]

Can you say "Obstruction of Justice"? If you can, do you truly think he will go down alone? Another Dick once rode a high horse into his second term, in fact some of the same thugs were with him.
you talkin' a/b gephardt?

[D'Artagnan]

Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet. (No man is more deaf than he who will not hear.)

No matter your political leanings, if you fail to concede that the truth is usually in the middle, you are only lying to yourself. No politician has a monopoly on the truth and none are unstained when it comes to their environmental policies. Most do what is politically expedient and self-serving at the time. They're all liars and shape their message to fit their audience. One need only look at what the majority of them did before "serving" in public office to determine their trustworthiness.

[MarcnNJ]

Most do what is politically expedient and self-serving at the time. They're all liars and shape their message to fit their audience. One need only look at what the majority of them did before "serving" in public office to determine their trustworthiness.AMEN! I feel those 3 sentences are precisely what pushed me to abandon both parties......

[the goat]

i think haliburton should get the contract to rebuild that section of trail north of palmerton.:D

[bfitz]

You nailed that one, Shades. I prove this loser plagiarized Rush Limberger (smelled correctly). His response, justifying it by attacking Galileo. In one post he claims not to believe in global warming and another he agrees that it is true but we have nothing to do with it. His credibility is shot, not that he ever had any. Even George ducks logic better than fitz.
Fortunately, anyone paying attention to our dialogues(tribes?), if they exist, would have read the posts leading up to this one. I am glad to see you are watching plenty of Rush, although if you care for an intellectual debate, you should try G.G. Liddy, he's a bit more my style. I haven't actually seen any evidence of Rush using my charming descriptive, but if you say its true...I already said I'd buy the beers. I would enjoy an argument that came as a response to any points I actually made, or answered any of my questions posed. That never seems to come. That being the case, I invite you to show any instance where I have contradicted myself and left it uncorrected using my own words...in context. If you'd care to remember any points for future responses here are some key elements of my "argument" re: global warming.

1. There is a debate within the scientific community.
2. This debate is fueled as much by politics as by science.
3. This makes any of the statements made by those participating in the debate suspect.
4. The earth has undergone drastic carbon dioxide related climate change in the past, without human activities playing any role. There is no reason to think that such events would not happen again in the course of time, no matter what we humans do.
But...
5. Humanity is a capable and resourceful lifeform that, with only the most basic of technological advances (fire) managed to survive one of the most inhospitable environments this planet has ever produced, the ice ages, and will likely be able to survive any future inhospitable environment this planet is likely to produce in the next few millenia. Even if (as some scientists believe is happenning), a new ice age emerges in the near future.
6. This is the key point: All this considered, the doom and destruction spewed like fire and brimstone from a preachers mouth that you almost seem to hope for to punish your fellow humans for sins that exist only in your mind, seems to me to be a sort of mania that is, I suppose, the main characteristic of a libzombie. :cool:

[shades of blue]

Unfortunately, many things are politicized in all areas of life. Is there debate in the scientific community about global warming...yes. From what I can tell, most are saying it's serious and needs to be addressed. Will we live on a water world? I don't really know....but will weather patterns and other things change...I believe so. Has the earth done this in the past? There is data to say that hurricanes have run in cycles and other warming has occured. The question is...are we making it worse and are we causing it to happen quicker? A lot, and I mean a lot of intelligent people are warning us that we have a problem...are their models exact...no, but they are educated guesses (theories to be proven or disproven). If florocarbons are destroying the ozone, and destroying the ozone is bad...why should we continue? If we are dumping wastes into the ocean (like mercury and ect...) and mercury is bad in humans...it NEVER leaves our body...should we continue?

In my lifetime I have seen the mountains I love (NC) get worse air pollution. It has become a noticable difference since I've started hiking. Flying out of Maine into Boston this summer (after my awesome completion of the AT...how I miss hiking) I saw us descend into smog heaven...it had been a long time since I've flown and I was depressed to see what we were doing to our country. NC is getting hit with industrial pollution from the Ohio river valley and the gulf coast...that's the air currents that come into western NC. Why wait, why defend the right to continue destroying something everyone here loves...I don't understand?

Biftz says the consumer can stop the oil companies from gouging....I disagree.
Unless you're like Smoky Mountain Steve and ride sled dogs in Alaska...you need gas to go to work....electricity from coal or nuclear power to heat your home (or natural gas, or fuel oil)....there is little choice if you want to function in this society. I am trying to conserve, but if you have to have it....(oil) how can consumers force companies to stop taking advantage of us? I just don't see it. I could shop different gas stations, but they charge similar prices, because they are being charged outrageous prices. There is NO COMPITITION and there is no regulation (and that IS a republican philosophy). It's like the kid in college who had ultra strict parents in HS...you go wild once you get out from under their thumbs....Democrats do too much regulation and the republicans do no regulations....the answer is in the middle. Corporations are amorale...they want a profit...profit is ok unless you totally screw everybody. If they can't "play nice" and not take advantage...we have to set up rules to keep them from taking undue advantage of: pricing, environment, employees, taxes.

At the very least...we shouldn't reward companies with tax breaks and tax laws that allow them to incorporate overseas to hide from taxes while they screw us. Companies are like children...they need boundries or they will run all over you.

[the goat]

in the sixties, many leading scientists were predicting that we would suffer armeggedon by the year 2010. due to what?

global cooling.

kinda puts things in perspective, no?

[bfitz]

Sounds good, but who are you trying to convince? George Bush? The consumer in this country not only controls the oil industry, and all other industries, they cotrol the government. For good or bad the people have the power, the buck stops (and starts) there. Only in free society is there even any hope of you delivering your message to them that holds the power, and only in a free market is that power most effective. As our good buddy wookie has talked about in another thread you can if you so please, acquire a vehicle that runs on prune juice or some such thing. The concept of alternative fuel vehicles has already hit the market and is growing. This is the key concept of our model society. Of course nothing is perfect, a few wrinkles yet to iron out. Oh ok , I admit it can be terrible, infuriating, but it's ten times better than any other system tried.

[Sly]

"Especially when oil companies are making record profits while the consumer is paying out the nose."


Well....first off....Exxon Mobil Corp. has a net profit margin of 10%......if my company operated on such low margins......id be bankrupt........


LOL... From an article today on ExxonMoible's last quarterly earning.

To put Exxon's performance into perspective, its third quarter revenue was greater than the annual gross domestic product of some of the largest oil producing nations, including the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. The world's largest publicly traded oil company also set a profit record for U.S. companies by posting net income of almost $10 billion, according to Standard & Poor's equity market analyst Howard Silverblatt.

<snip>

Exxon's net income ballooned 75 percent to $9.92 billion, compared with $5.68 billion a year ago. The previous oil-industry earnings record was Exxon's 2004 fourth-quarter profit of $8.42 billion. Revenue grew to $100.72 billion from $76.38 billion in the prior-year period.

[bfitz]

Wish I had some stock...

[weary]

in the sixties, many leading scientists were predicting that we would suffer armeggedon by the year 2010. due to what? global cooling.
kinda puts things in perspective, no?
Yes it does. The warming trend is especially ominous in that most scientific studies suggest that it would be even worse had we not been in a cyclical cooling trend.

Weary

[shades of blue]

Who am I trying to convince? You and other people...I give up on Bush....he has nothing to win or loose in my opinion. Either he is sitting around with the cigar in his mouth raking in the bucks (as you sarcastically put it in another post) or he is the puppet who believes one thing...but doesn't realize the damage that he is actually doing. (or I could be totally off and he is a peace loving environmentalist who knows everything and everyone else is an idiot). I don't want you to be a liberal...the world would be a sad place if we all agreed all the time. True conservatives have a place at the table, just as true liberals do. It's like a marriage....one partner helps the other partner where they are weak. In saving the world...a complete liberal might totally sacrifice the economy and business....a complete right winger will grow the big business and hopefully the economy...but destroy the environment and the average joe. Put them together and in a perfect world you'd have a great place. Too bad this isn't a perfect world.

[bfitz]

I don't want you to be a liberal...the world would be a sad place if we all agreed all the time. True conservatives have a place at the table, just as true liberals do. It's like a marriage....one partner helps the other partner where they are weak. In saving the world...a complete liberal might totally sacrifice the economy and business....a complete right winger will grow the big business and hopefully the economy...but destroy the environment and the average joe. Put them together and in a perfect world you'd have a great place. Too bad this isn't a perfect world.
Wow, that's almost a quote of my post #473 on page 24 of the old "Whiteblaze in Wartime" thread, remember that one?!

... As far as being on both sides of the fence, I guess I just see how liberalism and conservatism each have their strengths, and each has got us over various pitfalls throughout history.
As I go back and read them I see I have a few recurrent themes...but as far as the complementary relationship between "conservative and liberal principles" I believe you are basically right. As far as challenges facing us in the future, I'd be stupid to say none await. I'm just saying we're up to it whatever it is, and I don't think it's gonna be Waterworld.

[bfitz]

I definitely think the "war against terrorism" as its called, and the issues underlying it are a greater threat to human society than global warming.

[MarcnNJ]

LOL... From an article today on ExxonMoible's last quarterly earning.

To put Exxon's performance into perspective, its third quarter revenue was greater than the annual gross domestic product of some of the largest oil producing nations, including the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. The world's largest publicly traded oil company also set a profit record for U.S. companies by posting net income of almost $10 billion, according to Standard & Poor's equity market analyst Howard Silverblatt.

<snip>

Exxon's net income ballooned 75 percent to $9.92 billion, compared with $5.68 billion a year ago. The previous oil-industry earnings record was Exxon's 2004 fourth-quarter profit of $8.42 billion. Revenue grew to $100.72 billion from $76.38 billion in the prior-year period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering they sold $100 Billion in goods and services, Id still say that clearing $10 Billion is just okay.....wall street seemed to think the same.....

[weary]

I definitely think the "war against terrorism" as its called, and the issues underlying it are a greater threat to human society than global warming.
Having lived through many "alleged wars" I suspect that blitz is talking nonsense -- though I agree it is sometimes difficult to discern the truth among a chorus of wolf calls.

Weary

[Sly]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering they sold $100 Billion in goods and services, Id still say that clearing $10 Billion is just okay.....wall street seemed to think the same.....

Oh poor little Exxon only making $10 Billion in a quarter. I feel so sorry for them. Exxon stock is going down because people are cashing in and selling.

[the goat]

if exxon & other "oil giants" are robbing consumers by charging "unfair" prices for their fuel in order to reap undue profits; why wouldn't at least ONE oil company corner the whole f'ing market by lowering their gasoline price to whatever that mystical "fair price" is?

[MarcnNJ]

Because OPEC is the real enemy....they are the ones who set the price of Oil at $60 when a year ago it was $40......but some people dont understand that when prices go up, your profits also go up, even if kept at the same margin......its easier for the masses to point their finger at Big Oil Co's, because they dont understand the Oil Cartel (opec).

[the goat]

Because OPEC is the real enemy....they are the ones who set the price of Oil at $60 when a year ago it was $40......but some people dont understand that when prices go up, your profits also go up, even if kept at the same margin......its easier for the masses to point their finger at Big Oil Co's, because they dont understand the Oil Cartel (opec).
precisely my point. well put, MarcnNJ.

[fiddlehead]

the law of supply and demand still is working (somewhat) in my opinion. We have to stop driving the monster rigs and blaming everyone else. No country consumes anywhere near as much oil as the good ole US of A.
Exon made all that profit because they are greedy. They jacked up the price of natural gas to go along with the rise in oil prices. (they own lots of nat. gas and oil rights)
Blame it on the Arabs too. they're not complaining but if we're willing to pay it, they're willing to charge it.
get a motorcyle or Prius (or walk)
my 2 cents

Ps. some hospitals in Thailand have turned off the air conditioning to save energy. It's 95 degrees there today. (they're doing their part, are we?)

[the goat]

Ps. some hospitals in Thailand have turned off the air conditioning to save energy. It's 95 degrees there today. (they're doing their part, are we?)
i agree with some of what you say. but i assure you, thailand ain't cuttin' off the a/c's for the betterment of mankind. has much more to do with affordability.

[shades of blue]

Because OPEC is the real enemy....they are the ones who set the price of Oil at $60 when a year ago it was $40......but some people dont understand that when prices go up, your profits also go up, even if kept at the same margin......its easier for the masses to point their finger at Big Oil Co's, because they dont understand the Oil Cartel (opec).

Ummm....explain this to me, because I'm having a hard time understanding. If I charge 5.00 for an item...and my expense (let's say oil) is 3.00 an item...if that was my only overhead...that's 2.00 profit. Simplistic...but trying to make this easier. If the oil people (OPEC) raise the cost to me 2.00 up to 5.00 total. and I raise the cost of my product to 7.00 total...I'm still making 2.00 profit. Sorry MarcnNJ...as we say in the South...that dog just doesn't hunt.

Is OPEC the real enemy? we are our own worse enemy because we consume too much...and the consumer does have some responsiblity here. But it's oil companies making huge, industry record profits in times of national crisis (hurricanes, 2 wars) that are our own real enemy. Explain how I'm wrong...in easy terms to understand...I am a liberal teacher after all...and we don't understand money too well....

[NoKnees]

Most distributors don't work on net margin basis. They work on a precentage basis. At least in my business me and my competitor do. For example I normally set my contracts as cost plus. So cost is $3.00 and I make 30% I sell for 3.90. If my cost goes to $5.00 I make $1.50. I am all for inflation as long as it impacts my competition equally.

[MarcnNJ]

Ummm....explain this to me, because I'm having a hard time understanding. If I charge 5.00 for an item...and my expense (let's say oil) is 3.00 an item...if that was my only overhead...that's 2.00 profit. Simplistic...but trying to make this easier. If the oil people (OPEC) raise the cost to me 2.00 up to 5.00 total. and I raise the cost of my product to 7.00 total...I'm still making 2.00 profit. Sorry MarcnNJ...as we say in the South...that dog just doesn't hunt.

Is OPEC the real enemy? we are our own worse enemy because we consume too much...and the consumer does have some responsiblity here. But it's oil companies making huge, industry record profits in times of national crisis (hurricanes, 2 wars) that are our own real enemy. Explain how I'm wrong...in easy terms to understand...I am a liberal teacher after all...and we don't understand money too well....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is where youre missing the boat.....

if your cost for oil is $3...and you sell it for $5...you made $2
inorder to make that $2, you had to put out $3

now if your price for oil rises to $5, and you sell it for $7....you still make $2
but, you had to lay out more money ($5) to make the same profit...

selling $3 oil for $5 is a 66.6% markup, and a 40% gross profit margin...
selling $5 oil for $7 is a 40% markup, and a 28.5% gross profit margin....

if all companies lowered their margins when their prices went up, most would fail almost instantly, unless they lay people off, or cut overhead somewhere else...

[fiddlehead]

i agree with some of what you say. but i assure you, thailand ain't cuttin' off the a/c's for the betterment of mankind. has much more to do with affordability. That (affordability) is the way supply and demand laws work.
Actually, my girlfriend (Thai native who is presently in the hospital and told me this news) says it's because their prime minister asked everyone to cut back on energy use to help the government save money. (they subsidize the gas prices there to help the farmers cope, but they can't keep losing the 18 million US dollars a day for very long. So, he asked the people to help and they are. Imagine that concept!

She has all of a sudden gotten very frugal about the electric bill. She says it's because Taksin (prime minister) asked her to.

[fiddlehead]

I'm surprised no one corrected me on the above statement about supply and demand. Affordability is not supply and demand. I guess there must be a law of economics that would explain how this works but to me it's fairly simple capitalism: you charge what you can for something until people stop buying it and then you lower the price until they do. Well, the poor people of the world simply can't afford the gas/oil/diesel so they will stop buying it. Hopefully the price will go down or they will probably starve. They'll go back to the water buffalo to replace their roto-tiller and get 10% of the present production. When the poor of the world die in huge numbers because of this, we will hopefully think more seriously about who we elect to rule the world and why. Hopefully it won't be too late.
I am glad about the fact that the power i use in Phuket Thailand is generated from a windmill farm. And the power that is used at my in-laws home in northern thailand is generated from a dam. At least those things will keep working. (but can i afford what they will start charging???)
I often wonder how the whiteblaze/thru-hikers feel about windmills. I think they are great. It's free except for the start up cost and service. Free is better than cheap! Any thoughts? maybe it's been discussed here already but i haven't seen it.

[shades of blue]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is where youre missing the boat.....

if your cost for oil is $3...and you sell it for $5...you made $2
inorder to make that $2, you had to put out $3

now if your price for oil rises to $5, and you sell it for $7....you still make $2
but, you had to lay out more money ($5) to make the same profit...

selling $3 oil for $5 is a 66.6% markup, and a 40% gross profit margin...
selling $5 oil for $7 is a 40% markup, and a 28.5% gross profit margin....

if all companies lowered their margins when their prices went up, most would fail almost instantly, unless they lay people off, or cut overhead somewhere else...

I understand that the company is taking more "risk" when they have to expend more capital to buy a product they have to sell. The problem I have with your evaluation is that the oil companies are still making their 2.00 profit. Whether it's %66.6 markup or %40 mark up...the company is still making THE SAME PROFIT. I don't see how a company fails if they are able to pass the cost of doing business on to the consumer. To me THAT is fair and I don't mind that in the least. OPEC raises the price...the company shouldn't take a loss...but that isn't what's happening marcnNJ....
They are making record profits....call it in % if you like...but that doesn't change the bottom line, and that is what the company cares about...how much money...not percentage they make. Making a lower % of profit based on the investment doesn't matter if you are continuing with the same amount of profit, or even a MODEST gain. That isn't happening. They are making RECORD profits...

That is all fine and good....but who is suffering here...it's not the CEO, not the shareholders.....it's the consumer who is paying the profit. Last year $1.60 a gallon was high...1.75....now it's averaging 2.68 here, and less than a month ago was as high as 3.20. It's only recently dropped, but still is $1.00 higher than last year. Ok...OPEC is charging more....fine, pass the cost along to me...making almost 10 billion in profit (one company), highest earnings by that corporation in their history....You don't see a problem?

I don't blame the corporation for making as much money as they can...it's human nature. What I blame is the gov't for rewarding companies for this robbery by giving them MORE of our tax money in corporate welfare to build their refineries, make it easier for them to pollute OUR air by relaxing laws (clean air act) so it's cheaper for them to build...and we suffer....then they outsource our jobs (why shouldn't they...they want profit, and that's what's it's all about) and we make tax laws that allow them to defer some corporate taxes and incorporate off our shores so they avoid some taxes all together.

So....they make record profits, they give us some jobs (yes, that's important) but outsource a ton of jobs, they get lawyers to avoid some taxes, they have unaturally high prices, then jack them up higher when their ability to produce falls from natural disaster...

and we....give them tax money to build what they should be paying for with their profits...give them more tax breaks when they are already avoiding alot of taxes (don't blame them...I'd love to have lower taxes too) and we allow them to use old technology to build plants that will pour more pollution into our environment for 30 more years (the life of that plant). The corporations are the smart ones...we are the dummys for not revolting against this.
We are BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA sheep.

[MarcnNJ]

I understand that the company is taking more &quot;risk&quot; when they have to expend more capital to buy a product they have to sell. The problem I have with your evaluation is that the oil companies are still making their 2.00 profit. Whether it's %66.6 markup or %40 mark up...the company is still making THE SAME PROFIT. I don't see how a company fails if they are able to pass the cost of doing business on to the consumer. To me THAT is fair and I don't mind that in the least. OPEC raises the price...the company shouldn't take a loss...but that isn't what's happening marcnNJ.....


It has nothing to do with risk expenditure, it simply means that if the argument of $2 is enough profit for that oil, it shouldnt matter what the company spends to buy that oil in the first place....with your logic, if they had to buy the oil for $5, they should sell it for $7....since they will still make their $2...even though with that $5, they used to be able to take in $8.35, compared to the $7 youd like to see.....in the real world of business, thats getting less for your dollar spent...and hence, not the same profit.....what happens if oil becomes even more of a demand across the world, and it goes up to $8, you would just charge $10?Thats very analogous to saying you make x amount of money per week...and you live comfortably on that much....and then your boss comes in and says hey i want you to work 10 more hours a week for the same pay......youre putting out more, and getting the same back....



They are making record profits....call it in % if you like...but that doesn't change the bottom line, and that is what the company cares about...how much money...not percentage they make. Making a lower % of profit based on the investment doesn't matter if you are continuing with the same amount of profit, or even a MODEST gain. That isn't happening. They are making RECORD profits...</p> .....So youd like to see the same $2 made no matter what the price of the oil.....I sell bloodworms as bait in my fishing store.....the cost on bloodworms in the last 10 years has gone from $5 per dozen to $12 per dozen...when they used to cost me $5, i used to charge $8.25....i made $3.25, about the same as all my competitors....now according to you, i should sell them now for $15.25 even though i pay $12 for them?? since ill make the same $3.25 profit??? Before the price increase, everytime i invested $12 on worms, id take in $20....and clear $8....thats NOT the same as $3.25.....
That is all fine and good....but who is suffering here...it's not the CEO, not the shareholders.....it's the consumer who is paying the profit. Last year $1.60 a gallon was high...1.75....now it's averaging 2.68 here, and less than a month ago was as high as 3.20. It's only recently dropped, but still is $1.00 higher than last year. Ok...OPEC is charging more....fine, pass the cost along to me...making almost 10 billion in profit (one company), highest earnings by that corporation in their history....You don't see a problem?</p>
.....</p>

I absolutely see a major problem...the demand for oil is much higher than its ever been with the emergence of China and India as major consumers...and if we dont do more to lessen our dependence on oil, and more importantly foreign oil, our problems have just begun....you cant expect a company not to pass along the cost to you when their costs go up.....that happens with everything you buy......the milk you drink today is the same milk people drank 25 years ago....does that cost the same? Milk producers have had price increases, and theyve past it along to you....
I don't blame the corporation for making as much money as they can...it's human nature. What I blame is the gov't for rewarding companies for this robbery by giving them MORE of our tax money in corporate welfare to build their refineries, make it easier for them to pollute OUR air by relaxing laws (clean air act) so it's cheaper for them to build...and we suffer....then they outsource our jobs (why shouldn't they...they want profit, and that's what's it's all about) and we make tax laws that allow them to defer some corporate taxes and incorporate off our shores so they avoid some taxes all together.
.....</p>
I totally agree that corporate welfare is absolutely ridiculous....but....check to see when the last refinery was built here in the USA.....did you know that we have HALF the amount of refineries in the USA as we did 25 years ago?.....you would think that our capacity to turn crude into gasoline, jet fuel, and heating oil would have decreased 50% also....but they are only off production by 10% due to upgraded and improved facilities....and all the while our dependence for gasoline has increased by 45%.......that imbalance will grow larger......gas will continue to get more expensive.....consumers arent doing enough about it....lets kill the demand....not rip the company for taking the money we give them....and the clean air act has been in place since 1990....thats 15 years....do you think changes that have been made between the Bush crew and the Clinton crew have really done that much?? what about all the pollution problems that were in place before the Clean Air Act? Should we have never built refineries?? Our air would be cleaner for it....but then we would be paying more like what Europe pays for gas...$5-7 a gallon......and imagine how much Exxon would make then.....how much would you be willing to pay per gallon to have the air as clean as possible??
So....they make record profits, they give us some jobs (yes, that's important) but outsource a ton of jobs, they get lawyers to avoid some taxes, they have unaturally high prices, then jack them up higher when their ability to produce falls from natural disaster.....

So....They wouldnt have made record profits if OPEC didnt charge more for oil.....they have 30something thousand employees...and i guess a ton of them work in other countries.....even though youd rather have them work here.....although we dont have refinery capacity to employee them all.....and we dont want to build more because that will pollute our air......so i guess youd rather see them lay people off....make less money....and who knows maybe that will lead to lower demand and prices....it just doesnt add up....
and we....give them tax money to build what they should be paying for with their profits...give them more tax breaks when they are already avoiding alot of taxes (don't blame them...I'd love to have lower taxes too) and we allow them to use old technology to build plants that will pour more pollution into our environment for 30 more years (the life of that plant). The corporations are the smart ones...we are the dummys for not revolting against this.
We are BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA sheep.
Just shoot me over that list of refineries they are building with the old technology that are polluting our air that only last for 30yrs......the last refinery built in the USA was completed 30yrs ago....

[shades of blue]

The reason we have no new refineries is that the companies refuse to build under Current laws...which the Bush admin is trying to change...emergency measures at first in the gulf states, but it is their goal to lessen the EPA rules all around. So...no list to shoot over...at least until Bush has his way and the companies can do as they please with the environment.

I still don't buy what you're selling (thank God) marcnNJ. The oil companies have MORE capital to invest (they aren't a small company...and not a start up company). It isn't hurting them to invest more, because they pass the cost along (which is fine ) but then the mark it up outrageously. When I'm buying a new car...I research how much that car cost the dealership, how long it has been on the lot, advertising, ect... (how much they have in it basically). I then decide how much profit they should get, then make a fair offer. They will tell you all sorts of things, basically tall tales to try to make their 7,000 profit look reasonable, but it isn't. In the end I make my offer, they laugh in my face....I tell them my research and say...$500.00 over what it costs you to sell is reasonable....and I get my car..if not from them, from a larger dealership with more cars. I've bought EVERY car I've ever owned this way, and it works. Knowledge is power. Alll they have to do is convince a few (you I guess) that the 7,000 more is reasonable, and they've made their commission for the month. My brother used to sell cars, I know how it works.

The oil company hides the knowledge....monopolizes the field, gives big money to lawmakers re-election campaigns (see Bush and Cheney). They even had private meetings with Cheney a few years ago in the last energy bill. Meetings Cheney refused to make public....it's like getting the wolves to come in and set up the defense for the sheep.

I will agree that global consumer demand is raising the price of oil around the world. One day we will run out...or at least supply will fall so much that oil won't be a viable option for our energy sources. We SHOULD be finding other ways to meet our needs (hopefully non threatening to our environment)....but to say...gas will be like europe if we save the environment....gas is already high and will only get higher. Consumers should do their part...but big business must share the cost too......not make more off my back. Sorry MarcnNJ I won't drink the Bush kool aid. You can't make record profits, then ask for more of my money to make it easier for you to screw me some more. I won't do it....I won't vote for people who do...republican OR democrat. maybe my vote won't count...maybe my voice won't matter, but I cannot and will not condone theivery and lies.

[mbroadhe]

Wanna talk eerie, when I hiked through that section two years ago, right before we got there it started pouring rain. To hike that section with black clouds looming over your head, nothing to shield you from it, and the land looking as dead as it did reminded me of a horror movie. I kept waiting for some zombies to crawl out of the ground and chase us. No zombies and I will always remember that section. I'm sure it leaves a lasting impression even with the sun shining in 80 degree weather.

[MarcnNJ]

I didnt vote for bush, either time

[MarcnNJ]

And im glad ive atleast gotten you to recant your statements about the oil companies building dirty refineries....and how passing off cost increases to the consumer shouldnt be expected....and that there is dramatically higher global demand, which in turn led to the OPEC cartel almost doubling the cost of oil a barrel, which led to the record profits....

[shades of blue]

"there you go again" marcnNJ.
I never, and I ask you to prove otherwise...said that the oil companies shouldn't pass along the cost of doing business to the consumer. What I SAID was that it isn't passing along the cost (what OPEC raised the cost of crude oil) when you make record profits. You don't pass along cost and make more profit. Profit (at least in my poor economic understanding) is what you have after you've paid your bills (capital invested subtracted from money earned). The oil companies are making record profits...not record earnings. That is not the same thing, and you know it.

And the oil companies want to build refineries but whine that they can't because of having to play by clean air rules. They want to build under their old technology (30 years old as you say) which is cheaper for them, so they have less capital outlay, and more profit. That is what Bush and his team are trying to let happen.

So...I'm not recanting anything....I don't like my words being twisted...but then again...your heros are good at that too.

[MarcnNJ]

here you go again" marcnNJ.
I never, and I ask you to prove otherwise...said that the oil companies shouldn't pass along the cost of doing business to the consumer. What I SAID was that it isn't passing along the cost (what OPEC raised the cost of crude oil) when you make record profits. You don't pass along cost and make more profit. Profit (at least in my poor economic understanding) is what you have after you've paid your bills (capital invested subtracted from money earned). The oil companies are making record profits...not record earnings. That is not the same thing, and you know it.

You are just wrong...Exxon recorded record high earnings of $100 Billion last quarter...thats a fact.....an increase of over $30 Billion from the previous quarter.....that extra $30 Billion led to an additional $4 Billion in profit...which pushed their profits to record high levels of almost $10 Billion. Higher revenues and profits are a direct result of higher crude prices set by OPEC. This is not opinion, this is economic fact.


And the oil companies want to build refineries but whine that they can't because of having to play by clean air rules. They want to build under their old technology (30 years old as you say) which is cheaper for them, so they have less capital outlay, and more profit. That is what Bush and his team are trying to let happen.

So...I'm not recanting anything....I don't like my words being twisted...but then again...your heros are good at that too.

Will you recant that oil companies are building refineries with tax breaks?? i hope so, cause youd look dumb saying that when we havent had a refinery built in 30 years.....

[shades of blue]

Ok marcnNJ..I will try to make this as clear as possible, not calling your ideas "dumb" as you have called mine after you continue to either twist, or totally misunderstand what I say(dumb is a great word to use though...I'm filled with intellectual shame). Here goes, read carefully, and try to understand.


I never said oil companies are building refineries with tax breaks. What I said is that they want to build with old technology, but won't build with new technology. Gulf coast refineries were damaged during katrina and the federal gov't repealed (short term) epa laws to allow the oil companies to rebuild or repair damaged refineries under older technology (not clean air technology, but cheaper, polluting technology). Tax funds in emergency disaster relief is being funneled into the gulf coast (and that is great) to help all these people and companies. None of that is really a problem for me sometimes rules/laws have to be bent for an emergency. Companies, especially small businesses need help and they provide lots of jobs in that area, and people need to work.

HERE is where I have the problem. It is Bush admin philosophy to make this short term repeal the norm for all building. The current party in power is giving more subsidies to the oil companies and they want to repeal the epa laws. My understanding is that the road block to building more refineries is the cost of building them under the current EPA laws. Also, why are we giving ANY subsidies to companies who are making record profits? If we should be helping anyone we should be helping companies who are in danger of failing (i.e. farms, air lines ect.) You don't see Delta airlines making record profits right now do you? They have rising fuel costs and other issues which are driving them into the ground.

I said oil companies weren't making record earnings, but record profits. What I meant to say is that I wasn't talking about record earnings, but record profits. Of course you have record earnings when you pass along the higher costs of doing business. What I'm trying to say is that the companies are doing more than passing along the cost.

You and I will never agree on this. I don't think you're ideas are dumb...as you so eloquently did for my ideas. I think they're just wrong, and nothing I say will convince you otherwise. I've had my last word..

[MarcnNJ]

I don't blame the corporation for making as much money as they can...it's human nature. What I blame is the gov't for rewarding companies for this robbery by giving them MORE of our tax money in corporate welfare to build their refineries,


we allow them to use old technology to build plants that will pour more pollution into our environment for 30 more years (the life of that plant). The corporations are the smart ones...we are the dummys for not revolting against this.
We are BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA sheep.


There are 2 instances where you said oil companies were building refinery plants.....i dont mean to call your ideas dumb.....i just think that its dumb for you to say, twice, that oil companies are building refineries when they arent...


Of course you have record earnings when you pass along the higher costs of doing business. What I'm trying to say is that the companies are doing more than passing along the cost.

Thats simply not true....otherwise they would have a higher net profit margin of 10%......if they were doing more than passing along the cost, they would be keeping more than a dime out of every dollar they earn....think about it....if you sold lemonade for a $1, and for each cup you sold you got to keep a dime....and someone accused you of overcharging for padding profits, would you think they are crazy??


You and I both have major problems with Bush giving tax breaks to companies....i dont agree with subsidies for any companies in any industry....nevermind the oil companies.....

Were Reagan's and Bush 1's EPA laws so strict that refineries couldnt be built between 1980-1992??

The reason why refineries arent built is their cost.....somewhere between $3-$5 Billion....and a contsruction time of 2-4 years.....and if you look back at how much money the oil companies were making back in the late 70s all the way up to the mid-90s, they couldnt afford to build them...they werent making near the money they are now because OPEC had the price of oil down in the $12-$20/B mark......and they didnt have high margins back then either....

Again, your ideas arent "dumb"...just the refinery building quotes.....Im afraid youve been sucked in by the Republican v. Democrat tug-o-war and name calling instead of concentrating on the truth....thats their intention....truth is we need less regulation to explore alternatives and, for the short term, our own oil....otherwise we will be the slaves to the Oil Cartel and the Oil Corps.....for now, conserve...and buy some stock.....

[shades of blue]

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051007145909990004
House Passes Bill to Boost Oil Refinery Construction

The world's largest publicly traded oil company Exxon Mobil Corp said its quarterly profit leapt 75 percent to nearly $10 billion, the highest in the company's history.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/10/27/oil.economy.reut/index.html

I couldn't resist. You gotta love the dime analogy. 10%? Try 75%

Maybe I have it all wrong. Maybe it's not just that the oil companies don't want to build for JUST environmental reasons. If they produce more refined oil, they have more supply, thus no excuse to keep prices so high.

I think I understand your percentage idea...I invest this..I should get this percentage of my investment back...I invest more, I should get more in return. 75% more in return though? I just don't see jumping 75% in one quarter, even over a year. Oil has been close to 60 a barrel for a year...right? sometimes higher, sometimes lower. How did the jump up to 75% happen? I don't see other companies, who have rising costs just like oil jump with that much profit. Something just seems wrong to me.


The gov't is trying to give incentives (carrots) to get these companies to build more refineries. Fine, I think they should do it on their own....dime so to speak...but fine...let's help them. Just don't sell the environment down in the process. Let's not weaken an already weak protection law so that companies might build refineries. In our short term...great, prices go down...in the long term, we would have 30 more years of current pollution.

I said that the last post on this issue would be the last...but I couldn't help myself. Marc maybe by some miracle the oil company is just getting deserved profits and it just happens to look bad. I don't think so, most of congress doesn't think so right now (of course it's an election cycle coming up)but I've been wrong before. Maybe oil companies aren't polluting...maybe I'm just imagining the smog and bad air quality over the blue ridge mountains.... I hope so. The world would be much better if I was wrong.

[the goat]

I couldn't resist. You gotta love the dime analogy. 10%? Try 75%


the 10% figure refers to profit MARGIN (ie. what they make for every dollar). the 75% figure refers to profit GROWTH (ie. how much net profits grew during a particular time frame.

in short, your profits can grow by 75%, even though your margin stays static at 10%.

hmmmm, i think i may regret re-entering this thread.:D

[MarcnNJ]

lol...im trying goat...

[shades of blue]

I've been doing a lot of researach, and your explanation is exactly the one that the oil companies are using. I'm not saying wrong, just their explanation. I understand better about profit margin, now that I've really researached it. What I've found interesting is a lot of different explanations on how we got to this point in the first place.
OPEC's rising cost as you said was definately a huge part of it. Something else I found though was a view of why refineries aren't being built. It isn't in the oil companies interest for them to be built. They would be unable to charge as high prices if they had a better capacity to refine crude oil.

http://wyden.senate.gov/leg_issues/reports/wyden_oil_report.pdf

Senator Wyden of Oregon claims that oil companies prepared this to happen by shutting down refineries and private refineries over the course of the last 15 years. Supposedly this kept the refining margins high...and that is in the oil companies best interest. If his report is accurate, it's very interesting. It had quotes from lots of oil companies internal documents. This is only one source that I've seen, so...who knows...but it is an official gov't report.

I also saw that companies didn't raise the price of gasoline as quickly as they could have (market wise) over the course of this last energy crunch. Maybe they didn't because they didn't want to be looked at too carefully with the consumers screaming at congress.

It is still difficult for me to wrap my head around a company making that huge of a profit in times of national crisis...but I guess it's normal for the business world.

[bfitz]

It is still difficult for me to wrap my head around a company making that huge of a profit in times of national crisis...but I guess it's normal for the business world.
Dude, its not a crisis. Supply is sufficient if expensive. Demand is up, production is up, volume of sales are up, profits would go up even if prices didn't...thats how business works. That cost of production increases lead to sale price increases thus increasing total profits while not increasing margin is a simple idea to understand. Every business hopes there is a surge in demand for their product...its what makes our market tick...if people want to cut down their use of gas they can...but thus far they don't seem to want to so why should the oil companies make it cheaper for them? If anything they should raise prices...that would go more towards encouraging people to cut down on consumption...which is what you'd prefer they do, no?

[weary]

I shouldn't enter this debate because I'm neither an expert, not have I done much research. But the assumption that 10 percent profit is either high, or, low, is nonsense.

It all depends on turnover. A supermarket that turns stock over daily or weekly can operate on tiny profit margins. A retailer of houses -- or refineries, if there is such a thing -- that turns over a property every year or so, or every decade or so, needs more to survive.

I don't know where gasoline figures in this broard spread, but I suspect that refineries are more than pleased with the current profit margin on the gasoline they produce.

Weary

[saimyoji]

hijacked thread, far from the original intent of talking about our poor mountain in PA. Possibly split Sgt. Rock?

Incidently, I'm leading a hike (high school kids) from little gap to lehigh gap next next weekend. Anyone interested?

[c.coyle]

hijacked thread, far from the original intent of talking about our poor mountain in PA. Possibly split Sgt. Rock?

Incidently, I'm leading a hike (high school kids) from little gap to lehigh gap next next weekend. Anyone interested?

We'll be doing it northbound bright and early Saturday morning, assuming good weather. Shouldn't be hard to spot your group.