Big surprise — President Bush intervened to lower the Environmental Protection Agency’s new smog standards, according to agency documents. EPA scientists had wanted stricter standards for ozone levels to help protect the “public welfare,†but Bush and the White House Office of Management and Budget objected, the Washington Post reported. But even though the new pollution standards aren’t as high as the EPA wanted, they could still present a significant challenge for Wichita, which for years has hovered on the brink of violating federal rules.
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- TheBorgHunter on Democrats hit back on patriotism
- lindainks55 on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Agnatha on Democrats hit back on patriotism
- beber on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- generaston on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- lindainks55 on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Mr_Kia on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Regular on Democrats hit back on patriotism
- CF2K on Obama nomination transcends partisanship
- generaston on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
33 Comments
What did you expect?
The topic reminds me why we need to pay attention to pollutants like volatile organic compounds (solvents, burned petroleums, landfill waste (methane) and etc) rather than waste our treasures on trying to controlling co2.
Actually, pollution controls will take care of all those Goracle induced spoken word flatulents.
The Montreal Protocol (CFC [refrigerants controls] is getting of age now, I suppose they had to make some adjustments as the world’s population grows larger.
There ya go again missing the point — Bush couldn’t care a rats ass about you and your flawed thinking on the environment —- it’s all gore’s fault —– you remain the most thoughtless contemptible person here ….
And my observation still holds true…
99 percent of the comments rendered by the Radical left here are about other posters.
(chortles)
I don’t know how it is we get this done.
But I REALLY want for some reporter or someone to get the chance to ask bush…
“So how does it feel to be the most hated person on the face of the planet?”
Now I don’t imagine for even a second that the SOB cares. But I would like him to know how folks feel.
Just outta curiosity, Reg, do you puposly shovel the manure so you have the opportunity to post your 99% post?
Don’t really care, one way or the other, just curious. There is no such thing as TMI–one can alwyas use it for extortion if nothing else.
I don’t know ghotiphaze, perhaps it’s the hypocritical sanctimonious attitude of the radical left here on this blog that has problems coping with adult conversation.
Part of the definition of a blog is opinion.
I posted my opinion on the matter. Take it, leave it or merely walk on by while muttering to yourself- doesn’t matter to me.
If you really didn’t care ghotiphaze, you wouldn’t have bothered to make a comment about it.
Sorry, my speech is not controlled by the likes of the radical left on this blog.
Or is there something about the First Amendment that is not well understood by some who want to restrict it?
Cough cough, cough…wheeze.
Sounds like we better clean things up locally before we start complaining that proposed stricter standards we know nothing about aren’t strict enough.
Well, there goes the last vestiges of Ethanol production. Grand polluter of liberal stupidity that it is.
Ooooo, look out, here comes the big, mean old radical left. Run Regular, run!!
Could the problem be pollutants in the air are too small? If they were made bigger maybe they wouldn’t fit up our nostrils. Can’t you see the people walking down the sidewalks dodging, weaving, bobbing…
Guess they would need to be formed of something pliable or soft so as not to break windshields…
ATTACK BUSH!
ATTACK BUSH!
EVERYTHING IS BUSH’S FAULT!
That’s rule number one, for our Liberal press.
The waste of our natural resources continues. I HOPE it’s the end of ethanol.
Salina is living on water that doesn’t exist and they may have no right to use? And note at the end, Russell and their ethanol plant want to such ANOTHER lake out here dry. It wasn’t enough to satisfy them to destroy Cedar Bluff. NOW they want to destroy Kanopolis too!
Where oh where is governror “leadership” on the water issue? Where is the Kansas Water Office?
Where is the do-nothing legislature? No WONDER they don’t want to talk about water this session with Holcomb unwrapping THEIR big straw…
By DUANE SCHRAG
Salina Journal
Preliminary study says less water available from lake
A new study says Kanopolis Lake has less water available for sale than previously thought, but that finding will have no immediate effect on releases from reservoir and the more volatile question of who has rights to water when it is released under low-flow conditions.
The draft report, which was released Monday by the Kansas Water Office, concludes that there is about 9 million gallons a day available for sale to water users. A 2002 study put that figure at 12.9 million gallons a day. (When the volume of water is expressed as flow, the new figure is 13.9 cubic feet a second, compared to 20 cfs.)
The Water Office is taking comments on the study until April 17.
In recent years the city of Salina has taken about half its water directly from the Smoky Hill River. It obtains the rest from wells in the river’s alluvial aquifer. There are about 100 users, mostly farmers, with rights to draw water from the river between Kanopolis Lake and Salina.
The city has a water right for about 15 cfs from the river, more than the new study estimates is available for sale.
So far, the Water Office has only one contract for water — Post Rock Rural Water District can take up to 1.7 cfs (about 1.1 million gallons a day) from the lake.
Others who have notified the Water Office that they wish to be considered for water contracts include the city of McPherson (up to 15.5 cfs), the city of Russell (up to 2 cfs) and White Energy Partners in Russell, which operates an ethanol plant there (up to 2.3 cfs)”
HOW LONG WILL WE LET THE RAPE OF OUR WATER RESOURCES GO ON?????????????????????
“And my observation still holds true…
99 percent of the comments rendered by the Radical left here are about other posters.
“(chortles)”
Because such comments are sought after by trolls.
BTW, the comment is untrue anyway.
Re: Regular
DNFTT
re: ksagnostic
ibid idem
(chortles)
We need to be deal;ing with VOCs and other PICs. We also neeed to deal with CO2, methane, and other long-lived greenhouse gases. It is not an either/or situation.
Linda - Thanks for the chuckle, I did picture people bobbing and weaving as they walked down the street trying to dodge the pollutants.
And Max, in this case, it is Bush’s fault, or did you not read the article?
Good for Bush we need some common sense when it comes to over regulating the air we breath and emissions.
Shoe on the other foot? Seems the cons couldn’t get enough Clinton bashing in, in or out of office. Now they bash Liberals for doing the same thing to Bush. Ain’t nuttin but politiks!
As for Bush and air pollution: I’m sure it will drop once he leaves office.
kfg brings up the pending water crisis if ethanol production continues unabated. This is what happens when knee jerk reactions pushed down from the federal government to produce a quick fix actually end up doing more harm then good.
If you take the life cycle of producing ethanol, there is little reduction in CO2 emissions per unit energy content produced. Not only that but it sucks up a huge amount of water. Energy production we can survive without, CO2 in the air we can live with. WATER on the other hand is necessary to life people! It’s a complete boondoggle for the farms of the midwest and certain savvy investors while having little contribution to solving the “CO2 problem” and it really does use a lot of water as kfg described.
Take yer pick, Lack of clean water or CO2 in the air. Which one has the potential to cause REAL crisis?
Hint: you don’t need a PhD in climatology to answer that question.
JimmyMac posted March 18, 2008 at 7:20 am
“I posted my opinion on the matter.”
But JimmyMac does not have facts to support his invalid opinions — like on CO2, and the New Orleans levees.
His “opinions” are based on lies, and he can only defend them by attacking other posters, and the “radical left”.
rfl - agreed on ethanol - UNLESS it is cellulosic instead of grain-based. As for your final question the answer is BOTH. Disruption of rainfall patterns can have a greater impact on fresh water availability than crops. Just ask Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. Migration of the Ferrell-Hadley Cell boundaries to higher latitudes is changing rainfall patterns worldwide.
Linda,
Speaking of making pollutants visible — a great video, narrated by Tommy Lee Jones.
‘Black balloons: making CO2 real’
http://www.climateprotect.org/ah12
Also, many people rely on glacier melt for their water supply. An example,
‘Worries About Water as Chinese Glacier Retreats’
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17200108
Ironic about glaciers - I am thinking about making a trip this supper to glacier National Park - before they have to rename it.
cosmos,
That was a good visual. Sad, but effective. I hope you know I was making a joke (even if it was a bad one). On the other hand, those balloons wouldn’t fit up my nostrils. Sorry. Sometimes you just have to laugh to keep from crying.
Linda,
Yep, I knew that you were making a joke, and it would be funny to see people “dodging, weaving, bobbing”.
But it also made the good point that people would be more concerned about pollutants, if they were visible.
he should have fooled half the people by referring to it as some oxymoron..like: compassionate conservativism…or …
clear skies initiative..
or interfaith initiatives…
or the factory freedom to produce jobs act
For a behind-the-scenes look into more of the dirty details behind the President’s interference with the EPA ozone standard, check out my posting at http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jwalke/science_decider_in_chief.html
“rfl - agreed on ethanol - UNLESS it is cellulosic instead of grain-based.”
Ben, doesnt it take the same amount of water or more water to process cellulosic ethanol as grain based ethanol? It might not use the same irrigation water, but the processing water usage is the same or more, no?
Locate the damn processing plants where there is WATER, not out here!
ksfg - the issue is not process water (which can be recycled) but growing irrigation water.
That said I agree with you on siting - ESPECIALLY if we can feed it garbage.