Bush's horrible record on the environment

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Tom57, Oct 8, 2004.

  1. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    From the SF Chronicle, some highlights of Bush's DISMAL record on the environment:

    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

    Bush: Supports first-time oil drilling in the Arctic refuge. Favors increasing oil production to the west of the refuge in the National Petroleum Reserve and expanding gas production in the Rocky Mountains and Alaska.

    Oil drilling

    Bush: Denied California's request to buy back 36 oil-drilling leases already sold off the Santa Barbara coast.


    Bush: Proposed an energy bill offering tax breaks and regulatory relief for the coal and oil industries and subsidies for nuclear power and ethanol. Opposed a federal mandate requiring utilities to produce 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Favors developing small nuclear plants. Has committed $2 billion for clean-coal technology.

    Global warming

    Bush: Opposes the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that the United States can't afford to cut carbon dioxide below 1990 levels by 2012 and that the pact doesn't demand enough reductions for developing nations. Opposes mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide. Has committed to reducing by 18 percent over the next decade the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to gross domestic product. Commits to increases in research funds, but distances himself from government studies linking global warming to human activities. The Bush administration decided the EPA didn't have authority to regulate carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, as an air pollutant.

    Endangered species

    Bush: Supports a major change of the Endangered Species Act, saying it hasn't succeeded in recovering species and creates an adversarial relationship with farmers, ranchers and other private property owners who face regulation.


    Bush: Changed a Clinton-era regulation that required power plants to use the best technology available to prevent sucking up about a trillion fish a year and, instead, allows operators to make up damage by providing new wetlands or hatchery fish. Citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision, limited the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from regulating the filling or polluting of millions of acres of wetlands not directly connected to larger water bodies. Pledged to seek more money in next budget to create and protect at least 3 million more wetland acres over the next five years.

    Clean air

    Bush: Proposed major changes to the Clean Air Act, one of which would allow industries and utilities to expand without installing new pollution controls if emissions don't exceed their highest level in the last 10 years; another would let plants conduct repairs that may increase emissions without upgrading pollution controls. Supports "clear skies'' legislation that calls for a 70 percent reduction in nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury by 2018; the measure allows a cap-and-trade provision as a market-based approach that would allow dischargers to buy and sell emission allowances. Kept Clinton- era diesel rule to require low-sulfur fuel and retrofit engines in big trucks and buses, and adopted diesel standards for off-road equipment, marine engines and locomotives.


    Bush: Won congressional support for an initiative opening 20 million acres of national forests to logging, saying it would promote forest health and resistance to catastrophic wild fires. Repealed the Clinton-era "roadless rule," which banned road-building in nearly one-third of the nation's forests; under the Bush proposal, governors may petition the federal government to retain protections on national forests in their states.


    Bush: Opposes the "polluter pays" principle, a tax on oil and chemical companies to pay for the cleanup of abandoned toxic-waste sites, in effect since the program's start in 1980. Congress allowed the tax to expire in 1995, and last year the trust fund ran out of money. Cleanups have fallen by nearly half since Bush took office. The budget projects nearly all cleanup funds coming from taxpayers.
  2. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    I too think Bush is hardly an environmentalist. He almost looks and sounds like James Watt (remember that putz?!)

    With that said, as Americans, we have to decide whether or not we need oil. I hate to throw rain on an environmentalist parade, but how do you think that blue microbus got to the protest? Hey dude - gasoline (hence oil). It has been noted in several respected publications that we will never be energy independent, however, if we wish to rely less on the Saudi's or the South American's, we must be prepared to look in our own backyard. If that includes drilling in some areas of the Artic, then so be it. I know it doesn't sound politically correct, but are you prepared to give up your car? If you are not, then where do you propose to get the oil necessary to run the vehicle?

    I think we need a balance, and we can legislate safeguards. Will accidents happen? Of course, but what are the alternatives? Personally, although unpopular, I would like to see a resurgence of smaller nuclear powerplants. Nuclear has it inherent problems, but so does coal (which produces nearly as much emissions as all vehicle traffic). Hydroelectric is not without its problems (diverting rivers presents a big problem to the eco system) Wind is good if you are in an area that can sustain it. Solar isn't viable on a large scale in most areas. (unless of course you have a lot of real estate, which is just not available in large urban areas). Lastly, despite what some lawmakers are saying, hydrogen technology requires at least some hydrocarbons to product (not sure the exact amount - perhaps someone would enlighten me).

Share This Page