Bush's Environmental Record

[SuperThread]

Every site linked to on the first page of Google results for 'Bush environmental record' condemns it. The League of Conservation Voters call him the "worst environmental president in modern history." The links on the front page of http://www.sierraclub.org/wwatch/ give a painfully revealing overview of some of the more recent travesties of George W.

 

Bush supporters out there, tell me: How do you defend Bush's environmental record? Or is this some great conspiracy or misinformed liberalism (if so, sources would be appreciated)?

 

Thanks to anyone who replies.

[Douglas]

Every site linked to on the first page of Google results for 'Bush environmental record' condemns it. The League of Conservation Voters call him the "worst environmental president in modern history." The links on the front page of http://www.sierraclub.org/wwatch/ give a painfully revealing overview of some of the more recent travesties of George W.

 

Bush supporters out there' date=' tell me: How do you defend Bush's environmental record? Or is this some great conspiracy or misinformed liberalism (if so, sources would be appreciated)?

 

Thanks to anyone who replies. [/quote']

Seems like every republican president has had the worst environmental record in history. I personally think that every president since the EPA was formed HAS the best record in history.

 

What may happen, and I'll give an example....say Clinton had put stiffer requirements on sulpher dioxide emissions starting in 2004. Now if Bush postpones these requirements, he automatically becomes the worst environmental president in history.

 

It's kind've like promising a raise for welfare recipients, then cutting the raise in half. The opposition party will call this a pay cut

[SuperThread]

Okay, but ignoring the 'worst in history' quote, we're still left with one hell of a bad record.

 

How do you defend that?

[Douglas]

Okay' date=' but ignoring the 'worst in history' quote, we're still left with one hell of a bad record.

 

How do you defend that?[/quote']

If we assume that all the environmental regulations that were in effect at the end of the Clinton administration, are still in effect, then Bush has the same record as Clinton.

You may want to look at this site for Bush's spending proposals in 2005

http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2004/Feb/04-761809.html

[budullewraagh]

you really like falling back on clinton as being the source of all our problems, dont you?

[Douglas]

you really like falling back on clinton as being the source of all our problems, dont you?

I don't think I mentioned problems. If we assume the environment is getting better under each president, then obviously, I'd mention Clinton, since he was last in office.

[budullewraagh]

it's getting better?

[Pangloss]

The answer to that question seems to be "yes and no".

 

Some things we've gotten a lot better at over the last few decades. Deforestation, for example -- there's more covered acreage now than there was a century ago, or whatever statistic you hear from time to time.

 

On the other hand, general air pollution, e.g. smog, seems to be getting worse. While the actual emissions of cars has improved quite a bit, the *quantity* of stuff getting into the air is astonishing. And cars still account for 75% of air pollution.

 

And we still have a defensive mentality to fight in power companies. Florida Power and Light, for example, will spend millions this year on advertising to tell us how their plants are below EPA requirements. And not *one dime* on direct emissions control. They could put filters in every smokestack they own for a fraction of what they spend on advertising.