Bush and Earth Day

For the past 10 years or so I have rejoiced in celebrating Earth Day. Since the year 2000 I have not had the same tone. Bush is the anti-Christ of our environment, in fact, he and that dummy, Gail Norton, seems to revel in the fact that they can undermine every environmental act that has been enacted in the past 30 years. Who are these morons and why do they want to poison Americans? Anyone in their right mind would not re-elect Bush based on solely environmentals issues, not to mention a tome of other issues! Maybe the mercury in our water is causing humans to lose their thought processes. God almighty.....E.T., beam me up!

I suggest you link up with websites such as the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, the Audubon Society, or other conservation groups if you're not aware of Bush's record on the environment. Here are just a few fine examples of Bush's record on the environment:
Approx. 200,000 acres of trees in eastern Tennessee have been cut down by the paper industry.
Bush nominated William Meyers to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Court. Meyers is an extreme anti-conservationist.
Clinton's ban on snowmobiles in our national parks was reversed by Bush and his cronies.
Mining companies are getting price breaks on our federal lands.
Budget cuts were enacted on the lead poisoning prevention fund. Clean water doesn't seem to be a priority with this administration!
Pollution standards have been lowered for big businesses during Bush's reign of terror.

Need I say more? Bush's record speaks for itself. It's obvious to me that Dubya doesn't give 2 sh**s about the welfare of future generations.

Give Bush 4 more years: destroying America is an 8 year job!
[i]

quote:

---

Who are these morons and why do they want to poison Americans? Anyone in their right mind would not re-elect Bush based on solely environmentals issues,

---

Hate to bring this up, because it annoys me badly, but look at your gas prices.
Do you know why the prices are so high?
It is because the oil companies are required to make the oil consumable for americans and it has to be cleaner as to NOT emit the noxious and harmful fumes.

That is proof of environmental consciousness. And yet, he is probably going to be attacked over that too.

If you desire to know my points on how we are worse off now than before the Clinton administration. I have books and books about the criminal activity our former president dealed in.

But, I think this argument is mute point. As I saw the remarks you made about intelligence regarding voters.
I myself know what I find wrong with Bush, but I find more wrong with Kerry.
Pardon for my opinion.

Peace!

"It is because the oil companies are required to make the oil consumable for americans and it has to be cleaner as to NOT emit the noxious and harmful fumes."
Your naïve if you think that's all you need to do to make petrol safe.

The US has some environmental restrictions, but its lags far behind the (very moderate) proposals of the rest of the develloped world (Europe and Japan).
Bush's abandonment of the Kyoto agreement comes to mind

Koyoto Treaty? The Department of Energy report says Kyoto-style limits would permanently raise gasoline prices by 66 cents per gallon, increase electricity prices by 86% and add $1,740 to the typical household's annual energy bill.3 WEFA says Kyoto-style regulations would increase costs for basic goods by 14.5%. Grocery bills would increase by 9%, medical bills by 11% and housing costs would rise 21% because of an increase in the cost of materials. Now, what citizen would want our President to sign that. Even Clinton refused to sign that one.

WTH? I could have sworn Clinton signed it.
I'll check it out. Though its no secret that the Kyoto agreement is harmful to the economy, the real question is : how real is the danger of environmental destruction to you?
And this isn't just some vague hippie crap to save sea turtles. If environmental changes continue, agriculture will become more difficult (read = more obscene farmer subsidies).

Its an economic, if not moral, consideration.

The environmentalists can get a little crazy.

Every day I get something about Bush and the environment. I don't read it all because I just don't have the time, I just assume it must be true (that's bad, I know) *slaping my hand for being bad* I guess I'll have to read and share.

Mining Companies Freed of Clean-Up Responsibilities Under Bush

More weight has been added to the assertion that under the Bush Administration, the Department of Interior has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the mining industry and other special interests. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the administration's eagerness to eliminate regulations, 20 years in the making, designed to protect public lands from environmental damage caused by mining.

Under a 1976 federal law, Interior was required to prevent "unnecessary or undue degradation" of public lands, including damage from "hardrock" mining to extract gold, copper, and zinc.

But until 2001 the government had ignored this provision. Instead, unfailingly, the Interior Department gave mining companies open access to public lands. Finally, in the closing months on the Clinton Administration, Interior issued regulations to enforce the law. The regulations gave Interior officials clear authority to deny permits for mines on public lands that would pose "substantial irreparable harm" to environmental, scientific or cultural resources.

But the new Bush Administration quickly set a new agenda. The Senate Government Affairs Committee has uncovered thousands of pages of internal administration documents and emails showing that from its first days in office, the Bush Administration was determined to roll back the regulations.

Just 13 days into the new administration, the governor of Nevada petitioned Interior Secretary Gale Norton to suspend the regulations. Notes from multiple meetings and e-mails between government officials reveal the White House's keen interest in overturning the regulations: "Ann Klee at Interior has coordinated with the White House... Apparently, WH is eager for this to get out," says one e-mail exchanged between Interior and Bush administration budget officials.[1]

In March 2001, three months after President Bush took office, Interior formally proposed to suspend the regulations. Even though 95 percent of the 49,000 public comments received by the department opposed the reversal, Interior issued a new final rule in October 2001. It called the regulations "unduly burdensome."[2] The term "substantial irreparable harm" was stripped from the criteria government officials would use in deciding if mine operations will be allowed.[3]

Explaining Interior's position, the department's solicitor actually argued that Interior lacked the authority to stop a legal mining operation. In ensuing litigation over the rollback, a court overturned this decision. It ruled that federal law "vests the Secretary of the Interior with the authority -- and indeed the obligation -- to disapprove of ... mining operation because the operation...would unduly harm or degrade the public land."

Advocates for protection of America's public lands agree, regretfully, that under the current administration there is little risk that this authority will ever be exercised.

###

SOURCES:
[1] Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, 2002.
[2] "Bush Environmental Record Under Senate Panel Review," Greenwire, Mar. 4, 2002.
[3] CFR SIH 2001, CFR Update 2004, MPC v. Norton 2003.
[4] MPC v. Norton 2003 at 42.

I get these things everyday - and there like, Bush did what? Its unbelievable. I don't have time to read them all the time, but they all go into my "badBush" file, and it's pretty full. But if you are interested, you can find all the information here:

http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/back_issues.php