Title: The Bush Record on the Environment
GSC Admin - October 12, 2004 01:50 AM (GMT)
GSC Admin - October 12, 2004 01:53 AM (GMT)
http://www.democrats.org/environment/bushrecord.html
The Bush Record: Industry Runs Roughshod Over Environment
Drill everywhere! Foul the oceans! Pollute the skies! That's great if you're Big Business, but lousy if you're anybody else. Bush's policies are undoing decades of environmental protection and leaving a dirty world for our children and children's children to inherit. For the environment, a change in the White House would be a breath of fresh air.
Bush Is Pro-Dirty Air
President Bush has weakened the Clean Air Act at every turn. The "New Source Review" regulation of the Clear Air Act forced older coal-fired power plants and other facilities to install pollution controls when they expand or are repaired. But under President Bush, the New Source regulations have been significantly weakened, allowing power plants to more pollution into the air. Statistics released by the Clean Air Task Force noted that the 51 power plants subject to New Source Review enforcement helped to cause the premature deaths of 5,500 to 9,000 people each year, many from respiratory diseases.1
Under Bush, You Pay for Cleanup
Corporate polluters used to pay to clean their own messes. Now Bush is shifting the costs to you. The Superfund program was created to ensure that corporate polluters bore the brunt of the costs of cleaning up the worst environmental disasters. But under President Bush, funding cuts and a failure to collect penalties from polluters is creating a shift in costs right to the taxpayer. Superfund assets have declined to nearly zero. Now your tax dollars will pay for 80 percent of the program in 2004, and all Superfund cleanups in 2005.2
Public Lands to the Highest Bidder
Bush opened 9 million acres of public land to logging. In December 2003, the Bush Administration removed prohibitions on logging and mining in the largest national forest in the U.S., the Tongass National Forest in southeastern Alaska. The decision could "allow roads to be built through 9 million acres" of Tongass. Bush has fought to allow the oil industry to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as protected national parks, monuments, and public lands in the Rocky Mountains.3
Would You Like Some Mercury With That?
Bush proposed weakening mercury regulations in Clean Air Act. A proposed rule change by the Bush EPA would remove mercury emissions from Clean Air Act regulations that limit the most toxic air pollutants and shift the poison to a weaker category, despite the FDA and EPA's own recent recommendation that pregnant women and young children eat less tuna and other seafoods to avoid excessive mercury consumption. Approximately 630,000 babies are born in the United States every year to mothers who have been exposed to unsafe mercury levels.4
The Bush Record: Industry Runs Roughshod Over Environment
Drill everywhere! Foul the oceans! Pollute the skies! That's great if you're Big Business, but lousy if you're anybody else. Bush's policies are undoing decades of environmental protection and leaving a dirty world for our children and children's children to inherit. For the environment, a change in the White House would be a breath of fresh air.
Bush Is Pro-Dirty Air
President Bush has weakened the Clean Air Act at every turn. The "New Source Review" regulation of the Clear Air Act forced older coal-fired power plants and other facilities to install pollution controls when they expand or are repaired. But under President Bush, the New Source regulations have been significantly weakened, allowing power plants to more pollution into the air. Statistics released by the Clean Air Task Force noted that the 51 power plants subject to New Source Review enforcement helped to cause the premature deaths of 5,500 to 9,000 people each year, many from respiratory diseases.1
Under Bush, You Pay for Cleanup
Corporate polluters used to pay to clean their own messes. Now Bush is shifting the costs to you. The Superfund program was created to ensure that corporate polluters bore the brunt of the costs of cleaning up the worst environmental disasters. But under President Bush, funding cuts and a failure to collect penalties from polluters is creating a shift in costs right to the taxpayer. Superfund assets have declined to nearly zero. Now your tax dollars will pay for 80 percent of the program in 2004, and all Superfund cleanups in 2005.2
Public Lands to the Highest Bidder
Bush opened 9 million acres of public land to logging. In December 2003, the Bush Administration removed prohibitions on logging and mining in the largest national forest in the U.S., the Tongass National Forest in southeastern Alaska. The decision could "allow roads to be built through 9 million acres" of Tongass. Bush has fought to allow the oil industry to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as protected national parks, monuments, and public lands in the Rocky Mountains.3
Would You Like Some Mercury With That?
Bush proposed weakening mercury regulations in Clean Air Act. A proposed rule change by the Bush EPA would remove mercury emissions from Clean Air Act regulations that limit the most toxic air pollutants and shift the poison to a weaker category, despite the FDA and EPA's own recent recommendation that pregnant women and young children eat less tuna and other seafoods to avoid excessive mercury consumption. Approximately 630,000 babies are born in the United States every year to mothers who have been exposed to unsafe mercury levels.4
GSC Admin - October 12, 2004 01:54 AM (GMT)
http://www.movingideas.org/issuesindepth/environment.html
Introduction
George W. Bush will go down as America's worst environmental president,” writes Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, and one of the nation's top environmentalists, in Rolling Stone (12/11/03). Al Gore, in a recent speech, claims of the President's environmental approach, “The Bush administration chooses special interests over the public interest, ignoring scientific evidence in favor of policies its contributors demand.” Is the President putting the environment at risk? Unfortunately, the record speaks for itself.
Disguising environmental rollbacks under monikers such as the “Clear Skies Initiative,” and the “Healthy Forests Initiative,” the Administration has consistently done the bidding of its industry backers, to the overall detriment of our planet's health.
Energy, Clean Air, and Global Warming
While creating the Vice President Cheney-led, energy industry-influenced National Energy Policy Development Group during the President's second week in office was the first major anti-environmental move of the Administration, it would hardly be the last. The White House continues to use sleight-of-hand maneuvers to undo or roll back crucial pollution controls, all while spinning the President's environmental record as a “comprehensive” approach to the environment, touting such proposals as the Clear Skies Initiative.
In fact, 27 states expect pollution from coal-burning power plants to increase as a result of the Clear Skies Initiative; only 5 expect a decrease. Fourteen states have sued the EPA to bar the agency from implementing the new policy (New York Times, 2/6/04, A21). Furthermore, the Clear Skies Initiative would allow more emissions of smog, soot and mercury pollution, as compared to the current Clean Air Act.
A new study by the National Science Foundation also draws question to the Administration's credibility on the environment. The report states that—contrary to the President's State of the Union claims—technology for hydrogen-powered cars will not be available within the next twenty years. Worse, even when the technology is there, the cheap production of hydrogen will depend on the use of polluting coal or natural gas (New York Times, 2/6/04, A19). The bottom line: hydrogen or no hydrogen, President Bush's coal-, oil-, and gas-producing cronies will be laughing all the way to the bank—as our health suffers.
The President's “Climate Leaders” program—which asks companies to set their own goals reducing greenhouse gas emissions—has had dismal participation, which raises questions about the effectiveness of such “voluntary” standards. A visit to the EPA website shows a grand total of 55 companies who have joined the program; only 21 of these “volunteers” have actually set goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A GAO report claimed the Bush approach would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by no more than 2% compared with no action at all.
In what some are characterizing as an attack on scientific findings that could be inconvenient for the Administration, the White House has proposed a directive regulating what scientific findings can be used to “justify” federal regulations. The proposed Office of Management and Budget rule states that a new scientific board overseen by the executive branch must review all findings deemed “relevant to regulatory policy.” Given the Bush administration's past efforts to mettle in EPA research on global warming, many see an ulterior motive in the new rules proposal, despite the administrations insistence that it is merely encouraging “sound science.”
Adding to the sense of disquiet is the list of active supporters of the new proposal, which includes the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, as well as the Ford Motor Company, among other companies that may have interests other than “sound science.”
Wilderness and Forests
The Administration is again pushing for drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), despite a Congressional rebuff last year. Revenue from oil lease sales in the ANWR is included in the President's FY 2005 budget, despite solid opposition from pro-environment advocates.
Meanwhile, the White House opened up all 8.8 million acres of the northwest planning region of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; scientists and the public had hoped for a more balanced approach, including some environmental protections for the area.
In New Mexico, Governor and former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson recently vowed to fight Administration plans oil and gas drilling in the state's Otero Mesa grasslands region. There is also opposition to oil and gas leasing wilderness-quality lands in Colorado and Utah.
Finally, environmentalists have roundly criticized the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (called the Healthy Forests Initiative before it was signed into law late last year) as a giveaway to the logging industry. Ostensibly a measure to prevent fires by “thinning out” national forests, the HFRA actually encourages logging away from at-risk areas, and may in fact increase the overall fire risk.
Judicial Nomination
Under President Bush, the Senate has been no stranger to controversial judicial appointments, but for the first time a nominee is drawing fire for his environmental record. Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy questioned William G. Myers' “consistent record of using whatever position he has had to fight for corporate interests at the expense of the environment and environmental protections.” Sen. Edward Kennedy also questioned the fitness of Myers to sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing his “career…advocating for mining and cattle industry interests that opposed laws protecting the environment (New York Times, 2/6/04, A22).”
Moreover, five out of the fifteen members on the American Bar Association's judicial nominee evaluation committee rated Myers as unqualified—none rated him highly qualified.
Superfund
The Superfund has been in not-so-super shape lately, and vital cleanup efforts are stalling as a result. Indications are that taxpayers may have to foot the bill for many, if not most future efforts. Superfund was established in 1980 to enable the EPA to cleanup toxic waste sites when the party responsible was not readily identifiable. The fund was supported by a tax on polluting industries; however the tax on polluters expired in 1995 despite efforts from the first President Bush and President Clinton who had pushed Congress to extend the taxes, to no avail.
The current President has consistently under-funded the Superfund by an average of more than $300 million a year. Perhaps even worse, taxpayers are now footing the vast majority of the bill for toxic waste cleanups—not the polluting industry. In 1995, polluters paid 82% of cleanup costs; this year, they will pay only 21% of costs—the taxpayer is stuck with 79% of the bill. Due to the expiring industry tax, the Superfund is nearly broke, and the site clean-up rate is dropping dramatically. Given the polluting industries' powerful connections in the White House and on Capitol Hill, though, a policy shift that holds toxic polluters financially responsible, while fully funding the Superfund looks unlikely. And the rest of us—especially the 70 million of us who live within four miles of a Superfund site—will suffer the consequences.
Introduction
George W. Bush will go down as America's worst environmental president,” writes Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, and one of the nation's top environmentalists, in Rolling Stone (12/11/03). Al Gore, in a recent speech, claims of the President's environmental approach, “The Bush administration chooses special interests over the public interest, ignoring scientific evidence in favor of policies its contributors demand.” Is the President putting the environment at risk? Unfortunately, the record speaks for itself.
Disguising environmental rollbacks under monikers such as the “Clear Skies Initiative,” and the “Healthy Forests Initiative,” the Administration has consistently done the bidding of its industry backers, to the overall detriment of our planet's health.
Energy, Clean Air, and Global Warming
While creating the Vice President Cheney-led, energy industry-influenced National Energy Policy Development Group during the President's second week in office was the first major anti-environmental move of the Administration, it would hardly be the last. The White House continues to use sleight-of-hand maneuvers to undo or roll back crucial pollution controls, all while spinning the President's environmental record as a “comprehensive” approach to the environment, touting such proposals as the Clear Skies Initiative.
In fact, 27 states expect pollution from coal-burning power plants to increase as a result of the Clear Skies Initiative; only 5 expect a decrease. Fourteen states have sued the EPA to bar the agency from implementing the new policy (New York Times, 2/6/04, A21). Furthermore, the Clear Skies Initiative would allow more emissions of smog, soot and mercury pollution, as compared to the current Clean Air Act.
A new study by the National Science Foundation also draws question to the Administration's credibility on the environment. The report states that—contrary to the President's State of the Union claims—technology for hydrogen-powered cars will not be available within the next twenty years. Worse, even when the technology is there, the cheap production of hydrogen will depend on the use of polluting coal or natural gas (New York Times, 2/6/04, A19). The bottom line: hydrogen or no hydrogen, President Bush's coal-, oil-, and gas-producing cronies will be laughing all the way to the bank—as our health suffers.
The President's “Climate Leaders” program—which asks companies to set their own goals reducing greenhouse gas emissions—has had dismal participation, which raises questions about the effectiveness of such “voluntary” standards. A visit to the EPA website shows a grand total of 55 companies who have joined the program; only 21 of these “volunteers” have actually set goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A GAO report claimed the Bush approach would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by no more than 2% compared with no action at all.
In what some are characterizing as an attack on scientific findings that could be inconvenient for the Administration, the White House has proposed a directive regulating what scientific findings can be used to “justify” federal regulations. The proposed Office of Management and Budget rule states that a new scientific board overseen by the executive branch must review all findings deemed “relevant to regulatory policy.” Given the Bush administration's past efforts to mettle in EPA research on global warming, many see an ulterior motive in the new rules proposal, despite the administrations insistence that it is merely encouraging “sound science.”
Adding to the sense of disquiet is the list of active supporters of the new proposal, which includes the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, as well as the Ford Motor Company, among other companies that may have interests other than “sound science.”
Wilderness and Forests
The Administration is again pushing for drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), despite a Congressional rebuff last year. Revenue from oil lease sales in the ANWR is included in the President's FY 2005 budget, despite solid opposition from pro-environment advocates.
Meanwhile, the White House opened up all 8.8 million acres of the northwest planning region of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; scientists and the public had hoped for a more balanced approach, including some environmental protections for the area.
In New Mexico, Governor and former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson recently vowed to fight Administration plans oil and gas drilling in the state's Otero Mesa grasslands region. There is also opposition to oil and gas leasing wilderness-quality lands in Colorado and Utah.
Finally, environmentalists have roundly criticized the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (called the Healthy Forests Initiative before it was signed into law late last year) as a giveaway to the logging industry. Ostensibly a measure to prevent fires by “thinning out” national forests, the HFRA actually encourages logging away from at-risk areas, and may in fact increase the overall fire risk.
Judicial Nomination
Under President Bush, the Senate has been no stranger to controversial judicial appointments, but for the first time a nominee is drawing fire for his environmental record. Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy questioned William G. Myers' “consistent record of using whatever position he has had to fight for corporate interests at the expense of the environment and environmental protections.” Sen. Edward Kennedy also questioned the fitness of Myers to sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing his “career…advocating for mining and cattle industry interests that opposed laws protecting the environment (New York Times, 2/6/04, A22).”
Moreover, five out of the fifteen members on the American Bar Association's judicial nominee evaluation committee rated Myers as unqualified—none rated him highly qualified.
Superfund
The Superfund has been in not-so-super shape lately, and vital cleanup efforts are stalling as a result. Indications are that taxpayers may have to foot the bill for many, if not most future efforts. Superfund was established in 1980 to enable the EPA to cleanup toxic waste sites when the party responsible was not readily identifiable. The fund was supported by a tax on polluting industries; however the tax on polluters expired in 1995 despite efforts from the first President Bush and President Clinton who had pushed Congress to extend the taxes, to no avail.
The current President has consistently under-funded the Superfund by an average of more than $300 million a year. Perhaps even worse, taxpayers are now footing the vast majority of the bill for toxic waste cleanups—not the polluting industry. In 1995, polluters paid 82% of cleanup costs; this year, they will pay only 21% of costs—the taxpayer is stuck with 79% of the bill. Due to the expiring industry tax, the Superfund is nearly broke, and the site clean-up rate is dropping dramatically. Given the polluting industries' powerful connections in the White House and on Capitol Hill, though, a policy shift that holds toxic polluters financially responsible, while fully funding the Superfund looks unlikely. And the rest of us—especially the 70 million of us who live within four miles of a Superfund site—will suffer the consequences.
JoshPurple - March 31, 2005 06:18 PM (GMT)
:D
Uncle Joe - March 31, 2005 07:11 PM (GMT)
I believe that in fifty to a hundred years from now, Bush's record on the environment will be viewed as a war crime, sort of like genocide against humanity. :angry:
ALGOREismylife - March 31, 2005 10:18 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Uncle Joe @ Mar 31 2005, 01:11 PM) |
| I believe that in fifty to a hundred years from now, Bush's record on the environment will be viewed as a war crime, sort of like genocide against humanity. :angry: |
And like everything else criminal he has done, the lying bastard will get away with it. :angry:
TNblue - October 19, 2007 04:12 AM (GMT)
MoveOn needs your signature on this petition. Plus, there's a good video to watch.
Dear MoveOn member,
When Jackson Browne, Graham Nash, many other bands and I played our "No Nukes" concerts in 1979 to 100,000 people, we never dreamed we'd have to come back almost 30 years later to fight the same fight all over again.
But it's 2007, and here we are again. The nuclear industry just slipped a clause into the energy bill that will provide up to $50 billion in tax subsidies for to build new reactors—enough to launch a whole new generation of nukes! We've already got the safe, viable alternatives to replace the dirty energy we're using now. Building new atomic reactors in an age of terror threats is not only scary, but the toxic waste from nuclear power threatens our health and our planet.
The nuclear option is not the way to go.
So I called my friends, and we recorded a music video to spread the word. We've also launched a petition, and I'm asking MoveOn members to sign on. Here's what it says:
"America's new energy policy needs to focus on safe and economic fuel sources. Congress must strip the nuclear tax subsidies from the energy bill before they pass it."
Clicking below will add your signature (and you can also see the video that we produced on that same page):
http://pol.moveon.org/nukefree/o.pl?id=114...8592-5DmDoF&t=4
Dear MoveOn member,
When Jackson Browne, Graham Nash, many other bands and I played our "No Nukes" concerts in 1979 to 100,000 people, we never dreamed we'd have to come back almost 30 years later to fight the same fight all over again.
But it's 2007, and here we are again. The nuclear industry just slipped a clause into the energy bill that will provide up to $50 billion in tax subsidies for to build new reactors—enough to launch a whole new generation of nukes! We've already got the safe, viable alternatives to replace the dirty energy we're using now. Building new atomic reactors in an age of terror threats is not only scary, but the toxic waste from nuclear power threatens our health and our planet.
The nuclear option is not the way to go.
So I called my friends, and we recorded a music video to spread the word. We've also launched a petition, and I'm asking MoveOn members to sign on. Here's what it says:
"America's new energy policy needs to focus on safe and economic fuel sources. Congress must strip the nuclear tax subsidies from the energy bill before they pass it."
Clicking below will add your signature (and you can also see the video that we produced on that same page):
http://pol.moveon.org/nukefree/o.pl?id=114...8592-5DmDoF&t=4
AlGoreFan - October 19, 2007 05:34 AM (GMT)
done, do it everybody!