George Bush's Environmental Record

[Wakie]

In another thread I was asked to create this one so we can debate George W. Bush's environmental record.

*The Bush administration wants to drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge despite the fact that all surveys of the area have shown that it contains so little oil that it would not move the price by even 1 cent.

*Declared that the time is right for the government "to be relieved of the burdens" of the Endangered Species Act.

*Bush abandoned his campaign promise to regulate power plant emissions of carbon dioxide, the gas believed to cause global warming.

*The Bush Adminsitration has weakened the energy efficiency requirements on air conditioners.  The lost energy savings equals the annual output equivalent of 50 medium-sized power plants!

*Constraints on the Environmental Protection Agency: Overall, funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be cut by over half a billion dollars between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2004.  If the proposed cuts are implemented, funding for EPA will plummet from $8.1 billion to $7.6 billion.

*The Bush administration relaxed standards which filter lead, arsenic, bacteria, pesticides, fecal matter, and radioactive contaminants from drinking water.

*As Gov of Texas, Bush oversaw that state becoming #1 for toxic releases into the air, into the water and into the soil.  And, for the first time ever, Houston took over the title of worst smog pollution in America.

*The Bush administration proposed cutting the budget for lead poisoning prevention by 20%.

*Bush has pretty much proposed killing Superfund.

The list goes on.  Needless to say, George W. Bush has the worst environmental record of any President.  Ever.

[angus]

that's the toughtest part of his agenda to defend, no doubt.  In fact, it is one of the few areas where he and VP Gore had real dogmatic differences in 2000.  I'll start by saying only that he's been getting such bad advice that he already scared off his first Secretary.  Let's hope the second GWB administration won't be so cavalier in this area.

I would suggest, however, that socialism has been far more destructive to the earth than capitalism.  Look at Hungary, Romania, and China, compared to the USA and West Germany and France.  Ecology doesn't know politics, only pollution.  Here in California voters are beginning to understand the failures of 'progressivism' particularly in regards to environmental concerns.  Our state's rigid "cradle-to-grave" policy for wastes certainly bears rethinking, and voters, given the newfound love of liberty and capitalism expressed in proposition after proposition for the past three years, have started to figure that out.  But thirty years of rigid antithetical progressivism is hard to erase in just three short years.  Give it some time.  Rightism and Leftism both have shown little mercy for our mother earth.  As the Buddha instructs us, the middle path is the road to enlightenment.

Start with

Ah sh**t, Geekgirl's is on my ass to go to the store with her.  I'll be back.

then we can intelligently discuss sound ecological policy that respects the rights of greedy amoral capitalists.  okay?

[angus]

I'm back and just a little tired at the moment.  But you make some good points.  You have carefully taken a few important facts out of context and present them in a way that many folks will respond immediately and negatively too.  you ought to be in marketing.  Let me start by trying to dispel the notion that Republicans actually want their children to breathe polluted air and to drink foul water.  Do you actually believe that?  I have to assume since you're smart enough to figure out how to get a free screen name at Atlas Forum you are also smart enough not to make such assinine assumptions.

You have a way of raising the ire with your posts; I must admire it.  I'm tempted to go into a diatribe countering yours.  Or Trying to explain how GWB had nothing to do with Houston's geographic placement in one of the moistest, warmest regions in the contiguous 48 states, or what the difference between reducing and oxidizing smog is, or how smog was reported as early as the mid-1500 by spanish ship captains as it naturally occurs in some areas.  Or to start with the fact that exploratory drilling has been proposed in arctic national wildlife reserve.  Get that?  exploratory!  meaning that you have no ing idea what percent of anything will be produced.  neither do I.  until they do that exploration.  Or to conveniently point our President Clinton's last-minute reductions in EPA emissions standards, but that's petty, since we could agree on better late than never, as long as he's not just trying to give George a hard time.  Or to point out how you took one prepositional phrase out of a response at a press conference to suggest that GWB doesn't understand what the ESA is.  Yes, in fact it does place burdens on society.  economic ones. You'd think for all the bitching and moaning that democrats do about bush's handling of the economy, they'd be too happy that he recognizes the tradeoff between ecological protectionism and economic benefit.  

Here's a an environmentally active Republican group:

WWW.REPAMERICA.ORG

"REP America represents the very best of the Republican Party. It’s pragmatic. It advocates policies that are good in their own right. It represents the mainstream of Republican thought. I encourage all conservation-minded Republicans to join me in supporting the work of REP America."
 -- Theodore Roosevelt IV, Lifetime Member of REP America

Let me give you some more ammunition.  "Obviously, this is not Rio," said UN sec. gen. Kofi Annan at Johannesburg in 2002, and further dug at Bush.  Why?  Largely because so little was accomplished.  It must have been George Bush's fault.  "What are we going to do about the USA?"   obviously referred to US negotiators successfully blocking detailed language that would establish clear goals (and timetables) for improving the environment.  Instead, the US proposed that voluntarism and partnerships between corporations and governments could do the job.

can they?

Yes.  And I'll explain how later.

[The Duke]

There are four things in Wakie's post that should be addressed.

*The first is ANWR.  ANWR is a godforsaken patch of Wilderness where almost nothing lives.  All of the caribou footage you see on the nightly news is from other parts of Alaska.  The presidet wants to "explore" ANWR.  This is diiferent than drilling.  He wants a complete survey of the ANWR.  I don't think he has formally proposed drilling in ANWR, but it is a reasonable conclusion that exploration will lead to exactly that.  What would be the environmental impact?

Well, in areas of Alaska that have been drilled in, caribou herds have increased in size by 500%.  This doesn't sound like a catastrophe to me.  We can do environmentally sound drilling.

As for how much it would supply, it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil (where drilling is less environmentally friendly.  We are going to drill somewhere, will it be regulated here or unregulted somewhere else?) by potentially providing 1% of our total energy needs ( a lot for a single oil field).  ANWR has 56 years worth of what we import from the Saudis.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed040103c.cfm

*Arsenic regulations are next.  The Administration put under eview a series of midnight regulations signed by Bill Clinton.  The media reported this as if he was repealing the regulation, but they were only putting it under review.  It is a normal action, and Clinton did the same thing to all Bush 41's regulations passed in the last days of his administration.

In the end, every single one of the midnight regulations was approved by the EPA under Director Whitman in mid 2001.  This includes the arsenic regulations.  All the regulations you cited as repealed were actually approved, and newspapers around the country were forced to print retraction after retraction on their reporting.  You said they "relaxed standards", I think you should follow the lead of the NY Times and retract your statement.

The new Republic Website is down right now, but my source is Gregg Easterbrook, in his blog, Easterblogg.

*Emission regulations next.  The administration scrapped the old Clean Air Act for the new Healthy Skies initiative.  The HIS has been endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences as good for the Environment.  HIS relies on replacing strict quotas with emissions trading.  New factories pollute less than old factories.  By allowing old factories to buy pollution rights from new factories, they can stay open.  Overall, we reduce pollution, even if certain factories can buy the right to pollute more from newer facilities.  Sometimes things are not as simple as the Sierra Club presents them, and this is one of those times.

*Endangered Species Act next.  The Act needs to be overhauled or abolished.  It puts punitive punishments on people for minor violations.  This is more philosophical than factual, as the others are more factual disagreements.

[WalterMitty]

the environment is hard to address because the republicans are too chicken to take the environmentalists.

someone show me some SCIENTIFIC evidence that the environment is worse under bush than it was under clinton.  forget hyperbole and who supported which house resolution.  i want hard stats that prove the air and water quality is worse today than it was 10 years ago.

[??????????]

Walter it is worse! lol The icecaps have melted and thousands of Americans are dying from smog every hour! I saw a ad on t.v. by the Sierra Club. And woman was saying her father is dying from mercury in the fish. And it's all Bushs' fault for the mercury (the basic message). Now is it me or doesn't it take years for mercury from fish to kill you?

[Wakie]

Is it just me or do I end up arguing with the same 4-5 Republicans every day?  

Ok, let's start with Angus.

I don't think Republicans actually want to breathe and drink pollution.  However, I also believe that most Republicans are very short-sighted.  Don't worry I also believe that Democrats tend to be dreamers too often.

You're right that there is man-made and natural smog.  But it was during Bush's time as Gov (and due to his relaxation of environmental protection standards) that Houston garnered the title of most smog pollution in America.  This despite the fact that they have faced the same geographic challenges throughout their history.  This was the first time they achieved this title.  Go Houston.

Now let's have a go at John D Ford.

Do you really think Bush just wants to "explore" ANWR?  Come on.  Be realistic.  He wants to drill it, no if's, and's, or but's.  And as for implying that it has enough oil to supply this country for 56 years ... you are forgetting that oil drilled in America isn't just sold to Americans.  We have a global open market.  (BTW, the Heritage foundation is a conservative action group ... it would be EXACTLY like me posting a link from moveon.org to support my argument.)

Unfortunately guys my arguing time is limited today.  Don't worry.  I'll be back to upset you later.

[The Duke]

Here is what i said about ANWR:
"The first is ANWR.  ANWR is a godforsaken patch of Wilderness where almost nothing lives.  All of the caribou footage you see on the nightly news is from other parts of Alaska.  The presidet wants to "explore" ANWR.  This is different than drilling.  He wants a complete survey of the ANWR.  I don't think he has formally proposed drilling in ANWR, but it is a reasonable conclusion that exploration will lead to exactly that.  What would be the environmental impact?

Well, in areas of Alaska that have been drilled in, caribou herds have increased in size by 500%.  This doesn't sound like a catastrophe to me.  We can do environmentally sound drilling.

As for how much it would supply, it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil (where drilling is less environmentally friendly.  We are going to drill somewhere, will it be regulated here or unregulted somewhere else?) by potentially providing 1% of our total energy needs ( a lot for a single oil field).  ANWR has 56 years worth of what we import from the Saudis."

Here is what you said:
"Do you really think Bush just wants to "explore" ANWR?  Come on.  Be realistic.  He wants to drill it, no if's, and's, or but's.  And as for implying that it has enough oil to supply this country for 56 years ... you are forgetting that oil drilled in America isn't just sold to Americans.  We have a global open market.  (BTW, the Heritage foundation is a conservative action group ... it would be EXACTLY like me posting a link from moveon.org to support my argument.)"

Point 1: I said in my post that it was logical to assume that exploration would lead to drilling.  Then, I said what the environmental impact would be.  You responded as if I had claimed that no drilling would ever take place.  Then you ignored the analyisis of the environmental impact.

Point 2: The Heritage Foundation does legitimate think tank research, whereas moveon.org does attack ads.  So they aren't exactly comparable.  Perhaps if you had compared Heritage to the Brookings Institute, you'd have something, but the comparison you used doesn't hold up under even the slightest bit of scrutiny.  Heritage does run TV ads, endorse candidates, or contribute money to campaigns.  moveon.org, on the other hand, has its own Political Action Committee.  Again, a pretty poorly researched comparison.

Point 3: I said never said ANWR would supply this country for 56 years.  I didn't imply it either.  What I said was, "...by potentially providing 1% of our total energy needs ( a lot for a single oil field).  ANWR has 56 years worth of what we import from the Saudis."  I said ANWR had the "potential" to provide the oil, instead of declaring my intimate knowledge of what is there.  I said it would provide 1% of our oil, not that it would fully supply us.  I never said it would last for 56 years, but that it "potentially" contained oil in quantities equivalent to the amount we will import from Saudi Arabia over the next 56 years.  I know that not all US drilled oil will be sold in the US, but having a bunch of extra oil would help reduce dependency on foreign oil.

I'd appreciaate it in the future if you would address what I actually say instead of erecting straw men to beat on.  When you say I said one thing, and on that very page everyone can look for themselves and see that I said something different, it makes you look bad.  ShapeShifter did this same thing right before he went crazy.

[MarkDel]

In another thread I was asked to create this one so we can debate George W. Bush's environmental record.

*The Bush administration wants to drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge despite the fact that all surveys of the area have shown that it contains so little oil that it would not move the price by even 1 cent.

I had promised myself that I would not waste any more time posting on this forum, as it is pointless to argue with people who are either mindless or completely devoid of objectivity. However, I am forced to make a brief return because I was just too disgusted bt the quote from Wakie above.

Now a person can agree or disgree on drilling in Anwar, that's not the point. The point is Wakie states ALL surveys of the area show so little oil that it would not make a dent in oil prices. This is simply FALSE. I'm not an expert in Geology, so I don't personally know who to believe, but there ARE studies that estimate that Anwar would yield SEVERAL BILLION barrels of oil. These estimates have been made over and over again. Truth be told, there are MORE negative estimates than positive estimates, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WAKIE SAID!!! I'll post a few links, but there are literally thousands of links you can find which show estimates that are POSITIVE for drilling, and estimates that are NEGATIVE for drilling.

Wakie either knows this, or should know this, as an intelligent person.

So, Wakie is either:

1. Purposefully LYING to promote his own political agenda.

2. Regurgitating a LIE without realizing it's a lie, because he took, at face value, propaganda he heard from one of his left wing, tree hugger buddies.

3. Wakie believes that his statement is 100% factual because he's quasi-delusional and refuses to acknowledge the existence of divergent opinions that suggest Anwar drilling could have a major impact on US oil prices.

4. Wakie is much dumber than I thought.

Now, I'm fairly certain that neither 1 nor 4 is true, but 2 and 3 look to be very real possibilities.

I've said my peace. I won't be back again until one of you leftists piss me off again.

Mark D.

PS--How you been Angus?

[The Duke]

The great one returns. Sorry about the Yankees.

[MarkDel]

John Ford,

Sorry to step into your argument. I know you were doing just fine on your own, but I couldn't help myself.

I love how Wakie took your well argued, rational argument and built a "straw man" by putting words in your mouth...typical of the way these ing guys behave on the left.

I also love how he says NO surveys have positive estimates on ANWAR drilling, then when you cite one, he just says..."oh, that's the Heritage Foundation, so that doesn't count..."

What a ing joke these guys on the left are...

PS--The Yankees have won two in a row and seem to be breaking it out of their prolonged slump....though I do admit things look very, very shaky overall.

[opebo]

The environment is pretty much a fictional issue.  I can report, being stuck in a rural area, that most of America is totally empty.  Nature is the last thing we need to worry about - its one thing we've plenty of.

[The Duke]

John Ford,

Sorry to step into your argument. I know you were doing just fine on your own, but I couldn't help myself.

Don't worry, I actually was wondering where you'd been the last few weeks.

[The Dowager Mod]

"clear skies initiative"
HAHAHAHAHAHA
that's one of my favorite jokes.

[angus]

markdel,
good of you to chime in on this one.  I have also read conflicting reports, and have decided we don't really know what is out there till we start exploratory drilling.  On the other hand, there is something to be said in favor of draining everyone else's supply before tapping our own.  

Yeah, AROD is getting his groove.  maybe.  Must have been a good week back in Boston last week when they won the Sox-Yankees series.  

Wakie,
The point is that when you say that Los Angeles and Houston have smog problems, whereas New York and Chicago do not, doesn't it occur to you to ask why?  you can look up the arrhenius equation and associated kinetic and dynamics on the internet.  in short, the mean annual temperature of New York City is 54 degrees fahrenheit, Chicago 56.  LA is about 61 and Houston is 69.  It is not surprising that these cities have higher rates of formation of certain chemicals.  Why did Houston eventually surpass LA?  not surprising either, since it is much more humid and its industry base much more likely to emit the precursors necessary for smog formation.  I'd just caution you against blaming all this on Governor Bush.  These circumstances would probably exist no matter who was governor.

[The Duke]

"clear skies initiative"
HAHAHAHAHAHA
that's one of my favorite jokes.

As I said, the National Academy of Sciences has endorsed this "joke".  It must be a really funny joke, I guess.

[The Dowager Mod]

cracks me up every time.

[WalterMitty]

im as much as an environmentalist as anyone else (unlike john kerry, there isnt an suv in my driveway)...but i feel like telling those wacky environmental groups to shut up.

as for anwr, ive still not figured out how anyone could be opposed to drilling our own sources of oil.  just think, it would create JOBS too.  i know the dems are all in favor of jobs, john kerry said so.

[Wakie]

Boy I'm just coming under all kinds of fire today, aren't I?  First off, settle down kids ... have a coke and a smile.

Let's go item by item.

1) We can agree that we both expect "exploration" into ANWR will lead to drilling.

2) Just looking at the population of one species DOES NOT make for a complete environmental analysis (which is why I ignored it).  The populations of other species are down.  In Prudhow Bay tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil are spilled every year.  But what really will happen to ANWR?

Well, first roads oil transfer will require the building of 200 miles of roads and pipeline.  A proposal to construct ice roads would require removing water from critical fish habitats.  The actual size of the resultant complex would cover as much as 300,000 acres (according to the US Interior Dept).  That destroys that part of the refuge.

Biologists are also concerned about the long-term environmental effects of the millions of gallons of waste from oil and gas operations disposed of in open pits, injected into the subsurface, frozen into the permafrost and discharged directly into the air and water.  They also believe seismic exploration could disturb denning polar bears and cause them to abandon their cubs to die.  Even small spills would be disastrous for seals and other marine mammals found along the refuge coastline because oil and chemicals from spills tend to accumulate within the air holes used by these animals.  And disturbances of any duration could have population-wide impacts on snow geese, trumpeter swans, arctic terns and the other migratory birds that visit the refuge to feed and breed.

And if you believe that spills won't happen, consider that British Petroleum (who does more Alaskan drilling than any other company) is currently on probation for repeated violations.

Currently 95% of Alaska's North Slope is open to the oil companies.  Have we become so hungry for oil that 95% simply isn't enough??

Realistically, if this could somehow dump tons of oil on the world market wouldn't you expect OPEC to reduce output even further to keep prices at a higher level?

3) The Heritage Foundation is very much a partisan organization.  Their board of trustees includes Richard Mellon Scaife (the Godfather of archconservatism) and Steve Forbes (former GOP Presidential candidate).  They attack any non-Conservative position.  My comparison of them to Moveon.org was speaking to the likelihood of them to produce "fair and balanced" material.  Neither Heritage or Moveon is likely to produce "fair and balanced" material.

4) You said "ANWR has 56 years worth of what we import from the Saudis".  What do we import?  Oil.  According to your statement ANWR has 56 years worth of it.  We can chalk this one up to a misunderstanding.  But, as you admit, oil drilled in America isn't just sold to Americans.  It is sold to the highest bidder.  The only thing which will break our dependence on foreign oil is a renewable energy source or greater fuel efficiency.

Pardon me for not addressing each and every item from your post.  I simply did not have the time today.

[12th Doctor]

Yeah, who can possibly be concered with the economy, the War on Terror and the defiecit?  The environment is what really bothers me this time around and Bush won't be getting my vote because of it.

Yeah, I was laying on the sarcasm pretty think.

[The Dowager Mod]

Yeah, who can possibly be concered with the economy, the War on Terror and the defiecit?  The environment is what really bothers me this time around and Bush won't be getting my vote because of it.

Yeah, I was laying on the sarcasm pretty think.

isn't bush the one who created the deficit?

[Wakie]

Yeah, who can possibly be concered with the economy, the War on Terror and the defiecit?  The environment is what really bothers me this time around and Bush won't be getting my vote because of it.

Yeah, I was laying on the sarcasm pretty think.

I am concerned about all 3 of those.  But the topic of this thread is the environment.  Personally I think Bush is screwing up on the economy, the War on Terror, AND the deficit.

[??????????]

MarkDel, I hate to see you hiding out. Things have cleared up well since the Yalie left us. I wish to read some more of your insightful posts soon.