Bush’s War on the Environment

“Bush & Republican Party policies hurt child bearing women!

Mercury levels have made eating fresh fish unsafe for eating. Apparantly, the mercury comes from industrial pollution, and coal mining emmissions. The EPA said Bush isn't doing enough to curb the emissions.

Bush is great for the environment! Thise who vote for him have this on thier hands!”

“Geesh Buddha Bush, I'm surprised ya haven't blamed Bush for the rain today. We know it's his fualt somehow.”

“And we know Bush has such an excellent environmental record, don't we Nigal?

He's worked so hard to stop mountaintop removal-valley fill coal mining ...... NOT!”

“When did I claim that geo? I was commenting on Buddha Bush's idiotic assertion that Bush personally huts babies. Self hating Americans such as Buddha Bush never want to point to countries that have absolutely horrible practices like China and other growing industrial countries. He'd rather bash us instead because that's where his personal agenda lies.

Buddha Bush doesn’t care about the truth, he cares about his own agenda and appearing right.”

“Nigal,

It's true. One of the first things that Bush did as president was to set aside the gradual phase-out of older, polluting power plants. It's called New Source Review.

I grew up in sight of the Detroit Edison coal burning power plant in Monroe. It is Michigan's top polluter and one of the nation's biggest.

It releases large amounts of mercury, sulfer and other damaging contaminants. There is a constant brown streak across the sky.

All of that pollution lands in Lake Erie. The result is that you can only eat a fish every once in a while. And pregnant women are advised to eat none.

Also, the pollutants that land on the water become part of the Lake Erie bottom muck. That means that when the Army Corps of Engineers dredges the shipping channels or a local marina cleans out their waterways, the muck is considered contaminated material and must be disposed of in special facilities for hazardous waste.

Just think of that for a second. the bottom of Lake Erie is essentially unsafe for human contact. The new rules would have made it better. Bush got rid of these.

Also, keep in mind the effects that coal plant emissions have on health. Increases in asthma, cancer and lung disease are all connected to coal plant emissions. I don't think it is a stretch to say that Bush's policies in terms of energy production have resulted in increased disease and death.

One last note. The science teachers in my HS have to evacuate the building and contact local authorities if mercury thermometers break. But I can stand on the Lake Erie shore and watch hundreds times more mercury per day pumped into the atmosphere at that plant. And I can breathe that air right in. There is something very wrong with that.

Bush could have done something about it.”

“You guys aren’t hearing me. I don’t agree with Bush’s regs either but to try to paint a picture of “Bush kills babies” is just asinine.”

“Buddha Bear stated that Bush's policies hurt child-bearing women. He did not say that "Bush kills babies." However, when you look at stats on the number deaths each year attributable to power plant emissions, it is not out of bounds to say that Bush's policies have increased the amount of death.”

“It's pretty simple:



Mercury kills babies.

The Bush admin. delayed reductions in mercury emissions mandated by the Clean Air Act that would save lives.

Ergo: Bush kills babies.”

“He sure does make the assertion though. At least Super V Beeatch-slapper will come right out and say it. LOL!”

“I guess all of a sudden, ONLY under the Bush Admn. that mercury levels are now too high. Hmmm... the same mercury levels under the Clinton presidency was fine and dandy.

Wanna talk about killing babies? Vote Kerry. Not only does he want the right to kill babies before they are born, he wants you to be able to kill them very late in the pregnancy by chopping their heads and sucking them out. Yes, Kerry loves babies.”

“But the difference is that Clinton admin tried to gradually tighten emissions regualtions. Bush seems intent to relax them and go for voluntary reductions from utilities. Trouble is there's not too many volunteers as it costs money.”

“ynami, Clinton didn't do a darn thing to regulate mercury! In the very last days of his Presidency, Clinton drafted some impossible mercury policy and handed it off to Bush, for political reasons. Just like Clinton created 42,000 National Monuments in his last days in office, like he really cared about them (if he did he would have done it from the beginning and made sure they were properly funded... our existing Parks and Monuments are already nearly broke and Clinton didn't do anything about that). And now it's all of a sudden mercury is at dangerous levels when Bush took office?

Clinton's "Mercury" concerns”

“Well Buck, as a man who loves the wilderness - on that issue alone, which administration offered it the best protection?”

“Buck is trying to pass off disinformation from an industry funded 'think tank' as fact.

EPA DECIDES MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM POWER PLANTS MUST BE REDUCED
FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, DEC. 14, 2000”

“And anyway Buck. It's not about what Clinton did and didn't do. It's about recognizing there is a problem and trying to do something about it, or passing the buck (he he) to future generations. Even if you suggest Clinton did nothing about mercury, does it mean that Bush should also do nothing?”

“Political appointees in the Environmental Protection Agency bypassed the agency's professional staff and a federal advisory panel last year to craft a rule on mercury emissions preferred by the industry and the White House, several longtime EPA officials say.

The EPA staff members say they were told not to undertake the normal scientific and economic studies called for under a standing executive order. At the same time, the proposal to regulate mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants was written using key language provided by utility lobbyists.
<snip>
The administration chose a process "that would support the conclusion they wanted to reach," said John Paul, a Republican environmental regulator from Ohio who co-chaired the EPA-appointed advisory panel and who says that its 21 months of work on mercury was ignored.
<snip>”

“Hey Reverend... look at that EPA document you just linked to... check out the, uhhh, date on it. Hmmm. When did Bush take office? Hmmm.”

“...and???”

“Even if you suggest Clinton did nothing about mercury, does it mean that Bush should also do nothing?

Hi ynami! No, I'm not saying Bush shouldn't do anything about it, but I'm saying that mercury didn't all of a sudden become a critical issue right when Bush took office and it was fine and dandy when Clinton took office. That's just a joke. Clinton didn't do anything about it and no one called him on it. Bush has the same mercury levels and GETS HAMMERED AS ANTI-ENVIRONMENT! That's playing politics with the environment.

As for my thoughts, Clinton didn't tuly care about the environment, it was just a political issue with him. If he did truly care, he would have made his environmental policy decisions early on. Our National Parks were broke during his Presidency, as were our National Monuments. After 8 years as President, on his FINAL DAYS he created a bunch of National Monuments. He should've done this right off the bat, or at least mid-way, so he could make sure they were properly set up and funded and taken care of. Instead he just hiked the Monuments to Bush, like a political football. Bush endorsed them and made them stick. Clinton didn't do a thing about mercury, he just had an EPA memo drafted up and released (with unworkable mandates to boot) when Bush took office to make it look like he cared and to make Bush look bad if he didn't back it.

I hike all the time, and I do not see the wilderness being raped and plundered and destroyed like I keep hearing about from liberals. Instead I see forests burning all over the place from liberal-mis-managed no-touch policies.”

“Reverend, when did Clinton end his Presidency, when did Bush take over, and when was that EPA mercury memo released that you linked to. Do the math.”

“In case you don't wanna add it up... President Bush was already elected before the EPA memo was released in mid-December, 2000, yes, AFTER Bush was already elected. If Clinton really cared about mercury levels, why did he wait until the final couple weeks of his 8 year Presidency and release an EPA memo on the subject after President Bush had been declared the new President-elect of the USA? Yes, surely mercury all of a sudden became extremely dangerous and Clinton did all he could to solve this problem.”

“Once we get all the evil trees cut down, the environment will be just fine!”

“Environmentalists Warn That EPA May Make Pa. Fish More Dangerous

by KYW's John Ostapkovich
Environmental groups are sounding the alarm over toxic mercury contamination in Pennsylvania sport fish.

With the flood-swollen Schuylkill River as their backdrop, environmentalists and a state representive expressed concern that there's already too much mercury in fish -- and that there may be more if the Bush administration changes rules on power plant emissions.

The EPA is currently weighing two approaches to controlling mercury pollution, much of which comes from coal-fired power plants. The environmentalists say one sets its reduction goals too low, and the other -- which would allow utilities to barter the right to pollute -- would be awful if you live near a plant allowed to pollute more.


Nathan Wilcox of Penn Environment says an analysis of more than 2,000 fish from lakes all over the state found mercury in every sample. And in 45 percent, it exceeded guidelines for women of child-bearing age to consume:


"Mercury pollution is making the fish in Pennsylvania's lakes unsafe to eat, but the mercury reductions called for in the Bush administration's plan are far too little, far too late. And we encourage the administration to throw it back."



Wilcox says the administration should require better mercury-controlling technology rather than push its mercury emissions trading proposal.”

“Buck - Clinton has nothing to do with what Bush does. Bush has failed on the environment and caved in to business interests at every turn. Of course there's his campaign finances to consider.”

“What is wrong with mercury? When I was a kid, they had mercury on dimes. There's even a mercury car. Mercury is good.

There's even mercury in mercurychrome.”

“You read the memo right Buck?

"Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to study toxic air pollution from power plants in order to determine if additional regulations are necessary in order to protect public health. EPA reported its study to Congress in February 1998. That study concluded that of all toxic pollution examined, mercury posed the greatest concern to public health. An earlier study concluded that the largest source of human-made mercury pollution in America was coal-fired power plants.

After completion of the study, the Clean Air Act required EPA to determine whether to proceed with the development of regulations. Today, EPA is announcing that it has affirmatively decided that mercury air emissions from power plants should be regulated, because mercury poses the greatest hazards to public health."


Should they have made a decision before studying it?”

“Buck - Clinton has nothing to do with what Bush does. Bush has failed on the environment and caved in to business interests at every turn. Of course there's his campaign finances to consider.


ynami, correct, but to let Clinton skate on mercury and then as soon as Bush takes office and condemn him for the same levels of mercury that Clinton allowed during his 8 years as President is ludicrous. And Clinton was supposed to be an "environmental" President and he didn't do in 8 years as President what you ream Bush for also not doing in merely 4. Ya, that makes sense. I guess Clinton caved in to business interests for the 8 years he was in office... well, except for the last two weeks.”

“Reverend, uhhh, Clinton was President for EIGHT YEARS with the same levels of mercury. What, did it take him 8 full years of studying to come out with an EPA report that was released AFTER Bush was elected? Come on! I guess when you despise Bush, reason and fact doesn't even matter.”

“Clinton Clinton Clinton... you're fixated man ;o) I don't despise Bush. You seem to want to put anyone's disagreement with the policies of the administration down to some irrational hatred. I simply disaggree with most of the actions of his administration. I believe four more years of his presidency will allow horrendous damage to the environment.”

“ynami, I only bring up Clinton when Bush gets slammed for things that Clinton was allowed to skate with. It just shows the obvious bias. As for the environment, I hike in it every weekend and I'm not seeing the devastation that libs say is happening. I'm catching fish and seeing animals and trees and clear lakes and taking photos of sunsets and climbing peaks and I don't see horrendous damage to the environment. I think that it's total political rhetoric to suggest Bush is destroying the environment. Heck, I don't see Bush flying his private haircutter on his private jet for a quick trim. That's what an "environmental" candidate does? You know how many SUVs Kerry's family owns while he condemns them? And he's an "environmentalist"? I don't tink so.”

“SUV vs. Air Force One ... yeah, I can see that's a toss-up!”

“I see the damage of pollution in the smoggy haze that hangs over the Shenendoah national park every summer's day.
America is a big country, with less than 2% of it built up. Things are not ruined yet, but they do need protecting.
And I was careful not to say bush is destroying it. He's allowing it to be damaged by not acting to curb pollution.”

“Nothing to see here... move along...


Greenland ice-melt 'speeding up'”

“ynami, I agree, but smog has been here for decades and at least here in California, it's getting better and better each year. And the Smoky Mountains have been hazy throughout the terms of many many Presidents. And I agree we need to protect our wilderness, I'm a huge advocate of that, but we also need balance. Drawing the line of balance is always tough, but Bush hasn't drawn the line of balance so out of whack that he's horrendously damaging the environment. Libs just want us to think so for political reasons.”

“But I would say that much of what he has done in relation to emission controls, to logging, to oil and natural gas extraction, to species protection to the flow of the great rivers can be seen in a positive light. There's almost always a sop to business in whatever action has been taken.”

“Let's look at a couple of other environmental issues.

North Slope Oil: Bush for drilling; Clinton against.

Logging in Roadless Areas of National Forests: Clinton banned; Bush reinstituted.

Clean Air Act: Bush has backed away; Clinton supported.”

“You guys look at this so black and white. Some of the easing of emissions were done so that factories who can't AFFORD the new standards, and thus are sticking with older and more polluting equipment, can actually upgrade to cleaner equipment without having to spend what they would to hit the much higher standards previously. The net result is cleaner air. As for oil in Alaska, I agree, but Congress would have to approve that, and it's not like it would destroy ANWR. I'm against drilling there, but we can't shut down every place we turn for domestic oil and no place is "good" for oil drilling. Bush is the FIRST PRESIDENT to put hydrogen fuel cells on the front page of every major newspaper in this country, and talked about fuel cells in his State Of The Union Address and has increased funding for bringing them to us faster (much more so than Clinton ever did). The roadless logging thing is extremely limited and slective in scope and it can actually help reduce catasrophic wildfires that totally destroy our forests. It's all about balance and management, but nothing is being destroyed and things are getting better, not worse. IMHO.”

“It is true that if there are no trees, there can be no forest fire.”

“Yes, and it is also true that if we abort all babies, there will be no people.”

“Token effort on fuel cells.
Bush actually removed the restictions on improving power stations, which said, in basic terms that they had to emit less pollutants. The therory was that this was stopping improvements as it was so costly, and lifting the restrictions would allow minor improvements to be made.
The reality is that it lifted an envirnmental cost on utilities and has led to virtually no "voluntary" emission reductions from power plants.”

“ynami, how many environmentalists do you know who drive hybrid cars? They're available, they're not that expensive (and even if they were, shouldn't the environment be above $$ for them anyway?), and few environmentalists drive them. But still, damn big business for being polluters. Let's clean up THEIR act before we do anything ourselves. If environmentalists bought hybrids en masse, like they should, it'd make them cheaper for everyone else and our environment would be much better off for it. But environmentalists are just like the rest of us... it's all about the pocket book.

If you think Bush addressing fuel cells in a State of the Union Address, perhaps the most important speeches by any single person on this planet, as "token", especially when no previous Presidents did such a thing, well, you just don't like Bush. Bush has greatly increased funding for fuel cells (I guess that's still token, even though the previous President didn't do much at all, that's okay, we still liked him more so it's good). Auto manufacturers are teaming up with oil companies and investing heavily in fuel cells. How much stock do you personally own in Ballard Power Systems to help them along? Anyway, Bush still sucks. :Þ”

“Sure - the enviroment is the responsibility of individuals, business and government - I agree with that.
But instead of trying to pigeon-holing them as "environmentalists" why don't we just call them motorists, Americans or even people.
And as for the speech. There is movement on this. I applauded his comments. But you have to take his actions over the past nearly four years as a whole, not pick speech.
How much cash did he devote to it - not much on the grand scale of things.”

“Good job Buck. Nice to know I'm not the only one who saw through another Buddha Bush lie.”

“But instead of trying to pigeon-holing them as "environmentalists" why don't we just call them motorists, Americans or even people.

Because I like pigeon holes... so? :Þ”

“Ok, but pictures of these pigeon holes.... keep those to yourself please ;op”

“If lovin' pigoen holes is wrong Buck don't wanna be right!! LOL!”

“10 out of the last 12 supreme court justices in the past 35 years have been appointed by republicans, yet, somehow, we still have legal abortion. The issue is a smokescreen to lure people into voting for republicans.”

“So if there is no fear of abortion becoming illegal why do all the coat hanger fear mongering liberals always run on the platform of “Democrats- protecting your rights to murder your children!”?”