Not the Greenest President: Bush's Environmental Sins

November 10, 2008

Even some conservatives believe that the US President-elect should put the environmental crisis at the top of his presidential to-do list, because addressing that crisis has bipartisan approval. Yet despite an apparent citizen yearning for leadership on green issues, President Bush has neglected the topic during his eight years in the White House.

Salon put together a list of Bush's seven environmental deadly sins. The authors argue that Bush made a mockery of the US's environmental laws and values. Here are the seven pieces of supporting evidence for their indictment:

Blew hot air on global warming: Bush refused to agree to mandatory greenhouse gas emission reductions, thus erasing any credibility the US had to persuade China and India to cut their emissions and also leading to a rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
Failed to regulate greenhouse gases at home: Bush vowed to veto any bill that would limit greenhouse gases. He also refused to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, even though the Supreme Court ruled it was a pollutant and said he could regulate it.
Failed to develop clean energy sources: While doing nothing to further renewable energy, Bush gave regulatory support to polluting industries like coal, oil, and gas.
Abandoned endangered species: The only additions to the endangered species list, such as the polar bear, came from private parties who sued the government. The administration also tried to build roads without considering harm to these species.

To see the rest, read more.

Carved up the American West for oil and gas excavation: Bush leased combined public lands bigger than the state of Kentucky for oil and gas onshore drilling, even though already leased lands have not been developed.
Not seeing the forest or the trees: The Bush administration tried to subject forests to "thinning" aka cutting down tress for logging or in order to build roads.
Choked clean-air standards: The Bush administration weakened clean-air standards and is currently working to permit more pollution near national parks and allow power plants to increase emissions without adding pollution controls.

If you check out the entire piece, it offers a mission for Obama for each specific sin. Which problem would you like to see the new president atone first?

Source

138 Comments

snowbunny11 4 years

Ack- not this again- I wrote a long post but...good points Shadow!

snowbunny11 4 years

Shadow <3 But at the end of the day, even after all of the data you've posted, some people choose to believe or refuse to believe in global warming as though it is some sort of religious belief. It's kind of strange, but (some) people who like to drive big trucks or hate Al Gore are going to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence for the phenomenon. They think the fact that they have the RIGHT to drive a big truck means they must argue against and discredit the scientific evidence. Fine, you like to drive a big truck, that doesn't mean the earth is not warming.

Shadowdamage 4 years

Aak no, one more. Here's a bit more.... Analysis of carbon dioxide in the ancient Antarctic ice showed that at no point in the past 650,000 years did levels approach today's carbon dioxide concentrations of around 380 parts per million (ppm). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could reach 450-550 ppm by 2050, possibly resulting in higher temperatures and rising sea levels (see "Ocean levels rising twice as fast"). There is fear that climate change could create a class of environmental refugees displaced from their homes by rising oceans, increasingly catastrophic weather, and expanding deserts. Carbon dioxide is the principal "greenhouse" gas thought to be driving global warming. Humans boost carbon dioxide levels primarily by the combustion of fossils fuels and deforestation, and accordingly, atmospheric concentrations have risen sharply since the industrial revolution. Today the United States, the world's largest economy and consumer of energy, produces about 24% of global carbon dioxide emissions. The rest is on the URL I have supplied below and the data comes from joint research studies conducted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Oregon State University. http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html#aaas

Shadowdamage 4 years

"The earth is cyclical--it warms and cools, over decades, years, months. " And even so, scientists have noted that at no time in the past SEVERAL MILLION YEARS has the changes that have occurred since global industrialization took place have such changes occurred at a pace as rapid, and as obvious, as they are now. Of course solar flares dying down will usher in a period of cooling, but solar flare cycles are about 11-12 years, as I recall, and while they might give an indication of cooling in the SHORT TERM - the LONG term data has still been on-trend and is continuing to indicate global warming on a massive, unprecedented scale, period. n an article published in the Nov. 25 issue of the journal Science, Rutgers professor of geological sciences Kenneth G. Miller reported on a new record of sea level change during the past 100 MILLION years based on drilling studies along the New Jersey coast. The findings establish a steady millimeter-per-year rise from 5,000 years ago until about 200 years ago. In the Pacific Islands, whole communities are actually being reclaimed by the sea - flora and landscapes dissapearing as the ocean levels rise. Arctic ice is dissapearing at FASTER rates than we thought possible. Look...I can understand a degree of skepticism about the trendy-Green movement because let's face it, people will make a buck where they think they can. BUT THE TRUTH IS....a whole LOTTA money is being made, from you, under your noses by accepting the status quo, and keeping oil right where they are. In your pocket. Here's a link from NASA regarding global warming and the rising seas. Try to understand that yes, nature works in cycles. But these cycles also are layered on top of each other. Cycles do not operate exclusive of each other. So if you are fooled into thinking this IS NOT really happening because a few years of solar flares give us some small degree of cooling, you are seeing the tree and ignoring the forest, so to speak. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=2008081327365 As Nasa's own page states: "This large pool of rapidly rising warm water is evidence of a major change in ocean circulation. It signals a slow down in the sub-polar gyre, a counter-clockwise system of currents that loop between Ireland, Greenland and Newfoundland." If you have done any reading on global warming and understand the implications of melting ice and reduction of saline content of the world's oceans and its effect on marine life and climate, then you know this crap is frightening. Again - the operative word is - UNPRECEDENTED. I really find myself so frustrated on these threads, because people are only hurting themselves and their children while they turn a blind eye to this, and just HELPING big oil. I'm not anti-business by any means, I am on a Board of Directors for pity's sake. But what I AM - I hope - is ethical, honest and brave enough to face that we are staring down the barrel of the destruction of our home if we don't wise up fast to better options that have been available to us for ages now, but are not being used. As for the economy, the simple truth is if you screw up this planet, there will be no economy to worry about for millions of people on this Earth. The "economy" will cease to matter when crops fail, when entire communities are wiped out by rising sea levels and water supplies for entire nations become cause for war. Comparatively, intelligent management of new, clean energy technologies would not only put high end innovation and jobs INTO the countries that actively embrace them, it would create numerous jobs at all level of the payscale. It would help increase American security by breaking the ties that bind you to these dirty little wars in countries that have the oil you want. It would give American people "freedom" - from the pumps, from the Middle East, and from unwittingly, or blindly, destroying the planet you are living and breathing upon. My former husband worked as a systems engineer for a global petroleum support industry. He had seen it all - and even he knew this was not bogus, it IS real. Even they know it. Which is precisely why they have to maintain the status quo as long as possible. I just can't say enough about this. I just can't read enough, but its heartbreaking to know that no matter WHAT I SAY, or what evidence is brought to light, that people will just say "No, its liberal blathering, devoid of substance" while acting as if oil companies are positively angelic and couldn't possibly have MOTIVATION for keeping things just..the way..they are. Shadow out, its my day off and I am just not ..not..going to get angry today. I'm not even angry...I think mostly, this kind of thing makes me worry about this species. (A lot.)

mydiadem 4 years

'How insulting--the comment made by Snowbunny about those of us who believe God created the Earth, and that global warming doesn't exist.' Totally missed that one, where did she say that?

Sugasuga29 4 years

How insulting--the comment made by Snowbunny about those of us who believe God created the Earth, and that global warming doesn't exist. Well guess what? Global warming, one of Al Gore's many projects (along with claiming he invented the internet), never existed. The earth is cyclical--it warms and cools, over decades, years, months. We are actually, they now say, headed into a cooling period. So yes, THIS person of religious faith is happy that she didn't hop on the "Global Warming" wagon like so many others because now they look foolish, and simply willing to believe whatever liberal news media outlets have to say.

kranky 4 years

beavis - yeah, I got that from reading the article. The founder of Greenpeaces was not at all pleased with the new direction of the organization.

beavis667 4 years

Greenpeace is more of an anti big business movement now and less of an environmental organization. They are on the forefront of lobbying against controlled logging in our national forests. Scientific studies have shown that controlled logging to the 40 tree per acre standard is the key to the renewal and survival of our forests, but Greenpeace is more concerned with keeping logging companies from making money.

kranky 4 years

geebers - do you mean that the US government should help other countries, subsidize research, provide tax relief to people who buy hybrids...? I just want to make sure I know what you are talking about. :) Speaking of the Simpsons, I also think that Michelin brought up a good point earlier. What about nuclear energy? I read an article (in Newsweek no less) about how the founder of Greenpeace is currently campaigning for nuclear energy. (Incidently, he left Greenpeace because it got taken over by non-science people who pushed policies that did not make sense scientifically. That article got me thinking about the importance of actually understanding facts rather than going on your hunches.)

geebers 4 years

"passed a limit on harvesting blue crabs without researching the possible consequences. People were worried that they might become extinct. Sounds good, right? Well, the blue crab population grew, overate the Rockfish population" This totally just reminded me of that Simpsons episode on the birds that were annoying everyone (pigeons?) and they had these lizards eat them- then the lizards overpopulated the place and birds died out so they had another animal come to eat the lizards- then THAT animal overpopulated Springfield - I dont remember what happened but I think the birds somehow came back full circle. Back on topic- I really do think that if we want environmental changes it has to be economically feasible because while I am willing to spend more to help the environment because I think we should care about the world our children will inherit and we will grow old in, there are millions out there who either can't or won't. To be fair- there ARE markets out there looking for cleaner energy on their own- but much of what they have found is expensive and people just can't afford to switch over. This is where government should step in and provide relief for places that want to do it but can't.

skb9850 4 years

The Kyoto Protocals would not have had the effect everyone seems to think it would have had even if the US had signed it. It left enormous loopholes for 2nd world countries to continue with CO2 emissions as normal. A country that was trying to reduce CO2 emissions merely had to shift manufacturing to places like China or India to be able to claim they reduced their emissions. The net effect though was no reduced emissions. This is why Bush didn't sign it.

beavis667 4 years

The Kyoto accords are a economy destroyer. Opting out of those are among the best moves GW has made. There has to be a better way of going green than having to "bite the bullet" as was stated before. Also, Snowbunny, I read about the cooling until 2015 a few months ago. Upon googling it any number of articles came up. Here's one of the links: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/charlesclover/3341068/Global-warming-may-%27stop%27%2C-scientists-predict.html Like you said, we could both post gobs and gobs of data to support both of our sides. Politicians are out ahead of science making conclusions based inconclusive facts. There is money going to politicians on both sides. There is money being made on both sides. It's a political issue, plain and simple.

kranky 4 years

Wow Cat - I had no idea. Thanks for posting. And snow - Bush had some very good reasons for not signing the Kyoto agreement.

snowbunny11 4 years

Cat: yay for some positive news :) I heard that Bush was actually very moved by the plight of the polar bear when he watched "An Inconvenient Truth." It does bug me to no end that he would not get on board with the Kyoto Protocals though. And then left the conference by saying: "bye from the world's largest polluter!!"

CaterpillarGirl 4 years

well he cant do anything right so why did i expect any unbiased post on his environmental record? FACT Under President Bush: 1)americas oceans, coasts, lakes, are cleaner healthier and more productive. He has met or is on schedule for all 88 actions in the "ocean plan" which was put place in 2004.He has enacted a plan to protect wetlands, The Administration exceeded the initial goal by more than 600,000 acres and did so one year earlier than predicted. 2) He signed an order to conserve two of America's most popular recreational fish – striped bass and red drum fish. This Order moves to prohibit the sale of striped bass and red drum caught in Federal waters, promotes more accurate scientific records about fish population levels, and helps the Federal government work with State and local officials to find innovative ways to conserve these species for future generations. 3)Helping to end overfishing: President Bush signed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, which sets a firm deadline to end overfishing in America by 2011 and provides the policy tools necessary to ensure success 4) ddressing harmful marine debris: President Bush signed the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act to remove, reduce, and prevent marine debris and its adverse impacts on the marine environment. In November 2007, Mrs. Bush announced a new Marine Debris Initiative to address the estimated 6.4 million tons of marine debris that litter the ocean. The initiative encourages the private sector to clean up marine debris and educates the public on what they can do to prevent its spread 5)Enhancing cooperative conservation: In 2004, the President signed an Executive Order directing Federal agencies that oversee environmental and natural resource policies and programs to promote cooperative conservation in full partnership with States, local governments, tribes, and individuals. AND MANY MANY MORE, INCLUDING BILLS TO PROTECT ENDANGERED SPECIES.

snowbunny11 4 years

While I don't want to get into the drilling thing, please realize Beavis that your "right" to drive a big truck is being facilitated by our oil dependence on nations (as Sarah Palin would say) that don't "like us very much." So what is your choice, your freedom, is a matter of national security, which she also pointed about about 1000 times. Yes, we can drill in Alaska, but it's not going to make us indefinitely energy independent without finding other sources. So make fun of us who drive small cars, take public transportation and hybrids, but our choice is one that isn't motivated by the whole "I'm Amurrrican so I'm gonna do whatever I WANT" mantra. I have no idea where you get your information that the earth has stopped warming in the past decades- 2005 was the warmest year ever according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. I mean, any of us could post the gobs and gobs of studies here that support Global Warming, but I'm sure you have the Google function in your Interweb too. This isn't a political issue, until people start making it one by bringing up things like "the market will regulate the climate," and pointing out that most of the past support has been from Dems. Forget that, we forgive the GOP for not supporting environmental efforts before, so forgive yourselves and we can all work together on it. You can't point to your party's past failure to give a crap as the reason this is a political issue. And you'll be making a huge mistake, politically, if you let the Dems. have this issue. Why did the name change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? Most likely so Republicans would feel happier getting behind it. This is a problem of the tragedy of the commons- any one person is going to refuse to stop driving his massive truck, or choose a more fuel friendly car for example, so the government must regulate it to a certain degree. If you have 100 companies on a river, and you don't tell them they can't dump their toxic crap in it, they will all do it, resulting in a huge environmental mess. Also: you don't have the choice as an Amurrican to do whatever you want. You can't murder, you can't willfully spread disease, you can't do whatever the hell you want without regard to the consequences. Right now we're trying to figure out exactly what the consequences will be, and the best way to reduce them.

kranky 4 years

I;'m cool with that. Thanks for the nice convo!

mydiadem 4 years

I don't think our viewpoints will ever really mesh so I can agree to disagree Kranky, I have no problem with leaving it like that. And yes, just like Ravenclaw's diadem - that's where I got it!

kranky 4 years

mydiadem, as in 'the diadem of Ravenclaw' (yup, I'm a dork). Noted, thanks! I don't agree that we can't drilling more and fund research at the same time. I've also seen the timetables for ANWAR, but I do not think that the length of time negates it as a good alternative. Drilling offshore would take even less time. I totally agree that pushing for drilling distracts some people - so much of what the politians talk about these days does. But, I still don't think that is a reason to pass the idea over. I don't think anyone (or at least McCain - I don't know about the rest of the bunch) thinks that getting off oil isn't a top priority. I care where our money goes. It makes my skin crawl to think of us funding the likes of Putin or Chavez. I walk to work these days it makes me so mad. And just for the record - Bush is actually very conscious of the environment, and it is important to him. He and Laura have done major renovations on the Ranch to make it energy efficient and green. My read is that he doesn't think that it would be the best thing for the country to sign the Kyoto agreement, etc. You may disagree with his position, but he isn't a enviro-masochist.

mydiadem 4 years

Again UnDave, I don't necessarily disagree with the specifics of what you are saying. I'm just unclear how this relates to what I said earlier about government spearheading most of the major innovation that has made modern life the way it is today. What point are you trying to make?

mydiadem 4 years

Its my diadem, a diadem is a kind of headdress. Anyhoo, I do kind of believe its an either or situation. With our government in the past (and I don't know if that will change with a newer Congress and executive administration) they seem to only be able to concentrate on one thing at a time. Also the timelines I've seen as well aren't too different, the infrastructure needed for drilling offshore or in ANWAR will take time. I think that pushing drilling will be a distraction, that's my feeling. And personally I don't really care if our money is going to Hugo Chavez, Saudi princes, Russia, or the state of Alaska for their oil. I think we need to get off oil dependence, period.

UnDave35 4 years

I do. They didn't come up with the auto, they figured out a way to make it work for them. The government created the first computer, but two guys working in their garage created the personal computer, and made it affordable.

kranky 4 years

mydiadem- So for you, it's an 'either-or' situation: we can't drill AND fund research. Please tell me if I am reading this incorrectly. What if the research doesn't deliver in enough time?

kranky 4 years

mydiadem- So, I guess not sending our money to Hugo Chavez is not good enough? Why do you think that drilling offshore and in ANWAR aren't going to help our economy? China's doing really well drilling for oil off of Cuba. (BTW - I have always wondered... are you 'my diadem' or 'mydia dem' or something else? I'd like to be pronouncing it correctly in my head. ;) )

mydiadem 4 years

And maybe I should note that I'm biased, I grew up in Pennsylvania where coal mining has left the scars all over a very beautiful landscape. And I don't just mean the earth collapsing under people's homes. These kind of ventures don't create sustainable jobs because once the resource is tapped industry cuts and runs on the population. So I'll take higher gas prices in exchange for government investment in getting renewable energy out there sooner rather than later.

Link Love

138 Comments