I read an article on Newsweek (July 17, 2006 issue) via msnbc.msn.com that discusses if President Bush is as "green" as he claims to be. Here are the arguments for both sides:
CONVERSATIONIST ARGUMENT: "Bush's aides say the president is unchanged—he has always been an ardent conservationist—and have their own take on his record. On the highways, Bush has set rules to improve the fuel consumption of light trucks and SUVs. In the air, he has proposed the first-ever cut in mercury emissions from power plants. And on global warming, the most controversial part of his green scorecard, Bush acknowledged back in June 2001 that the National Academy of Sciences believed climate change was "due in large part to human activity." The dispute is what to do about that warming. Bush thinks new technologies—not treaties—can save the day."
ECO DISASTER ARGUMENT: "To activists, Bush's record is unremittingly bad. They accuse him of relaxing clean-air standards on power plants and refineries, and of blocking Kyoto-style measures to halt global warming. They even question the sincerity of his plan to protect the Hawaiian Islands, given the Navy's nearby use of powerful sonar that can harm whales. "Whatever motivated him to build a green ranch before he was president hasn't been translated at all into policy," says Frances Beinecke of the Natural Resources Defense Council."
What do you think?
(Source of quotes and image from Newsweek (July 17, 2006 issue) and http://www.msnbc.msn.com).
Bottega Veneta
i'd just say a disaster period...
1i had something planned out... but i agree with lanilovespeaches
2Lanilovespeaches is right, the guy is just an all round disaster. There's not too many people throughout history that you can look at the things they have done and the policies they have implemented and say "the world would undoubtedly be a better place if that person had never existed" but George W Bush is one of them.
3100% Disaster!!!
4Disaster!
5DISASTER !!!!
6An Eco Disaster! On a side note, I love how the conservationist argument makes it seem like Bush came up with these ideas, by using words like "proposed" and "thinks".
7This guy doesn't give a damn about the environment. When we moved to Texas, I was astounded at the lack of recycling programs and emissions controls. Then I realized he had been governor of that state prior to being President. He's environmentally unfriendly and unconcerned.
8Eco Disaster!
9Is this a serious question? DISASTER FOR SURE.
10yes kiwilu it is a serious question. i came across the article online while doing my regular search in msn.com and i thought it was an interesting read. wanted to know what others thought as well.
11President Bush claims to favor states' rights, but when it comes to something like California's more stringent air quality standards, which historically have forced Detroit to produce cleaner cars, Bush has proposed federal regulations which would roll back stricter controls by preventing states from setting higher standards than the federal government's. Not only would this be bad for the environment, it would be bad for the U.S. economy by making cleaner, higher mileage Japanese and European cars all the more attractive to the American consumer. His thinking makes absolutely no sense to me. My opinion: Bush is an eco-disaster!
12President Bush claims to favor states' rights, but when it comes to something like California's more stringent air quality standards, which historically have forced Detroit to produce cleaner cars, Bush has proposed federal regulations which would roll back stricter controls by preventing states from setting higher standards than the federal government's. Not only would this be bad for the environment, it would be bad for the U.S. economy by making cleaner, higher mileage Japanese and European cars all the more attractive to the American consumer. His thinking makes absolutely no sense to me. My opinion: Bush is an eco-disaster!
13A disaster...but not restricted to environment.
14ECO DISASTER
15The man and his partigianni seem to have their own agenda. This administration is a disaster - in more ways than one.
16An eco disaster!
17A total disaster and should be euthanized asap.
_________________________
18Life goes on
He is an all around disaster!!! As long as OPEC is running his show and we are still at war for "WMD" aka "OIL"...There's only one green that he knows at its members are: Franklin, Grant, Jackson, Johnson, Lincoln and Washington!!!
----------------------------
19My avatar is so damn HOT!!!!
----------------------------
Eco-diasater, a complete disaster....it's all the same to me!
20Watch Who Killed the Electric Car!
And what lanilovespeaches said.
Style Before Comfort!
21He is a complete disaster in every sense of the word. I won't go into all the reasons why anyone who tries to claim that he is pro-environment is full of it, but needless to say he is consistently on the side of the oil and coal companies. For a great book (and not too long), take a look at Robert Kennedy Jr.'s "Crimes Against Nature". He is an environmental lawyer, but also has a background in economics, so it's not as if he's against corporate interests just for the sake of being against them. He truly has some valid and respectable opinions as well as some great background information of Bush's environmental abuses dating all the way back to his time in Texas.
22Also - I agree that Who Killed the Electric Car is a great documentary.
thanks for the docu movie tip lala, i'll definitely watch it.
23An all-around DISASTER: Environmentally, globally, politically, etc. Is it any wonder that a majority of his cabinet members are CEO's or large shareholders in oil companies or oil-related industries?
24I don't care about this A**Hole....
"Believe What You See, Not What You Hear!"
25He makes me lose my train of thought. I think he's an a-hole, too. Thank goodness for Freedom of Speech!
The world is full of paper. Write to me. -- Agha Shahid Ali
26disaster for sure..i agree
27disaster - clean air act backfired. It didn't do anything good for the environment. he is all talk and no action. He has never done anything for the environment. Or science. Science in general is getting hurt by the Bush administration.
He says new tech- not treaties will do good for the environment but has he actually endorsed alternative fuels? Has he given more money to environmental scientists to research all this?
he's not concerned at all - why else would he not be pushing research or new technology for oil INdependence? Oil is not a renewable resource. Oil is not only used for cars - it's also used in plastics and other stuff - like the computer you're viewing this on. We are very highly oil dependent. And the demand keeps increasing rather than lessening.
28Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.