English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

"Perhaps the greatest irony is that the forests have
fared far better under Bush than they did under his
Democrat predecessor. Under Clinton’s [Salvage Rider]
plan, some 1.1 billion board feet of Ancient Forest
stumps were authorized annually. Much to the
industry’s chagrin, under Bush, around 200 million per
year has been cut. Already, that means that 2.7
billion board feet less has been cut under Bush than
would have been under a Gore administration with the
Big Greens’ usual silence regarding Democrat
stump-creation.” Veteran forest activist Michael
Donnelly of Salem, Oregon. CounterPunch
December 2003 (i.e. in just ONE YEAR of the Clinton/Gore regime, they deforested nearly 6 times MORE ancient forest lands than Bush's currnet plan.)

2007-01-23 06:06:41 · 5 answers · asked by B77KMJ3321Z 2 in Environment

5 answers

Good question. There is certainly no shortage of mis- and dis- information out there regarding the subject. Do not rely on groups or organizations with an agenda (i.e. Exxon, NY Times, the UN, etc.). There is some debate about CO2 levels increasing, but a climatologist at University of Colorado says these levels drastically increased in the 30's and 40's, dropped in the 60's and rose again in the 70's. Certainly emissions aren't helping. Don't expect to get an unbiased answer here, though. It won't happen. Many are ill informed, too deluded by believing their own rhetoric, and regurgitate anything the media interests wants them to. While Bush is no champion of the enviornment, Gore and most other government officials aren't either, except for maybe Arnold Schwarznegger in California who is initiating legislation in his state that is very progressive (but is scaring away business and jobs). As far as I am aware of, the environment doesn't have any lobbyists on K Street paying off the politicians to represent it. Hell, even Robert Kennedy Jr. gets paid off by the Venezuelan's oil interests. If you find such an organization that really cares about the environment without a political agenda, sign me up....

2007-01-23 07:20:13 · answer #1 · answered by socalbu 1 · 1 0

Your question is confusing. Are you accusing Al Gore of being a hypocrite? If so, what is his hypocrisy? He's been speaking out about the rise of CO2, sharing the science behind global warming to a mass audience around the world in an effort to get people to pay attention to this issue. President Bush crafted an energy policy with input from industry executives and has consistently ignored efforts to reduce C02 emissions. You're also making a huge assumption about "what would have been" if Gore were President. That's a fallacy.

2007-01-23 06:46:56 · answer #2 · answered by tralition 1 · 2 1

Get your buddy bush to ratify the Kyoto agreement and have the USA attend more of the global meetings on the subject.

And read some more about the facts before making obtuse political statements.

2007-01-23 06:41:42 · answer #3 · answered by MarauderX 4 · 3 2

that completely refutes everything i know bush to have done to our environment, including his removal of logging and anti-road protections of those same forests...i highly doubt that you have any real clue what bush has been up to all this time, some of things he's done have been so enraging that i don't even care to reiterate them. as for your quote, like i ssaid, i;m quite surprised, i would have to see the source, it is an exception not the rule in his case, my friend

2007-01-23 06:13:52 · answer #4 · answered by izaboe 5 · 0 3

To start you could educate yourself...

2007-01-23 09:43:26 · answer #5 · answered by xyz 6 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers