Why is there so little Attention and Credit given to the Positive Environmental Policies of G.W. Bush?

Question

- Changes to the Clean Air Act now allow for the dirtiest power plants to install scrubbers to reduce their pollution.

- By providing for simplified and reduced regulation and taxing on Industry, The top 10 polluting Companies in the U.S. have stepped forward with voluntary initiatives to reduce greenhouse gasses. Under this plan the U.S. will surpass Europe (again) in actual greenhouse gas reductions, and may exceed expectations of the Kyoto Protocol. The previous Administration did not sign Kyoto for 6 years, Yet Bush gets the grief?

-W enacted rules to take polluting Sulfur out of Diesel Fuel and to unify Gasoline grades from 19 types to down to 5. This will increase our refinery capacity without building new refineries. To keep people happy about cheap gas, the previous administration canceled this implementation.

- After proper review, G.W. Bush signed a rule reducing the levels of Arsenic permitted in drinking water.

- G.W. Bush signed into Law the creation of the First Marine Protected Area, off the North Coast of Hawaii. This now opens the way for more of such areas in the future.

- C. Todd-Whitman, Bush's first EPA Secretary established uniformity to the quality of water being released to the environment, facilitating State implementation of the Clean Water Act.

- C.A.F.E.(Corporate Average Fleet Economy) standards were only moderately increased, but while now to include light trucks and vans. This means that more vehicle than ever are now required to meet this expectation.

Answer 1

As you can see, 2 people were willing to make grudging concessions provided they could invalidate them with criticisms.

Rule #1: George W Bush can do nothing right.
Rule #2: If Bush does something right, refer to rule 1.
Rule #3: Anyone who does not agree with rules 1 & 2 must be shouted down and called names until they come into agreement.


Frankly, I'm quite sick of it. I had little use for either Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore in 2000. My respect for Mr. Bush has grown since then, and my respect for Mr. Gore has declined. I rented Mr. Gore's movie (the only way you can view it) and found it to be more about Mr. Gore's political aspirations than informative about global warming. There were many emotional appeals and guilt trips, but the presentation was woefully short on scientific method and accuracy.

Answer 2

I'm not a fan of Bush, but I agree with his reasoning in not signing the Kyoto Accord. It provides an exception for 'developing nations'. There are a couple of problems with this exception. It doesn't list the nations by name, and more importantly, The worst polluters (in any country), can relocate to the developing nations, and set up their business with no controols at all. So we have a net effect of even worse pollution.

Answer 3

No disrespect but these steps are very small for a country that leads the world in consumption, waste and pollution, far and above the rest of the nations of the world.
These are just token gestures to placate the green movement. He was forced to take action because he's run out of excuses and public opinion is finally focused on environmental issues.
Don't be so easily fooled by a man that clearly has NO interest in the environment. His only interest is POWER.

Answer 4

IT is because of the giant Liberal, SOcialist Machine Media, in bed with the Democrat party, any 4th grade student can easily see that. Do you want communisim, that is where we are heading if true Americans don't wake up and stand up.

Answer 5

He does have some, no doubt. I guess its overshadowed by him turning down the Kyoto Protocol, which is understandable on both sides (Bush's/US and the rest of the world). I can see it from both sides.

Answer 6

He has taken a few baby steps.

Still, I think the most powerful man in the world could do a little better.

Answer 7

You have listed most all of his good Environmental actions, but the bad actions of his sure outweigh the good.