He said early in his presidency. Is he gonna flip flop on that.
Gross pollution may be a preferrable way the "stay the course"
...ya think?
(note - sarcasm in my voice... hello?)
so what to do?
2007-08-15
11:04:46
·
21 answers
·
asked by
omnimog
4
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
>>>Bush Promise: "[W]e will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions...of carbon dioxide within a reasonable time." (George W. Bush during campaign, Philadelphia Inquirer, February 14, 2001)
Promise Broken: "The idea of placing caps on CO2 does not make economic sense for America." (President Bush, Federal Document Clearing House Political Transcripts, March 29, 2001)<<<
from;
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=sr-108-1-421
2007-08-15
13:52:10 ·
update #1
my lead question, is paraphrase- so shoot me! ...sheesh!
2007-08-15
13:53:25 ·
update #2
True!~!
2007-08-15 11:27:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by Hunter 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Bush administration took nearly 150 actions to undermine environmental protections over the past year, consistent with its historic assault on the nation's environmental safeguards. This January 2005 NRDC report assesses the Bush presidency's first-term environmental policies, and previews battles expected during the administration's second term.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Overview
Drilling Away Our Public Lands
Hiding Air Polluters Behind a Smoke Screen
Stalling on Global Warming
Undermining the Clean Water Act
Leaving the Public Out of Public Health Policy
Slashing Forest, Park, and Public Land Protections
Taking Aim at Wildlife Protections
Increasing Nuclear Insecurity
Endnotes
2007-08-15 11:30:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by jdoh10 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
he's no longer. He destructive the Kyoto Protocol years in the past, whilst something of the international supported it and it made our united states of america seem undesirable. Republicans don't think that international warming exists, they only say that is taking place, yet they actually do no longer particularly care a lot approximately it. they're extra in touch approximately how those environmental risk-free practices acts and protocols could impression our financial device, while they have already badly broken it because of warfare. while you're finding for somebody who's prepared approximately our atmosphere, evaluate Al Gore. He won't be a scientific expert, yet he pushes international warming as a international disaster. He actively campaigns this concern to make all and sundry responsive to it and enhance public participation. Has Bush executed something like that for the duration of 8 years, i do no longer think of so. Our government's coverage has continuously been "if there is not any disaster, do no longer do something approximately it." the certainty is, there's a disaster, that is in basic terms republicans decide for to ignore approximately it.
2016-10-02 09:55:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
W. Bush did what is in the best interest of the USA and not for the rest of the World. By showing his unwillingness W. Bush has in fact admitted that the greatest environment pollution is being done by the USA. Had it been a third world country then the USA would have declared unilateral sanction against that country or countries but who will now judge the judge?
2007-08-23 06:23:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Probably because we are not the main contributers to pollution. It is overseas where we have no control. Maybe if Al Gore would pay for a hybrid car for me I could afford to be concerned. Right now I'm more concerned with providing my family food and clothing. I don't have time to contribute to this mindless global warming crap and everyone I know is also too busy.
2007-08-23 07:15:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by bfldmom3 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
DUBYA is an idiot !!!!!!!!! why did he say that sending our jobs over seas is good for the economy? i can`t see it.. we close our factories and send them over seas where they are made not only cheap.. but, CHEAP.. and then they come back here for the same price as before and now we can`t afford to buy them cause we have no job...look at china... we handed over our jobs to them and then they send us poison back in our toys.. our dog and cat food.. and who knows what else? thats great for our economy... when DUBYA. talks it makes no sense he is an idiot man walking... he doesn`t think before he speaks.. unless he has someone write his speeches then he is lost and crap just starts flowing.. get the book Bushism`s.. that will explain alot...
2007-08-23 10:40:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
He said it because laws that protect the environment are bad for his buddies in big business. He doesn't care about the environment, he thinks that the Rapture is going to come, the world is going to end, Armageddon will come down and we won't have to worry about that pesky Global Warming anymore.
2007-08-15 11:13:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by gilliegrrrl 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
While I cannot obtain a video link of his glib comment, I do recall a comment he made on camera in the first year of his presidency claiming that very few people would be driving hybrid cars.
My, how things have changed.
Oh, and what about his repeated opposition to the Kyoto Protocols?
2007-08-15 11:12:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by Floyd G 6
·
3⤊
3⤋
I think he was referring to his economy and business interest. There is alot of money in green tech and smart people are embracing it. As we know George is not that smart.
2007-08-15 11:22:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
83% of U.S. goods are producted In Communist China, have you ever checked out their pollution at lease we can breath in the u.s.a.
2007-08-19 22:51:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Who cares. We all know that Bush will start caring about the environment after he signs the bill to allow abortion nation-wide.
2007-08-15 11:17:33
·
answer #11
·
answered by KimJongIl 2
·
0⤊
2⤋