Saturday, October 16, 2004
More on Bush's Crappy Environmental Record
You can read more in the Yellow Dog archives about Bush's dangerous environmental rollbacks and policies that favor his buddies in the energy industry, but here's more on his laughable statement in the second debate that he is a "good steward" of the land.
Would a "good steward"
--allow utilities to upgrade their facilities without adding pollution control equipment? (hey, it saves the coal industry money, so screw the consumers--and their lungs!)
--prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide emissions, the most important source of "greenhouse gases"? (this was a 2000 campaign promise that Bush broke--flip flopper!)
--loosen the regulation of mercury emissions? (a little mercury won't kill anyone; or will it?)
--limit the amount of land that can be formally declared "wilderness"? (goodbye wilderness; hello Wal-Mart)
--make logging easier in old-growth forests? (Bush cynically calls this plan to cut down trees the "healthy forests" initiative)
This LA Times piece has more, and as someone who lives in a much smaller southeastern city that is, along with LA, on the top ten most polluted cities list, I care about this issue and am very concerned that Bush got a grade of "F" from none other than The League of Conservation Voters, which, as this columnist points out, "is hardly a radical environmental group." Aren't conservatives supposed to care about conservation? I guess this is just another example of how Repugs will have to hold their nose and vote for Bush despite his dangerous policies.
Environmental Whopper
Would a "good steward"
--allow utilities to upgrade their facilities without adding pollution control equipment? (hey, it saves the coal industry money, so screw the consumers--and their lungs!)
--prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide emissions, the most important source of "greenhouse gases"? (this was a 2000 campaign promise that Bush broke--flip flopper!)
--loosen the regulation of mercury emissions? (a little mercury won't kill anyone; or will it?)
--limit the amount of land that can be formally declared "wilderness"? (goodbye wilderness; hello Wal-Mart)
--make logging easier in old-growth forests? (Bush cynically calls this plan to cut down trees the "healthy forests" initiative)
This LA Times piece has more, and as someone who lives in a much smaller southeastern city that is, along with LA, on the top ten most polluted cities list, I care about this issue and am very concerned that Bush got a grade of "F" from none other than The League of Conservation Voters, which, as this columnist points out, "is hardly a radical environmental group." Aren't conservatives supposed to care about conservation? I guess this is just another example of how Repugs will have to hold their nose and vote for Bush despite his dangerous policies.
Environmental Whopper
