Red, Green, and Blue: Bush’s Atrocious Record on the Environment
George W. Bush's record on the environment is reminiscent of the alien invaders in Mars Attacks! Bush, like those Martians, plays the game of placation well when he's in front of a microphone. He's good at saying the right things, he calms our anxious green nerves, and he even occasionally comes close to sounding like an environmental visionary. But the moment we turn our backs, Bush pulls out his laser ray supersoaker gun and blows all of our hopes for sane environmental policy into tiny bits of arsenic and mercury.
It would take a book to chronicle the eco-disaster that is the Bush Administration, and thankfully Robert F. Kennedy Jr. already wrote that book
- The Kyoto Protocol - Even after promising to regulate carbon emissions in his 2000 campaign, Bush promptly pulled the U.S. out of the Kyoto Treaty shortly after taking office. Sure, Kyoto is flawed in some ways and would have required industrialized countries like the United States to re-prioritize and take immediate steps toward emissions reductions and renewable energy development. That was the point, wasn't it? But Bush didn't work to make the adjustments that would have made Kyoto a better and fairer agreement. He simply took his ball and went home.
- Cheney's Energy Task Force - In 2001, President Bush formed a task force to help him develop a national energy policy and appointed Vice President Cheney to head it. Their meetings were held in secret and most of the participants were not disclosed. Though many of the Task Force's documents have yet to be released completely uncensored, it is known that several of Bush and Cheney's old oil friends, including Enron's top brass, were influential contributors. It is also known that the Task Force's final recommendations heavily favored oil, gas, and coal companies. The Nation reported in 2002:
When Cheney and [Enron CEO Kenneth] Lay met in April 2001, Lay handed Cheney a three-page "wish list" of corporate recommendations. Representative Henry Waxman, the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Government Reform, ordered an analysis of the memo against the final report of the task force; it shows that the group adopted all or significant portions of the recommendations in seven of eight policy areas. Seventeen policies sought by Enron or that clearly benefit the company… were included.
The results of those recommendations are still Bush Administration policy today, which is no doubt why Bush and Cheney have fought so hard over the years to keep the full, uncensored records of the Task Force unavailable for public consumption.
- Renewable Energy Research and Development - This one is easy: Bush constantly uses the State of the Union address or other high-profile events to promote the idea of increased funding for renewable and clean energy, and then cuts that funding time and time again. This type of behavior inspired a popular book
- Clear Skies, Healthy Forests - It's not just the condescending Orwellian language that has pushed progressive environmentalists to new heights of indignation, but also the genuinely awful policy changes that proposals like the Clear Skies initiative and the Healthy Forests Act reflect. "Clear Skies" does nothing to combat global warming and weakens a variety of existing laws and regulations on air pollutants. "Healthy Forests" takes the idea that no trees equals no forest fires and lets logging companies run with it.
These are just a few of the blights on the Bush enviro-record. There are many more. I invite you to use the comments below discuss which of Bush's crimes against nature make your head spin the most.
The response from the right to many progressive criticisms of Bush's environmental record usually takes the form of, "It's the economy, stupid!" There are two basic flaws with the "economy above all" argument. First, why is it assumed that the investments made in renewable energy technology, pollution reduction, (actually) healthy ecosystems, and so on, will result in no return on investment? We aren't talking about the Star Wars Missile Defense system. In the long run, green investments will pay off far more than building another coal-fired power plant or drilling another oil well in ANWR. We can grow the GDP without sacrificing the future. It's the sustainable economy, stupid!
Second, if you'll excuse my bleeding heart, what meaning does "strong economy" have if, in a generation from now, kids are fighting wars over the last reserves of drinkable water and smoking the equivalent of three packs of cigarettes a day just breathing? Sometimes the invisible hand has an equally invisible relevance. That is a concept that George W. Bush seems unable or unwilling to grasp even at its most fundamental level, and that inhumane, myopic view is clearly reflected by his almost total lack of genuine leadership on environmental issues.
Want to discuss Ryan and Jimmy's posts further? Visit the Red, Green and Blue discussion forum.
Tags: George+W+Bush, NRDC, policy, Politics, voting+record, Waxman
- Uncategorized
March 6th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Congratulations on missing the point of environmentalism.
Environmentalism should not be a political issue, but here you are bashing Bush and advocating left-wing books. Please stop.
I’m going to fisk your rantings…
The Kyoto Protocol
You conveniently ignored that this was a 1997 issue. Remember who was in office in 1997? Bush didn’t change a thing, yet you bash him.
Cheney’s Energy Task Force
Secret meetings!? OH NOOES!!1!one! I mean, who in their right mind would invite representatives from major energy companies to a meeting on energy?! That’s nuts!
Renewable Energy Research and Development
This one is easy: When you cite sources such as the NY Times, ThinkProgress, Democrats.org, and failed left-wing talk show host and politician Al Franken, your credibility crumbles. This is called “propaganda”. Propaganda should be questioned, not cited as fact.
Clear Skies, Healthy Forests
News Flash! Forests are renewable resources! There are more forests in the US now than in the last century. Our consumption of lumber is at a healthy, sustainable rate. Who cares if this title sounds Orwellian? Most government programs do (think: Social Security. Neither social, nor secure, but I digress)
Please stop publishing left-wing talking points if you want the rest of us to take environmentalism seriously.
March 6th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I actually thought it was pretty funny, ‘ray-gun’ and all. It did wrap-up a bit Malthusian though.
Kyoto would have been a Disaster for the US. I don’t know why people still cling to the ideal of this when in reality it is an economic wealth redistribution treaty and not an environmental treaty.
What I really hope is that people will consider the liability that blaming all the world’s problems on the US entails. We’re already detested by most of the world; be their distaste reasonable or not. Do we really need to hang ‘Acts of God’ around Uncle Sam’s neck too… just for the sake of local political advantage?
I know we look at politics in this country as sort of a spectator sport; but when all the vitriol of our debates slips out into the world airways others take it seriously and it is used toward their own political ends… mainly as something to blame the failures of their own policies and governments upon. We need to understand that for all of our faults the world needs the U.S. and it needs the U.S. to be strong whether the world is willing to recognize this need or not.
Mad Hugo’s Satan and sulfur comments in the U.N. last year are only the tip of the iceberg of the disdain that is fomented in a world whose leaders love nothing more than to blame their own national failures on the successes of the U.S.
March 9th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Wow. And lefties are accused of being conspiracy theorists! You seem to be a very angry man; have you tried veganism?
So, specifically about the Kyoto Treaty: I think Ryan’s greater point was that Bush is the one who removed the U.S. from this process. That is not something that began in 1997.
As for the Energy Task Force, again, I think the greater point is that only the energy companies were represented, and no one (from what I read in the news) from the consumer side or from the environmentalist/conservancy side was invited. This is not the way to begin the development of a national energy policy.
In your third point, what I want to say is: And you think your information resource is NOT propaganda? Clearly you have an agenda, which is always the foundation for any kind of propaganda. And besides, just because it’s propaganda doesn’t mean it’s untrue.
As for forests as renewable resources, uh, excuse me, it’s about more than just the trees themselves. It’s also about the ecosystems that have developed around the forests. The continued failure to see the bigger picture is why the majority of the Western Civilizations on this rock we call home have accepted the reality that man is contributing to his own demise by slowly shutting down the planet.
When will be the time to correct these gross errors? Why do you want to wait to see if we hit irreversible damage mode? Why are you so resistant to making positive change now?
Do you realize that this president’s approval rating has slipped to below 20%? For whom are you speaking?
It’s O.K. to let this go. It’s O.K. for you to be wrong this time. Just breathe.
And did I mention veganism?
(O.K., O.K., I’m not willing to give up meat either, but I’m told it’s really good for you and the planet if you do!)
March 9th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
From what I’ve read recently, I think my contribution to this list would be Bush’s new-found love affair with ethanol fuel. Now, I admit I’m biased, and so it’s natural that a red flag went up for me when Bush became so gung-ho for this alternative to fossil fuels.
Aside from the whole issue of corn-based ethanol ending up being almost as bad for our environment as oil is (just in a different way; not so much with whole emissions thing as with the whole robbing the soil of any minerals and nutrients leading to the eventual destruction of ecosystems thing), I think what most concerns me with this issue is the way Bush is contributing to the issue of poverty in third world countries (in an admittedly round-about fashion). Come to find out that a large part of Bush’s agenda in visiting our neighbors south of the border is to discuss the possibility of creating some sort of trade agreement surrounding ethanol fuel.
Of course, the U.S. (under the Bush plan) would charge Brazil a $.54 tariff! This, by the bye, is a LOT, so chances are Brazil would never be able to export their fuel to the U.S. But the agreement would still allow the exchange of technology.
Hm. Seems sneaky to me. I don’t know. I’m way cautious with this administration.