Earth Day Beyond Bush

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com

Posted April 21, 2008 | 08:40 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

President Bush's global warming speech this past Wednesday came on the eve of the 8th and final Earth Day of his presidency. Despite his confidence that "the true history of my administration will be written 50 years from now," it's a guarantee that whenever history is written, the most recent do nothing proposal reinforces the certainty that his tenure will be called the worst environmental presidency since the first Earth Day in 1970.

Beginning with his Inauguration Day when he blocked safeguards for arsenic in drinking water, President Bush's legacy is a lengthy litany of measures to erode safeguards for air, water, wetlands, forests and endangered species. His recent global warming speech ensured that his most lasting bequest is squandering seven years instead of attacking global warming. (See a timeline at www.americanprogress.org.)

President Bush's record reflects reversal of fundamental tenets of environmental protection generally practiced by presidents of both parties over the last 38 years. And the consequences of these reversals will haunt us for a long time. The Bush Pollution Doctrine includes the following elements.

  • Muzzle scientists. Findings and warnings by government scientists and health professionals are routinely censored or ignored.
  • Analysis Paralysis. Decisions are based on analyses focused on the cost to companies rather than the benefits to public health or our natural heritage.
  • Political Interference. Protection proposals from environmental professionals are undone by the White House.
  • Inertia via Litigation. Agencies issue rules knowing that courts are bound to overturn them, but this still guarantees industry years of delay and more air and water pollution.

The public record is littered with examples of these governing approaches. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman was forced to remove portions of an EPA report on the health of the environment because they reflected scientists' grave concerns about global warming and described an increase in U.S. emissions.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson ignored the professional staff's recommendation to approve California's request to establish greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles. The staff even warned him that EPA was "likely to lose" a court challenge to a decision to deny the waiver. Nonetheless, Johnson was the first administrator to ever deny a California request, ensuring years of litigation instead of pollution reductions.

The impacts of the Bush administration's seven years of intransigence on global warming will haunt us for years to come. While it fought off binding reductions in greenhouse gases, the U.S. emitted a total of 42.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases from 2001-2006. Total annual emissions rose by 210 million metric tons during this time, which is the equivalent of adding approximately 30 million cars on the road.

Last month, the Washington Post discovered that President Bush personally overruled recommendations by EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the agency's science professionals and set a less protective smog standard.

When the U.S. Court of Appeals struck down EPA's 2005 mercury rule, it found that the agency used "the logic of the Queen of Hearts, substituting E.P.A.'s desires for the plain text." The administration's failure to reduce mercury was a victory for utilities and a long term problem for children and our environment.

Mercury is a neurotoxin that collects in the fatty tissue of fish such as striped bass and blue fin tuna, and can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in children born of mothers who ate contaminated fish. Under President Bush an estimated 355 tons of mercury were emitted by coal fired power plants, and will last in the environment for a long time.

First and foremost, the next president must reestablish our longstanding commitment to science based public health and environmental decisions. The yardstick for public health protection must be the impact on our most vulnerable people -- children, seniors, and the infirm. No more decisions based solely on the bottom line for companies causing the problem.

There must be transparency in environmental decision making. We must honor the public's right to know how and why protection policies were adopted. In addition, rather than continue legal defense of agencies' policies to avoid adequate implementation of environmental laws, the new president should settle ongoing lawsuits. The EPA can begin to reduce mercury pollution and issue smog safeguards.

Finally, the next president must launch vigorous efforts to reduce greenhouse gases before it's too late. The Bush administration's stubborn opposition to domestic and international binding reductions to slow global warming blocked years of progress. Reversing course won't be easy. The world has a dwindling window to reduce its greenhouse gas pollution before the most severe impacts -- sea level rise, coastal flooding, endless drought, famine -- occur. Vigorous action by the next president would make Earth Day 2009 a day to celebrate rather than mourn over the last eight years.

 
 

Comments
46
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
- websmith See Profile I'm a Fan of websmith permalink

And did you read the part where, since he can't get Congress to work on legislation, Bush is going to implement more regulations to the No Child Left Behind act on his own? He is now going to decide what's good for your kids.

This guy is going to do as much damage as he can in his last few months in office. They really need to start impeachment proceedings and censure him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:36 PM on 04/22/2008
- MarkJohnHunter See Profile I'm a Fan of MarkJohnHunter permalink

On this Earth Day we ought to look at world starvation and the causes of it. Climate change is a driving force of increasing starvation, as is the insistence that business profits rule policy decision making. I still do not understand how the same people who vote to protect the unborn, so less value the millions starving today, so want the death penalty, and so little understand or work to understand how disease and shortened life expectancy, ad birth defects, and still births and caused by pollution and poor nutrition. GWB has saved how many unborn, while failing to protect the lives of millions, including the unborn who come into the world with birth defects, or who while conceived are not born alive. Abortion by pollution and poor nutrition must be OK to GWB. Mark John Hunter Alpena.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:22 PM on 04/22/2008
- randyleepublic See Profile I'm a Fan of randyleepublic permalink

Umm. But how is "climate change" connected with starvation? I am the first to agree that present day starvation is an inexcusable travesty. But isn't CO2 what plants breathe? And isn't it proven that elevated CO2 levels INCREASE plant productivity??? If plants are more productive, then food is cheaper - it becomes more difficult to prevent people from getting it.

I totally agree that we should look at world starvation. In fact we should look at it before anything else. Untill it is solved we should consider climate change something that is not that important. Would you rather be sweating or starving????

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:37 AM on 04/23/2008
- MarkJohnHunter See Profile I'm a Fan of MarkJohnHunter permalink

On this Earth Day we ought to look at world starvation and the causes of it. Climate change is a driving force of increasing starvation, as is the insistence that business profits rule policy decision making. I still do not understand how the same people who vote to protect the unborn, so less value the millions starving today, so want the death penalty, and so little understand or work to understand how disease and shortened life expectancy, ad birth defects, and still births and caused by pollution and poor nutrition. GWB has saved how many unborn, while failing to protect the lives of millions, including the unborn who come into the world with birth defects, or who while conceived are not born alive. Abortion by pollution and poor nutrition must be OK to GWB. Mark John Hunter Alpena.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:08 PM on 04/22/2008
- Kashathree See Profile I'm a Fan of Kashathree permalink

'. . .it's a guarantee that whenever history is written, the most recent do nothing proposal reinforces the certainty that his tenure will be called the worst environmental presidency since the first Earth Day in 1970. "

I think this statement is more accurate if you remove the word "environmental" and have the sentence read ". . .his [Bush's] tenure will be called the worst presidency [in history]." He has done severe damage to our country, and I want my America back!!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:47 PM on 04/22/2008
- Cybershaman See Profile I'm a Fan of Cybershaman permalink

"Ya see, I know how ta protect hardwoods," said King George on earth Day. "Ya gotta get the maid ta use some elbow grease and beeswax like my ma did. Heh. Heh."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:10 PM on 04/22/2008
- ChiMan1 See Profile I'm a Fan of ChiMan1 permalink

Administrator in the history of the $7 billion, 18,000 employee agency. THIS SAYS IT ALL!
Another BLOATED bureaucracy, wanting to grow even bigger, cut this Carbon Clubfoot NOW!!!
The LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES is what this BS is all about.
Ethanol my ass, People will be starving soon, but you can add to your resume, with more Gov NonSense. Take Algore to the North Pole, get a head start on your supposed Tropical Paradise.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:43 PM on 04/22/2008
- BTN See Profile I'm a Fan of BTN permalink

We all need to hunker down and really look at the science again.
There is a fierce debate on whether this warming trend is largely a natural process.
Don't muzzle the skeptics:

http://theglobalwarmingtruth.com/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:15 PM on 04/22/2008
- dogstar1125 See Profile I'm a Fan of dogstar1125 permalink

BTN,
I took the time to check your website. I noticed right off that the home page doesn't give any information about who they are, where they're located, nada. There is a link to a "large list" of other people and scientists that don't believe global warming is man-made: the list includes Dick Cheney; the CATO institute; Steve Forbes...really a "who's who" of unbiased, top minds! I personally can't think of a single thing Dick Cheney has been right about since becoming VP (but he was straight on accurate about what a war in Iraq would cause when he was Defense Sec. under Bush I). It's not that we want to muzzle the skeptics, it's just that after awhile hearing the same old crap that is not peer reviewed and not mainstream and - most importantly - NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS!! loses it's charm. This is not some game we can afford to be wrong on: There is no other place in the known universe capable of supporting human civilization, PERIOD. If we wreck this planet our species is doomed. This wonderously diverse, life sustaining jewel floating through space is our only hope. It is a closed system, not unlike a geranium: Everything we make stays here, which is why arguments to continue making things like nuclear waste, toxins, etc... are against everyone's interests and should be eliminated, regardless of the impact on the economy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:31 PM on 04/22/2008
- randyleepublic See Profile I'm a Fan of randyleepublic permalink

Just because Dick Cheney is for something it's wrong? That is ridiculous.

"Observations" are that the Earth's temperature varies over time. That is all. The rest is pure conjecture.

Toxins and nuclear waste are things that have to handled responsibly. Do you really want to return to a life span of 35 years and an infant mortality of 70%? Our technological culture provides great benefits, and also brings responsibilities.

Saying things like "regardless of the impact on the economy" is living in a fantasy world. When you are starving because of the "impact on the economy" you will do whatever it takes to feed yourself. If you don't think so, you have never been hungry.

In fact, the health of the economy is crucial to the Earth's ecology. ONLY when the economy is healthy enough to support people's needs and still have surplus, exists the opportunity to behave responsibly with the pollution generated as a result of production. Again, if you doubt this, you have never been hungry. You live in a fantasy world.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:55 AM on 04/23/2008
- elderly See Profile I'm a Fan of elderly permalink

Not to be picky but pick any subject and his presidency is the worst, and not just since Earth Day but since the first day of this country's existence.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:36 PM on 04/22/2008
- Kashathree See Profile I'm a Fan of Kashathree permalink

Amen, elderly, Amen.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:49 PM on 04/22/2008
- andyboy See Profile I'm a Fan of andyboy permalink

Whoa now kids we don;t want to mess up our economy. It's so good right now. Let's not blow it with a bunch of tree hugging.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 PM on 04/22/2008
- Synoia See Profile I'm a Fan of Synoia permalink

"Analysis Paralysis. Decisions are based on analysis focused on the cost to companies rather than the benefits to public health or our natural heritage."

Beg to differ, That's not analysis paralysis. Analysis paralysis is continuing to study, or referring for further study, an item. The consequence is no decision.

That's not saying this administration does not use analysis paralysis in a malign manner. The action described is making a biased decision.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:22 PM on 04/22/2008
- JulieSA See Profile I'm a Fan of JulieSA permalink

I'm all for eliminating mercury form emissions--it's a proven hazard. However, why do the AGW people continue to make silly claims like the one that GHGs will cause "endless drought"? Go to NOAA's paleo drought website if you want to see some really scary stuff.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_final.html

"The paleoclimatic record also indicates that droughts of a much greater duration than any in 20th century have occurred in parts of North American as recently as 500 years ago. These data indicate that we should be aware of the possibility of such droughts occurring in the future as well. The occurrence of such sustained drought conditions today would be a natural disaster of a magnitude unprecedented in the 20th century."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:05 PM on 04/22/2008
- andyboy See Profile I'm a Fan of andyboy permalink

JulieSA,

I hope scientists perfect the rain machine soon. I heard it's on their "to do" list right after cloning huge armies and building a better nuclear bomb.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:14 PM on 04/22/2008
- reelcobra See Profile I'm a Fan of reelcobra permalink

It took two of you to write this?

Call me oldfashioned, but I still believe in the Newsweek 1975 "global cooling" angle.

As for "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever the Goracle now calls it, I bought one billion worth of carbon offsets at freecarbonoffsets online.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:19 PM on 04/22/2008
- andyboy See Profile I'm a Fan of andyboy permalink

You sound like your as high as you wanna be.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:15 PM on 04/22/2008
- zjr909 See Profile I'm a Fan of zjr909 permalink

As good as this article was, its authors act as if they've never heard of John McCain - otherwise they wouldn't waste their breath advising what the next president should do. McCain will do even less than nothing - he's already pledged as much. But it may well be too late to do anything to save ourselves anyway; our economy exists primarily as a conduit to institutionalize the elites' self-interests. And saving the world is not one of their primary concerns. Human pollution of this world will end...when the world says so. Period.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 PM on 04/22/2008
- UnbiasView See Profile I'm a Fan of UnbiasView permalink

I'm all for cleaning up the environment to reduce pollution. Let's work towards more fuel efficient cars so we can become energy independent and even change your light bulbs if you want (it won't help).

That being said, Global Warming is a hoax so that Al Gore can finally make some friends, it's is not worth blowing up our entire economy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:48 AM on 04/22/2008
- indypete See Profile I'm a Fan of indypete permalink

"Global Warming is a hoax so that Al Gore ..."

Unbias, I read your posts with interest finding you to be in general quite interesting and, although you hold the contrary view to we "leftys", quite well informed and inoffensive. However, with remarks like this you will quickly erode the respect I have developed for you. Please bear in mind the scource of the global warming denials (energy companies and a few scientists well paid by conservative think tanks) and the scource of the global warming warnings (an overwhelming majority of climatologists) and compare them to the eerily similar situation of the nicotine addiction argument. Do I think we can do anything about global warming? No, it's too late, the damage has been done and there are now too many people doing too much more damage for us ever to catch up (the US is no longer the only/major polluter). That probably makes my argument pointless but I feel that conscience and decency compel us (the human race and the energy industry in particular) to take responsibility for our collective actions. Now to focus on what we agree on, let's clean up the environment! Let's start with the parts that have the most damage... the industrial poison pits ruining the air and water close to the areas where the less fortunate live (and do it at the expense of the polluters, not the taxpayers). The occasional beer can on the ski slopes of Vail Colorado can wait.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:28 PM on 04/22/2008
- testpilot84 See Profile I'm a Fan of testpilot84 permalink

Well said. I have to disagree, though. When I deconstructed the data, the numbers did not show that this is the warmest it has been over the last 2000 years as the IPCC would have you believe. Unfortunately, the graph cited 66 times in the Paleoclimate chapter (Jones et al) is an artifact of the math. That means the recent spike is caused by the faulty math and not by the data. This is backed up by another source, as well (McIntyre and McKettrick). None of us are in the pay of the energy companies.

The atmosphere may be warming. In the last 10 years, it has cooled significantly (see available satellite data). Since CO2 in the atmosphere has risen over the last 10 years, that continues to creedence to the maxim that correlation does not mean causation. There is something else that is a larger driver than us. Given that, it is a monumental mistake to slow any economy down for a problem that is not of our own making. Strong capitalist economies bring up the poor and the rich alike. Strong capitalist economies have the time and treasure necessary to fight pollution. And I'm all for a clean environment. Let's clean up pollution, but don't ask me to agree to fight the AGW ghost.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 PM on 04/22/2008
- testpilot84 See Profile I'm a Fan of testpilot84 permalink

Absolutely. A hoax. The temp has now dropped 0.8 deg C since 1998. Check the satellite data.

Our economy exists to enrich those who work hard and have an eye on those products needed by a society. Our freedoms have allowed the greatest mass uplifting out of poverty ever seen on this planet. Our poor are far richer than the average European. Those that start at minimum wage are, on average, earning 5 times that amount 10 years later (Source: IRS). What a great country.

Quit feeling guilty for living and attempting to saddle all the rest of us with your apocolyptic views that we CAUSE global warming. It was warmer 800 years ago and we had no SUVs then.

Solution: Nuclear power, drill in ANWR, become a net exporter of energy. It is all doable, but not by pie-in-the-sky green technology in the near future. A few hundred nuclear plants will be a great start. Then we can have all the electric cars we can handle. More cheap power and the freedom to use it is ALWAYS the answer to poverty, whether on the local or national level.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:26 PM on 04/22/2008
- andyboy See Profile I'm a Fan of andyboy permalink

testpilot84,

Yeah!!!! Screw the Earth! Ride her til she goes limp!

Suck every last drop of oil and clear cut every tree. Kill all the animals and pollute every sea! All in the name of the most important thing in the world the Economy!

Nuclear waste that decays in thousands of years? Just put it in the city dump. That's a hoax too.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:26 PM on 04/22/2008
- Podewumun See Profile I'm a Fan of Podewumun permalink

WHAT ECONOMY? Your view is not unbiased. It's dim.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:58 AM on 04/22/2008
- susieq1001 See Profile I'm a Fan of susieq1001 permalink

"it's is not worth blowing up our entire economy"

Many of the environmentally friendly options out there would actually help our economy quite a bit.

I agree with you that fuel efficiency in our automobiles would be the #1 thing we could do---and I think we could do it quite a bit more quickly than some have suggested.

I do not agree with you that climate change is a hoax.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:08 AM on 04/22/2008
- UnbiasView See Profile I'm a Fan of UnbiasView permalink

"Many of the environmentally friendly options out there would actually help our economy quite a bit."

Please elaborate because all of the recent one I have seen would hurt business and in turn hurt this country's standing against others, that's why Bill Clinton didn'y sign Keyota.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:11 PM on 04/22/2008
- DaveDonelson See Profile I'm a Fan of DaveDonelson permalink

The confusion rests with the term "environmental" policy. This administration has never had an "environmental" policy--it's a "business" policy, designed to deliver whatever the mavens of industry and commerce need to fatten their assets and trim their liabilities.
--Dave Donelson, author of Heart of Diamonds

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:32 AM on 04/22/2008
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in