Poll - What Issue is Most Important to You?
- Thread starter WHITE DEVIL
- Start date
This is straight out wrong...but it's cool I didn't know much about Bush environmentally either until i did some digging. It's not exactly put on the front page or anything. Bush has a VERY firm stance on the environment. He simply does not give one small fuck about it. Environmentally, Bush's has been the worst presidency ever, without any question. His cabinet is composed of oil, coal, vehicle, logging, and energy lobbyers straight from the industries themselves. There are more skeptics of global warming in Bush's cabinet than there are among all US Republican senators.
The LCV, one of the largest, most respected, politically nonpartisan environmental groups, gives Kerry an "A" and Bush an "F" on the environment. The same goes in with organizations country-wide.
Just type "Bush environment" in google, and see what comes up. It's an absolute travesty.
- Bush's presidency has rolled back the EPA budget by 30%, resulting in a 50% cut in inspections. Good thing we've all heard about this. Thanks Liberal Media!
- Bush's "Clear Skies" act, which he is trying to push as we speak, will result in a 520 percent increase in Mercury pollution by 2010. The EPA sent a report to the Bush administration that detailed how Mercury is passed along from pregnant women to children. It was sat on by the Administration for nine months and was only exposed after it got leaked by a journalist. Thanks Liberal Media! Clear Skies also allows 68 percent more Nitrous Oxide(NOx) pollution, (linked to asthma and smog) 225 percent more sulfur dioxide pollution (linked to acid rain and soot).
- Instead of curtailing CO2 emission, like he promised in his campaign, he has now pushed a "voluntary" program for companies and corporations. (In other words, CO2 a go-go!)
- The Bush plan creates a loophole exempting power plants from being held accountable to the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review (NSR) standards and from being required to install cleanup technology (best available retrofit technology or BART). Good thing the Liberal Media is all over that.
- Bush pardoned Koch industries, a contributor of 500,000.00 to his campaign and GOP in TX, for over 97 felony environmental regulations. What could have been potentially 350 million in fines was reduced to a single fine of 20 million. Over 13 felony counts were dropped down to a single misdemeanor after a word from the DOJ. Once again, i remember when this happened, and the GOM wouldn't shut up about it. Damn Liberal Media!
- Bush reversed standards for arsenic and impurities in clean water enacted in the 90s. (GOM Thread: Bu$hco wants to put more shit in our drinking water.)
- Bush pulled the US out of Kyoto.
- The Bush administration implemented rule changes that would classify power plant and factory repairs costing up to 20 percent of a facility's value as "routine maintenance" -- thus exempting the facility from emissions control requirements and allowing massive pollution increases. In late December of 2003, a federal appeals court blocked the weakened rules from taking effect prior to full judicial review, after finding that the changes threatened irreparable harm to public health and were likely unlawful. The EPA under Bush is attempting to still go full steam ahead with the plan.
- Bush has rolled back protection for 60 million acres of protected public space.
The LCV, one of the largest, most respected, politically nonpartisan environmental groups, gives Kerry an "A" and Bush an "F" on the environment. The same goes in with organizations country-wide.
Just type "Bush environment" in google, and see what comes up. It's an absolute travesty.
I want to say all of those issues are the most important...but it also seems to me that those issues are all somehow related...if you take a certain stance on taxes it will inevitably hurt/help the poverty/class devide issue. Picking one...I would say world issues. I think the US definitley needs to come up with better foreign affairs policies...if we accomplish that, I think everything else can fall into place.
here's a good article I found on their viewpoints
DALLAS--The differences between George W. Bush and John Kerry on the environment can be measured by the same yardstick that scientists often use to measure pollution: parts per million.
That's because the prize in the political battle over the environment isn't a huge number of voters but the smaller number who haven't decided whom they'll support or whether they'll vote at all.
Analysts say the environment, like many other issues such as education or crime, is rarely a prime factor for most voters. In an election dominated by the economy and the war in Iraq , the percentage of people who list the environment as their top political concern is in single digits.
But as Kerry's extended swing last week through some of the nation's environmental hotspots shows-Tuesday in Florida , Wednesday in Louisiana and Thursday, Earth Day, in smoggy Houston --the environment can make a difference in key states, pushing swing voters to the other side of the ballot.
The Bush campaign recognizes the issue's potential for tipping a race.
"Let's be honest--this is going to be a close election," said Bush campaign spokesman Danny Diaz. "We recognize that there are a lot of different issues that drive a lot of different voters."
The differences between Bush and Kerry on the environment weren't just cooked up by political consultants. The candidates diverge sharply on several points.
"The distinction on these issues couldn't be greater," Carol Browner, head of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton administration, told reporters last Tuesday while campaigning with Kerry. "This is simply the worst administration ever when it comes to protecting our air, our water, the health of our families and communities."
Here's a breakdown of where the candidates stand on some major environmental issues:
--Air. Clear Skies, the centerpiece of Bush's clean-air efforts, would rewrite the Clean Air Act to let utilities earn, buy and sell credits for cutting emissions of nitrogen oxides, which cause smog, and toxic mercury. A company that needs to cut its emissions could avoid actual reductions by buying credits from another company that reduced its pollution more than the law required.
That system has been applied with great success to sulfur dioxide, a component of acid rain. Bush said using the technique for other pollutants would reduce them 70 percent by 2018 and save $1 billion in compliance costs.
Clear Skies legislation has stalled in Congress, so the administration has proposed making many of the changes with regulations, which don't need congressional approval.
Kerry and many environmentalists say Clear Skies is flawed and actually works to the utilities' benefit by postponing pollution cuts far too long. One of the most controversial provisions would remove permit requirements that now limit industries' ability to boost emissions.
Kerry said Clear Skies would increase pollution by 21 million tons a year over the simple enforcement of existing law. By rejecting a more protective option that environmental officials proposed, Kerry said, the Bush plan would result in 100,000 additional premature deaths over a decade and a half.
--Energy. Bush's energy plan hasn't gotten out of Congress, but as with Clear Skies, the administration has made its agenda plain. Bush is promoting more use of coal as well drilling for oil and gas on public lands, including Alaska 's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
He also wants to spend $1.2 billion for research into hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles, homes and businesses. All of the initiatives are meant to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, Bush said.
Kerry also said he wants to wean the nation off foreign oil, but he said the country "can't drill its way to independence." Instead, he would create a renewable energy trust fund to speed up the adoption of cleaner technology and energy efficiency.
--Global warming. Bush has withdrawn the United States from the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty that seeks to limit emissions of carbon dioxide, saying the pact would put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage. He also backed away from a 2000 campaign pledge to cut U.S. emissions.
Instead, Bush has earmarked $4.4 billion for climate change efforts, including $1.75 billion for research and $500 million in energy-efficiency tax incentives.
Kerry accuses the president of abandoning the U.S. leadership on global warming and other worldwide environmental concerns. He has advocated new talks to improve the climate treaty, but said the United States can't keep postponing action on global warming.
DALLAS--The differences between George W. Bush and John Kerry on the environment can be measured by the same yardstick that scientists often use to measure pollution: parts per million.
That's because the prize in the political battle over the environment isn't a huge number of voters but the smaller number who haven't decided whom they'll support or whether they'll vote at all.
Analysts say the environment, like many other issues such as education or crime, is rarely a prime factor for most voters. In an election dominated by the economy and the war in Iraq , the percentage of people who list the environment as their top political concern is in single digits.
But as Kerry's extended swing last week through some of the nation's environmental hotspots shows-Tuesday in Florida , Wednesday in Louisiana and Thursday, Earth Day, in smoggy Houston --the environment can make a difference in key states, pushing swing voters to the other side of the ballot.
The Bush campaign recognizes the issue's potential for tipping a race.
"Let's be honest--this is going to be a close election," said Bush campaign spokesman Danny Diaz. "We recognize that there are a lot of different issues that drive a lot of different voters."
The differences between Bush and Kerry on the environment weren't just cooked up by political consultants. The candidates diverge sharply on several points.
"The distinction on these issues couldn't be greater," Carol Browner, head of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton administration, told reporters last Tuesday while campaigning with Kerry. "This is simply the worst administration ever when it comes to protecting our air, our water, the health of our families and communities."
Here's a breakdown of where the candidates stand on some major environmental issues:
--Air. Clear Skies, the centerpiece of Bush's clean-air efforts, would rewrite the Clean Air Act to let utilities earn, buy and sell credits for cutting emissions of nitrogen oxides, which cause smog, and toxic mercury. A company that needs to cut its emissions could avoid actual reductions by buying credits from another company that reduced its pollution more than the law required.
That system has been applied with great success to sulfur dioxide, a component of acid rain. Bush said using the technique for other pollutants would reduce them 70 percent by 2018 and save $1 billion in compliance costs.
Clear Skies legislation has stalled in Congress, so the administration has proposed making many of the changes with regulations, which don't need congressional approval.
Kerry and many environmentalists say Clear Skies is flawed and actually works to the utilities' benefit by postponing pollution cuts far too long. One of the most controversial provisions would remove permit requirements that now limit industries' ability to boost emissions.
Kerry said Clear Skies would increase pollution by 21 million tons a year over the simple enforcement of existing law. By rejecting a more protective option that environmental officials proposed, Kerry said, the Bush plan would result in 100,000 additional premature deaths over a decade and a half.
--Energy. Bush's energy plan hasn't gotten out of Congress, but as with Clear Skies, the administration has made its agenda plain. Bush is promoting more use of coal as well drilling for oil and gas on public lands, including Alaska 's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
He also wants to spend $1.2 billion for research into hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles, homes and businesses. All of the initiatives are meant to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, Bush said.
Kerry also said he wants to wean the nation off foreign oil, but he said the country "can't drill its way to independence." Instead, he would create a renewable energy trust fund to speed up the adoption of cleaner technology and energy efficiency.
--Global warming. Bush has withdrawn the United States from the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty that seeks to limit emissions of carbon dioxide, saying the pact would put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage. He also backed away from a 2000 campaign pledge to cut U.S. emissions.
Instead, Bush has earmarked $4.4 billion for climate change efforts, including $1.75 billion for research and $500 million in energy-efficiency tax incentives.
Kerry accuses the president of abandoning the U.S. leadership on global warming and other worldwide environmental concerns. He has advocated new talks to improve the climate treaty, but said the United States can't keep postponing action on global warming.