[b said:
Quote[/b] (scottychaos @ Nov. 01 2004,7:20)]Facts you say?
Facts?
Facts like "Clinton passed many bills and laws to protect the environment .
Bush has never passed one."
are those the kinds of "Facts" you mean?
hmmmm...
<span style='color:blue'>Fulfilling a commitment he made when he ran for President, President Bush
signed historic bipartisan brownfields legislation in 2002, accelerating the cleanup of brownfields to better protect public health, create jobs, and revitalize communities.
President Bush supported and
signed into law a Farm Bill that enhances conservation and environmental stewardship. Under this Administration, funding has nearly doubled for these effective programs. The Farm Bill conservation programs are providing more than $40 billion over a decade to restore millions of acres of wetlands, protect habitats, conserve water, and improve streams and rivers near working farms and ranches.
Under Bush, he said, the EPA has focused significant research dollars to trace the cause of oxygen-depleted "dead zones" in Lake Erie. It has worked with Ohio officials to solve sewer overflow problems, and has provided more money to clean up polluted industrial sites.
Bush also
signed the Great Lakes Legacy Act, which provides $15 million yearly to clean up polluted sites along the Great Lakes.
Skinner said the reason the Superfund program is running out of money is because the Clinton administration let a tax that funded it expire. He said EPA is using resources it has to ensure that Superfund cleanups occur.
Bush's 2004 budget will increase Superfund cleanup money by $150 million over 2003, the EPA said.</span>
sources:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus....nts.pdf
http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/oh/102603_great_lakes.htm
nice FACTS there huh?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Bush has never passed one.
im not allowed to say "you lied"..so instead I will just have to say "in my opinion liberals simply make up "false truths" and present them as facts to spread..ummm..(cant use the word "lie") to spread disinformation hoping the gullible will believe it..and sadly, they believe it in droves"..
I guess that will have to do..
Ozzy, actually I DONT belive you lied!
you probably had no clue that Bush did actually pass those laws. because some people dont want you to know that.
the "untruth" suits the cause much better..
im sure you fully believed what you said was true..
you are a victim of the machine.
as are many of you..
Scot
Yeah, Bush's environmental record is pretty good:
Regarding brownfields legislation of 2002: the law provides funding to states, but sets no federal standards for public health and environmental protection or deed restrictions on sites where toxins may linger after cleanup is complete.
Regarding the Farm Bill: Only $9 billion of the new spending will address conservation, with the rest funding environmentally damaging policies and subsidizing polluting corporate factory farms. The proposed FY 2005 federal budget also would significantly slash funding for farmer and landowner conservation activities.
The administration has proposed slashing federal funding for important cooperative conservation programs including state and tribal wildlife grants. Furthermore, the FY 2005 budget proposes cutting overall environmental funding by $1.9 billion (compared to FY 2004).
Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative": Would allow more pollution than existing law permits and does nothing to curb carbon dioxide pollution, the main cause of global warming.
The EPA's air pollution plan is weaker than the Clean Air Act, and its mercury proposal would allow seven times as much this dangerous toxin to collect in our lakes and streams. While the new proposal to clean up heavy-duty diesels is commendable, it stands in stark contrast to the rest of the administration's abysmal record on air pollution. Most notably, the White House avoids discussing its rollback of the Clean Air Act's "New Source Review" program, which allows some of the dirtiest power plants in the country to emit more pollution for a longer period of time than what current law, fully enforced, would allow.
Bush's raising of fuel economy standards for SUV's, pickups, etc.: This 1.5 miles-per-gallon increase over five years is a drop in the bucket toward making America less dependent on foreign oil -- and even these savings will be largely wiped out by the "dual fuel" loophole that allows the auto industry to skirt efficiency standards. We have the technology now to make all vehicles go farther on a gas of gasoline, but incremental fuel economy increases are not going to get the technology on the market. Incidentally, one year after this paltry increase was announced, the overall American vehicle fleet hit a 22-year low in average fuel economy.
Climate Change Research: Although the administration increased one climate science program by $70 million (or 42 percent), it cut the U.S. Global Change Research Program by $109 million, for a $40 million net reduction in climate science research, according to OMB's May 2004 "Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress." In any case, the realities of global warming already have been established, most recently by a National Academy of Science study. We know enough to act -- and real action is needed -- but the White House would rather stall.
Marine Ecosystems: Working with NOAA and state and local governments, the National Park Service has begun work on restoring marine ecosystems. In the face of collapsing ocean ecosystems, protecting and restoring marine reserves -- while a positive step -- falls far short of the policies needed to address the concerns raised by the Pew and U.S. commissions.
Wetlands: Three million new wetland acres is a laudable goal, but what about the estimated 20 million acres of wetlands (and countless waterways nationwide) threatened by a January 2003 directive to federal agencies easing Clean Water Act protection? Although the administration, under pressure from conservation groups, agreed to end its rulemaking process for lifting Clean Water Act protection for streams and wetlands, its accompanying directive remains in effect.
Great Lakes: The Great Lakes region is a net loser under the FY 2005 budget proposal. The budget calls for an overall cut of nearly $500 million for sewage system upgrades nationwide (under the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund), and includes a nearly $240 million (more than 40 percent) decrease in clean water funding for the nine Great Lakes states. (NRDC's funding analysis is available upon request.) In addition, White House air pollution policies ignore mercury pollution from power plants, which has prompted fish consumption warnings in the Great Lakes region.
National Forests: A Federal Register notice indicates that the Bush Administration intends to replace the Roadless Area Conservation Rule with a state petition process that essentially eliminates federal protections from logging and mining in millions of acres of national forests – making these roadless areas much more vulnerable to road building and commercial logging.
The U.S. Forest Service approved lead-mining exploration in Missouri's Mark Twain National Forest. The Doe Run Company plans to drill up to 232 holes amid the tree-covered hills and winding streams of the Ozarks. Critics worry that the porous limestone in southeastern Missouri could lead to massive water pollution. The move is the latest from a pro-development administration that had already revised the rules that governed mining on public lands to make the process easier for industry. At the same time, the administration has been issuing oil and gas leases on public lands in the Rockies at a record pace.
Mercury: When approximately 600,000 newborn children are born each year with enough mercury in their blood to cause risk of lowered intelligence and learning problems, it’s time to take action. But instead, the Bush administration proposed weakening public health protections by announcing so-called "Utility Mercury Reductions" that would actually allow polluters to avoid cleaning up mercury pollution.
Aresenic: President Bush canceled a health regulation that would have reduced allowable levels of arsenic in U.S. drinking water from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb. It is not entirely clear why Mr. Bush takes arsenic poisoning so
lightly, but it may have something to do with his ties to the
coal industry. Burning coal is a major source of arsenic
contamination. Many landfills contain arsenic-laden ash produced by coal-burning power plants. Arsenic is likely to leak out of these landfills, contaminating groundwater. Coal companies were major contributors to Mr. Bush's election
campaign.
Sources: OMB Watch, the Sierra Club, Environment2004. You can find tons more at their prospective websites.