Bush Campaign Lies
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #42: Bush's Leadership on Environmental Issues has Given Us Cleaner Air, Water and Land
This is another whopper Christine Todd Whitman told in her April 22 lie-fest.
The air, water and land may be cleaner now than they were on January 20, 2001. Then again, they may not. But the real point is that any positive change in the environment in the past 3.5 years has come in spite of Bush and his policies, not because of them.
I'm going to provide evidence for my claim, of course, but I first feel compelled to provide fair advance warning. Bush has been such a terrible president when it comes to the environment, it's really difficult to believe he's done all the things the environmentalists claim. It might be best for you to read a few of the facts, go away for a little while and digest them, and come back for more later. Because truly, the depths of Bush's unconcern for the environment are really quite startling.
Okay, here goes. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Here's the Sierra Club's Book of Bush. And if you think that's overwhelming, check out the Natural Resources Defense Council's The Bush Record. The NRDC believes that 'This administration, in catering to industries that put America's health and natural heritage at risk, threatens to do more damage to our environmental protections than any other in U.S. history'. And if all of the evidence you see there doesn't convince you, then ask yourself why a large number of EPA officials have resigned in recent months, citing concerns about administration policies, and why a majority of EPA staff believe that 'promoting the President's energy plan and other administration initiatives has become more important' than environmental protection.
Is it possible that Christine Whitman, Bush's former EPA chief, lacks the objectivity to judge Bush's leadership on environmental issues?
Postscript: By way of completeness, Whitman specifically mentions a handful of Bush initiatives in her letter. There's Clear Skies and the Energy Bill, both of which are absolute disasters for the environment. She also mentions Bush's Healthy Forests initiative, which is nothing more than a giveaway to logging interests.
In contrast, the Beach Program she mentions appears to actually be a good program, but the credit for it rightly belongs to the Clinton administration (it was enacted October 10, 2000). She also trumpets a single instance in which the Bush administration has enforced the Clean Air Act. Wow, the government fulfilling its duty under the law. No wonder she's so proud.
And in fairness, it seems that Bush actually has signed a couple of good pieces of legislation, those being the non-road diesel regulations (which, it must be said, supercedes a decidedly more craven Bush approach to the issue), and brownfields legislation which, although of questionable value, isn't a blatant sellout of our environment to polluters.