>Yeah, but even if you assume everything said in that article is
>true and accurate, it does not add one drop of green paint to
>GW's portrait.
Okay YOUR statements: Since you don't assume everything in the
article is true and accurate, point out the lies.
>Even according to the article, the closest-to-positive policy
>decisions GWB actually made regarding the environment were to
>continue postponing stricter regulations or not touch existing
>ones, which could very well mean that he just hasn't gotten
>around to those ones yet. The less positive decisions actually
>cause harm, such as new oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness.
The 'closest-to-positive policy decision' would be upholding the
diesel regulations. He didn't POSTPONE stricter regulations on
that issue. Like I suggest, read the whole article without the
starry eyes.
As for the drilling in the Alaskan wilderness, that's your
opinion that it would cause harm. But this isn't the fifties.
Just like the nuclear industry there have been plenty of
advancements in oil exploration and drilling. Now if your idea of
harm is taking one step into the ANR, then sell your car,call the
power company and tell them to shut it off, and read books by a
tallow candle while the world advances around you.
>What new policy has GWB created that would actually help
>the environment?
Let's do some math: 45 days waiting for the election results left
only 40 to start the transition. Plus the 100 days Bush has been
in office. Now subtract the time it takes to select people for
the new governments positions and the background checks and in
some cases Congress aproval....how much time does that leave for
formulating new policies? How many new policies did Clinton enact
in his first 100 days? I'll make it easier: how many did he enact
in his first seven years?
>GWB does not deserve any credit. All that article could do
>would be to take away some credit from Clinton & Gore for not
>acting sooner, but at least they _did_ eventually decide for
>stricter regulations.
Well that stands on it's own, for what that's worth.
>??? My email was responding to the first one, which advertised
>that the article would convince me that GW was "much greener
>than you think." It hasn't.
And I'm responding to your e-mail which would have us believe
that GWB has black oil in his veins and pisses arsenic.
>I've seen _during my lifetime_ the positive effects of having
>strict pollution control standards. There's more to the
>environment than just activist groups.
>
>-- Matt Grimaldi
Well yeah. The environment has air and plants amd animals and
water and earth. I've seen _during my lifetime_ the Pinatubo
volcano cause a worldwide tempuratue drop for two years. Yes man
can cause serious damage both immediate and long term over both
small and global scales but the Earth is a lot more resiliant
than the activists would have you believe. The Earth temperature
is increasing, the antartic ice will disappear, global sea levels
will rise, and mankind will have it's trial by fire. But quickly
the Earth will cool and the ice and snow will return. This has
happened hundreds of times. What people don't know is that we are
in a stable period right now. Mankind didn't cause it and we
aren't going to stop the next unstable period from coming. And we
aren't hastening it either with one or five or a thousand
descions on green house gasses or sprawl or washing machines or
pick your own.
Kevin Tarr
Trump high, lead low
