A reader responded to my Environmental Protection Agency blog by stating that Bush is conducting business at the EPA like it has been done for years and that if you examine the bigger picture, Bush is no worse than any of his predecessors.
My thoughts:
I don't think complacency is the answer. Nor do I think it is right for the government to flat-out lie to make itself look better than it really is, regardless of the administration in question.
Ideally, public outrage would drive effective reform. Do I expect that any time soon? No. Does that mean that I shouldn't fight for it? No.
Things can get better but if nobody's trying, they won't.
I think Bush's environmental track record speaks for itself. It's literally the Republican Party at odds with the majority of the developed world. Look at the administration's insistance that the debate on global warming is still open. Look at the Kyoto Treaty. Look at the Healthy Forest Initiative.
As a resident of Washington state, I can tell you that logging is out of control. If
you think backcountry clear cutting has gone by the wayside, try flying over the Cascades on a clear day. It's getting worse.
More egregious than anything is the reclassification of mecrury as non-toxic in the revised Clean Air Act. Look it up; it isn't a liberal conspiracy -- it's a fact of life and it's a slow death sentence for many.
Clinton was no saint when it came to a consistent environmental track record,
but comparing him to Bush is a joke. This isn't a matter of opinion nor did I devise these ideas to fit into my liberal mindset.
I'm a Washingtonian and an outdoor lover before anything else and before I can turn a blind eye to Bush's environmental apologists, I must call it like it is. Bush is an environmental tragedy.
Respond to John
Back to top