PDA

View Full Version : George W. Bush's Anti-Environmental Advisors



nAz
08-30-2004, 03:26 PM
George W. Bush's Anti-Environmental Advisors

Beyond the Official Bios

An article in The National Journal ("A Few Hints of Green," August 7, 1999) introduced a group of people gathered to advise George W. Bush on crafting a "conservative environmental agenda." What most voters do not know is that the assembled group of policy advisors typically work for corporate front groups working for goals far outside the mainstream environmental perspective.

These corporate front groups support everything from "takings" legislation that would pay companies not to break environmental and public health laws and dismantling the Endangered Species Act, to denying the existence of global warming and the seriousness of air pollution. The group does not generally value the environment outside of conservative economic terms, and broadly opposes environmental protections that the American people consistently support in political polls.

A few individuals even have ties to the so-called "wise use" movement, an extreme movement whose 25 stated goals include "immediate wise development of the petroleum resources of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" and "creation of National Mining System" under which "all public lands including wilderness and national parks shall be open to mineral and energy production under wise use technologies."(The Wise Use Agenda, edited by Alan Gottlieb, 1989).


anyone know how true this is? i was surprised to hear that a majority of his environment advisors were former lobbyist for large corporation oil, timber and other energy co. this seems really wrong to just depend on these characters for info on environmental policy.

http://www.ewg.org/reports/GeorgeWBush/enviro_advisors.html

eg8r
08-30-2004, 03:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
i was surprised to hear that a majority of his environment advisors were former lobbyist for large corporation oil, timber and other energy co. <hr /></blockquote> This would not surprise me. Whether you feel it is a good/bad idea it should not have been surprising. Given Bush's background he was probably not pining to find a bunch of environmentalists to be his closest advisors but rather leaning on those people he trusted (people in the industry he is most familiar).

[ QUOTE ]
this seems really wrong to just depend on these characters for info on environmental policy.
<hr /></blockquote> Whether the article is true or not, I have no idea but I agree with you that it would be wrong to depend on only the advisements from anti-environmentalists on environmental issues.

eg8r

mred477
08-30-2004, 06:32 PM
Why is it wrong to give incentives to businesses for being environmentally friendly? I make a living cleaning up environmental messes that could've been avoided just by making disposal or clean-up a little more affordable. The government subsidizes everything else, so why not that?

On another note, drilling in ANWR is a debate worth having. Liberals want to protect the environment, but then in the next sentence say that the US should depend less on foreign oil. At the same time, they complain about nuclear power, which is the other viable alternative right now. You can't have it both ways.

In addition, global warming has become a catch-phrase for environmentalists and pervaded our schools, but I'm not convinced that the earth isn't getting warmer due to the course of natural events as opposed to caused by man. I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening, but how many people actually know exactly what it is and how it affects us.

Environmentalists love to talk about fuel cell technology, but fuel cells use hydrogen, and hydrogen is a gas that in a car would be under pressure. There are no air-tight seals I'm aware of (and certainly none cost effective) to prevent leakage of some hydrogen. When I worked in Texas, we had booths with nitrogen purges on a control system to prevent hydrocarbons from sparking. We had to wear a repirator when we went in not because of the hydrocarbons, but because the nitrogen leaks and will immediately suffocate you in the booth. When the hydrogen gas from the leak in the fuel cell mixes with sulfur in the atmosphere, it creates some nasty stuff. Won't hear the Dems talk about that when they talk about fuel cells, will you?

I'm not against getting more than one side of the argument, but none of these arguments are ever presented. Environmental issues are much more complex than just "hey...stop polluting." or "clean it up!" They require scientific data and proven procedures that are too often missing in today's legislation. JMHO

Will