PDA

View Full Version : Worst Enviironment Presidents? Most Were Repubs



Gayle in MD
09-12-2010, 01:48 PM
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/presidents-worst-environmental-records-460808


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Ronald Reagan Second Worst Environmental President in History



Although it has been pointed out that Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) had been pretty solid on the environment as governor of California, he seemed to take a turn for the worse once he got to the White House. "The Reagan administration adopted an extraordinarily aggressive policy of issuing leases for oil, gas and coal development on tens of millions of acres of national lands -- more than any other administration in history, including the current one," the Wilderness Society's David Alberswerth has reported.

Perhaps setting the tone for much of his policy, Reagan famously (and bizarrely) said "trees cause more pollution than automobiles do," and that if "you've seen one tree you've seen them all." As president Reagan shocked greens by hiring the notorious James Watt and Anne Gorsuch for the heads of the Department of Interior and the EPA. The industry-friendly appointees worked tirelessly to roll back environmental regulations, from the Clean Air Act to the Clean Water Act. In the administration's first year, there was a 79 percent decline in the number of enforcement cases filed from regional offices to EPA headquarters, and a 69 percent decline in the number of cases filed from the EPA to the Department of Justice.

Reagan's Superfund director, Rita Lavelle, was sent to jail after a Congressional investigation into alleged corruption (called "Sewergate"). Lavelle returned to prison in 2005 after being accused of fraud in a case of faked environmental cleanup in the private sector.

Reagan also rolled back Carter's CAFE standards for car gas mileage, slashed funding for renewable energy (sending the burgeoning industry into a freefall it still hasn't recovered from), signed an executive order that forces unworkable evacuation plans on communities surrounding nuclear power plants, and unceremoniously ripped the solar panels off the White House. Reagan may have been a nice man, but he drove us right back into oil addiction, some say setting the stage for years of global conflict and indirect funding of terrorism.





Bush, Worst Environmental President in History:



A highly polarizing figure, President George W. Bush has been widely criticized for his dismal record on the environment. In fact, leading advocate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has said, "You simply can't talk honestly about the environment today without criticizing this president. George W. Bush will go down as the worst environmental president in our nation's history."

Kennedy's book Crimes Against Nature details how Bush has rewritten the nation's environmental laws in favor of industry and filled the ranks of regulatory agencies with former lobbyists and corporate executives.

Bush rolled back laws (and stymied enforcement) on air pollution and standards for arsenic in drinking water. He pushed to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other federal lands to destructive drilling, promoted mountaintop removal coal mining, stepped up logging on public lands, slashed support for family planning around the world, fought against fuel economy and other efficiency standards and deliberately dragged his heels on the issue of climate change. The Bush administration has been accused of politicizing and distorting government science, particularly when it comes to global warming, and even floated a plan for corporate sponsorship of landmarks (sometimes referred to as the "Pepsi Grand Canyon" fiasco).

George W. Bush is well known for his deep ties to the oil industry, and under his leadership oil companies have enjoyed the highest profits in the history of the world, while consumers suffer sticker shock at the pump, not to mention a flagging economy and an unpopular war.



</div></div>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Environmental pollution is directly linked to cancer.

Here was have a party, the Republican Party, which not only has a long history of being the greatest defenders of corporate polluters, with the worst environment records, but also, Democratics have the best record in the list of the best environmental presidents.

Now you can kid yourself, that you and your children are not more at risk for cancer under Republican control, and you can deny all of the proof from the American Medical society, but the fact is, that when you have presidents who appoint corporate lobbyists and CEO's, who have a business history with the most pollution causing industries, in charge of environmental oversight, you're going to have more cancer.

Bush, the worst of the worst, yapping about our addiction to oil, when both Bush and Reagan prevented any progress for higher cafe' standards, and worked on behalf of the filthiest, most polluting corporations in existance.

While doing so, they protect the corporate industries which keep health costs unsustainably high, and have a history of widening the gap between the rich and the Middle Class, as the have also widened the dollar for dollar gap between the salaries of CEO's, compared to their employees.

Most of the Presidents with the best environmental records, were Democratics.

A vote for Republicans, is a vote for more cancer, and an extinct Middle Class.

Only strong government regulations can protect our health, and our environment, as it is obvious, that corporations are onoly interested in their bottom line, and care not a whit about what they do to the environment, or the health of the living people and animals on our earth.</span>

Gayle in MD
09-12-2010, 01:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Republican governor of Mississippi, who previously said the BP oil disaster was being overblown by the liberal media, was asked by NPR if all of the damage and destruction and deaths have caused him to reconsider his “smaller government, less regulation, more freedom for industry” ideology.

Nope.

“I think right now every oil company in the world says ‘I don’t want to pay $100 million a day to cut corners on drilling a well.’ And, I believe that’s where the market system works. No one has more to lose on this well than BP.”

Well, except maybe the 11 men who were killed by it.

But not to worry, people — everything’s fine. Just sit back, relax, and watch the market work its magic.

Wonders the Baltimore Sun,

The market functions properly when an oil company has repeated safety violations, ultimately causing an oil rig explosion that causes a loss in lives and perhaps the greatest environmental catastrophe in history. That is a proper functioning market?

If you’re a less-gubmint-less-regulation-less-taxes-let-big-oil-do-whatever-they-want-drill-baby-drill-right-wing ideologue, yes.

</div></div>

Gayle in MD
09-12-2010, 02:05 PM
America the beautiful will soon be only a foggy memory. The majestic mountains and crystal-clear waters have been transformed into polluted air and filthy city streets. The ethereal birds that once flew now lay limp and lifeless, covered in petroleum.


This home of the free and the brave is now the home of the greedy and the careless. Our natural resources are being depleted rapidly, while sickness infects our brothers and sisters.



Cancer is eating away at our population like pollution is eating away at America's beauty. The cancer rate keeps climbing, yet we keep building more factories that pollute our air and water.


The rivers and streams have dead fish. People can't even swim in the local pond anymore. The city air reeks of a metallic stench, and pollutes our lungs with every breath.


Cities and towns that used to rely on their fresh water for drinking water are now forced to purchase water. We must treasure our gift of nature by changing our priorities.


What would our ancestors think of the way we are treating the earth? What beauty will be left for our children? Will they ever swim in a clean pond? Years ago, people would swim in their local streams and waterways.


Now we are forced to go to pools and beaches. This is all because of pollution. Will our children's children ever see rolling hills and valleys not marred by pollution?


Our eyes witness the devastation, while our bodies become weak from the poisons we have unleashed into our environment. Yet, we do not even consider the detrimental consequences of our luxuries. The everyday use of cars, chemicals, and landfills not only endanger our wildlife, but also poison our water and air.


We are exterminating our children and ourselves. The cancer rate is climbing at epidemic proportions, and we are partially responsible. Take a closer look at everything that you do on a daily basis, and ask yourself what can you do to help.


So many of us just choose to do nothing. The people who are complacent and unwilling to make an effort to do their part are the most infuriating of all. Perhaps many of us Americans are in denial. Maybe they wish to ignore the fact that in many areas the cancer rates for particular cancers are spiraling out of control.


For the last 50 years, the breast cancer rate has been rising in every area of the industrialized world. From 1973 to 1988, the U.S. breast cancer rate rose 26 percent. American women now have one chance in eight of developing breast cancer at some point in their lives (American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts & Figures 1996).


Many studies have shown that adults in the nation's most polluted cities are 15% to 17% more likely to die prematurely than those in cities with the cleanest air (Source: Dockery, et al., Harvard School of Public Health, 1995).


Certain chemicals or substances used in the workplace may put people at an increased risk for developing certain types of cancers. Health hazards from asbestos dust have been recognized in many workers. Employees who are at the highest risk are in the ship-building trades, asbestos mining and milling, manufacturing of asbestos textiles used in roofing and other asbestos products, insulation work in the construction and building trades, brake repair, and a variety of many other trades.


Among children ages 1-14, cancer causes more deaths in the U.S. than any other disease (American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts & Figures 1996). Overall, cancer in children especially has risen 10.8% in the past decade (Miller, B.A., et al (eds.), SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1973-1990, National Cancer Institute, NIH pub. no.93-2789, 1993).


Why are there so many cases of a particular type cancer in a certain area? This is called a cancer cluster, which is a greater than expected number of cases of cancer within a group of people in a geographic area or a certain period of time. In the 1960s, researchers discovered a number of cases of mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lining of the chest and abdomen. They traced the development of mesothelioma to asbestos. This is how we came to discover that asbestos was a carcinogen.


There are states and cities even that have incredibly high cancer rates for certain, specific types of cancer. The only explanation for this is pollution in certain areas or chance. There are many environmental factors that cause cancer, killing countless people. Since it is hard to prove, the jury is still out on many of these cancer clusters.


We can save cans and glass to recycle, conserve our energy consumption, and fight to reform America's laws on pollution. When a new landfill or plant that uses toxic chemicals comes into your area, you can take action by boycotting the plant or even organizing protest.


Anyone can write to his or her legislators without much effort. These are a few things that anyone can do. We can all try to actively do something about the problem.


No one wants a polluted country. <span style="color: #FF0000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'> Except Republicans!</span> </span> We do not want our loved ones to die of cancer.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>We don't, but Republicans, and Corporations, do. Republicans pave the way for corporations to pollute! A FACT.</span> </span>



Every little thing can help. Be part of the solution, not the problem. How are you going to do your part?

LWW
09-12-2010, 03:47 PM
Truth versus truthiness:

- George Dubya Bush owned an off grid energy and water self sufficient home in Texas ... while Albert Gore used 240 times the national average of electricity in his Nashville mansion.

- Ronald Reagan's motorized pleasure vehicle was a 72 horsepower 4 cylinder Jeep. John Forbes Kerry's was a $7,000,000.00 seventy two foot foot motor yacht that he attempted to skate the tax man on.

OH DEAR! (http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html)

OH MY! (http://www.off-grid.net/2007/02/18/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch/)

GOOD GOLLY! (http://www.collinsbrosjeep.com/images/classic%20cars/reagan/reagan.htm)

HOW EMBARRASSING! (http://wbztv.com/local/john.kerry.yacht.2.1825558.html)

LWW

Qtec
09-12-2010, 09:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">- George Dubya Bush owned an off grid energy and water self sufficient home in Texas </div></div>

LMAO

Q

LWW
09-13-2010, 05:06 AM
Still in denial of reality I see. Again, like honduh, you see truth as a virus.

LWW &lt;---Unsurprised.

LWW
09-13-2010, 05:16 AM
Since we both know you lack the courage to research this yourself:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Amazingly, given his oil industry links, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Bush's ranch is off-grid, boasting a range of eco-features including geothermal heating and cooling, that would make Leonardo di Caprio proud. The passive-solar house is positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls.</span> ...

Bush acquired the Prairie Chapel ranch in Crawford, Texas, in 1999, and construction of the house was completed 2001. ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Bush has put in place “responsible environmental policies” at his 1,600-acre ranch. “He has installed a very environmentally friendly heating and cooling system, and he has put in place a system to recapture groundwater.”</span>

Rainwater and household wastewater are reused for irrigation. First lady Laura Bush, is restoring native wildflowers and grasses on the property. ...

“By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small,” says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. “Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses.”
The narrow porch stretches across the back and ends of the house. At one end, it widens into a covered patio off the living room.

The Bush ranch is the kind of place we’d all like to live. ...

Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground — one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called “gray water,” and one tank for “black water” from the kitchen sink and toilets. The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater. It is used to irrigate flower gardens, newly planted trees and a larger flower and herb garden behind the two-bedroom guesthouse. Water for the house comes from a well.

The Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume. Several holes were drilled 300 feet deep, where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees. Pipes connected to a heat pump inside the house circulate water into the ground, then back up and through the house, heating it in winter and cooling it in summer. The water for the outdoor pool is heated with the same system, which proved so efficient that initial plans to install solar energy panels were cancelled. ...</div></div>

The leftist writer almost choked writing the piece and tossed in several boiler plate Goreman myths.

LWW

Gayle in MD
09-13-2010, 05:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">- George Dubya Bush owned an off grid energy and water self sufficient home in Texas </div></div>

LMAO

Q </div></div>
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
Another standard LWW, irrelevant response.

There is always that badge of ignorance, that consistant, glaring overwhelming flaw in RW rhetoric.

No comprehension of "Under the conditions prevailing"

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

hondo
09-13-2010, 05:40 AM
I've noticed that while I've quit calling him "dick", he's starting calling me " honduh."

I tried to stop the name-calling around here, Gayle.
Ask little stevie. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Chopstick
09-13-2010, 06:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Environmental pollution is directly linked to cancer.

</span> </div></div>

So is the sun. Do you suggest we turn it off? Environmentalists get on my nerves. They are so bogus. They never accomplish anything beyond their own self agrandizement.

pooltchr
09-13-2010, 06:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">- George Dubya Bush owned an off grid energy and water self sufficient home in Texas </div></div>

LMAO

Q </div></div>
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
Another standard LWW, irrelevant response.

There is always that badge of ignorance, that consistant, glaring overwhelming flaw in RW rhetoric.

No comprehension of "Under the conditions prevailing"

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif


</div></div>

More blind partisanship and hatred? You post a cut and paste article about the environment, and then attack someone who points out that the hated GW actually lives in a more environmentally friendly home than the "ultra green" AlGore. You just can't admit that GW is not the evil devil that you would like everyone to think he is.

Steve

Gayle in MD
09-13-2010, 07:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Environmental pollution is directly linked to cancer.

</span> </div></div>

So is the sun. Do you suggest we turn it off? Environmentalists get on my nerves. They are so bogus. They never accomplish anything beyond their own self agrandizement. </div></div>

Chop,
If you'd like to ask me a reasonable question, I'd be happy to answer it.

If you don't care about the environment, or seek to deny all of the evidence that our polluted environment is killing us, and the animals, or that deny that we would be leading the world, instead of trying to catch up with China, and others, on creating more clean, renewable, environmentally friendly fuels, because of Republican policies, I think you might want to read "Hot, Flat And Crowded"

Even the Global Warming RW naysayers, are now admitting to to the threat of global warming, climate change, and the link to burning fosile fuels.

If you can't buy into any of the overwhelming scientific opinion, you still can't deny that we're running out of oil....just as you can't deny that Reagan AND Bush's policies, not only slowed us up in producing better automobiles, with higher mileage, but also caused us to be more dependent on foreign fuels, and allowed other countries to produce and sell a better product, all because of Republican obstructionism of tighter environmental regulations on the auto industry.

I suppose you think the war in Iraq, was all about 9/11?

Why do you think the American automobile industry ended up being behind other countries in sales? Because we have unions? Pahleeeze! Reagan and Bush both put us behind other countries, who were creating technology to address oil costs, and oil pollution.

We are the only industrialized country with a party that denies the link between climate change, and fosile fuels, and denies the link between cancer, and pollution.

And, It just so happens that the worst presidents on the environment, were Republicans, Reagan and Bush.

If you'd like to debate intelligently, do so, but save me from ridiculous questions like the last one.

G.

hondo
09-13-2010, 09:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Environmental pollution is directly linked to cancer.

</span> </div></div>

Environmentalists get on my nerves. They are so bogus. </div></div>

So, liberals care about what happens to our environment.
Conservatives just get annoyed at the inconvenience.
Nothing new here.
Ever ask an old Hopi or Navajo about how he feels about preserving the environment?

Gayle in MD
09-13-2010, 10:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Environmental pollution is directly linked to cancer.

</span> </div></div>

Environmentalists get on my nerves. They are so bogus. </div></div>

So, liberals care about what happens to our environment.
Conservatives just get annoyed at the inconvenience.
Nothing new here.
Ever ask an old Hopi or Navajo about how he feels about preserving the environment? </div></div>

How can we expect anything more than pointless, illogical, Irrational responses, designed to mask rellevant facts.

but then, same folks who will vote for....

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>
More of the same economic policies that this government has pursued since the days of Saint Reagan which have failed MISERABLY. Newsflash......Trickle down doesn't.

- Another shut down of the government which didn't work the last time (and you would think both Newt and Dick would remember that clearly).

- Calls for less regulation in an atomosphere of poor regulation as it is. Can you say devastated Gulf.

- More lax or non-existent regulation as a sign of failed government policies. Can you say poisonous eggs?

- Proud claims of "patriotism" while wrapped in a flag and swearing on a bible. Meanwhile, no problem with denying Constitutional rights to certain individuals who don't fit into a very exclusive vision of a "christian nation".

- Raging about the deficit without acknowledging that Bush/Cheney and a GOBP controlled Congress wiped out a budget surplus and created a massive deficit before Dems regained control.

- Castigating the administration and Dems for the rate of unemployment without discussing the reality of jobs bleeding out of this country at the rate of over 500,000 a month at the end of the Bush/Cheney regime.

Yeah Dick,
Yeah Newt.
Brilliant and inspirational. </span>

pooltchr
09-13-2010, 10:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
- Castigating the administration and Dems for the rate of unemployment without discussing the reality of jobs bleeding out of this country at the rate of over 500,000 a month at the end of the Bush/Cheney regime.

</div></div>

As I recall, the job loss began just about the same time Obama won the Dem nomination, lasted for the last 2 to 3 months of the Bush administration, and has continued for the 20 months that Obama has been in office.

Hmmmmmmmmm



Steve