Bush Vs. The Environment: By the Numbers

Kmack

Newbie
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
296
Reaction score
0
ahh, here we have quite a find! it seems to be...yes it is! a little bit o' environmental hating from Mr. George Bush since 2000:

  • Percent drop in federal lawsuits for environmental violations: 75
  • Percent increase in permits for oil and gas drilling on federal lands: 75
  • Annual savings to industry from Bush's refusal to mandate lead-paint cleanup: $3,000,000,000(yeah, thats NINE zeros)
  • Percent decline in federal fines against industrial polluters:60
  • Years since number of fines has been so low: 14
  • Percent decline in federal Superfund cleanups of toxic waste: 52
  • Acres of untouched forests opened to developers: 58,500,000
  • Endangered species that live in these areas: 220
  • Species added to the endangered species list by Bush: 31
  • Acres designated as wilderness by the Bush administration: 530,000
  • Acres designated by Ronald Reagan: 10,600,000

oh but wait! there is more! why, what happens if an individual state tries to help out the environment? lets read on!

The new fuel-economy standards proposed by the administration in August is not attacking gas-guzzling SUV's, but that other fuel-economy concern, California(please note sarcasm). California has ordered the auto industry to cut carbon-dioxide emmissions by Thirty percent by 2016, with eight other states to follow their example. Unfortunatly, upon flipping to page 150 of Bush's proposed standards, we see that state limits on emissions are "expressly preempted.
 
Top Secret said:
It screws over businesses.


exactly. and in the process prevents us (humans) from unjustly destroying animals and their habitats. **** business
 
Kmack said:
exactly. and in the process prevents us (humans) from unjustly destroying animals and their habitats. **** business

No. Actually, if you knew shit about the endangered species act, you'd see that it's saved ->

One animal.
 
Wow, not to mention his thoughts on the Kyoto Protocol...a sad state indeed and just getting worse. ;(
 
VictimOfScience said:
Wow, not to mention his thoughts on the Kyoto Protocol...a sad state indeed and just getting worse. ;(

why? global warming doesnt exist :rolleyes:

(please dont start that argument up here though)
 
Kmack said:
why? global warming doesnt exist :rolleyes:

(please dont start that argument up here though)
Kmack, the guy that knows more than virtually every scientist in the world. Do you at least admit that tempratures are rising?
 
No Limit said:
Kmack, the guy that knows more than virtually every scientist in the world. Do you at least admit that tempratures are rising?

Global warming has happened before. Humans are apparently excellerating it. I think even if we stop all those emissions, it's too late already.
 
dream431ca said:
Global warming has happened before. Humans are apparently excellerating it. I think even if we stop all those emissions, it's too late already.

Like I said, we're all ****ed and Dubyah's government wont even accept its happening. Hardly suprising when you look at who they go to for advice on the subject.
 
No Limit said:
Kmack, the guy that knows more than virtually every scientist in the world. Do you at least admit that tempratures are rising?

I thought he was being sarcastic.
 
Animals that can't survive the temperature change deserve to die. Its called evolution. Read a ****ing book
 
It's fall and it's still warm as hell here in 'Bama. GLOBAL WARMING FTL
 
southernman17 said:
Animals that can't survive the temperature change deserve to die. Its called evolution. Read a ****ing book
But we are accellerating (sp?) it D:
Which means certain species won't be able to adapt in time (whereas they normally would be able to) . That, and the fact that global warming also effects the human race, whether it accelllerates or not.
 
What about dinosaurs, if they had time to adapt then they'd most likely still be around. But temperatures changed too quickly for them to adapt, just like today. Mass extinction was a result. It we go through a period of mass extiction, then it our loss ( or ourchildren's or their's so forth) but that doesn't mean that animals will not longer populate the earth. Only a few varieties will and from those few varieties many more will evole as a result of divergent, convergent or parrallel evolution.
 
southernman17 said:
What about dinosaurs, if they had time to adapt then they'd most likely still be around. But temperatures changed too quickly for them to adapt, just like today. Mass extinction was a result. It we go through a period of mass extiction, then it our loss ( or ourchildren's or their's so forth) but that doesn't mean that animals will not longer populate the earth. Only a few varieties will and from those few varieties many more will evole as a result of divergent, convergent or parrallel evolution.
I would rather that the next mass extinction not be something that we caused. If a mass extinction can be prevented then it is in our best interests to ensure that it is prevented.

We are certainly helping cause what may be the next mass extinction and I can tell you right now business in the future will suffer a lot because of it.

Look at the damage one Hurricane has recently done. The cost to rebuild from that is not good for business.
 
Once again, temperature will rise inevitably, There is nothing we can do about it. You can't blame humans on global warming because its happened four times before, they were called the ice ages. How in the hell did that happen when there was no massive carbon dioxide emissions pouring out of cars and factories? its called nature and once again it is happening again. And I agree, I don't want to be around when that happens but it will.
 
southernman17 said:
Once again, temperature will rise inevitably, There is nothing we can do about it. You can't blame humans on global warming because its happened four times before, they were called the ice ages. How in the hell did that happen when there was no massive carbon dioxide emissions pouring out of cars and factories? its called nature and once again it is happening again. And I agree, I don't want to be around when that happens but it will.
Why do you think that its happening this time naturally though? From everything I have seen the current increase in world temperatures all seems to start right at the period of the industrial revolution. I doubt its that much of a coincindence. Besides, who says that previous Ice Ages began to have temperature changes occuring this fast.

Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down.
http://www.newscientist.com/popuparticle.ns?id=in20
 
From everything I've seen on television (National Geographic channel) scientists seem to agree that the climate changed reletively rapidly. Not overnight or even over a century. The earth's temperature has risen 1 degree in a hundred years (the average is about 57 degrees I believe). So to have the earth's average temperature to an Ice Age like climate, it first needs to rise, then dramtically fall. That process could that 500-1000 years maybe.
 
southernman17 said:
Once again, temperature will rise inevitably, There is nothing we can do about it. You can't blame humans on global warming because its happened four times before, they were called the ice ages. How in the hell did that happen when there was no massive carbon dioxide emissions pouring out of cars and factories? its called nature and once again it is happening again. And I agree, I don't want to be around when that happens but it will.

No one is blaming humans for global warming, Humans are blaming humans however for accelerating it.
 
Back
Top