Blog#27

George Bush,
What is his stand on the Environment?


George Bush is a man who we all know has had a pretty bad reputation as being our president for the past eight years. His environmental record is about as good as the Clippers(Meaning it is horrible). But just recently George Bush has regained his ranking in the preservation of the environment.

I recently read two articles on Bush and his involvement with the environment called George Bush protects marine areas, and George W. Bushes Environmental Sins. While reading these two articles I started to notice something. One article ( as you may have guessed) discussed how Bushes plan for the environment was horrible and that a more suitable person for the job ( Barack Obama) had a better plan. The other article discussed how Bush had this great new plan to help preserve wildlife.

Bushes new plan had different reactions from many people. in the article George Bush protects marine areas, the author states "While he has resisted imposing mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change and has opened large areas of the nation to drilling, mining and other use of resources, by the end of his term he will have protected more ocean than any person in history." Then in the other article (George W. Bushes Environmental Sins by Katharine Mieszkowski) i read this: "By taking environmental policymaking away from scientists, and turning it over to industry cronies, Bush has made a mockery of the nation's environmental laws and values."

Now the question that was raised in my mind is, how did Bush go from the worst environmentalist ever, to the savior of ocean wildlife? That question to me is yet to be answered

While reading further I noticed that these two articles were connected in the fact that both of them had flaws with Bush and what he is doing with the environment ( one stating more flaws then the other). In the article discussing Bush's conservation plan, the issue brought to attention was about fishing. According to researchers, conservation was to start only 50 miles out vs. 200 miles out. Local sport fishing businesses didn't take this lightly. Micheal Hussman,president of the Sports fishing industry stated "If you're going to keep the public out of a public area, you need a darned good reason to do that,". After that he went on to say "We don't think they've met that 'darned good reason' test." The other article I read had to many flaws that Bush did that they are to many to name.

Quick Note*
Another thing I noticed as I was reading these articles is that one is an actual news editorial, and the other is an opinionated peace of writing from some random person. With that being said, I am pretty sure there is a limit to what can be said in a news editorial, but in an opinionated piece of writing, you are open to write anything you want of your choice.

I find the irony of this entire plan very ironic. This man, has just now decided to do something about the environment after eight years of presidency. Even researchers and scientist are shocked by this decision. Enric Sala a researcher for National Geographic even said "For a president that's not very green, ironically, this is going to be his largest legacy." Apparently for the the article, this is not the case. In fact, it is the exact opposite. According to that article Bush has "Abandoned endangered species". The author of the article Katharine even says "Not once during the Bush administration has the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service voluntarily sought to list a species as endangered or threatened, offering it more protections. All the high-profile listings, such as polar bears, have come about after the government has been sued or petitioned by environmental groups and citizens."

These two articles are very unique in the fact that they both show two different sides of George Bush, one that is making a stand and protecting the environment, and the other that is destroying it. After these two articles it is hard to determine what Bush's stand is on the environment and environmental issues.