GEORGE
"DUBYA" BUSH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
June 20, 2003...FLASH!
WHITE HOUSE DIRECTS EPA TO FALSIFY PARTS OF
CLIMATE REPORT.
An artice just appeared in the Atlanta Journal
Constitution which shows George "Dubyas" real intentions regarding the
environment that US citizens have to cope with. I guess if the White
House doesn’t like the truth, then it is easier to falsify the evidence, to make it
fit their claims." Rhuddlwm Gawr
The following Associated Press article appeared in
several newspapers on Friday June 20, 2003
Washington - The environmental Protection Agency omitted a
detailed assessment of climate change from an upcoming report on the state of the
environment after the White House directed major changes and deletions to emphasize the
uncertainties surrounding global warming, according to internal EPA documents.
The changes prompted an EPA staff memo that said the revisions
demanded by the White House were so extensive that they would embarrass the agency because
the section "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate
change."
The climate section was part of a comprehensive review of major
environmental concerns and what is needed to address them. The assessment has been a top
priority of EPA Administrator Christie Whitman, who is resigning and had wanted the
assessement completed before she departs next week.
Contrary to early EPA drafts, the final document, according to
EPA officials and papers, gives only a cursory mention of climate change, one of the most
daunting and complex environmental challenges facing the World.
EPA spokesman Joe Martyak said the section was scaled back
because ('we didn't want to hold up the rest of the report, over disagreements about the
climate section and the lack of "consensus on the science and conclusions" on
global warming.
Whitman told The New York Times she was "perfectly
comfortable" with the edited version.
According to the EPA papers, the White House ordered removal of
several references that suggested rising global temperatures would have an impact on human
health and the ecosystem, and softened other sentences to stress the uncertainties
surrounding climate change.
"Climate change has global consequences for human health and
the environment," the earlier EPA draft said.
An edited version said climate change "may have potentially
profound consequences but "The complexity of the Earth system and the
interconnections among it's components make it a scientific challenge to document change,
document its cause and develop useful projections on how natural variability and human
actions may affect" the environment.
The revised draft removed a reference to a l999 study showing
global temperatures had risen sharply in the past decade compared with the previous 1,000
years. But it did cite another study, Partly paid for by the oil industry, challenging the
uniqueness of recent temperature increases.
And it deleted a National Research Council finding that various
studies have suggested recent warming was unusual and likely due to human activities. The
2001 NRC report had been commissioned by the White House and cited in the past by
President Bush.
The revisions, some ordered by the White House Council on
Environmental Quality and others by the Office of Management and, Budget, prompted, sharp
protests among some in the EPA!s office dealing with climate change. It also sparked an
internal debate on how to deal with the issue.
If the changes are accepted, the EPA "will take severe
criticism from the science and environmental communities for poorly representing the
science," said an April 29 EPA staff memo.
That memo said the final draft "undercuts" key
scientific studies on climate change, including the pivotal findings by the United
Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The memo outlined two other options: Seek further compromise and
possibly "antagonize the White House more" or remove most of the climate section
from the document. "EPA will take criticism" by removing the section, said the
memo, but that "may be the only way to meet both White House and EPA needs."
HISTORY OF "DUBYAS" INTEREST IN THE
ENVIRONMENT (THE TEXAS DEBACLE)
In 1995, Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth and a couple of
other smog-choked urban centers in Texas had a fledgling emissions testing program in
place that was designed to curtail pollution from cars and trucks. Ground-level ozone
readings had reached alarming levels, especially in Houston, and the testing program was
developed by the state to meet federal clear-air requirements.
But even though the air in Houston was changing the perception of children about the color
of the sky and the experience of breathing, the testing program was not popular with
motorists. It was inconvenient. Texans, like most Americans, like to gas up and go. No
time for inspections. And the program was anathema to the chattering hysterics of
talk radio. If there was one thing they understood, it was polluted air.
Houston might have had a problem in 1995, might even have been disappearing in an
increasingly toxic haze, but that was a matter best dealt with later. Sure, some of the
weaker types -- the asthmatics, the elderly -- were gasping and wheezing, but that
happens. The immediate issue was how to get rid of the tests.
Enter the brand new governor of Texas, George W. Bush. He was now in charge of
appointments to the agency that had gone through the excruciating and expensive work of
gearing up the emissions testing program, the Texas Natural Resources Conservation
Commission.
Mr. Bush agreed with the angry motorists and the talk-radio crowd. It wasn't that he
was against clean air, he said. He just didn't think motorists should be inconvenienced.
And he sure didn't like the federales in Washington telling Texans what to do.
The first legislation Mr. Bush signed as governor was a bill that put the emissions tests
on hold. It didn't matter that the program was ready to go, that the contracts
had been signed and an enormous cadre of workers hired by the contractors, and that dozens
of gleaming new inspection stations were all set to open.
Meant nothing. The state legislature passed the moratorium and the governor signed it. And
that was just the beginning. The program would soon be killed. Texas was not yet ready to
grapple with the reality of air pollution.
At a legislative hearing in March of 1995, the Rev. Aubrey Vaughan, head of a group
misleadingly called Citizens for a Cleaner Houston, railed against the emissions tests,
claiming, according to an account in The Houston Chronicle, that there was no evidence of
an ozone problem in Houston, and no scientific evidence that ozone is a health threat.
The reverend declared that God is the "only one
who can control pollution problems." And he observed that "a good, hard, steady
rain would help us all."
When the state formally scrapped the testing program later in the year it not only turned
its back on an increasingly serious health hazard, it reneged on its multimillion-dollar
contract with the lead contractor for the program, Tejas Testing Technology, which would
eventually go bankrupt.
Tejas sued and won. A settlement of $140 million was worked out, and the way the state
raised the money said a lot about the way Governor Bush and other top state officials view
the environment in Texas. They raided the state's environmental programs -- critical
programs like the superfund for cleaning up contaminated sites and the Texas clean air
fund -- for $130 million of the $140 million they were forced to pay to Tejas.
In other words, the environment in Texas was twice punished -- first, when the inspection
program was killed and again when the lawsuit was settled.
Since then the air quality problems in Texas have only gotten worse. Houston is now the
smoggiest city in America, having roared past the longtime champ, Los Angeles, for that
gruesome distinction. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected as
inadequate the latest clean air proposals from Texas and is threatening to cut off
billions of dollars in highway funds and impose Draconian cleanup measures.
And get this -- state officials now think it might be a good idea to come up with a
stringent vehicle emissions testing program!!!
Meanwhile, George W. Bush is running for president, declaring himself an environmentalist
and promising to do for the rest of us what he has done so well in Texas. Not only
is he going to make all religions but his version of Christianity illegal, but he is going
to treat the Environment of the United States like he has Texas.
WAS BILL CLINTON JUSTIFIED IN HITTING BUSH ON
HIS ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD?
May 11, 2000
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton said today that Gov. George W. Bush, if elected
president, would let polluters control the nation's environmental policy and appoint
Supreme Court justices who would reverse the landmark 1973 decision that legalized
abortion.
Moreover, Clinton said, Bush would press for big tax cuts and higher Pentagon spending
that would bring back budget deficits and higher interest rates. ``It will mean that we
won't have much money left over to invest in education or the environment or health
care,'' the president said. (It seems President Clinton
was a Prophet)
Clinton noted that Bush opposed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was
defeated by the Senate last year, and said the governor ``wants to build a much bigger
missile defense system than the evidence warrants right now.'' He suggested Bush's
positions could affect efforts to reduce nuclear stockpiles around the world.
``So I think that gives me some pause,'' the president said. ``I think that's
troublesome.''
Clinton leveled his criticism in an interview with Diane Rehm of radio station WAMU. It
was his most pointed attack yet against the likely Republican presidential nominee.
Replying to Clinton, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said, ``It appears that he is
continuing his transition from commander in chief into his role as campaign manager in
chief.''
McClellan defended Bush's stand on missile defenses, saying, ``Governor Bush believes it
is important to protect America and Americans from rogue missile launches, and he is
concerned that the president and vice president do not agree with this urgent priority.''
Clinton also said Republicans in Congress opposed him so vigorously because they resented
what they felt was harsh treatment of GOP presidents when the Democrats controlled the
House and Senate.
``So they thought it was pay-back time,'' he said. ``But the overwhelming reason is that
they resented the fact that they didn't have the White House.
``They thought that they owned the White House, and they thought they had found a formula
that would always keep Democrats out of the White House. They would say we couldn't be
trusted on the economy and foreign policy and national defense and welfare and crime, and
we were going to tax people to death. ... And when it didn't work, I think they were very
angry.''
Clinton criticized Bush when asked to describe how Bush or Vice President Al Gore would
change things if elected president.
``If Governor Bush gets elected, I think he'll do what he said he would do,'' the
president said. ``I think it's not necessary to attack these people personally.''
He said that if Bush wins the White House, ``He will do what he did in Texas, he will let
the people who basically are the primary polluters control environmental policy.''
The next president will name two to four Supreme Court justices, because of expected
vacancies, Clinton predicted.
``And if they (Republicans) get two to four appointments on the Supreme Court, I think Roe
vs. Wade (the 1973 abortion decision) will be repealed and a lot of other things that have
been a part of the fabric of our constitutional life will be gone.''
Bush has said he opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or when a woman's life
is in danger. He has said he would nominate ``strict constructionists'' to the court --
taken by some to mean justices open to abortion restrictions.
Reflecting on his personal life, Clinton said his eight years in the White House have been
good for his marriage ``because I got to live above the store.''
Having the family living quarters so close to his office meant more family time when
daughter Chelsea was living at home, and more time to relax alone with first lady Hillary
Rodham Clinton, the president said.
``You can get busy and drift apart, I guess, in any circumstances,'' Clinton said. ``But
for us ... we've probably had more time together in our time here than at any point in our
marriage, and I've enjoyed that immensely. It's been wonderful for us.''
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE
PLANS GEORGE "DUBYA" HAS FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT
George W. Bush was asked about EPA's proposed low-sulfur gasoline
standards during a recent Republican presidential candidate debate. The question may have
been sparked in part by some hard-hitting Sierra Club commercials, broadcast in New
Hampshire, that challenge Gov. Bush's record on clean air. Though Gov. Bush tried to
defend his record, evidence compiled by the Sierra Club shows that air quality in Texas
has deteriorated in the past few years.
Here is the question, and Gov. Bush's response:
QUESTION: Governor
Bush, according to the Houston Chronicle, Houston is the smoggiest city in America.
Do you support the EPA's proposed Tier 2 standards to desulfurize gasoline? Cleaner
gasoline would help cut down on ozone pollution, yet many refiners, some of whom are based
in Texas, oppose the Tier 2 standards. Please tell us your position.
GOV. BUSH: I will.
Let me say one thing, before I start, about Senator [John] McCain. He's a good man.
He's a good man.
SEN. MCCAIN:
(Chuckles.) Thanks.
GOV. BUSH: I don't
know what compelled me to say that about you, Senator -- (Laughter.) He's a good friend.
Yes, I do support cleaner gasoline standards across the country. I -- here's what I
believe.
I believe we can have economic growth and conservation at the
same time, and I know there are some environmental groups out of Washington running ads
about me here in New Hampshire. They're polluting my record. I've got a good record as
governor. We've reduced toxic emissions overwhelmingly in my state. Industrial emissions
are down by 11 percent. I signed two really good pieces of legislation that are going to
remove 250,000 tons of stuff being spewed in the air, which is the equivalent of removing
5.5 million automobiles off our roads.
I've got a good record because I know how to set high standards;
I know how to bring people together to achieve those standards.
QUESTION: But
specifically, what about those Tier 2 standards?
GOV. BUSH: If I
accept -- I think we ought to look at a national standard for lower sulfide for gasoline,
absolutely.
Here is the text of the Sierra Club commercial, and the
supporting documentation:
| SCRIPT
|
DOCUMENTATION
|
| Texas leads the nation in air and toxic pollution. (CG: EPA Toxic Release Inventory Report, 1997) |
Air: In 1999, Texas had the 25 most
severe clean air health standards violations in the nation, according Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commission and Environmental Protection Agency data. The highest
reading was more than double the allowable health standard. In 1999, Houston had more days in violation of health standards than Los
Angeles for the first time ever. There were at least 50 days of violations in Houston, and
44 days in Los Angeles this year.
Toxics: Under the Community Right to Know Act, major
polluting facilities are required to report to the EPA their emission of carcinogenic and
toxic chemicals into the air, water, and land. In 1997, there were 261.7 million pounds of
toxic chemicals released in Texas -- significantly more than runner up Louisiana. This
Texas figure included 108.4 million pounds of toxics discharged into the air, which is
also the highest in the nation. |
| And in the four years George W. Bush has been
governor, the number of smog alert days increased dramatically (CG: "Texas . . . had more smog alerts than any other state in
1999." Dallas Morning News 11-14-99) |
In 1994, the last year before Bush became governor,
there were 40 one-hour days of exceedences (violations) of the ozone standard in
Houston-Galveston. From 1995 through October 1, 1999, Houston averaged 44 one-hour days of
exceedences annually. In 1999, Houston at least 50 one-hour days of exceedences. In
Dallas-Ft. Worth, there was also a big jump in ozone exceedences, from 17 days in 1992-94
to 27 days in 1997-99. In addition, Austin and San Antonio
suffered so many health standard violations over the past three years that EPA is expected
to add them to its list of nonattainment areas in 2000. |
| The health of more kids have been put at risk (CG: "Twice as many inner city children may be jeopardized by the
area's high smog levels." Houston Chronicle 11/11/99) |
Ozone smog is a respiratory irritant that can:
impair lung function; increase susceptibility to colds, bronchitis and other respiratory
ailments; and, trigger asthma attacks. Children, senior citizens, and those with chronic
respiratory diseases are most susceptible to harm from smog. A study of 21,000 children in Houston found that ten percent have asthma
or asthma like symptoms -- double the national rate. These children are more vulnerable to
air pollution. Dr. Stuart Abramson of the Texas Children's Hospital noted that Houston has
a "significant problem with . . . asthma among inner-city children," and that
air pollution can "trigger" asthma attacks. (Houston Chronicle, 11-11-99)
Dr. Joan Shook, also of Texas Children's Hospital, noted that
"We've been seeing more respiratory illness, but we can't link it directly to ozone.
There's a perception that it's more severe. We've had lots of very ill
asthmatics coming in . . . . We speculate if it's a bad ozone day when we see lots of
respiratory problems." (ibid)
A study by the city of Houston found that smog causes more than
400 premature deaths annually, and $3 billion in health care costs. (Dallas Morning News,
11-10-99) |
| and 11-year-old Billy Tinker's asthma got worse. |
William Tinker is an eleven-year-old suffering from
asthma, as do his siblings. They lived in Desoto, down wind from a TXI cement plant that
burns hazardous waste in Midlothian (in the Dallas-Ft. Worth metro area). Efforts to get
Gov. Bush to force the facility to reduce its air pollution failed, so his family was
forced to move to protect his health. William is standing in front of the plant in the
picture. |
| "Call George W. Bush" (CG: 512-463-2000)
"Tell him it's time to clear the air . . . for our families
. . . for Billy Tinker's future." |
Gov. Bush has opposed concrete, comprehensive,
binding reductions in emissions from power plants, chemical and oil facilities, and other
industrial sources. He also canceled a planned auto inspection and maintenance program
that would have significantly reduced motor vehicle emissions. His administration also
filed an inadequate state plan to address Texas's air pollution problems. To clean Texas's skies, Gov. Bush should advocate that all industrial
facilities meet current pollution control standards regardless of age, as well as other
steps recommended by the Texas Air Crisis Campaign. (http://www.texascenter.org/aircrisis)
|
|
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 
