Bush and Environment Page II

CLICK HERE FOR BOOKS ABOUT GEORGE W BUSH!!!

George "Dubya" Bush and the Republicans will accept, and spend record amounts of money from the Oil and Gas Industries and other major business's this election cycle. They know if they lose this election, there will probably be a Democrat in the White House for the next decade. After the bitter defeat in their desperate attempted coup of the Presidency, and simultaneous self destruction in Congress, they will stop at nothing to grab the last jewel in the crown.

Below is an exposé of conservative avarice into Republican dogma.

DESTROYING OUR ENVIRONMENT

The 1990's were warmer than the 1980's, the hottest years on record, since scientists began keeping records in 1853, according to the Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

According to a report released in the fall of 1995, global warming is a fact. The cause "appears to be human ". Scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative international body charged with studying this issue, reached a conclusion in the Second Assessment Report, which summarizes the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming, also climate change. The report received contributions and peer-review from over 2,500 of the world's leading climate scientists, economists, and risk-analysis experts.

The exact impact on the earth's climate cannot be predicted, but agreement among most climate scientists about what is likely to occur suggests the planet will warm over the next century as carbon dioxide (CO2) doubles over the next 50 years from preindustrial levels, warming the earth enough to:

damage human health
cause severe stress on forests, wetlands, and other natural habitats
cause dislocation of agriculture and commerce
cause expansion of the earth's deserts
cause melting of glaciers and polar ice caps with a consequent rise in the sea level
cause more extreme weather events

In the 1990's we have already seen more powerful storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods than ever before in recorded history. The Panel concluded that the observed increase in global average temperature observed in the last century "is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin" and that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." (The conservative right wing Christian movement has shamelessly been manipulating it's Christian believers into the doctrine," severe weather is God's punishment for liberal sins." Have you no shame?!)

A Greenpeace report points to the problem. Around 98% of US CO2 emissions come from the combustion of coal, oil and gas; with oil accounting for over 40%, coal 35% and natural gas 22% of energy related emissions. The United States alone produces about a quarter of global CO2 emissions.

The fossil fuel companies convince politicians to give them exemptions from the limitations of law the old fashioned way...they bribe them, now legally. The Greenpeace report underscores the problem with the politicians, most notably the Republicans, who prove again, they are vastly more corrupt than their Democrat counterparts.

Oil and Gas Sector Total

Oil and gas interests have donated $ 53.4 million since 1991 to candidates and their parties. $20.8 million was donated in the 1995/6 period alone of which 77% went to the Republicans.

Oil Companies

Eight major oil companies, together with the Petroleum Marketers Association, donated $12.5 million to Congressional candidates and the parties in the last 6 years; 75% of this donation went to Republicans.

Atlantic Richfield (ARCO), Chevron, Exxon and Amoco alone gave more than a million dollars each during this period, with ARCO topping the league table with $3.4 million in donations. Enron, a natural gas company, also gave over $1 million.

Altogether these fossil fuel producers gave over 70% of their contributions to Republicans.

The Republicans received a total of $9.3 million from the oil companies and their marketers, and the Democrats received a total of $3.2 million.

These figures include PAC (Political Action Committee) donations which are given to individual candidates plus soft donations which are given to the two political parties.

Coal Companies

Two international coal companies alone - Cyprus Amax and Peabody - plus the National Mining Association (replacing National Coal Association in the earlier years) gave a total of $1.3 million; 80% of this total went to the Republican Party and their candidates.

Automakers

The Big Three automakers (Chrysler, Ford and General Motors) gave $3.2 million in donations; together with a major donation from the National Auto Dealers Association of $5.9 million gives a total of $9.1 million.

65% of this total went to Republicans. 72% of the National Auto Dealers Association contribution went to Republicans ($4.3 million).

Greenpeace evaluated sectoral donations to members of three Senate committees: Energy and Natural Resources, Environment and Public Works, and Commerce, Science and Transportation. These three committees play a key role in climate policy issues. Committee membership comprises 50 Senators, taking into account duplication.

Oil, mining and transportation interests have donated $ 11.7 million dollars to the current Senators from these three committees between 1992 - 1996. This group of 50 Senators represents half of the Senate. 77% of those donations went to Republican senators.

Oil and gas contributions made up $7.8 million, or two-thirds of the total, of which 80% went to Republican Senators.

Eight Senators received their highest donation from the oil and gas sector, all are Republican Senators: Nickles (Oklahoma), Thomas (Wyoming), Burns (Montana), Murkowski (Alaska), Inhofe (Oklahoma), Kempthorne (Idaho), Allard (Colorado), and Bailey Hutchison (Texas). Senator Murkowski is the Chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Nineteen Senators (38%) had a donation from oil and gas companies within their top three donations, only two of those were Democrats.

The Republican senators received over 70% of total donations in each of the three Committees.

The Oil Agenda

All of these oil companies are members of the Global Climate Coalition with the exception of BP. However BP and the other seven oil companies are members of the American Petroleum Institute, one of the sponsors of the 'Global Climate Information Project' the lobby group currently running a $13 million advertising campaign intended to derail agreement at the Climate Summit in Kyoto.

On June 12, 1997, the Republican-dominated Senate adopted, by a vote of 95 to zero, Resolution 98, recommending that the United States should not sign an international agreement unless it contains specific new commitments for developing countries. This Resolution is inconsistent with the Berlin Mandate, agreed to by the U.S. government, upon which new agreements must be based. (GREENPEACE)

HAS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TAKEN US BACK TO THE SCIENCE OF THE 19^th CENTURY?

Not since the infamous Scopes "Monkey trial" of 1925 has American science faced such a challenge.

That,year, fundamentalist Christians tested the study of Darwinian evolution in public schools in an attempt to censor modern scientific knowledge. Today the challenge results from an commitment by the White House to a new environmental, social, economic and political course in reaction to changes in American life during the last half of the 20th century.

In a clear manifestation of the White House's desire to turn back the clock to an earlier and ostensibly simpler time, Karl Rove, the president's political advisor talks volubly about his admiration of William McKinley - the last president of the 19th century.

But political movements that aim to return to an earlier time are inclined to find science, as a form of inquiry, a threat. In many cases the old institutional arrangements the movement seeks to restore were disrupted by new knowledge and understanding.

So scientific inquiry is potentially threatening in a period of reaction - and science is therefore at risk in such times.

obviously, many Americans voted for President Bush precisely because they were reacting negatively to the social, cultural and economic changes of the last half of the 20th century But political reaction, however valid the policy goals it pursues brings with it a disposition toward extreme means.

In the Bush administration, this characteristic has played out in the suppression, distortion and disregard of environmentally related scientific data. By manipulating science for political purposes, the Bush administration is forcing through environmental policies that ignore technological solutions and put American communities at risk.

When confronted with controversial science, the Bush administration has rutinely tried to simply suppress the data. Dep[artment of the Interior biologists conducted a 12 year study which determined that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would damage the porcupine caribou herd. Interior Secretary Gale Norton promptly called the study "science fiction" and ordered U.S. Geological Survey scientists to produce a two-page report rebutting the earlier work.

And an Environmental Protection Agency study showing that mercury has become a significant public health problem in the United States was kept secret for nine months, published only after the Wall Street journal revealed that it was being suppressed.

When left without other options, the Bush administration has also disregarded scientists, acting in complete opposition to their recommendations. In April 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service used criteria and standards established by the Endangered Species Act to ,determine that additional releases of fresh water into Oregon and California's Klamath River were needed to protect threatened salmon and endangered suckerfish.

When farmers protested and illegally opened head gates to divert fishery water supplies to irrigate their fields, the Interior Department asked another scientific body to review the issue, using standards different from those mandated by law. Using these illegitimate standards, the new study indicated that more information was needed before a final decision could be made. With that, the Interior Department overturned the decision of its own scientists and allowed farmers to divert water supplies to irrigation, predictably leading to the largest fish kill in Klamath River history.

Finally, the Bush administration has a history of distorting science to further political objectives. Perhaps the most obvious example came this February, when a panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences lambasted the president's global warming plan. The scientists were extremely displeased to see the Bush administration distorting the science behind global warming to make it seem as if the connection to man-made pollution remains unsubstantiated.

Indeed, I think it is fair to say that this administration, confronted by public oppositin to its policies, chooses for science the role of opiate. Under the advice of its pollsters, the Bush administration talks a good talk about; the need for sound science. But their actions consistently imply little genuine interest in the facts.

The irony is that government interest in the honest truth creates the impetus for innovation. That is particularly true in the 21st century. After all, how could America succeed in the information Age without actually valuing scientific information?

Science as an opiate operates behind the Wizard of Oz's screen. Science as knowledge is strongest when it stands forth in the clear light of day.

In the Bush Administration, it looks like we will never see evidence of true science...we will see politics of the "rich and famous oil barons" take precedence over the truth of science.

NOW, in case you missed it on the previous page below is an article written by an AP reporter which shows what George Bush is going to do about Global Warming.....NOTHING!!

WHITE HOUSE DIRECTS EPA TO FALSIFY PARTS OF CLIMATE REPORT.

"I seems as if when the White House doesn’t like the truth, it just falsifies the evidence, to make it fit their claims. I wonder if the same thing happened to Iraq." 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."

Sources:

Allegations of Connections Between CIA and The Contras in Cocaine Trafficking to the United States (96-0143-IG) Volume 1: The California Story www.odci.gov/cia/publications/cocaine/report/index.html

Allegations of Connections Between CIA and The Contras in CocaineTrafficking to the United States (96-0143-IG) Volume 11: The Contra Story www.odci./gov/cia/publications/cocaine2/index.html

The CIA-Contra-Crack Cocaine Controversy: A Review of the Justice Department's Investigations and Prosecutions (December, 1997) www.usdoj.gov/oig/igspecr1.htm

Fair's coverage of the Contra-drug connection over the years, go to www.fair.org/issues-news/contra-crack.html