Bush is anti-environment

3 comments

No surprises here.

White House officials last December sought to stop the Environmental
Protection Agency from submitting a proposed rule that would limit
greenhouse-gas emissions from new vehicles.

The proposed rule was EPA's response to an April 2007 Supreme Court
ruling that the agency had violated the Clean Air Act by refusing to
take up the issue of regulating automobile emissions that contribute to
global warming.

The White House made it clear they did not
want to address the ramifications of that finding and have decided to
leave the challenge to the next administration. Some at the White
House (including the President) thought that the EPA had mistakenly concluded that climate change
endangers the public.

Mistakenly concluded??

There's something seriously wrong with the leadership in this country when they refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that we've done something terribly wrong.

Less than two weeks after EPA submitted its proposed rule on greenhouse
gases, Bush signed legislation that raises the fleetwide
average fuel economy standard to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, arguing
that this step would be more effective in limiting emissions.

This is such nonsense - it's really going to take 12 years to get all cars up to a minimum of 35mpg? What a joke!! Seriously - in 12 years, all cars ought to be getting 50mpg or even higher.

Just more evidence that Bush is a moron and doesn't understand reality.

Comments

Submitted by jsknow on Thu, 06/26/2008 - 7:46pm.

The best thing we can do is get the government off their drug trip and grow a crop that works. Don't let them lie to you, there is plenty of farm land. We have over 100 million total farm acres in the USA and only use about half. The half that's not being planted is more than enough to grow ALL our fuel. Not only that but the government is still paying farmers not to plant. Watch the video titled "HEMP FUEL Can Supply All Our Energy Needs" and read the article titled "Marijuana Facts The Government Does Not Want You To Know" on the website referenced at the bottom of this post.
----------------
Hemp requires no pesticides, no herbicides, and only moderate amounts of fertilizer.
Source: MARIJUANA AND HEMP THE UNTOLD STORY
---------------
Hemp can produce several different kinds of fuel. In the 1800's and 1900's hempseed oil was the primary source of fuel in the United States and was commonly used for lamps and other oil energy needs. The diesel engine was originally designed to run on hemp oil because Rudolf Diesel assumed that it would be the most common fuel. Hemp is also the most efficient plant for the production of methanol. It is estimated that, in one form or another, hemp grown in the United States could provide up to ninety percent of the nation's entire energy needs.
Source: Schaffer Library of Drug Policy
------------
Hemp is 4 times more efficient than corn as biofuel. Hemp pellets can be used to produce clean electricity.
... so powerful it could replace every type of fossil fuel energy product (oil, coal, and natural gas).
... This plant is the earth's number one biomass resource or fastest growing annual plant for agriculture on a worldwide basis, producing up to 14 tons per acre. This is the only biomass source available that is capable of producing all the energy needs of the U.S. and the world...
Hemp will produce cleaner air and reduce greenhouse gases. When biomass fuel burns, it produces CO2 (the major cause of the greenhouse effect), the same as fossil fuel; but during the growth cycle of the plant, photosynthesis removes as much CO2 from the air as burning the biomass adds, so hemp actually cleans the atmosphere. After the first cycle there is no further loading to the atmosphere...
Source: USA Hemp Museum
------------------

JOIN THE EMAIL LIST, WATCH THE FUEL VIDEOS:
Internet Explorer: http://jsknow.angelfire.com/home
Other Browsers: http://jsknow.angelfire.com/index.html

Submitted by bobferris on Fri, 06/27/2008 - 7:59am.

While I applaud you for your enthusiatic and thoughtful response, the cautionary note I will interject here is that this is still a solution based on the internal combustion engine which by definition means carbon emissions. And as much as I'd love to accept the premise that bio-fuels are carbon neutral, I am not sure that they can be. For example: show me one tree that grows as fast as a log burns.

Bio-fuels can temporarily help with energy independence but are not long term solutions. The answers will come by switching lifestyles so we don't need as much fuel, retooling transportation systems that run on stored electricity, hydrogen, or compressed air, and using our wildlands as carbon sinks to soak up the roughly 37 parts per million of excess CO2 floating around in our atmosphere.

Bob Ferris
Executive Director
Yestermorrow Design/Build School

Submitted by bobferris on Thu, 06/26/2008 - 8:54am.

You are absolutely right! Not only was it a poor policy decision, it was poorly handled. The administration via the Office of Management and Budget refused to even read the e-mail containing the EPA's findings. Keeping in mind that this is an EPA that tried to convince us that clear skies are the same as clean air. This also the EPA who has fought against California's attempts to become a leader in auto emissions, etc., etc., etc., When these guys think that things are so bad that they need to say something, we really ought to listen because things are likely a lot worse than they claim.

Bob

Bob Ferris
Executive Director
Yestermorrow Design/Build School