Bush and the world

[ZombieJesus]

I agreed with President Bush going to Iraq to stop Saddam, even if the USA had more reasons to invade then just that. Saddam was a murderer and had to be stopped. However when President Bush Stood up and asked the world to help him in the fight against terror I was a little perplexed.

Not too long ago President Bush asked the EPA to leave global warming off its report because it's such a political hot potato. President Bush said no to the nuclear weapons test ban when he was elected. He said no to land mines banning, he said no to Kyoto and no to a world court. Now he is asking something of the world which he chose to neglect and when the world didn't entirely agree with him rather then try to win them over with further proof, he said to hell with the UN.

President Bush fought terror with vigour and determination. However at the same time he was acting irresponsibly helping the world by fighting terror while at the same time giving the world the finger in the name of US interests. Shame on you Mr. Bush you have a responsibility not only to your own country but to the world in which it exists.

If anyone can think of ways in which President Bush helped the world and the enviroment or more ways in which he neglected it please post away...

 

[Czar]

well the US did the bigger part of the job in afghanistan

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: ZombieJesus

If anyone can think of ways in which President Bush helped the world and the enviroment or more ways in which he neglected it please post away...

He had congress put aside a big chunk of change($1.2 billion, I believe) for fuel cells. Other than that though, most of his environmental policies are just rhetoric or ignoring problems.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: ZombieJesus

If anyone can think of ways in which President Bush helped the world and the enviroment or more ways in which he neglected it please post away...

He had congress put aside a big chunk of change($1.2 billion, I believe) for fuel cells. Other than that though, most of his environmental policies are just rhetoric or ignoring problems.

and he put extra money into nasa

 

[Moonbeam]

He didn't kybosh Arnold's run for governor and soon single driver hybrid owners will be able to use the diamond lanes.

 

[fjord]

Bush's environmental record

The stuff about fighting terror is a farce.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: ZombieJesus
Not too long ago President Bush asked the EPA to leave global warming off its report because it's such a political hot potato. President Bush said no to the nuclear weapons test ban when he was elected. He said no to land mines banning, he said no to Kyoto and no to a world court. Now he is asking something of the world which he chose to neglect and when the world didn't entirely agree with him rather then try to win them over with further proof, he said to hell with the UN.

yes, I really don't know what Bush had to gain with a lot of those...especially the land mine one, I mean sure, some companies wouldn't like more environmental policies, but who was he trying to please with land mines? The land mine manufacturers? Talk about catering to a tiny group...

As for the environment, can he be so short-sighted that he doesn't see bad environment=WORSE for business in the long run?
As a scientist I'm def. voting against Bush this year. You can't just ignore FACTS.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: ZombieJesus

If anyone can think of ways in which President Bush helped the world and the enviroment or more ways in which he neglected it please post away...

He had congress put aside a big chunk of change($1.2 billion, I believe) for fuel cells. Other than that though, most of his environmental policies are just rhetoric or ignoring problems.

Guess your forget about a CAFE increase
or new off road diesel pollution rules
and a few other things...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ZombieJesus
I agreed with President Bush going to Iraq to stop Saddam, even if the USA had more reasons to invade then just that. Saddam was a murderer and had to be stopped. However when President Bush Stood up and asked the world to help him in the fight against terror I was a little perplexed.

Not too long ago President Bush asked the EPA to leave global warming off its report because it's such a political hot potato. President Bush said no to the nuclear weapons test ban when he was elected. He said no to land mines banning, he said no to Kyoto and no to a world court. Now he is asking something of the world which he chose to neglect and when the world didn't entirely agree with him rather then try to win them over with further proof, he said to hell with the UN.

President Bush fought terror with vigour and determination. However at the same time he was acting irresponsibly helping the world by fighting terror while at the same time giving the world the finger in the name of US interests. Shame on you Mr. Bush you have a responsibility not only to your own country but to the world in which it exists.

If anyone can think of ways in which President Bush helped the world and the enviroment or more ways in which he neglected it please post away...

It was the senate that voted 97-0 that killed kyoto, not Bush. ANd that vote was done before Bush came into office.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He didn't kybosh Arnold's run for governor and soon single driver hybrid owners will be able to use the diamond lanes.

Cool! I'm savin' my pennies for a hybrid Highlander . . . come on, Toyota.

 

[SwissArmyBilly]

The senate did not vote 97-0 on Kyoto. They voted for the Byrd-Hagal proposal that the US will not be a party to any treaty on carbon emissions that doesnt include mandatory restrictions for developing nations or hurts the US economy. And I think it was 95-0 actually. Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol but never submited it to congree because of Byrd-Hagel. Bush "unsigned" kyoto in effect killing it.

I know these are only subtle differences, but differences nonetheless.

Billy

 

[ZombieJesus]

Indeed President Bush dumped Kyoto for very short term benefit to the economy. In the long run, however it will cost the US and the rest of us far more. The pentagon itself issued a report stating a 5 degree change in temperature occurring in Europe in 20 short years. This drop in temperature will keep crops from growing etc. The world economy will be affected greatly because of this. There is even a small percent chance that it could be so bad as to cause war to protect resources. The probability of this happening is very small but VERY REALand needs to be taken seriously. With the US government showing Bush this report he is no doubt embarrassed and will try to quietly sweep it under the rug.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SwissArmyBilly
The senate did not vote 97-0 on Kyoto. They voted for the Byrd-Hagal proposal that the US will not be a party to any treaty on carbon emissions that doesnt include mandatory restrictions for developing nations or hurts the US economy. And I think it was 95-0 actually. Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol but never submited it to congree because of Byrd-Hagel. Bush "unsigned" kyoto in effect killing it.

I know these are only subtle differences, but differences nonetheless.

Billy

It is the responsability of congress to sign and enter treaties. The president does not have these powers. Bush unsigned nothing.

 

[ElFenix]

kyoto would never pass in the US senate, so might as well blame bush or clinton since its been around that long. blaming either is completely worthless.


as for trying to screw over 'world interests' in protection of their own national interests, take a look at france.

 

[TechJunkie95242]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: ZombieJesus

If anyone can think of ways in which President Bush helped the world and the enviroment or more ways in which he neglected it please post away...

He had congress put aside a big chunk of change($1.2 billion, I believe) for fuel cells. Other than that though, most of his environmental policies are just rhetoric or ignoring problems.

I heard in the news that he cut budget down for fuel cell and alternative energy powered carsresearch budget was cut down from 8billion, to 4billion, then I suppose 1.2billion. Assuming that number you gave me was right.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: ZombieJesus

If anyone can think of ways in which President Bush helped the world and the enviroment or more ways in which he neglected it please post away...

He had congress put aside a big chunk of change($1.2 billion, I believe) for fuel cells. Other than that though, most of his environmental policies are just rhetoric or ignoring problems.

I heard in the news that he cut budget down for fuel cell and alternative energy powered carsresearch budget was cut down from 8billion, to 4billion, then I suppose 1.2billion. Assuming that number you gave me was right.

I'm not sure, I just remember hearing 1.2 billion in the same sentence as fuel cells before.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: ZombieJesus

If anyone can think of ways in which President Bush helped the world and the enviroment or more ways in which he neglected it please post away...

He had congress put aside a big chunk of change($1.2 billion, I believe) for fuel cells. Other than that though, most of his environmental policies are just rhetoric or ignoring problems.

I heard in the news that he cut budget down for fuel cell and alternative energy powered carsresearch budget was cut down from 8billion, to 4billion, then I suppose 1.2billion. Assuming that number you gave me was right.

I dont think that was the case. This program I beleive replaced the program that was doing research on high MPG cars, which had not created much technology.

 

[SwissArmyBilly]

Charrison, you are incorrect

"It is the responsability of congress to sign and enter treaties. The president does not have these powers. Bush unsigned nothing."

The Senate has no power to sign or negotiate treaties. The head of State (president) or his appointee is responsible for the negotiation and original "signing" of any treaty. The President must then bring the treaty before the Senate for a vote. If the treaty passes by a 2/3 vote it is "ratified" and becomes law. This is pretty basic internation law stuff. Clinton signed the treaty but never submitted it to congress for ratification. Bush removed the head of state approval or signature from kyoto.

"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur" Article 2 section 2 US constitution

Billy

 

[busmaster11]

The EPA, like many depts, is headed by bush's goon, the former gov of Utah, with an atrocious enviromental record.

You say Congress rejected kyoto 97-0? Kyoto doesn't go nearly far enough. It's sad how the neo-cons fail to take responsiblity for anything these days. The war, the children, the environment, nothing.

 

[Helenihi]

Kyoto didn't go far enough? I guess you're right. It was an utterly pointless piece of legislation that does approximately nothing to actually lower temperatures while setting unrealistic limits and doesn't do anything about up and coming developing nations like China and India.

Rather stupid piece of legislation. Bush's killing of it made it possible for some new (and useful and/or realistic) treaty to be fashioned. Or for the US just to decide how to reduce co2 on its own (like by building more nuke plants. In my dreams, i know).

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Kyoto didn't go far enough? I guess you're right. It was an utterly pointless piece of legislation that does approximately nothing to actually lower temperatures while setting unrealistic limits and doesn't do anything about up and coming developing nations like China and India.

Rather stupid piece of legislation. Bush's killing of it made it possible for some new (and useful and/or realistic) treaty to be fashioned. Or for the US just to decide how to reduce co2 on its own (like by building more nuke plants. In my dreams, i know).

Whats useful? Pollution credits? Just another way this regime fits snugly into the back pockets of the energy co's and other polluters...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Kyoto didn't go far enough? I guess you're right. It was an utterly pointless piece of legislation that does approximately nothing to actually lower temperatures while setting unrealistic limits and doesn't do anything about up and coming developing nations like China and India.

Rather stupid piece of legislation. Bush's killing of it made it possible for some new (and useful and/or realistic) treaty to be fashioned. Or for the US just to decide how to reduce co2 on its own (like by building more nuke plants. In my dreams, i know).

Whats useful? Pollution credits? Just another way this regime fits snugly into the back pockets of the energy co's and other polluters...

Actually trading of pollution credits works quite well. The clean air act was based on that.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Kyoto didn't go far enough? I guess you're right. It was an utterly pointless piece of legislation that does approximately nothing to actually lower temperatures while setting unrealistic limits and doesn't do anything about up and coming developing nations like China and India.

Rather stupid piece of legislation. Bush's killing of it made it possible for some new (and useful and/or realistic) treaty to be fashioned. Or for the US just to decide how to reduce co2 on its own (like by building more nuke plants. In my dreams, i know).

Whats useful? Pollution credits? Just another way this regime fits snugly into the back pockets of the energy co's and other polluters...

Actually trading of pollution credits works quite well. The clean air act was based on that.

Works quite well for bush, I'm sure.

The spirit of the clean air act is to clean the air. This bucks the system by maximizing every ounce of total pollution allowable under the system for some, and a fancy little credit for others. Essentially we're paying companies to obey the law. Excellent spin work.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Kyoto didn't go far enough? I guess you're right. It was an utterly pointless piece of legislation that does approximately nothing to actually lower temperatures while setting unrealistic limits and doesn't do anything about up and coming developing nations like China and India.

Rather stupid piece of legislation. Bush's killing of it made it possible for some new (and useful and/or realistic) treaty to be fashioned. Or for the US just to decide how to reduce co2 on its own (like by building more nuke plants. In my dreams, i know).

Whats useful? Pollution credits? Just another way this regime fits snugly into the back pockets of the energy co's and other polluters...

Actually trading of pollution credits works quite well. The clean air act was based on that.

Works quite well for bush, I'm sure.

The spirit of the clean air act is to clean the air. This bucks the system by maximizing every ounce of total pollution allowable under the system for some, and a fancy little credit for others. Essentially we're paying companies to obey the law. Excellent spin work.

It is a system that drasticly reduced pollution. There is nothing to spin about the system.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Kyoto didn't go far enough? I guess you're right. It was an utterly pointless piece of legislation that does approximately nothing to actually lower temperatures while setting unrealistic limits and doesn't do anything about up and coming developing nations like China and India.

Rather stupid piece of legislation. Bush's killing of it made it possible for some new (and useful and/or realistic) treaty to be fashioned. Or for the US just to decide how to reduce co2 on its own (like by building more nuke plants. In my dreams, i know).

Whats useful? Pollution credits? Just another way this regime fits snugly into the back pockets of the energy co's and other polluters...

Actually trading of pollution credits works quite well. The clean air act was based on that.

Works quite well for bush, I'm sure.

The spirit of the clean air act is to clean the air. This bucks the system by maximizing every ounce of total pollution allowable under the system for some, and a fancy little credit for others. Essentially we're paying companies to obey the law. Excellent spin work.

It is a system that drasticly reduced pollution. There is nothing to spin about the system.

Compared to nothing at all? I'm sure. But again, in case you didn't get the jist the first time, this defeats the spirit of such legislation.