Wednesday :: Aug 25, 2004

What "Clear Skies" means to Bush


by Duckman GR

I talked about this before but the story continues to ripen. You want BushSpeak, here you go.

One of every three lakes in the United States, and nearly one-quarter of the nation's rivers contain enough pollution that people should limit or avoid eating fish caught there.

snip-

Though the number of advisories rose to 3,094, up from 2,814 in 2002, according to figures released Tuesday, EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt said the increase was due to more monitoring, not more pollution.

Which does not make it okay or acceptable, but he's gotta let us know, it isn't because there's more pollution or anything. And he cites studies to back it up.

Leavitt said mercury pollution from industry is decreasing, though he cited figures only as recent as five years ago.

But the Bushites are working on it.

[Sen.] Jeffords and President Bush have each proposed ways of regulating mercury and other pollution from coal-fired power plants. Jeffords would have the government force industry to reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2008; Bush wants to cut mercury emissions by 70 percent by 2018.

That's right, 90% in four years, versus 70% in FOURTEEN YEARS.

A question occurs to me. Bush's EPA is planning on issuing new regulations, and [Secretary] Leavitt promised to issue the nation's first regulations for mercury emissions "within a few months." Yet, at the same time, [t]he EPA also provided a chart showing the level of mercury emission from human causes fell 45 percent in 1999 from 1990. The agency said that was the most recent data it had available.

Does this mean they're making decisions based on old data, or does this mean that they aren't releasing ALL of the data available? Or

does this mean that science has nothing to do with it, and that it's just politics yet again? I direct your attention to this ending comment in the NYT story:

Pointing out that the Clinton administration waited until its final days to propose mercury emission regulations, which were later challenged in court, he said Mr. Bush deserved credit for proposing regulations and providing technical assistance to other countries working to reduce mercury emissions.

It remains unclear what would happen to the Bush proposal if Mr. Kerry were to win in November.

"That's an eventuality," Mr. Leavitt said, "that I have not considered."

Why, it's all Clinton's fault, and thanks to the heroics of Bush, the world can thank him mind you, we are working hard to clean up this mess!

Yeah, if you think Bush's 29% by 2010 is better progress than what Environmentalists and Democrats propose, 90% by 2008. Note that last line, Yes indeed, Mr. Leavitt, "That's an eventuality," Mr. Leavitt said, "that I have not considered."

What else haven't you considered, Mike?

Duckman GR :: 10:42 AM :: Comments (3) :: Digg It!