Another huge attempt by Bush’s Interior to make an end-run around using the best science in its Endangered Species Act determinations – this time the move just cuts third party independent scientific review out of the ESA process ! The administration believes it can do so without congressional approval.
Bush to relax protected species rules – MSNBC
Plan takes scientists out of decision making on species status
Comments
The only problem with political jokes… is that they get elected.
Author Mark Bowen wrote about Bush and C.’s “censoring of NASA fclimatologist Dr. James Hansen in “Censoring Science: The political attack on Dr. James Hansen and the truth of global warming.” A helluva good read that also cuts to the heart of the Bush vs. ESA campaign.
This along with the plan to sue endangered status of the polar bear shows that, with 161 days left of Bushco, they are in a full sprint to try to open every loop hole they can for environmental degradation/destruction. For those of you who might have thought these guys finally got it about global climate change, I hope you now appreciate they were just mouthing the words someone else was singing (kind of like that little Chinese girl in the Olympic opening ceremony). It is interesting that this series of “regulatory changes” implies they don’t think much of McCain’s chances to build on the Bush legacy. I need to donate to Obama again.
It’s hard to figure how the anti-nature gang in D.C. imagine they can reconcile these proposed regs with the ESA, which clearly states that the agencies must use the “best available scientific and commercial data” in decision making. Of course, given their penchant for Orwellian language, I suppose they may put their own scientists’ reports off limits and then claim they’re “unavailable.” It must be tough being a federal biologist or climatologist these days.
Time to contribute to the litigation fund of your favorite conservation NGO.
Another story along this same line is, that if anyone recalls, the maritime protection that Bush gave a huge area to the west of Hawaii, actually part of the Hawaiian island chain if I remember. guess what, not only was there never adequate funding but what of it there was has been cut to nearly zero.
Jeff E, this is the story you are referring to:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26094641/
Let’s remember:
Bush came up with the Clear Skies Initiative, which would have gutted the Clean Air Act.
He denied climate change for a long time, now admits it, but still does nothing to reduce greenhouse gases.
Slashed the Superfund’s clean-ups of toxic wastes.
Civil citations issued to polluters fell 57 percent in his first 4 years.
Fish-consumption advisories for lakes increased 39 percent in his first 4 years.
Bush’s first budget in 2001: “Among the funding cuts are $162 million from the Wetlands Reserve program, which provides assistance to farmers who wish to restore and protect agricultural wetlands. Energy efficiency research programs would be cut by 30 percent, and renewable energy programs by 40 percent.”
Bush proposed that energy efficiency programs would be cut by up to 50 percent by Bush as soon as he got into office. I wonder why no one brings this up now?
Let’s not forget the snowmobiles in Yellowstone, either.
The sad thing is I could keep going, and going, if I was so inclined. But we already know the Bush record on the environment.
Bush, without a doubt, will be seen as a complete failure as President. He deserves a prison sentence for what he has done to our country.
I appreciate the humor of this site but I’m not laughing about this latest move by the administration. Even if Obama gets elected he won’t be able to wave his magic liberal wand and make this go away. Any reccomendations for who is most able to fight this, and who should I write first?
KC
How much better might McCain be than Bush on the environment? Increaslying it looks more like McCain will be the next president. In choosing Obama over Clinton–idealism over pragmatism–the democrats may again lose another presedential election. The next president will be in a postion to choose 3 to 4 supreme court justices that portends nothing positive for the environment.
Monty–
McCain would be just as bad, as he would likely appoint the same type of ideologues to his cabinet. Oh he would make a big show of going after global warming, now that it is clear that the rest of the world and most of his own country have made this a priority; but we’d get more Nortons and Kempthorns and continued attempts to weaken public land management agencies to the point of irrelevance.
I shutter to think at what the U.S. would be like if McCain appointed 3-4 Supreme Court justices (it really is more likely to be 2). If that happens, I may just decide to get out of this country to watch it self-destruct from afar.
OK, OK,
I realize that this a a huge conspiracy, complete no doubt with black helicopters in the dead of night.
BUT, can somebody please tell me WHY all of these people are so dead set against the “environment”?? It just doesn’t make any sense to me — are then just doing it for plain meanness, or to spite the “green” folk, or what??
OOOOORRRRR, could this be another part of the grand scheme of public land ranching to destroy all things environmental??