NationStates Jolt Archive

I am looking for a website that commends or shows Bush doing a good job with his environmental policies. Thanks!

Like a serious one, or are lies ok too? Because lies would be alot easier to find.

Like a serious one, or are lies ok too? Because lies would be alot easier to find.

Oh, just one that looks legit.

You've got a sense of humour!

You've got a sense of humour!

And a need for some pro-Bush websites!

And a need for some pro-Bush websites!
I bet you could find some conservative bull shit about the environment at the RNC's website.

Seriously though, your thread is an oxymoron. Why are you looking for Bush doing a good job with the environment?

I will say this, I honestly looked for what you wanted. I can't find anything. I'm usually pretty good with stuff too. Damn, its even worse than I thought.

look at clean coal websites.. bush is a hugh supporter of clean coal.. (rightfully so)

I am looking for a website that commends or shows Bush doing a good job with his environmental policies. Thanks!

Is there such a thing?

look at clean coal websites.. bush is a hugh supporter of clean coal.. (rightfully so)

Nice! That gave me many websites, especially after tonight's beautiful layout of his future policies!

its all about the right key word.. i pray we get more clean coal technologies.. just thinka bout it... we are the saudi arabia of coal.. if we turned coal into a more efficent fuel power we would have limitless growth potential

its all about the right key word.. i pray we get more clean coal technologies.. just thinka bout it... we are the saudi arabia of coal.. if we turned coal into a more efficent fuel power we would have limitless growth potential

Hopefully coal can be become more efficient and cleaner soon so we don't waste all our other resources....

Clean coal?? As compared to what?
Coal is not clean. It CHEMICALLY cannot burn that clean.
Good luck finding a website... Had me LMAO that
a) you can't find one
b) One might even exists that's serious. No, wait. That's scary...

Clean coal?? As compared to what?
Coal is not clean. It CHEMICALLY cannot burn that clean.
Good luck finding a website... Had me LMAO that
a) you can't find one
b) One might even exists that's serious. No, wait. That's scary...

theres a great intellegent response for you.. its called research my boy. Clean coal research has already made coal a far cleaner power source then what it once was. If we continue to heavily invest in this technology may find away to become a totally clean energy solution, providing the US with the solution it is looking for

I think clean coal works on a principal similar to a catalytic converter in a car. That is some exhaust is pipe back into the intake and burned at insanely high temperatures. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

I bet you could find some conservative bull shit about the environment at the RNC's website.

Seriously though, your thread is an oxymoron. Why are you looking for Bush doing a good job with the environment?


In his first term of office he managed to repeal any good environmental policy that Clinton put into effect. He also managed to want to drill in the Artice National Wildlife Refuge. I'm not a BIG fan of the Bush here at all.

Clean coal?? As compared to what?
Coal is not clean. It CHEMICALLY cannot burn that clean.
Good luck finding a website... Had me LMAO that
a) you can't find one
b) One might even exists that's serious. No, wait. That's scary...


http://www.ncpa.org/iss/ene/2002/pd100202e.html

Hey you guys remember when Bush did coke?:fluffle: :eek:

And a need for some pro-Bush websites!

You mean, like, porn?

Quote: Clean coal?? As compared to what?
Coal is not clean. It CHEMICALLY cannot burn that clean.

CleanER coal, compared to poorer quality coal, moron.

http://www.off-road.com/land/bush.html
http://www.iraqi-freedom.com/chat/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=424&
http://gopmco.com/html/agenda_main.htm

But if you'd rather hear the truth, check these.

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2004.asp
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2003/09/we_531_04.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=340
http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1993/10/mm1093_03.html
http://www.nwf.org/enviroaction/index.cfm?issueID=18

Or zillions more. Finding anything positive about Bush and the enviroment
is hard. It took some looking. Finding things negative is much easier, and
tends to be more detailed.

Say, didn't Bush go repeal laws stopping companies dumping waste into America's rivers? The same rivers used for water supply, now full of "God knows what" chemicals they pump out of those factories.

theres a great intellegent response for you.. its called research my boy. Clean coal research has already made coal a far cleaner power source then what it once was. If we continue to heavily invest in this technology may find away to become a totally clean energy solution, providing the US with the solution it is looking for
so its far cleaner than the most polluting power source in history? brilliant :rolleyes:

Clean coal is an oxymoron.

The onion had a pretty nice (mock) article about this a few years ago, but unfortunately the illustrated article is in their paid archive. The text however was as follows:


Bush Vows To Remove Toxic Petroleum From National Parks

WASHINGTON, DC--Vowing to "restore the pristine splendor of America's natural treasures," President Bush Monday unveiled "Project: National Parks Clean-Up," an ambitious program to remove all toxic petrochemical deposits from national parks by 2004.

"Places like Yellowstone and Yosemite were once pure, unspoiled wilderness," Bush said at a White House press conference. "But over the course of the past 10 million years, we have allowed them to become polluted with toxic fossil-fuel deposits, turning a blind eye to the steady build-up of vast quantities of dangerous pollutants. It's time to end this terrible neglect."

Continued Bush: "A comprehensive survey of our parks, conducted by a team of top geologists specially commissioned by me, has discovered giant pockets of petroleum, coal, and other 'fossil poisons' beneath an alarming 38 percent of our national parks' surface area. Though a majority of these poisons are buried under several million tons of rock strata, should they ever seep to the surface and spread into the surrounding areas, they would spell disaster for the parks' precious ecosystems."

To underscore the severity of the crisis, Bush produced a chart illustrating survey results for Yellowstone National Park, where a "staggeringly huge" toxic-petroleum deposit was discovered.

"This amount represents the equivalent of 40,000 supertankers worth of oil," said Bush, gesturing toward a line on the chart. "To put the dangers into perspective, consider this: If these 'petro-poisons' should ever spill out into the park itself, the resulting environmental disaster would be 40,000 times worse than the damage caused by the wreck of the Exxon Valdez."

"We cannot allow such a thing to happen," Bush said. "We must remove this oil now, before it's too late."

Under the Bush plan, 7.2 billion tons of toxic petroleum would be removed by the target date of January 2004. Unlike other federal environmental clean-up initiatives, administration officials say the plan would pay for itself, offsetting costs through the sale of petroleum byproducts produced as a result of the clean-up process.

The clean-up, EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman said, may even prove profitable, a prospect that has attracted the participation of private industry. Already, many U.S. companies have expressed interest in lending assistance, and it is hoped that these companies will carry out much, or perhaps all, of the clean-up effort.

Though "Project: National Parks Clean-Up" represents Bush's first major environmental initiative since taking office, supporters are quick to point that he has been a longtime champion of petroleum removal.

"As governor of Texas, Bush fought tirelessly to protect the state's subterranean environment through a series of massive petrochemical-deposit clean-up projects," Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton said. "Under his governorship, more tons of petroleum-based subterranean environmental contaminants were removed in Texas than in all the national Superfund clean-up sites combined. The Democrats talk a good game about the importance of cleaning up the environment, but when it comes to actually eliminating the threat of enormous oil deposits lurking under the surface of our nation, no one can hold a candle to George W. Bush."

Thus far, reaction has been mixed. Some have said it is unrealistic for the president to try to remove so much petroleum so quickly. Others, such as Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH), have charged that the president is caving in to pressure from environmentalists, arguing that the government's energies would be better directed toward improving the military.

But despite such criticism, Bush stressed that the urgency of removing the oil deposits should take precedence over everything else.

"Nothing is more important than the legacy we leave future generations," Bush said. "The costs of this project pale in comparison to the importance of safeguarding our planet's ecosystem. Our primary mission must be to protect and foster our nation's most precious natural resource: oil. I mean, the environment."

Other non-serious articles that look very credible can possible be found on the parodysite http://www.whitehouse.org/ . The url helps ;)

lmfao, did i read that wrong or did he suggest that untapped fossil fuels beneath parks are polluting the parks and should thus be "removed" (aka tapped)? excellent reading

The onion had a pretty nice (mock) article about this a few years ago, but unfortunately the illustrated article is in their paid archive. The text however was as follows:



Other non-serious articles that look very credible can possible be found on the parodysite http://www.whitehouse.org/ . The url helps ;)

Great site! :) :p ;) :D

Well first of that the *,* is clean coal? I have seen some of the sites you posted and they talk abot cleaner coal. The coal will still still put out toxic waste I think (even if it can decrease with some percent between 1 and ?) but that is not the big problem for the rest of world because you can put your plant in the middle of the USA and the most of that toxic will stay in america.

But have you heard of globalwarming there most people and almost all the scientist agree that happens and that it will heat up the atmosphere and that increase in CO2 has a effetc on that. Then it's bad to put you money on a tecnology that lead to CO2 increase and there you at best can decrease the output with half (if you believie the people on the clean coal sites. Because we want the enviroment to be as stable as possibly because the simple truth is that we live in it and it not nice for example that all the cropse is lost because of unexpected weather changes that is ecpecially bad if it happens in a poor countries that despretly need the crops or the rise in waterlevel leads to increasing flooding.

And the big problem even isn't that the America is polluting the world but that they sat a bad example for China, India and the other developing countries that already is tempted to don't care about the enviroment. Especially sens we in the west have polluted the enviroment and don't bother about it during our developing process.

I am looking for a website that commends or shows Bush doing a good job with his environmental policies. Thanks!

I'm not sure what he's supposed to enforce.

Massive sections of environmental legislation, such as the entire Clean Air Act, and the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to create regulations was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the mid-1990s.

The ruling stated that Congress must put regulatory detail in any law they pass - you cannot have a bureaucracy creating regulations that have the force of law.

Since then, the Clean Air Act and other environmental regulations have had no force of law - the industries involved are currently adhering "voluntarily" because they figure someday, someone will either sue them for not conforming, or perhaps Congress will get their act together.

The President isn't really in a position to enforce anything at this point. At least not through the EPA.