Bush broke promises about environment

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

This column was written by Cecil Andrus, Bruce Babbitt and Stewart Udall, all past secretaries of the interior.

As we saw in the Oct. 7 presidential debate, there is vigorous and appropriate discussion over which candidate can do more to protect the country from outside threats. Yet there has been precious little debate over which candidate will do more to protect the air, water, soil and land that sustain our country.

As we stand vigilant guard against the attack of any outside enemy, we also should make sure we suffer no injury from within: from the pollution of our air, the poisoning of our water or the exploitation of our lands.

Unfortunately, instead of protecting our environment, it appears that the current administration has developed a one-sided test for setting policy on the environment -- it simply asks: "What does industry want?"

It might have made sense to ask, "What does industry want?" if it had been proved that the goals of industry and the interests of the environment were in direct conflict. But all experience in modern times has proved just the opposite. In the '90s, history's longest economic expansion and largest budget surplus coincided with cleaner air, water and soil and one of the greatest records of land preservation since Teddy Roosevelt. We have proved again and again that the economy and the environment can flourish together -- but only if government insists on it.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/196067_ebey21.html

[freesqueeze]

1. How Do They Get Away With It?

From the end of the article:

"Bush promised you he would fully fund efforts to protect this land. He has not kept his promise. He's gambling that you won't do anything about it. In a few short weeks, we'll know if he was right."

Strange how the environment has been left out of the Presidential race. The horrible job he did here is still not as bad as the damage to the economy and the Iraq Invasion.