Every Category Of Air Pollution Has Fallen During The Bush Administration

• July 27, 2006

It’s a rather striking irony that, as our air grows cleaner, environmentalists’ complaints grow louder. Since 2001, they’ve been screaming that President Bush is “rolling back the Clean Air Act,” and that the resulting increase in air pollution will kill people by the thousands. Instead, every category of air pollution has fallen during the Bush years, with 2003, 2004, and 2005 showing the lowest levels of harmful ozone and particulates in the air since the monitoring of air pollution began in the 1960s.

Republican controlled House. Republican controlled Senate. Republican controlled White House. Air pollution down across the board.
What is a good Republican-hating environmentalist to do?

http://Array Carrick

By the way, the original CATO opinion was here and is http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/sixpoll.html
?based on this source. (The Environmental Protection Agency.)

Puzzlefeet is just doing the usual liberal ad hominem attack rather than address the underlying facts. She thinks that just because the CATO Institute receives private funding from e.g. oil companies, that this is enough to allow her to shrug off the source.

Unfortunately, this mushy thinking is typical of the left, and no doubt is part of the reason that they have gained so little traction with the American public.
realitybasedbob

link
Carrick

PZ:

Yeah, anyone want to list the grant givers to the “fair and balanced” CATO Institute?

Somebody want to teach Puzzlefeet that if something is true, it’s true regardless of who said it or why they said it.

Actually Puzzlefeet is playing the usual game of Liberal Charades: When confronted with facts, ignore them, and attack their source.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

It didn’t start the minute that Bush became prez….

But the left is saying things are getting worse when they are in fact getting better.

Since they’re blaming Bush for it getting worse it would be consistent if he got the credit when it gets better.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Just because the air is cleaner now that Bush is president, doesn’t necessarily make it Bush’s success.

No, but it does negate what the lefties are saying about the Bush Administration and their shrill cries of doom.
http://bullwinkleblog.com/ bullwinkle

All government agencies are funded by conservatives, major corporations and the rich. You know, those who are able to make a profit and pay taxes. By Puzzle’s reasoning, if you can call it that, all government programs are suspect and therefore should be boycotted by liberals. They should no longer accept those partisan funded entitlement checks. Liberals should also boycott any products and services provided by greedy corporations and those evil big businesses, including broadband internet service, cars, computers, and food. In no time at all the world would be a better place!
jeneile

Pilgrim, awww…. come on! What fun would it be if all of you righties just sat around agreeing with one another all of the time. You need the occasional lefty to be foaming at the mouth to stir up drama, right?
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

So, I’m going to put this as clearly as I can: the current president has nothing to do with the current state of the environment,

So the liberals that are crying that bush is destroying the enviroment are lying, plain and simple.

Thanks for making my point.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

if the rate of improvement has decreased, unless you can attach it to specific changes in policy by the Bush administration. It is likely the case that current air quality is driven by technological limitations rather than policy choices.

Also improvements no matter what the cause are going to plateau.

To offer an analogy, if I went on the weight watchers diet (as my wife wants) I’d undoubtedly lose more weight at the start of the diet than as I reached my goal. When you think about it we should see the exact same trend with enviromental improvments.
Mickey

Ham,
Why are you assuming that industry isn’t interested in environmental stewardship?
I work for one of those alleged evil electric utilities and we spend millions annually on environmental issues. We live here too. Not only that, but we produce and distribute a commodity that benefits all of society. What are libs good for?
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Oh NO, Somebody put a suicide watch on Incontinent Al.
hamfist

Why are you assuming that industry isn’t interested in environmental stewardship?

I never said that. I said that past laws, which were passed under a republican Congress and democratic President are what’s contributing the alleged reduced air pollution. I commend energy companies for doing good by the environment, regardless of their motive.

But, Don’t drag me into your partisan politics when I’m just asking questions neither party seems to ask.

So, I’m going to put this as clearly as I can: the current president has nothing to do with the current state of the environment, because the laws passed. Furthermore, the fact still remains that if we don’t keep up with what we’re doing, we wont have years where air pollution drops.

And for the sake of a laugh, I’ll answer your question:

What are libs good for?

They keep energy company practices in the public eye, forcing those companies to create pro-environment programs lest they face public-relations snafus.
hamfist

I was kidding. Read. Comprehend. Post. Duh.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, I think party-humping is retarded.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

The sane ones in the left are simply saying…

I didn’t know there were any. Do you got them on a reservation somewhere?

trying to destroy the industrial changes that are supposedly making our air cleaner.

Not all that sane.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Nick you can be against the war and pro American. You can also be against the war and anti-American.
jeneile

Have any of you put any thought into the fact that maybe environmental change takes time as industries change to new laws? Just because the air is cleaner now that Bush is president, doesn’t necessarily make it Bush’s success. Think before you get on that bandwagon.

Amen. It takes decades to clean the air after decades and decades of pollution. It didn’t start the minute that Bush became prez….
nuetral_nick

Okay, here we go. This is my last attempt to explain myself:

The Whistler:

Since I was not indicting the Bush adminstration of any harm toward the environment, I do not see why I should need to come up with an example. I would however suggest that you read my original post in its entirety and take time to pause and reflect what the words I wrote actually mean.

robert108:

I don’t remember me actually saying that I thought legislation accomplished things but rather me quoting things I had heard other people say. I do think it is interesting to note that this topic started with a post that claimed that Bush’s legislation has helped air quality. Perhaps you should consider who is claiming what.
robert108

hamfist: You left out: supply shortages, high gas prices, distortion of markets, resulting in stagnation, tax increases and regulatory mandates…

Any time you use the word “forcing”, you reveal the true totalitarian agenda of the left. In a free society, the govt should be doing our wishes, not “forcing” anyone to do anything.
hamfist

Have any of you put any thought into the fact that maybe environmental change takes time as industries change to new laws? Just because the air is cleaner now that Bush is president, doesn’t necessarily make it Bush’s success. Think before you get on that bandwagon.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

OK nicky, what has Bush done to destroy the atmosphere as the rhetoric goes?

And I’m declaring Kyoto off-limits as Bill Clinton had nearly two years to submit this to the Senate and he didn’t. So it’s unfair for the left to criticize his successor for doing the same.
http://bullwinkleblog.com/ bullwinkle

What are libs good for?

Not one f’n thing unless you need to adjust your sights, but that was a rhetorical question, wasn’t it?
Pilgrim

Stop, you’re killin’ me here!

Do you realize the sheer entertainment value that’s gonna come out of this, just watching the left scramble to discredit it any way they can?

Yeehaw! This will be fun! Just look at Unreality Based Bob chiming in already with squealing liberal protests…..

The best show in town is watching the liberal left rabidly discredit ANYTHING that takes steam away from their Bush-is-evil sermonizing.

Fun stuff. Get some popcorn, pull up a chair, and watch. Just like watching circus clowns, but with less intellectual honesty.
robert108

nn: Your error is in thinking that “legislation” ever produces significant change, other than in our pocketbooks.
robert108

You said what you said. I said what I said. Man up!
Steve L.

The President is really trying to screw up the Democrats chances of winning back Congress in the mid-terms. I think that making the air cleaner is a Rovian plot to distract from the quagmire that is the DNC.

DAMN YOU!
Carrick

neutral_nick, it seems to me you are responding to facts with mere speculation.

It’s not just a single study in favor of the right, the compilation of data from multiple studies by tje EPA categorically demonstrate air quality is the best it has been since records have been kept. That’s what we call an objective fact.

We are making progress on our environment, much better than the liberal haters would ever allow. The recent decision to require low sulfur diesel fuel and catalytic converters for diesel engines is not just a major turning point for emissions control for the United States, it’s actually out in front of where Europe is on diesel fuel.
Bat One

You need the occasional lefty to be foaming at the mouth to stir up drama, right?

Jeneile,

Very true… and astute of you to notice. The problem is most of us righties, being older and more experienced, require a certain modest level of intellectual stimulation to make it worth the effort, and quite frankly too many on the left rely on emotion to make their arguments, rather than facts and intelligence. Its difficult trying to maintain a civil and coherent discussion or debate with someone who is prone to tantrums and vehement derangement.
nuetral_nick

The Whistler:

Guilty as charged. I am “on the fence” on a great many issues. However, I do have many people here at home that feel they need to “pressure” me into deciding on way or the other. I come to websites like this one in order to get an idea of what people believe and why they believe it. I think that the journey is just as important as the arrival personally. And right now, I am enjoying the journey.
robert108

If they had any intellectual honesty…
Carrick

Puzzlefeet:

Yep, that study is legitimate. Nice try, though.

You are really a complete idiot if you can’t separate a fact from its source.
robert108

Carrick: True that. The real problem here is that lefties must always have a “cause” and so cannot ever admit that things are getting better. Scareology is their bread and butter. Look at the resistance to taking animals off the endangered species list when they have recovered. The lefties just can’t handle it. You will notice the theme with the lefties on this thread as being “well, Bush had nothing to do with it.” All the blame, and no credit. No intellectual honesty whatsoever.
Puzzlefeet

Ok, let’s start the list for you:
Earhart Foundation: oil company money
Roe Foundation: funds solely right wing organizations
Claude R Lambe Foundation: Oil company money
Dave Koch: Need I say more: Koch Oil
Walton: Hmmmmm…..

Yep, that study is legitimate. Nice try, though.
neutral_nick

I am sure that since environmental legislation has been in place the quality of air has been improving year after year. However, I would be interested in learning what the rate of change has been under the Bush adminstration. Consider this. Let’s say air quality improvement was growing by around 3% in the years preceeding Bush’s administration. (Meaning that every year the percentage of air quality improvement is gettting larger).

Now, if the percent of air quality growth slowed down under Bush, the air quality would still be improving every year, but maybe not by as large a margin as previous years. This would still guarantee that our present air quality would be the highest it’s ever been, but it would not guarantee that it is improving at a faster pace than it ever has. Thus, Bush’s environmental policy would not be the reason that the air quality is at it’s highest. Afterall, it would take more than a few years of environmental cutbacks to offset decades of progress.

If a steady decrease in the growth of air quality improvement (rate of change as compared with previous year) was found, this would mean that if left unchanged, the current legislation would eventually lead to an overall decrease in air quality. Once again, this would not happen overnight and I am not even suggesting that it is happening at all. I just think that this would be an angle to consider and I am surprised that the liberals haven’t brought this point up. I remember that while Clinton was in office the Republicans were quick to assert that the strong and vibrant economy was a result of Reagans actions and had nothing to do with Bill Clinton’s performance as president. I can see how that could be true since a national economy can take a little while to adjust to policy changes.

Another thing to note would be that there is a lot of name calling toward the left and yet people claim that they wish to facilitate “a civil and coherent discussion.” This seems to me a bit hypocritical and self-righteous. This is not to mention the fact that Republicans also use emotionally inflamatory rhetoric to gain support. Living in the midwest I often hear people passionately decry any critics of George Bush as “unpatriotic” and “un-American” and let’s not forget “terrorist supporters.” I have no problems with people thinking that the policies of another party are wrong. I do think however that it is dangerous to pretend to know what a person’s intentions are.

Also guys let’s be honest, any time a study or report comes out in favor of the left, you immediately denounce such claims as “biased liberal media.” Essentially, because you have already decided that liberals are wrong about everything, you feel that there is no need to consider the possible validity of their claims. You have already decided that if something comes from a conservative source then it is 100% accurate whereas liberal sources are pretty much 100% wrong. I think if you look into it you’ll find that both parties fudge numbers and use misleading statistics to make themselves look good.
realitybasedbob

…you know that the EPA … is under the control of the Bush administration

Then, in one well-documented case, the Bush administration blatantly tampered with the integrity of scientific analysis at a federal agency when, in June 2003, the White House tried to make a series of changes to the EPA’s draft Report on the Environment.8″>the Bush administration blatantly tampered with the integrity of scientific analysis at a federal agency when, in June 2003, the White House tried to make a series of changes to the EPA’s draft Report on the Environment.8
Mickey

hamfesthamfest<

Actually, utilities maintain their own pro-environment programs voluntarily, according to federal and state law. From my own first hand experience the liberal factor is more of a financial drain on the consumer because the majority of their anti-industrial efforts ultimately end up costing the rate payer more.
neutral_nick

Thank you The Whistler! I wish that I received more responses like yours! I would also like to add that I do realize that many liberals have given conservatives good reason to accuse them of being unpatriotic.
realitybasedbob

Think before you get on that bandwagon.

Hamfist…since it lost its wheels, these people are carrying the bandwagon.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Nick I am not (at least now) assuming that you are one of the enviro-extremists that are spreading lies about Bush destroying the environment.

You seem however to be on the fence a bit. I’m trying to pull you off.
Carrick

This sentence should have read (including emphasis).

In any case, if the rate of improvement has decreased, it proves little, unless you can attach it to specific changes in policy by the Bush administration.

Typo’d on the <i> apparently…
Carrick

neural_nick, while it would be interesting to see a trend line over the last ten years, I’m simply suggesting that your speculation carries no weight because you aren’t doing your own homework. Fence sitting is useless armed only with “what ifs”. And frankly, absent evidence, your own comments are really just a form of spin.

In any case, if the rate of improvement has decreased, unless you can attach it to specific changes in policy by the Bush administration. It is likely the case that current air quality is driven by technological limitations rather than policy choices. (We could say the same thing, if the rate of improvement has accelerated, which in fact, is more likely the case, due to technological innovations.)

I consider Kyoto perfectly within the target of discussion, because it is the classic example of an utterly flawed environmental policy, one which will make little meaningful change to CO2 emissions, but carry a heavy burden on industrialized nations, while acting as a means of wealth redistribution to poor nations. The fact that Bush did not push this farce through Congress is to his credit.
hamfist

No, but it does negate what the lefties are saying about the Bush Administration and their shrill cries of doom.

The connection between the Bush Administration and the environment has nothing to do with past laws. The sane ones in the left are simply saying that the Adminstration isn’t doing enough to protect the environment, and in some cases, trying to destroy the industrial changes that are supposedly making our air cleaner. You’re taking two unrelated things and forcing them into your own bias; which is the wrong way to go about thinking and the right way to get absolutely nothing done.
aNONOMISLY

I always knew Bush was an enviromentalist at heart.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Oh, yeah, sorry I mentioned it R108.
neutral_nick

Carrick,

You do have a good point. I just wanted to be clear that I was only curious and not trying to accuse Bush of anything. As you yourself stated, the continuing improvement of air quality is most likely due to technology as opposed to policy.
nuetral_nick

Whoops.. I just realized that I posted my last comment as “robert108.” This was an unintentional mistake caused in part by a long day at work and the drinking of a few beers. Sorry robert.
robert108

robert108,

Yes, and conservatives jump to conclusions without properly examining all the evidence. I’m sorry, that’s not fair. You jump to conclusions without examining all the evidence. For instance, because I simply stated that I would be curious to know what the rate of change has been, you immediately coin me as a liberal. Hate to dissapoint you but I am not a liberal. Nowhere in my statement do I state that I personally believe that Bush has harmed the environment.

I would like to additionally point out (once again) that I never disputed the fact that air quality is at its best. I think perhaps you would benefit from looking up the definition of “hyopthetical.” What I suggested was merely a hypothetical situation. I am a curious person and I don’t see how further investigation into this matter is harmful. But here’s the really tough part…. even if it turns out that Bush’s legislation has increased the air quality improvement, you still don’t get to say that I was wrong. I was not saying that further examination would prove that Bush is guilty.

I was merely suggesting that sometimes facts can be misleading and it is a good idea to analyze what they are really saying. So really, I am only a proponent of looking at the condition of air quality from a multi-faceted perspective rather than suggesting what I think is going on. I suppose the question to ask then is are you opposed to critical thinking and skepticism? (and not just when examining liberal claims).
neutral_nick

Sorry about the super-long comment. I tend to rant and attempt to address too many issues at one time. Kudos to anyone who actually reads the whole thing though.
neutral_nick

Carrick,

Well, for starters I was not trying to pass my proposal as a fact. Second, I never disputed that air quality was actually at its lowest since records were kept. I also never said that this study intentionally favored the right (though I can see how it could seem implied).I have not really seen how your statement disagrees with mine. I was simply saying that I would be interested to see what the rate of change was and giving an example of how it “could be” simultaneously possible that our air quality was at its best while air quality improvement was actually declining. I was merely proposing a hypothetical situation for argument’s sake, not trying to legitimately give a reason why I think Bush has harmed the environment.

I know all of this was cleverly disguised with words such as “if” and statements such as “I am not even suggesting that it is happening at all,” so I can see how you would be confused.. (Sorry, I can’t help being a smart-ass sometimes). The only point I was trying to make was that I would be interested in what the rate of change in air quality has been under Bush’s administration. I am not suggesting that it is one way or the other nor am I hoping so.

I am simply pointing out that facts belong in their context and that the most important thing is knowing how to interpret what facts are really saying. As I said earlier, both parties put a spin on facts in order to make them seem like the evidence is in their favor. That’s all. If it turns out that Bush’s legislation is increasing the rate of change of our air quality then I would say “That’s great!”
Puzzlefeet

Yeah, anyone want to list the grant givers to the “fair and balanced” CATO Institute?
Puzzlefeet

No, I just know that you aren’t going to bite the hand that feeds you.
jeneile

Carrick, do you think that there is a possibility that the study is biased? I have to listen to the same accusations in my field. Parents of autistic children blame vaccines for their child’s autism. When I site study after study tht proves that vaccines are not connected to autism, they get upset and say “oh, well those studies are funded by drug companies so they are inaccurate”……
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Carrick,

Don’t you know that the EPA is funded with money from the U.S. Treasury, which is under the control of the Bush administration?

Sheesh.

Create a SAB Readerblog

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development

SayAnythingBlog.com

Every Category Of Air Pollution Has Fallen During The Bush Administration

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments