Is Bush the worst environmental president ever?

Question

I am not sure. All I know is that we are in the middle of one of the biggest mass extinctions ever, and now Bush is going to relax the rules that help endangered species.

Obama says he opposes, and McCain has no comment. Wonder what no comment means?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i2F97uCf9YoAJSUUjqv499epbLVAD92HL5R00

Answer 1

Where exactly do you get your information?  "Biggest  mass extinctions ever"?  Not even ballpark even by an alarmists standards.

BTW - Congress makes laws not the president.  Congress ratifies treaties like Kyoto, not the president.

Answer 2

I'd say Reagon was,by personal exp.

Answer 3

He's on the short list.

I'm not sure why McCain would need to think it over.  He's got to be fairly familiar with the nuances of the Endangered Species Act.  Perhaps he needs to do some polling to find out what his answer is.

For a lame duck president, Bush seems driven to mess up this country as best he can before he leaves office.

Edit:  I found the site below today.  It might shed some light on your question.

Answer 4

Global Warming does not exist. But I hate Bush because he goes seal clubbing for fun.

Answer 5

Well if he isn't he should be considering that he wants to gut the ESA from doing what it has done for more than 30 years, which is research and help protect, in as much as it is possible, certain species of animals and plant life from becoming extinct. In the end, it's all about money; money for the war and money for the corporate interests, so if it means eliminating important and necessary funding in certain areas of the budget, then so be it. It's shameful.

Answer 6

YES.

Answer 7

The answer bases on what you have read at http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i2F97...

Answer 8

I suspect, yes. While the earth has had massive periods of extinction before, they have occurred over much longer periods of time, by some orders of magnitude. The rate of extinction has been speeding up in modern times and we can't blame Bush for ALL of it. There is enough to blame him for, without that.

"No comment" may mean, "I haven't considered it important enough to my campaign to pay any attention to it" or it could mean that stating an honest opinion would cost votes.

Answer 9

No, the worst president by any criteria has to be Abe Lincoln.

He was the first to suspend the Constitution and he never washed his beard.

Although Washington DID murder cherry trees, so maybe he's bad too.

I agree with whats-his-name: It's the Congress that writes laws.  

Answer 10

Actually,caring for the environment is what we personally should do because this is our planet.Somehow,it's also part of the president's fault for not making any rules for helping endangered speices.However,even the president has not tried to make any rules about it,we can still do our part to help endangered speices.

Answer 11

Yes, hands-down.

His complete inaction on global warming is probably enough by itself to earn him the title of worst environmental US president ever.  But of course he did much more than that.  He weakened the Clean Air and Water Acts, just for starters.  I can't even begin to list all the environmental damage Bush has done.  The NRDC has a nice chronological list at the link below, though it appears to only go through 2005.

Answer 12

Bush is one of the worst environmental presidents we have ever had. In addition he has given us more ethnic cleansing in the middle east. The only comparison would be the president during the ethnic cleansing of the American Indian. Mc Cain's "No comment" means he still needs the backing of the Republican Party if he is going to stay in competition for the presidency. My personal opinion is that neither of the candidates are going to the job this country needs for the environment/endangered species . I'm for Porky Pig as a write in candidate. Porky Pig would be better than either of our porky candidates.  

Answer 13

he's been good.  People that want pin GW c**p on him do not know the facts. Clinton was the president that didn't act on Koyoto.  When it landed in Bush's lap he Had absolutely nothing to do with it, why, not because he was "bad" but because its a treaty and the president has nothing to do with treaties, only congress can ratify treaties.

If Bush would have pushed congress on the treaty, they would have said NO.  Boy, the world would have beat up the US in the press.  Instead, Bush took the bullet for all of us by ignoring the treaty offer.

Answer 14

In the first George Bush administration the United States first acknowledged greenhouse gas and had the United States ratify the UNFCCC, but most likely you refer to the current George W Bush administration.

Under GW Bush, there have been several advancements in environmental stewardship including the largest environmental enforcement measure ever enforced (a $4.6 billion fine for AEP), drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions as a ratio of gross domestic product, federal court rulings that the EPA has jurisdiction to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, and not only passage of the Renewable Fuel Standard, but refusing the Texas attempt to have it waived.

The most environmental damage done in the United States took place during the industrial revolutions.  The best examples of this are the many fires on the Cuyahoga River up to the one in 1969, which is credited for the contributing to the formation of the EPA in 1970.  Hence, the "worst" environmental presidents would likely be those at the reins during the massive pollution of the industrial revolutions.

Thus, it would be tough to consider GW Bush to be the worst environmental president ever.

Also, as a tidbit of information that you may not know, Clinton never attempted to submit the Kyoto Protocol to the senate for ratification.  Somehow, Teflon Bill has managed to dodge this bullet as he has so many others.  Then again, it would also be ridiculous to claim Clinton as the worst environmental president ever, for even in his absence of any meaningful environmental action, he also did no major environmental harm.

Answer 15

nooooooo bush is the MENTAL president ever.....nt environmental.....!!!!

Answer 16

BY FAR NO. But you have to look at our nations beginnings to find ones worse

Answer 17

haha. One of the biggest mass extinctions ever? Earth has had much, much, much larger Extinctions.  

Answer 18

in my opinion a good environmental president wouldn't be one who owns oil company's (or manages them whatever) in my opinion hes a good guy i would have a beer with him, but i wouldnt want him as my president.

Answer 19

No, that would be Al Gore.  Oh wait, he didn't get elected because he's a total putz.  Bush did right for the US which is more than I can say for any democrat/liberal president.

Thanks for the spam, It's funny but stupid.

Answer 20

BUSH IS ONE OF THE GREATEST PRESIDENTS EVER.