Mike Hansen Hansen is a political science and
history student. Sooner or later, you will succumb to his views.
Send your objections to [email protected].
Click Here for more articles by Mike Hansen
He thinks global warming means a relaxation of Cold War
tensions. He probably believes that a thick layer of carbon dioxide
emissions hovering over the U.S. would make a wonderful missile
defense system. Worst of all, he is a ruthless oilman out to strip
the land of all its precious resources. He is Satan’s
spawn!
The Democrats couldn’t be happier if you and I blindly
accept this image of President George W. Bush. Ever since his
inauguration, they have painstakingly attempted to portray Bush as
the worst thing that has happened to the environment since plastic
grocery bags.
According to a recent Washington Post poll, 50 percent of
Americans now disapprove of Bush’s handling of environmental
issues, compared to a 31-percent disapproval rating in March
(“Washington Post-ABC News Poll,” June 3).
Before this improper bias goes any further, allow me to clarify
the record on Bush’s environmental policies and show you just
how ludicrously misrepresented they are. Although Bush might not be
as green as a leprechaun on St. Paddy’s Day, his policies
strike a common-sense balance between economic and environmental
concerns.
This balance was recently demonstrated by Bush with his proposal
to drastically cut back the 6 million acres of oil drilling area in
the Gulf of Mexico ““ a proposal made by former president Bill
Clinton in 1997.
In response to environmental complaints, Bush decided last week
to scale back Clinton’s insensitive plan from 6 million acres
to only 1.5 million acres. This also pushes back the minimum
drilling boundaries off the Florida coast from 17 to 100 miles.
Under this plan, while protecting the environment, Bush does not
forget that we desperately need to find new forms of domestic
energy sources.
But because the bubble of UCLA is protected from blackouts, it
allows students to be insensitive to the reality of
California’s energy crisis.
This is evident when Joe Bruin goes out to grab a bite to eat,
he leaves his dorm or apartment with every light, TV, computer and
stereo left on, then takes the elevator down two floors to get to
his gas-guzzling SUV, which he drives around Westwood for 20
minutes trying to find parking so he can eat at In-N-Out. Is it a
wonder why Joe Bruin then sees no problem with demanding a complete
moratorium on power-plant construction and oil drilling?
In light of the current energy crisis and in order to maintain
the standard of living that Americans crave, it is crucial for the
United States to increase our oil and natural gas reserves in
addition to implementing energy conservation programs. The oil and
natural gas in Bush’s proposed drilling area is enough to
power the cars of 1 million American families for six years.
Issues like this are often characterized as “the economy
versus the environment.” President Bush shows that it need
not be either/or, but that we can arrive at sensible compromises
that satisfy both interests. Someone needs to tell the Sierra Club
that when discussing issues of the environment, it is not a crime
to keep the economy in mind.
Bush took a drastic drop in approval ratings because he took the
U.S. out of the Kyoto global warming agreement. How evil of
him!
Some environmental groups have depicted the Kyoto Protocol as
the ultimate solution to the world’s carbon dioxide emission
problem, and that Bush’s refusal to sign it is the death
knell for any hopes of U.S. reductions.
In reality, the treaty is more fatally flawed than the parking
situation at UCLA. Under the Kyoto agreement, the United States
would have to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases by 7 percent
below 1990 levels by 2012. The problem is that it exempts such
rapidly industrializing nations as China, the world’s second
largest source of greenhouse gases, and India, the world’s
fifth largest source. It is of little wonder then that little
support exists for the treaty outside of the European Union.
So, maybe you still think that Bush is on a crusade to ruin the
environment. This can be forgiven because the media has only
publicized the controversial aspects of his environmental
policy.
You haven’t heard anything from Tom Brokaw about
Bush’s creation of the U.S. Climate Change Research
Initiative to identify solutions to global warming, or his National
Climate Change Technology Initiative to develop technology for
monitoring greenhouse gas emissions.
Why isn’t the liberal media talking about Bush’s
decision to relocate a radioactive waste dump near the Colorado
River so that 28,000 gallons of contaminated water will stop
leaking into the river which supplies our drinking water?
What else has Bush done for the environment that the CALPIRG
people would never admit to when they hit you up for money on Bruin
Walk?
Bush also recently decided to halt military bombing on Vieques
Island in Puerto Rico, which has caused great environmental damage
and harm to the islanders’ health for 60 years. In addition,
he rejected Gov. Davis’ requests that the Bush administration
exempt California from using gasoline additives to reduce air
pollution.
Bush is not the supreme nemesis of the environment as the
Democrats would have you believe. His sensible policy accepts that
you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Apparently, many
Americans choose not to understand this concept of give and take
when it comes to Bush’s environmental policies.
We like to say that we would sacrifice the economy in favor of
the environment, as 58 percent of Americans stated in an April 30
L.A. Times poll. Who are we fooling?
When the time comes to choose between saving the coastal sage
scrub and saving your job, I have a strong suspicion that 58
percent of Americans would not risk their jobs in an amazing show
of pro-scrub support.