George W. Bush

You have to read this to believe it

On Wednesday, the Inspector General’s office at the Department of Interior released a report showing that a Bush appointee who lacked any background in natural science had "bullied, insulted, and harassed the professional staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to change documents and alter biological reporting regarding the Endangered Species Program." She […]

Umbra on politicians and the environment

Dear Umbra, I got into a long debate with a conservative friend recently about how President Bush has shown that he does not have environmental interests at heart. But I did not have any facts on hand about detrimental policies or budget cuts. On the other hand, my friend was able to go to the […]

Bush bails on his bike, but unlike Critical Mass riders, gets away scot free

The British press is all atwitter today about what's likely the top story in cycling news. Remember back in July at the G8 summit in Scotland when President Bush, struggling to ride a bike, wave, and speak at the same time, ended up crashing into and injuring a police officer in full riot gear?

Details of the incident were sketchy until now, as Bush and the ever-faithful Scott McClellan attempted to skirt embarrassment, but the official police report of the incident has just been released and, among other things, it describes Bush, amusingly, as a "falling object." What a lovely mental image.

As the president passed the junction at speed he raised his left arm from the handlebars to wave to the police officers present while shouting "thanks, you guys, for coming."

As he did this he lost control of the cycle, falling to the ground, causing both himself and his bicycle to strike [the officer] on the lower legs. [The officer] fell to the ground, striking his head.

The president continued along the ground for approximately five meters, causing himself a number of abrasions.

This story's got just about everything a progressive cyclist could want: heads of state crashing to the ground, sweet, sweet schadenfreude, a riot-gear-clad protest-quashing cop being felled by a human-powered vehicle, and a touch of public embarrassment.

Bush dodges question about whether climate change is caused by humans

After making kissy-face in front of the press corps at the White House today, Bush and Blair took a couple of questions. One reporter asked Bush whether he believes global warming is an anthropogenic problem (without using any big words, of course):

And, Mr. President, if I may, as well, on climate change -- you didn't talk about climate change -- do you believe that climate change is manmade and that you, personally, as the leader of the richest country in the world, have a responsibility to reverse that change?

Naturally, Bush dodged the causation issue:

In terms of climate change, I've always said it's a serious long-term issue that needs to be dealt with. And my administration isn't waiting around to deal with the issue, we're acting. I don't know if you're aware of this, but we lead the world when it comes to dollars spent, millions of dollars spent on research about climate change. We want to know more about it. It's easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it. And if you look at the statistics, you'll find the United States has taken the lead on this research.

[More blather ensued; check it out in the transcript, if you're the masochistic sort.]

As it turns out, even as Bush was bragging about the millions the feds are spending on climate-change research, The New York Times was posting an article by Andy Revkin alleging that the administration is doctoring that very same research to jive with the oil industry's preferred version of the "science":

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

Wouldn't want those millions of taxpayer dollars to result in any too firm conclusions, now would we?

Bush wants to ride his bicycle bicycle bicycle

Via Chris, a pointed column from Marc Fisher in the Post today makes the point that Bush's blithe bicycle rides through wilderness refuges are ironic in light of the fact that he's consistently cut funding for them. Do you think he sees the disconnect? As with so many questions regarding this administration's environmental policies, it's hard to decide which answer would be worse.

Rhymes with “ditty” too

The radio program "Living On Earth" had some hack from the Wall Street Journal editorial page on, along with Grist contributor Bill McKibben, to discuss what Bush's victory means for the environment.  It's interesting (and like Shalini, what I mean by interesting is "makes me reach for a noose").  You can read the transcript here.

Startling stats on Bush’s and Kerry’s energy agendas

$13.3 million — amount George W. Bush has received from the energy/natural resources, agribusiness, and transportation sectors during the 2004 presidential campaign1 $1.9 million — amount John Kerry has received from the energy/natural resources, agribusiness, and transportation sectors during the 2004 presidential campaign2 40 — number of recommendations made by Dick Cheney’s energy task force […]

All the mus(ing) that’s fit to print

In its Sunday endorsement of Kerry and scathing critique of Bush, The New York Times spends more time on the environment than the candidates did in their three debates. (To whom does such an endorsement speak -- do any undecideds read The Times?) Amidst the many many paragraphs that lay out an argument against a second Bush administration, the patient greenie finds this one:

If Mr. Bush had wanted to make a mark on an issue on which Republicans and Democrats have long made common cause, he could have picked the environment. Christie Whitman, the former New Jersey governor chosen to run the Environmental Protection Agency, came from that bipartisan tradition. Yet she left after three years of futile struggle against the ideologues and industry lobbyists Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had installed in every other important environmental post. The result has been a systematic weakening of regulatory safeguards across the entire spectrum of environmental issues, from clean air to wilderness protection.

The editorial spends more time condemning Bush's record than building a case for a Kerry presidency. Yet, the editorial board found space among the relatively few sentences allocated to praising Kerry to call attention to this environmental matter:

Bush campaign tries to trash Kerry’s environmental record

The wrestler in chief. Photo: White House. Over the past few weeks of Presidential WrestleMania MMIV, the Bush campaign has fired off more than a dozen press releases about John Kerry‘s policies on energy, nuclear-waste storage, forest and water protections, and other environmental issues — a hodgepodge of smears, exaggerations, and obfuscations intended to besmirch […]