Hillary Clinton: Bush Enviro Policy Caused Katrina

[FishForLunch]

I bet fools will lap it up, imagine causing global warming in 5 years, she must really think people are stupid. Ha Ha another gem "National Institute of Energy" thats what we need another bureaucracy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is celebrating Earth Day by unveiling her new energy plan and by blaming President Bush's environmental policies for Hurricane Katrina.

In a fundraising email sent out to donors on Thursday, Mrs. Clinton alleges:

"In the last five years, the Bush administration has left no major environmental law untouched in their push to deregulate, undermining or rolling back decades of regulations put in place to protect our heath.

"The results are all around us," she says, citing "more greenhouse gases, global warming, rising seas, more violent storms like Katrina."

She also blames Bush for "the endless demand for higher-priced oil [that] is depleting world supplies [and] weakening our economic security."

Mrs. Clinton proposes the creation of a brand new energy bureaucracy, telling her supporters: "We have the National Institutes of Health; why don't we have a National Institute of Energy?"

Decrying what she called the "short-sighted, oil company-dependent energy policy that values drilling anywhere for oil more than it values protecting our planet, Mrs. Clinton said her energy plan would compel the big oil companies to invest "their historic profits . . . into a strategic energy fund to develop alternative energy forms."

The former first lady proposed granting consumer tax breaks to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, extending incentives to produce electricity from renewable sources, and making bio fuels more widely available.

For the long term Mrs. Clinton says she supports research into wind farms, solar energy cells, ethanol, and biodiesel."

The former first lady urges that the time for action is now, warning: "the threats to our environment and way of life are real and growing."

[Mavdog]

well, 68, that's such a sexist post with a complete lack of rationality. not to mention a lack of intellect.

does anyone feel that we should be doing NOTHING to reduce our greenhouse gases?

what about allowing for increased amounts of lead and mercury in our atmosphere?

would you want to live downwind from a coal fired power plant, belching out dangerous levels of particulants that you and your family can breathe?

if you answered yes to these, then you support the bush policies on changes to our nation's clean air laws.

if on the other hand, you DO care about our environment and attempting to limit how we negatively affect the rise in our earth's average temperature, and do not want to have dangerous levels of mercury released into our nation's air, you do not support the bush administration's environmental policies.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - Do you think Bush's environmental policies are to blame for "more violent storms like Katrina"? Do you think that Bush is responsible for the "endless demand for higher-priced oil"?

I'm not a big fan of a lot of things that Bush has done, but Clinton has obscured any legitimate points she may have had with these ridiculous, demagogic claims.

[sixeightmkw]

And I guess she totally forgot about the whitehouse.gov website. Let us take a look at what Bush is doing.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050729-9.html

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by sixeightmkw

And I guess she totally forgot about the whitehouse.gov website. Let us take a look at what Bush is doing.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050729-9.html

Let's not get too carried away. It's not like Bush is a conservationist. But to suggest that his environmental policies a) cause natural disasters and b) are to blame for the demand for oil are both just flat-out silly. As if having John Kerry in the White House would have prevented Katrina or sped up the development of alternative energy sources.

[sixeightmkw]

I know, But at least he is doing something. It is better than nothing, Like Hillary would like you to beleive.

[kg_veteran]

Hillary says Bush causes tropical storms. Her credibility is non-existent.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Mavdog - Do you think Bush's environmental policies are to blame for "more violent storms like Katrina"? Do you think that Bush is responsible for the "endless demand for higher-priced oil"?

I'm not a big fan of a lot of things that Bush has done, but Clinton has obscured any legitimate points she may have had with these ridiculous, demagogic claims.

no, bush isn't to blame for the increased activity in hurricanes.

bush's policies have contributed to the high demand for oil. for instance, bush didn't support toughened mileage standards for suv's.

it is bush's attack on the clean air act that I find disturbing.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Hillary says Bush causes tropical storms. Her credibility is non-existent.

that is not what she said btw.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, bush isn't to blame for the increased activity in hurricanes.

Okay, so you agree it was ridiculous for her to say that.

bush's policies have contributed to the high demand for oil. for instance, bush didn't support toughened mileage standards for suv's.

Hmmm. It still seems to me that consumers determine the demand for oil. I think the simple fact is that as long as it's not a serious "crisis", oil will continue to be the energy source of choice because of the costs associated with conversion to an alternative fuel source. I do agree, however, that there is no urgency from the Bush administration to pursue alternative energy solutions. Of course, there's really no urgency from anyone.

it is bush's attack on the clean air act that I find disturbing.

Yeah, but now we're really getting away from what was ludicrous about Hillary's statements.

[Mavdog]

there is a great deal of data that points to warmer average temperatures, producing warmer water temperatures, generating more violent and more frequent hurricanes. a president who ignores this data, allowing for more warming to occur, sure isn't helping, is he?

I don't agree that consumers determine the demand for oil. for instance, there was the initiative by detroit to a) remove mass transit in the major metropolitan areas after ww2 and pushing the use of buses, and 2) the construction of the highway system. consumers didn't ask for these, yet they have contributed greatly to both our increased use of the auto for transportation and also the suburban sprawl. producing our high demand for oil.

there is also the use of oil in materials where other sources would also work. plastic packaging when natural fibers such as hemp for instance, but guess why hemp isn't used? it's not due to consumer demand.

[FishForLunch]

And all this happened in 5 years? Fool What did clinton do for new energy initiatives in his 8 years as president, how come he did not sign the Kyoto accord and prevent global warming?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

And all this happened in 5 years? Fool What did clinton do for new energy initiatives in his 8 years as president, how come he did not sign the Kyoto accord and prevent global warming?

uh,no, it didn't "all happen in 5 years" as was mentioned above.

only a "fool" woul believe that kyoto will "prevent global warming". as the earth IS warming, it's darn near impossible to prevent it. know any way to roll back time?

as a society, we shoul;d be doing everything in our power to reduce our contribution to warming, and to reduce the polluting of our air, land and water.

unfortunately the current administration has done just the reverse in its environmental policies, allowing for more emissions and cutting back the requirements on emissions.

we're not discussing bill clinton. we're discussing george bush.

[sixeightmkw]

Look, the world will go along and we won't do anything like we always do until it is too late. Let's just hope I have lived a long life before it is too late. Our world is too reliant on gas and coal and oil. That is just the way it turned out. Sure, I would love to buy a hybrid car and stuff like that, but I just don't have the money right now. And alot of people are like this. It is going to take DECADES and DECADES for something like this to change. I hate politics because everyone tries to blame someone for what is happening. Everyone, again and again, expects things to happen over night. That is not the way the world works in this high powered, information rich, life we live today.

[FishForLunch]

So when did global warming begin, when bush changed the enviro policy or some time earlier? Hillary was trying to imply that bush is the cause of Global warming.

"In the last five years, the Bush administration has left no major environmental law untouched in their push to deregulate, undermining or rolling back decades of regulations put in place to protect our heath.

"The results are all around us," she says, citing "more greenhouse gases, global warming, rising seas, more violent storms like Katrina."


If the democrats cared so much for Kyoto why did they vote against it?

[sixeightmkw]

Was Hurricane Andrew under Bush 1 or Clinton? I guess she could blame that one of Bush is she wanted.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

So when did global warming begin, when bush changed the enviro policy or some time earlier? Hillary was trying to imply that bush is the cause of Global warming.

"In the last five years, the Bush administration has left no major environmental law untouched in their push to deregulate, undermining or rolling back decades of regulations put in place to protect our heath.

"The results are all around us," she says, citing "more greenhouse gases, global warming, rising seas, more violent storms like Katrina."


If the democrats cared so much for Kyoto why did they vote against it?

you have an issue understanding the words. "more" does not equate to "cause".

[sixeightmkw]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you have an issue understanding the words. "more" does not equate to "cause".

But you know that is the way politicians work. They want to imply that he is the cause while using "more" to have an out. Democrats and Repulicans do it. nothing new.

[FishForLunch]

I guess Mavdog flunked his english class. What does Imply mean?

[mcsluggo]

Oooh a politician banged his/her fist in his/her hand and overstated a basic point.

holy shit! that NEVER happens, politicians are usually so nuanced. Especially W, he never overstates things or casts them in black and white. Its shocking, really... Go get me rope and a tall tree.

[Drbio]

With Hillary it is a pattern of consistency. She is a loon. (but you make a good point)

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

If the democrats cared so much for Kyoto why did they vote against it?

I'm sure mavdog et all will blaze right over this one.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

I guess Mavdog flunked his english class. What does Imply mean?

in this case it means that you are trying to put words in the speech that are not there.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

I'm sure mavdog et all will blaze right over this one.

show me where I have ever supported kyoto, it is flawed.

not supporting kyoto does not equate to allowing for more emissions, more particulates, more hazardous elements such as mercury to be released into our atmosphere, onto our land and into our waters.

bush is no friend of our environment.

[Mavdog]

here's the letter.
interesting fact: here is the total budget for the National Institute of Health
The NIH invests over $27 billion annually in medical research for the American people
here is Exxon-Mobil's profit from operations for 2005: $36.13 billion
I recall reading that the oil industry earned close to $97 billion in profit during 2005
hmmm....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Friend,

Earth Day this Saturday offers us a moment to think about our environment and of the world around us - the air we breathe, the water we drink, the great natural treasures that we have inherited. I hope we will think of it as a day to rededicate ourselves to protecting our planet: our home for our children and their children.

Because the threats to our environment and way of life are real and growing.

In the last five years, the Bush administration has left no major environmental law untouched in their push to deregulate, undermining or rolling back decades of regulations put in place to protect our heath. The results are all around us: more greenhouse gases, global warming, rising seas, more violent storms like Katrina. The endless demand for higher-priced oil is depleting world supplies, weakening our economic security, and worsening global warming.

We urgently need a national energy strategy that confronts these challenges head on. We certainly need more than one line in the State of the Union address.

We can kick our oil addiction and slow global climate change while making our economy more globally competitive and generating well paying jobs. We can develop renewable energy and energy efficiencies, protecting our wilderness from drilling and our shores from oil spills. We can create alternative energy industries, which will mean cleaner streams, healthier air, and fewer greenhouse gases.

We have the National Institutes of Health; why don't we have a National Institute of Energy?

Let oil companies be part of the solution by investing some of their historic profits, due partly to subsidies, into a strategic energy fund to develop alternative energy forms.

The strategic fund would spur the development and deployment of new energy technologies. We could increase consumer tax breaks to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, extend incentives to produce electricity from renewable sources, and make bio fuels more widely available.

We also need to develop an aggressive energy research program and a portfolio of cutting edge technologies to create new forms of marketable energy and energy conservation.

And if we take this seriously right now, we can see results in the near future, because so much of the technology -- like wind farms, solar energy cells, ethanol, and biodiesel -- already is on the brink of being commercially feasible.

What we need now is a commitment to our national and global environment and the practical energy strategy that will back up that commitment.

Our country needs more than a short-sighted, oil company-dependent energy policy that values drilling anywhere for oil more than it values protecting our planet.

We Americans have always thrived on challenges. It's in our blood. So let's challenge ourselves on this Earth Day. If we have confidence in our can-do tradition, we'll be ready to find new answers to our environmental and energy problems and build a healthier, safer future for our children.

Sincerely,


Hillary Rodham Clinton

P.S. For the sake of our future, we must change the direction of America's energy policy. I will continue to address this important issue. If you are interested in learning more, please click here.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by sixeightmkw

Was Hurricane Andrew under Bush 1 or Clinton? I guess she could blame that one of Bush is she wanted.

Damn I think she missed Camille as well. As soon as Nixon came in...BAM 190Mph hurricanes.

[chumdawg]

Did a presidential candidate really send out a letter with "health" spelled "heath"? Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

Still and all, the title of this thread is a giant leap. Hey, listen, I hate Hillary as much as the next guy, but that's not what she said.

I do believe that there are feasible ways to reduce our dependency on oil, if that's where we focus our energies. But I doubt very seriously that human beings have the ability to do anything at all to impact this planet in the long term. Nature is simply far bigger than we are.

And for that matter, human beings have proved themselves to be a resilient breed. If we make bad decisions on energy matters, decisions that make it harder for future generations to source energy, future generations will still find a way to survive. Lifestyles may change, yes, but we'll still survive.

And if global warming really is happening, guess what? We'll survive that, too.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Did a presidential candidate really send out a letter with "health" spelled "heath"? Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

Still and all, the title of this thread is a giant leap. Hey, listen, I hate Hillary as much as the next guy, but that's not what she said.

I do believe that there are feasible ways to reduce our dependency on oil, if that's where we focus our energies. But I doubt very seriously that human beings have the ability to do anything at all to impact this planet in the long term. Nature is simply far bigger than we are.

And for that matter, human beings have proved themselves to be a resilient breed. If we make bad decisions on energy matters, decisions that make it harder for future generations to source energy, future generations will still find a way to survive. Lifestyles may change, yes, but we'll still survive.

And if global warming really is happening, guess what? We'll survive that, too.

Damn straight. What gets me is the enviro's "solutions" are bogus as hell. Even if kyoto happened it would be insignificant except for allowing india/china to continue to kick folks butts economically.

But it's more of a political movement than an enviromental. Even Blair has seen the light. The best way to handle global warming (if it's even occuring) is through technology, not shrinking pie enviromentalism.

[Mavdog]

how is applying/requiring technology to reduce the amount of dangerous emissions not environmentalism?

it is.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

how is applying/requiring technology to reduce the amount of dangerous emissions not environmentalism?

it is.

Then you should be touting dubya as one of the greatest enviromentalists of your day, since it's his proposal to develop and share technology throughout the world.

Maybe you are right... George "Green" Bush.. .Sounds good.

But kyoto has been a mechanism not designed to do anything other than limit economic growth of the industrialized countries. Thank goodness it's been debunked. Even Clinton wasn't stupid enough to submit that treaty, but he was hypocritical enough to sign it.

Wonder if Hillery will bring it back?

[Mavdog]

a "proposal" is talk. in his case, it's cheap talk as he has allowed the relaxation of limits on emissions, especially mercury.

he wants voluntary reductions. yeah, that will work

odd, but there isn't a single mention of kyoto in the letter above. talk about a straw man argument.....

[FishForLunch]

Just watch when the democrats get to the whitehouse all talk about Global Warming will cease. Hillary will be the one to stop global warming in her first term.