GWB and the Environment

Reading through both of the George W. Bush articles actually made me realize of many of the actions that Bush has made towards the environment of the United States. Comparing both articles, I found that the George W. Bush protects marine areas article was more reliable when it came to information and evidence based on the fact where the articles came from. Article 1 was from the Washington Post and article 2, I believe, was written on a site that I have never heard of. For instance article 1 quoted many people such as James L. Connaughton (White House Council on Environmental Quality), Vikki Spruill (President and chief executive of the Ocean Conservancy), and Diane Regas (Environmental Defense Fund), on the other hand article 2 doesn't have as much interviews. Based on it's structure I believe that the George W. Bush's Environmental Sins article was more easier to read because how it was put together. It would state the actions the Bush had taken and the effects that it had then would follow up with what Obama can do to change about the situation.

If I were to choose a side from these two articles I would develop the idea that though Bush had "protected more ocean than any person in history," more evidence shows that Bush had caused more problems on the environment than done more good. I understand the fact that he is protecting these certain waters from fishing, and off shore drilling but looking down on his "wrong list" there seems to be alot more there then the other side. According to article 2 "Bush's Environmental Protection Agency refused to regulate the greenhouse gas CO2 as a pollutant, even after the Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a pollutant and the EPA can regulate it," last time i checked scientists and other reliable resources would count CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) as a green house gas and should be monitered for the sake of our planet. Now as a solution to that problem Obama promised "a cap-and-trade policy that auctions pollution credits to polluters, with the proceeds going to fund clean-energy programs and habitat protections" which may or may not work but still making that effort to clean up one of Bushes messes.
Also according to the article "Bush promoted the idea that we'd all be driving around in hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered cars by 2020." "Bush has paid lip service to futuristic fuels like hydrogen and cellulosic ethanol, and to renewable sources of energy like solar, wind and geothermal, but his administration has failed to push those products to market," alot of talk for doing almost the complete opposite.

Now according to article one Bust did do at least some good while on his term as president. "Bush's decision to safeguard far-flung areas totaling 195,280 square miles, which comes just two weeks before he leaves office, underscores his contradictory environmental record. While he has resisted imposing mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change and has opened large areas of the nation to drilling, mining and other use of resources, by the end of his term he will have protected more ocean than any person in history." Though he has proteted more ocean than any other person in history he also approved offshore drilling in other parts of the United States as well as failed to lower Green house gas emmissions as he said he would.
According to James L. Connaughton, "In the last eight years, we've been able to accomplish conservation in marine environments on par with what we've achieved on land over the past 100 years," once again that is 100percent true, BUT it is also true that on Bush's term as president that green house gasses had and will continue to rise dramatically due to the fact of the lack of action on Bush's administration.