Originally Posted by Ustwo

First off what did Clinton due differently then Bush with regards to the environment?

Answer: Basically nothing.

Kyoto treaty was voted down in the senate by a vote of 0-99. That’s a pretty strong statement.

And who remembers the arsenic in the water deal right when Bush took office. Well since I don’t think many of you understand it, let me splain it. Arsenic exists in the natural environment. Very small amounts are in the water in some places. Rules were put up to mandate its removal, based on the idea that if X amount of arsenic is the LD50 (lethal dose 50, look it up if you don’t know) then if you take a straight line down the curve, X/whatever would kill a small % of the people. So for example if 100 grams would kill 500k of 1 million people then 1 gram would kill 5000 people. The problem is biology doesn’t work in a linear fashion. Lets take an example most of you would understand. We all know people can die of alcohol poisoning, you drink too much, you die. Does that mean that some people will die of alcohol poisoning after a sip of wine? No, it doesn’t work that way, and while one person might take more alcohol to kill then the next, there is a base level that must be reached before there is a problem. What Bush did was get rid of BAD SCIENCE, rules that sounded good, but did nothing except cost a ton of money. He got rid of government waste and was willing to take the political hit to do the right thing.

So don’t give me the Bush is bad for the environment BS. Bush is bad for wackos who want to use the environment as an excuse for other agendas, but that’s about it.