mrian

I searched this area for issues about the environment and found none, but maybe there is already a topic like this. Anyway, I was really looking forward to the debates so I could get a good look at the candidates and where they stand on there issues. I was really excited about the last debate since it was being held at my school, but it came and went and I didn't feel any more certain than I did before. Nothing the candidates said really made me want to vote for them. Then I started thinking about things that didn't come up much, like the environment. I believe this to be a very important issue, it is something that knows no borders or race, it belongs to all the world. It makes sense to protect the environment so that we do not destroy the oceans and forest because we need them to keep living. I think that to lead by example is the best way to lead and so I hope that one of our candidates can protect our world. To me it seems that Kerry has a better plan to keep our world healthy, but what do you think?

tecoyah

I think it is unlikely you could find a less environmentally freindly president than the one we have now. As the extent of his disreguard for environmental health is enormous I will refrain from posting the numerous links and data backing up the obvious. If anyone has interest in at least keeping things as clean as they are (let alone cleaning up our mess) the obvious choice would be Kerry. He could not possibly be more damaging than Bush, unless he actually tried to be.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

hammer4all

Here are two great resources on Bush's environmental record. Needless to say, since the Republican Party is in bed with large corporations and he is a former oil man, his record is piss poor. This is probably the worst environmental presidency in 30 years.

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2004.asp

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...nmental_record

LeviticusMky

Don't forget that the Democratic party is nearly as bad.

I agree that the Bush administration has been the worst as far as the environment goes, but bear in mind that the Democrats are only marginally better. Clinton had to be prodded by the environmentalists to get anything done. It's just not on their adgenda. Both the Dems and Reps are funded by billionaires and corporations. Not people who give a rat's ass about nature.

If you wanna vote for the environment, vote Nader or vote Cobb.

Superbelt

If you want to vote on Environment, Which is what I primarially do, you want to definetley vote Kerry.

Cobb would be much better for the environment, but Cobb isn't going to be president, and Bush is the absolute worst President in a very long time to our environmental health.

What Clinton did... well, he was never anything anyone would call an environmentalist. Clinton was straddling the right edge of moderate during the 90's. Just as likely to be a foe of environmentalists as an allie.

Kerry on the other hand:
Has been endorsed by the league of conservation voters. They have NEVER endorsed a presidential candidate in their 30 years but have this time. Kerry. Kerry has a 96% lifetime Environmental voting record with the LCV.

Kerry is one of the original Earth Day organizers.

led the fight against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Kerry has sponsored legislation to increase fuel-efficiency and develop alternative fuels, opposed Bush's weakening of the CAA through changes in the New Source Review, voted to limit subsidies to logging in national forests, supported the roadless rule for national forests, is against mountaintop removal mining, he also sponsored legislation to incorporate environmental protection into trade negotiations.
Kerry also opposed the nomination of Interior Secretary Gale Norton.

You can get the LCV profile for both men Here