Who did the graphic?

Another Dan, actually. One of our readers.

Remember everybody. Only one paper per week!
Now let's flood that zone!

The Bush Administration's Environmental Record- My Flood the Zone Friday Letter to the Baltimore Sun (8/29/03):

Dear Editor,

Under President Bush's leadership, the EPA has recently decided that it no longer has the power to regulate Greenhouse Gases. This is clearly opposite to the intent of the Clean Air Act, which states that the EPA has the power to regulate pollutants, that effect human welfare and that climate is something that effects human welfare. When this is viewed in light of the Bush administration's decision to ignore and hide the facts regarding global warming, one clearly sees that the President's claims to be a good steward of the environment are as they say in Texas, all hat and no cattle.

Sincerely,
Brian David Jennings
White Hall, MD 21161

I hope they publish it. A lot of it depends on whether they'ver recently ran an article or editorial on this topic. If they haven't, the Sun doesn't tend to run letters on miscellaneous topics unless the author is someone really important.

Also, I wouldn't worry if your letter doesn't have perfect grammar. The editors almost always revise your letter somewhat.

How do newspapers know from the Bush tools that the information is going to more than one?

You can find some more excellent talking points at Mother Jones' "The Ungreening of America". (click the url)

Great graphic, good work.

Here's another good source for information on the "Clear Skies Initiative", which is lauded on the W site as reducing power plant emissions by 70 percent, and meanwhile being opposed by the League of Women Voters:

http://interactive.lwv.org/News/News.cfm?ID=597&c=7

Another letter to add to the pile. Sent to the Detroit News today:

Dear Editor:

The current Republican administration has shown a callous disregard of our environment ever since they came into power. And they have accelerated their attacks now that they are in control of all branches of the government:

The current nominee for the head of the Environmental Protection Agency refuses to discuss his views on the environment. He has a known history of punishing whistle blowers while elected as the governor of Utah. And his record shows a policy of disregard for environmental concerns. Is this the kind of person who should be deciding what is good for our nation’s parks and natural resources? Why would someone like this be considered to head up the EPA?

This Bush administration has exhausted Superfund cleanup funding, and refused to renew the funds once they have been drained – even though the toxic wastes are still onsite. They have suppressed reports from the EPA itself regarding global warming and the contributions of America to the depletion of the ozone layer. And they have removed specific passages concerning our current environmental problems in the EPA’s latest report.

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg as far as the Bush Administration’s environmental record, or lack thereof, are concerned. Our government needs to stop lying and covering up for corporate polluters, and start taking steps that will make those polluters responsible for cleaning up their messes. For our children’s sake, and the sake of future generations to come.

Regards,

Tom Gevaert
Hazel Park, MI

Environmental quote of the day:

"The Earth is round. Elvis is dead. Climate change is happening."

From Environmental Defense. (click my name for the Common Dreams story)

Those letters are looking good, team. I'm getting mine together right now.
I'm happy that this topic made it for this Friday.
Have a good Labor Day Weekend.

They don't know from the Bush tools but if they see your letter in another newspaper they are unlikely to ever publish anything you send them ever again (and if they haven't printed it yet, they won't).

Here's my letter to the Columbus Dispatch, here in Ohio:

Dear Editor:

Kudos to the Columbus Dispatch for shining a light on the shameful environmental record of the Bush administration.

Yesterday (8/29), the Dispatch pointed out that Bush's Environmental Protection Agency isn't interested in doing its job. The EPA reversed longstanding policy and declared it won't regulate the greenhouse gases that are contributing to global warning.

Today, in a front-page story, the Dispatch demonstrated that the EPA is as mendacious as it is incompetent. Under instructions from the White House, the EPA lied about the air quality at Ground Zero after 9/11, thereby risking the health of countless heroes.

I hope the Dispatch will continue to report these important stories. Unfortunately, you've got plenty of stories to report. George W. Bush's record on the environment, after all, has been a disaster so far. He and his cronies have been more interested in protecting corporate polluters than protecting clean air and water.

We and our children deserve better.

Sincerely,

J.B. Lawton III
Columbus, OH

Speaking of "President Whistle Ass", I'm selling some Whistle Ass merch to help raise money for the Democratic ePatriots fund. You can chek it out by clicking here.

Here's my "Flood the Zone" letter for today :

Bush's Crappy Record on Global Warming

What the heck is it going to take to convince George W. Bush that global warming is a serious problem that needs to be addressed? In the spring of 2001, despite a report released by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that warned "emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that affect the climate system", George Bush unveiled a global warming plan that shunned the Kyoto Treaty and called for more research. At the time, it was disappointing, but not entirely surprising. After all, this is what Bush had to say about global warming in the 2000 debates :

"I think it's an issue that we need to take very seriously. But I don't think we know the solution to global warming yet. And I don't think we've got all the facts before we make decisions...What the heck. I -- of course there's a lot -- look, global warming needs to be taken very seriously, and I take it seriously. But science, there's a lot -- there's differing opinions. And before we react, I think it's best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what's taking place."

So in June of 2002, when the Environmental Protection Agency delivered his report on global warming, the results once again weren't to his liking. Fast forward to a year later, in June of 2003, the EPA released a comprehensive report on environmental problems that was two years in the making. In the final version of the report, the section on global warming was heavily trimmed in order to support the Bush Administration's predetermined conclusions about climate change. As the New York Times reported :

"The editing eliminated references to many studies concluding that recent warming is at least partly caused by rising concentrations of smokestack and tailpipe emissions and could threaten health and ecosystems. Among the deletions were references to the conclusions of a 2001 report by the National Research Council that the White House had commissioned and that Bush had endorsed in speeches that year."

So here we are now. It's been almost three years since Bush pledged to get more information about the causes of global warming (despite the fact that the rest of the world has concluded for decades that human activity is the main cause). What's the next step for Bush on the environment? More research! Just last month the Bush Administration proposed a ten year plan to study possible causes of global warming, despite the fact that every major scientific study has drawn the same conclusions! So, rather than distract us with the annual "We need more research" speech, they're just going to embark on a 10-year project to study a phenomenon that we already understand. How many times does Bush need to be told the same conclusions before they sink into his head? Ten times? Twenty times?

Hey everybody, today I've been notified that I tested positive for HIV, probably due to last years Christmas coke bash over at Ezra's. Unfortunatly I may not be posting as much as normal. Please pray for me.

I'm so proud of you guys! At it for only two weeks, and you have your very own FReeper Stalker Troll!

Maybe this might be having some sort of effect...

Here's the one I just sent. Thanks for this idea. It's a terrific motivator...

Dirty Deals

George Bush and the EPA relaxed pollution-control regulations enabling thousands of power plants and factories to dirty our air and water without fear of accountability.

But their generosity to big business didn't stop there.

The EPA has decided it does not have the power to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles under the Clean Air Act, though the same agency under Clinton didn't have a problem doing so when those emissions could reasonably be expected to harm human welfare.

The DOJ hopped on the bandwagon this week when they filed a friend-of-the-court brief in California urging SCOTUS to "overturn a CA clean-air agency's attempt to curb pollution from buses, taxis, trash trucks and other fleet vehicles."

If you need further evidence that George Bush earned the F recently awarded him by the League of Conservation Voters, a first for the oval office, consider this.

Energy Star, George's 'highly touted' energy conservation program, is not shining so brightly these days.

The EPA quietly cut its budget, shifting millions into 'other' programs.

Clean air and water isn't a partisan issue but a legacy we safeguard for our children and generations to follow.

We should work together to prevent any actions that cause harm to it.

This is probably too late - but did you all see that the administration has declared CO2 not to be a pollutant?
http://www.goringe.net/tis/archives/000102.html (or click my name)