Need some help debunking a Freeper-type

[NewJeffCT]

Somebody posted on a local bulletin board here in Connecticut about how Bush's awesome clean air act had done so much more than all other previous presidents for clean air.

I know this isn't true, but I can't find any good links. (my googling ability sucks) I'd like something short & concise, or a good link that I can summarize.

Thanks

[trotsky]

1. Here's something useful

http://pennsylvania.sierraclub.org/PAChapter/Committees/BushCompare.htm

Ooh and this

http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/clear_skies.asp

[NewJeffCT]

6. thanks - good one

with nice bullet points.

[AP]

2. What's amazing is that after sending American jobs overseas, and leaving

America a country that doesn't really make anything any more, there's still a ton of polution.

What's Bush's approach to polution? Let the polluters monitor themselves?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. Yup.

Eggs Ackley.

[PatriotGames]

5. OT, I love that screen shot! LOL

[nostamj]

4. get Robert Kennedy's new book

it BLASTS the bushies on the environment.

p.s. ask your friend if there is anyplace in CT where you can fish and eat your catch safely...

[DebinTx]

7. You should remind them

that Bush pushed through the same relaxations of the clean air act in Texas and thanks to him, Houston is now the number 1 polluted city for two years.

[NewJeffCT]

8. another good one!

Thanks - wasn't there also a study by those radical, tree hugging hippies in the General Accounting Office that said the original Clean Air act had saved businesses billions in the 90s?

[Maddy McCall]

9. Here is what the Sierra Club says about bush's environmental policy

Facts About the Bush Administration’s Plan to Weaken the Clean Air Act
In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush touted a plan that mandates a 70 percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years. But why is the Administration bragging about a plan that will actually result in more pollution than if we simply enforced the existing Clean Air Act? Who stands to benefit from placing communities at risk, particularly children and the elderly who are significantly threatened by air pollution?

Americans don’t have to settle for only a 70 percent cut in air pollution when existing laws and existing technology mean that we can do better.


The so-called "Clear Skies" initiative expands the pollution trading system that results in some communities getting cleaner, but many communities losing out on cleaner air. The two-stage plan isn't even fully in place for another 15 years. Even if the plan caused some net reductions in pollution, many communities would still be threatened by more pollution. Why should some local communities be left behind? And why should we wait so long?

Mercury is a dangerous toxin that threatens people and wildlife as a pollutant from coal-fired power plants. The EPA estimates that enforcement of existing toxic air pollution protections in the Clean Air Act will limit mercury pollution to 5 tons per year by 2008. The Bush Administration’s plan weakens the limit to 26 tons per year by 2010 ?? allowing 520 percent more mercury pollution. A new EPA report discusses the ways pregnant women pass mercury on to their babies, causing mental retardation, but why did the Administration sit on the report for more than nine months and only release it after journalists exposed their findings?

Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) is a major contributor to smog that is linked to asthma and lung disease. Current Clean Air Act programs could result in NOx pollution levels of about 1.25 million tons by 2010. But the Bush plan calls for loosening the cap on NOx pollution to 2.1 million tons by 2008 – effectively allowing 68 percent more NOx pollution.

Much more at http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/clear_skies.asp