Will Kerry Be The Greatest Environmental President In History?

[DrFunkenstein]

Clinton passed some excellent measures, but I don't think anyone in American history will do as much for the environment as Kerry. He will work through Kyoto, raise fuel efficiency, reverse our priorities on renewables, actually ATTEND eco-summits, renew corporate superfunds, raise air and water standards, stop environmental racism, protect new federal lands, regulate energy trading, and install a kick-ass EPA chief (RFK Jr.?).



With a truly impressive 96.5% rating from the League of Conservation voters, Kerry has the record and the environment has been a life-long passion for him even before he read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," back when he was taking nature walks with his mom as a kid.

Kerry will be the start of what Time magazine referred to as The Green Century. Am I the only one excited by that?



Interesting footnote: John and Teresa first hit it off during the first Earth Summit in Rio.

[JHBowden]

1. Kerry is Bushlite!

I have no reasons or evidence why! Yeeeeargh!

[JohnKleeb]

2. I intially wanted Bobby Jr for Interior but after discussing it with a

friend. We want Bobby for EPA. I think he will be Funk. He will be better than Bush for sure, and better than Clinton too. You dont get the record he has on the environment for nothin. Environmental Protection is a key issue to me, and Kerry is very strong on it. BTW this naturalist thing will make my dad like him even more.

[sistersofmercy]

3. He absolutely will be

and he's got Teresa to keep him on that one.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. "I pledge to be the President who ends the false choice

between jobs and the environment"


That will not be an easy promise to live up to, but Kerry is the right man to make the effort.

And Kerry has not backed down - he even went to Michigan and told the auto workers that he wanted higher CAFE standards and that building more efficient cars meant selling more cars - and more jobs. And he won Michigan overwhelmingly.

[DrFunkenstein]

6. Interesting To See Kerry's Top Ten Ways Bush Screws The Environment

It's another way of looking at what Kerry wants to accomplish in the Oval Office.

1. New roadblocks to improving fuel economy in automobiles. Reducing the transportation sector’s reliance on oil is clearly the key to improving our nation's energy security, yet Bush’s energy plan adds new requirements to the fuel efficiency standard setting process.

2. Does not decrease American dependence on foreign oil. Bush’s energy plan even strips out an agreement supported by Democrats and Republicans to reduce oil consumption by at least one million barrels per day by 2013.

3. Does not include accountability for developing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Bush’s energy plan provides billions of research dollars for hydrogen with no accountability for actually developing a fuel cell vehicle or achieving oil savings or pollution reductions.

4. Delays new protections from mercury pollution. Bush’s energy plan delays a new EPA rule that will set mercury thresholds for coal and oil-fired power plants putting public health for children and adults at further risk.

5. Letting polluters off the hook. Bush’s energy plan gives polluters a free pass for contaminating groundwater with MTBE and other fuel additives. This would mean that states and thousands of communities around the country will have no legal means of holding MTBE manufacturers responsible for the massive water pollution they have caused.

6. Rolls back clean air protections. Bush’s energy plan will waive anti-smog requirements in polluted cities that missed clean air requirements.

7. Exempts big oil from the Clean Water Act. Bush’s energy plan includes an exemption of oil and gas exploration and production activities from the Clean Water Act putting our drinking water supplies at risk.

8. Support for dirty energy sources, not renewables. Bush’s energy plan supports more than twice as many direct subsidies for dirty energy sources such as coal, oil and gas, and nuclear as for clean renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal.

9. No incentives to purchase fuel efficient vehicles. Bush’s energy plan fails to provide adequate tax breaks to help consumers buy fuel efficient vehicles.

10. Opening up sensitive lands to drilling by waiving environmental regulations. Bush wants to speed up energy exploration and development at the expense of environmental review and public participation putting our health of our environment at risk.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1112d.html

[adadem]

10. I swear to God

shrub looks exactly like laughing Satan in that picture.:puke::evilgrin:

[KC21304]

5. You're not alone. Put me down as a 10, on the 1 to 10 excitement meter.

The noise from the applause around the world is going to be deafening.

[KenLayedOff]

7. Kyoto

Clinton signed it and I'm sure Kerry will too. How do we get the 98% of the congress that would not sign to sign it? Without the congress it goes nowhere.

Will he enforce wind power in the NIMBY areas?

[DrFunkenstein]

8. It Needs To Be Tinkered With

Mend it, don't end it. The same goes with, say, health care. It would be wonderful to put across the most futuristic agenda imaginable, but it has to get through Congress if we are going to see any change at all. Kerry understands how this works.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Actually Kerry believes Kyoto should be renegotiated to include

developing countries. Global problems require global solutions. And that would even the playing field in a way that would make ratification more likely.

[mobuto]

11. You don't need 98% ofthe Congress

You need 67 Senators. And Kerry will have 67 Senators.

[KenLayedOff]

13. Kerry will have 67 Senators?

When and can you name these Senators? I don't see it happening.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. We are talking about renegotiating a global treaty and then ratifying

it. That means at least two or three election cycles, probably more. President Edwards might have to get it through.

[KenLayedOff]

28. Or maybe President Hillary Clinton

Let's not get the egg before the chicken cart.

[blm]

45. For 10 years Kerry helped craft the Kyoto Protocol

with other world leaders. Damn straight he will go back to the table and work to implement it.

[MadHound]

12. Gee, you think his corporate masters will let him?

Money-Enviroment, Money-Enviroment, with corporations, money wins everytime. And if you don't think that they will have Kerry disregard the enviroment in favor of profits, well I've got some swampland in the evershriking Everglades for you too.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. And you are basing your wild accusation on what, exactly?

Certainly not Kerry's record.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Greatest in history might be a bit tough...

after TR and even Nixon (yes, Nixon-- http://www.epa.gov/history/org/origins/reorg.htm).

But,the environment really hasn't been on the minds of most Presidents, and even when it was, they had to deal with Congress.

Kerry's past record does look good, though, and his heart is in the right place. He'll get something done, even if it's not as much as we want.

Sure as hell will be better than Clearcutter George.

[Forkboy]

15. Maybe,but that's not exactly hard to do

[gate of the sun]

16. ?

n/t

[WitchWay]

17. Environmentalist?

If Kerry wants to be an environmentalist, him and his wife could stop living such extravagant lifestyles. I can't trust that they care about the envrionment, when they are making money off of destroying the environment and leading lifestyles in which they overly consume the environment.

Also, Teresa Heinz's money comes out of agribusiness...agribusiness is terrible for the environment, and where do you think Kethup comes from?

Teresa heinz can give as many speeches and go to as many conferences about the environment as she wants, but she must think she is exempt for having to be environmental in her everyday life. Same for Kerry. Also, look into Plan Columbia if you think Kerry's such an environmentalist...he sure didn't care about the envrionment there.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. So in order to be an environmentalist, what lifestyle is required?

By your definition, it would literally be impossible for the President to be an environmentalist - obviously the President of the US lives an 'extravagant' lifestyle.

Then there is your attack on Theresa because she inherited enormous wealth. Leaving aside the philantropy, just what do you suggest she do? Dismantle the business? Cease to sell ketchup because it hurts the environment to have a ketchup company?


The fact is, the problems and the negative impact we have on the environment are not the fault of any one individual, no matter how rich or powerful, they are caused by our society as a whole, and moving towards solutions has to be done as a society as well as by individuals. It is simply ludicrous to suggest that Kerry can help the environment better by downsizing his lifestyle than by advocating for the environment as President especially when you consider the alternative assault on the environment by Bush.

[WitchWay]

22. Practice and Preach

A spare and ethical lifestyle is environmental, and I do think a more moderate lifestyle is appropriate for anyone nowadays.

You are claiming that there is no individual responsibilty for envrionmental harm? That because other wealthy people are degrading the envrionment, this somehow excuses kerry or teresa heinz? Are you arguing that individuals should not take responsibility for their actions as it involves the envrionment? That, to me, is ludicrous. If you think of it that way, any one can claim to have no responsibility. Is Kerry a victim of society?

Kerry is a grownup and he can make grownup decisions about his lifestyle. If he decides to leave a non-envrionmental lifestyle, that's his choice and as a politician, he is apt to be criticized for his choices.

Our society is causing degradation to the environment in large part because of the way that big corporations and wealthy individuals chose to gain and use wealth. Greed is causing environmental degradation. Teresa Heinz deserves criticism, because she leads a life that is unnecessarily extravagant while she says she cares about the envrionment.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. I specifically said

"caused by our society as a whole, and moving towards solutions has to be done as a society as well as by individuals."

so why disingenously ask: "You are claiming that there is no individual responsibilty for envrionmental harm?"

It is that kind of blatant distortion that reveals the utter bankruptcy of your argument.

You attack Kerry, who no doubt has done more good in the cause of the environment than most of us, over his lifestyle, yet any real environmentalist knows that is only a matter of degree - we are all guilty, and the only way to affect change is to take what positive steps we can. Your lifestyle is less different from Teresa Kerry's than it is from the average Third World inhabitant. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." - are you without environmental sin?

And I just don't understand why anyone sincerely concerned about the environment would not be doing everything in their power to oust George Bush. It is incomprehensible.

In short, your uninformed, duplicitous, self-righteous and hypocritical attack is wholly without merit.

[WitchWay]

36. Wholly without merit?

A real environmentalist doesn't live the lifestyle that Kerry and his family do. It's that simple. They should not call themselves environmentalists. I don't call myself an environmentalist. Teresa and Kerry do, and they are far more harmful on their impact on the envrionment than I am. Teresa Heinz and John Kerry need to take more than simple steps.

By the way, I'm not a christian - so I don't believe in christian aphorisms made to deflect responsibilty...

Look into Rand Beers if you want to know about Kerry's environmentalism. Look at Plan Columbia. Look at "progressive internationalism". Look at Teresa' Heinz' stock portfolio and mansions.

Kerry is MORE GUILTY THAN MOST harming the environment because of his exorbitanat wealth. Greed is not environmental. Just because he has the privelege of a wealthy elite to be involved in policy making, doesn't cancel out the fact that his lifestyle is detrimental to the envrionment. Just because Teresa throws crumbs here and there and gives speeches, doesn't cancel out the fact that the money and power they have is due in large part to unethical corporatism and environmental destruction.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. Yes. Wholly without merit.

But just for the sake of argument, since you are already repeating yourself, let's play Devil's Advocate and assume all your points are true.

What do you suggest? If you are right, what do you think should be done? What are you advocating? Let's pretend Kerry isn't an environmentalist, because he is rich.


Given that (false)premise, what is the conclusion? How should we act? Who or what are you promoting?

[WitchWay]

40. First of all

If a person is rich, and fancies themself an environmentalist -- they should downsize your life, give most of their money to groups that might remediate environmental or social-justice issues, and live a very simple lifestyle, while being an environmental Activist. The money that you give away shouldn't even necessarily be controlled by you or work to some special advantage for you (because that is simply trying to have power).

You try to develop a lifestyle that has as little impact on the environmnet as possible...If you run a company, you try to develop products that have low impact on the environment, make use of recycling, or otherwise impact as minimally as possible on the environment -- while making sure that workers have social justice. This way, when you advocate on the environment, you aren't hypocritical. Also, if you have no stocks or interests in environmentally-unsound businesses, you can act for real environmental change instead of just playing an environmentaliast.

Environmentalists are not rich. Greed is not environmental, it is envrionmentally destructive. You assume that I am false in this conclusion, so I can't really argue with you. You think that wealth and corporate profit can coexist with environmentalism. I do not agree with that. There are tons of people who try to live simply in order to be environmental. There are tons of activists. In my book, they are the ones who are environmentalists.

You can't live in and promote a greedy lifestyle and call yourself (or be called) an environmentalist. They don't go together.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. You're still repeating yourself - What are you FOR?

Assuming that your false premise is true --


What should we do? What are you advocating in favor of? Who should we vote for for President?

[sandnsea]

23. And you've done what exactly?

Yes, I know she has money. But even with money, I don't think I'd accomplish a fraction of what Teresa has:

Teresa has championed the education of women regarding the importance of pensions, savings, and retirement security. Products of her support in this area have included the publication of a nationally acclaimed book, Pensions in Crisis; a magazine supplement, “What Every Woman Needs to Know About Money and Retirement,” that was published in Good Housekeeping and US Airway’s Attaché magazine. In a related area, she directed the development of the Heinz Plan to Overcome Prescription Drug Expenses (HOPE), a program to make prescription drugs affordable for older Americans. The Boston Globe hailed the plan as “a great service for Massachusetts…presenting the state government with a credible plan to provide its elderly citizens with prescription drugs.” In addition to Massachusetts, similar “blueprints” have been studied or adopted in five other states including Pennsylvania, Maine and Mississippi.

Heralded by the Utne Reader in 1995 as one of 100 American visionaries, Teresa Heinz has long been recognized as one of the nation’s premier environmental leaders. In 1995, she announced one of the largest grants ever made to the environment, a $20 million gift to create the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, a unique attempt to bring together representatives of business, government, the scientific community and environmental groups to collaborate on the development of mutually acceptable, yet scientifically sound, environmental policies. In addition to serving on the Center’s board, she was one of 10 representatives from non-governmental organizations attached to the U.S. Delegation to the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit) in Brazil in 1992. Since 1995, she has sponsored annual conferences on Women’s Health and the Environment, bringing women together with health, environmental and policy experts to learn how the environment impacts their daily lives.

As a member of the Advisory Board for the Earth Communications Office, she has helped to pioneer an internationally acclaimed public service campaign promoting citizen environmental action in countries around the globe. Similarly, she has sponsored The Environminute and The World ECO Minute, a daily radio campaign reaching citizens in more than 100 countries, and HealthWeek, a weekly PBS-produced program with a strong focus on women’s health and the environment. She helped to conceptualize and launch Second Nature, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to support the development of an environmentally literate citizenry. Teresa Heinz was honored in 2003 with a special "Shades of Green" award presented by the Pittsburgh Green Building Alliance for her vision and contributions to the greening of the region. She is a co-founder and board member of the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning and serves on the Advisory Council for the Center for Children’s Health and the Environment at Mount Sinai School of Medicine.

An advocate for human rights and economic, scientific and creative freedom, Teresa Heinz was an original member and later a co-chair of Congressional Wives for Soviet Jewry. Guided by a belief in thoughtful problem solving and the power of informed debate, she has served on the board of the Carnegie Corporation of New York and is a trustee of the Brookings Institution. She also sits on the Visiting Committee for Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and serves on the board of the American Institute for Public Service (Jefferson Awards). In addition, in 2001, she was elected to be a Fellow for the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

She has been active in the past as a board member and trustee of schools in Pittsburgh, Washington D.C., and elsewhere, including Georgetown University, Phillips Exeter Academy and St. Paul’s School. She was a board member of Family Communications, which produced Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, and she co-founded the National Council for Families and Television, an organization that works to enhance the quality of prime time television for children by facilitating discussion among members of the entertainment industry, educators, parents and other interested groups.

Fluent in 5 languages, she later served as a full-time consultant to the United Nations Trusteeship in New York City. She has been awarded honorary doctorate degrees from Beloit College (Wisconsin), the University of Massachusetts (Boston), Bank Street College of Education (New York), Pine Manor College and Clark University (Massachusetts), as well as Carnegie Mellon University, the Medical College of Pennsylvania, Drexel University, Washington & Jefferson College and Carlow College, all of Pennsylvania.

[WitchWay]

37. But you have to ask:

Where did that money to support Teresa Heinz come from? Money doesn't come from out of nowhere. Money primarily comes off of:
land ownership
labor
natural resources

Teresa's priveleges in life do not impress me, considering how many have been oppressed by privelege. I am not impressed by brand-name universities, by fancy titles, by poltical power and connections.

Sorry, but I don't buy into corporate green-washing, either:
http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=15699

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. No we have to ask: Who or what are you for?

What are you advocating?


We understand that you think rich people are evil, you've repeated yourself quite a bit on the topic.

What are you for?


I'm also curious if you spend an equal amount of time at Free Republic reminding them that their candidate is an evil rich person. Does your hatred of the rich extend to Republicans is this just a quest against Democratic candidates?


Who should we vote for for President and why?

[sandnsea]

44. Her money came from ketchup

Oooh, evil ketchup. And pickle relish too.

I'm just asking to be impressed by your own, personal, activities. So what have you done?

[usregimechange]

21. Wow!

"Interesting footnote: John and Teresa first hit it off during the first Earth Summit in Rio."

I didn't know that.

96.5% rating from the League of Conservation voters! :kick:

[DaveSZ]

24. It would be hard

To top Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon, and Carter.

Also Kerry will not have a democratic congress. :(

[JohnKleeb]

25. We dont know that yet

[usregimechange]

30. His record indicates that he would

:kick:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. RFKjr on Kerry and the environment

Of course, RFK jr is no real environmentalist because of his extravagant lifestyle :eyes:, but if you can get past that...

You charge in your Rolling Stone article that Bush is the worst environmental president in American history.

Yes, that's true. And he's far worse than No. 2, who's Warren Harding. Based upon the fact that we have 30 major environmental laws that are now being eviscerated. All of the investment we have made in our environmental infrastructure since Earth Day 1970 is now being undermined in a three-year period of astonishing activity.

<snip>
What about the Democratic Party? Isn't it part of the problem too? Democratic politicians receive money from many of these same corporate polluters. And Al Gore certainly failed to make the environment a major issue in the last presidential race, even though he was supposedly Mr. Environment.

Yeah, absolutely. And I think it's because most of the candidates do not know how to explain these issues in a way that makes them relevant to the average voter. And in fact they have extraordinary relevance to average people. We're not protecting the environment for the sake of the fishes and the birds; we're doing it because it enriches us. It's the basis of our economy, and we ignore that at our peril. The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of our environment. It also enriches us aesthetically and recreationally and culturally and historically -- and spiritually. Human beings have other appetites besides money, and if we don't feed them, we're not going to become the beings that our Creator intended us to become.

When we destroy the environment, we are diminishing ourselves and we're impoverishing our children. And our obligation as a generation -- as Americans, as a civilization -- is to create communities that give our children the same opportunities for dignity and enrichment as the communities that our parents gave us. And we cannot do that if we don't protect our environmental infrastructure. And that's really what this is all about.

So why didn't Al Gore go near this issue in the 2000 race?

That was a great disappointment to me. I urged him to do it. And I believe he would be president if he had.

<snip>
You've endorsed John Kerry in the 2004 race. Do you think he'll champion the environment more boldly than Gore in his campaign?

I think he already is; he's already framed this as his issue. I like all of the Democratic candidates and they're all relatively good on the environment. Actually, I don't know anything about Wes Clark on this issue, I haven't talked to him. But I have good friends who have and they say he's expressed strong feelings on the environment. So I think all the Democratic candidates are in the right place.

But Kerry has the best record of any senator; he has a 96 percent lifetime rating with the League of Conservation Voters. This has been a passion for him since he got into public life. He was the Massachusetts organizer for Earth Day in 1970, and he has fought hard for fuel efficiency standards, which is now the holy grail of the environmental movement. He's been the one consistent champion on that issue.

I've known Kerry almost all my life and he's an outdoorsman, he loves being on the water, he loves fishing. I've spent a lot of time on Nantucket Sound with him. Last summer he called my brother Max and asked him to come to Wood's Hole to go windsurfing with him, and they ended up windsurfing all the way from Wood's Hole to Nantucket, which is 45 miles, over open ocean. And that's pretty good for a 56-year-old guy. And he wasn't calling a press conference or anything. He just did it because they got into the water. It's genuine.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/11/19/bobbykennedyjr/index.h...



This is worth clicking through Salon's ad to read; Kennedy has a lot more to say than simply praise for Kerry (darn those copyright rules)...

[littlejoe]

29. Absolutely! No question about it! End of debate! Period!

[IrateCitizen]

31. He certainly has the potential to be!

To be quite honest, I believe that GHW Bush was actually better on the environment than Clinton. Aside from Clinton's numerous last-minute executive orders, I found him to be an absolute failure on environmental issues. It's not like he went out of his way to actually HARM the environment, like the current denizen of the WH -- but he was notably absent and/or silent on most of the big issues of the day, especially fuel-efficiency standards for SUV's and light trucks.

I'm especially impressed by his call for an "Apollo Project" on renewable energy sources. I think it's something that progressives need to pressure him on to let him know that he would have genuine support for following through on such an issue.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. Clinton

was the ultimate corporate pol - I'm glad he was a Democrat and not a Republican, but he certainly was no true advocate for the environment. Only by contrast with GWB does he look good. And Gore was a major disappointment in basically having nothing to say on the environment for 8 years as vice-president. I read his book and it was spot-on -- but as vice-president and as a candidate, I had to wonder if he himself read it or if he even really wrote it...

[IrateCitizen]

33. Thank you for your honest and thoughtful response!

I'm glad that I'm not the only Democrat who isn't blinded by Clinton-idolatry to recognize that they guy was basically a no-show on environmental causes. And Gore's failure to champion those causes was perhaps the biggest capitulation of his political career -- even moreso than the fiasco after the 2000 election.

[usregimechange]

34. Good chance.

"America is only as healthy as the water our children drink, the air they breathe, the yards and parks in which they play and laugh, and the communitites in which they live.
The question is whether armed with that knowledge, our generation will leave our children and grandchildren an earth that is cleaner, not more degraded; more beautiful, not more polluted; healthier and safer for children than the world we inherited from our parents and grandparents."
-- John Kerry

[usregimechange]

35. Didn't Kerry vote against the Artic wildlife oil drilling?

I know he has made statements against it.

[JI7]

38. not just that, but he LED the fight against it

he has the BEST league of conservation rating of any congress member. lcv usually doesn't endorse until later in the primary after most already vote, but in this case they endorsed him before new hampshire because he has such a great record on it.

[revcarol]

43. Kerry would be WONDERFUL for the U.S, but NOT for the WORLD.

We would get a lot of Bush's damage reversed, and a lot of neglect(like underfunding National Parks) reversed, but Kerry still supports the WTO.

WTO functions, among other things, as the corporations' right to rape the environment of individual countries, because any environmental regulation that would cause a corporation to lose profits or potential profits WILL BE STRUCK DOWN.

Lest we get all gleeful that Kerry will improve OUR environment, let us remember that our environment and the rest of the world's environment are interconnected.

[blm]

46. WRONG. Kerry didn't work 10 years on Kyoto Protocol for nothing.

I suggest you study that aspect of his career and policy positions before you make and spread false assumptions.

You will NEVER see the continent of Africa get the necessary attention for healthcare and environmental needs the way you will in a Kerry administration. It happens to be a priority for Teresa who grew up attending to the sick and poor in Mozambique and is an earnest advocate of PREVENTIVE medicine through vaccination, nutrition and environment.

[citizen snips]

47. Kerry would be better than Bush.

And that is a big plus for the environment.