George Bush and the Environment

Bush to Protect Three Areas In Pacific
By Juliet Eilperin, washingtonpost.com
Published January 6, 2009

Bush's Seven Deadly Environmental Sins
By Katharine Mieszkowski, salon.com
Published November 8, 2008

In comparison to the "Bush to Protect Three Areas In Pacific" article, the page titled, "Bush's Seven Deadly Environmental Sins" seems very critical. The first article mentioned more of the positive aspects of Bush's environmental record. It spent time discussing the recent event of George Bush deciding to protect a total of 195,280 square miles in the Pacific Ocean. Later on, the article became mildly critical of Bush when examining the disagreements and opposing opinions, mostly from fishermen--"'If you're going to keep the public out of a public area, you need a darned good reason to do that,' said Nussman, whose group represents manufacturers, retailers and wholesalers who supply the sport fishing industry. 'We don't think they've met that 'darned good reason' test.'" ("Bush to Protect Three Areas In Pacific")

The other article, "Bush's Seven Deadly Environmental Sins", discussed a much broader scope of Bush's environmental record. The tone of the article is very negative as it describes seven incidents, or environmental wrongdoings, that will stay with us after Bush leaves the office. It then gives a short summary of what Barack Obama will need to do to fix the damage that was left behind. One thought that I read and thought was interesting is the concept that maybe Bush's environmental ideas were flawed to begin with--"By taking environmental policy making away from scientists, and turning it over to industry cronies, Bush has made a mockery of the nation's environmental laws and values." ("Bush's Seven Deadly Environmental Sins")

Both authors filled their writing with evidence and quotations. I can't say that one is more legitimate or reliable than the other. I do think it is obvious, however, that they are both at least slightly biased. While they do provide facts, each one takes a different spin on the topic. Eilperin's article, "Bush to Protect Three Areas In Pacific", closes with the statement, "For a president that's not very green, ironically, this is going to be his largest legacy." Though this may seem slightly critical, it is a big understatement in comparison to "Bush's Seven Deadly Environmental Sins" by Mieszkowski, who included lines like, "Somewhere up north, a polar bear, on a melting ice floe, is wiping its sweaty brow, thinking, "Fewer than 80 days before these oil freaks are out of office." and, "Bush's myriad environmental sins could have him serving penance for years. But we decided to highlight seven of his most deadly." Personally, I found Mieszkowski's writing style much more interesting and easy to understand. The way she writes and the problem-solution style to the article was much easier for me to comprehend.

Many Americans wouldn't deny the fact that many environmental mishaps have occurred since Bush has been in office. One article seems to take a positive thing he did and expand on it, the other seems to "highlight seven of his most deadly" environmental incidents.