Wednesday, November 25, 2009

George Bush and Stephen Harper Share Rhetoric on Environment

"Every environmental issue confronts us with a duty to be good stewards. As we use nature's gifts, we must do so wisely. Prosperity will mean little if we leave future generations a world of polluted air, toxic lakes and rivers and vanished forests. " —George W Bush
Those words were used by George W. Bush, during the 2000 election campaign. They sound wonderful, but unfortunately not a word of it was true. However, at the time polls showed that 62 percent of Americans thought that the country was spending too little on the environment, compared to only 7 percent who believed they were spending too much (1). He knew what to say to get to the 62%.

When Julian Fantino was running for the Conservatives in the Vaughn bi-election, he posted on his website:
The Conservative Government is taking comprehensive action to improve the environment and protect the health of Canadians. Canada now has tough new regulations against toxic chemicals and one of the most aggressive plans on earth to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
This despite the fact that Canada currently has no environmental policy. None. And we have won another "colossal fossil" award at the last international conference.

Is Fantino lying or is he really that gullible?

It does sound a lot like the hype that helped to get Harper elected in 2006, with his promise of a "Made in Canada" solution to the environment, but it was just talk. Since then he has sabotaged any international effort to address this serious problem.
George W. Bush seemed to grasp the importance of environmental values during his presidential bid, and his stump speeches contained numerous references to preserving our national treasures. He boasted a Texas record of bringing together environmentalists, businesses, and politicians to mold pragmatic solutions. He even promised to control greenhouse gas emissions with a campaign pledge to place a cap on carbon dioxide, that went even further than Vice President Gore's.

George W. Bush's environmental strategy appears to be talk globally, harm locally ... and hope the voters don't notice. (1)
Obviously Fanitino, and indeed the entire Harper government, can talk the talk, but have trouble with the follow through. And they hope the voters won't notice that they are lying through their teeth.

More Power of Audacity.


1. Did Jack Layton Sabatoge Kyoto?

2. It's All About the Spin Baby. It's All About the Spin.

3. Harper-Bush Inaction on Global Warming Isolated Their Citizens from the Rest of the World

4. Guy Giorno Wins by Reviving Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions

5. Bush and Harper Climate Change Denial Funded by Oil Companies

6. Bush and Harper Appoint Climate Change Deniers to Science Boards

7. How the Coal Industry Stuck it to the Canadian Taxpayer

8. Stephen Harper and the Battle of Kyoto

9. Stephen Harper Proposing Carbon Tax. Is He Kidding Me?


1. The Book on Bush: How George W. (mis) Leads America, By Eric Alterman and Mark Green, Penguin Books, 2004, ISBN: 0-670-03273-5, Pg. 12-13


  1. "The Death Blow to Climate Science"

    "Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. A very large file (61 mb) was downloaded and posted to the web. Phil Jones Director of the CRU has acknowledged the files are theirs. They contain papers, documents letters and emails. The latter are the most damaging and contain blunt information about the degree of manipulation of climate science in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular."


  2. I did see that already but it doesn't change the fact that the earth's core temperature is rising.

    Climate change is real and not something we can ignore.

    With Harper ignoring it, Quebec may be one step closer to separating.

  3. "With Harper ignoring it, Quebec may be one step closer to separating."


  4. I don't think it's a bonus. Harper's vision for Canada is a breaking away, with provinces or territories in a very loose federation. The feds would only look after defense and foreign policy, but how will he convince those segregated groups that they should fight for Canada? Or even feel any patriotism toward Canada? The West would probably join the U.S. Quebec would go it alone or perhaps join the EU. I don't like it at all.