George W. Bush, the Environmental President

The Left has been talk-pointing for years that the air is getting worse and worse, the sky is falling, and it's all George Bush's fault. But this is another thing they know that just isn't so.

From the annual Index of Leading Environmental Indicators (pdf), Steven Hayward:

The latest findings are significant because they stand in sharp contrast to a refrain among some environmental campaigners and the media that air pollution is getting worse, and to the assertion that the Bush administration was “rolling back” the Clean Air Act. Final data for 2008 won’t be available for several months, but the EPA’s latest report shows that air pollution levels in every category fell from 2001 to 2007; moreover, air pollution levels in most categories fell at a faster rate than during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration.

Table 1 below displays the reduction in national mean ambient levels of the six criteria pollutants for comparable periods of the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Table 1: Ambient Air Quality Trends under Presidents Clinton and G. W. Bush

	Clinton (1993–1999)	Bush (2001–2007)
Ozone	–5.14%	–5.9%
Particulates (PM2.5)	N/A*	–9.1%
Carbon Monoxide	–24.6%	–39%
Sulfur Dioxide	–32.0%	–24%
Lead	–33.0%	–56%
Nitrogen Dioxide	–9.6%	–20%

*National PM2.5 emissions monitoring began in 199.
Source: EPA and author’s calculations

OBTW -- w/t NRO

Sphere: Related Content

Hammer, Nail, Assembly Required

U.S. News and World Report's Peter Rolff puts steel to work:

It is true that the U.S. economy was in bad shape when Obama came into office. But he and his top appointees want us to believe that their preferred solution—pushing huge increases in federal spending in his so-called economic recovery act and his budget for the upcoming fiscal year though Congress to prime the Keynesian pump, putting money in the hands of their political constituencies—are in no way related to the just announced record $1.8 trillion federal deficit.

Perhaps the worm is turning. RTWT.

w/t TPM

Sphere: Related Content

Big Boondoggle Rescues FutureGen Boondogglet

Chris Edwards has a piece on FutureGen in the Cato@Liberty blog. FutureGen is a project to take CO₂ from burning coal and pump it into layers of rock beneath Illinois farmland. I live and work near Mattoon, and would probably personally benefit from the boondogglet. Edwards:

FutureGen was launched in 2003 by President Bush as a public-private partnership to build a low-emission coal-fueled power plant and demonstrate technologies to capture carbon dioxide. The government was to share the cost of the project with 12 private energy companies. The project was originally estimated to cost $1 billion, but by 2008 the estimate had ballooned to $1.8 billion. By mid-2008, $176 million had been spent.

A lot of the money spent for FutureGen in the Mattoon area went to building an interstate exchange. The exchange also serves other light industry in the area. It was needed already.

The FutureGen decision to locate in Mattoon was still ringing in the air when Rod Blagojevich sent a letter to President Bush asking him to come to Mattoon for a photo op demonstrating the President's commitment to fighting greenhouse gases and such. The tone of the letter, and Blago's announcement of it, were a clear attempt to rub the President's nose in the fact that Illinois had been chosen over Texas. It was embarrassing to me that Blago thought Bush so small-minded, but that's what we had for a governor.

Immediately after that letter was announced, the project got the axe (or got sent back to the proverbial committee).

Maybe it was a coincidence, but I've always thought that if Blago had just kept his mouth shut, the project would have gone on as planned.

As a global warming skeptic, I see little need for this project. I've also seen too many B-movies not to be scared silly about pumping steamy-hot CO2 into underground rock formations. It just screams Godzilla plot.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Stops Denying Facts by Denying Facts

President Obama declared that the days of denying the facts (of Global Warming) are over.

Has he not gone outside for the last ten years?

Because it's been getting colder, not warmer.

Unserious, incurious, and power mad.

Sphere: Related Content

The President's Mental Box

Barack Obama is in a box. He has declared, for a long time now, that we should get out of Iraq in 16 months.

But there is nothing magical about the number of months for moving troops, or shifting the remainder of territorial control to the Iraqis. The only thing special about 16 months is that Barack Obama has used that figure for so long.

Now his generals have come to him and said that he should pay attention to the conditions on the ground, and not to some arbitrary spot on the calendar.

Obama should have come out on November 5, the day after his election, and said that the target is 16 months from January 20, 2009, but that if we could get out sooner, we would. And furthermore, he should have claimed Iraq as a US ally.

But none of that was possible, because Obama is hemmed in on all sides by his supporters on the left, the troops on the right, reality on the ground, and his own public insistence. He can't be wrong, he can't change his mind.

But neither can he change, with his empty words, the reality on the ground in Iraq.

And neither can he change the desire of men who have seen their comrades fall in battle to see their blood mean something.

But the thing he is really unable to change is his own need to be right. He cannot be wrong about the efficacy of the war in Iraq, General Petraeus' surge, or the proper use of military force in foreign policy. To admit that we could be out of Iraq sooner than his 16 months by winning battles than by folding our tents and slithering away would be to admit that he was wrong all along. And with this President, that will never happen.

Sphere: Related Content

Who Says Barack Obama is a Miserable Failure?

That would be an awful thing to say. So why are people trying to say that Barack Obama is a miserable failure? It isn't right. It isn't fair.

OK, so maybe it's fair.

Sphere: Related Content

Fisking the White House Bailout of GM and Chrysler

President Bush has decided to give some number of billions of dollars of TARP money, which was supposed to be used for financial firms, to two failing car companies.

In doing so, he said ... well, let us fisk, shall we?

Bush said in normal economic circumstances

What are "normal" circumstances? Is there any set of circumstances that we could call "normal" that would cause companies the size of GM and Chrysler to fail, while other companies are not failing? Or would the fact of two of these companies failing be considered evidence that circumstances were not "normal"?

he would not intervene to save the automakers

Intervening is one word, "meddling in private business by Executive fiat to favor two companies over their competitors with an unconstitutional bill of attainder" describes it better. And saving the automakers may be what he says he's doing, but it's really his own image he's worried about. "Something must be done, this is something, therefor this must be done." These steps are neither necessary nor sufficient to save the automakers from anything except a painful, newsworthy Christmas. In these times of pain avoidance, Mr. Bush is just doing the expedient thing: borrowing money to loan to people who have no clear means to pay it back.

but "in the midst of a financial crisis

The financial crisis has very little to do with the automakers problems, except that their problems were caused primarily by the run-up in oil prices, making people unwilling to buy inefficient but high-markup trucks and SUVs that they had previously wanted as toys and status symbols.

To the extent that the financial crisis is a cause of the GM and Chrysler problems, it's because they have continued to make ever-more-expensive vehicles believing that people would continue to buy them on credit. When people suddenly became credit-wary, realizing the foolishness of taking a loan against a depreciating asset, the car makers were sunk.

But now that people have realized that it's foolish to pay interest on something which is losing value, no amount of Federal credit assistance is going to rescue the car companies.

"and a recession,

Again, would there ever be a car maker failure during some other economic phase?

"allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse

The collapse bogeyman, too big to fail, etc. If these companies cannot make it, they should be allowed to fail now before we dump huge amounts of money we don't have into propping them up. We will be paying the interest on the debt we incur propping up the failing companies long after they go under anyway.

"is not a responsible course of action."

Saying it doesn't make it so. The responsible thing is to let people face the consequences of their actions. Call it compassion, call it anything else, but responsible it is not.

Sphere: Related Content

There are Four Kinds of Politicians

Ross Douthat has a chart.

• Jackson - Realist tending toward isolationism
  
• Jefferson - Idealist isolationist
  
• Wilson - Idealist tending toward interventionism
  
• Hamilton - Realist interventionist

I think President Bush came to office as a Jackson/Jeffersonian mix, but after 9/11 became solidly Wilsonian.

Barack Obama is all things to all people, and sold himself early as a Jeffersonian. But I think he's going to be whatever gets him the most votes.

Sphere: Related Content