TheocracyWatch Logo


The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party

What's New?  
SEARCH TheocracyWatch

The Environment
"Global warming is the greatest hoax ever
perpetrated on the American people."
Senator James Inhofe, Chair of the Committee for the Environment and Public Works

In this section:
    Core Values
    American Legislative Exchange Council
    War on Nature
         Healthy Forest Initiative
         Clear Skies
         Undermining Environmental Law
         Coal Mines - Putting the Fox in Charge of the Hen House
         Undermining The Montreal Protocol to Protect the Ozone Layer
         Wetlands Protection Fades By
         Repealing the Clean Water Act
         Defunding the Land and Water Conservation Fund
         Allowing Raw Sewage
    Anti-environment Judicicial Nomination
    Christian Coalition Scorecards Compared to Environmental Scorecards
    Leadership of the U.S. Congress
Senator James Inhofe: Chair of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works
States Rights and the Environment

Related Topics: Texas Republican Party Platform, Religious Right Economics

Recent Articles

Core Values

The Bush administration is waging a virtual war on the environment enabling industries to decimate forests, divert water, pollute national parks, and release CO2 and toxins into the atmosphere.

This disregard for the environment reflects core values of the theocratic right, a movement strongly allied with big corporations. The theocratic right should not be confused with Evangelicals, a group that covers the entire political spectrum.

The Texas Republican Party Platform, a document that reflects the goals of the theocratic right, opposes efforts to regulate industry by affirming a belief in "a strong and vibrant private sector unencumbered by excessive government regulation." It calls for abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency, and reaffirms "the belief in the fundamental right of an individual to use property without governmental interference." It also opposes conservation easements administered by nonprofits.

On April 17, 2005, the New York Times published an article about the Constitution in Exile movement. Their judicial philosophy extols the absolute rights of property owners which is also reflected in the Texas GOP Platform.

America's Providential History, a best-selling textbook that is popular in Christian schools and the Christian homeschool movment teaches history from a "Biblical worldview." It explains that property rights are God-given:

Scripture defines God as the source of private property...Ecclesiastes 5:19 states, 'For every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them'...Also in I Chronicles 29:12, 'Both riches and honor come from Thee'. (pps 187-188)

From God Hates Environmentalists, Bill Berkowitz, June, 2001:

For years, Religious Right groups have anchored their views on environmental issues in Genesis 1:28. "Because nature is wild," explains Nina George Hacker in Concerned Women for America's Family Voice, "we [humans] were given the authority to 'subdue' it for life's necessities."

This editorial from the New York Times -- Destroying the National Parks, (August 29, 2005) illustrates the impact of the theocratic right on our national parks.

Mr. Hoffman's rewrite would open up nearly every park in the nation to off-road vehicles, snowmobiles and Jet Skis...

Mr. Hoffman would explicitly allow the sale of religious merchandise, and he removes from the policy document any reference to evolution or evolutionary processes. He does everything possible to strip away a scientific basis for park management...

...In short, this is not a policy for protecting the parks. It is a policy for destroying them.

To see Senate scorecards produced by the League of Conservation Voters, a consortium of environmental organizations, compared to the scorecards produced by three organizations that promote the theocratic right -- the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the Eagle Forum -- click here. (These tables were provided by Glenn Scherer, October, 2004.)

James Dobson of Focus on the Family represents the ideals of the theocratic right:

A few days after Justice Sunday II antigay crusader James Dobson and Focus on the Family launched an attack on Christianity Today magazine. The reason was Andy Crouch's article, "Environmental Wager," that urged Christians to become concerned about and active in fighting global warming. Dobson and FOF believe global warming is "junk science," despite the fact that virtually every reputable scientist in the world supports the idea. It's hard not to, given the overwhelming evidence. But Dobson's bible-based environmental science is not new.

    On October 8, 2004 Dobson and FOF issued their "Must Read Election Message":

Three Focus on the Family executives - including founder and chairman Dr. James C. Dobson - have signed on to an open letter to the American people stressing the importance of relying on biblical values in selecting candidates on Election Day.

    The sixth item on their list read, in part:

Natural resources: God put human beings on the earth to "subdue it" and to "have dominion" over the animals (Gen. 1:28)... . The Bible does not view "untouched nature" as the ideal state of the earth, but expects human beings to develop and use the earth's resources wisely for mankind's needs (Gen. 1:28; 2:15; 9:3; 1 Tim. 4:4)... . We believe the ethical choice is for candidates who will allow resources to be developed ... more

Deregulation of industry lies at the heart of the Religious Right agenda. The Washington Post has published a three-part series detailing how the Bush administration is systematically dismantling the regulatory functions of government in ways that are not obvious and receive little public debate. The lifting of regulations by the Bush administration is devasting to the environment and public health.

The first article from the Post is called Bush Forces a Shift In Regulatory Thrust, OSHA Made More Business-Friendly, August 15, 2004.

The second article, August 16, 'Data Quality' Law Is Nemesis Of Regulation talks about the health threat of a law to deregulate chemicals.

The third article, August 17, Appalachia Is Paying Price for White House Rule Change explains how Bush administration rule changes are devastating the environment.

A study reported on CNN News, The Unborn babies carry pollutants, provides striking example of why regulations are important. Click here.

Bush Nominates Anti-Regulatory Zealot to Head "Super-Powerful" Public Safety Office, July 6, 2006

The American Legislative Exchange Council represents a marriage of the Religious Right and big corporations. Founded in 1973 by conservative activist Paul Weyrich and a handful of state legislators, ALEC initially positioned itself as a counterweight to liberal foundations and think tanks, focusing on social issues like abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment.

ALEC gives business a direct hand in writing bills that are considered in state assemblies nationwide. Funded primarily by large corporations, industry groups, and conservative foundations -- including R.J. Reynolds, Koch Industries, and the American Petroleum Institute -- the group takes a chain-restaurant approach to public policy, supplying precooked McBills to state lawmakers. Since most legislators are in session only part of the year and often have no staff to do independent research, they're quick to swallow what ALEC serves up. In 2000, according to the council, members introduced more than 3,100 bills based on its models, passing 450 into law.( Ghostwriting the Law, Mother Jones, Sept.Oct. 2002)

On March 1, the Public Trust, a coalition of public interest organizations reported that the "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act" is among the bills promoted by ALEC,

In a move worthy of Orwell's Big Brother, the Washington state legislature is being asked to fund a law enforcement database of "eco-terrorists" that would in fact track citizens engaged in lawful environmental advocacy - including signing a petition to save old-growth forests, attending a rally for clean air, or simply joining a group like the Sierra Club or Defenders of Wildlife.

An impending sense of "end times" is good news for that portion of the Religious Right that sees destruction of the earth as fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy. Those who don't seek "end times," blame resource depletion on environmentalists who view natural resources as limited. Secular society "lack(s) faith in God's providence and consequently, men will find fewer resources... The Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth." (America's Providential History.)

The Earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof - Psalm 24:1

The term "Religious Right" is not synomous with "Evangelical." In contrast to the Religious Right, the Evangelical Environmental Network assumes responsiblity for protecting and restoring the environment stating: "Because we worship and honor the Creator, we seek to cherish and care for the creation."

And the Religious Right is not a monolithic bloc. While legislators pushing the religious right agenda receive remarkably low scorecards from the League of Conservation Voters, James Dobson of Focus on the Family who is one of the most powerful figures of the Religious Right, actually signed an "Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility" that, for the first time, emphasized every Christian's duty to care for the planet and the role of government in safeguarding a sustainable environment.

Froim The Greening of Evangelicals, Washington Post, February 6, 2005:

"We affirm that God-given dominion is a sacred responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part," said the statement, which has been distributed to 50,000 member churches. "Because clean air, pure water, and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation."

Another article from the Washington Post on the same day discusses a letter from people of faith to the Bush administration: 'God's Mandate': Putting The White House on Notice, Washington Post, February 6, 2005

The Religious Right's War On Nature

From Robert Kennedy Jr. in Rolling Stones magazine, (12/3/03):

George W. Bush will go down in history as America's worst environmental president. In a ferocious three-year attack, the Bush administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws, weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public lands and wildlife. Cloaked in meticulously crafted language designed to deceive the public, the administration intends to eliminate the nation's most important environmental laws by the end of the year. Under the guidance of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the Bush White House has actively hidden its anti-environmental program behind deceptive rhetoric, telegenic spokespeople, secrecy and the intimidation of scientists and bureaucrats.

Air, Water, Land, Energy and the Global Climate: Bush's Stamp

"For two years, it has come in bursts, on issues from arsenic to wetlands: the unfolding of what President Bush, as a candidate, promised would be a new era of environmental protection. Whether rejecting a treaty on global warming, questioning Clinton-era rules on forest protection or pressing for changes in landmark environmental laws, Mr. Bush has imposed a distinctive stamp on a vast landscape of issues affecting air, water, land, energy and the global climate. (The New York Times, February 23, 2003.)

It's no secret that the Bush White House and Republican National Committee serve the interests of polluting industries in exchange for big campaign contributions. But there's more to the story.

As is well known, Bush and the Republicans have been generously funded by business foes of regulation. According to a Public Campaign and Earthjustice report, mining, timber, oil and chemical industries have contributed more than $44 million to Bush and the Republican National Committee (RNC) in the last three years. Less well-known is that Bush's opposition to regulation is part of an electoral strategy designed to win the votes of coal, timber and oil-producing states. These include the eastern swing states of West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania, as well as traditionally Republican states in the West and Southwest.

House Panel Receives Detailed Spending Plan for '06, Washington Post, May 6, 2005:

Federal land conservation and environmental programs would bear the brunt of budget cuts next year under budget limits sent to the House Appropriations Committee's spending panels yesterday.

The Bush administration announced on December 23, 2003, that the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, the largest in the country, would be exempted from a Clinton-era rule, potentially opening up more than half of the 17 million-acre forest for more development and as many as 50 logging projects.

On January 24, 2004, Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton cleared a plan to open 8.8 million acres of Alaska's North Slope to oil and gas development. The plan will be used to manage a northwest part of the government's 23.5 million-acre National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, which geologists believe may contain 6 billion to 13 billion barrels of oil. The plan threatens the health of Arctic tundra, ponds and lakes that are home to wildlife and migratory birds, and will probably produce enough oil for six months only.

Two riders attached to the Senate Omnibus bill, December, 2003, would weaken air pollution rules and weaken protections for dwindling fish species.

Nature at Bay, New York Times, May 9, 2005 - an update on the war on nature.

Healthy Forest Initiative

Judge Rules Logging Plan Illegal, The Oregonian, August 3, 2005

Trouble in the Forests, New York Times, January 1, 2005

New York Times, July 13, 2004:

The Bush administration on Monday proposed scuttling a rule from the Clinton administration that put nearly 60 million acres of national forest largely off limits to logging, mining or other development in favor of a new system that would leave it to governors to seek greater - or fewer - strictures on road construction in forests

On March 23, 2004, the Bush administration eliminated a requirement for federal agencies to survey for rare species in Pacific Northwest forests and establish buffers to protect them, a change that will open up thousands of acres of old-growth forest to industrial logging.

Defenders of Wildlife call Bush's Healthy Forest Initiative a plan that

"comes straight from corporate timber interests, which have yet to encounter a question to which more logging isn't the answer."

New York Times Editorial, February 12, 2003, discusses a Senate-House appropriations bill loaded with destructive anti-environmental riders:
"[In] the so-called forest stewardship program, ... timber companies are allowed to harvest trees as payment in kind for other projects like road clearing or the thinning of underbrush to prevent forest fires. Conservationists fear that open-ended, broadly drawn stewardship contracts will give the loggers license to cut huge tracts that would otherwise be spared."

U.S. to Open Remote Forests To Logging, Washington Post, May 6, 2005

Bush overturns logging, road ban in forests, USA Today, May 6, 2005

Roadless Rules, Washington Post, May 9, 2005

Clear Skies

The New York Times, April 4, 2004:

Of the many environmental changes brought about by the Bush White House, none illustrate the administration's modus operandi better than the overhaul of new-source review. The president has had little success in the past three years at getting his environmental agenda through Congress. His energy bill remains unpassed. His Clear Skies package of clean-air laws is collecting dust on a committee shelf. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge remains closed to oil and gas exploration.

But while its legislative initiatives have languished on Capitol Hill, the administration has managed to effect a radical transformation of the nation's environmental laws, quietly and subtly, by means of regulatory changes and bureaucratic directives. Overturning new-source review -- the phrase itself embodies the kind of dull, eye-glazing bureaucrat-speak that distracts attention -- represents the most sweeping change, and among the least noticed.

The New York Times, August 28, 2003, calls Bush's clear air initiative, a

"reckless and insupportable decision to eviscerate a central provision of the Clean Air Act and allow power plants, refineries and other industrial sites to spew millions of tons of unhealthy pollutants into the air."

"Bush Administration to Gut Clean Air Act. Rule Would Allow More Pollution at 17,000 Facilities," claims the Natural Resources Defense Council.

From the U.S. General Accounting Office: The Bush administration has undermined enforcement of the Clean Air Act. The public will be breathing dirtier air—and many of us dying sooner—as a result.

The following press release from the Natural Resources Defenses Council criticizes the Bush administration for joining with Detroit to fight California's zero emissions vehicle. The "federal government's siding with Detroit is an unprecedented attack on California's legal right to regulate air pollution."

U.S. Court Backs Bush's Changes on Clean Air Act, New York Times, June 25, 2005

Good news

"A bipartisan group of Northeastern governors is expected to announce an historic agreement this week to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, a plan that would break sharply with Bush administration policy on global warming."

A federal appeals court blocked some of the Bush administration's planned revisions to the Clean Air Act just three days before the EPA plan was to take effect. A three-judge panel agreed with 12 states and several major cities that the changes could cause irreparable harm to the environment and public health. The revisions center on repairs made to pollution-causing facilities.

Undermining Environmental Law

"On issues large and small, the Bush administration has spent the better part of two years rolling back Bill Clinton's environmental legacy. It has abandoned the Kyoto accord on global warming, weakened protections for wetlands and eased mining laws.

"Now it appears to be aiming at even bigger game - the National Environmental Policy Act, regarded as the Magna Carta of environmental protection and perhaps the most important of all the environmental statutes signed into law by Richard Nixon three decades ago." NY Times Editorial, September 30, 2002, "Undermining Environmental Law."

Cornerstone environmental law, NEPA, under fire in energy bill, Grist, May 5, 2005

An Endangered Act, New York Times, July 5, 2005

National Environmental Policy Act Is 'At a Crossroads', Los Angeles Times, July 7, 2005

Coal Mines - Putting the Fox in Charge of the Hen House

New York Times, August 9, 2004 reports that a top executive in a Utah mining company now heads a mine safety agency. The result will be that dust levels in mines will rise substantially:

In all, the mine safety agency has rescinded more than a half-dozen proposals intended to make coal miners' jobs safer, including steps to limit miners' exposure to toxic chemicals. One rule pushed by the agency would make it easier for companies to use diesel generators underground, which miners say could increase the risk of fire.

Undermining The Montreal Protocol to Protect the Ozone Layer

On February 7, the Bush administration sought an exemption to a ban on methyl bromide, a chemical that harms the ozone layer. He is now instituting that ban, threatening to unravel the Montreal Protocal to protect the ozone layer, the most successful treaty in the history of the environmental movement. Environmental writer, Glen Scherer, has writter an article in Salon on this important decision.

Ultimately, the exemption was not approved by an international agency on the ozone layer.

The New York Times reported on March 4, 2004, "U.S. Requests Exemption to Ozone Pact For Chemical," that the Bush administration filed a new exemption request with Montreal Protocol administrators requesting an additional 1.1 million pounds to the 2005 exemptions.

The Washington Post, October 12, 2004: "... the Agriculture Department will allow the use of methyl bromide, a fumigant that harms the ozone layer, to treat wooden shipping pallets..."

The New York Times, November 27, 2004:

... the United States and several other countries gained permission to continue using substantial amounts of methyl bromide through 2006 despite a ban that is to take effect in wealthy countries on Jan. 1. The chemical destroys ozone but is a popular weed and pest killer.

Wetlands Protection Fades By and then, Politics or Change of Heart?

The New York Times, February 11, 2003, claims that for the past two years the Army Corps of Engineers has been undergoing a "broad retreat" in the amount of wetlands it protects.

The President reversed a proposal that would have opened millions of acres to commercial development and the pollution that goes with it. "The decision to reverse course is directly traceable to Mr. Bush's calculation that the proposal was politically unsustainable."

"Here's why the environmental community isn't ecstatic over President Bush's call to spend more than $1 billion over five years to develop a hydrogen-powered car to wean us from our addiction to Middle East oil." Robert Kennedy Jr. discusses problems with Bush's proposal for fuel cell cars in this New York Times Op-ed, February 16, 2003.

The White House is proposing that the military be exempt from environmental regulations, reported in New York Times, February 6, 2003.

Repealing the Clean Water Act

In 2002, the Bush administration essentially repealed a longstanding provision of the Clean Water Act prohibiting the dumping of mining wastes in streams. Now, (Jan. 13, 2004) under what is advertised as a "clarification" of the law governing surface mining, the administration is eliminating a ban dating from the Reagan era against mining activity within 100 feet of a stream.

Defunding the Land and Water Conservation Fund

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is the main federal land-acquisition program. From the New York Times, June 16, 2004:

Mr. Bush promised to give the program its statutory maximum, $900 million a year, of which half goes to the states and half to federal purchases. This figure has rarely been reached, but under Mr. Bush it has receded even further into the distance. He asked for just over $300 million altogether and House appropriators did even worse, calling for $91.5 million for the states and a measly $48.5 for the federal side. Similarly, they provided only a modest increase in operating funds for the National Park Service - barely enough to keep pace with expenses, never mind their chipping away at the $5 billion maintenance backlog Mr. Bush pledged to eliminate.

Snowmobiles, New York Times, August 20, 2004: "U.S. Would Allow 720 Snowmobiles Daily at Yellowstone"

The 720-snowmobile option would appear to stake out a middle ground between a federal court ruling here last December that upheld a Clinton administration plan to phase out snowmobiles in Yellowstone over three years and, on the other hand, the decision of a federal court in Wyoming two months later that allowed as many as 950 a day. (Author's comment. 720 is not "middle ground" between 0 and 950 - jb)

Allowing Dumping of Raw Sewage - EPA May Allow the Discharge of Partially Treated Sewage. Guidelines That Are Near Release Would Permit Blended Waste, Washington Post, December 8, 2004

Definitely Don't Drink The Water, TomPaine, May 18, 2005

EPA Does About-Face, Won't Allow Partial Treatment at Sewage Plants in Storms, Environmental News Network, January 20, 2005


The Bush Administration's 2005 budget "projects" $2.4 billion in federal royalties for oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 2006, even though the Senate has blocked drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for two years in a row.

"This is a huge giveaway for the oil and gas industry," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) Negotiators Agree on Tax Breaks in Energy Bill, Washington Post, July 27, 2005

"In one of the biggest taxpayer bailouts in recent years, the energy bill about to pass out of Congress stands on the cusp of providing the nuclear industry and the oil industry, among others, with the sweetest deal that energy executives have seen in the last 50 years." (A Nuclear Swindle,, July 27, 2005)

No Climate Change in Energy Bill - Domenici, Reuters, June 21, 2005

Change to the Clean Air Act Is Built Into New Energy Bill, New York Times, April 16, 2005

From the Daily Mislead, April 28, 2004. "BUSH DIVERTING ENVIRO FUNDS INTO FOSSIL FUELS"

As Mother Jones reported, "the Bush Administration has been working quietly to ensure that the system used to produce hydrogen will be as fossil fuel-dependent - and potentially as dirty - as the one that fuels today's SUVs.

Wilderness Site May See Oil Drilling, Los Angeles Times, May 31, 2005:

Tucked away in the 96-page emergency military spending bill signed by President Bush this month are four paragraphs that give energy companies the right to explore for oil and gas inside a sprawling national park.

Anti-Environment Judicial Nomination

February 6, 2004: The Senate Judiciary Committee took up the nomination of a longtime lobbyist for ranching and mining interests who has been a leading critic of environmentalists.

Christian Coalition Scorecards compared to Environmental Scorecards

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) publishes a National Environmental Scorecard. The Scorecard provides objective, factual information about the environmental voting records of U.S. Representatives and Senators. more The higher the rating from Religious Right groups, the lower the rating from the League of Conservation Voters.

The following graphs compare how Christian Coalition and the League of Conservation Voters(LCV) rated Congress in 2001. Republicans are red, Democrats blue. LCV is made up of several environmental groups.

graph cc senate graph lcv senate
graph cc housegraph lcv house

The first graph measures the Christian Coalition's scorecards for the United States Senate in 2001. Republicans, mostly in the 100% column, scored very high. Most Democrats received 0. The second graph -- which is the opposite -- shows how the League of Conservation Voters rated the U.S. Senate that year. 15 Democrats voted in favor of environmental issues 100% of the time. 34 Republicans voted in favor of environmental issues 0% of the time. If you add the 25 Democrats who received 80% with the 15 who received 100% the number is 40. 40 out of 50 Democrats in 2001 had strong environmental voting records. If you add the 10 Republicans who received 20% with the 34 Republicans who received 0%, 44 out of 49 Republicans that year had very low environmental voting records.

The third graph shows how the Christian Coalition rated members of the U.S. House of Representatives: 100% -- 163 Republicans, 1 Democrat. 80% -- 32 Republicans, 3 Democrats. 60% -- 16 Republicans, 14 Democrats. 40% -- 12 Republicans, 22 Democrats. 20% -- 1 Republican, 36 Democrats. 0% -- 0 Republicans, 129 Democrats.
The fourth graph shows how the League of Conservation Voters rated members of the U.S. House of Representatives. 100% -- 2 Republicans, 106 Democrats. 80% -- 10 Republicans, 60 Democrats. 60% -- 13 Republicans, 26 Democrats. 40% -- 13 Republicans, 11 Democrats. 20% -- 44 Republicans, 9 Democrats. 0% -- 137 Republicans, 0 Democrats.

Leadership of U.S. Congress

The following two tables compare the ratings of Congressinal leadership from the Christian Coalition and the League of Conservation Voters in 2003. The table on the left is the U.S. House of Representatives. The table on the right is the U.S. Senate. CC stands for the Christian Coalition, and LCV stands for the League of Conservation Voters.

Leaders House


Leaders Senate

Whichever party holds a majority also holds the leadership positions. They decide what bills will and won't come up for a vote, and they chair the committees which play an important role in setting the agendas. With one exception, top ranking Republican leaders of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate in the 108th Congress have received very high ratings from the Christian Coalition and very low ratings from the League of Conservation Voters. The inverse is true for Democratic leadership. Glen Scherer, an environmental writer, compared the scorecards for the 2003 Congressional leadership from both Christian Coalition (CC)and League of Conservation Voters (LCV):

Senator James Inhofe: Chair of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works


U.S. Senator James Inhofe, (R-Okla) said at the 2002 Christian Coalition Road to Victory gathering, "Get the few liberals out! You will be doing the Lord's work, and He will richly bless you for it." Senator Inhofe was richly blessed. Since 2000 he has received more than $500,000 in campaign contributions from oil, gas, electric and mining industries. more

When Republicans won a majority in the U.S. Senate after the 2002 elections, Senator Inhofe became chair of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works. One of his first acts was to appoint a coal mining lobbyist to oversee clean air legislation. more

While Europe was sweltering in record-breaking heat, Inhofe made an impassioned two-hour speech on global warming. On July 28, 2003, he said, "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?"

Just 25 days earlier, a stunning report had been issued by the World Meteorological Organization, an "impeccably respected UN organization that is not given to hyperbole" (Independent,7/3/03). The British newspaper reported:

"In an astonishing announcement on global warming and extreme weather, the World Meteorological Organization signalled last night that the world's weather is going haywire."

The report cited as an example the 562 tornadoes that hit parts of the United States in just one month -- May, 2003.

The New York Times reported that Inhofe convened a hearing on global warming that included only that "small core of researchers who insist there's no evidence for human-centered warming of any sort." (8/4/03) The Times then quoted Dr. Rogers A. Philips, director of the Center for Science and Technology Research at the University of California, noting "We are on the brink of having Republican science and Democrat science."

Fortune magazine, 1/26/04, reports on Global Warming as the Pentegon's nightmare. "The threat that has riveted their attention is this: Global warming, rather than causing gradual, centuries-spanning change, may be pushing the climate to a tipping point." more

In late October Inhofe said:

"the environmental extremists and their liberal friends in the press would have you believe that President Bush does not have a good environmental record, and he has the best record than any president in history."


Clean Air Watch Assails EPA Soot Decision - Agency Ignores Its Own Science Advisers, Clean Air Watch, September 21, 2006

Onward Christian "Science", Talk To Action, June 7, 2006

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him, New York Times, January 29, 2006

Ignoring Science on Clean Air, New York Times, January 17, 2006

Republicans Accused of Witch-Hunt against Climate Change Scientists, UK Guardian, August 30, 2005

Senator James Inhofe: "In February, 20 U.S. Nobel laureates denounced the Bush administration's political manipulations of science. But if Bush is bad, Inhofe is a kind of scientific Attila the Hun," writes Chris Mooney in Earth Last (The American Prospect, 05.07.04). "James Inhofe proves 'flat Earth' doesn't refer to Oklahoma." "If Inhofe is out of step with science, he's right in line with his conservative and pro-business constituency."

President Bush: The Bush administration is proposing that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have final authority on

"scientific and technical evaluations - known as peer reviews - of all major government rules, plans, proposed regulations and pronouncements." (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1/11/04).

This enormous policy shift would also put the OMB in charge of how much information the public should be given regarding the "release of emergency declarations from the federal agencies responsible for public health, safety, and the environment."

The following article, "George W. Bush's War on Nature" warns of the danger of trusting ideology over science. "Republicans are pushing the most radical assault on the environment in modern times. But history warns of catastrophe for leaders who trust ideology over science." more

New EPA Mercury Rule Omits Conflicting Data, Washington Post, March 22, 2005

Put a Tiger In Your Think Tank, Mother Jones, May/June 2005 issue:

ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe.

Kan. Debate Challenges Science Itself, Associated Press, May 15, 2005

Government Shirked Its Duty to Wild Fish, a Judge Rules, New York Times, May 27, 2005:

A federal judge in Oregon ruled Thursday that the Bush administration had arbitrarily limited and skewed its analysis of the harm that 14 federal dams cause to endangered Columbia and Snake River salmon and steelhead.

Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming, New York Times, June 8, 2005:

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

U.S. Pressure Weakens G-8 Climate Plan, Washington Post, June 17, 2005

Political Appointees Pollute Waters at Ocean Agency, PEER, June 28, 2005

Science Ignored, Again, New York Times, October 14, 2006

States Rights and the Environment

From the Los Angeles Times: by staff writer, Elizabeth Shorgun:

No recent president has been quicker than George W. Bush to embrace the virtues of state and local control. But when it comes to the environment, William Becker discovered, that commitment can evaporate when state regulation would be tougher on industry than federal rules.

Becker, who represents administrators of state air-pollution programs in Washington, met with White House officials last month to appeal to them not to weaken the Clean Air Act.

He used the administration's own rhetoric about the value of local decision making to support his case. Surely, he said, the administration would not stand in the way of states that wanted to enforce tougher clean-air rules on utilities and major polluters.


"My argument was totally ignored," said Becker, executive director of the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Assn. of Local Air Pollution Control Officials. "They talk about states' rights, but they take away key tools states have needed to clean up the air."

Becker's experience reflects a pattern apparent throughout the Bush administration's implementation of environmental policy, according to state officials and environmental activists. When state and local interests collide with what industry wants, these activists and officials say, the administration has tossed its states' rights ideology out the window. "We've seen a dramatic curtailment of states' rights," Becker said. more

"The States' Rights Principle" by Gene Karpinski, Executive Director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group:

"The record shows that the Bush administration trumpets states' rights when strong federal law displeases its campaign contributors but quickly and conveniently abandons this principle when the interests of its corporate cronies are threatened by state governments acting to safeguard the environment and consumers." more

Next Page
Last updated: October-2006