Flaw of Environmental Policy

[politicomind]

The President resides in the White House for no more than eight years. Yet, reforms that would improve the environment, like tree-planting, air quality control, water quality control, and dumping restrictions, take years to show real benefits, often more years than he is in office. The President in his interest to get re-elect must jocky with concerns that are more immediate such as national defense, health-care, state pensions, taxation, and economic policy. So long as we have eight year President's we will have a lack of concern for the environment. The only President that would be keenly concerned with improving the environment is one that would be in office for at least twenty years, so that once the environment is in better condition, he could tout himself as the environmental savior.

 

[dragonslayer]

Please Lord,

don't allow anything to slow down getting bush our of office. He has ****ed up our environment, our nation, and Iraq enough. only by getting rid of him and the right wing neocons can America and the world hope to survive.


Please Lord, Amen

 

[dragonslayer]

I may be flip here in this post, but i pray almost this same prayer everynight.

the man is gun happy nut. He seems to like ordering people to their deaths, and I know the man want to use Atomic Weapons.

 

[Amused]

Yet, reforms that would improve the environment, like tree-planting, air quality control, water quality control, and dumping restrictions, take years to show real benefits, often more years than he is in office. The only President that would be keenly concerned witThe President in his interest to get re-elect must jocky with concerns that are more immediate such as national defense, health-care, state pensions, taxation, and economic policy.

First, a lot of these issues show relatively immediate effects. If one makes water control tighter, and checks a year later, the water quality is better.

But on a broader spectrum, what does not take more than 8 years? Peace talks can take decades (Israel-Palestine, UK-IRA, etc), so should these not be the president's concern? Missile defense has been an issue since Reagon tried to protect us from aliens. Medicare reform has been an issue since the early 90s, yet nothing has been cemented yet, and there certainly haven't been any positive effects.

improving the environment is one that would be in office for at least twenty years, so that once the environment is in better condition, he could tout himself as the environmental savior.

First, president's tout themselves as a lot of things before ANY positive benefit is seen (Bush touted himself as the education president when he got elected, and its only become more expensive with less quality). Should Kennedy have funded NASA when that money is still just showing us the terminal benefits?

There are a very few who I would like to see in power for 20 years. The current administration, and a lot of those jocking for the next one are not on that list.