Bush and the Environment

- Washington post article Bush to Protect Three Areas in Pacific by Juliet Eilperin - Jan 6 2009

- Salon.com Bush's seven deadly environmental sins by Katharine Mieszkowski - Nov 8 2008

These two articles highlight the pros and cons of Bush's environmental policies. On the one hand, few presidents have viewed the natural world with such a cold, industrial perspective, and on the other, no single person has protected so much marine area in all of history. Though the articles analyzed these facts, they did little to hypothesize why. I think that there are several possible reasons for his change of heart, though the most likely is that Bush does not want to be remembered solely by his appalling failures, so he preserved a vast swathe of aquatic territory in the twilight hours of his administration. This strikingly out-of-character behavior could also be because he wanted to diminish Barack Obama's impending achievements, or because he simply realized that the natural world is a vital and irreplaceable resource, both materialistically and metaphysically.

Whatever his motives, preserving 195,280 miles of rich and delicate ecosystem is a phenomenal act and deserves proportional recognition. However, in the words of Vikki Spruill (president and chief executive of the Ocean Conservancy): "This move, by itself, is a really positive move. The net gain is a question we will have to address years from now". Obviously this preservation must be weighed against the ample body of damning policies G.W. Bush has managed to accumulate around his person if we are to truly measure his contribution to human society (and all the other mammals, fish, plants, fungus, and insects that have the misfortune of sharing this planet with us).