Taken together, Bush's three pro-environmental decisions will cause the next round of progress toward clean air. Have you heard of any of them? Of course not. The media (especially Howell Raines's truth-optional New York Times) resolutely pretend these decisions do not exist.It's worth remembering, too, that Easterbrook is a one of the few green-issue journalists not entirely in thrall to junk science; in addition, he's not exactly a Bush-defender. We'd make a lot more common-sense progress on the environment if the watermelon left (green on the outside, red on the inside) didn't always rhetorically A-bomb anyone who weighed costs and benefits, proposed market-oriented solutions, or refused to buy into the ever-more-shrill environmental holocaust bit.
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
An Easterbrook Daily Double: Here he is in TNR on Democrats' claims that Bush is anti-environment. On the contrary, Easterbrook makes the implicit case that Bush is more pro-environment than Clinton (in deeds, not words):