The two articles on bush saving the areas in the pacific and doing nothing to help the green house gases are two contrasting articles. Its hard to imagine this "largest legacy" when Bush has failed to develop clean energy sources, abandon endangered species and much more. It doesn't seem much like a legacy to me but if you put all things together he screwed up, one act to protect the marine life in specific areas might just be one.
"For a president that's not very green, ironically, this is going to be his largest legacy." was the quote that the Washington post article Bush to Protect Three Areas in Pacific portrayed. If protecting the marine life in these endangered areas are important to Bush, then why can't he protect the endangered animal life in the Arctic that we are causing?
Comparing these two articles together the Bush's seven deadly enviormental sins really pin point global issues that have been ignored, rejected, or by passed. For example "The result: eight precious years wasted in the fight against global warming as we watched carbon-dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere shoot up, while scientists' predictions about the speed and severity of global warming became increasingly dire". This article also compares what Bush did to the upcoming plans of Barrack Obama.
In all these texts are different in describing the good, and bad of what George W. Bush has done in his terms as president. Someday hopefully all of the economic problems will be solved and on the road to recovery.
No comments:
Post a Comment