Jump to content

User:Bdallman/Sandbox: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Bdallman (talk | contribs)
Reference Fix
Bdallman (talk | contribs)
2nd paragraph due
Line 1: Line 1:
I love writing Wikipedia articles.
I love writing Wikipedia articles.


The League of Conservation Voters or the LCV, a nonprofit organization, is the independent political voice for environmental issues. They fight for environmental policies and elect pro environmental candidates to enforce the policies. Protecting Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a high priority for the environmental community. No other area in the United States has such a range of wildlife. The Bush administration centered their national energy strategy on drilling in the Arctic Refuge. The senate used filibusters, or an attempt to extend the debate, on the Arctic drilling; but these were avoided by the administration when they attached drilling funds into the budget bills. In 2007 the budget resolution had measures to include Arctic drilling as part of the budget. On March 16, 2006 the resolution passed in the Senate by a 51-49 vote, with the pro-environment voting no. The pro-conservation House Republicans joined the Democrats to make sure Arctic drilling was not in the house budget resolution. The bills were never brought up again in conference. The Arctic refuge is still protected.
The League of Conservation Voters or the LCV, a nonprofit organization, is the independent political voice for environmental issues. They fight for environmental policies and elect pro environmental candidates to enforce the policies. Protecting Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a high priority for the environmental community. No other area in the United States has such a range of wildlife. The Bush administration centered their national energy strategy on drilling in the Arctic Refuge. The senate used filibusters, or an attempt to extend the debate, on the Arctic drilling; but these were avoided by the administration when they attached drilling funds into the budget bills. In 2007 the budget resolution had measures to include Arctic drilling as part of the budget. On March 16, 2006 the resolution passed in the Senate by a 51-49 vote, with the pro-environment voting no. The pro-conservation House Republicans joined the Democrats to make sure Arctic drilling was not in the house budget resolution. The bills were never brought up again in conference. The Arctic refuge is still protected.


<ref>[www.lcvscorecard.org/]</ref>
<ref>[www.lcvscorecard.org/]</ref>

Bush administration's environmental record

Bush administration's spending on nuclear weapons stockpile

As of April 13, 2004, the Bush administration has spent twelve times more on nuclear weapons research and production than on nonproliferation efforts to retrieve, secure and dispose of nuclear weapons materials world wide. According to the NRDC analysis of the Department of Energy Programs, the administration is funding costly projects that are "irrelevant to the defense and security challenges" that confront the nation. Much of the spending on these projects, costing $6.5 billion, go towards the research and production of weapons. The current level of annual U.S. spending (in 2004 dollars) exceeds the amount during the Cold War. The Nation spent $4.2 billion on the average year of the Cold War as compared to the $6.5 billion annual U.S. spending in 2004. The Cold War was a time spand of 43 years. Over the next five years the Bush administration plans to modernize the nuclear weapons stock pile and laboratory production complex which will cost $36.6 billion. The Administration also is investing $485 million into the development of nuclear earth penetrating warhead. (See http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/earthpenetrating-weapons.html for more information on Earth Penetrating Weapons). The senior policy analyst at NRDC's nuclear program and author of the report, Christopher Paine said that "Spending billions to extend the life of thousands of Cold War nuclear warheads is a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars. The government could keep a small fraction of those weapons in the stockpile and spend the rest of the money to make the world safer by eliminating nuclear threats."

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/nuclear_weapons.asp

Revision as of 03:13, 18 October 2007

I love writing Wikipedia articles.

    The League of Conservation Voters or the LCV, a nonprofit organization, is the independent political voice for environmental issues.  They fight for environmental policies and elect pro environmental candidates to enforce the policies.  Protecting Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a high priority for the environmental community. No other area in the United States has such a range of wildlife.  The Bush administration centered their national energy strategy on drilling in the Arctic Refuge. The senate used filibusters, or an attempt to extend the debate, on the Arctic drilling; but these were avoided by the administration when they attached drilling funds into the budget bills. In 2007 the budget resolution had measures to include Arctic drilling as part of the budget.  On March 16, 2006 the resolution passed in the Senate by a 51-49 vote, with the pro-environment voting no. The pro-conservation House Republicans joined the Democrats to make sure Arctic drilling was not in the house budget resolution.  The bills were never brought up again in conference. The Arctic refuge is still protected.

[1]

Bush administration's environmental record

Bush administration's spending on nuclear weapons stockpile

As of April 13, 2004, the Bush administration has spent twelve times more on nuclear weapons research and production than on nonproliferation efforts to retrieve, secure and dispose of nuclear weapons materials world wide. According to the NRDC analysis of the Department of Energy Programs, the administration is funding costly projects that are "irrelevant to the defense and security challenges" that confront the nation. Much of the spending on these projects, costing $6.5 billion, go towards the research and production of weapons. The current level of annual U.S. spending (in 2004 dollars) exceeds the amount during the Cold War. The Nation spent $4.2 billion on the average year of the Cold War as compared to the $6.5 billion annual U.S. spending in 2004. The Cold War was a time spand of 43 years. Over the next five years the Bush administration plans to modernize the nuclear weapons stock pile and laboratory production complex which will cost $36.6 billion. The Administration also is investing $485 million into the development of nuclear earth penetrating warhead. (See http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/earthpenetrating-weapons.html for more information on Earth Penetrating Weapons). The senior policy analyst at NRDC's nuclear program and author of the report, Christopher Paine said that "Spending billions to extend the life of thousands of Cold War nuclear warheads is a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars. The government could keep a small fraction of those weapons in the stockpile and spend the rest of the money to make the world safer by eliminating nuclear threats."

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/nuclear_weapons.asp

  1. ^ [www.lcvscorecard.org/]