Skip Nav
Relationships
The Bachelor's Sean and Catherine Lowe Dish Sweet Details on Their Baby-to-Be
Wedding
See the Most Stunning and Emotional Wedding Photos of 2015
Wedding Decor
47 Ways to Add Literary Charm to Your Wedding

Administration Rejects Regulating Greenhouse Gases

Click to Read

Administration Rejects Regulating Greenhouse Gases
The Bush administration has rejected regulating greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, saying it would cause too many job losses at a time when the economy is in trouble. The Environmental Protection Agency laid out a buffet of options Friday on how to reduce greenhouse gases from cars, ships, trains, power plants, factories, and refineries. But it said that it's leaving the decisions on them to the next president and the new Congress.

0 Comments
Around The Web
All-in-One Laundry Bombs
Paint Sample Crafts
Cleaning in the Dishwasher
Homemade Reusable Floor Wipes

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

Join The Conversation
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
Especially since less than .5% of greenhouse gas emissions is caused by humans.
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
I agree that leaving this to the next administration is a good thing. The longer we wait, the more data we can collect disproving this whole Human caused global warming. I don't think we'll have collected enough new data in 6 months, but it's a start.
Kimpossible Kimpossible 7 years
For those who are not fans or supporters of Bush, isn't him leaving this for the next administration a good thing? I mean really the way he would handle it (and I don't know how that would be), would it be satisfactory? So, isn't it better that he's leaving it for the next guy? Also what can seriously be done in 6 months?I'm not trying to be argumentative these are just thoughts that came to my mind when reading the comments.Oh and the final sentence in the header is confusing... But it (it being the EPA?) said that it's (again the EPA?) leaving the decisions on them to the next president and the new Congress.
Kimpossible Kimpossible 7 years
For those who are not fans or supporters of Bush, isn't him leaving this for the next administration a good thing? I mean really the way he would handle it (and I don't know how that would be), would it be satisfactory? So, isn't it better that he's leaving it for the next guy? Also what can seriously be done in 6 months? I'm not trying to be argumentative these are just thoughts that came to my mind when reading the comments. Oh and the final sentence in the header is confusing... But it (it being the EPA?) said that it's (again the EPA?) leaving the decisions on them to the next president and the new Congress.
Jude-C Jude-C 7 years
Exactly, MartiniLush!Chalk this one up to yet another problem to be left to the next administration. :OY:
Jude-C Jude-C 7 years
Exactly, MartiniLush! Chalk this one up to yet another problem to be left to the next administration. :OY:
yesteryear yesteryear 7 years
ugh. yeah, lets leave it for the next administration and congress. fantastic.
stephley stephley 7 years
The Bush Administration, leading the way on the environment...
MartiniLush MartiniLush 7 years
On the flipside, maybe implementing new technologies to reduce these gasses may CREATE jobs. (???)
raciccarone raciccarone 7 years
THAT'S BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIVE THERE!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. I'M DROWING!!!
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
I don't think we'll have to worry about NY being underwater.
raciccarone raciccarone 7 years
I hope when NY is underwater that won't lose jobs either.
Latest Love
X