´óÏó´«Ã½

It's a question I was going to ask in a week or so as the man prepares to leave office.

But following the announcement of a , it seems right to ask it now: what is the second President Bush's environmental legacy?

Reaction to this week's announcement ranged from the Pew Environment Group's to the Center for Biological Diversity's contention that in the end it meant nothing without cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

In recent weeks, the president's administration has been under fire for (an echo of ), over plans that would and - and for the "one-minute-to-midnight" nature of this rule making.

For some observers such as , the administration's record on greenhouse gas emissions means that President Bush will be remembered for "a studied, and malignant, neglect of major issues such as climate change".

But for some others, including the , the Pacific marine measures are enough to "recast his environmental record".

A few other issues that bear on the legacy question might, depending on your point of view, include:

• the impact of US overseas aid policies regarding condom use on population growth
• apparent contradictions between the US accepting scientific accounts of man-made climate change while withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol; yet, for all that, [pdf link] during Mr Bush's time in office
• US leadership of , possibly involving a partial lifting of the global hunting moratorium, but possibly also reducing the number of whales killed each year
• fisheries policies that are among the world's most progressive
• support for genetically modified foods
• support for nuclear power

So what do you think?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?