At the ristk of being labeled a "right-wing wacko", I must jump in here.
First of all Bush did not raise the permissible level of arsenic in drinking water, all he did was left it the level it was at for the last 20 years, despite all the b.s. on various internet sites to the contrary. The prior administration was considering making a huge change in the amount of allowable aresenic in drinking. One that would have made most spring water (including Perrie) no longer suitable for consumption by people in the U.S. In other words, it is very disingenuous of people to claim Bush made our water less safe.
Second, the democratic governors of Oregon and Washington encourqged the exporting of timber to Asia by the timber companies. There was a lot of timber sent that was cut on state timber lands in each of these two states. And both state's governors and the democratic state land managers in both states opposed any federal restrictions on the exporting of raw timber. Something about restricting raw timber exports having a negative impact of the economy of rural Washington and Oregon.
Third, the large timber companies were strangely silent on the spotted owl. They had cut most of the harvestable timber from their own timber lands and sent it oversees as raw timber and this provided a very nice reason to the mill workers and timber workers who lost their jobs over the lack of timber. Many of the timber companies created wholely-owned subsidaries to seperate their timber lands from their mills. This let it them lose money on paper in the outdated mills, close the mills without government opposition, get government loans and tax consessions to build a new mill in another town, and get rather large tax write-offs for the supposed losses that resulted from "buying" timber at high, market prices from what used to be one large company before the creation of the "wholely-owned subsidaries. And this move to wholely-owned subsidaries was done with the blessing of the administration in power during the 1990's.
Fourth, the Bush administration has simply made a change that allows older, out-dated powerplants and manufacturing facilities to update the equipment in the plants without having to meet the latest, state-of-the-art polution control equipment at the same time. This means that if a turbine wears out (of course we know they never do) the power company can replace the old ones with newer, more efficient ones (instead of the older design it had been using) without also having to install the latest polution control technology as well. The net result, the air is not polluted anymore than it was and the plant can produce more power with the same amount of pollution as before. This has the net effect of more energy with the same pollution level. This is hardly increasing the amount of air pollution.
Let us not forget that the U.S. has the most stringent air and water pollution standards in the world and that they were implimented during Tricky Dick's administration, including the creation of the EPA.
Fifth, several folks in the forum condemned the use of a wind power farm in Mass. This is a non-polluting source of energy that has been in use for quite a while in Mont. Why is it not OK to have it on a coastal island in Mass.? What better way to be environmentally friendly than to use non-polluting, and non-river damming methods to produce power?