On February 4th 2004, Bush’s administration announced that the 2005 budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will go down by 7 percent. The Bush administration has had a very hard time during these past two years because the decisions that they have made, have had many negative consequences. From 9/11 to the war on Iraq, Bush has made many decisions that personally I have not agreed on and still do not agree. Now with his decision to cut down the budget on the environmental protection of this country, he is committing another great mistake because this is something that deserves great attention and it is being put aside.

The “EPA’s mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment – air, water, and land – upon which life depends. For 30 years, EPA has been working for a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people” (www.epa.gov). The decision that has been made due to the limit on the budget is to dedicate more money to clearing toxic waste sites and less to clean water projects. There are people like the EPA administrator Mike Leavitt that agree with this decision on more money being spent to remove the toxic sludge from the Great Lakes and to work on making school buses burn less fuel. Money will go to funds like the Superfund who’s “cleanup process begins with site discovery or notification to EPA of possible releases of hazardous substances” (www.epa.gov).

As always there is an opposing side to the topic, in which people like Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, thinks this new budget is basically an insult. The money that is now used for toxic waste cleanup is taking money away from projects like sewage and septic system upgrades. The National Environmental Trust (NET) also opposes to this new budget because they do not feel that money should be taken away from one project to another. What criteria is the Bush administration using to give more importance to one problem rather than the other? Why not give more money to both the toxic waste and water issues?

Many people look up to the United States as a role model since it is one of the most powerful countries in the world. It makes me sad to see that there is no initiative on the protection of the environment; rather all attention is given to wars and weapons. It is about time that people and especially governments should start getting more interested in environmental topics before it is too late. This debate between giving more money to one issue or the other could be avoided if more funding and importance was given to environmental topics in general.

The fact that the budget was reduced for next year creates a big concern because it will be another year were the environmental aspect will be put aside on the political agenda. The solution to this problem as was stated before is not dividing the money between two causes, but spending more money on both. Obviously there is a big concern on both issues and neither of them is more important than the other, maybe it is about time the Bush administration should start working on the internal problems of this country rather than problems of other countries. The United States has a lot of pressure by being a model, and this is why we should try and be the best one.

Bibliography: “About EPA.” Environmental Protection Agency. Last updated on February 26, 2004 “Bush Budget Cuts Environmental Funding by 7 Pct.” Planet Ark. Reuters News Service 2003. Story Date February 4th, 2004 “Cleanup Process.” Environmental Protection Agency. Last updated on February 26, 2004