Many voters will base their vote on this issue. A cleaner environment isn't important to a neocon (compassionate conservative...LOL) but it is to some conservatives and a lot of independents and liberals.
_________________
A closer look: Bush’s policies disappoint many
Environmental groups say Kerry’s voting record healthier than President’s actions
By Colleen Honigsberg
DAILY BRUIN REPORTER
chonigsberg@media.ucla.edu
With the media debate over the presidential election in full force, many students are disappointed by the lack of attention given to an issue prevalent to many -- the environment.
The voting records of George W. Bush and John Kerry show their notably different approaches toward pollution, conservation, and other environmental issues. Kerry's voting record has been much more favorable than Bush's to environmental organizations.
As the election nears, members from environmental groups say they are trying to hold the Bush administration accountable for what they consider to be its negative environmental impacts.
Dan Sullivan, the only California representative on the 10-member National Political Committee of the Sierra Club, said the Sierra Club has not officially endorsed a candidate, but that Bush's environmental record as president is abysmal.
"There is an enormous mass of areas where the Bush administration has made policies that seem to be negative to the environment," Sullivan said. "They seem to favor short-term consumption over long-term consequences."
Similarly, the League of Conservation Voters gave Bush a failing grade on his environmental report card, the first president to receive a failing grade since the league began scoring in 1970. Kerry received a 96 percent for the same report card.
Many Republicans feel the criticism of Bush's environmental policies is unfair.
"Being in his position, he has to form a compromise between the economy and the environment," said Jennifer Otter, the chairman of California Students for Bush. "He has to be pragmatic."
Otter noted how some of Bush's environmental policies, such as "Clear Skies" – a policy which set up a market system of emission caps and trades for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury – are good for the economy because the companies do not have to spend large amounts of money now, but can instead wait until better economic times.
Bush analysts have predicted "Clear Skies" will cut air pollution by 70 percent over the next 15 years.
But Democrats often contend this claim and say the initiative would actually allow pollution to increase. Although it significantly decreases the amount of pollution allowed per million dollars of gross domestic product, they say the overall GDP will rise so much that it will counteract the decrease.
Sean Hecht, the executive director of UCLA's Environmental Law Center, also noted that while a market system of caps and trade for pollution can be productive environmentally and economically, it can also be problematic when dealing with a pollutant such as mercury.
Mercury, he said, tends to concentrate in hot spots near the place it was released. If each location is not regulated individually, some communities would bear a disproportionate amount.
The Bush administration has also come under fire for its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement which would have required the United States to reduce emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels during the period between 2008 and 2012.
Bush has said he does not support the protocol because it would cause great economic harm and because of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution.
In 1997, the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which declared the United States would not ratify the Kyoto protocol unless it involved meaningful contributions from developing countries such as India and China. The resolution passed with a vote of 95-0, including a vote of support from Kerry.
No matter who wins the election, many people now agree that the Kyoto Protocol is a lost cause because of Byrd-Hagel and because the protocol would require emissions reductions that might have been feasible in 1997, but are not in 2004.
Kerry has voiced his support for some sort of international treaty. He has also said he did not intend to kill the protocol with his vote of support for Byrd-Hagel, but had instead wanted to work with the protocol and fix some potential problems.
Bush has also been accused of loosening the environmental regulations already in place at the beginning of his administration by changing the interpretation of pre-existing laws.
"The Bush administration has a very sophisticated public relations approach. 'Clear Skies,' 'Healthy Forests,' it all sounds really good," Sullivan said.
"(But) the changes are very subtle; they're usually a change in a regulation rather than a law and are announced on Friday afternoons," he added.
dailybruin.ucla.edu |
