Issues in Focus - President Bush has been disappointment on the environment and energy fronts
____________________________________
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Columbian editorial writers
columbian.com
___________________________________
Editor's note: This is the third of a five-part "Issues in Focus" series in which The Columbian analyzes key issues in the presidential campaign. We will endorse a candidate on Sunday, Oct. 10, based on these and numerous other issues and factors.
Two months after George W. Bush was inaugurated as president, he decided that despite the findings of a 10-year federal study, new U.S. drinking water standards for arsenic content were too stringent. He moved to back off the limit of 10 parts of arsenic per billion parts water and restore the old limit of 50 parts per billion.
The Columbian at the time interviewed Gene Taylor, a toxicologist with the federal Environmental Protection Agency in Seattle. He told us the big reason for moving the limit from 50 to 10 "was to reduce cancer risk. It's a clearcut case of needing a lower standard for arsenic."
The administration argued that the new 10 ppb limit was not justified and that it would cost cities, states and industry too much to meet it. Bush's critics said he was motivated by ties to mining and other industry. Eventually, public outcry forced Bush to back off.
Even earlier, in his first days in office, Bush had moved to roll back Clinton-administration national forest roadless-area rules, a battle that is still raging, as evidenced by a rally in downtown Portland Friday.
Thus, the stage was set early in Bush's presidency for something well short of a peaceful co-existence between him and environmentalists, be they backpacking tree huggers or urban clean-water, clean-air guardians.
Now, in the 2004 presidential campaign, the environment is a second-tier issue for most Americans, after the Iraq war and the economy/national debt. George W. Bush, on this issue, is no match for his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry.
The headlines keep coming. In just one 23-day period this past January, for example, these newspaper headlines were clipped:
* "White house would alter streamside mining rules"
* "Bush administration limits smokestack pollution testing"
* "Plan OK'd for Alaska oil, gas development"
* "Nuclear plant contractors may get to write own rules"
* "Rule frees EPA's hands on pesticides"
Sadly, there's more
And that sampling doesn't touch better-known sagas, such as:
* The aforementioned assaults on roadless-area designations in national forests, a major concern of Republicans for Environmental Protection, which says at www.rep.org "Our work is being undone through (this) sweeping Forest Service proposal. ..."
* The proposed weakening of smokestack mercury emissions.
* The ham-handed effort to count hatchery-raised salmon along with native fish in order to meet requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
* Exemption of light trucks and SUVs from automobile fuel and pollution standards.
* Pushing for oil exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an effort whose leading opponents include Kerry.
Kerry in middle of the pack
Kerry, who has been labeled by Bush campaign Chairman Marc Racicot as an environmental "extremist," has been a backer in the Senate of major environmental forays, including efforts to raise fuel efficiency in cars, opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and espousing a goal of 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. He has a goal of achieving independence from Middle East oil in 10 years.
Still, at least by one major yardstick, Kerry is just in the middle of the pack on the environment. The most recent rating by the League of Conservation Voters (www/lcv.org)has him at only 53 percent favorable, by its standards. (Washington's two Democratic senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, scored 95 and 100 respectively. In the House of Representatives, U.S. Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, scored 90.) The LCV doesn't do legislative scores for presidents, but it's report card says Bush "has failed the environment."
But are Kerry's alternative-fuel goals and such just pie-in-the-sky campaign talk? If he is elected, will he pursue them with vigor? As a senator, he has not established much of an "inside game," fighting, and deal-making to push legislation.
As presidential candidate or White House occupant, Kerry must be more than just the anti-Bush. When the president pushes for oil exploration in the Arctic, it's hardly productive for Kerry to say Bush is doing it just for his rich contributors and oil-industry pals, as if Bush has zero interest in the average motorist getting to work.
Still, Bush doesn't begin to match Kerry's empathy to the whole notion of the outdoors, conservation, wind, wilderness, clean air and water. The senator is sounding the alarm that time is running out for Americans to make things happen in the conservation of our natural resources, enjoyment of the outdoors, and generation of power from sources besides Middle East sheiks and mullahs. |
