Environment Activists Weary of Bush, Wary of Kerry
By Kari Lydersen
01 November, 2004
The
New Standard
During
his time as president, George W. Bush has pledged to bring the country
"healthy forests" and "clear skies."
But almost across
the board, environmental groups and advocates are outraged at what they
call the double-speak involved in the so-called "Healthy Forest
Initiative" Bush signed this year, which actually allows for increased
logging under the guise of fire prevention, and of the "Clear Skies
Initiative," which would gut provisions of the Clean Air Act and
relax enforcement of pollution controls on coal-burning power plants
and other industries.
Numerous environmental
groups have called Bush the worst president ever when it comes to protecting
natural resources and the environment.
During his presidency,
Bush has eviscerated protections for forests, rivers, lakes, clean air
and endangered species and other wildlife. He has significantly relaxed
governmental regulation of industry pollution, and he has hobbled the
Environmental Protection Agencys ability to go after polluters
by cutting its staff and budget.
Even many Republicans
say they are planning to vote against Bush because of his record on
the environment.
"The fact that
the Republican Party has turned its back on the environment is very
troubling," said Jo Johnson, co-director of the group River Runners
for Wilderness in Boulder, Co. and a member of a newly formed chapter
of the national group Republicans for Environmental Protection. "I
know therell be a lot of Republicans who vote for Kerry."
In contrast to Bush,
John Kerry, who helped organize the first Earth Day in Massachusetts
in 1970, served as delegate to the Kyoto global warming talks in 1997
and the Hague climate talks in 2000, is considered an environmental
champion by many.
Kerry has won endorsements
from large environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and the
League of Conservation Voters for his support for liberal ecology policies.
For instance, Kerry
opposed the Bush administrations attempts to open up the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. He also voted in 2003 to eliminate
subsidies for factory farms that pollute air and groundwater, and in
2002 he opposed attempts to delay the regulation of hydraulic fracturing,
which the Sierra Club calls "a damaging new form of oil and gas
drilling that poses a serious pollution threat."
And while Bush did
not push for renewal of the "polluter pays" provision of Superfund
-- a program that allows the government to clean up extremely toxic
sites and try to collect the cost from the responsible parties -- Kerry
did.
Kerry also proposes
a plan to protect and restore the Great Lakes, by, among other things,
blocking water diversion from the lakes, clamping down on mercury emissions
from power plants near the Lakes, cleaning up toxic spots in and around
the lakes and combating invasive species in the Lakes and surrounding
areas.
Nevertheless, many
environmentalists say even Kerrys record and proposals leave a
lot to be desired. Tim Hermach of the group Native Forest Council in
Eugene, Oregon says Kerry is little better than Bush in his book.
"If you care
about reality versus rhetoric, they are the same," said Hermach.
"Kerry also supports logging, he just says he is more reasonable.
He supported free trade, he supported [Clintons] Northwest Forest
Plan," which allowed for some logging in areas with endangered
species.
Hermach does not
like the fact that major environmental groups are supporting Kerry.
"When theres
a Democrat in office the big environmental groups are emasculated,"
he said. "I loved the FDR Democrats and the Teddy Roosevelt Republicans;
they saw the danger to our country that the timber industry poses. But
the Democratic Party now is compromising away our forests every year.
These arent things you can get back."
George Nickas, executive
director of the group Wilderness Watch, said both parties have been
compromised by money and influence.
"On both sides
of the aisle they are very beholden to special interests," said
Nickas, who is based in Missoula, Montana. "Our job is not going
to be easy no matter who wins, because of the corrupting influence big
money has had on our public lands."
Both Nickas and
Johnson point out that along with the traditional anti-environment forces
like the timber, mining and cattle industries, the commercial recreation
industry is one of the major players in this era. This includes expensive,
often motorized recreation such as snowmobiling, off-road driving and
commercial guided tours. These interests, which they describe as highly
organized and powerful, advocate opening wilderness areas to motorized
vehicles or boats and generally gutting wilderness protections. Nickas
notes that both through money and personal connections, this industry
has a lot of pull with both parties.
"You see the
influence of commercial recreation beginning to have a huge impact on
our public land and policy," he said. "[Politicians] have
started moving away from the timber and grazing interests and dancing
with the commercial [recreation] industry, which is different than the
others but potentially as destructive or more destructive."
Third party candidates
have also gained support from environmentalists.
As his partys
name would imply, Green Party candidate David Cobb promises a strong
stance on environmental protections and conservation, as does independent
candidate Ralph Nader.
"The epidemic
of silent environmental violence continues," says the Nader for
President web site. "Whether it is the 65,000 Americans who die
every year from air pollution
or the 100,000 Americans whose demise
comes from occupational toxic exposure or the cruel environmental racism
where the poor and their often asthmatic children live in pollution
sinks located near toxic hot spots."
Cobbs campaign
web site lists 10 key points, which include slowing global warming,
energy independence and healthy forests. On the matter of energy, the
site reads: "The technology now exists to bring us to a new level
of energy efficiency, reliability, safety, and national security. Cobb
[and running mate Patricia] LaMarche call for more public transit, better
fuel efficiency for cars, and most of all political leadership that
isn't beholden to corporations like Enron and Exxon."
Corporate Contributions
and Forest Erosion
According to the
Center for Responsive Politics, a government watchdog group that tracks
the political effects of campaign contributions, the forestry and forest
products industry donated almost $3 million to Republicans this election
cycle, with $579,342 of it going straight to the Bush-Cheney campaign.
In contrast, the
Democrats have received 20 percent of that amount: $734,579, with $58,850
going to Kerry-Edwards. Still, the Kerry campaign is the third largest
recipient of forest industry funding, after Bush and Representative
Greg Walden (R-Oregon).
A July 2004 report
by the group Common Cause in Oregon, ground zero of the struggle over
logging, catalogues donations to the Republican Party by timber interests
this presidential season. It notes that Bushs major donors include
the Columbia Helicopters company, which does helicopter-based logging,
and the Rough and Ready Lumber company. Rough and Ready and individuals
associated with it donated at least $27,450 to Bush and the GOP since
2000, the report notes, and Columbia donated $118,750. In all, fourteen
Oregon timber companies donated over $670,000 to Bush and the GOP since
2000, as well as hundreds of thousands more in soft money to other Republican
candidates.
And critics note
that Bushs Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources
and Environment, Mark Rey, was previously a lobbyist for the paper and
logging industries.
Measures taken by
the Bush administration that benefit the timber industry include passing
the Healthy Forests Initiative; exempting some forests from the "roadless
rule," which protects millions of acres of roadless forest across
the country; repeal of protections for old growth forest, wildlife and
water sources in the Northwest Forest Plan instituted by Clinton; and
promotion of what the report calls "the largest federal timber
sale in modern history": the Biscuit Fire Recovery Project in southwest
Oregon.
Bush billed the
Healthy Forests Initiative as a measure to "reduce the threat of
destructive wildfires," saying the legislation is based on "sound
science." The basis for the plan is that more logging will reduce
the threat of fires; Bushs web site euphemistically says the act
will "reduce the complexity of environmental analysis allowing
federal land agencies to use the best science available to actively
manage land under their protection."
Kerry missed the
vote on Healthy Forests, even though he has said the initiative "takes
a chainsaw to public forests in the name of protecting them." But
he also told the Wall Street Journal, that he advocates "a vibrant,
strong [logging] industry" and that he liked "a lot of parts
of [the Healthy Forests Initiative], but there are some big loopholes."
Kerry was a co-sponsor
of the bill creating the "roadless rule" when it was implemented
by Clinton, and he has promised to enforce the rule, which he says Bush
"abandoned," soon after taking office.
Oil and Fuel
Economy
The Bush administration
has been widely criticized for aggressively seeking access to oil from
the Middle East to Venezuela to Alaska, rather than aggressively moving
to reduce the countrys dependence on oil.
Bush received $2,313,440
from the oil and gas industry while Kerry received $253,650, according
to the Center for Responsive Politics. Overall Democrats got 19 percent
of the oil and gas lobbys money and Republicans got 81 percent,
from donors such as Exxon Mobil, Valero Energy and Koch Industries.
Bushs campaign
web site states that he will protect the environment by increasing fuel
efficiency in cars and expanding the use of ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen
technology and renewable energy. Among other things he promises to offer
a $4,000 tax credit toward the purchase of hybrid cars and invest $1.4
billion over ten years to make homes more energy efficient.
But critics say
he has taken few meaningful steps to promote renewable energy and fuel
and energy efficiency.
According to the
Sierra Club, "Despite a very modest increase in SUV and light truck
fuel economy standards the administration has failed to institute any
meaningful improvements in efficiency measures, fuel economy standards
or the renewable energy portfolio."
Kerry has been a
vocal proponent of energy efficient vehicles.
During an Earth
Day speech in 2003, he said, "I believe we should set a national
goal of having 20 percent of our electricity come from domestic alternative
and renewable sources by the year 2020
We can cut our dependence
on foreign oil by building more efficient cars and SUVs and creating
a national market for the biofuels grown on farms across the country."
In the Senate last
year, Kerry voted for setting a goal of 100,000 hydrogen-powered cars
on the road by 2010. In 1999 he voted against defunding solar and renewable
energy sources, and last year he voted for keeping the issue of climate
change in the EPAs State of the Environment reports.
Coal and Clean
Air
With $251,759, Bush
was the top recipient of contributions from the coal mining industry
this election cycle. Kerry has not received substantial funds from the
mining industry. Overall, the Republicans carved out 91 percent of donations
from the coal mining industry.
Bush promises to
support "clean coal technology" with an investment of $2 billion
over ten years. His web site says he will "implement a market-based
approach to cutting air pollution that will create a nearly $50 billion
technology and services market for clean coal rather than forcing a
shift to other fuels to meet air standards."
While "clean
coal" might sound like an oxymoron, coal-burning power plants can
be outfitted with technology including "scrubbers" that reduce
their emissions by as much as 90 percent, a move advocated by groups
including the American Lung Association. However, public health and
environmental advocates generally think companies will only implement
this expensive technology if forced to do so by stricter anti-pollution
laws, not through subsidies alone.
Critics say Bushs
investment in "clean coal" is just an excuse to subsidize
the coal industry and continue weakening clean air protections.
They point to the
Bush administrations changes to a provision of the Clean Air Act
known as "New Source Review" which required older power plants
-- at first given leeway under the Clean Air Act -- to come into compliance
with the Acts standards when they updated, repaired or expanded
their existing facilities significantly. In 2003, the administration
changed the language and implementation of New Source Review so that
power plants, oil refineries, chemical manufacturers and other companies
are not as bound to meet the standards.
Environmentalists
have also criticized Bushs proposed alternative to the Clean Air
Act. The language of the Clear Skies Initiative, which has been stagnating
in Congress due to a lack of support, disguises the act as a measure
to reduce air pollution. But in reality it "repeals and weakens
public health protections of the Clean Air Act, diluting standards while
extending the time in which companies are required to comply with reductions,"
as the Sierra Clubs web site describes it.
Though Clear Skies
does require companies to reduce emissions, it is much weaker than the
Clean Air Act, which it supplants. By 2020, it is estimated Clear Skies
will have allowed 42 million tons more emissions than the Clean Air
Act would have permitted.
In addition to air
quality concerns associated with coal burning power plants, conservationists
point out that coal mining itself is a dirty business with drastic environmental
effects. The use of a type of strip mining called "mountain top
removal" in Kentucky, West Virginia and Pennsylvania has had dramatic
effects on local environments.
As entire mountains
are shaved off, their tops dumped as rubble into the valleys below,
mountain top removal is forever changing the landscapes and the ecosystems
of some of the countrys most beautiful regions.
Groups have been
challenging this type of mining, saying it violates the Clean Water
Act by choking streams and rivers with the remains of mountains as well
as highly toxic waste from the coal mining process. But the Bush administration
has sought to counter that movement by changing the definitions of banned
waste in the Act itself.
Nuclear Waste
Meanwhile Bush has
also pushed for more development of nuclear energy and has advocated
for a nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Critics
say the implementation of Yucca Mountain would encourage more development
of nuclear energy as a whole and put people near the storage site and
along transport routes at risk in the case of an accident or terrorist
attack.
Though he voted
to consider Yucca Mountain as a nuclear storage site in 1987, Kerry
has since vocally opposed the idea. On an August swing through Las Vegas,
90 miles from the proposed site, Kerry promised his opposition to nuclear
waste at Yucca Mountain.
"Yucca Mountain
to me is a symbol of the recklessness and the arrogance for which they
are willing to proceed with respect to the safety issues and concerns
of the American people," the Washington Post quoted Kerry as saying.
"When John Kerry is president, there will be no nuclear waste at
Yucca."
Meanwhile vice presidential
candidate John Edwards has voted in favor of storage at Yucca Mountain
in the past, though now he says he opposes it.
International
Scene
On a global level,
Bush pulled out of the Kyoto climate treaty that included 38 other industrialized
nations and aimed to reduce the worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases.
He also supported
the World Trade Organization (WTO) and other free trade agreements that
supersede countries own environmental protections. Through the
WTO and under terms of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement,
passed during President Clintons tenure), corporations can sue
governments for interfering with their commerce in order to safeguard
environmental or social interests.
Kerry unsuccessfully
proposed including environmental protections in Fast Track trade negotiation
authority legislation. Nevertheless, he voted for the bill even without
such protections, in order grant the president authority on furthering
trade deals. He also voted for various two-way and other free trade
arrangements set to undercut environmental protections.
Environmental groups
lament that despite important legislation pending on environmental and
health issues, overall, the environment hasnt been a major focus
during the election.
"It should
be [a larger issue in the campaign] because if we dont have the
environment, what do we have?" asked Johnson, who is heavily involved
in a campaign to keep motorized boats and vehicles out of the Grand
Canyon. "Its where we live."
"What are we
without the wilderness?" asks Nickas. "Our world and our lives
would be different without it. We have a commitment to protect it for
future generations."
© 2004 The NewStandard. See
reprint policy.