|
||||
  
 
 |
Bush, Cheney spell disaster for environment By
Doug Smeath
The environmental interest is no exception. Talk to Jim Steitz, one of the co-presidents of Utah State University's Ecological Coalition of Students and he'll tell you, as he wrote in an article for next month's issue of the College of Natural Resources' newsletter, this election has "huge environmental repercussions." If Bush wins, Steitz wrote, "I suggest you quickly tour your favorite woodlots, public lands, and clean rivers; it could be your last chance." Log on to the Internet newsgroup sci.environment. The political debates are seemingly endless: Is a vote for Green Party nominee Ralph Nader a wasted vote? Is a vote for Democrat Al Gore good enough for the environment? Where, in the grand ecological scheme of things, does this election rank? But through it all, environmentalists are saying the same thing: George W. Bush is Mother Nature's mortal enemy. Yet all along, Bush touts his environmental plans as though he, as president, would single-handedly be able to undo the centuries of disrepair mankind has left the earth in. Not only is a Republican talking about the environment - a rarity indeed - but he is also dwelling on it as though it were a strongpoint in his campaign. At Bush's campaign Web site, his environmental policy is presented as genius incarnate: "[P]rosperity is meaningless without a healthy environment," the Web site says, but environmental policy must be left up to state and local governments as much as possible. A fine idea. There's just one problem. When left up to the states, much of America's environment may end up like Texas. Then again, if left up to a federal government run by Bush, the governor who led Texas to its current state of environmental disarray, all of America's environment may end up like Texas. What's so bad about Texas? Oh, just its air, water and urban sprawl, among other things. Under Bush, Houston overtook Los Angeles last year as the American city with the most air pollution, according to a story that ran last week in The Washington Post. And though he has talked about wanting to improve the environment, Bush favors weakening enforcement of the Clean Air Act, saying, "I don't think you can legislate clean air and clean water," according to the Sierra Club's voter's guide Web site. Bush's record isn't much better on clean water protection. As governor of Texas, he weakened water-quality standards for Lake Rayburn, the Nueces River Tidal area and Pease River, and nationally Texas has the most violators of discharge limits, and the third highest amount of industrial toxins dumped into surface waters, according to the Sierra Club site. The Sierra Club site also says Bush opposes federal regulations to curb urban sprawl, and the governor has watched Texas lose more prime farm land to sprawl than any other state. Bush and his running mate Dick Cheney are both successful oilmen, raising the serious question: Will they be willing to fight against big companies in the name of conservation? Will they fight against excessive oil drilling and force environmentally threatening industries to be as responsible as possible? Probably not. The online consumer watchdog organization Corporate Watch calls Cheney's environmental record "dismal." When Cheney served in the House of Representatives from the state of Wyoming, he cosponsored a bill that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska to oil drilling and voted against the Clean Water Act, according to the Corporate Watch site. Yet he has voted against measures that would increase oil drilling in Wyoming, showing that getting re-elected is more important to him than protecting the environment. Even when Bush tries to formulate proactive environmental policy, it seems he and Cheney can't agree. Though Bush's Web site says he supports tax incentives for landowners who voluntarily behave in an environmentally responsible manner, Cheney seems to think such incentives are silly. According to the Oct. 10 installment of Daily Grist, an environmental newsletter distributed via e-mail, Cheney said of Gore's environmental proposals, "You have a solar panel on your house, you get tax relief. If you drive a solar-powered car, you get tax relief. That's goofy." Gore, on the other hand, has a rich environmental record. Steitz called his breakthrough environmental book Earth in the Balance "perhaps the major reason [I'm] an environmental activist." And it's true: Gore can honestly be called an environmentalist, one whose knowledge of the facts and comfortable use of data are considered by many environmentalists to be an inspiration. Gore's work fighting for the environment, often despite enormous opposition, is too extensive to list completely, though his campaign Web site attempts to. But whether fighting for clean air, a reduction of global warming, protection of wilderness or any of a number of other environmental issues, Gore has consistently done so without bending or wavering. In the end, the condition of our environment is of vital importance. It will determine the happiness and prosperity of future generations - and perhaps whether those future generations will even exist at all. In this election, probably more than ever before, the future of environmental protection is in a precarious state. If Bush is elected, and if the Republicans retain control of Congress, all three branches of government will be inadequately equipped to protect Earth's natural resources, as legislative redistricting and Supreme Court appointments are both just around the corner. Gore's record on the environment alone is reason enough to elect him to the presidency. If he is defeated, it's hard to say how bad the world's environment will become.
|
Archived Months:
January
1999 January
2000 |
||