W
by Melanie Rasmussen
Bundled up in fleece pants, a hooded sweatshirt and a long brown jacket, a rosy-cheeked anti-war protester shouted, "No War with Iraq," while her cold hands tightly grasped a picket sign reading NO BLOOD FOR OIL. The streets of downtown Bellingham filled with the sound of drums beating, people shouting and car horns honking.
"We come to show solidarity against the war," anti-war protester Kathy Loathers said. "There is power in numbers."
Since early November 2002, nearly 50 people have gathered together every week outside Bellingham’s Federal Building to protest the possibility of war with Iraq.
With war on the minds of people across the nation, the George W. Bush administration’s decision to reshape the course of environmental protection receives limited exposure.
From the beginning of his political career as governor of Texas, Bush has modified environmental policies concerning air, water and natural resources. But, with the possibility of war so strong, Bush’s current environmental policy modifications have gone largely unnoticed.
bush as governor of texas
In 1994, Bush was elected governor of Texas. He was re-elected in 1998, serving a total of six years in office. As governor, Bush established a conservative reputation and assembled a notorious environmental record.
"The Bush administration in Texas was masterful at the public relations game of making themselves look reasonable while engaging in radical changes in environmental policy," said Phyllis Dunham, regional field director for the Sierra Club’s Texas division. "If people looked at his environmental record they would be horrified, since Texas went from a state with generally poor quality air and water to a state with absolutely filthy air and water."
As governor, Bush introduced the idea of self-regulation in Texas. The policy allowed "grandfather polluters"— industries that predate laws such as the 1970 Clean Air Act — to be exempt from environmental regulations. Exxon, Alcoa, Shell, Enron and Amoco were among the companies exempted from certain pollution controls. Because these environmental laws allowed industries to audit their own pollution, companies that were grandfathered in managed to pollute without being held accountable for it. At the same time, Bush’s Texas administration gave the impression that it cared about the environment, Dunham said.
"They went to great lengths to allow polluters to regulate themselves entirely," she said. "The administration messed around with the environment big time, all in favor of big business."
Dunham said the industries were required to audit their own pollution records. As long as they provided these records they were guaranteed protection from public disclosure.
Bush’s environmental record as governor of Texas has followed him into his presidency.
"There is no question that the Bush administration is doing the same thing nationally as they did in Texas," Dunham said.
In his first 100 days in office, Bush cut funds for research into renewable energy sources by nearly half, backed out of the Kyoto Protocol — an international treaty on global warming — and delayed rules that lowered the level of arsenic in drinking water.
"What we are seeing on a nationwide scale is the Bush administration’s Texas environmental legacy at large," Dunham said.
healthy forests initiative
In the 2003 State of the Union, Bush told the United States that the Healthy Forests Initiative would prevent catastrophic fires that devastate communities, kill wildlife and burn millions of acres of forests.
The initiative, proposed in Medford, Ore., on August 22, 2002, is designed to stop fires by limiting fuel using thinning and prescribed burning. According to the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance Web site, an estimated 192 million acres of national forests and nearly 3,000 species could lose vital protection under the initiative.
Whatcom County Republican Central Committee Chairman Bruce Ayers said he agrees with the administration’s plan. He said he believes that thinning keeps disease from spreading. Responsibly managing forests so that they grow and flourish is a good thing, he said.
Sierra Club Washington, D.C. division’s national forest policy specialist Sean Cosgrove said, however, what the administration is proposing would allow the timber industry to do severe damage to forests.
"They are using annual forest fire seasons to roll out proposals which would effectively gut national forest laws," he said.
clear skies initiative
On Feb. 14, 2002, Bush proposed the Clear Skies Initiative that claims a 70 percent decrease in power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury by 2018 and sets nationwide emission limits on the pollutants.
In a recent press release, however, the Natural Resources Defense Council claims the initative would only allow increased emissions for a longer period of time. Natural Resources Defense Council argues that over the next decade the initative would allow two times as much sulfur dioxide, one-and-a-half times as much nitrogen dioxide and five times as much mercury than if the Clean Air Act was enforced as is.
The initiative modifies the 1970 Clean Air Act and allows industries to self-regulate their emissions — like the policy Bush introduced in Texas when he was governor.
The Clear Skies Initiative would allow companies to buy and sell emission credits, audit their own pollution records and regulate their own pollution. By meeting emissions requirements early or reducing pollution below set standards, power plants can sell pollution credits to other companies that are having difficulty meeting emission limits.
Dunham said she believes that self-regulation doesn’t work, as evidenced by Texas’ poor air quality. The system allows polluters to continue to pollute as long as they can afford to buy permits from other companies. This could lead to intense pollution near specific plants.
Ayers said he agrees with the self regulation approach.
"President Bush is doing a better job of achieving better air quality by partnering with industry and allowing people to be part of the regulations," Ayers said. "He is holding industry to a higher standard and giving them incentives."
Cosgrove said new legislation is working in favor of big corporations by allowing industries to determine how much they pollute.
"The Bush administration is fundamentally trying to change the effect of environmental laws," Cosgrove said. "They are trying to take it back to the sixties."
clean water act
The administration modified the Clean Water Act on Oct. 18, 2002. The original act established regulations concerning discharging pollutants into United States’ waters.
Provisions in the modified Clean Water Act could dismantle historical wetland protection and impact the quality of the United States’ water, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. The original act made it unlawful for an industry to discharge pollutants into waterways without first obtaining a permit.
Controversy surrounds the revised act because it loosens permits and would make it easier for industries to discharge pollutants into waters without public notice or opportunity for public comment, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"The question is whose water should be dirty?" Cosgrove said. "We’ve cleaned up 70 percent of America’s waters, what about the other 30 percent that affects peoples lives?"
freedom car
In an effort to decrease America’s dependence on foreign oil and work toward a cleaner environment, the Bush administration proposed the FreedomCAR (Cooperative Automotive Research), a hydrogen-powered vehicle. The administration said it plans to devote $1.2 billion for research money over the next five years.
"It is certainly a step in the right direction," said Wayne Elson, who works for the Environmental Protection Agency office of air quality. "Many believe that is the way our automobile technology should be going."
In the State of the Union, Bush promised a national commitment to take fuel-cell-powered cars from the laboratory to showrooms within the next 20 years.
"Research is critical across the board," said Brad Smith, dean of Huxley College of the Environment at Western Washington University. "There should be more money allocated for it."
bush, oil and corporate connections
Bush promotes plans to reduce dependence on foreign oil, but his family has a long history in the oil industry.
Former President George H.W. Bush founded Zapata Oil, making his first million in Midland, Texas. His son followed in his steps in 1978 when he founded Arbusto Energy, an oil and gas company. In 1983 he became the CEO of Spectrum 7, another energy company that merged with Arbusto.
"The president and vice president are oil men," Cosgrove said. "They came from the oil industry and worked in the oil industry."
Cosgrove said the administration’s proposals reflect plans that the oil industry would favor, such as a proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"President Bush is a puppet for the oil industry," anti-war protester Michael Savatgy said.
The president isn’t the only member of the administration with corporate connections.
Bush’s Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman served on the board of Calgene, one of the first companies to sell genetically modified food in stores. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham received $700,000 from the automobile industry when he was a Michigan Senator. He opposed research into renewable energy. Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser, serves on Chevron’s board of directors and Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, was the national chairperson of the Coalition of Republican Environmental Advocates, a group funded by Ford and BP Amoco. While she was attorney general of Colorado, Norton argued that the Endangered Species Act is unconstitutional.
Other cabinet members chosen by Bush have connection to corporations like Monsanto, Microsoft, General Motors, Boeing and AOL.
The cabinet certainly reflects a poor environmental record, especially after two years, Cosgrove said. People are starting to realize the impacts the Bush administration has on environmental laws and environmental proposals.
Realizing short-term decisions made by the Bush administration can have long-term effects, protesters continue to stand outside in the cold, holding on tightly to the belief that power in numbers can influence political decisions and alter the fate of the United States.
