12. Ignoring, dismantling, and reversing environmental safeguards to benefit industry
Before September Eleven, this issue took near-center stage in my concrete concerns about President Bush's administration. I realize that currently few persons put environmental issues near the top of their concerns; terrorism and Iraq draw more attention. But these issues should remain vital for anyone who sincerely cares about the world we'll leave to following generations.
Mr. Bush's administration cloaks its energy/environment strategies takes a cold-war atmosphere of secrecy, and that in itself reasonably raises suspicion among many persons who genuinely care about conservation and prudent resource management. In drama terminology, we got an early exposition of this when Mr. Cheney adamantly refused to acknowledge even the names of the participants in his Energy Committee Meetings, under the pretext of letting the President call on anyone whose input he wanted. Why did Mr. Cheney invite no representation from several legitimate, well-established, respected, mainstream environmental organizations, such as Sierra Club? (Perhaps this also relates to Mr. Bush's efforts to torpedo the Presidential Records Act.) Doesn’t the across-the-board exclusion of responsible pro-environment voices say something to thinking people who believe we need to put our children’s and grandchildren’s world above this quarter’s corporate profits? (Mr. Cheney's team continues hindering American citizens from learning what their government wants to do about energy and environment.)
Mr. Bush's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol gave us another clear indicator of this administration's priorities. Mr. Bush's administration and those who support his attitude toward restraining industries and reducing consumption continue to cite "incomplete scientific knowledge." Granted, climate change issues involve the most complex interactive systems imaginable; we don't know everything about environmental dynamics on this scale. And our immediate responses may prove inadequate. But despite Kyoto's shortcomings, the standards offer us a viable and worthwhile starting point. Given the Bush administration's stance, we'll never make any meaningful change, because data will always be "incomplete." Meanwhile agencies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union continue compiling data that corroborate the valid and still-growing concerns that Kyoto could begin to address. I assert that we should begin making more substantial changes based on the best data available; Kyoto embodies our best efforts in that direction. This, of course, would reduce short-term profits and increase regulation for the energy industry (e.g., Halliburton); it would likely require changes in emission standards for the auto industry; it would require individual Americans to begin taking much more seriously practical daily conservation. And as Mr. Bush's foremost direction to Americans in the wake of September Eleven consisted of merely BUY, BUY, BUY, I doubt he would actually expect any of us to sacrifice in any substantial way.
Mr. Bush's defenders may sincerely believe that the Bush/Cheney team and congressional powers of like mind do not strongly favor substantial interests and their friends in the fossil fuel, energy, and other extractive industries, especially such as Halliburton. I disagree. Given a choice to protect wilderness lands or open them up to extraction, the Bush administration and those who share their viewpoint generally show a clear preference for the profit-driven concerns. Note the push for drilling in sensitive areas such as ANWR. As early as April 2004, some congressional budgets began pushing to get 2005 funds linked to drilling there, increasing the pressure to exploit the region for minimal benefit to our overall oil supply, but profits regardless for the oil producers.
President Bush touts his contributions to environmental concerns. Granted, he has generally helped Little Brother Jeb avoid some serious environmental concerns that could draw negative attention to Florida (any idea why?). But a few nice photo ops aside, the Bush administration has made efforts to effectively unravel some of the best environmental protections gradually established over the last few decades. Claiming to protect clean air, clean water, and fire safety, my president has pushed for changes in acts and legislation that, though some may indeed provide certain short-term conservation benefits, strike me as mostly subterfuges that in effect make it easier for polluters to avoid responsibility for dealing with the problems they create, to keep from having to pay for upgrades to dirty equipment and processes, to facilitate logging on public lands, etc. Any environmental benefits aside, the longer-term and more substantial intent seems to emphasize making it easier for industrial and corporate executives to profit and pollute with less restriction.
Long before Mr. Bush became a candidate, I'd admired Christine Todd Whitman as a governor who usually made a genuine effort to attain some balance between the often apparently clashing needs of environmental and business concerns. Given her sensible record, it surprised me that Bush brought her into the EPA, until I realized that her record would perhaps placate genuine environmental constituencies. Her presence would give the administration a façade of greater concern than it actually had. It didn't surprise me when she resigned; her publicly declared reasons struck me as very prudent courtesy, not wanting to humiliate Mr. Bush. Her decision spoke well enough for itself. I see her as a woman of sincere conscience. I believe she simply couldn't take any more. I empathize.
|
Chuck's 50 & DC Marathons Starting Line UCSC/ACSC | YIA | AHS Class of 1974 Camp Wiregrass | Coral Gables Congregational Church Concerts | Is There Anybody Out There? | Presidential Election 2004 all images and text © chuck bryant
|