Environmentalists have not failed to take note of the united, anti-environment front which the Republican Congress and Republican president are building in Washington. Displaying increasingly antagonistic partisanship, environmentalists and corporations are waging a war - against on our own territory.
President Bush's environmental proposals, when combined with the extremist views of his cabinet appointments, could turn out to be a environmental train wreck. Ironically, the nickname "train wreck" was given to the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC), after George W. Bush replaced its executive committee with three ultra-conservatives who have close ties to agricultural chemical companies. This was one of Bush's first actions as governor of Texas. Knowing W.'s track record in Texas, environmentalists were not surprised to see his anti-environmental agenda being put into motion in the first few days of his presidency. Sneak a peak at the president's desk and you may find the memo: "Note to self: Undo or illegitimate the last few preservation acts established by Clinton." On his to-do list, there's a triumphant check.
Three days before his departure, Clinton designated eight regions of the US and the Virgin Islands as National Monuments, protecting them from corporate and residential development. But among these areas, Clinton failed to include among them the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska, an area highly coveted by the oil industry and highly cherished by environmentalists for its extensive caribou population, diverse wildlife, and pristine condition. With gas prices soaring and black-outs in California, American politicians are searching for a popular answer to our energy crisis. President Bush and his cronies see ANWR as this short-term solution, and are incorporating into their energy legislation plans to drill in the refuge (AP, 2/6). However, while politicians appease the public demand for domestic oil with promises of a crude bounty from ANWR's wells, they neglect to tell us that the estimated 7.7 billion barrels of oil would probably satiate the US oil need for a mere six months (Miller, "Living in the Environment") and that it will take 40 to 60 years to recover the total amount (www.anwr.org). What will be the state of the energy crisis in 40 to 60 years? Who knows!
Bush insists that drilling in ANWR can be done in an environmentally sound manner, and The New York Times recently ran an article on new drilling technology which is more environmentally sound (1/30/01). But drilling for oil has greater impacts than just the land the rig is on and a hole in the ground. There is the chance of oil spills while the oil is in transport. And although Bush will be the first to point out the 735,000 jobs which drilling in ANWR could create, he never mentions the impact this kind of migration will have on such an undeveloped area. Certainly the 735,000 people are not going to commute.
There are other significant flaws in the energy legislation, which is predicted to be enacted in 45 to 60 days; the Republican bill supports a revitalization of nuclear energy sources. Environmentally, nuclear energy is a giant disaster in decay, with the persistent health hazards of exposure to radiation and plant meltdowns, the disposal of heated water produced during its creation, and the disposal of hazardous radioactive waste. To breathe life into this dying monster would be a mistake.
At the root of the problem is consumption. America uses energy at a rate which is detrimental to the environment and the economy. The black-outs in California are a perfect example. A move needs to be made towards conservation and alternative energy sources. These arguments are at the very bottom of Bush's list. Bush is concentrating his efforts on streamlining and expanding the oil and coal industries, and plans to use a portion of the profits from ANWR to fund research and development. How very ironic.
Our rapid consumption of energy is having a global effect. The existence of Global Warming is no longer debated in scientific circles; instead, people are looking for solutions. We will not find them in our nation's leaders. Bush does not support the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty in which nations pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. He opposes the treaty, "because it is ineffective, inadequate, and unfair to America" (www.georgewbush.com).Bush would rather hand over responsibility to individual corporations to reduce their carbon emissions, by giving them tax breaks. In contrast, Tufts has taken the responsibility upon itself, and, under President DiBiaggio's leadership, the University has pledged to fulfill the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol by 2012.
Attorney General John Ashcroft's appointment is an offense to almost all human beings, but environmentalists in particular. He has voted against bill after bill responsible for funding environmental programs, including the Clean Water Action Plan and toxic waste clean-up. His has cast a vote for legislation which would prevent the EPA from enforcing arsenic standards for drinking water! What kind of a politician blatantly permits heavy metals in the drinking water of his constituents?
Bush's Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Veneman, is also a cause for concern. In her private law practice, she has defended the interests of miners and loggers, who benefit economically from lighter environmental laws and fewer protected areas. She has also opposed the ban of a harmful pesticide, methyl bromide. According to the Sierra Club, "she told farmers and ranchers that they would no longer be subjected to 'unnecessary and burdensome' government environmental and safety protections under a Bush administration" (www.sierraclub.org).
If these appointments are not enough to appall you, take a look at Gale Norton's Spencer Abraham's, or Christin Whitman's records. You will find them all controversial from an environmental standpoint. There are other issues as well, including Bush's support of the FTAA, which could open both Americas up to the environmental deregulation and devastation which NAFTA has caused in North America alone. Bush's pro-life stance could cause population increases which only exacerbate all other environmental problems. The list goes on and on.
It is amazing to me that one man can care so little about a world that he, like any other, must share with the rest of us. Some believe that W. is flexing his muscles to shut up the people dwelling on the validity of his suspicious election still stuck on the fact that Gore really should have won the election. An op-ed in The New York Times ("Smog and Mirror," 1/31) accuses W. of flaunting his anti-environmentalism simply to anger moderates. If that is the case, I suppose he's finally done something well.
Former President Bush. campaigned as the "environmental candidate," criticizing then-Mass. Governor Michael Dukakis for his inability to clean up the Boston Harbor. Bush, Sr. is well known for the Clean Air and Water Act, a critical piece of legislation for the environmental movement, which was passed in 1990 during his term. In contrast, The Sierra Club has opposed all except one of George W. Bush's cabinet appointments. G.W. mocks the low-impact hiking motto of "Take only memories, and leave only footprints," with his own version: "We can do both - taking out energy and leaving only footprints." Environmentalists, and all those who care about our surroundings, have their work cut out for them.Call, write, and e-mail your senators and tell them to save the places you value. We are going to have to fight to save our ground.
Keryn Bromberg is a junior majoring in biology and environmental studies. She is the former co-chair of Environmental Consciousness Outreach (ECO).
