Environmental backlash hits White House

By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON Environmentalists are airing radio ads attacking
President Bush’s policies. Democrats in Congress are planning anti-
Bush rallies on Earth Day later this month. Prominent leaders and
scientific thinkers from Jimmy Carter to Stephen Hawking are urging
Bush to address global warming.

Even late-night talk-show hosts, whose ability to influence public
opinion is not lost on politicians, are getting into the act. “President
Bush now is defending his weakening of his environmental policy,”
NBC “Tonight Show” host Jay Leno said recently in his opening
monologue. “He spoke very casually about it today while eating a
dolphin sandwich off of his new ivory desk.”

But at the White House, the attacks are no laughing matter.

After a series of recent decisions on the environment that have sparked
outrage worldwide, criticism is flowing in and it’s not just coming from
Democrats and environmentalists. Some Republican lawmakers are
concerned that Bush’s decisions could jeopardize the GOP’s slim control
of Congress in next year’s elections.

As a result, frustrated Bush aides are struggling to find ways to
resuscitate the president’s image.

On Earth Day, April 22, Bush will be in Canada at the Summit of the
Americas. So aides plan to send him on the road before then to address
his plans to improve the environment.

In coming weeks, “the president will be talking more about how he
intends to improve the air we breathe and the water we drink,”
spokesman Dan Bartlett says.

Some Republicans want Bush to act fast to stem the criticism.

“I would hope they’re burning the midnight oil trying to figure out how
to recoup from the short-term damage they’ve suffered,” says Rep.
Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., a leading environmentalist in Congress. “If
they don’t do something, they’re going to be hurting.”

Each of Bush’s decisions, on issues ranging from arsenic in drinking
water to carbon-dioxide emissions, has angered environmentalists.
Taken together, they have stunned and invigorated Bush’s critics.

“I’ve been around a long time, and even though I disagree with people, I
usually understand why they’ve done things,” says Sen. Harry Reid,
D-Nev. “What he has done is absolutely unbelievable.”

Reid is among 14 Democratic senators who signed a letter to Bush
criticizing his decision to walk away from the Kyoto Protocol, a global
treaty to reduce greenhouse gases. And 57 House Democrats have sent a
letter asking him to reconsider his decision not to force reductions in
carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants.

Bush has argued that his decisions are good for the economy. He has
said that requiring plants to limit carbon-dioxide emissions, for
example, would be too expensive for the plants and would lead to
higher prices for consumers during a growing energy crisis.

But Bush has had a hard time selling that position. And his aides are
expressing frustration that his pro-environment decisions have been
ignored.

One example: Bush decided not to repeal Clinton’s creation of 19
additional national monuments. “That was a significant decision that has
almost been taken for granted,” Bartlett says.

The criticism and warnings aren’t just coming from environmentalists
who opposed Bush’s election. In an open letter published this week in
“Time” magazine, a diverse group of scientists and world leaders called
on the president to develop a plan to reduce production of greenhouse
gases. In addition to Carter and Hawking, former Soviet leader Mikhail
Gorbachev, retired TV anchor Walter Cronkite and philanthropist
George Soros, among others signed the letter.

Some conservative analysts are warning that Bush has left himself and
Republican lawmakers in Congress vulnerable to charges that the GOP
is beholden to big business. Marshall Wittmann, a conservative analyst
at the Hudson Institute, says GOP candidates could pay a price for
Bush’s actions in the 2002 elections. Democrats lost Congress in 1994
after President Clinton became mired in issues ranging from tax
increases and health care reform to gays in the military.

The White House “should be concerned about the environment as a
symbol, rather than as an issue,” Wittmann says. “That’s what Bush has
to be worried about the image of being dominated by corporate special
interests.”

Environmentalists are gearing up to make that point. The 650,000-
member Sierra Club is running radio ads in nine states from Colorado to
New Hampshire to attack Bush’s environmental rollbacks. The ads also
are intended to put pressure on Republican members of Congress.

“There’s no question that the environment could seriously undermine
Bush among swing voters in key states,” says the Sierra Club’s former
political director, Daniel Weiss, now an environmental consultant.
“There’s no question that he is painting his party with an anti-
environment brush. Whether or not that’s going to cripple them 18
months from now (in the 2002 elections) is a little premature. But first
impressions are hard to shake.”

04/05/2001-Updated12:54 AMET Environmental issues offer Bush
some challenges By Tom Kenworthy and Traci Watson, USA TODAY

Here are some of the key environmental issues the Bush administration
is dealing with:

Energy development: President Bush has emphasized his support for
petroleum exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The U.S.
Geological Survey has estimated that there is a 50% chance of finding
5.3 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the refuge. That’s
about a nine-month supply for the USA. Under the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, exploration is prohibited in
the refuge unless specifically authorized by Congress. Bush has been
nearly as adamant about energy development on federal lands outside
Alaska.

National monuments: The Bush administration has said it would not
seek to repeal Bill Clinton’s creation of 19 monuments that cover more
than 3 million acres. However, they are encouraging efforts to change
how the monuments can be used. Bush has said the areas should be
open to oil and gas exploration. Interior Secretary Gale Norton has
sought suggestions on how the areas should be managed.

Roadless-areas policy: The Bush administration has delayed
implementation of Clinton’s decision that blocked logging and other
development on 60 million acres of roadless national forest land. The
rule was issued late last year after a two-year review. In a lawsuit filed
against the policy by Idaho and Boise Cascade, the Bush administration
indicated it might favor reducing protections for the forest areas.

Global warming: On the campaign trail, Bush made clear that he
opposed an ambitious treaty to slow global warming. More than 160
nations hammered out the treaty, known as the Kyoto Protocol, in 1997.
Most industry groups strongly opposed it because, they said, it would
require cutbacks in energy use. Last month, Environmental Protection
Agency chief Christie Whitman said “we have no interest” in acting on
the treaty. The administration will suggest alternative measures.

Earlier, Bush backed off a campaign promise to limit power plants’
emissions of carbon dioxide. It’s blamed by many scientists as a key
factor in global warming. Bush will soon decide whether to abandon his
predecessor’s rules requiring more fuel-efficient air conditioners and
washing machines. Water pollution: Last month, Whitman suspended a
Clinton-era rule cutting the amount of arsenic allowed in drinking water.
Arsenic causes cancer and other health problems. Whitman said the
science is fuzzy about where the limit should be. She wants a new
standard in place by 2006; the year Clinton’s rule would have taken
effect.

The new administration is still considering what to do about a Clinton
administration rule that protects wetlands and a proposal aimed at
controlling water pollution from feedlots, hog farms and large poultry
operations.

Air pollution: In one of her first acts, Whitman decided not to throw out
Clinton administration rules intended to clean up exhaust from diesel
vehicles. The rules require refiners to make cleaner diesel fuel. Whitman
will also decide the fate of lawsuits that the Clinton administration filed
against power producers. The companies are charged with making major
changes to power plants without notifying the EPA.

Related FAMVIN Posts:

• No Related FAMVIN Posts