GUSTO: George W. Bush's stealth war on the environment

In poll after poll, Americans indicate they are pro-environment. For instance, in a November 2002 CBS News/New York Times poll, 57 percent of Americans agreed with the statement: "Protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high and continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of the cost." In fact, over the years, Americans have said consistently -- by about a two-thirds majority -- that protection of the environment should take priority over economic growth.

In the same CBS News/New York Times November 2002 poll, 68 percent of Americans said they believe that "producing energy" is more important for George Bush, compared to only 11 percent who believe "protecting the environment" is his priority. When Americans were asked what they believe is more important, producing energy or protecting the environment, only 29 percent said "producing energy" while 57 percent said, "protecting the environment." And in a September 2002 Harris Poll, only 30 percent said the Bush Administration's opposition to the Kyoto Treaty limiting greenhouse gas emissions was "right."

Americans do not agree with George W. Bush on environmental issues. This is not exactly shocking given President Bush's radical right-wing, extremist pro-big-business and anti-environment philosophy. It is also not unexpected, given Bush's heavy debt to the powerful mining, oil, timber, real estate, and other big-time anti-environmental special interests that helped get him elected. Still, Bush and his chief political guru Karl Rove are well aware that their views on the environment are not ones with which a majority of Americans agree. They know that on they environment, they are "out of the mainstream," a phrase they love hurling at their opponents on issue after issue.

For Bush and Rove, the political options on the environment are: 1) bend to the will of the people and moderate their anti-environmentalism, angering their big campaign contributors but making a majority of the American people happy; 2) stick to their guns (literally, in the Republicans' case!) and try to promote their anti-environmental, pro-big-business argument to the American people, knowing that it will be a tough sell; or 3) pretend to be environmentally friendly in public while slashing and burning everything in sight when nobody's looking -- a "stealth war" on the environment. The answer is, sadly but unsurprisingly, option three, the most hypocritical, dishonest, sneaky, anti-democratic choice: the stealth war.

Given the Bush Administration's "below the radar" strategy on the environment, three things are not surprising. First, the American people are relatively unaware of how incredibly bad the Bush Administration's record has been on the environment. Second, the mainstream media has covered the stealth war sporadically and rather pitifully. And third, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) -- the leading nonpartisan environmental group in the country -- gave Bush a big fat "F" in June 2003 when it issued its annual report card on President Bush's environmental record.

Such a grade would make no parent proud, except perhaps an oil, timber, or mining industry executive Mom or Dad. Back in June, LCV President Deb Callahan observed that "President Bush is well on his way to compiling the worst environmental record of any president in the history of our nation." In scathing language, Callahan added: "Under the Bush administration, corporate polluters have been allowed to write the laws."

Hyperbole? Actually, it's not. Since it came to power in January 2001, the Bush Administration has assaulted the environment in just about every way imaginable, but almost always below the public's and media's "radar screen." How has it done this? Let us count the ways!

First, the Bush Administration has simply ignored or suppressed facts it hasn't liked. In one of the most blatant and egregious examples, in June 2003, the White House removed the following sentence -- along with most other references to global warming -- from a draft EPA report: "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment." The report had been billed as the first comprehensive statistical overview of environmental problems facing the United States. But on global warming, the White House allowed only a few vague, meaningless paragraphs to remain.

Another example provides the flavor of the Bush Administration's antipathy to science and the facts. In April 2003, the Bush Administration declared that "Yellowstone [Park] is no longer in danger," while urging the United Nations to remove the park from its list of endangered World Heritage sites. This move came despite reports from park staff highlighting numerous threats to Yellowstone's wildlife, water quality, and air quality. Also in early 2003, the National Parks Conservation Association listed Yellowstone among the 10 most endangered parks in the United States. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration overturned a ban on snowmobiling in Yellowstone despite numerous studies showing that snowmobiles cause damage. The Administration also allowed 300 bison in the nation's last remaining free-ranging herd to be slaughtered.

In yet another example, the Bush Administration issued in May 2003 a rule that encourages mountaintop coal mining, in which the tops of mountains are literally blasted away, with the debris dumped in valleys and streams below. The Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund called this rule "one of the most significant and destructive changes to Clean Water Act protection in decades." One guess who fought for this rule? Who else but the coal industry, which argued that leveling the beautiful mountains of West Virginia "enable[s] the mining industry to flourish." Well, at least they're honest about their motivations.

A report entitled "Politics and Science in the Bush Administration," offers an excellent summation of the Bush Administration's contempt for scientific facts. Released on August 8, 2003 by the minority staff of the House Government Reform Committee's special investigations division, the report charges that the Bush Administration's "political interference with science has led to misleading statements by the President, inaccurate responses to Congress, altered web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international communications, and the gagging of scientists." The report also points to one "common attribute" of these actions, namely that, "the beneficiaries of the scientific distortions are important supporters of the President, including social conservatives and powerful industry groups." In other words, why let hard science come between friends?

Second, President Bush has filled his administration with industry flacks like Mark Rey, a former lobbyist for such groups as the National Forest Products Association and the American Forest and Paper Association. Rey has worked for leading anti-environmental Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and has supported logging of old-growth trees in Alaska's Tongass National Forest, which contains nearly 30 percent of the world's unlogged coastal temperate rain forest. Now he oversees the U.S. Forest Service as Department of Agriculture Undersecretary. Then there's former oil and mining lobbyist Steven Griles as Deputy Secretary of the Interior Department. And let's not forget Interior Department solicitor William G. Myers III, formerly executive director of the Public Lands Council, the trade group of livestock producers with federal grazing permits. Or President Bush's April 2003 appointment of Mark Rutzick, the timber industry's top lawyer in its fight against the Endangered Species Act, to oversee protection of endangered species under that very Act! Unfortunately, there are too many more examples like these to mention.

Third, the Bush Administration has undercut, pressured to resign, or simply gotten rid of people who could blow the whistle on its atrocious environmental record. In April 2002, for instance, the White House ousted Dr. Robert Watson, one of the world's most respected global warming scientists, from his position as chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Dr. Watson had headed the IPCC -- an international panel of experts that develops rigorous, scientific, policy-neutral, definitive assessments on global climate change issues -- since 1996, but he apparently fell afoul of both Bush Administration orthodoxy and a lobbying campaign by ExxonMobil by uttering the scientific truth on global warming in a series of influential annual reports.

Another illustration of the Bush Administration's approach to those who stand in its way is the case of Eric Schaeffer, who resigned as head of the EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement in February 2002. In his resignation letter, Schaeffer stated that he was tired of "fighting a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce." Schaeffer added, "It is hard to know which is worse, the endless delay or the repeated leaks by energy industry lobbyists of draft rule changes that would undermine lawsuits already filed."

Finally, in May 2003, Christie Todd Whitman, the embattled EPA chief widely considered one of the few "moderates" in the Bush Administration, resigned. In her two years as EPA Administrator, Whitman had been continually stymied in her efforts to actually protect the environment or at least slow the administration's rollback of environmental protections. She also had been seriously embarrassed in March 2001 when, just weeks after pledging to work with other industrialized nations to implement the Kyoto Treaty, the White House publicly refused to support the effort. This despite the fact that the United States is responsible for approximately 25 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions plus large shares of many other greenhouse gases.

Fourth, the Bush Administration has used deceptive, Orwellian language to describe its anti-environmental actions and programs. According to the LCD, the "Clear Skies" program would "weaken public health protections of the current Clean Air Act, while replacing them with insufficient standards and actually increasing toxic emissions like sulfur and mercury." And, according to internal EPA documents, arguments used to support "Clear Skies" were based on faulty data.

Then there's the so-called "Healthy Forests" initiative, which, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and LCV, would open up 20 million acres of national forests to logging in order to -- yeah, you guessed it -- save the forests.

And my personal favorite is Bush's "FreedomCar" initiative. The name implies "freedom" from oil imports, with patriotic overtones in the aftermath of 9/11. In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush announced $1.2 billion in research funding "so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles." The problem is that these cars are still decades away, cost a fortune, and require fossil fuels such as natural gas in order to extract the needed hydrogen. Also, funding for the "FreedomCar" would be redirected from a Clinton-era program to develop fuel-efficient vehicles, particularly hybrids. In the meantime, Bush has opposed doing anything that might actually make a difference right now: tightening Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards on cars, SUVs and minivans; aggressively encouraging use of hybrid gas-electric vehicles that already exist (the Toyota Prius, for instance) and that would proliferate with the aid of hefty Federal tax credits; increasing taxes on gasoline, reducing dependency on foreign oil, as well as reducing carbon emissions. Bush has opposed all these measures. His "FreedomCar" program, though, allows him to claim that he actually is doing something on the environment, when in reality, it's just another part of the stealth war, a big concession to the oil and auto industries, and eerily Orwellian to boot.

Fifth, the Bush administration has slashed budgets for environmental law enforcement. In November 2002, for instance, federal records compiled by a former acting assistant administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Sylvia Lowrance, who resigned in August 2002) indicated that under the Bush administration, polluters have paid 64 percent less in fines for breaking environmental laws than they did in the final two years of the Clinton administration. And Bush repeatedly has attempted to slash the EPA's enforcement budget and staff, so that nobody is guarding the chicken coop at all.

Meanwhile, as a result of declining budgets in the Superfund trust program, toxic waste cleanup has plunged by over 40 percent in the Bush Administration compared to the annual average over the previous eight years, according to an analysis of EPA data by Knight Ridder. And why has the Superfund budget been falling? One main reason is that penalties paid by polluting industries under the "polluter pays" principle have fallen sharply since President Bush took office. This is not a surprising result given the Bush administration's consistent opposition to reauthorization of Superfund taxes. And it's not a bad deal for the industries that created the pollution in the first place, but not so good if you happen to live near one of the 646 Superfund toxic waste sites in this country.

Sixth, wherever possible the Bush administration has gutted environmental protection laws and regulations. In January 2003, the GAO faulted the EPA for failing to adequately regulate pollution from Concentrated Animal Feedlot Operations (CAFO), also known as factory farms. The GAO cited EPA staffing and funding shortages, combined with lenient treatment for corporate violators.

In November 2001, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a new policy on "mitigation" for destroyed wetlands. Far from creating new wetlands to replace areas destroyed by development, let alone protecting today's wetlands from harm, the new Army Corps concept essentially guts the "no net loss" goal set in the first Bush Administration.

Having trashed the waters, the Bush Administration has proposed regulatory changes that would harm our air. Specifically, the Administration wants to weaken a significant provision of the Clean Air Act called "new source review," which requires older, more polluting industrial plants to upgrade pollution controls when they renovate or expand in such a way that increases pollutant emissions. But, for the Bush Administration, this is just another annoying regulation standing in the way of big business making big money.

Seventh, the Bush Administration has invoked the mantra of "national security" in order to silence debate on environmental issues. In an almost comical example, in April 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers refused to share information with state environmental officials on pollution from its hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest. The reason cited for the refusal was -- you guessed it -- that sharing such information would "create a national security risk" because the dams "have been identified as potential terrorist targets."

On another front, the Administration has proposed exemptions for the Department of Defense in order to allow the Navy to use its new low-frequency sonar, even though the sound waves can seriously injure or kill marine mammals by shattering their eardrums. More broadly, the Administration and its allies in Congress are trying to exempt the Defense Department from major environmental laws that supposedly could hinder training at military installations, despite little or no supporting evidence, and all in the name of "national security."

Eighth, the Bush Administration has attempted to keep its public policy-making private. In a classic case of the Administration's secrecy, the Energy Task Force led by Vice President Cheney in 2001, has steadfastly refused to disclose with whom it met and what took place in those meetings. The prevailing suspicion is that industry lobbyists and interests were major players in formulating the Administration's energy policy. On July 8, 2003, a federal appeals court rejected the White House's rationale for keeping the Task Force's dealings under wraps, affirming a lower court judge's decision in a 2001 lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch. Stay tuned, but don't hold your breath waiting for the secrets to come out.

On August 10, Senator Joe Lieberman, running for the Democratic presidential nomination in New Hampshire, called George W. Bush "the worst president for the environment in America's history." Unfortunately, this was not a rogue case of campaign hyperbole run amok. George W. Bush really has been one of the worst presidents in memory, if not in all of U.S. history, on environmental issues. But, thanks to its stealth tactics, combined with a media and public asleep at the wheel, Bush has largely gotten away with it. And just last week, Bush nominated Utah Republican Governor Mike Leavitt, a proponent of states' rights and an opponent of environmental regulation, to head the EPA. With the media and public focused on other things -- Ah-nuld, blackouts, Iraq -- the worst just keeps getting worse on the environment. The "stealth war" rages on.

As a child, Lowell Feld's ambitions were to be rich, famous, and politically powerful. In his 20s and 30s, he decided to settle for sexy and popular while paying off the exorbitant loans from his Ivy League education and Masters Degree in Middle East Studies. Now, at age 40, and having achieved absolutely none of his goals, he sits around thinking "deep thoughts," ventures off occasionally to backpack around Third World hellholes, and takes out his frustrations at the world by writing for snarky Web 'zines like Gusto.