Features
Blue Waters, Gray Air
Blue Waters, Gray Air
Environmental Issues in Presidential Politics
by Lynn McNicol
Editor's Note: Okay, so John Kerry's not our best friend, given his conflicting stands supporting equal rights for gays and lesbians and opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment on the one hand, while also supporting the Massachusetts (and, reportedly, the Missouri) anti-equal marriage amendment on the other. So why vote? What's the difference? Lynn McNicol suggests a good reason to vote: the future of the environment.
"...we need to unify America's ocean management systems. This has to be based on... a recognition of the unitary nature of water from the top of our watersheds to the depths of our seas, and an understanding that when we do harm to the parts, we damage the whole." - David Helvarg, President, Blue Frontier Campaign, Washington, DC
There may be no wider difference between the major candidates than in their respective approaches to oceans and streams, the air we must breathe to survive, and the soil which nurtures the food that we, in turn, consume. These issues divide Kerry and Bush like a watershed divides land into separate river valleys. While Bush supporters offer a short list of his environmental accomplishments, Kerry's pro-environmental record is a long and consistent one. Even forward-thinking Democrats sometimes find themselves trailing behind Kerry when it comes to voting for healthier air, land and water. And some say that no administration has been more destructive toward natural areas than that of George W. Bush.
Our water resources are particularly threatened. For example, loss of U.S. wetlands is severe, and ongoing. On Earth Day of this year, President Bush announced his goal to "create, improve, and protect" 3 million wetland acres over the next five years.
That's included in his proposed $4.4 billion for conservation in the 2005 budget, an increase of $1.5 billion over fiscal year 2001, according to the Bush campaign website. In 2002, he signed into law the Great Lakes Legacy Act for cleaning up the lakes' pollution and contaminated sediment. He included $45 million for this effort, five times the level of 2004 funding. Add to that $21 million for a Water 2025 Initiative, which "addresses the problem of competing demands for a finite water supply... helps states, tribes and local communities improve conservation, implement efficiencies, and monitor water resources."
Environmental groups challenge Bush's assertions that he is protecting the environment. They say his proposal is just a cover for policies that will actually further undermine sensitive areas such as wetlands.
"It is ironic that while the President is touting his goal of a net gain of wetlands, his administration's policy is exposing millions of acres of wetlands, rivers, lakes, and streams to destruction," said Julie Sibbing, a senior legislative representative at the National Wildlife Federation. Sibbing is referring to the Bush administration rollbacks to the 32-year old Clean Water Act which, in short, end protection for many wetlands, streams, and rivers.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that Clean Water Act protections "do not extend to certain non-navigable, intrastate, "isolated" waters, based solely on the use of these waters by migratory birds," according to Reckless Abandon: How the Bush Administration is Exposing America’s Waters to Harm, an August 2004 report produced by Earthjustice, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club. The report says that the 2001 decision was intended to be implemented in only very limited circumstances, but the White House has used it "as a pretext to undermine clean water protections for a much broader category of waters."
A huge public outcry last year prevented rewriting of the Clean Water Act regulations. But Bush's directive remains in effect, removing protections from such "isolated" waters as the Sacramento River in New Mexico, a source of drinking water; and allowing mountaintop-mining operations in Appalachia to dump debris into (and destroy) local streams.
On the other side, as senator, Kerry has advocated for increased enforcement of clean water laws and strengthening the Safe Drinking Water Act, and has co-sponsored legislation that would restore Clean Water Act protection for wetlands.
Also affecting water quality are the Bush rollbacks to the Clean Air Act. For example, Bush seeks to allow coal-fired power plants to put three times more mercury into the air than the current Clean Air Act allows, notes the Sierra Club. (Kerry was a co-sponsor of the Clean Power Act of 2003, which would cut emissions of mercury and other pollutants). In June, Vermont joined ten other states in formal opposition to the increased mercury emissions.
Meanwhile, Independent candidate Ralph Nader subscribes to the above-quoted Blue Frontier report, which recognizes that oceans of pollution begin with misuse of water resources upstream, and that saving the oceans, at least in part, will be determined by what we do on land.
Choosing among imperfect candidates is never easy, but the environment could be one more criterion to help you decide.
Lynn McNicol is a freelance writer who lives in Burlington.