Presidential Ecospeak

[Guest guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/18/opinion/18SAT1.html?th

 

October 18, 2003Presidential Ecospeak

President Bush's nominee to run the Environmental Protection Agency, Mike

Leavitt, finally won committee approval this week, but not before a half-dozen

senators had openly expressed exasperation at his habit of retreating behind

ecofriendly phrases when asked about his record as Utah's governor. Which means,

of course, that Mr. Leavitt will fit right in with the Bush administration.

Indeed, Mr. Bush himself may fairly be said to have become the master of the

ostensibly ecofriendly sound bite, offering oversimplified solutions to complex

environmental problems and wrapping them in tempting slogans that hide their

generally pro-business tilt.

 

" Healthy Forests, " for instance, describes an initiative aimed mainly at

benefiting the timber industry rather than the communities threatened by fire.

" Freedom Car " (to be powered by " Freedom Fuel " ) describes a program to develop a

hydrogen-fueled car that, while beguiling in the long term, absolves automakers

from making the near-term improvements in fuel economy necessary to reduce oil

dependence and the threat of global warming.

 

These verbal contortions reached a new plateau a few weeks ago in back-to-back

presidential appearances at a power plant in Michigan and in the Rose Garden.

Mr. Bush's purpose was to defend his controversial decision in August to rewrite

the Clean Air Act in ways that spared power companies the expense of making

investments in pollution controls whenever they upgraded their plants and

increased emissions. His basic argument was that the old rules thwarted

modernization and economic growth, costing American workers their jobs, and that

his own initiative — dubbed " Clear Skies, " in the come-hither nomenclature

favored by the White House — would achieve equal results at lower cost.

 

It sounded tidy, except for two things. Clear Skies will not, even by E.P.A.

estimates, improve air quality as surely and swiftly as the steady application

of current law. Second, there is no persuasive evidence that tough environmental

laws impede efficiency or economic growth. Quite the contrary. As Mr. Bush

himself observed, air pollution has declined steadily in the last 30 years even

as the population grew and the economy boomed.

 

At a minimum, this happy state of affairs would seem to argue for leaving the

clean air laws much as they are, leaving room, of course, for streamlining and

simplification. Yet Mr. Bush insists that to protect jobs, only radical surgery

will do. It is all very dizzying. The only explanation for what amounts to a

willing suspension of history and logic is that American industry, which for 30

years has cried wolf about the costs of major regulatory initiatives — the

phaseout of lead in gasoline, catalytic converters on cars, controls on acid

rain — has at last found a sympathetic ear in the White House.

 

It is this reality — the relationship between Mr. Bush and his corporate

underwriters — that could give his frustrated critics an opening. This week, a

group of people responsible for environmental policy in the Clinton

administration — former officials like Carol Browner, Mr. Clinton's chief of the

Environmental Protection Agency; and Bruce Babbitt, his secretary of the

interior — announced a campaign to mobilize voters unhappy with Mr. Bush's

environmental record.

 

One of the points they intend to focus on is the administration's reflexive

tendency to interpret the laws in ways that favor private claims over larger

public interests. Our own modest hope is that they will also encourage more

plain speaking.

 

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info

 

 

 

The New with improved product search